Talk:George W. Bush

From Wikiquote
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 2605:6000:8904:A500:49B1:12D8:3CE0:8850 in topic POV?
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush page.

Fake quotes?


I'm almost certain that the following quote is fake

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - Sept 13, 2003

I often see it attributed with this quote, which Bush also did not say

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" -- 3/13/02

Here is video showing George W Bush talking about Osama not being his concern

After an exhaustive search, I can't find any official transcript that shows Bush said this. It seems to be a recycled internet quote, mainly found on anti-Bush sites or anti-Bush forums. -- 23:34, 11 Mar 2004

No matter how hard citizens try to revise history--the fact remains that Bush was quoted saying to a National Television audience that he "never thinks about him" and " bin Laden is not a priority". I saw it it TV live at that time-- and saw the replay just 2 nights ago. Bush stated this as a fact. Stop rewriting history and reveal truth or shut down your computer. The proof is below--watch the entire video. In the age of information-- you cannot spin the truth. Its not he 1960's or 70's. Non-truths have become obsolete.---- 3 May 2011

How about this:

Is the Whitehouse's website good enough?

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? W: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

(emphasis added) I can't match the other (unsurprising) quote at the Whitehouse, but "smoke 'im out"[1] and "dead or alive"[2][3] can be found, as well as "We will do everything we can to stop [bin Laden] here at home, and we're doing everything we can to hunt him down and bring him to justice"[4] and "Let me reiterate, my focus is bringing al Qaeda to justice"[5] which imply, to me, great interest in bin Laden which by spring had shifted (back?) to Iraq ("I am deeply concerned about Iraq" -- "concerned" seems to have been his word for the day), which, as was known before the invasion, was not involved with 9-11 or al Qaida[6][7][8][9] 21:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Now I don't know what it takes to remove a quote from this site, however, I would assume that unless anyone can officially prove he said it, it shouldn't be given any credibility at all and thus should be removed from the site. -- 23:34, 11 Mar 2004

I seem to remember it was Rumsfeld saying the "I have no idea and I don't really care" line in a press conference, probably during the lead up to the Iraq war. Then again, I might be making that up as he, like Bush, has said pretty similar things to that. 10:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh, yes Bush absolutely DID say that He has no idea where Bin Laden is and that he's not concerned about it. I saw him say it in a press conference and it was replayed numerous times on the new networks. -- 02:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Right, and we already had it referenced, posted here, and discussed long before you made your comment. 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
A good function of this site is to correct misquotations and to debunk false quotations. If this is truly not a genuine quotation of George W. Bush, and is being widely distributed as if it were, this is an excellent place to present the facts of the matter, either here on this talk page, or in a sub-heading such as "Spurious quotations". I have not yet investigated these particular quotes myself, but I have put other quotes in such categories. Examples of almost certainly spurious quotations can be found on the page for Thomas Jefferson, and at least one alleged quote of John F. Kennedy was removed from the quote page to the Talk page because it was considered so baseless and outrageously spurious. I think this is an excellent place to develop a body of significant and accurate quotations, and to combat widely dispersed misquotations, and such statements that can be shown to be outright fictions. I don't know what full investigations will determine in this case, but certainly feel free to provide any information that relates to the accuracy or inaccuracy of any quote, within notes beneath it, or as you have done here, on the talk page. I strongly feel that widely distributed spurious quotations should be pointed out as fully as possible for what they are. With all spurious quotations, misquotations, and misattributions… do what you can to expose them, as well as to verify the genuine ones, and add significant ones. — Thanks, Kalki 04:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Concerning removal of quotes, "what it takes" to do so is simply to edit the page and delete the text. There is no true central authority to a Wiki community. Anybody can make changes, especially if they're registered, but even if they're not (for some Wikis). Of course, you may find that the Wiki community disapproves of your additions and/or deletions, and they may "revert" them. Casual editing and deletions tend to lead to conflict. If you aren't sure about Wiki practices, you really should spend a little time reading the Wiki Help pages (see the link at the top right of the page). Since Wikiquote's Help is more of a discussion forum at this point, I recommend reading Wikipedia's Help pages, which are very well-organized for any level of user, and are quite extensive. -- Jeff Q 01:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

One often attributed to Shrub but also to others (eg Robert Strauss to a POTUS) "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." Gridiron Club, March 2001 -- go for it, pin it down. 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Any *positive* "W" quotes?


Hey, I'm a great fan of George W. Bush malapropisms and an avid collector of his more chilling statements, but doesn't anyone have some positive or encouraging quotes from him? I know he's said some good things in his State of the Union speeches (which I, unfortunately, did not record). They may not be on par with Roosevelt, Churchill, or other major quotably inspirational politicians, but they might provide just a little bit of balance to this compendium of quotes with which to revile him. ☺ -- Jeff Q 08:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

How about "It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy. Look what I've done for the book-publishing industry." circa 2004 May 2 03:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

This "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on" was indeed from a Gridiron Dinner in 2001. It should be noted that this is the time of the year when the president traditionally tells jokes, and this was one. Whatever grains of truth you might see in it, its misleading to present it as a straight quote. The discrepancy between whether Robert Strauss or POTUS said it is due to the nature of the joke: The president was (falsely, in a humorous context) relaying advice he'd gotten from the Democratic strategist, who we can assume didn't really have such a conversation with the President.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."[10]

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, no question about it."[11]

More on fake quotes


In response to the 2 fake Bush quotes above. Kalki, you found the same similar sounding quotes as I did, however, they are distinctly different. Just because a quote sounds similar or has similar meaning, does not mean that a fabricated quote should be used. I hate to get political in a normally fact based encyclopedia, but it appears you already started that path. You believe he said similar things. I believe the meanings of those other quotes you found are very different. In either case, we both agree it doesn't have to get political. If an exact quote was said, use it. If not, don't. Just present facts, and let people decide. In this case, because no source exists for those 2 quotes in question, they should not be used.

