George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing

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.