a Texas Debate.
Posted on 02/26/2003 4:06:45 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Bush should accept Saddam's debate offer - unless he's yella
Matt Treadwell
It's the most constructive idea I've heard since the American network media jumped on the president's "Showdown with Saddam" bandwagon. And the surprising part is - now brace yourself - it came from Iraq's "evil dictator" himself.
CBS news anchor Dan Rather reported Monday Iraqi President Saddam Hussein proposed participating in a debate with President Bush via live radio and television satellite linkup.
Rather is the first American journalist to be granted an interview with Saddam in a decade. The interview has been shown in portions throughout this week on CBS. The final segment is set to air at 9 p.m. on a special edition of "60 Minutes."
"I am ready, to conduct a direct dialogue with your president," Saddam told Rather. "I will say what I want and he will say what he wants.
"This will be an opportunity for him, if he's committed to war, this will be an opportunity to convince the world."
This is a golden opportunity for the American president. This is his chance to stand against his (and his daddy's) adversary face-to-face, man-to-man and convince the world he's been right in his push for war in Iraq all along.
"This is something proposed in earnest out of my respect for the people of the United States and my respect for the people of Iraq and the people of the world." Saddam told Rather. "I call for this because war is not a joke.
"As leaders, why don't we use this opportunity?"
Saddam's request seems reasonable enough. If war is the answer to ending the dictator's reign in Iraq, then what should Bush have against engaging his foe in a discussion on the world's stage?
But the White House isn't so hot on putting the word-bumbling "leader of the free world" in a satellite ring with the leader of "the axis of evil."
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer told CBS Saddam's proposal is a ridiculous attempt to stall the looming war set to bring him down.
"This is not about debate," he told CBS news correspondent Mark Knoller. "This is about disarmament and complying to the world's instructions that Iraq disarm."
I beg to differ. War is always up for debate. If America is in the right, it should have nothing to lose from a face-to-face discussion with "the enemy" being broadcast via international media.
What more could Iraq do to stall its demise than the United Nations already has done so effectively?
Oh, wait, I forgot the United Nations is ineffective according to the White House. The world peace-keeping organization is failing by slowing America's rush to war.
I am getting sick of the he-said, she-said game going on between the Untied States and Iraq.
"You have weapons of mass destruction."
"No I don't."
"Your missiles violate U.N. restrictions."
"No they don't."
"Yes."
"No."
"Yes."
"No."
Some days it seems the world has turned into an elementary school playground.
Nonetheless, Iraq has until the end of the week to begin destroying missiles U.N. weapons inspectors say violate restrictions.
If Iraq fails to comply to U.N. demands, the world organization will have cause to draft a resolution submitted Monday by the United States, Britain and Spain to begin preparations for war.
There is little a Saddam-Bush debate could do to slow a war march being paced by the United Nations.
On the contrary - if Bush is firm in his case against Iraq, he could speed up the process by calling Saddam to task in an international forum.
If Bush is firm in his case, he has little to fear by addressing Saddam man-to-man across satellite linkups.
Neither Bush nor Saddam are worth more or less than their citizens, whose lives are in the hands of the two leaders if they engage in war.
Bush was elected to work for the American people and is accountable to them. He should jump at the chance to engage the man his propaganda has demonized and show the country he is not merely spinning reality but indeed speaking the truth.
The only viable reason for the White House's denial to Saddam's sensible and respectable request is that it fears it has something to lose - such as the support of the hawks who have rallied behind it.
Saddam has extended his hand honorably as the bigger man by inviting Bush to engage him.
Now, the question remains: Is Bush man enough to stand up for his convictions and receptively engage Saddam?
Or will he cower behind American fears hoping the unjust war he has created will run its course - as seems to be the case?
I tend to believe the second option will be pursued, which is kind of reassuring. It shows our president is just as chicken as the Department of Homeland Security wants us to be.
Terrorists: 3, United States: 0.
Matt Treadwell is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at treadwe7@msu.edu.
Sounds great..
send us your coordinates so we can translate our first message.
"W"
What a pea-brain.
Why give Saddam credibility?
It's the one thing he can't buy, beg, borrow or steal at this point, but we can hand it to him on a silver platter with bonehead ideas like this one.
Then there was Wellington's debate with Napoleon at Waterloo, Meade's debate with Lee at Gettysburg, and Crockett's debate with Santa Ana in San Antonio.
We won't even talk about David and Goliath or Samson and the Philistines ...
a Texas Debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.