[Subtitle this Diary --
What the Downing Street Minutes and Other Documents Really Mean]
There has been a ton of chatter and babble on dKos about what the Downing Street Minutes mean. A lot of hand wriging about the MSM/RWCM and their failure to highlight these documents.
And there has been all kinds of "see, I told you so" about these "smoking guns" and outrage that the long arm of the law is not arresting the man holding the gun.
Well, let me add my $0.02 to the conversation and offer an explanation as to why this is giving you all fits and what you might be able to do about it.
Here are a couple of
background points.
- This is further "proof" that GWB was dead set on invading Iraq and deposing Hussein.
- We already knew this.
- The public pretty much knew this.
- GWB / Invasion supporters spin this (and the public pretty much doesn't care) becuase they've been able to frame this using the following syllogism:
- Bush "framed" Hussein of a WsMD crime to invade him and punish him for that crime; but
- Sadam Hussein and his family and fellow Baathists were Mass Murderers / Bad Guys; ergo
- At best, you're saying that we Framed a Guilty Man
If you don't have a comeback to the "what's the harm of framing a guilty man," then you aren't going to get folks to care about any of this.
This is why you get blank stares from people when you say, incredibly, that:
- This proves that Bush wanted to Remove Hussein Months Before the War;
- This proves that Bush "lied" when he said he wanted to exhaust diplomatic channels.
- This proves that the WsMD claims were fabricated.
That look says "so what" becuase they are thinking -- "what's the harm in framing a guilty man?"
That look also says "so what" becuase its not a lie when everyone knows that what you are saying is with a "wink wink" attached.
So, how do you respond? What is this about?
This is about Osama Bin Laden - not Iraq.
What this proves is that:
- Bush never cared about Osama Bin Laden;
- Bush doesn't truly care about combating terrorism
- Bush has dishonored the victims of 9/11.
- Bush would rather spend money and American lives hunting down a many who wasn't behind 9/11 and ignore the man who was behind 9/11.
The question is not
what to do about Hussein (this is the R's throwing the burden of proof back on you to explain why not invade). The question is why
now?
Why, in the midst of hunting down the people who perpetrated the biggest crime / terrorist act / act of aggression on American Soil since Pearl Harbor, why in the midst of combatting terrorism, wh, when the FRENCH are saying "We are All Americans," why is Bush lying to the American public so he can go after Hussein and divert the attention from Osama Bin Laden? Why? Why? Why?
Folks, don't we remember the talk about Rove's biggest fear never materializing? Rove being concerned that Kerry would highlight the 9/11 failures to Bush's detrmiment?
We are letting Rove and Bush off of the hook once again by pretending that these documents are relevant to Iraq. THEY AREN'T
Let me say this again because it bears repeating:
What this proves is that Bush never cared about Osama Bin Laden. Bush doesn't truly care about combating terrorism. Bush has dishonored the victims of 9/11.
When this discussion happens -- and it appears that the MSM/RWCM seems to be paying attention for no other reason that there is a sniff of a "gotcha" element here or a cross-pond dust up that could turn into a WWE Smackdown between a hoity-toity British Knighted La De Da and a Good Ole Boy 'Mur-ken -- when this happens, we must be prepared to put this in the proper context: finding the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks and briging them to justice.
Secondarily, it is "about" why Doesn't Bush care about bringing the 9/11 terrorists, including Bin Laden, to justice?
Republicans had a field day when Howard Dean said that Bin Laden should be presumed innocent until he has a trial and then found guilty. This outrage suggests concern that Bin Laden be brought to justice. Well, the memos suggest the contrary.
Walter Pincus's piece in the Washinton Post last sunday quotes Paul Wolfiwitz as saying (paraphrase) that "we've spent $30b on Iraq and Hussein in the last dozen years, and that he's sure Congress would not want to spend another $30b in the next dozen." Oh, if it were only that cheap!!
Why, in god's name, are we diverting so many resources to Iraq (a legitmate focus of our foreign policy resources - but debatable what the best course of action is) and ignoring Al Quaeda and Bin Laden?
Your "Action Items"
So, when this gets discussed, please:
- do point out that Bush had committed to invading before he fessed up to the public that he would invade;
- do point out that Bush lied to us to get public support for the invasion;
- do not, though, by any counts fall victim to the "but Hussein was a bad guy" response.
This is not about Hussein. The
reason that Bush lied was not so that we wouldn't notice that we were framing a guilty man. It was so that you wouldn't notice that we were letting the real killers go free.
Bush said that he wasn't too concerned about Osama Bin Laden then lied that he ever said that -- probably the best documented lie that Bush ever told.
THAT folks, is "what this is about."
The Downing Street Mintues and similar are your vehicle for reminding folks that Bush is soft on Bin Laden and stupid on fighting terrorists.
The Downing Street Minutes and similar show us that Bush stopped caring about Bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists far earlier than we had originally thought.
Its one thing to criticize the man abstractly for being incurious or having Adult ADD. Its another to put it in concrete terms and show that his attention deficit has tangible results -- Bin Laden is Still Alive and Free, and Bush doesn't seem to care and hasn't for a long, long time.