George has decided to "cut and run" on the invitation to debate Iran's president. Since he doesn't have the nerve to face his enemies like a man (but will send our sons and daughters to fight his battles), I ask this question.
2006-08-29 14:12:46 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Reagan cut and ran when Hezbollah bombed the Marine barracks in the 80's. Bush the first cut and ran in the first Iraq war. Nixon cut and ran during Vietnam. Cut and run is the Republican motto.
And if you think any inbred Republican can win any debate your nuts. Here take a look at this and tell me if you think Bush would be any good at a debate http://www.cutepiggy.com/george_w_bush.html
2006-08-29 14:18:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, so people are saying, it's better to bomb, kill and destroy, that's your choice rather than talk. What wrong with you people. We talk first then IF NEED BE we fight. And when we do, just how many fronts do you think we can have.
As for Bush vs. the Iranian President, this is what I posted in another question.
This is what I believe happened when Bush heard about the challenge.
Bush, shrugs and smiles that cocky smile of his and says, "Yeah, I'll debate him, when is this?"
Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and everyone else INCLUDING the interns look at each other with horror and said, "No, No, No Mr. President, that would not be a good idea,... we, ah don't talk to them remember, they're terrorist, you know the bad guys."
Bush, "Oh yeah. Ok, I take it back, you know I'm the President so I'm not going to talk to that guy but I can still bomb him right?"
2006-08-29 21:24:24 · answer #2 · answered by choyryu 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The President of the United States has no responsibility to talk to or debate anyone. This country is not going to run begging and pleading to a homicidal fool like Ahmadinijad.
If you think the leader of your country should kowtow to every two-bit jerk around the world, you are misinformed and too stupid to be believed.
2006-08-29 21:17:25 · answer #3 · answered by Karl the Webmaster 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He does the correct thing. You don't talk to terrorists. You kill them. If they were to meet our President would kick his dirty a##. Anyway,what's to debate. The Iran man is wrong. Jimmy Carter said they would pay,and he was right. Ronald Reagan got the hostages out. Jimmy Carter was even worse than slick willy,if that's possible.Remy D didn't tell the whole story,as usual with immoral dems.
2006-08-29 21:22:39 · answer #4 · answered by sumrtanman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are very misguided. It's often not proper to "debate" with your enemies if you feel they're just trying to sucker you in, like liberals often do. As for Mike Wallace, it was not a "debate," but rather an interview, which was nevertheless a treacherous act of betrayal on Wallace's part.
No, I'm not opposed to "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press." I am, however opposed to "Freedom from Responsibility."
2006-08-29 21:17:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He pretty much held his own against Mike Wallace. What chance does Bush have?
2006-08-29 21:15:40 · answer #6 · answered by Greg T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush.
2006-08-29 21:25:34 · answer #7 · answered by imnoangel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The moderator....and then he will write a book about it
2006-08-29 21:29:47 · answer #8 · answered by Be-hive Baaaby 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