Framing The Downing Street Debate

[Pawel K]

I just got in to a heated debate with a number of Republicans. After over 20 pages of discussion they decided they can't respond and haven't been back to the thread. I would like to share with you all the tactics and talking points they used.

First off, it is important to shape this debate not about the Iraq war being wrong; they can spin that around in circles for ages without ever getting anywhere. They will do things like bring up Clinton, how Saddam was a bad guy, you know, the usual bullshit when they can't counter a point. What is important is not if the Iraq wae was just (it wasn't) but if Bush lied to bring us in to war. When I wouldn't allow them to change the topic from that they simply couldn't refute anything. Here are their talking points on the minutes:

The downing street memo is too debatable to use as evidence.
There is nothing debatable about this memo

It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the timeline of events and is therefore thought of as a fake.
When I asked for a source on the timeline thing I never got a reply again, but just in case look out for this one.

On top of that why go to the U.N. if you decided to use military action before going to the U.N.?
To make it seemed like they cared. They never got a second resolution passed nor did they get UN approval for war. They went in alone.

1) It was written by a third party
That doesn't matter. Blair had to approve the minutes of the meeting before they were shown to all others that were at the meeting.
2) The word fix has several meaning
I think you all heard this one but I think you will be able to easily refute that. There is no way in the english language that memo could mean Bush did everything he could to stop war; as he promissed.
3) The third party does not attribute the word fix to a direct quote from either Bush or Blair
It doesn't need to quote it, that was what the meeting was about.
4) Why has none of the people that seem so concerned regarding the memo asked the person that wrote it what it means
Because everyone that has finished 2 grade reading classes knows what it means.
5) Regime change in Iraq has been "Official US POLICY Since 1998.
Yes, but under Clinton the policy was to do it by giving financial aid to political parties opposing Saddam; regime change by war didn't become US policy until Jan 2001 when Bush came into office.

This is all they threw at me and I was easily able to dispute it. If they come up with anymore bullshit I will be posting it.

[Divine Ms Q]

1. on the different meanings of "fix"

If the memo implied a different meaning of the word "fix," then why would Tony Blair immediatly rush to deny the fact that "facts were being fixed around" the plan to go to war? Wouldn't he say "Well, when we Brits say 'fixed,' we mean...blah...blah...blah"?

[Dawgs]

4. Exactly...

Next they will be giving us a new meaning for the word 'war'.

[Dawgs]

2. Good job...

It's nice to see that their arguments are so weak.

[Coexist]

3. Also on this part:

"On top of that why go to the U.N. if you decided to use military action before going to the U.N.?
To make it seemed like they cared. They never got a second resolution passed nor did they get UN approval for war. They went in alone."

Unlike in the U.S., support for the war was not quite so rabid in the U.K. - there is a documentary around somewhere, can't find the link, that shows that without this second false-spirited go-round at the U.N. that the U.K. would consider the war illegal and not participate. After a trip to Texas, the British counsel issued a new, shorter report saying it was A-Okay.

[Pawel K]

5. Here you go, Iraq, Tony & the Truth

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8579.htm

[Pawel K]

6. Keep them coming guys, we need to cut through the spin

if you see any better way of countering their argument that I post it please share it with us.

[sandnsea]

7. Bush Doctrine & Pre-Emptive Wars

Downing Street Memo - Keep Your Eye On The Ball
9 June 2005



On Oct 9, 2002, Senator Joe Biden gave a floor speech preceding the IWR vote and reflected on the words of an old law professor who admonished his juries to avoid sensationalist characterizations and “keep your eye on the ball”. All these days later, those words were never more important than they are in dealing with the Downing Street Memo.

From Senator Biden’s Remarks:

“The President said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that we not go to war. It is his hope it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, in my judgment, the President of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war--to go to war--before the President has made up his mind. He has not made up his mind.

Keep your eye on the ball. Follow the bouncing ball like in the old Lawrence Welk days. A, the President has not decided whether or not to go to war; B, the President says give me the authority to go to war; C, we say on what basis do you want to go to war, Mr. President?

The details matter. If, for example, we leave here, setting a precedent, suggesting the reason we might go to war is because of this new doctrine of preemption, which no one has explained--no one has explained it.”

That is the question the Downing Street Memo answers. When George Bush was telling Congress he had not made a decision to go to war, that he hoped to avoid it, that he only sought to disarm Saddam Hussein, he was not telling the truth. Rather, he was implementing the Bush Doctrine, the first step being a Preemptive War intended to so intimidate the world with our military might that all nations would succumb. Shock and Awe was not aimed at Saddam or the Iraqi National Guard, the “psychological destruction of the enemy’s will to fight” was aimed at the entire world.

As Senator Biden also said that day “So, for Lord's sake, anybody who decides to vote for this resolution, please do not rest it on this cockamamie notion of preemption. You will rue the day. If that is the precedent we establish for our own safety's sake, you will rue the day.”

It is this doctrine of preemption that is the question. As I laid out in “Iraq Road to Hell”, the Bush Administration will continue to roll out their charade of excuses and covers. They have done it again in claiming HR 4655 gave the President authority to launch a war. It did nothing of the sort, as Right LEFT Story clearly lays out. Nowhere in HR 4655 is war authorized.

Congress, in 2002, did not authorize war to implement the Bush Doctrine of Preemption either. Bush was required to declare all peaceful and diplomatic means had been exhausted, and that Iraq posed a grave threat to the US. He made that declaration 2 days after he deployed troops, in March 2003. He knew it wasn’t true because he planned to “fix the intelligence to the policy” all along. As John Bonifaz wrote when requesting a Resolution of Inquiry, this declaration to Congress is in violation of the “False Statements Accountability Act of 1996”.

The Downing Street Memo is simple. It validates the words of numerous officials, analysts, aides, and more. George Bush intended to launch a war on Iraq since the first days of his Presidency. We have unwittingly implemented the Bush Doctrine’s “cockamamie notion of preemption” and American supremacy. That is not what Congress or the American people supported.

Keep Your Eye On The Ball
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1047