Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to televised debate.
By on Aug 29th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to televised debate.
“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged President Bush to a televised debate and voiced defiance as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs,” Reuters reports. “The White House said Ahmadinejad’s call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a ‘diversion’ from international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush would get smoked in a televised debate with a child. If he was so sure that he’s right on this thing then he should debate in front of the world and convince everybody that Iran is wrong. Bush can’t stand up to any live people besides pre-screened audiences and a primarily lapdog press.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:38 amAs long as W has that little box strapped to his back from the first Kerry debate, he’ll do just fine!
Just fine at starting a nuclear hollocaust, that is.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:42 amDoesn’t he know that Bush cheats in televised debates?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:42 amBUSH WHITEHOUSE TO BE SUBPOENAED BY WIRETAP LAWYERS: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/BREAKING__Bush_White_House_subpoenaed_0829.html
DIGG IT HERE: http://digg.com/politics/White_House_to_be_subpoenaed_by_wiretap_lawyers
August 29th, 2006 at 11:43 ampay-per-view gold!
August 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amGo for it! Take an hour out of your fundraising, George, and debate Ahmadinejad! You’d get more coverage than the Jon Benet killer story. Wow, I’d even pay to watch that debate! Can we submit questions?: “George, please define Islamic theocracy and Islamic fascism.” (Hint: Islamic fascism does not exist).
August 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amDoes George know that he’s a Shiite? or maybe he’s just an Arab? BTW, what is a Persian George?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am#2, I’d love to see him show up with his prompter strapped on, and have someone do an electronic jam job. Deer in headlights highlight?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:58 amOnly if followed by a Death Match
This is how all wars should be fought.
Two men enter one man leaves, if they are such fervent believers let them stand by their convictions. In this case they are both certifiable lunatics.
Scorecard
Ahmadinejad clearly wins debate
Bush destroys and kills Ahmadinejad in a death match given his conditioning.
Now thats a Pay-per-view worth $49.95
August 29th, 2006 at 12:01 pmnaturally, cnn’s ‘quick vote’ asks “who do you think would win?”
http://www.cnn.com/
be sure to check out the results…
August 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pmBush is a laughing stock around the world. This Iranian nutbag is posturing himself as a hero standing up to the Great Evil U.S. because he knows Bush is too chickenshit to accept the offer and too inept to actually win.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pmJust how embarassing would it be if Ahmadinejad can pronounce “nuclear” correctly?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmcurious – am i here? – please reply…
August 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmGeorge will say he doesn’t know farsi so he can’t debate. For that matter, he doesn’t know english so he’s still got a legitimate excuse.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmI can’t find the CNN quick vote. I wanna vote. I wanna vote.
If these 2 fought, I go with the Iranian. Here is how it goes down:
BUSH: bring it on, A-rab
AHMAD: huh, look, at that, over there, it’s right behind you! (he points behind bush)
BUSH: (turns around to look) what I don’t see anythi . . .
AHMAD: kills our dear leader with a blow to the back of the head.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmThe debate should be held in a neutral country (Switzerland?) with the particapants wearing only drawers.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:11 pm“The debate should be held in a neutral country (Switzerland?) with the particapants wearing only drawers.”
W would show up with a dresser on his head.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#15, bottom right hand corner. Vote now and vote often.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:14 pmmanny – scroll down, 3/4ish, on right…
August 29th, 2006 at 12:14 pmMore people think Alajamajihad would win on the CNN vote, thats funny. LOL
(Oh and thats my own spelling of the guy’s name, or we could just call him Gilligan)
August 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pmReminds me of the time Saddam challenged Emperor Bush to a duel.
Bush declined then, and he’ll no doubt decline the current invitation too. Coward!
August 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBush can’t even get a break from the CNN QuickVoters. He’s at 38%!
August 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pmIt’s a pleasant enough fantasy, but it will never happen. This is the president who stocks his ‘town hall meetings’ with shills who had to promise to stick to the approved line of questioning in writing in advance, and who will get their microphones cut if they deviate from the previously agreed-upon wording by as much as a word.
