Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

My opponent seems to be making a hodgepodge of judgments and assessments based on pure emotion, and not fact. He begins his argument with a contradiction: He is for the total annihilation of countries that harbor terrorists, yet he is against anything Obama does to bring terrorists to justice because "he will kill more civilians than terrorists". If you totally annihilate Afghanistan, will you not end up killing more civilians than terrorists? In this, my opponent admits his opposition to Obama's policies are simply rhetorical, and based on his anger towards Democrats for their judgment of Bush. My opponent has conceded several key issues here: #1- He concedes that his argument is not about Obama's actions or policies, rather "My argument is about Bush being demonized and being compared to every single monster in the last 100 years. Now It is Obama's turn". #2- He never rebutted my first round argument in which I pointed out inconsistencies with his argument and the truth. It would appear he has conceded that he was simply making up the connection between that story and Obama's being a "murderer". #3- He concedes that his argument on the legality of Obama's policies are irrelevant, at best, and untrue at worst. #4- He concedes that this is Bush's war. He supported Bush's war, and now that the Commander in Chief is from a different political party he "claims" to be against the war all the while admitting he is only against it as reciprocity for opposition to the war when Bush was in office. He is ignoring the fact that opposition was to the war in Iraq due to the misinformation that got us there in the first place, but the war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice- a war neglected by the Bush administration. The surge in Afghanistan has been a request of commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, the Pentagon, and Republicans for a little over a year now. Obama is listening- regardless of what the anti-war left asks of him. This, at least, is a demonstration that he is willing to challenge his political capital in order to do what military personnel say is the right thing to do- something Bush rarely did (the surge in Iraq came 5 years after nearly every military mind in America said the amount of troops being sent in wouldn't be enough). http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.iht.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... (from January 2007!) This does not make Obama a murderer or a terrorist, rather a thoughtful Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces- one that listens to the advice of the military minds he employs. "My opponent clearly gives the double standard on all fronts" -There is no double standard. Bush brought this country into two large scale wars with two countries. Both were severely mismanaged, and one was almost completely neglected. I am not accusing Bush of being a murderer, I am saying that as President it is Obama's duty to effectively carry out, and at some point bring to an end if possible under his term(s), the wars started by his predecessor. Your argument is that if Bush was a murderer, then so is Obama. I have never said Bush was a murderer. He has been many things, but I do not believe he was a murderer, nor that he intentionally ordered the murder or terrorizing of civilians. If this is your argument, you are to prove that Bush was a murderer. "By doing so he makes it his war and his liability" -By being President it is his war and his liability, but he can't possibly be to blame for us being there in the first place. We are there for a reason, and he recognizes this. He is simply complying with the wishes of the commanders on the ground. "His efforts should be undermined at every front as they were for Bush" -Bush enjoyed unchecked support for almost his entire 8 years as President. "I am going to give Obama no slack" -I think it is clear this is the sole purpose of my opponent's argument. He does not intend to logically argue that Obama is a murderer and a terrorist. To do so he would have to effectively accuse and provide evidence that Bush is a murderer and terrorist as well, and then somehow prove there is a correlation between this and Obama's policies. He has not done this, he has simply provided empty rhetoric. As a Republican I can find much more effective ways to criticize Obama, his policies, etc., but I won't call him a murderer simply because some liberal calls Bush a murderer. My opponent assumes he will be called childish for this. I suspect it is because he believes it to be.