From the March 2003 Idaho Observer:

American president declines debate-of-the-century challenge

Commander-in-chief role model for government with history of public policy debate refusals

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Bush refused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's challenge to a live, internationally-televised public debate. What could have been billed as, “The Debate of the Century” and would have likely attracted the largest international audience in live via satellite broadcast history, will never happen. “I'm done talkin,” said the commander-in-chief.

George Bush, Jr.'s refusal to debate his administration's “pro war” policies with the Iraqi leader is consistent with the federal government's history of declining to publicly debate the merits or legality of controversial policies.

For instance, though the federal government recommends that all municipal water suppliers fluoridate drinking water to prevent tooth decay, it will not debate citizens who oppose fluoridation. Similarly, the federal government recommends a schedule of childhood vaccinations but refuses to debate citizens who oppose those recommendations.

The IRS has repeatedly refused to assemble a panel of its top experts to debate the legality of the income tax with We The People (see page 8).

Private citizens and grassroots citizen activist groups have tried repeatedly to get the government to prove the validity and/or legality of its positions on these and many other issues. Available data indicates the federal government cannot afford full disclosure of the facts on key issues of public importance because their positions are not supported by scientific or lawful authorities.

To the contrary, citizens have proven the following: Fluoride is harmful and promotes rather than prevents tooth decay; vaccines are harmful and they promote rather than prevent the spread of infectious diseases; taxing peoples' wages as income is an unconstituionally unapportioned direct tax and the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

The reason the federal government refuses to publicly debate its fluoride, vaccination and income tax policies is obvious: It cannot defend its positions on those issues.

It follows that the reason President Bush refuses to publicly debate his administraton's plans to start a war in Iraq is also obvious: He would fail to defend his position before the world.

***

Them dawgs don't debate

Yale educated President George W. Bush, with God, freedom, peace, democracy and good will toward all men on his side, will not agree to a live, internationally televised debate with Saddam Hussein whom, we have been told, is an evil, sadistic barbarian who mass murders his own people.

After CBS Correspondent Dan Rather's internationally-televised interview with Saddam was aired February 26, the White House responded to the debate challenge by stating, “Churchill never debated Hitler.”

Did Hitler ever offer to debate Churchill on live television and did he refuse opportunity? Had Hitler tendered the debate offer, would Churchill have refused the opportunity had he known in advance that WWII would leave 60,000,000 people dead and wound and maim an additional 137,000,000? Would he have debated Hitler if there was even a slight chance public diplomacy may have prevented the wholesale destruction and 20 years of misery that WWII caused?

Now for the $3 trillion or the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it question: If Churchill were alive today, would he advise President Bush to debate Saddam as a noble diplomatic gesture to prevent the chaos WWIII will inevitably bring to our modern world? Or, would Churchill, in all his wisdom, advise President Bush to decline Saddam's invitation because he wouldn't have debated Hitler even if the Nazi leader had publicly challenged him to do so? (After all, Chamberlain never debated Bismark, did he?).

Those are interesting questions, aren't they? They prove the Bush administration could only offer to the world an extremely lame and disingenuous excuse to avoid full public disclosure of its true intentions in Iraq -- and its true intentions for the rest of the world, including America.

Besides, even if Saddam is a sadistic mass murderer, who gets to claim the moral high ground here? In my reference library I have a 922-page, 8 1/2” x 10 3/4” book published in 1995 by the [U.S.] Government Printing Office called, “Final Report: Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.” This book, which was produced under order of President Clinton, chronologizes in exhaustive detail the radiation to which Americans have been exposed, without their knowledge and consent, from the 30s through the 90s. Our government, in conjunction with Quaker Oats, fed radioactive cereal to retarded children to see what would happen. Other experiments have exposed unwitting American subjects to six decades of radiation in every dosage and through every avenue sick scientific minds could brainstorm. The result has been the immediate or the painfully long, torturous death of tens of thousands of Americans who had no idea what caused them to be so sick.

And that is just the beginning of the atrocities the U.S. government has committed against its own people. In fact, our government has been so busy using its own people as lab rats it even passed a law (Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520, U.S. Code) that makes it “legal” to use human (American) subjects (without their knowledge or consent) for chemical and biological weapons testing and research.

We can understand that, from an intellectual perspective, our president would lose a debate to Saddam because “Dubbya” couldn't debate himself out of a wet paper bag. Even if Saddam tied half his brain behind his back to make things fair, President Bush would still lose because his government's position is defenseless.

Saddam, at least, is what he is and doesn't hide it. Our government, on the other hand, pretends to be a champion of human rights while it secretly poisons its own people -- just to see what happens. This is why them dawgs don't debate. ~DWH