Is Bush good for America

Contributing

As always, Issuepedia is open for contributions (pro and con) from any source on this debate. If you do not feel comfortable trying to use the argumenticon templates, you may simply post your point on the discussion page or in normal text after the point to which you are responding; An Issuepedia editor will be automatically notified of the edit and will apply the proper formatting.

Title

For technical reasons, titles ending in "?" don't work well on Issuepedia, so we have left it off; the title is supposed to be:

Is Bush good for America?

Overview

This page is a structured debate on the issue of whether George W. Bush is good for America, both in his past actions and in the anticipated outcome of his policies and leadership style.

Although he theoretically will be succeeded by a new president in 2008, the outcome of this debate will remain important in determining the desirability of supporting any candidate with ties to Bush or to the neoconservative group to which he belongs (and which has continued to support him throughout his presidency).

This debate is currently open for counterpoints (arguing in support of Bush). Even if you are against Bush, it is helpful to document pro-Bush points so that they can be countered; it is much easier to dismiss an argument if you can think of a point which the argument does not address, and this debate currently does not raise any anti-Bush points. See Issuepedia:Reinforcement by Contradiction.

Debate

Bush is not good for America.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush is generally untrustworthy.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush is an anti-patriot; his actions have been horribly destructive of many core American values. His policies and leadership style will continue to wreak havoc as long as they continue to be applied.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> He has allowed and encouraged the subornation of American will, might, and ability by a gang of thugs who are primarily interested in transforming our society – using the latest disinformation techniques, brushed off and updated somewhat from their totalitarian origins – into a neofeudal corporate fiefdom.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush's mania for secrecy has been extremely harmful to the pursuit of rational solutions to America's problems, has encouraged corruption within his government, has led directly to much of the "dissent" he so condemns, and is strongly indicative of a personal lack of honor and trustworthiness.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush's management of the Iraq war has been immensely harmful to the military.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Military readiness levels have plummeted – and not only due to the intense level of involvement in the war, but to bad management and corruption on top of that.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush's continued demand for more troops when our existing troops were greatly overextended has led to lowered recruitment standards (allowing ex-felons to join) and increased cost-per-recruit ($20,000 rapid-deployment bonuses). Neither of these happened under Clinton, despite US involvement in several areas of foreign conflict.

One general has reportedly said "Bill Clinton's U.S. Army could beat our present force with one hand tied behind its back."

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush's budget management policy has been one of heedless spending on questionable projects while cutting taxes for the rich – and yet the neocons still persist in spreading the myth of Bush's fiscal responsibility.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush took a federal budget which was turning out surpluses to help pay down the national debt and has run it back into previously-unseen depths of deficit – despite many rosy predictions of further surpluses.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush is fundamentally anti-democracy, and does not even bother to deny it.

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> Bush's actions violate both conservative and liberal values; it is not clear that he has any personal values beyond the acquisition of power.

This includes religious beliefs, with the exception of a few carefully-chosen "wedge issues".

wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> His vast wastrel spending is certainly not conservative in nature, and none of the things he spends upon are causes espoused by any of the other parties.

Is Bush good for America

Overview

Debate

Navigation menu

Search