# "We were not in Iraq on \[9/11\], but the terrorists hit us anyway" --Cheney **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 29, 2006, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655 "2006-08-29T12:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/21 "2006-08-29T18:36:46Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] As I mentioned earlier, this is an unprovable opinion. The only available evidence is number of successful terrorist attacks before the invasion (one) vs. the number of successful terrorist attacks since the invasion (zero). And I can’t prove that the reduction in successful terrorist attacks is the result of the invasion of Iraq, any more than you can prove that the risk of terrorist attacks has gone up as the result of the invasion. [/quote] The invasion of Iraq has been a fantstic recruiting tool for al Qaeda. That is a provable assertion. > [@](#): > > Sure. But that implies that the invasion of Iraq tended to draw al-Queda into Iraq, where they can be successfully fought. This is what Bush meant by saying that we could fight them (the terrorists) over there, or over here (meaning in the US). Excpet that you’ll have to prove that these were “the terrorists” who were out there pre-invasion. Unfortuantely, that just isn’t the case. We’re fighting a new group largely recruited to fight in this particular war. Color me unimpressed with “fighting them over there.” And the implication of that statement is disturbing, to say the least. We decided to sacrifice the Iraqis to save our own necks? Please tell me it isn’t so. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/22 "2006-08-29T18:37:52Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] As I mentioned earlier, this is an unprovable opinion. The only available evidence is number of successful terrorist attacks before the invasion (one) vs. the number of successful terrorist attacks since the invasion (zero). [/QUOTE] I think you need to qualify that a bit: you are talking about the number of terrorist attacks **by Middle Easterners or Muslims** (i.e., not including Timothy McVeigh) **on United States soil** (i.e., not including those in Bali, England, Spain or Iraq itself). Americans have even been specifically targetted in Bali and Iraq, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/23 "2006-08-29T18:47:48Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] PS - **RTFirefly** , that goes well beyond “lame”. You must buy straw at a discount. [/QUOTE] Was this directed at his/her remark about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? If so, would you care to tell us what you think these innocents have died for? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/24 "2006-08-29T18:49:10Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] **RTFirefly** , that goes well beyond “lame”. You must buy straw at a discount. [/QUOTE] Then kindly show me the error of my ways, and differentiate between Cheney’s words (and the Administration’s overall approach), and the Lump of Terrorists fallacy I attribute to them. Please reference Bush’s Iraqi ‘deck of cards’ from 2003, and his earlier desire to have photos of the major al-Qaeda figures that he could X out as they were killed or captured. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/25 "2006-08-29T18:55:05Z")
There are a certain number of people who persist in the Iraq-911 connection. He does not want to lose them. He tosses them a bone every now and then. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/26 "2006-08-29T18:58:13Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Well, actually, yes, it does say this. [/QUOTE] No it doesn’t. It says the exact opposite. Cheney is clearly making the claim that Saddam ordered 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/27 "2006-08-29T19:02:27Z")
[Full text of Cheney’s speech](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060828-4.html) ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/28 "2006-08-29T19:08:47Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane Well, thanks for the news bulletin. Quote: Originally Posted by Shodan Here we have an example where Cheney states explicitly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. And yet it is (mis)interpreted to say exactly the opposite. It doesn’t say anything of the kind, and Cheney has repeatedly linked the two. Why do you have to continue lying about this? Well, actually, yes, it does say this. And the problem is that your first sentence makes it clear that you know that Cheney is disavowing a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and yet your second sentence claims that he is linking them. [/QUOTE] Kindly point out where in the article it says that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. His quote “They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway,” refers to the notion that we have created more terrorists because of the Iraq war. He is making no claim one way or the other about Iraq’s role in the 9/11 attacks. He has in the past, repeatedly. Nonetheless, Cheney, in the “Meet the Press” interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein. “We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s,” Cheney said, “that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems.” In September, Cheney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “If we’re successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” ---
