Deconstructing Bush's favorite talking point

[Qutzupalotl]

"Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend this country? Given that choice, I will defend America every time. Because we acted to defend ourself, because we took action to make America a safer place, more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are now free."

There's got to be a dozen things wrong with that statement, but it is cleverly constructed to make it difficult to refute concisely while not being an outright lie. That's why he repeats it verbatim. We should pull the rug out from under him, and I'm convinced that if DUers work on this, we can.

-It accomplishes his main goal of justifying the Iraq war by tying Saddam with Osama in a deceptive juxtaposition.
-It implies that Saddam was planning to attack America, which is a lie.
-It makes anyone who questions his motives seem like they aren't interested in keeping America safe.

(I like the line that Bush is making America less safe by recklessly invading Muslim nations for phony reasons; Bush is now countering that "attacking terrorists doesn't increase terrorism; attacking terrorists is how you defeat them," which is snappy, but wrong. Invading Muslim nations with a Christian-faced coalition is how you drive up terrorist recruitment. I hope Kerry sticks to his guns on that, and calls Bush on it.)

And just what are "the lessons of September 11th"? That you can use a tragedy to justify an attack on an unrelated country and claim self-defense? That you're getting good at manipulating public opinion through fear and misdirected outrage?

"Take the word of a madman"--No, all you had to do was listen to the inspectors. The inspections were working. They were discovering the truth, that your intelligence was wrong, but you refused to see it. I'd rather be paying inspectors for the forseeable future, even with Saddam still in power, than driving our country into bankruptcy and our soldiers to their deaths in an unwinnable occupation.

"Given that (false) choice, I will defend America every time." Defending America had nothing to do with it. This was settling an old score, paid for by an oil grab.

"Because we acted to defend ourself"--An invasion is not self-defense, especially if there were no plans to attack America and no weapons with which to do it.

"because we took action to make America a safer place, more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are now free."--Iraq is still under martial law, is it not? Afghanistan is a catastrophe, ruled mostly by warlords, funded by the opium trade. Bush again cleverly tries to justify invading Iraq by mentioning it in the same breath with Afghanistan. This is why the spiel never changes.

I hope at the debates Kerry asks Bush to explain these statements in light of the FACT, which Bush acknowledged, that there is no evidence linking Saddam with al Qaeda. That would show people that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. If there is a way to force Bush to admit this during the debate, it could be devastating. Bush can't reword the statement, certainly not on the spot, or it will fall apart. Some hole will show through. He'll have to admit he was deceiving by juxtaposition, false linkages, false analogies, and false bravado.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

[buycitgo]

1. excellent work.....bookmarking this

why haven't ANY 'journos' taken the time to do this, and ASK Bush to tell us exactly WHAT the lessons of 911 might be

ask him to LIST those 'lessons' individually

has he ever done so, or just refer to them in that oblique, disingenuous manner?

this is prime fodder for a media blast, as well as to the Kerry campaign, but they seem loathe to deal with anything having to do with 911

sickening

[Qutzupalotl]

30. Kick

Hi Citgo :hi:

[dogtag]

2. Every time I hear that line,

"take the word of a madman" I assume he's talking about himself.

[kentuck]

4. Was he talking about Hans Blix and all the inspectors ?

and everyone else that was telling him something different than what he wanted to hear?

[crickets]

33. So do I. (nt)

[acmavm]

3. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Saddam was not a threat to us

or to anyone really. He had not WMDs, he had no biological weapons that were of any use, and he couldn't attack anyone because he had nothing to attack with. He wasn't going to send the Iraqi army anywhere, he couldn't back them up with anything. He was a madman and a brutal ruler, but he wasn't a threat to you or me. He wasn't a threat to the Middle East. And the justification that we went in to save the people from Saddam is just sooooo ridiculous. If this country had really given a shit about the Iraqi people, Poopy would have gone in after we drove them out of Kuwait and he talked them into a suicidal uprising.

[LynnTheDem]

12. WHAT is this

"madman" shit???

Explain please, just WHY you think Saddam Hussein was a "madman"?

[acmavm]

13. I use that term because I simply do not think that anyone who feels that

they have the right to murder people and torture people are not hitting on all cylinders. I don't care what the justification is, power, money, sexual gratification (like serial murderers), whatever.

[LynnTheDem]

15. You mean like

OUR TROOPS right now in Iraq, busy slaughtering the same Shi'ites Saddam Hussein was oppressing but actually wasn't slaughtering in the past decade? Or do you mean the US TROOPS who were and are torturing Iraqis?

