Earlier this week, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged our very own fearless leader to a live debate on television.

Think about that for a minute; a live debate between two of the world's most misguided Loony Tunes. One is insulated from criticism and led astray by his nut bag advisors who still believe in and perpetuate the myth that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The other is a firebrand figurehead who doesn't believe in the Holocaust, an event so clearly perpetrated against humanity that even O.J.'s defense team couldn't disprove it.

If a debate between those two dolts isn't the stuff of a reality TV executive's dreams, I don't know what is.

All kidding aside (well, for a sentence or two), why shouldn't our president stand head to head against Ahmadinejad? I mean, he's the president of the United States of America, man, the rock 'n' roll cowboy leader of the free world and appointee from on high of the forces for all that is good and righteous.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is the death metal messiah of evil, a crazy dude who wants to nuke Israel and the U.S. And he may just be the antichrist. Get these two together head-to-head and Bush should come out on top, score one for truth, justice and the American Way, right?

Maybe I'm just another treasonous liberal scumbag for even suggesting it, but somehow, I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Ahmadinejad is a good guy and I don't doubt his country's desired nuclear energy program would eventually be used to harm innocent people.

And really, the point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with Bush or Ahmadinejad's proposal. I just needed to rant a little about the president to meet my Bush-bashing quota for the month. Liberal media union rules and all.

The point - more of a lament actually- is that there's no such thing as an honest debate between people of differing viewpoints anymore. Even if Bush and Ahmadinejad, unlikely though it is, were to get on stage live, the exchange would be much like any other "debate" between politicians: utterly contrived and devoid of any real meaning.

In most interviews, at least those aired on television, every question is known in advance and every response is focus-tested and mother-approved before it is uttered. Neat little sound bites take the place of substantial discussions and neither side really listens to the other, merely struggles to shout their points out louder.

Maybe one day we'll learn how to facilitate discussions between two opposing sides, even if that means talking with idiots like Ahmadinejad.

Or we could just keep bombing and invading everyone. Seems to be working so far.