Explain to me the republican "defense" of the DSM as "pre-UN"

[0rganism]

With respect to the Downing Street Minutes, I just don't see how saying, "The memo came out before we went to the UN," is any kind of justification at all. All it does, AFAICT, is emphasize the fact that the bush administration "fixed the intelligence" before presenting it to the Security Council. Indeed, Colin Powell went to the UN with phoney images of mobile bio-weapons labs and chemical weapons factories, probably cooked up by some jackass in the Office of Special Plans, whose job was to cherry-pick intelligence to implicate Iraq.

Meanwhile, the demands for weapons inspectors to have complete access to Iraq were honored -- and subsequently ignored despite the televised destruction of over-ranged Al-Sammoud missiles. The requirement that Iraq give a full accounting of its various chemical and biological weapons-related materials purchases was respected with a vast quantity of printed and digital records -- and summarily discarded before anyone could have possibly analyzed it.

In my current analysis, Saddam Hussein's regime -- brutal and totalitarian as it may have been -- was not in violation of UN resolution 1441, but, thanks to the intransigence of the bush administration, the United States is!

[brainshrub]

1. Here's how:

To understand this you will need:

1) One shovel.
2) A back-yard.

Directions:

Dig a hole about one foot deep in the back-yeard, then stick your head into the hole. You will now understand how how the pre-UN defense works.

[0rganism]

7. I was looking for something a little deeper

Come on, only one foot deep? You can still see daylight that way.

[Avalux]

2. In their black and white world -

the repugs think they can justify any action with conditions - "we said that before we went to the UN, so it means nothing".

Just like "the world is different since 9/11, so we can do whatever we want to now".

[endarkenment]

3. I've been wondering the same thing.

Blair blurted this out, and as the only other statement was from that incoherent numbskull to his right, it appeared to be the Big Defense.

At first I thought it was argument by non-sequitor, always good for fooling the masses, however the non-sequitor requires an unrelated fact: 'sheep are used in wool production' which is demonstrably true, to falsely 'prove' some other contested theory 'the DSM are not important'. So Blair would have said something like 'yes but as we know sheep are used in wool production, consequently the DSM are not important'. Instead 'the DSM are from before we went to the UN' is in fact relevant. In fact, establishing that the DSM are actual minutes from his administrations high level (MI6) briefings in the period of time before we all went to war is THE VERY POINT.

So what we have here is Argument By Bluster. The way this works is that you state something factual, and that actually argues against your case, but you state it as if it proves your case.

My other theory is that there is a running wager regarding who can utter the most obviously, stupidly, patently false argument in front of the MSM without getting even the faintest suggestion of a follow on question from them.

[Beetwasher]

4. Yup, You Got It!

The "bluster" approach. It's like a murderer saying "He WAS alive BEFORE I shot him in the head! So how could I be guilty of murder?"

I like your theory about the running wager as well.

[0rganism]

6. Hmm, I think that could be it

I like how you differentiate their actions from argument non sequitor. That's a key point, and helps greatly in unraveling the knot. Instead of looking for how the timeline assists their position or doesn't even relate to it, we can look to how it directly refutes their position and then consider what they can get away with in the press.

Nice.

[rateyes]

5. I think their (faulty) reasoning is..

Hey, we went to the UN to try to get Saddam to comply through diplomatic means--if he had complied (which he did, a little tidbit the RW likes to gloss over)--then we would not have gone to war.

It's a smoke-screen diversion---listen to what we say--don't believe your lying eyes.

However, I think the real explanation to your question was given by brainshrub. But, I'll have to use the shovel to dig my way out of the BS this administration piles up around us.

[Disturbed]

10. The one DSM minutes alone is not sufficient.

There is a vast amount of documentation that can provide a case which I predict will surface and the case will be put forth against the Bush Regime that should lead to Impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfailed for starters.

[rateyes]

12. I agree with you.

Just trying to make some sense of their "garbage" answers.

[librechik]

14. they hope people will forget that they DIDN'T go to the UN

for the second vote which would have been the actual go ahead for action, in Feb 2003. Shrub knew they wouldn't get the votes for approval, so they skipped that and went on in. Therefore, how is the UN relative in this issue, since we wound up ignoring them?

[rateyes]

19. I am humbled in your presence...

you're right!

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. It makes no sense whatsoever.

THAT is the point of the whole issue! They planned the damn war LONG before they went to the UN and the Senate and they INSISTED they were "working on a peaceful resolution" which was total and complete BULLSHIT. They've been caught in their boldface lies and now it's time to get ALL of their asses to The Hague!

[rateyes]

9. To add one more tid-bit to this discussion...

I was watching that news conference when Tony and Shrub were taking the questions just to see if anyone would ask the DSM question. When it was asked, I noticed some "reporters" in the back-ground grin and look at each other--don't know the significance of that---but, as he was asking the question, my thought was---"watch this, Blair is going to answer FIRST---to give cover to Shrub." They had their answers pre-arranged beforehand.