**Author:** ![Will\_Repair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a698b9/32.png) [@Will\_Repair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Will_Repair)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/29 "2006-08-29T19:13:14Z")
[QUOTE=Osama Bin Laden (1996)] For over seven years now the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorising its neighbours and **turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples** [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dick Cheney (2006)] Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. [/QUOTE] You just don’t know, Dick. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/30 "2006-08-29T19:13:44Z")
The notion that the administration hasn’t tried to link 9/11 and Iraq is absurd. Shodan, how can you possibly deny it? Let’s kick off with [Dick Cheney on Meet the Press 12/09/2001](http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html) > [@](#): > > CHENEY: Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists. That wasn’t the question you asked the last time we met. You asked about evidence involved in September 11. > RUSSERT: Correct. > > CHENEY: Over the years, for example, they’ve provided a safe harbor for Abu Nadal (ph), worked out of Bagdad for a long time. > > The situation, I think, that leads a lot of people to be concerned about Iraq has to do not just with their past activity of harboring terrorist, but also with Saddam Hussein’s behavior over the years and with his aggressive pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Sounds like Cheney making a connection. Then there was Condi Rice on [Meet the Press, 11/18/2001](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html) > [@](#): > > The president has made very clear that this is a broad war on terrorism; that you cannot be supportive of al-Qaeda and continue to harbor other terrorists. We’re sending that message very clearly. > > Now, as to Iraq, we didn’t need September 11 to tell us that Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous man. > > We didn’t need September 11 to tell us that he’s trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. There could be only one reason that he has not wanted U.N. inspectors in Iraq, and that’s so that he can build weapons of mass destruction. We know that he tried twice before to acquire nuclear weapons. In 1981, when the Israelis pre-empted at Osyroc, he was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. In 1991, when our forces arrived in Iraq, they saw that, again, he was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. He is a very dangerous man. We have to deal with him on his own terms. We didn’t need September 11 to tell us that he’s a threat to American security. Condi mentions 9/11 three times while discussing Saddam. How can we not infer the connection? On to George Bush, [Pennsylvania, 11/01/2002.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021101-2.html) > [@](#): > > And so my message and the message of our United States Congress – including George Gekas – that spoke with one voice to the world is this: the United States will fulfill its obligations to peace; Saddam Hussein will disarm; if not, for the sake of peace, for the sake of securing the homeland, for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) > > See, I can’t imagine what was going through the mind of this enemy when they hit us. They probably thought the national religion was materialism, that we were so selfish and so self-absorbed that after 9/11/2001 this mighty nation would take a couple of steps back and file a lawsuit. (Laughter.) They don’t understand America. They don’t understand the spirit of America. Mention Saddam and in next sentence invoke 9/11. A tried and true Bush ploy. Then there was the [2003 State of the Union Address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) > [@](#): > > Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. > > Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) Once again, not directly stating Iraqi involvement but the inplication is clear. Bush again, [March 18, 2003](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030308-1.html) > [@](#): > > Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. > > The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. Again, mention Saddam and in next breath invoke 9/11. In the infamous [“Misson Accomplished” speech on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln 05/01/2003](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html) > [@](#): > > The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 – and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men – the shock troops of a hateful ideology – gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.) While declaring victory in Iraq (albeit prematurely), Bush again makes this connection. Finally, [Dick Cheney on Meet the Press 09/14/2003](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/) > [@](#): > > MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection? > > VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. Again, Iraq-al-Qaeda connections stated. The facts are clear- the administration repeatedly tied Iraq to the September 11 attacks. I don’t see how this can be denied. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/31 "2006-08-29T19:19:34Z")
Ah…but let’s all remember that the Administration at no point ever claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Sure, they said that A=B and B=C, but nowhere did they ever directly state taht A=C. Nosiree! Absolutely not! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/32 "2006-08-29T19:45:26Z")
