Bush has too much lose, if he makes an ass of himself he will lose the respect of the people of the United states, and hinder his chances of reelection.
Saddam will probably edit the entire debate, than show it to the Iraqi people. Maybe Evan lose his cool since anybody how debated with him, was simply killed.
Bush has too much lose, if he makes an ass of himself he will lose the respect of the people of the United states, and hinder his chances of reelection.
Saddam will probably edit the entire debate, than show it to the Iraqi people. Maybe Evan lose his cool since anybody how debated with him, was simply killed. :dubious:
I find that the way our government is handling this entire “terror” subject inappropriate. Bush has finally put so much emphasis on Iraq and sent so many of our troops there, we don’t even care what happened to Osama, Al-Qaeda (sp?), or even North Korea.
He’s reduced even the most intelligent citizens to: “Well I guess we have to do something with Iraq.”
Not that I think Hussein has earned the right to debate, but no one else is keeping Bush in check. Now that the White House knows how he’ll trip over his own two feet in a potentially intellectual discussion, they’ll never let him do anything on his own to make him face his own decisions.
I don’t like Hussein, but fighting Iraq does little to solve our (the United States’) problems.
Sorry for the minor hijack =\
What? I have a hard time making sense of your statement.
In order for Bush to talk to them, they need two interpreters, one for him, one for the other guy. I can only imagine how accurate the discussion would be going through two interpreters.
erm, sorry… that was a bit nonsensical.
What I mean by that: Bush, in his fairly brief period in office, has proven that he is not the most eloquent speaker this country has known. Nor is he a mental giant. By now, I imagine the White House probably attempts to keep his “impromptu” speeches (or a debate in this case) at a minimum. Lest the media obtain even more sound bytes.
Having two interpreters (one for each speaker) is standard procedure in many situations where interpreting is required, including U.S. District Court. It’s purely to keep the interpreter(s) from having their brains short-circuit from mental fatigue. I used to be a court interpreter, and after an hour or so under pressure one starts to lose speed and accuracy otherwise.
And FWIW, CBS staff reviewed the Iraqi-provided tapes and said the interpretation was quite accurate.
While I disagree with your assessment of Dub’s ability to express himself Big Perm, your point is not germane to the OP. As has been noted above, there just is no good reason, tactically or strategically, for Dub to debate Saddam. Plenty of bad reasons, though.
Because Hussein’s breath is like WMD yo!
Ringo, I generally do agree with what you are saying. Although it should be noted I think there is a degree of separation between “expressing” oneself (such as Bush did at ground zero after 9/11) and an intellectual debate. One he is a master of, the other… erm… well 
You cannot debate with a liar and terrorist. Saddam is a world class liar, Why in the world would you ever even consider a debate as a way of deciding who is right or wrong with a terrorist? Find yourself an habitual liar and try a debate with them - see who looks foolish
Having a debate pre-supposes that both parties have an equally valid point, and that each could reasonably be expected to prove his point. The debaters have to start from some sort of equivalent logical point.
By appearing on the same stage, each tacitly acknowledges that the other is entitled to equal status.
George Bush, a legally and freely elected leader, elected by a free and non-coerced citizenry, who is bound by the rule of law in a civilized society, is most certianly not the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, a despot that has his position because he has the power and the will to kill anyone who opposes him, and who can and does oppress and kill the residents of his country at will, bound by nothing but whatever sick twisted whim strikes him at the moment.
“And FWIW, CBS staff reviewed the Iraqi-provided tapes and said the interpretation was quite accurate.”
‘quite’? I would hope it was just accurate
BTW, I use interpreters both certified & not certified almost every day & there is always a little confusion.
Heres what I think: Schedual a live debate. How many second “On Air” till we pinpoint exactly where in Iraq that fuck-knuckle is and bring in a Tomahawk and solve this whole problem with one warhead.
Eh, just a thought…
Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.
Well, that’s because getting two interpreters to agree on anything is a lot like getting two economists to agree on anything. 
It is never a good idea to publicly argue with an idiot. People might not know which is the idiot.
-
-
- I have not read any but the first couple replies here, but I will still blindly toss in my own:
-
- To engage Saddam in a debate would be to imply that everything he has done can simply be explained away by mere words.
~
Let’s have them duke it out American style on Hollywood Squares or Jeopardy.
“Ziggurats for $1000 please.”
or
“I’ll take Condoleeza Rice to block.”
Son of a Bush is afraid to debate Americans! for pete’s sake! Why on earth does anyone believe he would debate, one ‘a them ya’ know, A-Rabs?
Cowards is as cowards does.
Thank you so much for your enlightening remarks, Skid. Say, I’m having a little trouble remembering the last U.S. President who debated with the American public. Can you help me?
Or perhaps you meant just meeting in debate with another American, as he did with the losing candidate in the last election, Al Gore?
If none of the above, what did you mean?
As noted above, it’s really rather silly for anyone anywhere to agree to meet in a debate where they only stand to stay even or lose.