The excuse so far is that it would imply a “moral equivalence” between Bush and Saddam.
I think the real reason the offer was refused is that Bush is an idiot. He already has a difficult enough time with preprepared speeches by his handlers. If he actually had to answer the big questions personally people would realize that the Emperor is actually not wearing any clothes and this whole charade would end.
Bush is a coward. Plain and simple. He hides behind his position while issuing Presidential Edicts which can’t be questioned or debated. The whole world must follow him or ELSE. And he’ll be damned if he ever has to justify it in front of a national audience.
Thatis it. He would get destroyed in a debate with Hussein. What does it say about tenability of his stance towards Iraq if he doesn’t have the guts to articulate it in a debate. His handlers know their Iraq scheme is a crock and they know their hand puppet president is a moron. He would be humiliated in a debate with Carrot Top much less Saddam Hussein.
He’s never debated anybody, period. Presidential debates do not count because thay are not real debates. They are completely scripted, stage and controlled from beginning to end. Both participants know before hand what all of the questions will be as well as their own and their opponent’s responses. Even with all his answers written down for him by smart people, Bush still got his ass kicked by Gore. Hussein would fuck him up the ass and come in his eye.
Excuse? Bush needed an excuse not to debate Saddam? It’s like asking, “What was Franklin Roosevelt’s excuse for not debating Adolf Eichman?” Or, “What was Nelson Mandela’s excuse for not debating the murderers of James Byrd?”
Let’s pretend that the majority opinion on this thread is wrong and in a debate Saddam got his ass whipped (I know it is hard for all of you Saddam fans to imagine). The day after such a debate, how many of Saddam’s advisers would still be alive?
Since when did the world become a freaking debating society? Should all international problems be solved by calmed, reasoned debate between the affected nations? Why, of course.
In a perfect world, which doesn’t exist.
Debate Sadddam? Should we also debate Osama? Kim Il-Jong? “Debating” has a role, to be sure, witness the last 13 months of wrangling over Iraq. Oh, wait, that would be nigh on 13 years. “Rush to War”, my foot. Anyway.
I think there should be a bomb with Saddam’s name on it, and he can DEBATE THAT! Sorry for the vitriol, but sometimes I wonder about some people’s grounding in freaking reality.
It used to be called appeasement, and now some are calling for a debate? Will there be tea and crumpets? or at least beer and pretzels?
He said he would; it would certainly be easy enough to verify. I tend to believe him, on this point at least, although who knows how he would manage to spin it to the Iraqi people (or if he’d even bother trying to spin it). Tonight’s interview clips specified that he wanted it to be broadcast complete and live in both countries, with simultaneous translation, so the world could judge both sides on even footing.
Apparently he wouldn’t allow Rather’s team to bring in their own equipment, camera people, or interpreters, but Rather said tonight that CBS people went over the Iraqi-provided tape with a fine-toothed comb, and the translation was accurate.
I think Bush should do it. What does he have to lose, if he’s so confident he’s right?
And for those who call a debate a delaying tactic and/or appeasement, just to make you happy, if you want, you can specify that the debate won’t affect any other actions being taken simultaneously by either side. There? Happy now?
Because it’d have to be translated from English to Arabic. Since Iraq doesn’t speak English. Therefore, the chance of it being edited is strong since I am sure that some words can have different meanings going from English to Arabic.
If Bush is fluent in Arabic, then I am the Pope’s whore.