FORUMS »»
GALLERY »»
RESOURCES »»
HOME »»
I know I've made a big deal about the whole concept of Bush and debates in the past, but today I was struck with a little déjà vu when I clicked on the CNN website and saw this story:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end problems in the world."But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.
The White House called the offer to debate Bush a "diversion" from international concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Reuters reported.
Sound familiar? It is. In the month before Bush launched the Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein made an almost identical gesture:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- CBS News reported Monday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has challenged President Bush to a live international television and radio debate via satellite, saying, "As leaders, why don't we use this opportunity?""I am ready ... to conduct a direct dialogue, a debate, with your president," Saddam was quoted as telling news anchor Dan Rather in a three-hour interview. "I will say what I want, and he will say what he wants."
If Bush is "committed to war," Saddam said, this would be his chance to "convince the world."
When Saddam made that proposal back in 2003, I thought it would be a good idea for Bush to engage in a debate with Saddam. After all, Saddam was right, this was war we are talking about. Even if the debate accomplished nothing, at least the historians could look back and surmise that everything was done that could be done to avoid bloodshed, including some attempt at civility (if debates are representative of such things). Unfortunately, Bush brushed off Saddam's proposal as a joke, and the idea disappeared from the headlines. A few weeks later, we were engaged in 'Shock and Awe'. Today, the response to Ahmadinejad was pretty much the same thing: avoid the issue.
What is Bush afraid of? Losing? He lost the debates in the 2004 presidential campaign (by most accounts) and it is generally agreed that it is not his strong suit (nor is any other kind of unscripted conversation about anything serious in nature). I watched those debates 2 years ago, and while I was disappointed in Kerry's performance, I came away with the conclusion that Bush would lose a debate to your average high school senior. It's well documented that Bush struggles when he strays away from the talking points.
Another reason he'd refuse is to save face. He's already called Iraq and Iran part of the 'axis of evil', and I suppose it would disappoint his base if he actually had a direct conversation with 'evil'. How proud would we all be if the brave George Bush actually went mono y mono with EVIL? EVIL! But no, Bush is gonna puss out. He doesn't stand a chance.
I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself all over again. The August 31st UN deadline is only a couple days away. If Bush's reason for refusing Saddam's proposal was that he had no interest in avoiding conflict, let's all hope that his reasons this time are different. Lets all hope.
Join the discussion in the forums here.
