http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/index.html
Can I just say for the record that I think we’d kick the living shit out of the Iraqi cabinet? Cheney is so wiley he’d have this guy on the ropes in seconds… 
(for a second there I thought The Onion had taken over CNN)
Well, in all fairness Taha Yassin Ramadan suggested the duel only after Bush’s suggestion of challenging Saddam to a round of Hungry Hungry Hippos was turned down. 
Too bad. I’d pay good money to see that.
There’s a discussion already opened on this topic in (of all places) Great Debates.
Like I said over there, if they duel, Bush darn sure better pick a weapon he knows he can beat Saddam with. So clearly, it’s gotta be Jack Daniels at dawn; first man under the table loses.
The Duel in the Desert II: This Time it’s Personal!
Next on Fox: Celebrity Boxing 3: To the Death!!!
I’ve got 10 bucks on the Texan.
(too bad the WhiteHouse tunred down the offer, that could have been a quick end to this particular problem… and then we’d have some bragging rights, “our president can gun down your president, nany nany naah naaa!”)
Hard to call. Bush, as a Texan, is probably well-skilled with small arms. But Saddam would probably cheat.
This further proves my hypothesis that everything in life can be related to a Simpsons episode:
“I demand satisfaction! Will you duel, or are you a coward?” SLAP
Gee, I can’t see any down-side to this proposal at all.
If my country called on me, I would meet Saddam on the field of honor, armed cap-a-pie, to duel with lance, sword and mace…
(Actually, it’s probably a good thing we don’t do that anymore. The theory used to be that God would favor the right, but historically He seems to favor the most skilled. Odd.)
Now that I’ve read the article, I do like the part where Ari Fleischer said, “There were no duels; there were no invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and [the] military. And that’s how Iraq settles its disputes.” (I think he meant, “There were no duels; there were invasions.”
So is that supposed to be a criticism? And if so, what about our apparent eagerness to go to war? A personal duel is starting to sound reasonable.
(I’ve heard a lot of White House press secretaries, but Ari is a bullshitter of rare qualities.)
Can I be serious for just a second? I think this is a brilliant strategy by Iraq.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell Bush will ever accept any terms for any duel with Saddam. But look what happens when he invades.
The longer the invasion goes on, the more people are going to think, even jokingly, that dueling wouldn’t have been such a bad idea. Then maybe they start to think that it seriously would have been a good idea. Could have ended a lot of unneeded bloodshed.
Then people being to say to themselves “wait a minute, Bush is willing to send men and women off to die but he’s not willing to make that same sacrifice himself for the good of the country?”
Oh sure, not everyone will think this. Maybe not most people. But some will. It’s all just a psychological game.
Wasn’t it usually a champion for the leader who fought, rather than the leader? I say we should get Jessa Ventura to be national champion. He obviously wants some high profile position in Government, but isn’t very good at the whole governing thing. As an ex-navy seal I’m sure he could handle himself pretty well in any dual, and already has the pre-dual shit talking part down. The only drawback is I’m not sure if I want a national champion who wears a feather boa.
wolfman, I’m all for Jesse Ventura fighting on behalf of our pathetic president. I would really like to see Bush do it himself, but he’d probably lose and he’s really no good at the pre-dual shit talking.
My only question would be who Iraq would send.
hell I think this is a GREAT idea, with a little luck we can get rid of Saddam AND Bush.
WOOOOT!
Upon a second reading of the article, I’m thinking Ramadan has watched one too many episodes of Super Friends.
-President Bush, this morning
I guess there’s no need to ask which single American he was referring to.