It is hilarious to see the excuse that the White House gave to everyone in response to that challenge: “Saddam is buying time. He is stalling!”
Well, stalling or not, this man wants to talk. If you can avoid a war with diplomatic talking, who the hell cares about “stalling”? Do you honestly believe that the U.S. can say “We’ve tried all diplomatic methods” by turning down a personal debate with Saddam?
Frankly, I don’t care if he “stalls” or not. I would be, too, if I knew my country was going to be attacked any day now by a raging power-hungry country. It almost sounds desperate, no? Saddam at the last minute wanting a debate one-on-one with Bush? Well, desperation can also be seen as the first step to diplomacy. Let’s hear what he has to say. I think we owe the world that much. He has agreed to talk, and by saying “He’s buying time! He’s evil and stalling!” we are seriously making a joke out of the whole matter.
I, for one, am anxious to see how a debate with Bush could go. Even my 4-year-old niece can out-debate him. The stupidity on that man is like a huge target sign.
The stalling would be for one prime-time evening. Thats it.
If its that cut-and-dry that the US is in the right, not debating seems awfully chicken-shit.
Let me repeat: the world is more anti-American than it has been in a very very long time. How could Bush make things worse? To not debate is almost admitting that Bush could find some way – as difficult as it may seem – to make international opinion sink further.
I’d like to see a debate somewhere along the lines of a Miss America pagent question and a Saturday Night Live parody.
Good Evening Ladies and Gentelmen of the World!
We have one last question for both of the contestants.
First George W.
“George, if you could bomb just one place in Iraq, where would it be and why would you bomb that place?”
Next Saddam,
“Saddam, if you could… Saddam! put that shotgun down!! its not allowed on stage!! Saddam!!!”
If Saddam asks Bush for personal guarantees that USA will not attack, if he gives all the wanted “what-ever” to Blix & Co., they will both win.
Win the peace.
Well, now You are saying: “No he will not give them etc.”
But think a little bit:
If they both make an agreement in front of TV or declare it together afterwards, how will Hussein look like, in the war, that most probably will come if he did not give them.
If he is just stalling.
Even in the Arabic world Saddam will lose his face.
It is natural that he needs guarantees if he gives his weapons away, before a war that he feels, (and half of the world feels), will come what ever Saddam will do.
Or is here someone that do not believe that the war will come even if Saddam would give all those weapons asked for?
I love to see Bush agree to debate and while the camaras roll Bush pulls out a Smith and Wesson and blows Saddams brains right back into the camara lens. He’d be my hero after that cool trick. Of course, PETA would raise all sorts of hell -
that debate would rule!
Bush: you are making nukular weapons!
Saddam: I don’t even know what a nucleon is!
Bush: you’re a unelected dictator!
Saddam: I know you are, but what am i?
Bush: You kill your own people
Saddam: You have the death penalty also!
Bush: You tried to kill my daddy!
Saddam: So has Homer Simpson, are you going to invade Springfield next?
Bush: We would if we knew what state it was in…
When is the last time (if ever) that two heads of state held a debate?
I admit that it is a bit more civilized than Sadam saying “let’s duel?” but it is so far out of normal protocal that it was dismissed by the White House without a second thought.
Heard talk about this on the way home tonight. What I remember hearing is that Iraq’s claim is that the range estimates don’t include the weight of the warhead and the navigation package. This is somewhat disingenuous, since the missiles already have a navigation system; Iraq is talking about a second system for “terminal navigation” in order to make them more accurate. Only problem is, they don’t have such a thing, so they are claiming that range estimates don’t take into account contributions from something which doesn’t exist.
Probably not dimissed without a second thought. I think they panicked a bit in the White House. I can see them running around saying:
“Oh my god, put BUSH on the stand?”
“How will we manage?!”
“Alright alright, calm down… hmmm… we can wire him!”
“Bush, just repeat EVERYTHING we say.”
“No no!! It won’t work!! Bush will be too slow!!”
“Well, we can’t trust him to answer Saddam’s questions on his OWN!”
“Hell no… shit, what do we do?”
“We’ll stall and buy time by accusing Saddam that it’s all just a game!”
“… alright.”
And thus, in front of the whole world, the White House says they dismiss it as a joke and not take it seriously. Heh.
Um, yeah. Thats why Gore tried all of his tricks that he is famous for, like the big sighs, the walking over to Bush’s lecturn, interrupting during Bush’s time. He did all that stuff, but was afraid to actually put forth something of substance? Wishful thinking on your part. Bush played by the rules, communicated his position, and convinced the audience that he meant what he said, and that what he said made sense for the country. Gore relied on theatrics and lost.
I think Bush owes it to himself, to the American people, and to the world at large, to accept the debate with Saddam.
As the anti-war demonstrations show, a lot of thinking people of all classes, and from diverse cultural, religious, economic, and political backgrounds, all over the world, have the impression that Bush and his War Party take it for granted that they can lick Saddam with their big guns; and that Bush and his War Party do not really have convincing reasons to wage a war against Saddam.
The debate will be a very convincing way for Bush to show the world that not only with big guns, but also with ideas and principles can he lick Saddam.
Bush did prove that he could lick Saddam with his big guns.
But the world is not yet convinced, on the justice of his war
If he had won that debate Saddam wanted he could have convinced the world. Now, he is appearing more and more unconvincing and shifty everyday, even to an increasing number of Americans themselves.
And what do we have now in Iraq after the liberation? More instability for the poor Iraqis, and more death of American sons and daughters stationed there, and maybe wondering “What the hell are we doing here?”
I was right, that war is stupid and crazy. See my thread on War Is Stupid and Crazy.
I said in that thread that history will judge, but we can do the judging right now. Judgment seems to have come sooner than I thought.