Saddam and Bush: A Dialogue Not Worth Having

by | Feb 27, 2003

President George Bush has been thrown the gambit by Saddam Hussein. In his interview with CBS News anchorman Dan Rather, Saddam proposed that Bush debate him before the world on live television. Establishing a dialogue in the midst of a crisis sounds on its face like the right thing to do, but President Bush is […]

President George Bush has been thrown the gambit by Saddam Hussein. In his interview with CBS News anchorman Dan Rather, Saddam proposed that Bush debate him before the world on live television. Establishing a dialogue in the midst of a crisis sounds on its face like the right thing to do, but President Bush is correct to refuse Saddam’s offer.

The key argument of the Bush administration against Iraq has been that Saddam is a dictator who lies. Saddam promised to disarm his weapons of mass destruction over ten years ago, and yet he has failed to live up to his promise. These are not facts open to debate or discussion. These are facts deserving to be acted upon with deadly force.

Yet Saddam still thinks he can talk his way out of US action. No doubt emboldened by the spat of anti-war protests, Saddam thinks that calling for a debate will give him the moral high ground.

Yet debating a liar gains the honest party nothing–it only benefits the liar. Debating Saddam would create the charade that Iraq is a morally acceptable nation with a leader President Bush could debate in good faith. Saddam systematically violates the rights of his own people. He has ruthlessly invaded his neighbors without cause or provocation. Debating Saddam would imply that these are just trivial differences that can be resolved by a nice TV shot between leaders. They are not.

On their own level, several students at George Mason University sensed as much when they refused to participate as panelists in last weekend’s televised debate with students of the University of Baghdad. This event, broadcast live by Al-Jazeera and sponsored by George Mason’s Center for Global Education, would have placed students in the position of sanctioning Iraq’s evils, not debating them.

Ben Rathbone, chairman of the George Mason Objectivist Club and one of several student leaders to refuse the university’s invitation to participate said, “I believe there is fundamental difference between a university that exists within a society dedicated to freedom of speech, inquiry and expression, and a university within a totalitarian dictatorship. I wasn’t going to pretend otherwise.”

Rathbone and his fellow students are right. There is fundamental distinction between Iraq and America. If some people fail to grasp that distinction, odds are they are beyond convincing. One doesn’t discuss justice with someone who thinks an at-large murderer should never receive justice for his crimes.

President Bush and his deputies have made a clear and compelling case justifying the use of force against Iraq. Debate, consultation, or other delay only weakens the US’s hand. It was US indecision that led to Saddam’s ability to challenge America in the first place. It is precisely the US genuflecting before world opinion via the UN that has given strength to its opponents. The US should not allow anyone to hamstring its foreign policy. Iraq has refused to disarm. Its actions threaten American security. It’s past time to move from debate into action.

Nicholas Provenzo is founder and Chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

If young people worry and wonder about their retirement future, their health care, and medical needs, their chance to afford a place to live, and a reasonable possibility for their lives to be better and more prosperous than their parents, it is precisely because government over the decades has either taken over or heavy- handedly imposed itself over all these and other sectors of the American economy — and brought them to financial crisis and imbalance.

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The most equitable and just sharing of the burden of America’s military is assured by its all-volunteer nature, and that conscription would be inequitable and unjust.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest