George Bush is a good president

You declared yourself the winner of the debate in the second round, I was merely pointing out that neither you nor I get to decide the winner. In your future debates, I suggest you try and remove your emotions from your arguments, and cite more factual sources. You've listed a lot of so-called facts in the last round, however you failed to provide reliable sources backing them up. For the most part, I don't agree with your premise that if there's a bad sector in the economy, it is magically the President's doing. You seem to want to blame every bad thing on President Bush, yet you are unwilling to give him any credit for the good things. Regarding your last points, let's address them one-by-one. 1. I personally would not describe any of the interrogation and restraining methods you listed as torture. Severing one's head with a knife is however torturous, and a common act of the terrorist enemies we all face, and which you don't believe exist. In the President's case, you are claiming that he lies because you two share a different opinion regarding the definition of torture. This is clearly not a lie. 2. You insinuation that our President knowingly stood by and allowed 3,000 Americans to be murdered is preposterous. Where are your facts, where is the source of such a disgusting allegation? More importantly, why would he, as a Christian man allow it? It's illogical, and deserves no place here except to show your hidden agenda. Again, there is no lie here. 3. You would think that such abandoned terrorist plots might have been forfeited because of pressure from law enforcement and increased security making the likelihood of their successes negligible. Certainly the President and the law enforcement community should get credit for disrupting their plans. Again, no lies here. 4. Regarding Iraq, if our intelligence, and our allies' intelligence all believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, then President Bush's statements are not lies. They are statements based on the information available at the time. In order for this to be a lie, the President would have had to believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs. On a side note, your premise that WMDs didn't exist is again incorrect. Iraq is a large country with many landscapes, and concealing WMDs would be an easy task, and perhaps even easier to move them to any of several neighboring countries like Syria or Iran. 5. The truth is that we did in fact find WMDs in Iraq and several WMD laboratories. "In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors. The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found ‘hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited' under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight." (1) I am guessing your liberal sources didn't let you know that did they? Of course not, because it doesn't suit their agenda. Perhaps this shocking fact will encourage you to stop buying liberal propaganda and do some much needed independent research. 6. I'm not sure what supposed lie(s) you're pointing out with your statements regarding the intelligence the President saw, versus the congressional representatives. Is there a lie in there somewhere? I assume you're suggesting the President saw contradicting intelligence than that which was shown to the congressional reps. Such an act might be a lie, however you offer no evidence to support it. You believe it to be true because you dislike the president so much, you believe he is capable of such a ridiculous thing. Forgive me if I don't believe your outlandish statements regarding No Child Left Behind and your high school. It's inconceivable to me how in mid-year, a school could have so much vacant space, only to miraculously become overcrowded. From where did all of these new students come? It just doesn't make any sense. Regarding your claims about the economy…the President controls the ups and downs of the economy about as much as he/she controls the weather. You list several statistics, yet fail to cite any specific actions by President Bush that lead to any of them. Clinton Surplus Myth – "While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion." (2) Unemployment Myth – "Despite inheriting the Clinton Recession and managing through the corporate scandals and the 9-11 attacks that crippled the US economy, the average monthly unemployment rate during the Bush years now bests the Clinton years" (3) I'm not even going to address the uninsured rate. Insurance is a product/service just like any other. It is a personal fiscal decision to either have or not have insurance, and not the President's. To sum it up, you have not proven any lies from President Bush, nor have you stated accurate economical figures. My reasons for President Bush being a good president still stand. He is honest and holding true to his oath to protect the American people from threats. He has put aside his personal reputation, constantly being slammed by a liberal media that opposes him ideologically, and continues to do what he believes is right…not popular. I'm not saying he is a great president; there are a lot of things I dislike about the president, none of which make him a bad president in my opinion. I enjoyed this debate, let's do it again sometime. In the meantime, I need to get back to building the next version of the website. Good luck with your future debates. (1) http://www.worldnetdaily.com... (2) http://www.letxa.com... (3) http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com...