Let's get our own "Talking Points" ready on the DSM.

[johnaries]

We've already seen some of the "Talking Points" trying to dismiss the Downing Street Minutes. Let's get our own replies ready for quick answers. Here's a few suggestions:

"That's old news"
ANS: so, you freely ADMIT that the Bush Admin falsified intelligence and lied about the reasons to go to war?

"The term 'fixed' doesn't mean the same thing in Britain that it does here", or "In the UK the term 'fixed' means 'corroborated'" (I have actually seen that last one used!)
ANS: Several UK DUer's have verified that it means exactly the same thing in the UK that it means here. See the following threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3785949
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=191&topic_id=5121&mesg_id=5121

"Would you rather have Saddam in power and etc.,etc."
ANS: What I would RATHER have is a President that tells the truth.
OR, The majority of Americans agree that we should not have gone to war in Iraq if we knew there were no WMD's, including 58% of Bush supporters:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Those are just some of my thoughts and suggestions. I'm sure other DU'ers can come up with some much better.

So, what RW spin have you heard? What suggestions do you have for our own Talking Points?

Maybe if we can get enough good ones we can send them out to our favorite bloggers. Let's beat Rove at his own game!

[kansasblue]

1. RW rants

From comment at Conyers blog:


http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000125.htm#comments

Comment #11: thunk said on 6/4/05 @ 2:43pm ET...

I called Senator Kerry's office on Friday.

His aide said there is NO talk by Kerry of bringing up the Downing Street memo.


He agreed with me that in all likely hood based on reading the entire agreement that it was designed to be leaked to Saddam to convince him that Bush was serious about invasion if he did not allow the weapons inspectors to do their job. We both reread the conclusions in the memo and the statements made by others in the same memo that contradict what "C" supposedly said.

There was also a note of DISDAIN in the Kerry aides voice when I mentioned Conyers and his petition and demands regarding this memo.

There are several possibilities with this memo:

Rycroft wanted to go to war and was making the memo appear to indicate that America was already committed OR Dearlove wanted to go to war and was determined to make Blair think Bush had already committed OR the memo was meant to be leaked to SADDAM as proof that Bush was committed unless Saddam let the inspectors in OR it is a forgery since NOBODY in England has confirmed this memo (they have ignored it since 5/1/05) OR it represents one man's opinion of statements several others in his circle may have or

MAY NOT HAVE said OR he just got it WRONG

[JDPriestly]

2. Nice theory,

But, there is evidence that Bush was very focused on Iraq extremely early on. Check the index of The Price of Loyalty on Iraq and read those pages. A map showing Iraq cut up and divided among various countries was circulating already in the early months of the Bush Jr. administration. Then, of course, read the Clarke book. He tells that Bush wanted Clarke to find an Iraq/911 connection that did not exist. Then read the Vanity Fair article on The Path to War in the May 2005 edition.

Bush was not trying to scare Saddam. He was meticulously planning to invade Iraq and fixing the intelligence to justify the invasion. As I read in another book on the subject (in a bookstore, sorry don't have the name), Iraq doesn't just have oil. The major waterways in the area -- the Tigris and Euphrates flow through Iraq. Imagine privatizing the water in them -- can you imagine the Ponzi scheme a Ken Lay could devise based on the idea of creating a market for the water from those rivers in a dry area. Iraq is also located very centrally. The country that controls Iraq has military access to and the opportunity to invade just about every other country in the area. For the same reason, Iraq would be a perfect intelligence base for the entire area.

The memo was a threat, but not just a threat. The memo reflected a plan that had been agreed upon by the Blair and Bush administrations. Unless someone comes forward with information showing it to be a forgery or a fraud, it is good evidence suggesting that Bush and Blair agreed to go to war long before Bush had the congressional authorization to commit to the war. If the memo is not a forgery there is lots more evidence where these minutes come from. It is just a matter of time until it starts oozing out. Bush figures he'll be long gone by the time his hardcore followers realize what hit them.

[johnaries]

3. Then we can bring up that these minutes corroborate what

Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and various former CIA agents have already said.

Also, these are official meeting minutes, and the Blair Administration has NOT denied their authenticity.

If they are fake, then the Bush Admin needs to say so, rather than just trying to ignore it.

[johnaries]

7. this is funny, THUNK's comments were deleted and....

Comment #26: thunk said on 6/4/05 @ 5:55pm ET...



He may lose his ISP access. Who'd a thunk it?

[JDPriestly]

4. The two criticisms I have heard are

1) It's hearsay -- That's not a criticism. Defendants are convicted of various crimes including conspiracy based on exactly this kind of evidence. If, hypothetically, a memo of this kind indicated that, let's say, a CEO and the members of the board of a corporation were essentially stating that they were agreeing with another corporation to implement a plan to do something that was not legal, the board minutes would be admissible in evidence against them. In some jurisdictions, such statements are not hearsay at all.

2) It's just an opinion -- This is also no reason for dismissing the value of the memo/minutes. The person giving the opinion was the head of intelligence for the UK. He was an expert. Expert opinions are also good evidence.

The memo/minutes are not "slam dunk" evidence of anything. (Remember Woodward's book -- we never knew what Tenet really was referring to when he used the words "slam dunk.") But, the memo/minutes, unless shown to be a forgery or fraudulent (and after this amount of time has passed since it was leaked, the evidence would have to be very good), is sufficient evidence to require further investigation. There's more where this memo comes from is my guess, but it is just a guess.

[salin]

6. moreover, the more bits and pieces that keep getting "out there"

the more a lasting impression in the public psyche that it happened (the gaming of intell) - THAT is what we should be shooting for.

The most recent Bolton story, for example... another item indicating that gaming was going on (he got rid of the top chem weapons inspector because they were pushing for inspections in iraq... and prior to the ousting - bolton bullies and threatens Bustani - to get Bustani to "not mention" some findings of US weapons inspections in Iraq.

Earlier there was the Yellow Cake issue - bushies were warned - but wanted to use it anyway (and did). Followed by the Tawdry L'affaire Plame.

Earlier than that - and periodically floating back up - was the fact that scientists in the USDOEnergy loudly decried the claims of the uses of the infamous aluminum tube...

The more that keeps coming out there... and keeps reconfirming the impression of tampering to manipulate the public (and the UN) - the increasing number of members of the public in denial (that is - still trying to cling to the belief that people in our govt couldn't be that "evil" as to be so callous towards US servicepeople and the Iraqis) who begin to shake off the daze.

I don't know what the tipping point will be, or if we will reach it. I doubt it will be a single peice of "slam dunk" evidence that will turn the tide... No, I think it will be a slow and growing (already occuring) shift in public perception - that if grows to a groundswell will be damning not just for this administration - but will deliver a post watergate type election sweep against the GOP and will begin to change our society for good, and for bad. For good - many neocon tenets (starting with foreign policy but moving to economic poicy and other areas) finally dropped like hot potatoes. For bad - a massive "depression" of the public when faith (in govt, and for some in their religious leaders) is shaken to the core. We haven't talked much about the latter - but I would guess this would have a profound effect on our society.

[johnaries]

5. Silly me, BrotherJohn already started a similar thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3772576

It's always good to have plenty of John's around :silly:

But I think we need to KEEP AT IT and be ready to STOMP any kind of spin the RW tried to put on this.