The Instigator
JTSmith
Pro (for)
Losing
82 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
85 Points

George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,329 times Debate No: 3473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (44)

 

JTSmith

Pro

George Bush...

Not a day goes by when someone does not refer to him as the worst president in American History. Seriously??? Some people need to learn their history. How about Ulysses S. Grant, whose administration was the author of the greatest government scandals in US History. Then theres John Adams, who stiffened our economy and passed laws that made it illegal to talk badly about government leaders. When John Quincy Adams left office our country was in a serious recession and EVERYBODY hated him. He refused to pass public works projects and seemed to do nothing else but sit in the oval office and doze off. President Hoover...President Taft...

Now my point is, however, that Bush isn't the worst president ever. I just like bashing ignorance. No, what I'm really going to argue is this...

George W. Bush's legacy, his performance, and his reputation are all the products of the unfortunate events that took place during his administration. The events that we had little if any control over.

When Bush was first elected, foreign policy was hardly an issue that was on the publics mind. Certainely the world had its issues, but as for as the American mind was concerned, foreign experience was of lesser importance.
America was in an very good place. Unemployment was the lowest its ever been. House ownership was the highest its ever been, and the economy was growing rapidly. Unlike the election today, our concerns were based solely on home. We needed a president who could maintain and even feed our success.
The man for that job: George W. Bush

Unfortunately...Bush never got his chance to shine on domestic affairs. 8 months after his inaugeration, Al Qaeda struck the twin towers and the pentagon, and the rest is history.
This was definately the turning point in bush's reputation. Bush had to turn his eyes to foreign affairs, and that was his weak spot.

Now, Im not saying that our situation isn't Bush's fault. I don't think its entirely his fault, but thats another debate. No, what Im saying is this...

George W. Bush's administration performed poorly because Bush was given a unexpected task that he was unqualified to accomplish, and to call him the worst president ever, is unfair. Further more, that President Bush should not go down in history as the man who failed America, but the President who had an unlucky break.
Danielle

Con

Assuming 9/11 never occurred, we cannot be sure exactly just how well a president GWB would have been. Obviously his decisions and actions would have been drastically different in some cases, and terribly similar in others. Therefore all we can do is examine his policies during his tenure as President thus far. I'll admit I was a little apprehensive about the topic of debate when I first came across it, however, after reading Round 1 it became pretty clear what my opponent's position and main arguments in this debate would be:

"George W. Bush's legacy, his performance, and his reputation are all the products of the unfortunate events that took place during his administration. The events that we had little if any control over // George W. Bush's administration performed poorly because Bush was given a unexpected task that he was unqualified to accomplish..."

Although I agree that Bush's legacy (as a horrible president), performance and reputation are all the products of unfortunate events, I disagree that "we" a.k.a. the Bush Administration had little to no control over them. Furthermore, I do not agree that Bush's poor performance should be attributed to the fact that he was given an "unexpected task" that he was "unqualified to accomplish" as my opponent has pointed out. The President of the United States of America; the Commander in Chief of the greatest army and greatest super power in the world, SHOULD be *qualified* to accomplish any unexpected tasks. If not, they are not a good candidate for the Presidency as the topic of debate claims.

I also disagree that the attacks of 9/11 were unexpected. Buzzflash.com cites upwards of 40 articles from various credible sources that claim Bush did in fact know about the attacks, or at least had fair warning. For example, "CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden's intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press's John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools — a warning that went unheeded" (http://www.inthesetimes.com...). Because of all the undisputable evidence (even the White House couldn't refute it), it is more than fair to say that Bush - at the very least - failed to take appropriate action given the situation prior to 9/11. I think this dismantles my opponent's claims that the attacks that destroyed Bush and his credibility were unexpected and out of our control. In that case, obviously Bush was not a "good candidate" because he allowed the terrible tragedy of 9/11 to occur in the first place.