Or do you mean the 30,000 civilian deaths the USA was indicted & found guilty of in Nicauraga? Or the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've murdered to date?

Or East Timor...Cambodia...Vietnam...Dominican Republic...Columbia...Ecuador...Bolivia...

Are we as much the "madman"?

You know the invasion was not a humanitarian intervention, according to the International Committee Red Cross, right? There were NO ATROCITIES happening; the atrocities that happened under SH were 20+ years ago during a war, and in 1991 when the US helped him put down the same Shi'ite rebels WE are now putting down.

Poppa bush started the "madman" shit to go along with his "incubator babies" lie to CON DUPE MISLEAD the American public into supporting the Gulf War.

The Iraqi people DID NOT ask us to help them, DID NOT ask us to change their government, DID NOT WANT us in Iraq. I think they've been making that very clear ever since.

When we keep using the bush lie of "madman" we reinforce Americans' opinion that the invasion was the right thing to do, because "MADMAN" scares them. The LAST thing Saddam Hussein was, was suicidal...he's proved that, look where he was when caught. He never threatened to attack us because he knew it would be 100% guaranteed suicide to attack us in any way.

[acmavm]

26. Honestly, did you read my post? The first thing I said was that Saddam

Hussein post NO THREAT to us or anyone else.

Okay, have it your way, the guy's the poster boy for mental health.

[tanyev]

5. Why didn't he defend us ON 9/11?

<rhetorical, really>

[LynnTheDem]

16. Defend???

Do you mean send his sympathies to us?

He did.

Look it up.

[tanyev]

22. What I was trying to point out

is that * is going around with all this macho talk, ..."Given that choice, I will defend America every time..." etc., etc. Well he had a chance to defend American on 9/11, and he and his team failed miserably. This is an argument to direct toward someone who actually believes that the attacks could not have been prevented and that Bush is a strong leader. Look at all the time wasted at that school when he, the only person with authority to do so, should have been at a phone ready to issue a shoot-down order. None of the other people on his defense team did what they were supposed to do in a crisis situation either. Rumsfeld, the only person who had the authority to relay a shoot-down order, ran outside to play Florence Nightingale. Myers was in a meeting with strict instructions not be interrupted. Condi was busy helping prepare *'s statements. Cheney says he issued a shoot-down order, but it came way too late and he doesn't have the authority anyway. The best construction you can put on their actions of that day is that they are woefully incompetent. Their campaign promise should actually be "give us 4 more years, we'll try to do better next time."

Me personally, I lean more to LIHOP/MIHOP, but you don't even have to go there to shoot holes in the "GWB, strong defender of America" claims. Sorry for the rant, I think hearing so much about 9/11 ever since the RNC convention is really getting to me.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Oh sorry, lol!

I thought you were asking why SADDM HUSSEIN didn't "defend" us, LOL!

bushCartel and 911, yes I agree with you. WHY would Americans want these total incompetants to defend us when they were such a total FUBAR defending us on 911!!!

"No one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public."

[tanyev]

29. Oh yes, definitely FUBAR

:toast:

[wurzel]

6. I take it you believe Bush will use this "madman" line in the debates.

One disadvantage Kerry will have is being given a minute to explain position he could write a book about. Bush will come to the debate armed with the kind of slick one liners of the kind you describe. With no burden of any additional information. You have used some three hundred words to very effectively demolish Bush's argument. I'm not sure Kerry will have the same luxury.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. You're right, he won't have much time.

I'm hoping we can refine these points and winnow them down, or just pick the strongest one. "You didn't listen to the inspectors when they told you what you didn't want to hear." Or, "It's not 'defending America' to attack a country that had no plans to attack us and no weapons to do it with."

[SoCalDemocrat]

28. exactly right, condense it down

Condense it down into a tag line. That's how the CON's do it, then keep repeating it endlessly in every media outlet until it sticks.

[LynnTheDem]

18. Of course he will.

That's about all he has left as a means of scaring the US public and keeping them believing invasion was the right thing to do, coz after all, never can tell what a MADMAN will do.

Same shit as his "Saddam = Hitler" and "Saddam = worst mass murderer ever".

Kerry may not politically be wise to say a word against bush's "madman" lie...BUT WE CAN STOP continuing one of bush's lies.

I HATE LIES, I really do. I always have. As a kid I couldn't lie to save my arse.

TRUTH is a GOOD THING, even when it hurts.

[misterphelps]

7. The world is less safe because of your failures..

...specifically your failure to plan ahead in Iraq. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be in Iraq. Right now it doesn't look good. We need help to make this come out right, but you've alienated us from the whole world because of your arrogance and bad decisions.

