Mr. Ahmadinejad . . . you are no John Kerry!

[beachmom]

Okay, just got this from HuffPost. This Iranian president is SOOO WEEIIRRRDDD:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.nuclear/index.html

Iran's leader calls for TV debate with Bush

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."

His comments came during a news conference in Tehran, two days before a deadline set by a U.N. Security Council resolution for the Islamic republic to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions.

You know, over the past 6 years, I feel like the GOP has out PR'd the Dems over and over again, stomping them down in the war of words game. Well, now we're seeing Bush getting out PR'd by the Iranian president over and over again. Amadinejad takes every vulnerability of our country and president, magnifies it 100% and goes for the kill (like he'll throw in the fact that we have 45 million uninsured Americans). And, you know what -- I don't like it one damned bit!!! Despite the fact that I think Bush is an asshole, I would like our country to be able to rein in Iran, and maybe prevent them from going nuclear, since they are so totally tied with terrorists (way more than Saddam ever was), and bent on wiping Israel off of the face of the map (and Mike Wallace asked him about this remark on 60 Minutes, and much to the chagrin of the extreme Left a la Juan Cole, Ahmadinejad didn't say "oh, that was just a mistranslation" -- instead he said the Jews should go live in Poland. Enough said on THAT matter).

What I fear most is that these taunts will send Bush over the edge in the form of some sort of bombing campaign on Iran, which will result in Hezbollah being released all over the world to reek havoc. Scary to ponder indeed.

Going back to the title of my post, Bush isn't THAT bad a debater. The fact is John Kerry is a Masterful Debater, and made Bush LOOK bad. So Mahmoud, don't get so cocky -- I'm sure SOMEBODY can feed the info to Bush that Iran's economy is pitiful, that bloggers and journalists have been tortured and jailed, religious belief is WAY down since the Iranian Revolution, and there's an epidemic of heroin addicts (what with poppy being so plentiful in Afghanistan -- oh, oops -- maybe skip that last point). Or better yet, just send John Kerry in as a sane and intelligent American representative who will clean Mahmoud's clock on every topic!

[karynnj]

1. One major problem with Bush sending Kerry

I would hate to see Kerry use his brilliance and eloquence as a surrogate for Bush. If Kerry could debate representing only himself, you're right. He would be fantastic.

[beachmom]

2. Well, the whole thing is in fantasyland like the Iranian prez himself

Ahmadinejad is just taunting Bush with all of this -- like, you suck at debating and I will set you straight on everything. I really am concerned that he's unbalanced (Iranian guy, that is) -- hopefully, the mullahs would prevent him from doing something too disasterous (and how pathetic is it that we have to rely on mullahs for sanity!).

The Kerry part is just me big time imagining . . . .

And, yeah, he would be representing AMERICANS, NOT the Bush administration, which doesn't seem to give much a damn about Americans.

[karynnj]

3. Oh, I knew that - I just saw it as an interesting conjecture

If in fantasyland it happened, he would likely send Cheney - who is not a bad debater. That he lies seems to matter little as he is very good at it and doesn't look like he is lying because he has no conscience. Cheney beat Lieberman easily and was even with Edwards. Edwards was a very top trial lawyer and is articulate, so he is likely not easy to beat.

By the way, I agree that Bush can be an ok debater. I think that Kerry quickly outclassed him and he knew it and went downhill. Kerry's strengths seem to be a phenomenal memory, a huge knowledge base, the ability to think very quickly on his feet, and the ability to really listen. I think many other people would have missed the way within a long paragraph Bush connected Saddam and 911. Kerry used it brilliantly even pausing for effect and to get people focused after saying that Bush said something extraordinary.

[TayTay]

4. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous zealot

and isn't on Kerry's level. It would be beneath Kerry to debate him and in any way give this jerk even the tiniest appearance of relevence.

[beachmom]

5. Well, obviously!

The guy is a total sociopath, and is playing games here. Meanwhile, what has Bush done about it, and why is Karl Rove and George Bush so impotent and flat footed when it comes to the Iranian president?

Surely, you knew what I was getting at -- that Ahmadinejad is familar with our press, and how pretty much everyone felt that Bush had lost all three debates. But what I'm saying is that it wasn't so much how bad Bush was, but how brilliant Kerry was.

Sigh -- don't forget Kerry's remark about Ahmadinejad and the Grand Canyon . . . I don't see them debating anytime soon. Still . . . diplomacy (as in diplomats, not presidents) is the only way out of this mess, is it not?

[_dynamicdems]

6. Something tells me this zealot would sell it.

He's far too impressed with himself as a superstar for me to believe him at face value. I think he'd sell out his people and his cause in a heartbeat no matter his "deep" convictions. He wants a bomb because it will get him a lot of attention. He wants to debate Bush because he got a taste of American media attention and he likes it.

The man is a media whore in the making.