George Bush: Good Candidate...Bad Timing

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.