.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, June 16, 2006

Cheney ties Iraq to terrorism, again.

The White House released the transcript, so he's saying something they want him saying on record.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice President Dick Cheney said that the war in Iraq was "in part responsible" for the absence of terrorist attacks in the United States since the September 11, 2001 strikes. ....

"Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists, it had a guy running it who had started two wars, who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction. Taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said.

"It's also, I think, in part responsible for the fact that we haven't been hit again in nearly five years. That's no accident," Cheney said.

"The fact is, we've taken the battle to the enemy. That's been the key to the safety and security of the American people these last few years, and we need to continue to do it," he said.

I think the key question is, since Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda before the US invasion, by what standard are they "the enemy" in a terrorist sense. Will someone please ask him that question? Of course, that would require Cheney being interviewed by someone other than Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews.

(There was an interesting little bit on The Daily Show when Tim Russert was on the other night, where Russert wistfully said how much he wished he could get Cheney back on his show to answer some of the mistatements. Think that's going to happen?)


  • Would someone please explain to me exactly how "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"? I hear that phrase constantly, but it makes NO sense: If the terrorists want to hurt the American PUBLIC, why would they be targeting our MILITARY? And since most of our military is now "over there" (and can't protect us "over here"), isn't this the absolute best time for them to come "over here" and target American citizens? Why are they wasting their time "terrorizing" our powerful military?

    By Anonymous bruce o, at 12:55 PM  

  • I'll play devil's advocate. I don't agree with the argument, but here goes: (And this is the current "flypaper" argument, not the one from before the war.)

    By engaging in Iraq, we are drawing all of the regional bad guys, those that might be prone to anti-US terrorism into the conflict there. That way, they are engaged in fighting militarily against our military rather than conducting terrorism.

    Now, this argument completely leaves aside the probability that they can fight us both there and here, and it doesn't mention that the act of fighting them over there is creating far more who are likely to want to fight, but that's the argument.

    Again, I disagree, but that's how Rumsfeld once presented it, at least.


    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home