Hey Dean, wouldn't you like the chance to give ol' Prezodent Ahmadinejad a solid 7-Mile Road debate over on the EASTSIDE of Detroit? I'll make sure the tire irons are nice and rusty along with a strong Made In Detroit chain used to tow vechicles. Jailhouse fun has my friend Solomon use to say.
Tyrone: HA! We'll see how long homeboy keeps talking so tough about "The Great Satan."
Dave: No. Linkage?
Zach: Oh yes I certainly would. Although, let's face it, Bush would need WEEKS of prep, he could hang. This reminds me very much of a similar offer Ronald Reagan once made the premier of the Soviet Union--it was the guy BEFORE Gorbachev, as I recall--and it was the same offer. Live uncensored debate broadcast throughout both countries. Hell yeah I'll take that bet in a minute. Especially working through translators and with rules agreed upon between both parties in advance? Let's rumble!
Oh yeah and both parties get to submit their questions in advance. Our questions:
President Ahmadinejad, we here in America allow anybody to practice any religion they want--Shia, Sunni, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, any religion they want so long as they do not bother others. Should the Iranian people not have that same right?
President Ahmadinejad, the President of the United States is sometimes unpopular, and even I right now am unpopular with many of my people. But at least in America, anyone can run for President, and anyone can be elected President. This is not true in your country, where the Mullahs must approve all candidates for office. Don't you think your system should be free like ours?
President Ahmadinejad: We allow in our country anyone to watch satellite TV on any station they want with almost no government interference or censorship. Shouldn't the Iranian people have those same rights?
President Ahmadinejad: Here in America, we treat our women as equals. They can drive cars, own their own businesses, vote in elections, run for office, wear whatever they please, bear witness against anyone who commits a crime against them without requiring male witnesses, and treat them with all the rights our men have. Shouldn't Iranian women have those rights?
Actually, Dean, it reminds me of Saddam. The butcher made similar offers during that twelve-month "rush" to war, as part of his efforts to forestall the conflict and stay in power. Makes me wonder if Ahmadinejad's gettin' a little nervous...
Ronald Reagan once told Mikhail Gorbachev a joke. He mentioned this joke in public, but by all accounts he told it to Gorbachev personally before he did. I relate it here in my own words but it's true to the spirit of the joke:
President Gorbachev, you know the difference between our countries is not so great. In our system, anyone who comes into my office can bang on my desk and say, 'I don't like the way you're running this country!' In your system, it's mostly the same. Anyone who comes into your office can bang on your desk and say, 'I don't like the way Ronald Reagan is running his country!'"
Well no, actually, if you look very closely at the description and enumerated powers of his "elected position," I think you will find that he has very few responsibilities or powers. Indeed, ask anyone who describes him as an "elected leader" to describe to you what the actual enumerated powers of his office are, and what he can do independently of higher authority.
Indeed, here is the Wikipedia entry on the President ofIran. Now of course Wikipedia is limited, but I ask you to look high and low through that entry and tell me what his actual executive authority is. You will find almost nothing.
But okay, you reject Wikipedia. Fine. Give me another source. Can you find me ANY source which explains in concrete terms what the actual powers and limitations of his office are? In plain black and white terms? Go on, just tell me what this President is actually empowered to do.
I can tell you what the exact powers of the President of Israel are (not much, but they're some fairly well-defined diplomatic duties). Or the President of Iceland (a little more, but still not much). Or the President of the United States (fairly vast and constantly a source of debate domestically but which most people agree have clear boundaries). Or the President of India (more proscribed than the President of the United States, but considerably more than the Presidents of Israel or Iceland). Or the President of France (somewhere between India and America, but much greater on foreign policy than domestic).
President of Iran? So far as I can see it's less than the President of Iceland.
Go ahead, look it up. But I'll give you a few observations about Iran:
In Iran, there is Constitutionally a guy who is called the Supreme Leader (rough English translation). The Supreme Leader has the following powers:
Commander In Chief of all armed forces and all internal police and security forces.
The sole power to declare war, declare peace, or make treaties.
Full control over all media, including all television, radio, cable/satellite media, newspapers, or magazines, with pre-approval or veto of anything put forth in any of those media.
Veto power over all legislation, with no elected body able to overrule him.
Ability to approve or reject any candidates for public office, with his decisions subject to being overruled only by a council of elders half of whom he appointed himself.
Direct supervision over the proper execution of all policies within the system.
Unilateral right to issue any decrees put forth for popular referendum.
Supreme judicial authority over the entire country.
Formal approval of all elections anywhere in the country.
Pardoning or reducing the sentence of anyone convicted of any crime under the laws of the Republic.
He can do more than that. That's just the high-level overview.
Currently, that Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khameni. And, knowing that all of this is true, I ask you again:
What is the job of the President of Iran exactly? You go ahead and tell me what his job is. Besides to make a public spectacle and general gadfly of himself, I mean.
This is what the Mullahs of Iran call "An Islamic Republic." That's their idea of "a Republic, not a Democracy."
(And although he may feel unfairly called out, this is actually a bone I have to pick with Aziz and his "purple politics" Dean Nation blog. Some months ago one of his contributors referred to Ahmadinejad as "an elected leader" of Iran. And I hope he'll share this thread with his fellow contributors on that blog, and ask them a simple question: "elected leader of what?" Oh man I hope he won't be mad at me or think I'm trying to embarrass him rather than what it's really meant to be--a bracing challenge to his contributors, to make what they're talking about better. He and all his contributors are invited to open a dialogue on this. To make the discussion stronger, and not to embarrass anyone.)
It has been well known from the start that the president of Iran is nothing but a symbolic figurehead. He is there to provide a PR function and to be run up the flagpole as a "see, we have a democratically elected president" symbol. Debating him would be worthless as he has no power or influence over national policy..
People on both sides probably think the debate would be great TV; but I honestly worry.
Ahmadinejad is a professional at twisting logic around so that Western ears can even find his arguments to be reasonable. Whether he's crazy or not, if he's starting from the axiom that the Jews have no valid historical claim on Israel, he'll press the point that if Europe has such a guilty conscience about the Holocaust, they should have set up a Jewish state in Europe. And I have this terrible image of millions of Americans thinking, "Hey, y'know, he kinda has a point there..."
Bush could ask the questions Dean posed, point-blank. But Ahmadinejad wouldn't be proposing this debate if he didn't have a plan for dealing with those very questions. He knows Bush isn't a great debater. And he will have all the rhetoric on his own side that decades of totalitarian intellectuals from Mao to Stalin to Castro have used in justifying their own states' repressive natures—they can always flip the arguments around and tell plaintive stories of the hardship and sadness caused by those things we hold dear, be they capitalism or religious freedom or a million swimsuit-filled cable channels or women being allowed to drive. Ahmadinejad will be prepared with all kinds of tear-jerking examples of why the West is doomed and democracy is crap and Western liberalism is a sham and freedom of speech doesn't exist because we don't allow people to research whether the Holocaust really happened (or don't fund such research with government money, or whatever).
Bush won't be able to answer challenges like that. He'd be playing defense all night, and not very well.
The American people would just see him getting humiliated in front of a taunting foreign dictator, and no small number of them—if they didn't start out rooting against him—would find themselves reveling in his defeat by the end.
I say, Bush says, "Why should I debate you? You're not head of your country, you're an appointed errand boy. I'll tell you what, you debate John Bolton or, ever better, Bill O'Reilly. Oh, and blow me."
Dave: No. Linkage?
Zach: Oh yes I certainly would. Although, let's face it, Bush would need WEEKS of prep, he could hang. This reminds me very much of a similar offer Ronald Reagan once made the premier of the Soviet Union--it was the guy BEFORE Gorbachev, as I recall--and it was the same offer. Live uncensored debate broadcast throughout both countries. Hell yeah I'll take that bet in a minute. Especially working through translators and with rules agreed upon between both parties in advance? Let's rumble!
President Ahmadinejad, we here in America allow anybody to practice any religion they want--Shia, Sunni, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, any religion they want so long as they do not bother others. Should the Iranian people not have that same right?
President Ahmadinejad, the President of the United States is sometimes unpopular, and even I right now am unpopular with many of my people. But at least in America, anyone can run for President, and anyone can be elected President. This is not true in your country, where the Mullahs must approve all candidates for office. Don't you think your system should be free like ours?
President Ahmadinejad: We allow in our country anyone to watch satellite TV on any station they want with almost no government interference or censorship. Shouldn't the Iranian people have those same rights?
President Ahmadinejad: Here in America, we treat our women as equals. They can drive cars, own their own businesses, vote in elections, run for office, wear whatever they please, bear witness against anyone who commits a crime against them without requiring male witnesses, and treat them with all the rights our men have. Shouldn't Iranian women have those rights?
Hell yeah boy. Let's rumble!
Putting the “fun” in “dysfunctional”.
All he does is write letters, make speeches and blame Israel.
Sounds like your average college professor come to think of it.
President Gorbachev, you know the difference between our countries is not so great. In our system, anyone who comes into my office can bang on my desk and say, 'I don't like the way you're running this country!' In your system, it's mostly the same. Anyone who comes into your office can bang on your desk and say, 'I don't like the way Ronald Reagan is running his country!'"
