So Saddam Hussein wants to challenge George Bush to a debate. Saddam is not exactly a standup leader in my books, but it is interesting that he would make the challenge to meet George in a battle of wits. I know that Bush will never except.
a) All his advisers know he’s likely to make the situation worse by using religious metaphors and enciting the entire Muslim world to take up arms, or by.
b) revealing to the world beyond any shadow of a doubt that he did sucessfully “party his head off” while back in college. But what does this say about the ability to discuss problems verses fighting them out?
It’s a very symbollic moment in world history when the self-described leader of the free world declines the opportunity to debate with his opponent in favour of war. Bush’s rebuttal will be the obvious “There’s been enough talk…”, but really, is there enough talk when millions of civilian and military lives are lying at stake. The measure this in light of his recent views on democracy and the public’s voice: “Democracy is a beautiful thing,” and that people are allowed to express their opinions.
But allowing the protesters to influence him, he said “is like saying I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group.” “The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security of the people…”. I don’t know. It just doesn’t seem right.