That being said, I would like to help out and investigate this, but how do I prove a person did not say a particular quote? My only guess is to compile a list of every transcript, press conferences, speeches, etc., and then show from those that 2 quotes didn't exist. Another option would be to find the exact source where the fake quote started, but that would be extremely unlikely. What is needed to definitively say a particular quote is spurious? -- 17:20, 6 May 2004

You have mistaken somebody else's response for mine. I actually agree that the article is imbalanced. I simply haven't done much research on the matter, and did actually thinking of looking for a few positive quotes by Bush myself, but have been busy with other things. It is usually impossible to prove someone didn't say something at some point, but if there are no clearly reliable sources the authenticity certainly becomes dubious, and this can be pointed out. I am interested in things being authentic and fair, but, I don't believe I've actually posted anything by or about any Bush but Kate Bush, and John Carder Bush one way or another. ~ Kalki 21:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
One shouldn't be required to prove a quote is fake (which is, of course, impossible). One should only be required to "prove" a quote is real. Wikiquote guidelines (rough as they are) recommend including specific attributions, like printed source or event and date of the quote, in order to provide a means to verify quotes. This is true for non-political quotes (see the Wikipedia entry on Hanlon's razor for an example of some effort to track down controversial quotes), so it's even more important for a field as emotionally charged as politics.
The best source for quotes is a printed text from a respectable publisher, but even these can be wrong on occasion. (That's why serious research requires multiple published sources.) It should go without saying that merely finding a Web site, on which anybody can write anything, is not a prime source. Even the common practice of Googling many sites for a specific quote isn't really satisfactory, since:
  1. entering a phrase to find will naturally provide you with sites that have that phrase, so you have no way of determining if it's quoted correctly or not;
  2. outrageous quotes from politicians must surely be one of the fastest travelling bits of information on the Internet, probably being replicated across biased sites faster than most news items; and
  3. people are so enamored of these verbal missteps that they quickly become popular links, moving them to the top of Google's hit lists — again, having nothing to do with accuracy.
Consequently, verifying political quotes is just plain hard. We should hold ourselves to higher standards of authentication for such quotes. Yes, it means many saliciously entertaining quotes will take a while to get properly posted (and may never make it at all), but there are plenty of Web sites that are happy to provide such entertainment at the expense of their political opponents. (The same is true for inspirational statements, for that matter, and these should be double-checked as well. History records many examples of people who retroactively rephrased famous quotations once they found a better way to say it. See Neil Armstrong for an example of an amusing fumble.) Let's try to maintain an accurate Wikiquote database. -- Jeff Q 01:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Jeff Q, thank you for your comments and for cleaning up this page. Also thanks to Kalki for helping clear up some confusion. Given this entire discussion, it appears that a "spurious quotes" section would be almost impossible to produce, since as we already discussed, it's almost impossible to prove a quote is spurious.

As an idea, could there be a "probably spurious quotes" or "questionable quotes" section that links to such discussions such as this? My initial impression would be that this would be impractical, since unprovable debates would delve too much into opinions, when quotations should be kept simple and referenced.

-- 00:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Those quotes are not fake. The video of the press conference is widely available. It's on YouTube. It was on C-SPAN at one time. - 15:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

-- 13:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Here is the youtube video showing Bush just 6Months after 911 saying "I really don't spend much time thinking about him(Bin Laden)" Judge for yourself. There are those trying to rewrite history DON'T LET THEM!! STOP THE INSANITY!!!

Please attribute and date your contributions


This discussion is getting confusing because some contributors are not attributing their contributions, making it look like one person is saying something that they're not. Please follow Wiki practice by adding the following text to the end of your posted comment:

-- ~~~~

The four consecutive tildes (~) will signal the Wiki server to automatically add your Wikiquote nickname (or IP address, if you are not logged in) and the date and time of your contribution. This will make it much easier to figure out who's trying to make what point.

Also, it would help if, when you add comments to existing threads, you use the [edit] link for that thread, so the thread flow is maintained. Finally, if you have a new thread, use the Post comment link from the Wikiquote link list on the left to provide a heading for your thread.

Because of the existing confusion, I took the initiative (i.e., had the nerve!) to reformat this discussion page to separate the two basic (existing) threads, and added one missing attribution that I looked up through Page history. I hope this makes things a bit clearer. -- Jeff Q 00:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh! Even with the reformatting, confusion still existed (at least in my head!). Apparently inserted a comment into the middle of's original posting. Since the latter hadn't included an attribution, only a careful review of Page history revealed this. I went ahead and retroactively added attributions to all the comments missing them. Even so, it's still a mess.
PLEASE, people! Observe Wiki practice when contributing. (I violated it myself by retroactively adding attributions, but I felt it was necessary only to remove the confusion caused by non-Wikified entries.) Post your comments after the complete text of what you're commenting on. This topic is heated enough without confusing who's saying what and when. -- Jeff Q 01:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Quite a mess so far