There is no way our beloved Chimpy can go toe-to-toe with Ahmadinejad, even with the translation lag giving him extra time to think. It’s way too unscripted for a president who must control every aspect of every public appearance, lest the facade slip.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmHmm. I think Bush is the one trying to distract attention- from the fact that he won’t offer any real negotiations with Iran.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmI can’t believe that 62% of the country thinks that Bush would loose the debate vs Ahmadinejad.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pmI believe that Ahmadinejad, unlike W, speaks English.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIt appears as though the door is open to negotiations, I don’t want to hear from the right that Iran is non-negotiable.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pmI’d like a Gallop poll : Who would win Bush or a cucumber?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIf it were a FOX news quick poll, I’m sure we would see very different results.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pmLOL you guys are cheering for Iran? Nice.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:25 pmno, jeebus, 62% of cnn voters think bush would lose…
August 29th, 2006 at 12:26 pmjust to be accurate…
30,
False dichotomy. Pointing out how intellectually feeble Bush is isn’t cheering for Iran. You can cheer for neither side.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pmFor Truth
Ya if it was a Fauxnews quick vote, the numbers would be different, because Faux News would use Diebold as their voting engine.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pmBush might be an idiot, but Iran is an enemy of the United States and it would only legitimize Ahmadinejad as a world player which is the last thing any American should want.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:29 pmLOL you guys are cheering for Iran? Nice.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — August 29, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
I just love how the right will generalize complicated matters to fit their brain, or they are just manipulating, as usual.
No we are not cheering on Iran. We all know Bush can’t even debate with his pet rock. The guy was wired during previous debates, he has proven he is too much of a simpleton. There is a mile long list of “Bushisms”, and tons of video showing his ineptitude when asked impromtu questions.
You know damn well no-body is cheering on Iran. Do you have anything consructive to say, otherwise shut up.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pmhow does the fact that the president couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag equate with “LOL you guys are cheering for Iran? Nice.”?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pmkaty
have you looked at the recent approval ratings for Bush
I don’t think it’s a coincidence they are the same as the CNN #’s
August 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pmLOL you guys are cheering for Iran? Nice
No, we think that a evil psycho, is smarter than our benevolent dear leader.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pm#34 – Bush might be an idiot, but Iran is an enemy of the United States and it would only legitimize Ahmadinejad as a world player which is the last thing any American should want.
Sorry to break this to you, but Iran was legitimized in the eyes of the world when Emperor Bush entered Iraq and made a mess of things. Iran gained strength when Israel refused to negotiate with Hezbholla, and decided to use US made weapons on the civilian population of Lebanon.
There are times when you just can’t get a break, no matter out good you are. But in this case, the Bush Cabal has a direct hand in creating a strong and legitimized Iran.
Sad. But very very true.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm34,
Like it or not, America has to realise that Iran is a major player on the world stage- or at least within the politics of the middle east. You can’t hope to change the region by simply ignoring the major power there completely, whether that major power is a force for good or not.
Besides, if he was on television, wouldn’t it show him up for what he is- a fundamentalist nutcase?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pmBush would lose this debate. He wouldn’t be able to contain his acoholic indused rage.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI actually don’t have a problem with Iran developing nuclear bombs or energy and it’s absolute arrogance to think ANYONE has the right to tell them otherwise. This is the time when the US starts trying to be nice or it will get bombed to hell as it deserves.
Further, why is it ok for Pakistan and India to have nukes? Are nukes only ok for countries that kiss our ass? No. There should be no nukes, but unfortunately this world is one huge soup of fear, propaganda, greed, and failed politics.
And yes, Amhedinijad would smoke Bush, even if Bush could speak English. Bush cannot think on his feet (see Katrina photo op with Brownie at his side) nor could he put forth any substance if he could speak well.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:46 pmPerhaps the first question of the debate to Bush and Ahmadinejad should be:
Q: Mr. President, do you believe in a Second Coming and the End of Times, and how that influence your Iran-US policy?
For more on why that question matters, see:
August 29th, 2006 at 12:47 pm“Iran, Bush and the Secon Coming.”
“Well, heh-heh, debatin’ is hard work. I’m all for diplomacy, but in this post 9/11 world…you see, we’ve got…well, we need to learn our lessons from 9/11. And one of those lessons is the failure of the state…um, the shortcomings of all involved, last year when Katherine…uhhh…umm…Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. As you recall, I took responsibility for the failures of the federal…uhhh…federal government. And..heh heh… I’ve learned my lesson. And I’ve decided that it’s best that I stay in New Orleans. See, cause I’m The Decider. If I leave now, I’ll be seen as weak. And in this post 9/11 world we live in, the terrorists smell weakness. They smell blood. And so I can’t just cut and run. Now, watch me drive. I’ve got a 1:30 with my good friend Rockey. Heh heh…he’s a good man. He wanted to repay me for the dinner we enjoyed in Washington last week. He’s invited me to lunch…pigs in a blanket and a couple bottles of beer. But since I’m on duty…see, presidentin’ is hard work, especially after 9/11…I’m just going to have a bottle of pop. There’s a saying down in Texas. ‘I’m goin to the fillin’ station for a bottle of pop.’ They say that on the old Andy Griffith Show too. I just love Barney, don’t you?”