Taking a look at the country today and the country before George W. Bush's tenure in office, my opponent noted some of the successes the U.S. had going for itself including the growing economy, high employment rate, and record number of home ownership. Today, Bush and his policies have spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury (he acquired the biggest annual deficit in history), over 2 million Americans lost their jobs during the first 2 years of Bush's presidency (not to mention he cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans), and he presided over the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period. Now my opponent has said, "We needed a president who could maintain and even feed our success." But obviously Bush didn't feed our success at all or even sustain it. In fact, he set us back big time... and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If Pro wishes to argue that a lot of our spending has been dispersed to the military due to our involvement in Iraq, very well. I would agree with him, obviously. However how does that tie into the "unexpected" event of 9/11? Bush's choice to go against the U.N. and proceed with the war was a choice that he made and one that I argue contributed to the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that claimed going to war with Iraq was his goal all along. Throw into the mix the Halliburton scandals and the fact that the Pentagon admitted there was absolutely no relation between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and al Qaeda, and it all leads back to the fact that GWB made awful decisions that hurt the U.S. both abroad and domestically COMPLETELY UNNECESSARILY... meaning he would have made poor and hurtful decisions regardless. Thus my point is that even if the attacks of 9/11 WERE unforseeable, Bush's response was the wrong one and his actions, in fact, *did* hurt America so why should his "legacy" say otherwise? I don't believe that he had an "unlucky break" but rather did an incredibly bad job at leading this country both before and after the attacks of 9/11. His actions were and are full of corruption, lies, deceitfulness, scare tactics and scandal. And a President who is willing to go to any extreme to promote their own agenda is a BAD candidate for the Presidency regardless of the times.

On that note, I would like to move away from 9/11 and Iraq and focus instead on domestic issues since my opponent stresses that this is GWB's supposed strong point. Because home ownership foreclosures are a huge problem in this country at present, I would like to include a fellow debater's stance on GWB's chosen policy on how to go about helping citizens. "Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers" - HandsOff. Bush's decision to assist those in said situation is just one of many in which Bush's ideology opposes that of most Conservatives, making him a bad represenative of the party. In fact, GWB set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending INCREASES, more than any president in US history. That is clearly not a Conservative position. Perhaps a Republican being elected to office in the year 2000 would have been great for this country, but *NOT* George W. Bush.

Moving away from the economy (though it's hard because he made countless mistakes in this area), some other Bush failures include setting the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television, signing more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history, presiding over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed, presiding over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have, dissolved more treaties than any president in US history, presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world, refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions (I do consider this as a domestic issue)...

[Source: http://www.buzzflash.com...]

Now, I gotta be honest. My intention for the rest of the round was to go on listing dozens upon dozens of broken promises, mistakes and failures of George W. Bush. All domestic, all relavent. But what's the point? We all get the jist of it. He sucks. And granted many presidents before GWB have screwed up in the past. I agree with my opponent that GWB is not the worst president in US history as many people ignorantly assume. However the Pro's argument in this debate about GWB just being an unlucky guy is absurd. A president should be prepared to take on everything that comes with the position, the good and the bad. Also, many of GWB's F-ups had little to nothing to do with foreign policy.

In conclusion, if we stray from my opponent's argument for a little bit and examine GWB just as a presidential candidate, I feel we should also note that "[Bush] became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of [his] fathers appointments to the Supreme Court." - Kelley Kramer.
Debate Round No. 1
JTSmith

Pro

First, The President of the United States, ideally SHOULD be able to properly handle any unexpected tasks, however, the idea that this is the case is unrealistic. I would argue that there has never been a president qualified to meet every single task. No man can be so well rounded. That is the sole purpose of the president's cabinet; to advise him on issues of which he is ill informed. In Bush's case, he was ill informed about how to deal with a foreign threat, so he relied on the advice of Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney. If anyone deserves the blame for the current situation in Iraq, it's Rumsfeld, not Bush.

Second, the idea that Bush knew before hand that the 911 attacks were going to occur is full of conspiracy theories, exaggerations, and misunderstandings. Every day Bush receives intel of possible threats, even before the 911 attacks. The US has hundreds of enemies. Hundreds of these reports run past his desk and few ever result in disaster. Also, given the vague information supplied in the alleged report, Bush had little if any power to prevent the attacks from occurring. Tighten airport security? Pre-911 Americans would have had a fit. He had no idea of the possible targets. He had no idea of a possible date, and he had no real grounds to tighten security even if he felt like it was a good idea. He had no power at all. It would be like someone giving you a note saying "You might get stabbed by someone sometime"
…what are you supposed to do about that? Say prayers…

Third, you discussed bush's failure to maintain the success of our economy. To use that as an argument that Bush was an awful president ignores a portion of my point. Bush could have conceivably been much more beneficial to our economy had he had the opportunity to pay more attention to it. Bush was blind-sided by the tragedies that occurred during his presidency and consequently was unable to pay much, if any, attention to our economy and other domestic issues. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Bush would have been an excellent economic president if the 911 attacks and the war in Iraq hadn't ever occurred. The economy was, after all, the issue he was elected on. Had he just focused on the economy and never had to deal with tragic foreign issues, he may be going down today as a successful president.

One also needs to remember that the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are two VERY separate wars, started at separate times for separate purposes. The war in Afghanistan was fought to remove the Taliban from power and to hunt down and destroy Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was fought to prevent Iraqis from developing nuclear weapons and the overthrow a ruthless dictator who threatened our country. There is no connection between the Iraq war and 911. To call Bush a liar is simply based on another conspiracy theory.
Furthermore, Bush did not choose to go to war alone. At least half of this country supported him. His cabinet supported him. Congress itself voted and passed a declaration of war. Congress sent us to war, not just bush.
Also, the decisions Bush made were not necessarily his own. Again, Bush is advised and makes his decisions based on what he is told. The entire strategy for Iraqi invasion was Rumsfeld's…
The idea of even going to war with Iraq was pushed by Cheney.
Blame for our current foreign troubles belongs to Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush himself carries only a portion of this blame. Bush only did what the "experts" told him was the best course of action.

Moving onto domestic issues, Bush has had some blunders, but again, I believe these blunders are the result of neglect caused by the foreign wars. Also, the increase in spending is equally the responsibility of two parts. First, the Iraqi War, something bush could have handled better. Second, I would argue that most of the spending is the result of domestic issue that are largely unavoidable. Baby Boomers are hitting social security. We are pouring out billions to tax fraud, medical fraud, uninsured patients, illegals attending our schools and obtaining scholarships. These together easily at least equal the wars if not surpass them. These are issue that could have been handled better had Bush not been distracted by the 911 attacks and the Iraq war.

Lastly, anyone can mention every bad thing a president has done. How about the good things he has done.

Lightened the tax burdens on middle-income Americans
Very successfully secured our country after 911
Responded very well and very quickly to the 911 attacks
Captured Saddam Hussein
Overthrew the Taliban
Passed the economic stimulus plan, which could be considered the first Bi-partisan effort in a decade
Presided over the largest increase in military enlistments in the last 30 yrs
Didn't sleep with Ms. Lewinski
Passed no child left behind which has helped thousands of less fortunate children graduate
Improved the situation in Iraq with his troop surge, a plan that was HIS idea, not Rumsfeld's
Most of all, he had the courage to wake up and work relentless to serve people who hated him.

I'm not saying, Bush isn't at some fault, but to name him a terrible president is unfair. Too many people forget his successes. Too many people forget his misfortunes, and very few could have held up as well as he did under all this pressure and crisis

I know I couldn't have handled all the stress of a failing war, and sudden and unexpected attack, and powerful hurricane, and the hatred of 75% of my people.

Bush could and did. That alone makes him something more than terrible president. People should have a little more respect for what he has gone through to protect what he thought was in our best interests.
Danielle

Con

I will first start by vehemently disagreeing with my opponent's first point about Bush being ill-informed regarding the iminent al Qaeda threat. This is simply untrue. My opponent and other Bush supporters can claim this all they want, however, there is SOLID EVIDENCE... PROVEN FACTS... that say otherwise. In this instance, I will quote Richard Clarke, a *presidential adviser* who spoke to Bush directly on NUMEROUS occasions regarding al Qaeda and terrorism. "Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject." Thus, if my opponent notes that a Presiden't cabinet is appointed for him to gain insight on things he may not know a great deal about, wouldn't you agree that the President after being warned time and time again (cited and supported by dozens of Presidential Advisers and CIA and FBI intelligent in the Pentagon) would hold a meeting with his Cabinet and discuss the situation at hand? Afterall, that's what Clinton had done.

PROOF: "'George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August.' Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House. Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations - meaning they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day." So, from this conspiracy theory-free source, we can see how Bush failed to take proper action against probable threats. Con is foul for trying to put the blame on Rumsfeld and Cheney. They are not and were not Bush's only advisers or even appointed to deal with specific terror threats like Richard Clarke was.

Also, the Clinton comparison is a good way to refute my opponent's next invalid claim, "He had no power at all. It would be like someone giving you a note saying 'You might get stabbed by someone sometime'…what are you supposed to do about that? Say prayers…" -- Are you saying the President should rely on prayer to defend this country and protect its citizens? No. The President should be holding meetings left and right with his Cabinet, the FBI, the CIA, and other experts and advisers to come up with the appropriate response to ensure this government does all it can to protect its people. Not go on vacation for an entire month, such as Bush's rendezvous throughout the entire month of August, right before the 9/11 attacks.

(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...)

Leaving the issue of terrorism and 9/11 behind, let us move on to my opponent's next point. "It is not unreasonable to suggest that Bush would have been an excellent economic president if the 911 attacks and the war in Iraq hadn't ever occurred. The economy was, after all, the issue he was elected on. Had he just focused on the economy and never had to deal with tragic foreign issues, he may be going down today as a successful president." To rebut the first two sentences of this claim, I wish to remind the readers that Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative when it comes to the economy as most Republicans are. In fact, Bush's approval rating from members of his own party is extremely low because of his big budget spending. If Bush's policies do not reflect that of the party he is representing, then he is not a good candidate. Furthermore, have you ever heard of multi-tasking?

I agree that the President is only one person who cannot be everywhere or know everything at once. Con has pointed out that this is the logic behind a President having a Cabinet and other influential advisers including economists. Now because the President appoints these people, obviously he did a bad job as they have failed the President a great deal. If he is going to rely on these people to help him make decisions, he should select *competent* people who uphold his values - not a guy like Rumsfeld whom my opponent blames for 9/11 and other bad foreign policy decisions. That is not to say that I expect every President to be 100% perfect. However I also do not expect a President to be wrong 99% of the time either.

In response to my opponent's claim that a number of the American people supported Bush's decision to go to war, I have two answers for that. First, that was probably Bush's intention all along - to intentionally disregard information regarding al Qaeda; a terrorist attack on American soil would almost guarantee citizen support for going to war. This fits nicely with my second point: fear-mongering. Bush and his administration did and still does use scare tactics to gain support for his unnecessary war. Luckily Americans woke up and saw what Bush had done.

I feel I must respond to a huge portion of what my opponent has said in the last round. "I believe these [domestic] blunders are the result of neglect caused by the foreign wars. Also, the increase in spending is equally the responsibility of two parts. First, the Iraqi War, something bush could have handled better. Second, I would argue that most of the spending is the result of domestic issue that are largely unavoidable." He then went on to cite problems such as Baby Boomers and SS and uninsured patients. He notes, "These are issue that could have been handled better had Bush not been distracted by the 911 attacks and the Iraq war."

Ok, first I'm glad that my opponent recognizes Bush's mistakes at least in regard to the war in Iraq. Second I would like to point out that Bush did not HAVE to put "all of his attention" into foreign affairs. This could have easily been avoided if 1) He listened to his advisers and prevented 9/11 from occuring in the first place, and 2) He chose not to go to war with Iraq. If going to war meant ignoring domestic issues, I'm sure a lot of Americans would have thought twice. Not to mention Bush should have thought twice and made better attempts at keeping the peace at least here at home.

In conclusion, Con attempts to list a number of Bush "successes" - each of wish are comical to say the least. For instance, No Child Left Behind is severely flawed and ineffective (Source: http://www.cod.edu...). Also, to say that our country is secure is completely fallacious and absurd. OUR BORDERS ARE NOT SECURE (Source: http://www.humanevents.com...)! Plus, how can my opponent have the audacity to proclaim that he responded very well and quickly to the attacks on 9/11? Bush swore to capture Osama bin Ladin dead or alive. Guess what, it's 7 years later and it hasn't happened yet. Just like all of Bush's other broken promises. And to thank Bush for the largest number of military enlistments over the past 30 years is also really ignorant. How about, umm, because we're at war? Fear-mongering, lying about Iraqi pleas for help, and personal feelings of patriotism have spurred military enlistment - not Bush (except the fear-mongering part which is a BAD thing). Plus, since so many people are impoverished in this country, enlisting is a good economic incentive. Bush doesn't care about the lives of his citizens as long as his goals get accomplished.

Anyway, I don't know George W. Bush personally and therefore cannot attribute to his character. All I know are the facts about his choices during his tenure as President, and from that I can gather - as well as everyone else - that Bush was a BAD CANDIDATE for the Presidency. He may be an okay guy, but he has failed America.
Debate Round No. 2
JTSmith

Pro

Are you suggesting that the CIA wasn't on High Alert already??? That the department of homeland security wasn't already alerted of the possible threats??? Yes, we knew Al Qaeda was a threat. Al Qaeda has been a threat for over a decade. My point is that all that could be done was already being done and the attacks were out of Bush's hands. No one ever saw them coming.

"We've been focusing on this perpetrator Osama bin Laden for 3 years, and yet we didn't see this one coming," said Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism operations. A U.S. Air Force General described the attack as "something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of." FBI Director Robert Mueller further declared that "there were no warning signs that I'm aware of." Senior FBI officials insisted that in terms of intelligence warnings received prior to 11th September: "The notion of flying a plane into a building or using it as a bomb never came up."[
(source: http://www.mediamonitors.net... )

The NY Times also wrote an article explaining how the attacks in September 11 were the fault of internal CIA Pre-911 Leadership.
Mr. Tenet is censured for failing to develop and carry out a strategic plan to take on Al Qaeda in the years before 2001, even after he wrote in a 1998 memo to intelligence agencies that "we are at war" with it, they said, speaking about the highly classified report on condition of anonymity."
(source: http://www.nytimes.com...)
Mr. Tenet knew as early as 1998, long before Bush was ever in office that Al Qaeda was a threat and did nothing. Furthermore, it would have been President Clinton's responsibility to handle the early Al Qaeda threats. With as much as seven years advanced notice, most of the pre-911 intelligence that was received was under Clinton's administration. Bush was only commander-in-chief for seven months before the attacks. I would go so far as to argue that President Clinton is more to blame for the failure than President Bush, seeing as Clinton had eight years of intelliegence and was completely aware of the threat and chose to do nothing. In fact, the only difference between Clinton and Bush in regards to Al Qaeda, is that Clinton got a lucky break in being able to get out of office months before the attacks happened. Clinton had YEARS more time to deal with the Al Qaeda threat and did nothing. Bush had but seven months. That hardly leaves time for full appreciation of the threat.
There was only so much he could do and there was only so much our homeland security could do. The CIA was doing its best to get the information it needed. To have a meeting every day is pointless. Weekly meetings or even bidaily briefings is understandable.
Also, to criticize him for being on vacation before the 911 attacks is absurd! Every president goes on vacation for month periods. Bush happened to take his at the end of summer, unfortunately just before the attacks. Do NOT criticize the busiest man in America for taking a long needed vacation.

Furthermore, You lead two wars and try to multitask. It seems clear to me that you have little if any appreciation for how much he has to do. Also, all of Bush's outrageous spending comes from the war, so I make my point again. Were it not for the war or 911, Bush could have been an excellent economic president.
I will even go so far as to try and justify his spending. Wars are expensive. From Bush's perspective spending some money to ensure national security seemed like a fair trade.

Also, you are once again accusing him of a conspiracy of which there is little if any evidence. You are suggesting that Bush did it on purpose! The idea is disrespectful and ridiculous! Why would Bush sabotage his legacy by dragging us into war? For kicks???

Moving on to domestic affairs, Bush had absolutely no room to focus on many domestic affairs! He was fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and watching a dictator who appeared to be a threat to our national security. In order to protect America from an attack far greater than 911, he chose to go to war. I still support him in that decision, though I greatly disagree with his initial tactics.

In defense of his accomplishments, Do you have jihadists blowing up in your streets? Do you drive to the supermarket wondering if your going to come home? Have we had any foreign attacks since 911? Have we not caught and foiled several attempts at another attack? If the only thing coming across our borders is Mexicans then I think we are doing ok.
Also, my opponent points out that our being at war is the reason for the growth in military enlistments. THAT is ignorance. It is a common fact that enlistments often go down in times of war because no one wants enlist just o immediatly get sent to the front lines. Unless there is a draft, enlistments collapse.In fact they did at the onset of the war. Just absolutely collapsed and it was a huge issue. Since then Bush's actions have bushed enlistments to an all time high by awarding better benefits to those who enlist. He has worked to better the program for all active duty military. He has made the military more enticing during a time of war. That's an accomplishment.

A vast list id the President's accomplishments are listed on:
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As this is my last round I will close with this.
Bush's legacy is simply the poor timing of his term. To declare him the worst president in history is foolish and ignorant. I am not here to argue that he has in any way been the most successful president, but he certainly hasn't done the worst job. He has done only what he felt was in our best interests and for that he deserves some respect. He has dedicated eight years of his life to serving this country. Eight years of high stress, little sleep, and long hours. He has had the weight of this country on his shoulders and he has kept his cool.For that he deserves some respect. He has kept dangerous enemies outside of our borders and made america safe again. He deserves some respect for that. Most dont agree with his politics, but no one should ever question his integrity. No one should ever call him a con arstist and a liar. No one should ever accuse him of atrocities. These accusations are ridiculous and everyone knows it. I, myself, am ready to se bush go. I diagree with him on almost everything, but I still find time to defend his reputation. He deserves respect. He gave eight hard, long, and painful years of his life in service for his country and for us. All we have ever given back is our criticism.

I will be the first to say
Thank You President Bush!!!
Danielle

Con

I decided to click the link for my opponent's first cited source. After reading the first few sentences (which included the quotes he has provided for his argument), I noticed the next sentence - along with the following paragraph - reads, "According to this official version of events, no one in the Bush administration had the slightest idea of the identities of those who orchestrated the 11th September attacks, the nature of their plans, or their targets. Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Further evidence suggests that the attacks may, in fact, have been in the interest of certain elements of the Bush administration."

This source actually supports MY argument that Bush did in fact have an extensive amount of knowledge and forwarning regarding the attacks. Dozens of other quotes and FACTS on this page elaborate on this occurence; see for yourself how my opponent's own source backs up MY argument and all the details regarding Bush's greatest failure (just one of many).

In regard to my opponent's next attempt to put the blame on someone other than Bush, I would like to point out that Mr. Tenet is not and was not the President of the USA. As I have already pointed out, when the CIA presented intelligence to former President Clinton that warned of a suspected threat, he did something about the attacks where as GWB stood idly by. To argue that Clinton is to blame when I have presented his attempts at action vs. Bush's complete INACTION is appalling. Clinton responded to the warning. Bush did not. "Another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Bush, who had been President for half a year, was taking a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and shrugged off the growing alarm within the U.S. intelligence community." (Source: http://www.consortiumnews.com...).

Pro, writes "There was only so much he could do and there was only so much our homeland security could do. The CIA was doing its best to get the information it needed. To have a meeting every day is pointless." WRONG. Bush could have done more. He didn't. The CIA already had more than enough information; proof is that high government officials in Washington and even Mayor Giuliani cancelled their flight arrangements because of the threat they all knew was coming. In fact, much of the 9/11 controversy stems from the fact that the government deemed their official's lives more valuable than the hundreds of civilians who were not warned and died on the planes.

Furthermore, to say that holding meetings every day is pointless is ridiculous! You're telling me that you would rather sacrifice hundreds... no, thousands of lives in a terrorist attack (that would later lead to war and all of the abominations that go with it - especially under Bush) than to sacrifice a little time each day to have a daily meeting? Give me a break. I sure hope Pro never runs for President! Especially since he thinks that "Every President goes on vacation for months periods." Tell that to Eisenhower who had a heart attack and lied about it so he could go to Washington the next day to deliver his foreign policy address (extending an olive branch to the Soviets after Stalin's death). "Despite his illness Ike insisted on returning to Washington and delivered his speech as scheduled, though he nearly collapsed. To steady himself he had to grab hold of the lectern. Beads of sweat formed on his forehead. He finally succeeded in finishing the speech only by skipping whole paragraphs." -- HNN

Now, does anyone else truly believe that Bush would have done the same thing? Certainly not. Obviously he hasn't come close. Bush, as a matter of fact, has set the record for the longest vacation time of any President. According to the Associated Press, Bush made 50+ trips to his ranch in Texas between 2000 - 2005 alone. He spent 320 days on vacation by August of 2005 -- that's nearly an entire year! And let's not forget that he had 3 more years in office after that...

So thus far in this round, I have proved that Bush was a bad candidate for the Presidency (despite the timing) for several reasons. First, he ignored an incredibly alarming amount of warnings regarding the iminent terrorist attacks on the USA, specifically in NYC. This is cited and supported everywhere you look, including my opponent's very own source. A good candidate would have made better attempts at prevention. Second, Bush's ridiculous amount of time spent on vacation has not been helping. A better President (i.e. Eisenhower) would have done what was best for the PEOPLE of this country and even in other parts of the world (i.e. Russia) instead of doing only what was best for himself. So not only have I provided insight as to what GWB should have been doing, but I also gave reference to a former Republican President who is an exemplary example of a good candidate.

Pro writes, "Moving on to domestic affairs, Bush had absolutely no room to focus on many domestic affairs! He was fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and watching a dictator who appeared to be a threat to our national security." -- Bologna, to say the least! Bush should have known better than to throw caution to the wind and attack these other countries when we didn't have the funding or the support. Second, Bush himself is not looking for Osama nor is Saddam still a threat. After all, isn't that what special intelligence agencies are for, such as the FBI, CIA, or his cabinet? It seems to me like Bush and his supporters want to blame everybody else when things go bad saying he had nothing to do with it, but then they also want to act like they're sooo busy being involved that they cannot possibly do anything else.

Here's a domestic affair for you: In 2007 Bush vetoed a Bill that would help the 9 million+ uninsured children. Their families make too much money to qualify for medicaid but in a Catch 22 cannot afford insurance. Eugene Robinson writes, "Bush's veto Wednesday of a bipartisan bill was infuriatingly bad policy ... According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week, 72% of Americans supported the bill Bush vetoed ... Bush's stated reasons for vetoing the SCHIP bill left even reliable congressional allies puttering in incomprehension. As for me, I don't know what to call the president's rationale but a pack of flat-out lies." The article then goes on to detail the *many lies* that Bush reported to the public (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

As far as "accomplishments" go, this is redundant - I've already cited and explained how they are exaggerated and/or lies.

One thing I hate in terms of debate is when my opponent will throw out blatant lies or misinformation in order to support their points. For instance, Pro has stated that it *I* am IGNORANT because it is "common knowledge" that military enlistments go down in times of war... is this a joke?! READ YOUR HISTORY. During WWII men were lined up around the block (literally) to enlist! But don't take my word for it (Source: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com...).

Pro admits that Bush provided more economic incentives to enlist (because people don't support the cause!)... but with all his tax breaks, who's paying for it?! Exactly. Bad decision. Bush is not a smart guy. He was/is not a good candidate. Not now, not ever. Bush does whatever benefits his OWN ECENOMIC INTERESTS (outside of the presidency) despite his loyalty to Conservatives and Americans in general. Yes president's do have an incredibly difficult job, however, if they can't handle it to the point that they're making SO MANY *detrimental* mistakes, then they are not good candidates.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for removal*] Vote placed outside of what is considered to be reasonable expectations for proper voting conduct. Contact head moderator Airmax1227 for details.
************************************************************************
Posted by the-mad-ones 9 years ago
the-mad-ones
Umm...I'll be honest. I don't really know how this is a competition...

Con looks to have dominated.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
In case you have read NOTHING of what I have written:

Nouri Al-Maliki is a Shi'ite Muslim and leader of the Islamic Dawa Party which is collaborating with SCIRI, the Sadrist Movement, and other Shi'a political parties previously labeled as terrorist organizations by the US, and who still are loyal to the Ayatollah and Iran.

Bush did not liberate anyone, and that is the greatest offense to a US soldier- to claim that someone who never fired a weapon is somehow a "liberator". Not to mention the fact that he opposes theocracy which WILL be the only stable government in Iraq if the current political heavyweights have their way.

The BAATH party was bolstered and supported by BUSH SENIOR via the CIA of which he was the director at the time of it's rise (as well as that of Hussein), Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other members of Bush JR.s administration as well as his advisers.

Were they corrupt? Perhaps... but if every corrupt government was thrown out by the "moral police", there would be no governments!!!

Were they evil? Depends on who is judging- from a theocratic point of view YES, they were a secular government.

Were they brutal? Well, the same brutality in the US is masked with "executive privelege" and Hussein was accused only of "murdering" those who "opposed" him though they actually made attempts against his life in 1997 (the Dawa Party). He was accused of murdering 100,000 insurgents in Kurdistan, but 12 years before the invasion he was applauded for this same act in the famous picture of Hussein shaking Rumsfeld's hand!!!

Thank me for the educational lesson when your mind is capable of absorbing the education. The bottom line is that Bush has brought more danger, distrust, discord, and dissaray to this world than ANY WORLD LEADER prior to himself... (well, not counting Hitler)
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Thank you for that educational lesson. The bottom line is that the people of Iraq are on the brink of forming a democracy and President Bush has liberated 25,000,000 people in Iraq. The BAATH party was entirely corrupt, evil, and brutal.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
It is on their official website:

www.islamicdawaparty.com
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni by tribal affiliation (his tribe is majority Sunni), but he was not religious until he was jailed. The BAATH party is an anti-Theocratic Socialist political party.

As for Al-Maliki, first of all, ALL Shi'ite Muslims are loyal to the Ayatollah- that's the whole point of Shi'a Islam.

Second, he is the head of the Islamic Dawa Party which started in 1957 and was formed by Shi'ite leaders to combat secularism and communism (ie. groups like the BAATH party), and to create an Islamic state in Iraq. One of it's first prominent leaders was Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr (name ring a bell?).

The Dawa party helped the Ayatollah win the Iranian Islamic Revolution, and during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran backed an insurgency by the Dawa Party against Saddam Hussein. In 1979 the Dawa Party moved it's headquarter's to Tehran, the capital of Iran.

The UIA (United Iraqi Alliance) is the dominant alliance in Iraq which consists of, besides others, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Islamic Dawa Party, The Badr Organization, and the Sadrist Movement- all of which have the same roots, and only the Sadrist Movement (our "enemies") oppose the Ayatollah (in philosohpy, though Iran aids the Mahdi Army).

Remember- all Shi'as are loyal the the Ayatollah. That is WHY they are Shi'a. The members of these parties were exiled in Iran and Syria from 1996 and earlier, until Hussein was toppled in 2003.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any proof or a link to a source that says that Al-Maliki and his cabinet were groomed by the Ayotollah? I've never heard of this. And by the way, Saddam was a Sunni.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Well, I guess you really don't have anything productive to say do you? Because you say so... ok...
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Carter's disaster as president- THANK THE LORD- led to Ronald Reagan and a GOP-dominated decade. Obama will be Jimmy Carter II.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I could mention a million other things Bush did to qualify him as the "worst", but since you pointed out these offenses by Carter it was easier to just turn those back around on you. The American people were fooled then into voting AGAINST Carter, but what did that lead to???
44 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 8 years ago
wonderwoman
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 8 years ago
SaintNick
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JTSmithDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
JTSmithDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03