Resolved: George W. Bush was a bad president

I look foward to reading why you think he was good, and reading your rebuttles. ” Rebuttal: As per the round one rules, Pro has the burden of proof to show that former President Bush was “not good in any manner or degree”. My burden of proof is to show that former President Bush was good in some manner or degree. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 1: The Former President “Invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs which didn’t exist and it was a illegal war. ” Rebuttal: According to Title 50 in the U. S. C. (The War Powers Resolution of 1973), the President may deploy the troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. [1] Additionally, the United States Senate passed the Iraq War resolution on October 11th, 2002. [2] Pro must prove that the war was illegal and that declaring war illegally is “not good in any manner or degree. ” ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 2: The Former President “used torture to interrogate prisoners despite evidence that says information acquired through unreliable. ” Rebuttal: The December 31st, 2009 Rasmussen report showed that 58% of American are in favor of Waterboarding. [3] Pro must show that 58% of people are “not good in any manner or degree” just like the President that they support. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 3: The Former President “failed to act on warning signs of the September, 11th attacks”. Rebuttal: Pro must supply evidence which shows the President chose inaction on a preventable measure. Then he must show that it is “not good in any manner or degree. ” Simply posting a CNN link proves nothing. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 4: The Former President “lied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda. ” Rebuttal: Pro’s sources condemn his own argument. The source claims that “Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U. S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003”. This source does not say that the President created the allegations. It simply claims that he used the allegations to support a case against Iraq. This is a failure of the intelligence community, not the President. Additionally, Pro must prove that building a false case against Iraq is “not good in any manner or degree. ” Through the liberation of Iraq, certain human rights are now available which had previously been denied. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 5: The Former President made “little or no policy changes on our changing climate. ” Rebuttal: Pro posted another link without explain the evidence. Pro must prove that a lack of policy on climate change is”not good in any manner or degree. ” Also, Pro must prove that climate change policy is necessary. Logically, Pro must then prove that the climate is changing. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 6: The Former President “passed the Military Commissions Act, which removes the right to Habeus Corpus, one of the most fundamental safe guards against tyrannical governments. ” Rebuttal: Pro needs to prove that this act is “not good in any manner or degree. ” Pro also needs to prove that the Bush administration was a “tyrannical government. ” The mere passing of a law is neither good nor evil unless the intention is proven. Pro simply pasted a Wikipedia link. ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued Point 7: The Former President “pushed for elections in Palestine that lead to a Hamas victory, and then tried tooverthrow them. ” Rebuttal: Pro must prove that such political tactics are “not good in any manner or degree. ” Again, my opponent has failed to establish an ethical guideline. By what measure is tactical politics “not good in any manner or degree? ” ------------------------------------------------------ Pro argued point 8: The Former President “pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty”. Rebuttal: Pro makes no effort to justify why this action was “not good in any manner or degree. ” Pro must prove that this action has more consequence than benefit. He must also prove that such an action makes the former President “not good in any manner or degree. ” ------------------------------------------------------ Conclusion: I have found no reason to believe that the former President was “bad” in accordance with the definitions set forth in round. Until my opponent provides a logical case, grounded in a firm, objective ethic, we cannot conclude that the President, or any human being, is “not good in any manner or degree. ” ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ References: Title 50 U. S. C. (United States Code) - It is The War Powers Resolution of 1973 [1] . http://articles.cnn.com... [2] . http://www.rasmussenreports.com... [3]