Uh, didn’t the OP refer to an interview with CBS, not a debate with Saddam? Why can’t Bush do that?
I wasn’t bashing Catholics intentionally. It was just something odd that I came up with quickly.
If you got offended. I am sorry. I can make a little change and make it less offensive.
If Bush speaks fluent Arabic, then I am a reptilean shapeshifter.
Seeing as I cannot edit my post.
If Bush speaks fluent Arabic, then I am the Pope’s deviled egg
This thread is so f__king ridiculous, I’m surprised I’m reading it. Oh well, helps to up the post count.:smack:
I think Saddam actually speaks English. It xould be in English
Like his father before him, this Bush runs an administration that likes to whine about how unfairly it is being treated:
Obviously Fleischer failed to mention that we Americans already hear from the "leader of the free world"™ every fucking day now, in order to play up the liberal press conspiracy angle and elicit sympathy from right-minded merkins. It’ll probably work for Bush’s hardcore constituency, but they’ve become immune to the odors of petty grievance and deception.
I just LOVE the fact that an insane dictator demands a debate against our president, and there are actually people who think Bush should! It’s hilarious, where do you Bush-haters come up with this stuff?
Didn’t Saddam challenge Bush to a duel a few months back? I can’t believe Bush didn’t go for it, think of the upside! :rolleyes:
Ahhhh… bloody television… it’ll kill us all eventually, you know…
If only through it’s ability to make us all dumber for even paying attention to it.
Let’s consider something people… did bin Laden offer to debate a major Head of State prior to Sep 11? Or did Hussein offer to debate the President of Kuwait prior to invading it in 1990? Or for that matter, did Adolph offer to debate the leader of Poland prior to 1939?
All of those actions were dreadful, awful, terrible, cowardly actions. Such people forfeit their rights to conduct themselves by the rules of civilised society after committing such acts. Regardless of how long their fortune holds out therein.
The shame for me, is how quickly we forget - and it’s fucking TV which does it. If you read quality newspapers and message boards like this, you get something more substantial than just a convenient photogenic 15 second sound bite.
I thought the calm, rational, civilized folk here in the US were all for reasoned discourse and exhausting peaceful avenues to resolve problems before resorting to war.
Tony Blair would do it, and would kick Saddam’s butt in an unscripted debate. But he has to do this sort of thing every week in Parliament, so he gets a lot of practice. How often do you think Saddam Hussein has to defend his policies to anyone?
Blair has also done live TV interviews with Jeremy Paxman (who is known to not pull his punches) and has taken questions from audience members (who weren’t very sympathetic either). Dan Rather is a comparative lightweight interview-wise, I’m afraid.
Another thought: maybe we could get Saddam to address the WI? Let’s see how well he deals with the dreaded slow handclap…
Why on earth do you believe him on anything?
Did you see the interview with Rather? He denied the existence of the missiles. Rather showed him pictures. He denied the existence of the missiles.
He’s a liar - a persistent, consistent liar. In a debate, he would repeatedly lie, and when challenged or refuted, repeat his lie.
And some would be duped by it.
By choice, it would seem.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s a bit of the Paxman-Blair intereview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2729297.stm
I’m really having trouble believing this.
I am no fan of President Bush, trust me – I think his foreign policy is muddled, and that he has a lot less wit about him than he ought. I also have no great love for the war he seems hell-bent on waging
That having been said, I am stunned at the intellectual and moral vacuum that must be whipping through the cavernous expanse of your mind for their to be any hint of qualifying Saddam Hussein and President Bush in any manner of equivalence.
Hussein is a Stalinesque in his barbarity; a murderous, sadistic and vile tyrant who has allowed and encouraged unspeakable acts of savagery on his neighbors, his citizens and even his own family. The man is horrid on every meaningful level.
You may be a Bush-hater, or a principled opponent of the war, but pull your vapid, empty head out of your ass (cranial-recto impact syndrome…) and just smarten the hell up.
Why are we even talking about a debate, instead of Bush just giving an interview? The latter sounds reasonable, if only for the reason that in our republic every elected official is supposed to be accountable to the public, especially on questions as grave as that of going to war. Actually, I’d be happy if Bush would just give a press conference; I think it’s been about a year and a half since his last one.
(Do you think they’ll ask him about democratizing Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after we do Iraq? One can hope.)
Oh, and as a quick after thought, I can only assume that the otherwise astute and eloquent Diogenes the Cynic used ‘would be war criminal’ knowing how little sense that it made.
Right, because a debate with Saddam would resolve something. If we just talked to him, we’d understand and respect his position, and not need to go to war…
BWAAAHHHAAAHHAAAAA! Oh that’s rich! The debate would resolve one of these problems! HEE HEE HOO HOO! Oh dear, I can’t breathe anymore! You’re a funny guy! wipes tear
In all seriousness, you actually believe Saddam’s debate request is sincere?!?!?!
I, for one, think he’s sincere. I’d love to see it happen, because I prefer my information with as little filtration/censorship as possible. I detest having news stories “dumbed-down.” Let me decide for myself what my opinions are.
As for the Iraqis: I think in the end we might be surprised at the level of political sophistication of the average Iraqi. I learned from my experiences in the Soviet Union that when official avenues of communication are restricted, even ordinary, uneducated people learn all sorts of ways to transmit information in spite of the restrictions. Years from now, it would make a great oral history project to interview Iraqis who have lived through this period to see exactly what they knew through official vs. unofficial channels and how they interpreted it.
If the popular wisdom in the U.S. is that American troops will be welcomed with hugs and flowers, then wouldn’t that mean that most Iraqis already know what the “real story” is with Saddam Hussein? BTW, I’m not operating under the delusion that a debate would change the outcome of the current situation, either in political or military terms. If Bush is for free speech, though, he should put his money (and his cameras) where his mouth is. If anyone wants to debunk anything said by either party, there will be plenty of time for that, either beforehand or afterward.
And did any of you actually watch Rather’s interview last night? Saddam Hussein did not demand a debate; he’s certainly reconciled himself to the distinct possibility that there will be a U.S. invasion, but said he would welcome the opportunity to speak his piece. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to evaluate both sides on my own terms.
In fact, Bush gave a “major address” last night, which pre-empted regular programming. It set out to present all the good things America would do for Iraqia and other Arabs. It ran before the Rather interview with Saddam. In effect, it responded to Saddam’s nonsense, but on Bush’s terms, not Saddam’s
So, Bush upstaged the Saddam interview. I don’t know whether his motivation was to stick it to CBS. They deserved it, for having rejected the Administration’s request to alow Condi Rice to respond to Saddam’s lies.
Of course, there could never be an actual debate between the two men for security reasons.
If you want dueling prepared statements, you already have that. Saddam won’t cooperate with inspectors, change the subject?