If President Bush, the smart 1 has nothing to hide, why won't he debate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

He's afraid he might make another dumb comment and look even dumber.

It's not about having something to hide... we have seen the smart one's debating abilities in 2004. If he went to debate Ahmadinejad, he would probably only end up saying "it's hard". And I don't see any difference whatsoever between "the smart one" and Ahmadinejad. Both are religious fundamentalists and both are wicked and idiot at the same time. So if one idiot can have nukes, the other can as well.

Clearly, the US bullies other countries to do its bidding and the only thing that actually stops the US from doing that is if the country possesses nukes. Just look at North Korea. So it is not surprising that all these small countries want nuclear weapons. A bunch of morons waving national flags on yahoo answers doesn't make the world a safer place. But an intelligent person at the head of the US government does.

He shouldn't debate because of the fact it would further legitimize Ahmadinejad's positions. there is likewise no actual earnings for the U. S. in this debate. no remember what Bush does interior the debate it would be portrayed interior the Muslim international as a win for Ahmadinejad, and if does poorly the U. S. press might tear Bush aside. besides how do you debate somebody who will use non secular dogma as actuality, and whose commencing place is the theory any one that would not have self assurance in Ahmadinejad's version of Islam has to transform or be killed. one extra element, Ahmadinejad would not fairly rule his united states, that's Iran is governed by ability of the Mullah's and permit Ahmadinejad to exist as a figurehead as long as he pushes their schedule.

Why would Bush be stupid enough to give the time of day to such a nut-job as the head of Iran?

Why would he ever deserve such attention from the President of the U.S.?

The Iranian President can get in line for a meeting with the U.S. and has a snowball's chance in hell of holding a debate with Bush.

The point of such a debate would be?

Cite ANY other instance where leaders of different countries debated each other, face to face? We're in the real world here, not debate club. I don't recall those 4-way debates between Hirohito, Stalin, FDR and Hitler, but it was before TV.

Do you really think the Iranian presidential puppet is worth the effort to debate? He is of little or no consequence.... other than to a few terrorists...

Debate will not clarify any issues, it won't change anyone's mind, and it will not change how Islamo-fascist Iran addresses the world.... Why waste the time and the taxpayers money.

The Iranian president should just debate the Algore.... what a pig sty that would be.

There is a joke about the CIA goes like this:

"Kill first ask questions later"

I guess it is a similar policy. Make Iran flat and observe it later and

ask questions. What could be better than a one man show if you think that way about all this!

Would Churchill have agreed to debate Hitler before WWII? Would he have agreed to do so AFTER the war began?!

(The war between the U.S. and Iran has already begun, by the way, thus far via proxy terror groups.)

(And, of course Iran has great people and a great history. But it is run by tyrranical dictators now, and that is unfortunate for the Iranian people and for the rest of us.)

Why would he want to waste his time debating with this silly little man who answers questions with questions? What would be the point?

Ahmadinejad is feeding a big ego, that will never be fed by the president of the US. If Irans president is so anxious to debate, he may have to settle for one of GWB's assistant to the assistant.

It would be a waste of time. A debate is an effort to establish a consensus among people of open minds and intelligence. Ahmadinejad has neither.

Because it would make the world focus on the concerns of Iran.

Like national safety and sovereignty.