**Bob** , I think the key thing about all those quotes (and hundreds of others like them) is what they do, and what they don’t do. What they **do** is use “9/11” or “terrorists” with “Saddam” or “Iraq” in the same breath. Persons with the attention span and analytical skills of the average American will hear the blurring of the two, and assume that a connection is being made. What they **don’t** do is state an actual, logical connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. Which means when you accuse them of playing that game, they can point to their words and say, “no, we didn’t say that at all,” and Wise Old Broder agrees with them, and all the other pundits nod at Old Broder’s wisdom, and you’re the one making a shrill, illogical attack on the unjustly maligned Bushies. It’s great, because they get to have it both ways. Or _got_ to; the whole thing seems to be wearing a bit thin with most people. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/33 "2006-08-29T20:26:43Z")
We were not in Barbados on [9/11], but the terrorists hit us anyway. We were not in Zambia on [9/11], but the terrorists hit us anyway. We were not in the 7/11 store on High Street in Pottstown, PA on [9/11] (well, I wasn’t, at least), but the terrorists hit us anyway. I say invade 'em all. Especially the 7/11. Their prices suck. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/34 "2006-08-29T21:17:56Z")
> [@Richard Bruce Cheney](#): > > In just two weeks the calendar will read again September 11th, and our minds will go back to that day five years ago, when enemies struck our country with acts of stealth and murder. Ho hum, yet one more day when the Bushies will make a big deal out of 9/11. Just like every day for the past five years. > [@](#): > > The men and women on duty in the War on Terror Who, exactly, are we talking about? Al-Qaeda’s not in Afghanistan anymore, and Iraq’s an own goal in the GWoT. > [@](#): > > are serving the highest ideals of the nation – our belief in freedom and justice, equality, and the dignity of the individual. And they are serving the vital security interests of America and the civilized world. There is no denying that the work is difficult and that there is a great deal to be done. Yet we can harbor no illusions about the nature of the enemy we’re fighting, or the ambitions they seek to achieve. Blather, blather, blather. > [@](#): > > This enemy wears no uniform, has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality. They plot and plan in secret, target the defenseless, and rejoice at the death of innocent, unsuspecting human beings. Our troops wear uniforms, and only some people on our side rejoice at the deaths of innocent, unsuspecting human beings. > [@](#): > > This enemy has a set of beliefs – and we saw the expression of those beliefs in the rule of the Taliban. They seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow and hateful ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of our society. Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be brutalized or killed – and no person or group is exempt. Kinda like evangelical Christianity, which rejects tolerance, desires freedom of conscience only for doctors and pharmacists who don’t want to prescribe or fill prescriptions for birth control, and (as the preceding is one indication of) continues to try to deny to women the right to make their own life choices. It’s true that evangelical Christians rarely use violence domestically; they pass laws instead. But they’re quite willing to bomb enemies abroad. Just as bloodthirsty; just less hands-on about it. > [@](#): > > This enemy also has a set of clear objectives. The terrorists want to end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Given our behavior over there, can you blame them? > [@](#): > > Their goal in that region is to seize control of a country so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands. They want us Westerners to quit monkeying around in their region, and will attack us if we don’t leave. I hate to say it, but it makes a certain amount of sense. > [@](#): > > The terrorists believe that by controlling one country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region, The neocons, by controlling this country, have targeted and overthrown the government of Iraq - and before things there bogged down, they hoped to make a habit of it in the region. > [@](#): > > and ultimately to establish a totalitarian empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way around to Indonesia. OK, that would be genuinely nasty. But also extremely unlikely. > [@](#): > > They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, You mean, like Pakistan? > [@](#): > > to destroy Israel, to intimidate all western countries, and to cause mass death in the United States. Some might look at these ambitions and wave them off as extreme and mad. Well, these ambitions are extreme and they are mad. They are also real, and we must not wave them off. We must take them seriously. Just because someone really has extreme and mad ambitions, doesn’t mean you have to take them seriously. If **Opalcat** desires world domination, I’m not particularly worried. Al Qaeda isn’t going to achieve world, or even regional domination, even if we pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Islamic world tomorrow: too many rivals. Think Khamenei in Iran is going to take orders from Osama? Me either. How about Nasrallah? No way. > [@](#): > > We must oppose them. And we must defeat