Help me -- should I respond to this email, and if so how?

[magellan]

I got an email in response to mine re asking people to sign John Conyers' Downing Street memo letter to Bush**. It's not a reply to me, but to someone who had forwarded my email on, and it goes like this:

My 2¢, (Did you ever notice how the "¢" sign isn't used anymore. It isn't even on the keyboard. Talk about the death of common "¢"s)

I don't find this surprising. I never thought for a minute that discussions on military action DIDN'T take place many months in advance with our primary ally. And certainly they were top secret at the time. I think they would have been derelict if they hadn't had these discussions. I do believe that Bush and Blair were fully justified in their planning and eventual action given the criminally bad "intelligence" reports on WMDs. If anyone is to be held accountable I think it would be the heads of the "intelligence" communities in the US and UK. Ours left, but I think he should have been brought up on charges for his ineptness. (Fortunately, I have the luxury of being an "armchair" general with 20-20 hindsight.)

I am also not surprised that Congressman John Conyers (MI-D) is trying to make political hay out of these "revelations."

I think Bush and Blair both intended to disable a dangerous man before everyone in the area, and by extension us, were blown up or gassed. And the world is better off now than if no action had been taken.

We are fortunate to have a system that allows differing political views. Unfortunately, the cost has always been the blood and lives of our armed services personnel. Now Iraq will now have the opportunity to build such a system too.

Hits all the popular Reich Wing talking points; doesn't show a shred of the "common '¢'s" alluded to in the first line. A fine example of the kind of brain-washed dullards we're up against.

Anyway, I was so angered by it that I started to reply (even though I received it indirectly), but what I wrote sounded very hostile...and that's no way to approach this -- especially since these are Born Agains. So I trashed it. Now I'm thinking maybe I SHOULD reply. What do you all think? Waste of time and I shouldn't aggravate myself over it, or do I attempt to edumucate this fool?

[chicagojoe]

1. Be hostile; be very hostile.

[BlueIris]

3. Heh. That was my first response, too.

But then, I'm a person who, for the most part, can utilize my anger effectively to stay invested in exhausting, frustrating arguments with the most base, vile, repulsive human beings. That's me. If you're a person who finds hostility undermines your ability to argue effectively, trying to neutralize it before engaging an individual like the author of that letter might be beneficial to you. My instincts always tell me to remain hostile, though--this situation is an outrage.

[chicagojoe]

4. It's my hostility and rage toward

the Radical Right that helps me reduce them to quivering jelly in a "debate".

[smiley]

2. just send him statistical data ....

or direct quotes of actual contradicting statements that have been made about Saddam's weapon capability. Definitely should educate this person and eleviate him from his kool aid addiction.

[BlueIris]

8. Respectfully, I'm not sure just sending someone like this

cold, statistical data, which comes from sources he irrationally may not "trust," is going to magically "educate" him. Particularly if he's managed to ignore the statistics so far. The author of that letter is justifying his position primarily through bizarre circumlocutions of the truth, which have been fed to him by pro-war supporters. He's been persuaded by rhetoric, he'll have to be unpursuaded by it as well, in addition to being plied with facts.

[BlueIris]

5. Alright, second thought: yes, you should respond.

Maybe after you're feeling less hostile. Maybe not. Your choice.

Here's why I think it's worth your time: practice run for trying to explain to all others who accept this version of the G.O.P spin on these crimes why the DSM represents an impeachable offense. Also, as a by-product you might educate this person.

But how to approach? I need a minute.

[Maraya1969]

6. Maybe you can remind them that this is an illegal war against a country

that was no imminent or far reaching threat. We have taken a stable albeit strictly controlled and dominated country and turned it into a hot bed breading ground for terrorists. Remind them that Saddam had a tight leash on his people so there were no terrorist training camps in Iraq.

There are certain reasons the allow for a country to go to war against another. I can't remember if it is from the Geneva Convention or in the UN's war policies or somewhere else.

And how can you trust a president who lies to the American people and thousands die as a result of a war that was not justified?

You could also remind them that because our military is being occupied with Iraq we have not sent forces in to help the genocide going on in the Sudan.

Ask them why it is OK for a president to deceive people about a war where thousands of human lives are going to perish yet it is not OK to lie about a sexual indiscretion in the White House?

[jukes]

7. waste of time

writer has already convinced himself, and will rationalize any response. get on to more productive things.

[BlueIris]

9. Okay, third thought: take it point by point.

I know, I know: exhausting, frustrating. But I think it's the most effective way. But which point to start with? I think you might want to pick the weakest, (there weren't any WMDs, ever, weren't there, didn't exist, never did) and work out from there.

