George W. Bush was a bad president.

Peace 1: Iraq [1] [2] [3] [4] TURN: Invading prevented more deaths in the long run by preventing democide Burns writes, “Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have 'disappeared' into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000.” Within the span of Hussein’s regime 200,000 people have been killed due to democide and political killings, outweighing the death toll of the Iraq War by 50,000 individuals. Thus, removing Saddam from power has prevented the democidal killings of a vast number of individuals. Thus in total Saddam’s killings are approximately 1M compared to U.S.’ 150,000 TURN: Invading has prevented deaths in the long run by preventing future wars Burns continues, “The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000.” Iraq under Saddam was a belligerent nation which little regard for the amount of human life destroyed in its military undertakings, leading to the deaths of 800,000 lives. And, the Iraqi democratic government would not go to war with Iran due to Shia ties: The newly established coalition in Iraq is a Shia dominated coalition with stronger diplomatic and political ties to Iran. Iran was actually a major contributor to the split Shia groups joining in a majority coalition. Iran has much political influence in the Iraqi government which makes it very unlikely that Iraq and Iran will see future military conflict, as opposed to the case under Saddam. TURN: U.S. created Middle East instability reduced the chance of terrorism Cetron makes the potent argument that the Iraq War, and really any war created by the U.S., such as the War in Afghanistan, is a good way to prevent terrorism. His first claim is that a U.S. war forces jihadist cells to focus their attention for e.g. militarily and financially in the area of warfare, be it Iraq or Afghanistan. This is true because the jihadists are put on the defensive and not the offensive, which is the case of Middle East stability where jihadists gain sanctuary. Capital attained by jihadists groups are allocated in fighting soldiers and not to committing terror acts against the U.S, homeland. His second claim is that the Iraq War was a good choice of battleground due to the highly sectarian nature of the state and it being a clash-site for both Saudi and Iranian influence. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran diverted its influence on jihadist groups to insurgency groups fighting in Iraq. As such, groups like AQAP, Iranian proxy cells and Sunni-backed terror groups were diverted away from the U.S. and towards Iraq. The move from the Bush Administration was tactically advantageous because at the time when terror flames were at its highest (during the height of the Iraq War) any chance of blowback or increased terror recruitment was directed at Iraq, not the U.S. b) Stated the grounds for war in Iraq were “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Iraq did have weapons of Mass Destruction, chemical and biological. Iraq Watch writes, “When assessing the potential links among Iraq, anthrax and terrorism, it is important to untangle the knowns from the unknowns. UN inspectors were certain that Iraq did not account for all the biological agents that it made before the first Gulf War, and that it produced anthrax on an industrial-scale. Iraq also filled actual warheads with anthrax. In addition, Iraq admitted it filled R-400 bombs and developed drop tanks to deliver anthrax, as well as developed and tested the so-called "Zubaidy" device for helicopter dissemination. Prosperity 1: Set the stage for the Great Recession [5] [6] [7] TURN: Recession good WSA has not indicated any impact, but we can deduce an impact of lower standards of living. Life outweighs, so if I can demonstrate more lives are saved in the long run then vote Con. First, due to the bad economy Obama cannot win re-election. Dick Morris writes, “He gets only 45% of the vote in a matchup with Romney…And a president needs to get to fifty percent of the vote in order to get re-elected…I recently went back in history and measured the disposition of the undecided voters in every presidential election in which an incumbent was seeking re-election going back to 1964. Eighty percent of the undecided vote went to the challengers.” Second, Romney will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Romney as quoted in the Atlantic: “I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.” Third, Iran and terror ties. According to the Critical Threats Project, “…the operability of the [Iranian Al Qaeda] network confirms that the Iranian regime is directly facilitating al Qaeda activity in the region, including coordinating with al Qaeda's representative in Iran to arrange the release of al Qaeda members from detention.ï¿½ This arrangement, in place since 2005, further demonstrates the Iranian regime's willingness to discount the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide if it can help inflict harm on American security and interests. Second, the network's ties to multiple enemy groups illustrate the syndicate-like nature of al Qaeda's presence in Iran. Al Qaeda's core leadership in Pakistan, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Taliban are all connected to the Khalil network…” Prosperity 2: Increased Protectionism [8] TURN: Bush actually increased free trade. CNN writes, "When I took office, America had free trade agreements in force with only three nations. Today, we have agreements in force with 14."Bush said that during his administration, "America's trade with the world has grown from $2.5 [trillion] to $4 trillion, an increase of 60 percent." Among APEC member nations, he cited Chile and Peru as more than doubling their trade with the United States during his time in office... Freedom 1: War Irrelevant, consequences outweigh the lie. Freedom 2: Assaulted Civil Liberties and Raped the Constitution [9] My opponent has a very narrow understanding of the Constitution. Mansfield writes, The American Constitution signifies that it has fortified the executive by vesting the president with "the executive power," complete and undiluted in Article II, as opposed to the Congress in Article I, which receives only certain delegated and enumerated legislative powers. The president takes an oath "to execute the Office of President"…The test of good government was what was necessary to all government. Necessity was put to the fore. In the first papers of The Federalist, necessity took the form of calling attention to the present crisis in America, caused by the incompetence of the republic established by the Articles of Confederation. The crisis was both foreign and domestic, and it was a crisis because it was urgent... The Federalist introduces the need for energy in government considerably before it associates energy with the executive… The case for a strong executive begins from urgent necessity and extends to necessity in the sense of efficacy and even greatness. It is necessary not merely to respond to circumstances but also in a comprehensive way to seek to anticipate and form them. "Necessary to" the survival of a society expands to become "necessary for" the good life there, and indeed we look for signs in the way a government acts in emergencies for what it thinks to be good after the emergency has passed." [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Certon. Worse-Case Scenario: Middle East. [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] Mansfield. The Case for the Strong Executive.