August 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pmThis is just another example of how far America’s reputation and amount of respect received has fallen since Bu$h has been in the White House. I can’t believe that the President of the United States is getting internationally punked like this. What did this country do to deserve such a feeble minded simpleton like him?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pmIt’s a pity they’ve criminalized duelling.
A duel between Bush and Ahmadinejad, (and between Ehud Olmert and Hassan Nasrallah) would be great to watch, and would probably solve a few of the world’s problems.
If humanity had any brains, then before any international conflict, it would make it customary for the leaders of the contending states to duel first prior to the declaration of war. You can rest assured that wars would become quite rare then.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#48 Amen 48, amen…
WAR = failed politics/diplomacy
If war is failed politics, then the leading politicians should be the first to draw blood. This policy of politics would then be more carefully weighed. Duelling is truly the best answer..it was done anciently, it should be done now….in the OCTAGON!!! To the DEATH!!
August 29th, 2006 at 12:52 pmTo the responders to #34, I agree with all of the replies about Iran being strengthened and that they ARE a major player now, but having a debate with them on TV around the world would be suicide for ANY administration. And it would only FURTHER their progress and hinder ours.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pmComment by Jebus loves me — August 29, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
ah! so i’m not invisible! whew…
well, jebus – my response was to your comment with this qualifyer: thinks that Bush would loose the debate vs Ahmadinejad.…
while i’ve got your attention – do you see my post at #7?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:56 pmthanks
Ok seriously,
F*ck that Alajamajihad guy, don’t even give him a “no” in response.
But what got into him to ask GWB for a debate anyway?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmDidn’t the US help Iran extensively in the 70’s? Just askin’.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pmbushwhack just knows he is gonna bring the truth. then chew him up and spit his ass out the muslims that are waiting to roast him.. beer and cheers! byob at the bbq
August 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI’m confused. In what way would a debate about Iran’s nuclear program be a ‘diversion’ from international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pmremember when bush tried to debate that pretzel and lost?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:07 pmConsidering that Iran produces 10% of the worlds oil, they are a global player, no matter what Bush or anybody else thinks.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:08 pmI do remember when Bush tried to debate a bicycle path and lost. Or when Bush tried to debate a locked door and lost. Or when Bush tried to debate a buttered roll and lost. Or when Bush tried to debate a 10 year old girl and lost. Or when Bush tried to debate brush and lost. Or when Bush tried to debate a back rub and lost.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pmSpudge:
It’s that 10% of oil that BushCo. wants.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pm“Bush tried to debate a back rub and lost.”
unhappy ending
August 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pmBush couldn’t debate an 8 year old. Ahmad-jad would wipe his ass with Bush.
Our ‘leader’ is such an embarrassment. I don’t hate the guy, just wish he didn’t make our country look so damn bad all the time.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWay too much American Dirty Laundry laying around in the Middle East, some of it goes back to the 40’s. That whole oil thing has really been a problem. Gee what would the world be like if the US had taken advice from Democrats in the 70’s and really began to shift away from dependency on middle eastern oil?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWhy have only one debate? This could be a screw-ball comedy to come on after “Earl.”
August 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pmif iran was such a threat for ALL these years why, just why did we sell him uranium. i believe it was in the 60’s. come on. the american government are a bunch of f. criminals. keep your friends close and your enemies closer is the motto for america. dumbasses. sorry folks if you dish it out you got to be able to take it. and the u.s. is getting just what they deserve. now maybe folks will pay closer attention instead of believing everything you see and hear before going to the polls.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:18 pmPut it on pay per view. I smell a money maker, all the repugnacan braindead tuning in to cheer on monkeyboy. The progressives tuning in hoping to see dumbbya’s earpiece deliver a shock. Yeah… let’s do it.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmBy not getting off the oil when it was first noticed as a problem 30+ years ago, the US has been a key influence in empowering certain elements in the Middle East. If oil had less worth, or none, how much power would these psychos have?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmYes the old “enemies of my enemy must be my freind” policy may need some re-tooling, see where its gotten things?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:22 pmand the u.s is their own worst enemy. we created these enemies by f.up policies.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pmAh, poin to Iran for that idea. As if Bush could look like anything other than a boob in the eyes of the world. Shame that we don’t have a leader that can stand up for us and make us proud. I guess Bush could always make fun of what Ahmadinejad is wearing.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
I’m no fan of the Iranian president, but Bush is a chickenhawk, he’d never agree to it.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:47 pmCNN quick vote update
We started this thread with only 10K votes, which were 62% for Ahmadinejad, and 38% for Bush.
