RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

Here's my response, taking my opponent's statements in turn. *9/11 was not a failure in any way. Name a single instance of intelligence fault; the government knew that terrorists were responsible, and in Bush's perfection, he made the appropriate decision. It is true that Bush knew that 9/11 was the work of terrorists. The fact is anyone who had a tv turned on (and I dare say that almost everyone in the world who did own a tv had it turned on on 9/11) would have realised that it was the work of terrorists as soon as the second tower got hit. But that aside, Bush knew more. Bush knew more because Bush had been warned about a strong possibility of Al Qaeda striking on US soil. Bush knew about the possibility of planes being used as "bombs". Bush knew about Al Qaeda's plan to do something drastic very soon. He had been briefed on these things. The only question he asked was "If we take out Bin Laden, will that alleviate the threat?" All this is in the official 9/11 report. I recommend it to my opponent. It's good reading. One of the conclusions in the report is that the terrorists exploited a gap in US intelligence. Simply put, those responsible for overseas intelligence looked for threat overseas. Those responsible for domestic intelligence looked for threats domestically. No one expected that a domestic threat could originate from overseas. It was a spectacular systemic failure and Bush was at the top of the administration at the time. It was Bush's failure. His reaction to 9/11 was nothing extraordinary. If Mickey Mouse was President at the time he would have reacted in the same way (although perhaps would have left that classroom as soonn as the news arrived rather than finish the session with the kids first... after all Mickey Mouse is a mature character). *He negotiated with Iraq, but they proved uncommunicative and uncooperative, which prompted a necessary war. Bush had no standing to negotiate with Iraq. The issue (which was weapons of mass destruction at the time) was not Bush's issue. It was not America's issue. The issue existed on an international level. It involved the UN. It involved weapons inpsectors. Blix, you may recall, begged Bush for one more chance to conduct inspections. Bush brushed him off. Against international public opinion, against NATO, against the Security Council of the UN, Bush recruited his friends from the UK (who subsequently expressed their regret about this) and went into Iraq off his own bat. He had no business there. His actions in attacking a sovereign country on the pretense of (non-existent!) weapons of mass destructions were a breach of international law. He subsequently admitted that Iraq was a "miscalculation". *There was an exit strategy, it just need not to be employed. The war is over. I would like my opponent to point me to some sources regarding the exit alleged strategy. As far as I'm aware US forces are still in Iraq and are getting killed. In fact, many more have died after the war "was over" than during the war. *President Bush is not imposing in any way possible; he is simply improving the world through his guidance and practices. I fail to see how the world has improved after Bush's 2 terms. Please assist. *The polls you cite are biased and should be disregarded. A small portion of America does not constitute a national consensus. I invite my opponent and those watching the debate to peruse the following site: http://www.pollingreport.com... My opponent would have us think that all of these polls are biased. He also seems to take issue with methods employed in public opinion polls. Of course they can't survey every single American. They take a sample. They calculate margins of error. They publish those margins. Usually they're less than 2.5%. These statistical methods have withstood the test of time. They are employed universally. I invite my opponent to point me to a non-biased source of public opinion polls regarding Mr Bush's ratings as President. I take it my opponent takes issue with CNN's reports as well (http://edition.cnn.com...) *Please travel to another nation. Then you will see what I mean. It is interesting that my opponent assumes that: a) I live in America b) I have not been to a country other than America Neither is true. I have travelled to a number of countries. However, as conceded by my opponent in round 2, the question of whether the USA is the "greatest nation" is not relevant in this debate. I'll be happy to debate that topic separately if challenged. *During the presidency's before Bush, other nations rivaled USA in trade, technology, education, and general wealth. Now, during Bush's two terms, a drastic spike in America's well being has placed us far and behind the international competition. I challenge my opponent to provide some evidence for the above contention. I have provided, in my first post, statistical evidence taken from the US Census (a source that carries some weight, one might argue, even for as strict a critic as my opponent) regarding the levels of well-being of Americans during the two terms of Mr Bush. I have shown that these standards have fallen markedly. I now provide one more source: "George W. Bush's overall job approval has matched its low in American Research Group monthly polling as 82% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse, according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove. " (source: http://americanresearchgroup.com...) Awaiting my opponent's response. Please also note that, if called upon, I will provide (in my next post) detailed reference material to support what I stated above regarding Iraq and 9/11. This information is really common knowledge at this point. However, if requested, i will support it appropriately.