I have finally begun to do some edits to the pages for the two President Bush's and frankly this page needs a lot of work. I personally prefer to sort quotes chronologically where dates are known, and alphabetically in their particular categories when they are not. I have no problem with quotes both pro and con for any individual, so long as they are genuine or properly designated as attributed, or pointed out to be probably spurious or inaccurate. I personally have other interests and priorities to sorting it out, but intend to attend to it a bit over the next week. I have added a bit to the page for the other President Bush, adding a verifying link and a few quotes. I intend to place a few positive quotes here as well as a bit of balance, but on a brief glance do not feel there are any pro or con that obviously need to be ammended or removed as obviously spurious. ~ Kalki 18:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Other than the few that I have added I am not vouching for the accuracy of any quotations, but I have arranged those that had been posted chronologically, where dates were provided, and made cross referenced notes between a couple of them that are contextually similar. I might work on confirming and dating a few over the weekend, but that is all I intend to do for today. ~ Kalki 22:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Spurious quote reincarnated


Visiting this page again, I saw that the classic suprious/mangled Bush quote made a comeback.

The quote I read was listed as:

  • "I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is [and] I am truly not that concerned about him."
    • Brady briefing room, 2002 Mar 13[12]

This is not a correct, since it was spliced from two distinct sentences from two different responses in the March 13, 2002 White House Press Conference.

I went ahead and changed it to "I am truly not that concerned about [Osama bin Laden]", since it appears that sentence was the main focus of the spliced quote. Personally, I believe many will still take this out of context. But to be fair, his quote should be left in, and people can decide (and hopefully research) it's full context and meaning before passing judgement.

Also, I would like to add a "Spurious Quotes" section for a proveably false quote that has made many rounds around the internet. The quote is: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.". This quote is almost always attributed to Bush at the March 13, 2002 White House Press Conference. However, press conference transcripts do not have him saying this. I feel this clarification would be an important addition and companion to the "frequently misattributed" section. Are there any objections to adding what I described?

It doesn't seem to be misattributed. The correct quote reads: "And, again, I don't know where he [Osama Bin Laden] is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Directly quoted from the transcript provided. HOw is this misattributed or misquoted?--- Thalia42

Unintentional quotes


Would anyone object to creating a section for unintentional quotes and 'mispokenisms', things that Bush may have said, but which did not mean what he intended? Mixing these up with things Bush intended to say is amateurish, I think. TimShell 07:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this what the Mangled English section is for? Mdhowe 14:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who are we to say what he meant to say and what he didn't? A person's speech tells us much about them. This is especially true for politicians - whose "intended" statements are often carefully sculpted by professional speech writers. -Psitton 08:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What the man actually said is what matters, in the end. Trying to establish what he "meant" would be amateurish.
--2605:6000:8904:A500:49B1:12D8:3CE0:8850 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

post debate


"The president cannot keep changing his mind," Bush said, thumping his finger on the lectern. "The president must speak clearly. And the president must mean what he says."

from here i just think the speak clearly part is funny. - 17:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggested new arrangement


This entry should be divided into "Verified" and "Attributed" sections.

Other Wikiquote entries use their Attributed section for unsourced quotes. The current Bush attributions are sourced, and should be in a subsection called "Sourced Attributed." (And then the reader is allowed to consider the source.)

The "remarks as yet undated" should be under Attributed rather than in their own section. They, along with a number of Miscellaneous Quotes which are unsourced, should be in a Miscellaneous Attributed section.

The Mangled English section currently mixes verified and attributed quotes. There ought to be a Mangled English subsection under both Verified and Attributed.

The "Frequently Misattributed" and "Misquotations" sections could both be subsections under Attributed.

I'm interested in making these changes, but I wanted to get some feedback first. If I do this, I'd like to reduce the risk of having it all undone...

-- Ed. 19:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I definitely agree that all quotes should be divided into Verified and Attributed sections. I leave the hierarchy of order to those who frequent this page more than I. — Jeff Q 04:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)



I find this page of quotes to be POV. Obviously, Bush has made his speech blunders, and certainly, they're well reported, but I don't think this is the right place to have such quotes. I haven't found a section on "Mangled English" under anyone else's name, and while it may simply be that their mangled English is less well known, I don't feel that's entirely true. - Vague Rant 09:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Mangled English" sounds rather negative, but it is quite apt. I only know of two politicians who have achieved English-mangling notoriety in recent times: George W. Bush and Dan Quayle. (Bill Clinton's infamous attempt to redefine "is" was not misspoken or mangled, but was a clear attempt to squirm out of a lie, and deserves its own prominent place on his page. Dwight D. Eisenhower was known for his occasionally convulted grammar — one example of which I contributed — but doesn't have [or no longer has] his successors' reputations for frequent fumbles.) There are many famous non-politicians, like Norm Crosby, Yogi Berra, and Reverend Spooner, whose tongue tanglings are legendary. All of them deserve citation of their frequent, oft-amusing abuse of their native tongues, and it's logical to group these witticisms (or anti-witticisms), separating the amusing (and disconcerting!) from the profound. (In many cases, there might not be a "Mangled English" section simply because all of their notable quotes are mangled English. Clearly this is not true of Dubya.)
I might agree to a heading change that conveys a similar meaning, but I'd object to their removal. And any other esteemed personages of whatever profession or political bent who show a poor facility with their own language are thus forewarned about the possibility of acquiring such a section on their Wikiquote page. (I'm sure they're all shaking in their boots. ☺)
As for the general bias toward unflattering quotes, I raised this point long ago (see Any *positive* "W" quotes? above). I'm afraid this bias will continue as long as there is more enthusiasm in the Wikiquote community for adding negative quotes than there is for the positive. The solution is for interested parties to do more to add pithy positive quotes. This isn't specifically a Dubya issue, but a common challenge for community-contributed data through Wikidom. — Jeff Q 04:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the question being raised is what kind of material belongs on the quote page. For example, it's pretty obvious that every time Bush makes a mistake in speaking, it will be put up on the quote page. Is each misspeak worthy of a quote? Can someone just look through Bush's speeches and just hand-pick a bunch of good lines and stick them in here? I admittedly haven't read the WikiQuote guidelines, but I thought that WikiQuote would contain more significant material (such as important lines from state of the union addresses, etc) -- 07:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The problem is, apart from his blunders, Dubya isn't that quotable. He rarely says anything particularly witty, insightful or memorable. All his rhetoric is kinda' bland when compared to other political figures, but just filling the page with random extracts from various speeches in the name of balance is a mistake IMO.