25 thousand votes later, the result is still the same
62% of voters think that Bush (a leader inspired by Jesus) would loose a debate with Ahmadinejad (an evil psycho).
It’s worthy to note that Bush’s disapproval rating is also 62%
August 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pmJebus loves me,
How did I know?
I swear 34-38% of the American population is insane.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:57 pmHell, Ahmadinejad wrote Bush a letter, WHICH HE REFUSED TO EVEN READ. If you are so flustered that you can’t even read a letter from the guy, how the hell are you going to debate him.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWouldn’t it have been ironic if the letter Ahmadinejad sent was just the my pet goat story translated into Arabic?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:10 pmWe all Know Ahmadinejad would make a fool fo Bush and anybody who dissagrees is even more foolish than Bush
BUT SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THESES ARTICLES ON BUSH TRYING TO MAKE HIS WAR CRIMES LEGAL ,,,,,,, A BACKWARD STEP FOR THE WHOLE WORLD
Bush Goes Retro to Avoid Prosecution
Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The U.S. Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crimes charges under both the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration’s military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.
Selective Prosecution of War Crimes
August 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTo justify its ill-advised invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration regularly gripes about Saddam Hussein’s war crimes, while cheering on Israel as it does the same thing in Lebanon and Gaza,
Ahmadinejads first question to Monkey Face Bush
Do you think Iran has the rights of tribal sovereignty
August 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pmwas a ‘diversion’
And this White House knows about ‘diversions’…Flag Burning, Pledge of Allegiance, Gay Marriage.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pmCNN is now running it’s Quickvote with the question:
“Who would win the debate between Ahmadinejad & Bush?”
right now 62% of the respondents think the winner would be Ahmadinejad.
38% thought bush43 (or maybe they thought they were voting for Pat Buchanan, no, that only seems to happen in Florida).
August 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pmI wonder if Kaytee Harris would try to fix the debate results??
August 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pmCNN quick vote update
We started this thread with only 10K votes, which were 62% for Ahmadinejad, and 38% for Bush.
50 thousand votes later, the result is still the same
wait a minute, it’s 63% for Ahmadinedjad now.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pmHey! That’s not fair calling out Commander Cuckoo Bananas to a word fight. Now if Ahmadinedjad wants to get into a fart contest then Bu$h is up to the task.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:37 pmIf Bush’s position were strong at all, it could withstand debate. Clearly he must believe that it cannot.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:38 pm83# agree with you totally
Also like to quote Bush “War Is My last Choice” surely must be his second last choice as debate would be the last choice ?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:51 pm“I’ve reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship.” -
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
For this reason, the expansion of relations with all countries is on the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean balanced relationships, based on mutual respect and observation of each other’s rights.
—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
August 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm“I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?”
—George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:56 pm—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, Colonel.”
—George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006
The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is in principle based on the establishment of peace and justice worldwide.
—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
August 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pmhttp://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
versus
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mahmoud_ahmadinejad.html
You make the call…
August 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pm#84 Tobey Tall,
Good one. Just more proof that Bush was lying when he said that. :)
August 29th, 2006 at 5:07 pmWhat was that thing Bush said about ‘the problem with the French is that they don’t have a word for entrepreneur’?
Totally agree with 84
August 29th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#90 Prince Myshkin,
As much as I would love for that quote to be true, I believe that is considered apocryphal. Someone may have been overheard saying what Bush “might” have said about the French, but I can’t seem to find confirmation that he actually said it. If you can find proof, I would love to see it because it would be perfect.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pmThanks Unbeleivable,
How do we know this Mahmoud guy isn’t just full of crap, and has his own extremist agenda? Just askin’
August 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pm91,
I prefaced it in a vague way because I have no proof. No idea whether it’s apocryphal or not, but you’d hardly put it past Bush to say something so stupid.
For now I’m pretending it’s true anyway. Much more fun!
