The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Defending the Presidency of George W Bush

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 87131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Nothing is perfect. But, you don't always need to hit the bulls eye to win a game of darts.

George Bush Sr and George W Bush were on the right track headed in the right direction.
If we didn"t take a "Happy Hour" break with Bill Clinton, and drink ourselves to death into a Drunken Stupor with Obama, we wouldn't be waking up with such a miserable hangover today!

Clinton left behind severe defense and military cuts that Americans wanted and applauded.

George W Bush was handed the greatest attack ever on our soil, within months of taking office. Many blame GW Bush, when the loudest of us all, along with Clinton left us wide open and exposed!

Cutting defense after the Gulf War was probably the biggest mistake made in our lifetime, and we sweep it under the rug. We should start the blame there for 9/11. We should have cut ridiculous programs, NOT defense!
George W Bush found himself leading a population of fickle Americans that couldn't tell the difference between facts, reason, and common sense to tall tales, fairy tails, and far fetched science fiction!

The American people decided that being politically correct was somehow better and more forward thinking than actually BEING correct! The rest from then to now has been a run away train.

We should have stuck with G Bush Sr. And, we also should have stood behind and kept standing behind George W Bush, instead of fighting his administration every step of the way.

GW Bush didn't change his mind, we did! Like gung hoe gang busters, we all stepped out. Then when the chief led the charge, we scrutinized every move, tied the hands of your own military, and we abandoned our country and our commander in chief! That"s just plain Nuts!

We stepped forward, but without resolve and commitment. Then after, we abandoned the charge. We left our commander in chief and our country exposed while we criminalized our military and defenders!

We tied up every initiative with red tape and politics of our own. And when we ran out of red tape, we made sure to got some more!
Then as usual, we blamed everything and everybody but ourselves!
"Of the people and for the people." Its time to take responsibility for our part in where we are today!

We push agendas and follow those playing politics, instead of joining those that will lead us to a better, safer, more abundant place.

During George W's presidency, Americans tied the hands of our military, prosecuted those that protected them, and fought more for the rights of terrorists than they did for the rights of the innocent. No wonder the world looks at us and can easily depict our weakness. Our weakness is our tolerance and our humanity. Politically correct pressures have taken away your freedom of free speech.

America chose a president that bows to evil regimes, we tolerate terrorists, and we stay silent for the sake of political correctness. We protest in the streets and murder our police officers.

Today American citizens criminalize our police officers, and praise criminals and offenders.

America, we are your own problem! Hopefully some fresh choices can save us from ourselves without us screaming for the Fruit Loops in the cereal isle!
We need to figure out what we need from our government. We need to budget OUR deficit too! Before we decide to get on board with a cause, Evaluate it! There"s not an endless source of funds. It"s our house, its our government. Those we hire are supposed to serve us. Not ride our backs with the latest cause.

The most important things we need to support - Military, Defense, Intelligence, we need to be safe and stay free. We need to generously care for our Seniors, and those who can"t care for themselves. And we need to educate our children like they ARE tomorrow!
Starting in preschool, teach kids how to think and reason and excel in math, science, literature and physical fitness. Accelerate academically and inspire pride in patriotism! I think all American schools would benefit if military schools.

American education should inspire patriotism, teach honor, reward ethics, and create young adults that take responsibility for themselves and also for others, strengthen them in self respect and discipline.

Teach them there"s more to being a good citizen than recycling. Teach them to govern themselves, protect their freedoms, and be American!


Thanks to KNHAV for initiating this debate. I will rebut some of Pro's key points and offer some additional reasons why the second Bush Presidency should not be viewed in a positive light.


This debate is "defending the Presidency of George Bush," it is not "attacking the Presidencies of Obama and Clinton." I understand that Pro may have strong feelings regarding those Presidents, but their goodness or badness is not germane to this debate; Obama and Clinton could both be awful, but that doesn't mean George Bush was great. Perhaps all three were awful. Let me clarify this point in this way: X + Y = bad cannot show that Z =/= bad. It is a total non-sequitur. Given this, I will focus my energies on discussing the material actually relevant and topical to this debate.

Pro's Case

Pro claims that 9/11 was the fault of Clinton, but provide no evidence to corroborate the claim. Her assertion is bare, and can be dismissed for that reason. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Bush was aware that al-Qaeda was trying to attack the US, but that Bush failed to respond to those threats appropriately [].

Pro has no case beyond 9/11. The rest of it is just her opining on her anger at American voters, her vision for the future, and other claims that lack relevance, substance, and/or explanation.