You can quote anything you like by Bush, as long as it's some what significant. The humorous blunders he made are very relevant in that people want to read them - every one can sit back and laugh at a Bushism :)

It's naive to assume that a Wikiquote article can acheieve a perfect balance with George W. Bush quotes. The man was a terrible speaker, and when he wasn't, he was perfectly boring and unmemorable. He became the least-popular President in the history of polling, for good reason. He was an objectively BAD President. If the article doesn't reflect this, it isn't some sort of super-cool "neutrality"; it's just plain inaccurate.
--2605:6000:8904:A500:49B1:12D8:3CE0:8850 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Finding sources (discuss leads here)

  • "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile."
On the net it's predominantly listed as being from "Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000"
It's possible that an article titled "Bush can range from inspiring to confusing" by Judy Keen, USA Today, August 28, 2000, p. 8A may have the quote in it, but I can't find it on the net to check it. (found the info here) 10:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." February 24, 2004
Isn't this a reliable source?

Some "Unsourced attributed" entries for 2001 and 2003 appear to have reliable who will do the reclassification?

This wiki is such a long page that some visual cue to indicate the sections would be good. (Background coloring jumps to mind, but I know of its disadvantages.)

A proper source is information that leads a reader to a publication (whether print, audiovisual, or Internet) by a reliable publisher that includes the cited quote. Just identifying a city and date isn't especially useful, since it doesn't provide distinctive words that can make a search (either by Web or in a print index) reasonable. Something like "October 20, 2000 speech to the Al Smith Dinner for charity" provides sufficient information to track down the original, but even this is arguably inadequate, as there is no indication of where such a speech was recorded by a reliable publisher. (This is especially critical for political quotes, because opponents are all too happy to misquote and quote out of context on blatantly biased websites.) The best sources are either print publications, like specific, dated articles in newspapers or books (with chapter or even page info included), or web permalinks that include the page title and website name, along with the date last accessed (i.e., verified it was still there. The goal is to make it possible for any reader to find the quote in its original context. If the information doesn't tell them where to find it, it really isn't complete.
A White House press release, especially one with the link provided, is certainly a reliable source. (Even though has been caught in the past carefully editing at least one delivered speech by Dubya [I forgot which off-hand, or I'd cite it]. No doubt it and its meat-world parent did so under most if not all other Presidents as well. It can be useful to have multiple reliable sources.)
Some of the Attributed (Unsourced) quotes may have had complete sources added to them without having been moved. Some of the Sourced quotes may be missing such information, may have been moved there inappropriately, or may have had some info altered. Wikiquote is a dynamic compendium. Items get verified, corrected, sourced, and moved around by everyday editors like you and me. If you see something you feel should be done, you are welcome to be bold and do it yourself. (If someone disagress with your changes, they are equally welcome to alter it; if a disagreement ensues, it should be continue on the article talk page.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quotes about Bush


Is there a section for quotes about Bush? There are plenty of political commentators and other notable figures who have commented on him.
SimonMayer 04:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not, but you're welcome to be bold and create one. I would recommend you place it just before External links, so as not to mix it in with the by-Bush quotes. You might want to provide subheadings for Sourced and Attributed as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of Bushisms


The list of quotes at Transwiki:List of Bushisms, transwikied from Wikipedia to Wikiquote, needs to be checked and to be merged into this article. Uncle G 15:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Fake quote?


Is this quote fake?

«One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. ... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. ... If I have a chance to invade... if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.»

[13] [14]

How about this one?

Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!

All sources online (of which there are quite a few in google) seem to come back to this article by Doug Thompson. Mr. Thompson cites three unnamed sources who were present at a meeting in the Oval Office when this was allegedly uttered. This quote has the odor of fabrication, since I can't find any third party verification, and it was reported by an obviously biased (second hand) source. It would be good if someone could establish whether this quote is truth or fiction, as it is getting a great deal of lip (click?) service. 02:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • The article I quoted above has been retracted by its author citing a lack of verifiable source. I am therefore removing the quote from the "sourced section". Should it be placed in a different section? 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Unless we have its questionable provenance properly cited, others will continue to re-add it, forcing others to redo your research. Athough "Secondhand quotes" is tempting, since this quote was widely reported by sources quite removed from the meeting in which it was reported, I think that the original reporter's unusual measure of explicitly retracting his article about this quote recommends the quote's inclusion in "Misattributed". Thanks for working on this! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Two quotes to the Palestinians


We have two 2003 quotes from G. W. Bush to the Palestinian leadership that were recently cited in the press, in which he supposedly talked about God telling him first to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, then attack tyranny in Iraq, and now help Palestine become a formal state. I've reverted the removal of the second quote that appears to be the same secondhand (or thirdhand) quote from Bush because both are at least secondhand. At this point, I am unaware of any authoritative original source, given that this is from a private meeting and that the White House has denied it was said.

Based on Wikiquote style guidelines, these two quotes should probably be merged into one quote group, with the best-sourced one leading and the secondary as a sub-bullet. (They have some different key words that are likely to be searched via Google, so I feel both need to be reported.) I didn't do this yet because (A) I'm not sure which is better sourced, and (B) there are complications in subbulleting that I wasn't going to try to resolve while I didn't have (A) figured out. I invite folks to monitor this controversial topic and tweak the entries, but please don't remove either quote. If one or both turn out to be misquotes, misattributions, or otherwise involve accuracy failures, they should be noted as such to educate the readership. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Major cleanup


This article is in need of serious cleanup and source determination and checking. I've just implemented the recommendation to split it into two parts, "Sourced" (replacing the old "Verified" categorization) and "Attributed". This is critical because without sources, quotes may be no more than rumor, and with as controversial a topic as a political figure, rumors spread far too quickly. Therefore, any quote in the Attributed section should be considered highly doubtful, which hopefully will motivate editors to reliably source these quotes (i.e., a significant publication, not Joe's Political Quotes website) as soon as possible.

Within each section, there are several subcategories. The main body of quotes is now broken into speeches, general dated quotes, general undated quotes, Bushisms (renamed from "Mangled English" to reduce the negative implication, to match the existing WP article, and to prepare for the merger from Transwiki:List of Bushisms), misquotations (Bush did not actually say this), misattributions (someone else said it), and quotes abouts George W. Bush. There is also a section under Attributed for secondhand quotes, which can't be proven as accurate quotes and should therefore be considered merely attributed. (I leave it open for now whether such quotes that have been explicitly denied by Bush et al. should be in the Sourced/Misquotations, but this is probably what we should do.)

I've moved around quite a few quotes to try to get them into the proper sections, but I haven't yet checked the sources to verify they belong there. I also have left some semi-sourced quotes in the Attributed section until proper sources have been declared (not just linked). In some cases, this will be a small effort; in others, new sources may need to be developed to replace less reliable ones. I've also done some reformatting to try to bring more of the quotes into line with current citation practices and provide better visual cues for easier editing (e.g., spaces to avoid the computer-code look of some entries).

When we review each of the quotes for its accuracy and positioning, please keep in mind that we strive for a neutral point of view. This means we should not write responses to positive or negative quotes; the quotes should speak for themselves, with at most some context explaining what was being discussed (not what Bush meant, which is subjective and unverifiable). As an experiment, I took one such response (to Bush supposedly not caring about bin Laden) and provided a link from the misquotation. I don't know if this is a good idea, however.

Other cleanup issues are:

  • properly dating quotes (standardizing the date format would be nice; I recommend "Month Date, Year" in preparation for eventual use of Mediawiki date formatting which will render the date in local format)
  • providing full publication titles (e.g., The Times is ambiguous)
  • adding article titles and possibly authors
  • correctly formatting all of these (quotes around article titles, italicize publication and TV show titles)
  • adding either WP links to source where available, website links where not
  • sorting out any miscategorization that I missed

I hope everyone interested in this article will assist me in this effort. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

1997 letter to Harriet Miers


Someone just added a quote from a supposed letter [15] from GWB to Harriet Miers. The source is The Smoking Gun, which I've certainly heard of before, but have no idea how reliable it is. The letter itself is barely legible and rather inane, making me wonder if we have another "Memogate"-style faked document reported by parties more interested in salaciousness than accuracy. Is there any reporting on this in the mainstream press? What might be the "public scatology" Bush was advising Miers against continuing? And why is any of this quotable? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Proper sourcing


I have moved quite a few quotes out of the "Sourced" section because many editors of this article seem to be a bit unclear on what "sourced" means. At the very least, there must be at least one of the following included with the quote:

  • A citation of a uniquely identifiable published work (e.g., a book title, a dated magazine with article title). For books, chapters are recommended if no specific edition is cited. If a certain printing is given (usually with an ISBN), page numbers are even better.
  • A link to a reliable website that takes the reader directly to the page including the quote. The website must be a reputable primary or secondary source, not just a quote site or discussion board, and it should included a statement of where and when this quote was made (e.g., a Wired article that cites a Bush quote from a dated speech or press conference).

Anything less than these methods of identifying specific sources is insufficient to allow readers to verify the information. This is what Wikiquote calls "unsourced" or "attributed". Quotes with only years, dates, and/or locations that don't provide a specific source from which the quotes are taken are not sourced, because without a publication or recording, there is no way to verify the quote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply



Does this really need to quoted three times?

And which one of them has the wrong date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we only need 1 copy, and April 2004 is the correct date. I've removed the 2 duplicates and used one's reliable source (from for the correctly dated quote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Transwiki of "either with us or" quotes


I have completed a transwiki started by ^demon from a Wikipedia article called "You're either with us, or against us" that contained two passages in which Bush said "you're either with us, or…". One, from his 20 September 2001 State of the Union address, was already here in more complete form. The second was from a 6 November 2001 news conference. The Wikipedia editors who worked on these quotes are:

  • (cur) (last) 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Freakofnurture m (moved You're either with us, or against us (slogan) to You're either with us, or against us: rm. unneeded disambiguator)
  • (cur) (last) 22:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 16:28, 5 July 2005 (UTC) JJLatWiki (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 15:54, 5 July 2005 (UTC) JJLatWiki (I created the "opinions" section to separate the facts from the opinion. And the entire original paragraph was pure opinion and not deserving of "factual" status. I think this promotes neutrality.)

This provides the required editing credit to them for transwikied material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Keep good relations with the monkeys"


Is this a real quote? I tried googling it, but only came up with this site and a few message boards -- 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tried an advanced search at the Economist's website and found the only article in June 1999 that mentioned the word "monkeys" was "A hard-edged attitude to wildlife conservation" (10 June 1999), having nothing to do with Bush. Furthermore, there is no 12 June 1999 isssue of the Economist, as this quote's source line claims. Given the subject, this leads me to suspect this is an invented quote. I have therefore removed it. Please note that any editor may remove a quote whose source cannot be verified, or that does not have a source, although we ask that editors first make a good-faith effort to try to verify such quotes, especially for an article as contentious as this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the link to the Yahoo news article used to reference the Bush Quote about keeping things sevret when the microphones were on a reporters could still hear him is no longer valid. 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I assume you mean the quote that includes the line "I expect this conversation we're about to have to stay in the room", which was reported by Associated Press on 10 February 2006 from a Republican retreat that morning. Indeed, the link provided (which I know had worked because I added and tested it) no longer works. In fact, I notice that there are other Yahoo! News links that don't work anymore. Furthermore, searching their website only seems to go back two months at most. This suggests that Yahoo! News can no longer be relied upon to provide sources. I recommend that interested editors review all these links, try to determine alternative sources if they fail, and remove any quotes that can't be adequately sourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since President Obama has taken office, seems to have purged all Bush press releases, speech transcripts, etc. Does anyone know if those pages still exist somewhere?

Missing quotes


"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." NEW YORK, Sept. 6, 2006

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm gonna be patient." source:

Second-Hand Sources


"These quotes are reported by secondary sources and have either been unconfirmed or explicitly denied by George W. Bush or his representatives. They should be considered skeptically, and are listed here for completeness."

I feel this is going way too far. Many of the second hand sources are credible (some are even from individuals close to George W. Bush). Further, they have citations, etc.

I don't see why they should be "considered skeptically". And if a specific quote has been "explicitly denied" by Bush, et al that can be mentioned, but there is no need to paint with such a wide brush...

Propose rewording this to: These quotes are reported by secondary sources and have been unconfirmed by George W. Bush or his representatives.

I agree. We can leave it to the reader to decide whether to view the quotations skeptically. My own POV is to be skeptical of the mainstream media but even more skeptical of Bush and his flunkies. Neither my POV nor its opposite belongs on Wikiquote, though. Jim Lane 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's desirable to have these kinds of well-known attributed-but-denied quotes, in order to show that they are controversial. In these cases, it's very important to cite the most reliable source(s) for both the supposed quote and the denial. This gives our readers the best chance at evaluating the siutation for themselves. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questionable Bushisms


Some of the quotes under Bushisms are not really that impromtu. Some of them are just true statements that are sometimes quoted as "Bushisms". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to question the whole idea of having a "Bushisms" section, as there is an implication of foolishness or verbal clumsiness that strikes me as being rather POV (however much I agree with the assessment). After all, anyone is capable for awkward phrasing or verbal stumbling, but some people are better known for it than others, and the media will happily promote any idea that it believes the pubilc will find entertaining. Many Wikiquotians probably or don't know or remember that Dwight Eisenhower had some famously unfathomable turns of phrase (see the one starting with "This is something"), but passing time has left us with a more selective set of more significant quotes.
This article suffers from being about the current U.S. President at the very time Wikimedia projects came into being, making it very popular to load up with quotes that push one POV or another. We should try to think of a better way to present these quotes, possibly by just leaving them in chronological order among the others. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Photo Caption


Currently the caption to the photo reads:

"Our gains are not measured in the losses of others. They are counted in the conflicts we avert, the prosperity we share and the peace we extend."

The image and quote were first inserted in June 2006. Since then any attempt at changing the quote has resulted in a revert without discussion (admittedly most attempts were vandalism).

Aside from the fact that it's an incomplete quote, there are a couple of problems with this caption in my opinion. First, it's taken from a speech given in November 1999, a full year before Bush was elected president.

Second and more importantly, the quote does not reflect his pre-emptive war strategy spelled out in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Section V details this new strategy.

"Our gains...are the conflicts we avert..." is diametrically opposed to a pre-emptive first strike policy which is aggressive in nature. Pre-emptive warfare is not about averting conflict, but initiating it -- "Hit them before they hit us." Therefore the present caption is misleading and misrepresentative of President Bush and his Administration's present-day position.

For these reasons I'd like to see the caption changed to something more representative and/or recognizable than the present quote. Rather than change it now, I thought it would be best to open it up for discussion on whether the caption should be changed or not. What do people think? And is there a caption that's more representative? (If there's no discussion, I'll offer an edit in a few days.) Davecornell 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The quotation expresses an admirable ideal, and is an admirable statement. If the person who made that comment has not in many ways lived up to the ideal, that can be seen as an indication of short sightedness or hypocricy, but as most of the changes that have been suggested are blatant insults or plain vandalism, the existing quote has been mantained. In this case I would rather a statement of an admirable ideal remain in place even if many policies have not conformed to them, and against which such polices can be measured, rather than to seek some unadmirable statement of a particular unadmirable policy to openly besmirch a person, whose popularity has waned. ~ Kalki 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bolded quotes


I removed the bolding on some of the quotes. Did not seem NPOV. 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add please


I don't know where to put this:

