Saddam challenges Bush to televised debate

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/...ain541427.shtml

 

(CBS) In an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein has challenged President George W. Bush to a live, international television and radio debate about the looming war.

 

Saddam envisions it as being along the lines of U.S. presidential campaign debates. The Iraqi president also flatly denies that his al-Samoud missiles are in violation of United Nations' mandates and indicates he does not intend to destroy them or pledge to destroy them as demanded by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix had set a deadline for at least a promise by this weekend.

 

Responding to Saddam's proposal, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer tells CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller that it's "not a serious statement."

 

Fleischer said, "This is not about a debate. This is about disarmament and complying with the worlds instructions that Iraq disarm."

 

As for Saddam's denial of possession weapons of mass destruction, Fleischer said Saddam "is not facing reality on the issue of the al-Samoud missiles, why would his other statements have creditability?"

 

Fleischer said it would be more helpful to the world if Saddam engaged in disarmament and not debates.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain readied a measure that could lead to military action while war opponents introduced a call for more inspections.

 

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock will introduce the resolution on behalf of London and Washington at a council meeting Monday afternoon, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

"The best way to protect America is to find the killers before they kill us," President Bush told a meeting of U.S. governors at the White House.

 

The U.S. British resolution is expected to be accompanied by a deadline for a vote, which a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said is expected by mid-March.

 

The resolution will state that Iraq remains in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions ordering its disarmament and refer to "serious consequences," the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

It does not call for "all necessary means" to be used against Iraq.

 

The United States and Britain believe a declaration that Iraq is in "further material breach" would be enough to pave the way for military action against Saddam.

 

French President Jacques Chirac, meanwhile, announced that France, Germany and Russia have submitted a proposal Monday in the United Nations for step-by-step disarmament of Iraq, part of a European drive to counter U.S. pressure for military action.

 

"The aim is to establish a timetable for Iraq's disarmament, program by program, relating to weapons of mass destruction," Chirac told reporters before talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

 

The U.S. is hoping to win the nine council votes necessary to pass a resolution — and thus put the pressure on war skeptics like France, China and Russia, to either use their vetoes or acquiesce to military action.

 

The idea is that none of the three, who have criticized the U.S. for pushing a war without an international consensus, will want to be seen blocking a resolution with consensus support.

 

In Beijing, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged Chinese support for the resolution authorizing force against Saddam, but the Chinese stood by their position that U.N. inspections should continue.

 

France reiterated its long-held position that a new resolution on Iraq was "neither useful nor necessary" and that weapons inspections should continue and be reinforced.

 

Russia issued a strongly worded statement opposing a war over Iraq. The Foreign Ministry said, "Russia intends to use its full arsenal of diplomatic means in order to resolve the current critical situation around Iraq through political methods."

 

The United States has said it may go ahead with an attack even if it doesn't win Security Council approval.

 

The Security Council vote could depend heavily on the next report by chief inspector Hans Blix, and especially upon Iraq's reaction to Blix's call for the destruction of all Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which experts say violate range limits.

 

Iraq, which contends the missiles are still in a testing stage, has not refused to destroy them but has asked Blix to reconsider, claiming the missiles don't exceed the 93-mile limit once loaded with warheads and guidance systems.

 

But Blix said Iraq had increased the diameter of the Al Samoud in violation of a 1994 order from the previous U.N. inspectors, and that computer simulations showed the missile exceeded the limit. A larger diameter means the missile has the potential to travel farther.

 

U.N. inspectors now estimate Iraq has between 100 and 120 of the missiles, according to diplomatic sources.

 

Blix is also expressing skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed the stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent. Blix told a magazine he found it "a bit odd" that Baghdad, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," had no records of the substances' destruction.

 

But Iraqi Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohamed Amin repeated claims that Iraq is "clean" of weapons of mass destruction, and said Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors in an attempt to prove it.

 

He said a U.N. team will come to Iraq on March 2 to check the soil for proof of weapons' destruction.

 

Amin also cited as an example of Iraq's cooperation its agreement to let American U-2 spy planes fly over its territory to support the work of the inspectors. He said Iraq was working on plans for flights by French Mirage fighters and German drones.

 

Separately, the United States on Monday overcame a hurdle in military preparations with Turkey's Cabinet agreeing to the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops, allowing for a possible northern front against Iraq.

Turkey's parliament was expected to vote Tuesday on whether to allow the troops. A deadlock on the issue was broken when Washington offered Turkey $5 billion in aid and $10 billion in loans to cushion its economy in a war.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Now THIS is Must-See-TV.

[Guest JMA]

Man, Bush sure is a chickenshit. Hell, he would probably lose in a debate with Sadaam. And am I the only one who wishes Ari N. would STFU? I think the best way to solve this dispute is a fight to the death between Sadaam and Bush. Of course if Bush dies that means we're stuck with Cheny.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

The way I see it, why not? I mean, they're pretty much doomed anyway as the inspectors get closer and closer to hard indisputable evidence, so why not have some fun before all the killing?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I think the best way to solve this dispute is a fight to the death between Sadaam and Bush. Of course if Bush dies that means we're stuck with Cheny.

Bush's baseball pitching isn't bad. If given a grenade, he'd stand a good chance.

 

But anyway, I demand that they hire Samuel L Jackson to be Saddam's english translation voice.

[Guest El Satanico]

Now this would be worth a PPV buy.

 

I can see it now...Vince McMahon being the promoter.

[cawthon777 0]

Man, Bush sure is a chickenshit. Hell, he would probably lose in a debate with Sadaam. And am I the only one who wishes Ari N. would STFU? I think the best way to solve this dispute is a fight to the death between Sadaam and Bush. Of course if Bush dies that means we're stuck with Cheny.

Yeah, let's forget all the resolutions Saddam has ignored and leave his fate up to a debate. Now THAT'S good foreign policy...

 

If you actually give this story legitimacy then you're letting Saddam win the PR war, which is all it's about anyway. You believe he would do this debate given the opportunity? The only reason he brought it up was because he knew Bush would not accept, nor should he.

[Guest JMA]

The only reason he brought it up was because he knew Bush would not accept, nor should he.

Maybe he was afraid he would lose in a debate with a dictator (which he would).

[Guest Some Guy]

Saddam wouldn't accept, Bush would have a sniper pick him off if he showed.

It's just a silly PR move by Saddam that will only be taken seriously by the anti-Americans adn the war protesters. No one else will, because it's bullshit.

If Hitler challenged FDR to a debate on whether or not it was right to exterminate Jews and FDR refused would he have been a pussy too?

[Guest JMA]

If Hitler challenged FDR to a debate on whether or not it was right to exterminate Jews and FDR refused would he have been a pussy too?

FDR wasn't a moron (unlike our current fearless leader).

[Guest Some Guy]

HUH?

 

What does being a moron or whatever have to do with having balls?

 

I picked Hitler and FDR because FDR is a Liberal icon and Hitler was an evil dictator. You obviously won't answer my hypothetical, you prefer to insult the President (without cause) instead. How come?

[Guest JMA]

HUH?

 

What does being a moron or whatever have to do with having balls?

 

I picked Hitler and FDR because FDR is a Liberal icon and Hitler was an evil dictator. You obviously won't answer my hypothetical, you prefer to insult the President (without cause) instead. How come?

Because I don't like him. To answer your question he wouldn't be a pussy. And I'll try to keep the Bush insults to a minimum.

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't care if you insult him as long as you have a valid reason and something to back it up with, if you don't it sounds like you're just bitching about him for fun and for that to be entertaining you have to be funny and original. I've yet to read a funny or original Bush insult on this board.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Big deal -- Saddam also wanted to duel with Bush months ago. Yawn.

 

"If Hitler challenged FDR to a debate on whether or not it was right to exterminate Jews and FDR refused would he have been a pussy too?"

 

No, but Lincoln should have a big old "Vagina" billboard under his image at Mount Rushmore for not debating Jefferson Davis over slavery, tariffs and other fun topics. Stephen A. Douglas who?

 

"But anyway, I demand that they hire Samuel L Jackson to be Saddam's english translation voice."

 

No no no no no no! Have the person who does Saddam's voice on South Park. Everytime I see him on TV I keep picturing him saying to the inspectors "Re-lax..."

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Forget the debate, let's go straight to the HHH v Steiner build-up before the Royal Rumble! Arm-wrestling matches! Pose downs! Bench-pressing competitions! All while hurling shoot comments at one another!

[Guest Vern Gagne]

We all know that HHHussein doesn't put anyone over.

[cawthon777 0]

"But anyway, I demand that they hire Samuel L Jackson to be Saddam's english translation voice."

 

No no no no no no! Have the person who does Saddam's voice on South Park. Everytime I see him on TV I keep picturing him saying to the inspectors "Re-lax..."

I have you beat. Let's get Triumph the Insult Comic Dog from Conan O'Brien to be Saddam.

 

"Yes ... yes ... Bush, your country is very good ... it is a very good country ... FOR ME TO POOP ON!"

[Guest hardyz1]

I wish Ari Fleischer would have a debate with a hungry lion in an enclosed room. Douchebag.

[cawthon777 0]

I wish Ari Fleischer would have a debate with a hungry lion in an enclosed room. Douchebag.

Ari shouldn't go in there alone. Let's throw Al Gore and Tom Dashle in too.

[Guest JMA]

Ari shouldn't go in there alone. Let's throw Al Gore and Tom Dashle in too.

Don't forget Richard "The Dick" Cheany.

[Guest DrTom]

Maybe he was afraid he would lose in a debate with a dictator (which he would).

There's no possible reason for Bush to accept a "debate" with Saddam. It would never happen, and both sides know it. Saddam is just trying to stir the pot and paint Bush as weak because he needs to score all the points he can before he gets shot in the head. Insult the President and Ari Fleischer all you want, but they're right in treating something this ridiculous with healthy contempt.

 

You don't debate evil, you destroy it. End of story.

[Guest JMA]

You don't debate evil, you destroy it. End of story.

You can't destroy "evil." Evil is an intangible concept created by humans. At its base it means causing death and harm. Seeing as people will always cause death and harm (unless mankind is destroyed) you can't destroy evil. You can only destroy those who partake in it (i.e. Sadaam).

[cawthon777 0]

You don't debate evil, you destroy it.  End of story.

You can't destroy "evil." Evil is an intangible concept created by humans. At its base it means causing death and harm. Seeing as people will always cause death and harm (unless mankind is destroyed) you can't destroy evil. You can only destroy those who partake in it (i.e. Sadaam).

Did you really believe he was talking about the concept of evil, rather than those who are evil?

[Guest JMA]

Did you really believe he was talking about the concept of evil, rather than those who are evil?

Depends. I just wanted to make the distinction clear.

[Guest EricMM]

*coughandbitchcough*

 

 

I've yet to read a funny or original Bush insult on this board.

Bush wouldn't know a sound ecological policy if it bit him on the ass.

 

Oh Tag~!

[Guest hardyz1]

Insult the President and Ari Fleischer all you want, but they're right in treating something this ridiculous with healthy contempt.

I agree completely. But i wish for bad things to happen to the smarmy bastard (Fleischer). Throw Ashcroft in the mix.

 

</nothing added to debate>

[Guest cartman]

Bush cant go to a Debate with Saddam because there would be no way to write a clever script for him to follow.

 

Saddam knows that he could expose Bush for being the fucking Fraud he really is and do the worst damage he could ever do to this country...turn it's people against it's president.

 

...But wait no, that can't happen because no right-wing retards in denial of real-life would believe anything that Saddam says anyways.

 

This war is a scam to line the pockets of the right people and that's the truth. The reason we have so much interest in blowing up Iraq is because they are a threat to the Jews and jews own 60% of America. On top of that notice the fact that North Korea, being a bigger threat to our homeland, is almost completely ignored because there's no money to be made by attacking them.

[Guest JMA]

Bush cant go to a Debate with Saddam because there would be no way to write a clever script for him to follow.

Agreed.

 

Saddam knows that he could expose Bush for being the fucking Fraud he really is and do the worst damage he could ever do to this country...turn it's people against it's president.

Agreed. It's sad when someone like Sadaam is smarter than our President.

 

...But wait no, that can't happen because no right-wing retards in denial of real-life would believe anything that Saddam says anyways.

I wouldn't call everyone for the right-wing idiots. Sure, they have people like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and Savage; but that doesn't mean all conservatives are like that. I do, however, feel that liberalism is superior.

 

This war is a scam to line the pockets of the right people and that's the truth. The reason we have so much interest in blowing up Iraq is because they are a threat to the Jews and jews own 60% of America. On top of that notice the fact that North Korea, being a bigger threat to our homeland, is almost completely ignored because there's no money to be made by attacking them.

I disagree about the whole Jewish thing. It holds as much water as the whole "liberal media" myth. If anything the rich Xians own more of America. I agree about N. Korea, though.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Agreed. It's sad when someone like Sadaam is smarter than our President.

Comments like these really hurt your credibility.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The only reason he brought it up was because he knew Bush would not accept, nor should he.

Maybe he was afraid he would lose in a debate with a dictator (which he would).

Of course, Saddam has had WORLDS of experience with debating opponents, huh?

 

"I think ... OH GOD! MUSTARD GAS! ARRGGHHH!"

-=Mike --- Saddam is dumb