August 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm#92 For Truth,
Well, it’s not like Bush isn’t full of crap and without his own extremist agenda. Just sayin’
August 29th, 2006 at 5:44 pm93 I know. If you’ve never seen the site, you’ll love http://www.dubyaspeak.com. Here is where they say the quote is of dubious origin.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/economist.phtml?year=2002
Enjoy reading the other quotes. Just don’t take a sip of your drink before you do. It might end up all over your monitor.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pmFor Truth
He just wants to show the world that his arch rival is an idoit.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:48 pmHow do we know this Mahmoud guy isn’t just full of crap, and has his own extremist agenda? Just askin’
Comment by For Truth — August 29, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
The fact that he is ‘President’ signifies to me that he probably does have his own extremist genda. I was just comparing them for debating purposes. Ahmadinajad is equally as crazy and fanatical as Bush, he just is far more articulate…
August 29th, 2006 at 5:50 pmThanks Wayne, that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages. Put in the light of all his other ‘little mishaps’ the thing about the French doesn’t seem quite so significant…
August 29th, 2006 at 6:01 pmThey are both right-wing religious fanatics with an incomplete command of the English language. I am surprised that conservatives can tell the difference between them.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:03 pmIf Ahmadinejad is ‘crazy’, (which I do not believe) he is ‘crazy like a Fox’. He knew that BushCo both couldn’t, and wouldn’t accept the offer. And we all know why. So Iran’s President comes out of this, looking better than ever, reasonable, willing to make the first move, to try to ‘work out’ their differences, like adults. GWB looks weak, and scared, and unreasonable too. This was a truly inspired idea, and it worked. As for his being ‘crazy’, as Religious Fanatics go, he is right up there with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and John Dobson. And we all know how whacked out they are. And GWB himself, said God told him to invade Iraq. To me, that’s crazy. Should Venezuela invade us, because of Pat Robertson’s suggestion that we assassinate Hugo Chavez? GWB thoght that Saddam wanting to ‘kill his Dad’ justified invading Iraq. It’s really not all that different. But it is stupid.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:14 pm“We don’t believe in planners and deciders making the decisionson behalf of Americans.”
August 29th, 2006 at 6:25 pmGeorge W. Bush, Scranton, Pennsylvania; September 6, 2000
* decisions crap
August 29th, 2006 at 6:27 pmHi Cyra,
How are you?
You might wanna click on the brainyquote link I posted and read some more of Mamoud’s quotes – stuff about spreading Islam across the world. He’s pretty fanatical. Unfortunately, after living with the Chimporer for the last 6 years, we’ve become immune to lesser evils. It’s all relative, apparently.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:41 pmI do agree that Mamoud made Bush look like an even bigger pansy than he already appears to be though…
Frankly, I still can’t get that sick image of Bush accosting Merkle out of my mind… Ugh. The man is shamless.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:44 pm#100 Cyra, Nice, thoughtful analysis. :)
#104 unbelievable, I know. It’s not like they were close friends or anything. I could understand if she was someone he had known for years and this was one friend to another. But they’re not friends, so it borders on criminal.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pmI don’t see the point… A debate with 2 retarded men…
August 29th, 2006 at 7:13 pmIn a boxing analogy, the debate would be like a combat between Mike Tyson (Ahmadinejad) and Steve Urkel (Bush).
August 29th, 2006 at 7:28 pmEven a tomato has more intelligence than our fearless leader, and could easily trash his ass in a debate. One is dumb, the other is dumber.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm#103- Hi to you, Ms. Unbelievable! I’ve been doing battle for about a week and a half, with some weird-ass ‘bug’ I think I picked up, while visiting my Mom in the Hospital (loooong story, and it’s not very good, she had to go back a few days later, and is STILL there.) But it’s given me Laryngitis, 10 days now. Fun for a day or two, but this long? No. And it keeps me from visiting my Mom, and talking on the phone is hit or miss. I know it’s been awhile, but I really appreciated you asking about her. I have been reading your posts, seems like the new job is going well, though. Has your ‘unhappy camper’ come around yet? Hope so! Well, better get back on topic, Judd has his standards, don’t you know. ;)
August 29th, 2006 at 8:09 pm#105- Thanks, Wayne! :)
August 29th, 2006 at 8:11 pmEven with a secret ear phone, Bush would still lose. He is the world’s laughing stock – and were he to debate Ahmadinejad, that would only be reinforced.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:33 pmI didn’t know much about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad other than what our media tells us. I figured he was the crazed fanatical menace to the world our government tells us he is.
I believed this until I had a chance to actually read the letter he had sent to Bush earlier this year. I was first curious, and then quite surprised at how much sense his letter made. I then realized this letter would get ignored because it asks many of the questions which Bush cannot afford to face and answer. It asks many questions which the majority of Americans are now asking today.
