2006-10-13 01:26:49 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
George is afraid of two things:
1. The president of Iran has a better command of English than George.
2. George thinks he will lose credibility with the die-hard bigots by acknowledging that he is only a human at the same level as any other head of state.
George would rather sit back in the cookie, yelling "Bring 'em on" and other such dignified, diplomatic consensus-building pronouncements.
2006-10-13 01:30:26 · answer #1 · answered by nora22000 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
that's ordinary. Debating a lame duck imbecile. Questionable (yet relaxing). ‘My puppy Goat’ consists of concepts. Obama vs. McCain? McCain has no probability. he will look (and sound) like the day till now as we talk’s guy. To get an concept, look into that old movie, ‘The Candidate’ (1972). McCain would have as a lot allure as Crocker Jarmon. The demographic is replacing to youthful electorate. (examine those Neilson rankings) Now, I placed this to negaduck_ inspite of diehard Neocon help (and those people will by no skill study) with the legacy of the present ‘administration’ the people will call for substitute and evaluate this - Florida gained't ensue back! (that's seventy seven,000 votes dude) enable's wish Mr. Obama has better substance and conviction than bill McKay (Robert Redford's personality). Hillary is the 'authentic deal' and hard. It is smart to dodge that.
2016-10-16 04:45:18 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't accept it because there was no real point to it. Its not like it was an presidential candidate debate. The president of iran just wanted to make Bush look stupid.
2006-10-13 01:32:26 · answer #3 · answered by Niecy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am Anti-Bush all the way! BUT!
I actually agree with him on this a little.
I think he should have a meeting but not a debate.
The second meeting should involve more nations, especially nations adjacent to Iran to discuss reasons for even having nuclear technology and reasons to discontinue such technology.
I agree with Bush's stance on North Korea as far as refusing bilateral talks. Clinton bargained "aid" and they did not build nor test nukes during the 90's which worked BUT was that right? Should the US be ransomed for every poor nation that threatens building nukes?
Clinton's pact with North Korea did work
BUT
Bush should have a better pact to resolve this issue now.
If everyone would just agree on severe sanctions, North Korea's government would most likely self-destruct, and wouldn't that be nice?
2006-10-13 01:37:29 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. Zhivago 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he does a TERRIBLE job when hes put on the spot... the only thing thats keeping his head above water is all the professionals he has standing behind him that generate the good ideas "he" comes up with... watch what happens when hes asked a question off gaurd before hes been breifed on the subject... he sweats like a whore in church!!
2006-10-13 01:35:51 · answer #5 · answered by chrystal_lynn2002 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because there was nothing to debate. Should FDR have debated Hitler? I think not. Hitler was in blatant violation of the Versailles Treaty, Nejad is in blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Period.
2006-10-13 01:43:23 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Debating an angry intelligent man? Not a good idea for Dubbaya. Besides, he would not want to have to confront the real issues. The Iranian president (whose name we both seem to have forgotten) might bring the focus to American expansionism. this will go against the American claim of fighting terrorism,
2006-10-13 01:38:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They wouldn't televise it to Iran, and we know Bush is right, so what is the point, the media and the left would only twist it like everything else
2006-10-13 01:30:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
What is the point of debating with a sociopathic terrorist? What does that prove?
2006-10-13 03:24:29 · answer #9 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, George W.Bush don't have to argue with Iran's leader.
just don't have to....
2006-10-13 01:34:06 · answer #10 · answered by Jason N 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