With the "grinning journalists" in the back, and the pat answers that were given, I just have the feeling that the "questioner & questionees" set that all up for our benefit, to try and get beyond it. Maybe I'm paranoid--but, that's just because they're out to get us.

[Straight Shooter]

11. bush also said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" before going to the UN

There are, I'm sure, many other instances and documents which can prove that his intent was never to negotiate, only to bomb.

I would love for the video to surface where bush was caught on camera as the bombs fell on Baghdad and its children, where he pumped his fist, smiling, and said, "Feels good!"

I always knew he was lying about diplomacy and what-have-you. That's what bush does, it's what he always does. bush lies.

[gulliver]

13. The argument is a misleading (a clever lie), but a valid argument.

The time line would then be:
1. The Bushies were drooling to go to war with Iraq. The DSM documents show this. Other sources did too.
2. They were "persuaded" to go to the UN. The implication is that once that occurred, war was no longer inevitable. Trouble is, events show this implication is untrue (a lie).

Although Bush went to the UN, he decided to go against the UN's wishes and attack Iraq over their objections. Bush said publicly that the United States would seek a vote on the war from the UN, but when it became clear he would lose that vote, he dropped it.

The UN consultation was always a fig leaf with Bush.

[0rganism]

15. If this is their reasoning, for whom is it intended?

I see the entirety of the UN episode, which you point out was a "fig leaf", as being a somewhat more detailed presentation of the same lies to the rest of the world that they were using on the populations of the USA and the UK. We never received a "go ahead" vote from the UN, as you also observe. So in order to accept the implication mentioned in point #2, the recipient of the argument would have to be someone who
a) didn't know what happened at the UN, or
b) thought the justifications delivered to the UN were qualitatively different than those arrived at by the aforementioned "fixing".

This, to me, indicates that the bushistas are playing to the apathetic and their base, and relying on a delinquent press to drop any further inquiry. Would you agree?

[gulliver]

17. I would completely agree.

They are playing to people who don't know any better ("the apathetic") and to people who accept whatever they say ("their base").

[Rex]

16. Their 'defense' is to lie so many times that it becomes true.

True to the ignorant masses. We (you and I) don't count, because everytime we raise our voice they use the 'radical fringe element' defense. Lately they have been using the Orwellian, polar opposite lie - take the opposite of the truth and present it as a fact until people really believe it to be a fact.

[Tsiyu]

21. kick

[leftofthedial]

18. wave hands

obfuscate

wave hands some more

tell a couple of outrageous lies

wave hands

make it seem so complicated that understanding it will be painful

wave hands

state something absurd in a very reasonable tone that sounds like a preacher explaining an old testament bible verse

[Tsiyu]

20. kick

[deacon]

22. Bush didn't want to go to congress--even went so far as to have lawyers

making an announcement that he didn't need to.

He was backed into going to congress because he was getting bad press at the time saying that that was the right thing to do.

[annabanana]

24. that's how I remember it..

He was pushed to the UN kicking and complaining... then he acted like it was his idea..

[deacon]

25. And the rove campaign strategy CD that was found in the park before

midterms. The chronology of events, everything collaborates with the memos.

[deacon]

23. As a matter of fact he met with a Saudi prince in Texas about going to

iraq before he caved into the idea of going to congress.

[KharmaTrain]

26. How About Those Documents?

Whoa...the light went on. I forgot about all those documents this regime demanded of Hussein prior to going to the UN. Supposedly Iraq complied, but this stuff was dismissed before anyone ever had a chance to see what was in the data. Anyone know what ever came of this...and if there's any reference to this in any of the memos?

At the time, I felt this regime was setting up Iraq for a heads, I win, tails you lose situation...no matter what Iraq would or could list, it would be refuted by this regime...or any discrepencies would have been deterimined to be Iraqi cheating. In those days, this regime could have gotten away with that shit.

Now, if there was this list of Saddam's weapons...that he admits, what happened to them?

[deacon]

27. Good question--also forged documents were used and the thesis lifted

off of the internet and edited and was used to make the case for war.

[KharmaTrain]

28. These Were Supposedly Official Iraqi Documents...

Yep, there's a ton of forged stuff out there...thanks to our Italian friend and others. Plus don't forget the debunked, but still tauted story at the time, that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents in Prague.

What I'm refering to was a list...supposedly several thousand pages...and "several CDs" (I recall that term used at the time), that supposedly Iraq submitted to El Bareddei and the U.N. about their WMD program. That's the list I'm wondering what ever happened to.

Also, while we're tripping down memory lane...whatever happened to the charges that this regime was tapping phone lines of various UN delegations in the run-up to that "vote"...and several were intimidated.

There's so much in that time frame that needs to be looked at.

Cheers!