The language barrier aside, reading the following letter was a shocking reminder of how shallow, hypocritical and how intellectually, morally and philosophically bankrupt Bush is.
I apologize for this long post – but if you haven’t seen this letter – it might surprise you to check it out a bit:
Dr. Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad’s Letter to US President George W. Bush
Following is the complete English translation of the wide-ranging letter, written in Farsi from Dr. Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad (the elected President of Iran) to US President George W. Bush
Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena — which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.
Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.
Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them — many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations. You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-Ã -vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the
Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Mr President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”
As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?
How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).
Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.
“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”
“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”, “He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of
righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.” We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.”
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Mr President,
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations. Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
http://www.jana.org/NewsPub/Stories/2006/05/09/11471902501.shtml…
August 29th, 2006 at 8:57 pmglad the head of iran is your hero
August 29th, 2006 at 9:44 pmyou will always root for the enemy of the united states.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:45 pmcan you imagine how badly our c average president would embarrass himself, our country, if he attempted to debate this guy? he will never debate the iranian leader, he speaks better english than bush.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:46 pmAhmadinejad is not my hero.
I am an American and my loyalty is first and only to the United States, which I believe is the greatest country in the world, and which has the potential to do the most good to better mankind.
But lately I feel we have squandered our great potential.
I think it is a shameful embarrassment that the president of our nation is unable or unwilling to engage in a thoughtful mature discourse with other leaders of the world, especially when the stakes we face now are so high.
Ahmadinejad asks important questions which all Americans and indeed the whole civilized world deserve and should demand to hear.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:15 pmThere is no depth and substance to anything Bush has to offer.
I wouldn’t even mind Bush/Rove?Cheney dumbing down America, if they were genuinely busy making the complex world a better place – but this has not been happening.
I would be the first to stand up and support Bush, if he could offer honest and forthright answers to these questions in a way that represents the best interests of the United States and the world as a whole.
I do not root for the enemy of the US – for the same reason I do not root for Bush.
Nothing could say Bush from complete embarrassment. The Iran President is educated and doesn’t use notes, Bush is stupid and an idiot who hasn’t finished the book my pet goat. Not even Harry Potter’s magic could save Bush.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:03 amHere is a question for the Rightwing: If you are anti-Clinton, and were anti-Clinton during his time in power (And boy were you guys anti-Clinton) were you anti-America? Are you willing to admit to having been anti-American during Clinton’s reign? What about Jimmy Carter? Were you anti-America then?
I think it is time the Rightwing learned to be a little more careful with that argument, because so far as I can see they seem more interested in supporting the American President, then in supporting America.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:03 amPlease ignore this, just trying see if this makes it before i contact the site admin and to figure out why my post before was marked as spam and never published. It was no different in content from most of the other posts above.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:08 am#39
“Iran gained strength when Israel refused to negotiate with Hezbholla,…”
Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist milita that is operating illegally in Lebanon to begin with?
“Sorry to break this to you, but Iran was legitimized in the eyes of the world when Emperor Bush entered Iraq and made a mess of things.”
Who exactly sees Iran a being legitimized?
Iran started this war with Israel by telling Hezbollah what to do. That is of course wrong if you don’t believe that the armed wing Hezbollah is nothing more than an illegal extension of the Iranian military. The Lebanese people should be blaming Hezbollah and Iran for their suffering.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm[...] Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to televised debate.Think Progress, DC - Aug 29, 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged President Bush to a televised debate and voiced defiance as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the … [...]
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:00 amMaybe as Americans, we should make some demands of our Government… We should all write the White house and demand a debate before one bomb is dropped on Iran. We should write the United Nations too and say all the things we said here. WE the PEOPLE have no power in this country. Our opinions dont count, our conclusions dont count, our demonstraions and rallys go unsung, our peace organizations unheard… the truth denied over and over in our face.. while young men and women suffer in combat day after day… We are skipping off to war with Iran now… we will have to assume some of the responsibiltiy for the actions of our government and if we cant … we’ll have another war, most likely a DRAFT because of the constraints on the military… We have to wake up and do more than complain to one another…
Comment #115 says it best: “…I think it is a shameful embarrassment that the president of our nation is unable or unwilling to engage in a thoughtful mature discourse with other leaders of the world, especially when the stakes we face now are so high.
Ahmadinejad asks important questions which all Americans and indeed the whole civilized world deserve and should demand to hear. …”
Everyone please forward that to the White house and the United Nations….
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:38 am#111
You actually believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote that letter? Whatever.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:43 am