them. (Applause.) So, how is that going, by the way? A guy named bin Laden masterminded the killing of 3000 Americans five years ago. He’s still on the loose. We gonna bring him to justice anytime soon? And shouldn’t this one be just a little bit personal for us? > [@](#): > > Over the last several decades, Americans have seen how the terrorists pursue their objectives. Something of a pattern developed, and it was plain to see. To put it in blunt terms, the terrorists would hit us, but we did not hit back hard enough. For many years prior to 9/11, we treated terror attacks against Americans as isolated incidents, and answered – if at all – on an ad hoc basis, and never in a systematic way. Even after a strike inside our own country – the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center – there was a tendency to treat terrorist attacks as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily through law enforcement. You know, this is where Cheney’s speech turns into sheer dumbness. Just because one views a threat as a law enforcement problem, doesn’t mean it’s being viewed as a series of discrete, unrelated acts. The Mafia was a law enforcement problem, and we eventually shut it down by going after the organization. There’s no evidence that the Clinton administration saw the various terrorist attacks on its watch as unrelated actions. (But when they tried to fire some cruise missiles at bin Laden, Cheney’s party viewed it as a ‘wag the dog’ distraction from the much more important matter of Ms. Lewinsky.) > [@](#): > > The man who perpetrated that first attack in New York was tracked down, arrested, convicted, and sent off to prison. Yet behind that one man was a growing network with operatives inside and outside the United States, waging war against our country. > > For us, that war started on 9/11. By ‘us’, you must mean Bush, yourself, and your party. You were warned by Berger, Clarke, and others that terrorism would be the big threat of your time. But your nominal boss told the “bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” briefers, “OK, you’ve covered your asses. Seeya.” Bright move. > [@](#): > > For them, it started years before. They killed 241 servicemen in Beirut in 1983. Then there was the first World Trade Center attack in 1993; and after that, the murders at the Saudi Arabian National Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole 2000. None of these attacks were exactly secret. Weren’t you paying attention? Apparently not, because the terrorist threat meant exactly nothing to you on January 20, 2001, nor did it mean any more to you on September 10 of that year. If the pattern is so connect-the-dots obvious, why weren’t you ready to combat it from your first day in office? Because it didn’t fit your view of the world. And because you and your nominal boss are great big fuckups when it doesn’t involve either domestic political power, or big tax cuts and spending programs for all your buddies. > [@](#): > > With each attack, the terrorists grew more confident in believing they could strike America without paying a price. So they continued to wage those attacks – making the world less safe and eventually striking here in the homeland on September 11th. See above. Even with the track record you’ve laid out, and with - on top of that - seven and a half months of running the country to get an even clearer idea of what the true threats were, terrorism still wasn’t on your radar screen. If they hadn’t attacked until 2003, chances are terrorism wouldn’t have been on your radar screen until then. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/35 "2006-08-29T22:08:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America required a new strategy – not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network. If I may quote Franklin Roosevelt, the President under who many of you served and fought, in words he used to describe fighting the Nazis: “Modern warfare against treacherous enemies,” he said, “is a dirty business. We don’t like it – we didn’t want to get in it – but we are in it and we’re going to fight it with everything we’ve got.” (Applause.) Well, it involved a campaign against the terror network, but you can’t bomb an underground network. The methods have to be maybe 80% a battle for public opinion, so that the terror network doesn’t have broad-based support for supply and concealment, and maybe 20% investigation and prosecution - learning their network, gathering information, and hopefully stopping them before they can strike again. > [@](#): > > First, we’re absolutely determined to prevent attacks before they occur, so we’re on the offensive against the terrorists. At home and with coalition partners abroad, we’ve broken up terror cells, tracked down terrorist operatives, and put heavy pressure on their ability to organize and plan attacks. The work is hard, perilous, and ongoing. But we have made tremendous progress against an enemy that dwells in the shadows. Obviously, it’s impossible to critique their success, or lack of it, here. > [@](#): > > Second, we are determined to deny safe haven to the terrorists. Since the day our country was attacked, we’ve applied the Bush Doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account. So, how **are** we holding Pakistan to account? Pakistan, which harbors al-Qaeda even now; Pakistan, which harbors the terror groups that strike India, that put the ‘bomb’ in Bombay. > [@](#): > > Third, we are working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to keep those