[chalky]

10. I think wikipedia sums it up nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

They even zero in on the most damning parts of the memo, including:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

Thus proving:
A) They were already attacking Iraq before the discussions even began,
B)The WMD case they were shoving down our throat was bogus (NOT BASED ON FAULTY INTEL. In fact, there was NO intel), and
C)We had no legal basis for attacking Iraq.

Check it out.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and by the way...tell your friend that the whole point of the John Conyer's letter is merely to have the president answer these simple questions:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

Surely, regardless of what John Conyer's motives may or may not be...for the sake of national unity, your friend can't possibly object to having these questions answered, now can he? :-)

[magellan]

11. Thanks, everyone!

I've decided to work on a reply that they'll actually bother to read. No point in antagonizing people when you're trying to learn 'em something, right? Guess that means I'll have to keep my anger in check...for the moment. lol

I appreciate all the great advice and wisdom. Will share whatever I come up with, and any response.

[BlueIris]

13. Oh, good for you. Just one other thing I was thinking of, since

I think you should definitely reply in the format that you want, and nothing I personally can suggest about content would be all that helpful to you, with the possible exceptio of this: I'd stay away from that cheap shot that guy takes at John Conyers. That's the thing that I find most offensive about that letter. You might just want to leave that alone. Trying to refute that would make my head implode--although, if you must, I'm sure you have considered pointing out those 88 other congress people who support his effort.

[magellan]

17. Oh, no way is he getting away with that!

The swipe at Conyers isn't getting a pass from me at all, it speaks straight to the heart of the issue! Here's what I wrote about that:

I'm not sure when expecting the truth from our political leaders became "making political hay", but I have a feeling it was around the same time the Right decided anyone who didn't support the President and his decisions was a liar and traitor.

That catches the gist of my ire I think.

I won't mention the 88 congressional co-signers since they're all Democrats; there's no point made there.

Thanks, BlueIris!

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Refuting the Conyers statement is easy

Congressman Conyers is faithfully executing his duties as a senior member of the opposition party. If the tables were turned I would hope and expect that the Republican leadership would do the same.

[merbex]

12. I would be hostile and sarcastic:all the innocent dead deserve that much

at least. Someone pointing out that this is the first time this nation went to war knowingly on a lie

I would seriously question their reading comprehension ability;it is sorely lacking. Those minutes clearly state that the facts were being fitted around the policy.

I call that being manipulated or LYING to justify an unjust war.

Evidently they believe the ends justify the means but by saying that it puts their Chistianity in a precarious position

Like not having a leg to stand on

[chalky]

14. What the INNOCENT DEAD DESERVE is for US to be willing to be humble

enough to solicite ANYONE and EVERYONE'S signature to Conyers' letter. If that involves deflecting a condescending reply with a polite, friendly explanation, so be it. If that involves turning a blind eye to the passive aggression in that response, so be it. I don't give a damn if you thought that respondent was the BIGGEST PRAT ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH, ignore their hidden hostility and give a reasoned response in exchange. It's the least WE can do for the INNOCENT DEAD.

Besides, it throws them for a loop when you don't respond in kind. They only understand "escalating hostilities". Give them a Gandhi or King approach and watch their head explode. It's kinda fun.

[merbex]

16. I am beyond tired of responding "politely";these are smug people

who clearly have a reading comprehension problem to an official gov't document and they need to be called on that

I read the response to the original email and there is a major disconnect with what is written in the Downing St Minutes and their response to it

[annabanana]

15. the timeline is completely backwards!!

it should be:
1) Bush decided to go to war
2) He had phony WMD intelligence fabricated to "justify" the invasion
3) thousands of people died
4) Oil company profits soared

[meppie-meppie not]

19. passing the buck does not absolve the President., abdicating blame

just cheapens the office to it's lowest levels. Saddam could not have blown us up, he had no WMD or even any long range missiles. Gas us? Where was the gas when we rolled into Baghdad? There wasn't any because he'd used everything we had sold him, on the Iranians.

These "revelations" aren't some mythological prophesies. They are the absolute expose of the lies to the electorate. Lying to the people in order to go to war is TREASON. How do you like them "revelations"?

[roseBudd]

20. The Army War College said...

"Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it
ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda.” - Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College

AND

“Iraq is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape
with our allies.” -General William Odom

[Th1onein]

21. THIS ARGUMENT IGNORES THIS ONE FACT:

"The intelligence is being fixed around the policy."

The Rethugs made up shit out of thin air so that they could do what they wanted to do. They made up shit out of thin air to fool the American Congress and ultimately the American people.

And Bush deserves to be impeached because of that behavior alone.

[Dr Fate]

22. Say: When Bush answers to all this under oath, then I'll consider it.

Until then, it's just more unconfirmed excuses.