Pravda.
Well no, actually, if you look very closely at the description and enumerated powers of his "elected position," I think you will find that he has very few responsibilities or powers. Indeed, ask anyone who describes him as an "elected leader" to describe to you what the actual enumerated powers of his office are, and what he can do independently of higher authority.
Indeed, here is the Wikipedia entry on the President ofIran. Now of course Wikipedia is limited, but I ask you to look high and low through that entry and tell me what his actual executive authority is. You will find almost nothing.
But okay, you reject Wikipedia. Fine. Give me another source. Can you find me ANY source which explains in concrete terms what the actual powers and limitations of his office are? In plain black and white terms? Go on, just tell me what this President is actually empowered to do.
I can tell you what the exact powers of the President of Israel are (not much, but they're some fairly well-defined diplomatic duties). Or the President of Iceland (a little more, but still not much). Or the President of the United States (fairly vast and constantly a source of debate domestically but which most people agree have clear boundaries). Or the President of India (more proscribed than the President of the United States, but considerably more than the Presidents of Israel or Iceland). Or the President of France (somewhere between India and America, but much greater on foreign policy than domestic).
President of Iran? So far as I can see it's less than the President of Iceland.
Go ahead, look it up. But I'll give you a few observations about Iran:
In Iran, there is Constitutionally a guy who is called the Supreme Leader (rough English translation). The Supreme Leader has the following powers:
Commander In Chief of all armed forces and all internal police and security forces.
The sole power to declare war, declare peace, or make treaties.
Full control over all media, including all television, radio, cable/satellite media, newspapers, or magazines, with pre-approval or veto of anything put forth in any of those media.
Veto power over all legislation, with no elected body able to overrule him.
Ability to approve or reject any candidates for public office, with his decisions subject to being overruled only by a council of elders half of whom he appointed himself.
Direct supervision over the proper execution of all policies within the system.
Unilateral right to issue any decrees put forth for popular referendum.
Supreme judicial authority over the entire country.
Formal approval of all elections anywhere in the country.
Pardoning or reducing the sentence of anyone convicted of any crime under the laws of the Republic.
He can do more than that. That's just the high-level overview.
Currently, that Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khameni. And, knowing that all of this is true, I ask you again:
What is the job of the President of Iran exactly? You go ahead and tell me what his job is. Besides to make a public spectacle and general gadfly of himself, I mean.
This is what the Mullahs of Iran call "An Islamic Republic." That's their idea of "a Republic, not a Democracy."
(And although he may feel unfairly called out, this is actually a bone I have to pick with Aziz and his "purple politics" Dean Nation blog. Some months ago one of his contributors referred to Ahmadinejad as "an elected leader" of Iran. And I hope he'll share this thread with his fellow contributors on that blog, and ask them a simple question: "elected leader of what?" Oh man I hope he won't be mad at me or think I'm trying to embarrass him rather than what it's really meant to be--a bracing challenge to his contributors, to make what they're talking about better. He and all his contributors are invited to open a dialogue on this. To make the discussion stronger, and not to embarrass anyone.)
Ahmadinejad is a professional at twisting logic around so that Western ears can even find his arguments to be reasonable. Whether he's crazy or not, if he's starting from the axiom that the Jews have no valid historical claim on Israel, he'll press the point that if Europe has such a guilty conscience about the Holocaust, they should have set up a Jewish state in Europe. And I have this terrible image of millions of Americans thinking, "Hey, y'know, he kinda has a point there..."
Bush could ask the questions Dean posed, point-blank. But Ahmadinejad wouldn't be proposing this debate if he didn't have a plan for dealing with those very questions. He knows Bush isn't a great debater. And he will have all the rhetoric on his own side that decades of totalitarian intellectuals from Mao to Stalin to Castro have used in justifying their own states' repressive natures—they can always flip the arguments around and tell plaintive stories of the hardship and sadness caused by those things we hold dear, be they capitalism or religious freedom or a million swimsuit-filled cable channels or women being allowed to drive. Ahmadinejad will be prepared with all kinds of tear-jerking examples of why the West is doomed and democracy is crap and Western liberalism is a sham and freedom of speech doesn't exist because we don't allow people to research whether the Holocaust really happened (or don't fund such research with government money, or whatever).
Bush won't be able to answer challenges like that. He'd be playing defense all night, and not very well.
The American people would just see him getting humiliated in front of a taunting foreign dictator, and no small number of them—if they didn't start out rooting against him—would find themselves reveling in his defeat by the end.