That would put it back at em

[Qutzupalotl]

10. That's good.

I think the Kerry campaign is already making that last point about our allies, but it seems to be getting buried.

I like the "less safe" angle. I think Dean may have used it first. It undercuts Bush's perceived strength as the great protector/defender. That's thinking the way Rove thinks...attack their strengths.

[gumby]

8. Another one that I despise

goes something like this: If my opponent had his way, Saddam would still be in power.

Yeah, JK is a real girly-man too soft to fight.

[LynnTheDem]

20. That one's SUPER easy...

BUSH said Saddam could stay in power...IF HE DISARMED.

As the ISG's (bush's handpicked weapons inspectors) final report says, IRAQ WAS DISARMED BEFORE THE INVASION.

NO WMD since 1994.

And if bush hadn't KICKED OUT the UN inspectors, we'd have known that, and we'd still have 1008 US troops alive, and 7000+ US troops unwounded.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Forgot one

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but he sure as hell was NOT a "madman".

And now in Iraq it's OUR TROOPS killing and oppressing radical Shi'ites. You know...the same radical Shi'ites Saddam oppressed for us?

And if he was a "madman", how come the USA supported, financed and did business with him right up until bush took (and I mean TOOK) office in 2000?

[Qutzupalotl]

14. All good points.

Thank you, Lynn.

There may be disagreement about the use of the term "madman." I'd prefer it if we didn't use that word, simply because Rove & Co. dreamed it up. But the other poster's point about excessive torture could justify it. The larger point, that we supported him before the invasion of Kuwait, then continued to do business with him under the table, needs to be pointed out more often.

Your point about the Shiites is right on.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Excessive torture?

Taking bush's rhetoric for gospel again.

What excessive torture? Ramming broomsticks and broken flashlights up their arses?

There were several hundred NGOs in Iraq and have been for decades. Yet they say while SH was brutal, there were NO ATROCITIES since the 1991 uprisings.

Were Iraqis raped in prison under SH? Sure. Are Americans raped in prison? "Don't drop the soap." Hell, we JOKE about it.

Read the ACTUAL HRW/AI/ICRC reports; don't swallow bushCartel bullshite. Not if you want the facts.

[Qutzupalotl]

23. Okay, point taken.

I told you I didn't like to use the word "madman". However, I doubt we have the time to dispute it without being made to appear to "sympathize with the enemy." Less than two months to go, so I don't think we'll get much traction out of that. Better to choose battles we can win in the window we have, which I think are 1) the decision to go to war, 2) the lies supporting it, and 3) the mishandling afterwards. 1 and 2 are the low-hanging fruit.

[LynnTheDem]

24. I agree with ya in that

we can't use that against the RWWs, it's not a talking point anyways, but I meant we CAN STOP USING IT ourselves, ya know? It's not true, and we shouldn't be continuing ourselves to mouth a lie.

It's just TRUTH and FACT. We don't have to point it out to the RWWs, we just don't need to be using the lie ourselves. If that makes sense. Sorta. Kinda. :D

[rumguy]

17. We can't afford any more mistakes in Iraq

I think Kerry needs to frame the debate in a way that highlights Bush's mistakes and misjudgements. Bush works in gauzy notions of freedom and 'defending America' while avoiding any specifics (because the specifics are so fuckin' bad).

Even those who supported the war initially have been turned off by Bush's failures - the polls clearly show this.

Bush fucked up by not planning properly for the post war period. He didn't use enough troops. He undermined the Geneva convention leading to the public relations disaster at Abu 'Grub'.

America can't afford anymore mistakes in Iraq. Maybe a president that was more involved in the details could avoid such blunders.

[rumguy]

19. Personally I don't think Kerry should talk about the pre-invasion

days or the lack of WMD - everyone already knows all that.

I think Kerry should stick to the failures in Iraq and how he could do it better.

[LynnTheDem]

25. I agree with you

All I'm saying is WE shouldn't be continuing a bush lie in our own posts and speech. Use "brutal"; use "ruthless". But let's not carry on the "madman" lie ourselves.

We don't go on about "incubator babies" or "plastic people shredders" coz those are lies. So is the "madman" label.

I just have this thing about lies; I HATE EM. LOL!

[Qutzupalotl]

31. Kick

:kick:

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Or is the lesson of September 11th

that you shouldn't put a person in charge of National Security who is only interested in exploiting oil resources worldwide.

"Condoleeza Rice should resign immediately."--Al Gore