Defending the Presidency of George W Bush

Thanks to KNHAV for initiating this debate. I will rebut some of Pro's key points and offer some additional reasons why the second Bush Presidency should not be viewed in a positive light.OverviewThis debate is "defending the Presidency of George Bush," it is not "attacking the Presidencies of Obama and Clinton." I understand that Pro may have strong feelings regarding those Presidents, but their goodness or badness is not germane to this debate; Obama and Clinton could both be awful, but that doesn't mean George Bush was great. Perhaps all three were awful. Let me clarify this point in this way: X + Y = bad cannot show that Z =/= bad. It is a total non-sequitur. Given this, I will focus my energies on discussing the material actually relevant and topical to this debate.Pro's CasePro claims that 9/11 was the fault of Clinton, but provide no evidence to corroborate the claim. Her assertion is bare, and can be dismissed for that reason. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Bush was aware that al-Qaeda was trying to attack the US, but that Bush failed to respond to those threats appropriately [http://www.nytimes.com...].Pro has no case beyond 9/11. The rest of it is just her opining on her anger at American voters, her vision for the future, and other claims that lack relevance, substance, and/or explanation.Con's Case1. Bush failed to rebuild Iraq. "Ten years and $60 billion in American taxpayer funds later, Iraq is still so unstable and broken that even its leaders question whether U.S. efforts to rebuild the war-torn nation were worth the cost. In his final report to Congress, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen's conclusion was all too clear: Since the invasion a decade ago this month, the U.S. has spent too much money in Iraq for too few results." [http://www.cbsnews.com...] Bush also put Nouri al-Maliki into office, a Prime Minister who fostered ethnic tensions in order to retain power. Failing to reconstruct Iraq and to establish efficient governance has led to the situation now with ISIS. It destabilized the middle east, generated conflict, and created a power vacuum extremists are seeking to fill.2. Iranian Centrifuges were allowed to grow massively under the Bush administration, which led to the Iranian nuclear crisis [see the video]. Letting enemies of the US massively develop their nuclear capabilities is never a good idea. http://www.youtube.com...3. Bush reduced the esteem America had around the world during his time in office [http://www.pewglobal.org...].4. Bush bungled Katrina. He failed to react quickly, refused to return from vacation during the storm, and did not federalize the assistance in all areas where federal help was needed [https://en.wikipedia.org...].5. Bush failed the economy. "Considering that Bush"s policy of Wall Street deregulation was largely responsible for the reckless practices of the 'too big to fail' banks that brought the economy to its knees, it"s fair to say that this was one of the two most significant fiscal failures of his administration. The other, of course, was his squandering of the Clinton budget surplus. When Clinton left office in January 2001, he bequeathed America with a projected $1.9 trillion surplus. By the time Bush handed the economy off to Obama in 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected $1.2 trillion in debt, due largely to Bush's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as the additional trillions spent on the aforementioned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." [http://www.salon.com...]Thank you. Thus, I negate.