I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen, and, at that time, my country is going to need me. I know it won’t be easy, on me or my family, but God wants me to do it. In fact, I really don’t want to run. My father was president. My whole family has been affected by it. I know the price. I know what it will mean. I would be perfectly happy to have people point at me someday when I’m buying my fishing lures at Wal-Mart and say, ‘That was our governor.’ That’s all I want. And if I run for president, that kind of life will be over. My life will never be the same. But I feel God wants me to do this, and I must do it.

or just:

I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen, and, at that time, my country is going to need me... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.,6903,1075950,00.html

Omegatron 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, for starters, any quote that is likely to stir people up (in delight, horror, or any passion) should be scrupulously sourced. I mean no offense to, but I'd no more trust a pro-religious quote from Bush cited by them than I would an anti-religious quote from a liberal quoted by The Guardian article implies this quote is from Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield, whom the Guardian describes as a "Christian author". My local library's listing includes a review that calls this a "favorable look at the politics and faith of the nation's current president", so one is encouraged to think that it would contain the quote as intended by the subject. Unfortunately, Google Book Search does not appear to have the content of this book available for searching, and the Guardian article neither provides the entire quote nor says where in the book it appears so that we may readily verify it. I'd suggest tentatively identifying the quote as coming from the book, not an article, and grabbing a library copy to do a proper verification. If either source presents the quote accurately, it could be used as a secondary source for more convenient verification (since all Wikiquotians are encouraged to verify any quotes at any time). But the original quote's source should be cited. As far as where to put it, hopefully the book's text will provide a dated setting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let's get this thing rolling here people


Well people, I've been doing some hard research on George Bush quotes, and this page really needs A LOT of work. Seriously, folks, let get this thing together. First of all, I don't know ehere any of yu got your degrees, but Bush has had a lot of quotes not listed here that should be. Second of all, there are a lot of quotes listed here that shouldn't be. C'mon, people, what are we doing here? We need to put a lot more effort into editing this page. Really. < if it's so easy why don't you do it < is always a false argument

Stop coming to Africa feeling guilty. Come with love and feeling confident for its future.


"Stop coming to Africa feeling guilty. Come with love and feeling confident for its future.",8599,1717934-3,00.html

"A 1% increase in trade from Africa will mean more money than all the aid put together annually.",8599,1717934-3,00.html --Remi 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fake SNL quote


I am unable to find a hard reference for:

More seldom than not the movies gives us exquisite sex and wholesome violence, that underscores our values. Every two child did. I will.

* Economic Club of Detroit, September 22, 2000

It was certainly featured on a SNL skit (, but I don't think it is an actual bush quote. Anyone have a source. I've also seen it quoted as airing on NPR. If a source cannot be found, I think this quote needs to go.

Comment on Iraq in Australia

  • Would it be appropriate to add this following quote that came from the Sydney Morning Herald. When he was on a trip in Australia in 2007, Bush told the Deputy Prime Minister about the progress in Iraq: "We're kicking ass" Source: [16]-- 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The infamous nation-building flip-flop


When I saw the following listed as unsourced...

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

...I got excited because I knew I'd seen it before, so I set out to find the source. Sadly, once I found it and read it again in context, I realized Bush had been misquoted, and that he was in fact paraphrasing Powell and Schwarzkopf.

So, I'm afraid I've had to put a classic out of its misery, which is a real shame because I've cited it often as an example of Bush's flip-flopping. The edit is here. Sysmsifa 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added the chimp's excuse for Dick & Bush testifying before the 9/11 Commission together


Added the chimp's excuse for Dick & Bush testifying before the 9/11 Commission together and not separately as was the request of the 9/11 Commission.

Dick & Bush testified to the 9/11 Commission together, in private, not under oath and without published transcript.OneWorlder 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Grammatical Errors


I don't really understand why that has been put there since none of those sentences were incorrect. I think the person who wrote that doesn't understand what grammatical errors are. Also, if my suspicion is correct, saying that these quotes are "incorrect" without providing evidence on the contrary (which is irrelevant to WikiQuote) is a clear sign of POV.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

^ I couldn't agree more. This whole page was made by Bush-haters. One of the quotes were: "We have a big border between Texas and Mexico."

That quote could have been said by anyone. It isn't unique at all! In fact, it was most likely taken out of context! This stupid one line quote implies that he just stepped up to the podium and said it. Really?

This page should be redone.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
Like many pages on politically controversial figures there is often much to be desired in the balancing and proper sourcing or formatting of material added to it. The quotes that have been gathered, are for the most part well documented ones, or in such categories as indicate their disputed or misattributed status. The elimination of material simply because it may have been gathered primarily by people with hostile points of view is not any more appropriate than the elimination of material gathered from supportive points of view. ~ Kalki 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is this page not protected and Barack Obama's is?


This is an example of intellectual dishonesty. Most of these quotes would not pass muster, according to the decision to leave out Barack Obama's Special Olympic quote by one of the editors of the Barack Obama page:

How about you give a reason why that quote shouldnt be included on this page. The fact that it is not flattering to President Obama is not sufficient to exclude it. --Henrybaker 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) If it was flattering to Obama, it still wouldn't merit inclusion in my opinion. If Obama went on the Tonight Show and recited his grocery list, some people would find things there to praise and others to criticize, but it wouldn't be quoteworthy. Wikiquote:Quotability sets forth a number of factors to be weighed in determining whether either deserves a place in this compendium. These include: Is the quote itself particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? Is the author of the quote notable? If so, are they very notable, moderately notable, barely notable? Are they notable as a source of quotes (i.e., as a poet, pundit, or Yogi Berra)? Is the quote itself independently well known (as with proverbs and certain well-reported comments)? Is the subject of the quote a notable subject? Is it about a broad theme of the human experience such as Love, Justice, or Loneliness? Or is it about a narrow or mundane topic, like porcupines, lunch meat, or that new car smell? If the quote is about another person, is that other person highly notable? Has the quote stood the test of time? Is the quote verifiably sourced? The quote at issue here fails the first, fourth, and fifth factors utterly. Certainly it is not inherently memorable if considered apart from the author. The topic is bowling, which is mundane (or, arguably, the Special Olympics, which is a narrow topic). Per the Quotability guidelines, "any quote made within the past ten years will be scrutinized under the presumption that it is not inherently quotable". If we include everything said by a notable person simply because that person is notable, then we would for example transcribe every word of Shakespeare's plays, duplicating the function of Wikisource while drowning truly poignant comments and notable observations in a sea of chaff. I note that we include Obama's heavily criticized "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion" remark, which is far more unflattering to Obama than the bowling comment, but which is also (unlike the bowling comment) relevant to his role in society, as a policymaker explicitly addressing things such as guns and religion. BD2412 T 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If that page is protected, then so should this one. If the quotes (gaffes) over there are not considered worthy of Wikiquote, then why are these? Eschudy

Many forms of conscious and unconcious dishonesty and hypocrisy abound among many people, but to target the fact that this page is not currently protected as somehow an example of that seems more than a little extreme. Pages are protected according to the level of vandalism which tends to be occurring on them. Obama as current president, currently is a subject of massive attention and the page is likely to be a target of much vandalism.
You specify one quote which was not included after it's removal from Obama's page. Frankly it seems to have been a quote most people were not all that interested in discussing or including. Personally, I have no strong objections to the quote in question either being included or removed, for even though it is not one I find particularly notable, obviously many others seem to think it was. I am not interested in having anyone on any of these pages being presented in entirely flattering or entirely damning ways, but neither is it anyone's obligation here to be more interested or involved in any particular page or issue than they choose to be. The omission of that quote simply seems to be a case of no one objecting strongly enough to a short list of rationale for it being removed (which I, being a bit more "inclusionist" than some, would personally say is somewhat flawed, no matter how earnest and well motivated).
In regard to semi-protecting this page: I have no strong objections to it, but perceive no strong need for it at this point. Vandalism of both the Bush pages certainly has substantially subsided since the younger Bush left office. ~ Kalki 07:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, Wikiquote is not a site where some kind of "political fairness" is expressed by imposing the same technical protection measure to two believedly similar articles. Only technical and editorial practicality should dictate what technical protection is applied to each individual article. First most protection measures are temporary, so the GW Bush article maybe was protected but isn't anymore. Secondly the article on George W. Bush should be protected if that article is vandalized more often than others, same for the Obama article, but they're protected and unprotected independently of each other, on the decisions of their respective editors who are not competing with each other. Rursus 10:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply



Just to let everyone know this page has to many quotes and alot of users got into an edit war on this page so that resulted the page has a Checkcopyright template.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

Double Trimmings


Why is this page not protected and Barack Obama's is? the article is too long, too convoluted, and lacks a main point. seems to be written by someone who is very angry and frustrated with the size of their ... political and social understanding of the society they live in and it's inner workings.

I'm the Decider


For this entry:

I say I listen to all voices, but mine’s the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense. announcing that Donald Rumsfeld would not be replaced as Secretary of Defense, April 18, 2006. "Bush, After Some Changes, Vows More Coming", Associated Press via Yahoo! News, April 18, 2006

The Yahoo! News link has expired. Is there a source that is still citable? --Blumrosen 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will this work?



"It will take time to restore chaos." - Unknown date/time/place

Schizophrenia with paranoid delusions


Our Minister of peace Ben Bot spoke with Bush and Ben said "Bush hoorde stemmen van God" ( Bush was hearing voices of God) "Telling him to start a global sacred war"

Extra-Long and complimentary "quotes"


It appears that this page has been neutered to make Dubya "sound" better, which furthers my belief that most "information" in wikiquote and wikipedia has been compromised (mostly by the corporate unto fascist right wing and their minions, to be redundant). Some of these "quotes" are more like "novellas" - is there a limit to how long a "quote" can be? He didn't know his Al Quaeda Saudis from an Iraqi in a hole in the ground. Who's the "decider"?! Waterflaws (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Though it isn't official policy, an unofficial guideline limits quotes to 250 words, absent special circumstances (an exception would be made for, for example, the especially notable 272-word Gettysburg Address). ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps the Gettysburg Address, even though rivaled by G.W.Bush's speeches, should merit it's own Wikipedia and Wikisource entries. To completely avoid taking Bush II's remarks "out of context", one would need to list everything he said, or more. Waterflaws (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Home Ownership and Mortgage Securitization Scandal


In the lead up to the intentional meltdown of the too-big-to-fail-banks' mortgage securitization fraud, and at a time he would have been aware of the magnitude of the derivatives scams, I remember W. boasting about how home ownership rates in the U.S. were higher than ever and how great it was. Those were notable quotes (or greater, if it's necessary to justify his misspeak?) that should be mentioned here. Waterflaws (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

He wanted to turn the US into a "homeowner society" in his 2004 acceptance speech.
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence. [...] Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
Is that the quote you're referring to? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply



It has been suggested that this be merged with George W. Bush.  I, for one, approve of the notion.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If they're properly sourced, add away! Illegitimate Barrister 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply