Its funny that MyDD conveniently left out the other more relevant revelation from that interview where Saddam declared that he will not destroy the missiles he has. The missile motors were illegally imported into Iraq. They are also banned under the treaty that ended the gulf war aggression for their range. But what’s important to MyDD is Saddam wants to argue about the war with Bush. Very lame Mathew.

"revelation from that interview where Saddam declared that he will not destroy the missiles he has"

Quote please.

well yeah, you got to figure he figures bush is attacking no matter what. better writers than i have talked about the catch-22--turn in no weapons we attack, weapons found we attack, include the missiles in the 12000 page report we attack---come on, we all know and saddam knows that the plan to attack iraq has been in effect for at least 4 years. so you'd have to be a brutal dictator and an idiot to disarm part of your defense if you are convinced, as bush has done so well to all the world, that the attack is inevitable. as our cia has said, he most likely scenario for hussein to use WMD is under invasion....

...yeah, but wouldn't that debate be freaking hilarious? Talk about great television! Can you picture Saddam doing the Al Gore stalk-menacingly-about-the-stage move? And can you picture how terrified and incoherent G-Dub would be when faced with an honest-to-god evildoer? With a big scary moustache, no less? Awesome.

Sorry Mathew, I should have said - Very lame JB.

Saddam Challenges Bush To Debate

(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.

In the Spin Room, Bush will be expected to have US Secretary of State Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfield, and British PM Tony Blair. Hussein will
have Iraqi VP Tarik Aziz and French President Jaques Chirac.

The Bush Administration's official response was that it was "not a serious statement," but insiders in Karl
Rove's political shop report that the Bush team is just trying to manage expectations. RNC Consultant
Karen Hughes commented that "Hussein has convinced the Arab League, France, and Germany, and has proven that
he is a tough debater. The President does not expect to be able counter Sadaam's tricky debate skills."

According to internal polling data compiled by Matthew Dowd, Bush's approval rating outside the US stands at
a mere 12%, with nearly 65% of foreigners thinking the American President as either "weak-minded" or "just plain dumb." Rove's strategy is to allow this perception to continue so that "as long as he doesn't
fall down on stage, the world will be impressed with Bush's showing."

The Bush Administration has also reportedly decided to ask PBS NewsHour Anchor Jim Lehrer to moderate the
debate because of his "impartiality, and the way he lets Bush get away with anything in debates."

The above is a combo of truth and fiction by my site's West Coast Correspondent, Lee Fink.

I can see this now:

BUSH: And we have proven, and Colin Powell has presented evidence of Iraq's non-compliance...

SADDAM: *Sigh* *Gasp* (rolling of eyes)

BUSH: and that Saddam is in violation of the UN resolutions....

SADDAM: *Heavy Sigh* (rolling of eyes) *Sigh*

BUSH: and should step down to allow full disarmament of Iraq.

SADDAM: *WHeeze* *Sigh*

Sounds good to me.

Saddam would just shoot the bastard

It'd be great for ratings, no wonder the media is publicizing it. Outside the US, Bush will be portrayed as a wimp for not doing it.... sound familiar?

Clearly Saddam hasn't been briefed about the most dangerous weapon in Bush's arsenal, far more lethal than smart bombs (or smart candidates)--those notorious "low expectations." Even the ruthless survivor Saddam might surrender after the US mass media finished spinning such a debate.

Sounds like a lot of liberals here are rooting for Saddam. And then we hear "why do people say we're anti-American? why do people keep voting against us on issues of national security?" Sigh.

I suppose FDR should have debated Hitler as to whether Germany should control Europe or not... we could have avoided all of that D-Day unpleasantness.

That's BS, Mike. Rooting against Bush and his ill-considered invasion of Iraq is hardly tantamount to rooting for Saddam. Personally, I'm rooting for sensible, not rash, action.

OK, the shoe doesn't fit you, Bragan but don't you see how ludicrous it is for Saddam to propose a debate. There's lots of liberals who would say, "yeah, a debate.... that's what we should do."

And these guys wonder why polls show that Democrats rank REALLY low on national security.

Saying or implying that disagreement with Bush supports the enemy makes one no different from a Communist or Nazi (or other such tyrant).

A lot of conservatives have no idea that what they often support and dream of is actually quite similar to what it was like under Soviet communism. Sometimes they twist capitalism and freedom to make them seem so disgusting (which they're not). Maybe they were planted here during the cold war... (hmmm perhaps I have my idea for my screenplay)

Eric,
Please contrast "disagreement with Bush" with statements from the anti-war crowd that "Bush is Hitler" or "Bush is the real tyrant/aggressor" or "Bush is evil." The worst thing I've heard from this bile-filled crowd about Iraq's tyrant is "ok, we admit Saddam is a bad man."

Or (sorry to pick on you, GaDem)
"Saddam would just shoot the bastard". Why not
"The bastard would just shoot Bush."?

Now conservatives value freedom of speech too. I contend that even the folks I've mentioned have the right to say what I've quoted above.

But the people who say such things should not be surprised to be ridiculed, and (ultimately) to be democratically voted out of power.

Mike,

Not familiar with Godwin's Law?

You can stop posting now.

Mike does not seem to link a variety of points together that many of us have, from Bush's grandfather helping finance the Nazis, to the precipitous loss of constitutional rights due to a "war" against unseen enemies that has no clear objectives or end in sight, i.e. perpetual war for perpetual peace. That Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al are the direct inheritors of the Bill Casey view of post WW2, which is that the US could and should rule the world using whatever means neccessary, including assasinations, petty fascist dictators like Allende, Batista, the Shah---I mean, what the hell, we have backed in the open or under the table every fascist type country imaginable and undermined almost every democratic effort conceivable (ask me for more examples)...so for some of us who have read our history carefully it is not as huge a leap to imagine these guys are the same kind of guys who stood with Hitler in the early 30s, and not a big leap to see Bush as Hitler. Does that help?

Bush is not the true president of the united states. He is an evil man and if you think we are "free" read the patriot act

Al Alessi,
Please, oh PLEASE, give your above post to whoever is the Democratic nominee, and have him (or her) quote it in their first debate with Bush!

Minder,
Since I am quoting others (see "Abe" in the next thread) then Godwin's law does not apply. Sorry.

GaDem,
What do you think of Saddam? I would like to compare your description of Bush with that of a man who gasses his own people, shoots his confidants, and, given the chance, would subject YOU and anyone you care about who is American to a poisonous death via chemical or nuclear weapons.

So, is Saddam AS BAD as Bush?

Mike the problem with neo-cons like you is that you see things in black and white. To small minded people like yourself being anti-war means being pro-Saddam, and that just isnt the case.

A person can support his country's troops without supporting the war they are being sent off to die in.

Almost everyone who is anti-war is also anti-Saddam, these people just don't see the need to start war on a nation that poses a much less significant threat than say... Al Qaeda, North Korea, China, Pakistan*, Saudi Arabia* (both terror-exporting states and both considered our "allies"). Sanctions, inspections and containment have worked to stop Saddam, why war, why now? Thats the question you refuse to answer.

Right Mike. You are so right. Let's bomb 'em. Let's bomb Osama. Oh, wait we don't know where either of them are. Let's bomb N. Korea then. And France. France is getting in the way of Justice. Germany harbors terrorists; you better believe we have enough bombs for them. I think Kissenger is wanted by some foreign governments for doing BAD BAD things, lets send him of, or we could just do Justice here. Enron bilked California for god-only-knows how much money. We're sure putting an end to that back here. hahahaha Sadam is BAADD. We have an Attorney General who is happy to indefinitely and secretly detain people of shaded skin. I know and love people of shaded skin. Who do you think I'm more scared of? WTF?

Sadam gassed his own people, BAAD. The people from the current administration armed him and backed him. Wait, that is two sentences. That is confusing me... I can't.... compute........ I'll just forget the second part. "Sadam gassed his own people" Yes yes. simple SADAM GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE. I love it. simple easy bad bad get himm (drool drool)

I agree with HD. I think most of the anti-war posters here are as anti-Saddam as you. But we disagree with the need for a war to remove him when right now he poses no credible threat to our nation. War should be a last resort not the first option. Every since Bush began his focus on Iraq, his goal has been to attack Iraq. He could care less about diplomacy or peaceful means of disarmament of Iraq. He is a warmonger plain and simple. I for one think that is dangerous.