Con's Case

1. Bush failed to rebuild Iraq. "Ten years and $60 billion in American taxpayer funds later, Iraq is still so unstable and broken that even its leaders question whether U.S. efforts to rebuild the war-torn nation were worth the cost. In his final report to Congress, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen's conclusion was all too clear: Since the invasion a decade ago this month, the U.S. has spent too much money in Iraq for too few results." [] Bush also put Nouri al-Maliki into office, a Prime Minister who fostered ethnic tensions in order to retain power. Failing to reconstruct Iraq and to establish efficient governance has led to the situation now with ISIS. It destabilized the middle east, generated conflict, and created a power vacuum extremists are seeking to fill.

2. Iranian Centrifuges were allowed to grow massively under the Bush administration, which led to the Iranian nuclear crisis [see the video]. Letting enemies of the US massively develop their nuclear capabilities is never a good idea.

3. Bush reduced the esteem America had around the world during his time in office [].

4. Bush bungled Katrina. He failed to react quickly, refused to return from vacation during the storm, and did not federalize the assistance in all areas where federal help was needed [].

5. Bush failed the economy. "Considering that Bush"s policy of Wall Street deregulation was largely responsible for the reckless practices of the 'too big to fail' banks that brought the economy to its knees, it"s fair to say that this was one of the two most significant fiscal failures of his administration. The other, of course, was his squandering of the Clinton budget surplus. When Clinton left office in January 2001, he bequeathed America with a projected $1.9 trillion surplus. By the time Bush handed the economy off to Obama in 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected $1.2 trillion in debt, due largely to Bush's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as the additional trillions spent on the aforementioned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." []

Thank you. Thus, I negate.
Debate Round No. 1


Re: Con's Overview:

I did add a little humor. On a serious note, mentioning facts from during the Clinton presidency are relevant and contributing factors in this debate content. Also "in defense of GWBush," the media led public and their general public views that I address are also relevant.

I am defending GWBush in the light of how he is currently viewed by the public. And I am addressing destructive liberal views that contribute to the attitudes of Americans. Far left liberal views are gaining in popularity, and are fashionable by too many citizens who decide on issues irrationally and emotionally, while being influenced and excited by the liberal media in support of far left agendas. Important issues and current events are not weighted and prioritized in a reasonable logical order.

Con Says:
That I am blaming Clinton for 9/11, and I did not consider the reports that Bush ignored warning signs. Also, that I am angry at voters.

Of course I am not saying 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
But there were some contributing factors from GW Bush's predecessor, Clinton, that increased our exposure to terror attack, including 9/11.

Clinton implemented significant cut backs in military defense. His military cuts were a hot topic that upset most conservatives, but many Americans were in support of his military cut backs.

Clinton should not have downsized defense to the degree he did and his administration should have focused more on homeland security and intelligence. Clinton had several terror attacks throughout his time in office. There were missed warnings all 8 years of his office, including 9/11 warnings! His response was to assign these terror investigations to law enforcement.

Terrorism was not a priority agenda for his Clinton. There are reports that Clinton ignored Intelligence and it was ignored by his administration, as in (con's) link re: GWB ignores warnings about 9/11

Clinton experienced first hand the disconnected information that made it very difficult to connect the dots. His Intelligence Agencies such as law enforcement and FBI were not working together with information and intelligence.

An attack the magnitude of 9/11 took years to plan and coordinate. Like Clinton,
George W B also experienced the disconnected information between the Intelligence Agencies and Law enforcement. But GWBush identified the week links between the agencies, and within 2 weeks following 9/11 GWBush formed a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, that is credited for hindering terror attacks since 9/11. Here is a link showing domestic terror attacks for the 8 years GWBush was president.
The following is a record of domestic terrorism through GWBush"s time in office. 1st I"ll define terrorism in this context. Coordinated attacks against America from a large group of like minded people that would be detected in ways of "chatter" alerting Home Land Security. So terrorism is eliminating and excluding, independent action, crazy nervous breakdowns, Bonnie and Clyde Snipers. So only coordinated attacks considered, we were the safest for 8 years strait than ever.

Con gives links to many of his points, copying and pasting direct from the articles. I am more interested on Cons interpretations and feelings about the articles and information

I will address more on the public's responsibility and even some blame that affected the Iraq War on Terror


Thanks again to Pro for her remarks. I will now respond to those comments.


I certainly grant that talking about events in past administrations which impacted events in the Bush administration may be relevant to this debate. However, the purpose of my overview was not to exclude any discussion of prior presidents, but rather to point out that simply assailing Obama and Clinton as bad does not somehow make Bush good. That remains an non-sequitur.

Pro's Case

Pro continues to shift the blame towards Clinton for 9/11, and this continues to be her only talking point in the round. The are a few preliminary points to be made here: (1) even if Bush were not primarily responsible for 9/11, that does not magically make his presidency good, nor does it make his historical position as a president defensible. Clearly, "not doing something bad" is not the same as "doing something worthwhile." And, moreover, Pro is really cherry-picking the issue she wants to discuss. She seems to want to debate: "9/11 was not mainly Bush's fault," instead of "Bush's Presidency." (2) Pro fails to address the point I raised that "Bush was aware that al-Qaeda was trying to attack the US, but that Bush failed to respond to those threats appropriately." Extend this point. Drops in debate are considered concessions, and it is also standard to prohibit new arguments in the final round, because neither debater has much time/space to respond to last-minute assertions and cover everything else that has been said. Given this, Pro should not be permitted to address that drop (or any other) later in this debate. But now, I will address Pro's specific claims here.

Clinton cut defense spending, endangering the U.S. While it is true that spending under Clinton did drop, it is untrue that Clinton was the one advocating for the cuts; that was Congress []. But that is all immaterial really, because Pro cannot, and has not, draw a line of causality between reduced budgets and 9/11; in other words, she has never shown that the low budgets of the Clinton administration were major (or even minor) contributors to 9/11. Frankly, there is good reason to believe there is no causal link, because despite the cuts to intel budgets, the intel agencies told Bush about the threats to 9/11. My opponent dropped this! Allow me to quote from my source from last round: "[g]oing on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya. And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have 'dramatic consequences,' including major casualties." Clearly, Bush had the information he needed to put the country on high alert, and he failed to do so. Homeland Security was done only after 9/11, not before. Now, if Pro is discussing other kinds of military cuts (like cuts to conventional forces), then those wouldn't have stopped an unconvential attack like 9/11. Intelligence and prevention is the most relevant area of military spending to discuss here.

Con's Case

Pro drops my entire case. Extend it.

Thank you. Thus, I negate.
Debate Round No. 2


KNHAV forfeited this round.


My opponent as forfeited her final round. I extend all my remarks. Please Vote Con! Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KNHAV 2 years ago
Sorry, I Didn't get back in time to complete

new to "debating," and am hoping to clearly represent my views. And appreciate the input from Con gave in this debate.
It should be named "In Defense of George W Bush as a Wartime President."
When drawing GWB into a negative light the War on Terror by GWB is the common focus

All points addressed in my original post are focused anddelivered in context to 9/11, terrorism, Iraq War, and then public outcry that I believe detracts form the perceived and actual success of good men we entrust to lead us. Men like GWB.

Intelligence is only as good as connecting warnings, putting the the details and the sources of warnings together. Clearly there were underlying factors that should have been addressed during Clinton's time in office. GWB"s was strategic and intelligent in identifying "gaps" missed through 8 organized terror attacks in Clinton"s presidency. But after 1 organized terror attack, GWB in the 1st year of his Administration

Clinton's cuts in defense were a contributing factor to 9/11
"Dick Cheney, defense secretary of the outgoing administration, had done most of the dirty work of cutting military technology outlays by killing a hundred major weapons programs " everything from the Seawolf submarine to the Abrams tank to the B-2 bomber " so what Clinton inherited was just the stuff everybody agreed was really needed for the future."

"Nonetheless, in his zeal to cut spending and eliminate the federal budget deficit, Clinton nearly wrecked the military space program. Or perhaps I should say he nearly wrecked the national-security space program, since funding for the imaging reconnaissance and eavesdropping satellites operated by the intelligence community was also hidden in the Pentagon budget. By the time an unsuspecting Bush Administration took over....etc
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
@Shneeba - the NYT is a very credible source, but I am not going to debate that with you. I've cited a variety of sources, including Fox News and Pew Research.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
@bsh1 you and your constant use of New York Times articles as evidence. Please let's not talk about this being an "opinion debate" while you run around flaunting your heavily opinionated sources. Liberal bias is everywhere
Posted by geartech 2 years ago
Im going to have to agree it seems more like she just wanted to voice her opinion.
And attack our current commander and chief which is very unpatriotic.
Posted by OreosAreCool 2 years ago
Why is this written like an opinion article?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro opened Round 1 with what was later clarified as "a little humor" but the approach read like a list of random thoughts that were generally related rather than connected and could quite possibly be categorized as more bias than argument. Basically there was no flow and it made it difficult to follow. And if I can't understand what you're trying to say, it's really difficult to win my vote. Con was able to concisely summarize Pro's Round 1 argument and rebut it - therefore Round 1 IMO clearly went to Con. Pro notably stepped up their game in Round 2 but I felt it was ultimately too little too late. And then of course there was the forfeit by Pro in Round 3.
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff