Why doesn't Bush accept the debate with Ahmadineyad?

Question

Theoretically, he's the one who defends freedom and peace and should be able to expose Ahmadineyad as a wicked tyrant, or else?

I'm a Spaniard, and luckily Bush isn't my representative... Ours is not much better, though.

Spain was the place where a B-52 property of the USA carrying 4 H-bombs (not simple nukes) crashed in the late 60's, with Franco still in power and, of course, allied with the States. Why the bombs didn't explode, we don't know. The fact is that they could have, therefore we might know better than others what a nuke is (of course, not better than Japan).

Answer 1

Why should President Bush debate with Ahmadineyad? Ahmadieneyad is a nothing leader with a big mouth, that is trying to deflect attention away from demands of the west, and the United Nations. You could have asked this question without the comments about our President.

Answer 2

Logseman... What exactly is wrong with defending freedom and peace, ever, anywhere? Oh wait, this is coming from a man who's country gave in to the terrorists. You know what your country accomplished? Spain basically told the terrorists worldwide - bomb us and we will do anything you want us to. Are you even capable of seeing anything wrong with using that logic? Anyone, anywhere in the world with a brain is, including the terrorists.

Unreal, the ignorance of so many of our own citizens in regards to responding to questions like this using it as an opportunity simply to bash President Bush. The terrorists consider people like you as "user friendly".

The more interesting debate at the UN and in front of the world would be between Ahmadineyad and the Mohammad Reza Khatami, Secretary-General of the opposition party inside Iran, the Islamic Iran Participation Front. Ahmadineyad would not stand a chance with this man politicall or intellectually. Mohammad Reza Khatami would expose to the world the true intentions of the Ahmadineyad Regime. Not gonna happen though. President Ahmadineyad is merely a puppet of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Ayatollah Khamenei is known for his radical anti-Western policies. It is Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that actually called for the destruction of Israel.

PS.. "Spain was the place where a B-52 property of the USA carrying 4 H-bombs (not simple nukes) crashed in the late 60's, with Franco still in power and, of course, allied with the States. Why the bombs didn't explode, we don't know. The fact is that they could have, therefore we might know better than others what a nuke is (of course, not better than Japan)."

Then perhaps a citizen of Spain should realize the urgency of stopping Iran from potentially creating nuclear weaponry at some point. Is it wise to insinuate that the President of the US is somehow negligent in attempting to stop this? I mean, do we see the President of Spain stepping up to do anything?

Answer 3

Ahmadineyad would not be exposed as a tyrant. If you've seen in interviews he doesn't come across that way. Bush won't debate him because he sees it for what it is, a publicity stunt. The other reason is if it went badly for Bush it would be a major embarrassment to the united states. Bush wouldn't have to stick his foot in his mouth in order for the debate to be seen as a failure. He wants to paint the Iranian president as a raving mad man. If they have a debate and Ahmadineyad comes across as calm and reasonable then it would make it more difficult for Bush to justify military action later.

Answer 4

There's no advantage in having such a debate, except for Ahmadineyad, who could simply claim a victory no matter what the actual outcome was. If Ahmadineyad is a "wicked tyrant," that can be exposed without a debate.

JMB

Answer 5

There are several reasons why the U.S. shouldn't honor Ahmadinejad with a face to face meeting with Bush of any type. Ahmadinejad is playing a lethal game with the rest of the world and he is getting away with it because of people like you. Ahmadinejad wants to increase his prestige within the islamic world by doing whatever damage he can to the "great satan." He's a state sponsor of terror and he is pursuing nuclear weapons. He has no intention of halting his nuclear weapons program for any reason, only buying time through the U.N. appeasers' indecision. You should know all about appeasers, you folks canned Aznar, an honorable man if there ever was one, to appease the terrorists. If Bush debated Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad would make all sorts of outlandish accusations which reasonable people (probably not liberals) would know were ridiculous, but the islamic nutbags would lap it up like hungry dogs. Al Jazeera would twist and spin everything to make the U.S. look more like a "great satan" which needs to be attacked and the islamofascists would have a huge public relations victory. Why would the U.S. want to help promote Ahmadinejad's insanity?

The United States has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Iran is a state sponsor of terror and they are now terrorizing the free world with their nuclear enrichment. We all know how North Korea hoodwinked the Clinton administration with their extortion deal, we're not going to play that game with Iran when we know what the outcome will be.

Why do you people all whine about how the U.S. should defer to the U.N. and the rest of the world in international affairs, but when push comes to shove with whack jobs like NK's Kim Jong Il and Iran's Ahmadinejad, you all want the U.S. to specifically kiss their butts and fix the problems with money and concessions? Why are NK and Iran the U.S.' problem and not the rest of the world's?

Answer 6

Aside from the bush-bashing, the simple fact is that Ahmadinejad
represents a terrorist state that the US (for exceedingly good reasons, such as their taking of hostages in the late 70's) has not had direct relations with for over 20 yrs.

Why should he be allowed to have a platform to spread his propaganda by "debating" the leader of a superpower? While Bush may be a fundamentalist, and speaks poorly, he still doesn't openly call for the complete destruction of Iran (we are, after all, The Great Satan to their government, right?) nor, since we ARE capable of it, do we actually go and destroy Iran. Given the option, do you really think that they would do the same for us? As relatively poor as Bush's record has been, he is not the one purging schools of professors that are not devout enough, nor is he the one in a oil-rich nation trying to claim that they need nuclear power.

Ahmadinejad can debate himself into a UN sponsored sanction for all I care - this is entirely a distraction to buy time for the nuclear program, and hope that the Security Council shows some cracks.

Lastly, I have no problem when the leader of my country doesn't take time to stage a debate with anyone who asks for one. I like to think that they have more pressing matters to worry about. Like nuclear proliferation.

Answer 7

Because if he argues with him then Iran can splice the argument and make Bush look like an idiot and boost support for the Irans and give them less trust in America. Ahmadineyad is expelling all Liberal teachers in there colleges so the control over the people is greater.

Answer 8

because there is no upside for Bush......to debate him...would give him legitimacy , as if he is on equal footing with the American President, which he is not......

people say to debate Ahmadineyad, to expose his policies, plans and his true nature......BUT that could only happen if he told the truth.......which he will not...so no point...on the Wallace interview he said he had no issue with the Jews....just didn't want them in Israel.....we all know that is BS....he has said so himself in other forums....

and the debate would just become a "soundbite" haven...for the Arab world and the leftists, including those in the media, with an anti-American and anti-Bush agenda

Answer 9

Well, the reason is obvious. If Bush debates him then he makes Ahmadinejad look like a reasonable man. This would go against the way Bush has painted/portrayed this man....as a lunatic, terrorist, murderer...etc etc. It would make the invasion of Iran a harder sell.

Answer 10

If we don't know where each of them stand by now then heaven help us. That's like asking the Pope to have a debate with Charles Manson about what size waffer to use during communion. It's a stupid idea.