I doubt any Democratic nominee would run with my comment Mr. Analyst, but I was only explaining why so many people are making this link between Bush and the Nazis. It's not a matter of whimsy. Are you doubting Bush's grandpoppy was tried and found guilty of helping finance the Nazis? During the war? Are you doubting Bill Casey had a US global domination agenda? Are you suggesting rights have not been curtailed in the face of a "war" potentially without limit---just when will all the terrorists be gone? Just another history lesson, Mr. A, so that it doesn't seem only name-calling---Naziism/fascism by definition is when the press, the military and the corporate come together in power under a strong nationalist banner. What exactly are we missing from that definition in the current scenario?

Ced-
I'm sure many anti-war people are anti-Saddam, but it seems that many more have much more passion for discrediting/disabling/eliminating Bush than Saddam. Maybe you're giving them the benefit of a doubt that the terrible things they say about Bush, they also think (and worse) about Saddam. I guess I'm not willing to presume that.

Why not? Hmm. I guess I believe that many on the left are much more eager for the downfall of a conservative American who has much impact on their own lives, than that of a foreign tyrant who apparently only kills many in his own country and doesn't affect them. Am I incorrect?

Mike,

More or less, I think you are. The "left", and much of the rest of the world, sees Bush as more of an immediate threat than Saddam.

HD-
The problem with "neocons" like me is that I don't believe that EVERYTHING is relative and has shades of gray. There are SOME absolutes. There are some things that are wrong. I am willing to concede that some people think that the Iraq war is not justified. They may think they have evidence to support that.

I believe the war is justified in that Saddam Hussein is a direct danger to us by his past behavior. A quick list of things that he has done
1) He has, in his own personal interest, invaded not one, but TWO neighboring countries
2) He has been given direct orders to disarm by the UN, and has refused to do so
3) He has outwardly called the United States his enemy.

Actually, none of the other counties you list(China, NKorea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) has done any of these things. And at least two of these countries are NOT trying to develop WMD to give to terrorists. I'm not saying everything is hunky-dory with North Korea and the others, its just that Iraq IS a more immediate concern.

BTW, we ARE at war with Al Qaeda. That's a thing about a war on terrorism. There's no maps with big arrows showing troop movements - most of the battles are behind the scenes.

"BTW, we ARE at war with Al Qaeda... There's no maps with big arrows showing troop movements..."

At least that is how it seems with this bungler in the White House. :) As some people say, we ARE at war, and Bush is on the other side.

"Since I am quoting others (see "Abe" in the next thread) then Godwin's law does not apply. Sorry."

That's as weak as one of Powell's linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq. You're not quoting anything. Sorry.

Mike, Saddam has no capability to attack any of his neighbors anymore. He has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. He is not at all close to developing nuclear weapons. He is contained. He is not an imminent threat to the United States.

Of course, all this is besides the point, as you are one of the few remaining neo-cons to apparently believe this is about Saddam or WMD. Iraq is a political and strategic decision to try to remake the middle east. The theory goes that we kick ass, take over to cheering throngs who want to live together in democracy, and they will then elect leaders who love America. Then like dominoes Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia will turn into happy democracies through force or coersion.
The debate is no longer about Saddam. It is about Bush and whether or not his imperialist ambitions are noble, criminal, or stupid.

I actually hope to one day see Saddam and Uday, like Milosovic, on trial at the World Court. (BTW shouldn’t somebody be working on putting Idi Amin on trial? Surely our good friends the Saudis would have no trouble handing over this monster.) In the meantime, however, I do not support the US taking of innocent lives to get at Saddam, and there is no way to get Saddam at this time without killing innocents. God may view such murders as harshly as those perpetrated by Saddam and I don’t particularly want to spend an eternity with Saddam.

Pol Junkie-

I agree. I would prefer that discussion start with a basic grasp of what DPG and PNAC are about. If we're just debating RNC spin-points, the terrorists have already won.

Re the 3 crimes Mr. Analyst lists---at least one of those invasions was with our encouragement and material/infromation support, so what does that make us? The US sells all kinds of weaponry, in fact it seems likely we sold or gave Iraq much of what they have for chemical and poison. So what does that make us? And calling us an enemy? Gee, gosh, there's a reason to invade.

I think that those of us on "the left" are not really thrilled with the idea of Saddam Hussein debating Bush as much as the idea of ANYONE debating Bush. He has gone virtually unquestioned -- by which I mean directly challenged -- for years, and he needs to justify his policies.

Someone should debate Bush. Not Hussein, though. Ideally someone who isn't a mass murderer.

--Kynn

Bush debate Saddam? Geez, hasn't Bush done enough damage to our reputation internationally?