weapons out of the hands of killers. And again, exactly what, if anything, have you bozos done about Pakistan, the ringleader of the current wave of nuclear proliferation? (You know, nukes - the only WMD demonstrably worthy of the name.) Big new reactor on the way that could furnish the bang for 40-50 nukes a year, and has fed nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. Not to mention, a nation that could be taken over by Islamic radicals at any random moment. Is there any more threatening nation on the face of the planet right now? Other than us, I mean. And yet, we (meaning **you** , Mr. Cheney) apparently don’t even try to restrain their nuclear ambitions. > [@](#): > > In the post-9/11 world, we have to confront such dangers before they fully materialize. And when Pakistan is taken over by Islamic zealots, you’ll say “no one could have foreseen” (that famous Bushie phrase) that this could’ve happened, spilling dozens or hundreds of nukes into the hands of crazy people whose threat level will then make Osama look insignificant. > [@](#): > > President Bush has put it very well: Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations – and responding to such enemies only after an attack is not self-defense, it is suicide. So how are we doing in dealing with the threats that _are_ readily apparent? We’ve covered Pakistan; how about the loose nuclear materials of the former USSR? We had a program to help secure all that - and during the past five years, you guys have really put it on underdrive. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Fourth, we are determined to deny the terrorists control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and staging ground for terrorist attacks on others. That’s why we continue to fight Taliban remnants and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. That’s why we’re working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the terrorist element in Pakistan. And that’s why we are fighting with the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorists in Iraq. And how’s that working out? Are we denying terrorists control of more of Iraq today than we were in August 2005, or August 2004, or August 2003? Yeah, we’re doing a _great_ job there. Terrorists didn’t have _anywhere_ to work in Iraq while Saddam was running the joint. Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s spinning out of control, and though it’s probably still salvageable, we have no resources or attention to devote to it because we’re stuck inside of Baghdad with the Basra blues again. And, oh yeah, terrorist groups may not control Pakistan, but they certainly have a free hand in parts of that country. > [@](#): > > I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet’s nest. No. Nobody’s saying we _simply_ stirred up a hornet’s nest. You can run away from a hornet nest, after all, and nobody makes a big deal of it if you do. No, we took a country that people _thought_ was a living hell under Saddam, and showed them what hell on earth really _meant_, by making their country far more dangerous under our impotent occupation than it was under Saddam’s ruthless rule. It’s a shame neither you, nor your nominal boss, nor any of your crowd seem to have any tears to shed for the ruin we’ve wreaked on the people of Iraq. If you had any decency, you would resign, repent in sackcloth and ashes, and spend the rest of your days doing good works among the poor of Biafra. > [@](#): > > They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway. As President Bush has said, the hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. And as **El\_Kabong** has said, we weren’t in the Maple Avenue Jiffy Lube on September 11, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway. And as I said, ‘the terrorists’ aren’t a fixed group. The ones who hated us before 9/11 will hate us after we leave Iraq, but a whole bunch more people are terrorists on account of Iraq, and the things we have done in and to Iraq are generating new terrorists all the time. > [@](#): > > The terrorists regard the entire world as their battlefield. That is why al Qaeda has operatives in Iraq today. And they believe they can frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat. Are you kidding?! Al-Qaeda _loves_ it that we’re in Iraq. Iraq is their recruitment poster. The rest of the world figured this out a few summers ago; you haven’t learned it yet. What American in Iraq is, is impotent. And on top of that, it’s a _target_. Swell. > [@](#): > > I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. Ah yes, the infamous “some people” who can never be tracked down, but say all sorts of ridiculous things. (The _Candorville_ comic strip has been doing some great things with “some people”, btw.) Nobody I know is saying that; what they’re saying is that if we get out of Iraq, we’ll at least not be generating quite as many new terrorists with our actions there. If we get out if Iraq in 2007, then nobody will be turning into a terrorist in 2009 on account of what we used to be doing in Iraq. > [@](#): > > But the exact opposite is true. Time and again over the last generation, the terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Well, it worked, didn’t it? Al-Qaeda wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, and we’re out of Saudi Arabia. But right now, why would they _want_ to change our behavior? In Iraq, they’ve got us bogged down exactly where they want us, where we can do no harm to them. > [@](#): > > In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists, once again, that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail. They would simply draw up another set of demands, and instruct Americans to act as they direct or to face other murders. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States. If we spend our blood and treasure in Iraq because “the terrorists” would consider it a victory if we left, they are controlling our choices just as much as if we did exactly what they said. How about if we forget about how our enemies keep their internal scorecards, and think about what’s in our best interests? Maybe we need to stay; I’m open to reason. But “handing the terrorists a victory” isn’t a reason worth listening to; it’s just rhetoric. > [@](#): > > In our own country, we take democratic values seriously – and so we always have a vigorous debate on the issues. That’s part of the greatness of America, and we wouldn’t have it any other way. But there is a difference between healthy debate and self-defeating pessimism. We have only two options in Iraq – victory or defeat. And this nation will not pursue a policy of retreat. We will complete the mission, we will get it done right, and then we will return with honor. (Applause.) Well, ‘victory’ is not an option in Iraq - unless you have some strange definition of ‘victory’ that in no way resembles how anyone else would define it. So ‘defeat’ it must be, since you say so. If defeat is the only remaining option, hadn’t we better just get the hell out of Dodge? > [@](#): > > Before we took down Saddam Hussein’s regime, President Bush said the United States would not permit another dictatorship to rise on the ruins of the old one. Unfortunately, he didn’t say anything about chaos, anarchy, and multi-way civil war. > [@](#): > > And today, Iraq has the most progressive constitution and the strongest democratic mandate in the entire Arab world. Iraq’s political leaders are steady and courageous, and the citizens, police, and soldiers have stepped forward as active participants and guardians of the new democracy – running for office, speaking out, voting by the millions, and sacrificing for the future of their country. But his bodyguard and silver cane were no match for the Jack of Hearts…er, Iraq’s progressive constitution and its democratic mandate don’t seem to be holding up well against the Sunni insurgency, the Sadrists, the Badr Corps, and who-all knows who else. > [@](#): > > Iraqi citizens are doing all of this despite threats from terrorists who offer no political agenda for Iraq’s future and wage a campaign of mass slaughter against the Iraqi people themselves – the vast majority of whom are fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims. And this campaign of mass slaughter wasn’t happening _at all_ four years ago, wasn’t happening much three years ago or two years ago, but by a year ago, it was getting pretty serious, and now it’s a catastrophe. We’ve been a big help, haven’t we? Where the fuck is that rewind button? Where the fuck is it? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/36 "2006-08-29T22:16:35Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] So, how **are** we holding Pakistan to account? Pakistan, which harbors al-Qaeda even now; Pakistan, which harbors the terror groups that strike India, that put the ‘bomb’ in Bombay. [/QUOTE] It’s actually Mumbai, not Bombay. So let’s say that our response to Pakistan puts the ‘mum’ in Mumbai. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/37 "2006-08-29T22:22:09Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Where the fuck is that rewind button? Where the fuck is it? [/QUOTE] What the Administration needs is the new, improved Pandora’s Box, with retro-fitted rewind button. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/38 "2006-08-29T22:25:33Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] And the problem is that your first sentence makes it clear that you know that Cheney is disavowing a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and yet your second sentence claims that he is linking them. [/QUOTE] Oddly, the administration keeps insisting on using “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same sentence. Actually, not so odd. And we wonder why so many Americans think there’s a connection between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/39 "2006-08-29T22:36:32Z")
Here is the extremely simplified calculus for me as I see it: Quality of life= a_security + b_liberty + c\*economic welfare I presume of course that the coefficients ar epositive. Well security is uncertain, as there are presumably more terrorists that we are combating more effectively. Also, the region is less stable and our fores and energies are now spread too thin. I am guessing the net effect is less security. Liberty is on the decline. Economic welfare on the decline given high gas prices, government spending on rebuilding Iraq. However, I am willing to have this be at best neutral with respect to the war on Iraq. So given this personal calculus for me the war is a net loser. Of course the other factors that make it a net loser are the lost lives and the lost international stature. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/40 "2006-08-29T22:58:21Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] The notion that the administration hasn’t tried to link 9/11 and Iraq is absurd. Shodan, how can you possibly deny it? [/quote] You must be new here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655.md?page=3)