Red Herrings (BBA VI)
Kevin Baas, in "My conversation with a person from another world", gives us a record of an electronic exchange he had with a Bush/DSM* apologist, who is, as Mr. Baas notes, clearly from another world.
My favorite part of the exchange is where the Person From Another World (or PFAW) loses his dismissive cool and lets his hair down (and his punctuation and grammar start to suffer as well):
Once more: In the CONTEXT of 9/11 Saddam Hussein represents the very element that fell The Towers. He had to go. Now he is gone and the world is a better for it. You wish to SMACK Bush. That is the only thing this is all about. You use historical revisionist hocus pocus to draw your conclusions. You do this to smack Bush whom you believe is Satan and must be stopped in the most embarrassing way possible as soon as possible all the voters be damned.
Go away son you speak not of this world but of some you have created in liberalist utopia desires.
Fascinating insight into how the PFAW mind works — or doesn't quite work, as the case may be. I find it interesting that the PFAW seems not to make the specious assertion that Hussein was actually responsible for the 9/11 events, but that he "represents" the "element" that "fell the Towers". (Is this an attempt to get back to good old King-James style biblical english? "Fell the towers" is quite an impressive phrase.) Of course, what "the context of 9/11" means here is anybody's guess, but it seems that the PFAW realizes that Hussein had no actual involvement with the events of 9/11, so a nefarious connection must be created somehow now that we're in "the context of 9/11".
The "element" that is "represented" is evidently "evil" (on a global scale, manifesting the presence of Satan); it's akin to "hating American freedoms", which ultimately translates into the fanatical Islamic vs. Christianity crusade rhetoric.
"He had to go", of course, merely reinforces the message of the DSM, which the writer was hoping to weaken, that Bush had already decided this and was looking for a pretext that would be acceptable to the American people for long enough to get the war underway.
The reference to Satan, of course, is a reverse projection kind of thing; the PFAW always sees himself fighting against Satan and his army of infidels, which includes me, a godless atheist who hates America first. The final flourish ("Go away son…") manages to be dismissive, patronizing, and evoke that King James Bible all in one short line.
There are several standard red herrings that Bush apologists have adopted as standard responses to anyone who criticizes Bush, hence America ("Hate America Firsters!", another ungainly neologism), and which were evident in this exchange between Baas and the PFAW:
- It's just a memo, someone said someone said….
- Everyone knew Saddam had WMDs back then.
- There were plenty of reasons Saddam had to go, not just WMDs.
- It's old news anyway — get over it.
- Jesus said so.
Number 1, of course, just tries to dismiss the allegations as hearsay, with a bit of contempt for authority thrown in. One does note, however, that the memo was official minutes of the Blair / UK government, and the allegations were made by the head of British Intelligence. Allegations always begin with someone asserting (or "alleging") something. So, far from being "hearsay" (an operative concept only in a legal-defense context), this "allegation" is, well, an "allegation".
Number 2 usually goes along the lines of asserting that, at the time, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs. Of course, that's not true: virtually no one thought so. However, as part of the deal necessary to get Blair to support the invasion (see the DSM), Bush had to support the UN's sending of inspectors to Iraq –> clear evidence for the "no smoke without fire crowd" that everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq. NB: usually the "no smoke without fire crowd" bring their own smoke to manufacture the presumptive fire; see, e.g., the "controversy" about evolution in Kansas.
With Number 3, we're getting into that part that always sounds to me like desperate defense lawyers listing all the possible reasons why their client might be thought not guilty just in case some of them don't work. There may have been plenty of reasons, and most of them have been used after the fact to justify the invasion, but the WMDs were the original, manufactured and untrue justification. The allegation here has nothing to do with WMDs; the WMDs are merely a catalyst. The allegation is that the President participated in a conspiracy to manipulate intelligence results, to mislead the US Congress, and to mislead the American people.
Number 4 I think has been used for awhile, but I didn't really notice it until Bush's hopeful remarks that, after the election, the "accountability moment" on Iraq had passed. Somehow the idea seems to be that if the Republicans can get by without something being noticed for a certain amount of time that they're home safe. "Oh, that's old news" they trot out, tiresome and dealt with already. Well, the DSM does indeed concern events from a few years ago, but it's not old news, it's not tired, it's by no means passé. One notes in passing that there is no universally recognized "accountability moment" for war crimes.
Number 5: generally deemed unassailable and all too common with the current president, who feels he has a "mandate" from God, and with the radical fundamentalists who feel they convinced God to give Bush the "mandate". Remember, this isn't just a "War on Terrorism", it's also a "War on Evil". I can't really comment with any authority though, since I'm a godless atheist.
[This continues my series of posts concerning the pre-Iraq-war actions of the US administration, aimed at increasing awareness of those activities, as part of the Big Brass Alliance (or BBA) and it's support of AfterDowningStreet.org. For more information from me, see my first posting on The Downing Street Memo: "Worth Remembering"]
———-
*DSM = "Downing Street Memo", of course.
on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 18.57
Permalink
Blog Swarm Tuesday
What's the latest news in the After Downing Street Campaign?