# "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:** 4
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/61 "2006-08-30T12:55:21Z")
[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] Pre-invasion: NYC - 2,752 dead, many more injured (can’t find a solid number) - 9/11/2001 Bali - 202 dead, 209 wounded - Oct 12, 2002 Post-invasion: Madrid - 191 dead, over 1700 wounded - March 11, 2004 London - 56 dead, 700 wounded - July 5, 2005 War toll: Iraq - civilian deaths between 30,000 and 100,000, depending on whose numbers you trust. - US Military dead 2637 and climbing, 19,000+ wounded - 200+ dead from other military forces (British, Italian, Ukranian, etc) So, while I’d agree that individual attacks prior to our invasion were separately more severe, that the related death toll since our invasion is much higher. ---
**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 30, 2006, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/62 "2006-08-30T13:04:00Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] It’s certainly possible that Bush tried to imply Saddam ordered (or was directly tied to) 9/11, and he doesn’t seem to have gone out of his way to make sure Americans didn’t believe that. But, frankly, my hypothesis fits the facts given as good or better than **BobLibDem** ’s hypothesis. In order to favor **Bob** ’s hypothesis, you’d need to have better data than he’s presented so far or you’d need to be predisposed to believe it over other explanations. If someone wants to claim that **Bob** ’s hypothesis is true because Bush is lying scumbag who can’t be trusted, then I’ll pass on getting into that discussion. [/QUOTE] Now, now. Don’t go putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Bush is a lying scumbag who can’t be trusted. It’s true and I’ll say it now, but I didn’t say it then. [QUOTE=John Mace] Bush is indeed desperate to tie Saddam to terrorism, and to imply that fighting Saddam is all part of the WoT, but I think it’s a stretch to say that he tried to link Saddam to the specific events of 9/11. [/QUOTE] I don’t think the quotes I gave require much of a stretch at all to imply a Saddam-9/11 connection. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/63 "2006-08-30T13:27:25Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] That’s neither necessary nor possible. What you posted has no relation to anything I or Cheney said - it is a mere strawman. [/quote] I explained how it related to what Cheney said. If you don’t care to rebut that, all you’re doing is calling an argument a strawman because you can’t answer it. That’s an excellent new debating technique. I’m looking forward to using it myself in the future. But just because I’m a patient guy, I’ll reiterate the connection: as Cheney said, “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.” That only makes sense _if Iraq generated no new radicals_ (presumably radicals = terrorists), for any persons radicalized by our invasion and occupation of Iraq _weren’t radicalized before Iraq was an issue, but are now_, in direct contradiction to what Cheney said. So Cheney (and Bush as well, according to Cheney) implicitly adopts the “Lump of Terrorists” fallacy, the fallacy that there is an essentially fixed set of terrorists: we can kill or capture them, but other than that, nothing we do increases or reduces their numbers to a significant degree. > [@](#): > > You made something up and tried to assign it to me. Not hardly; you overestimate your significance. First of all, I’m not making it up; I’m giving a name to a repeatedly observed phenomenon. And second, it’s got little to do with you. The ‘Lump of Terrorists’ fallacy is practiced by wingnuts from Bush and Cheney on down. > [@](#): > > So, for the record, it would be fair to say that all of you are claiming that Iraq **was** involved in 9/11. Yeah, saying “What [Bush, Cheney, etc.] do is use “9/11” or “terrorists” with “Saddam” or “Iraq” in the same breath” is the same as claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11. ---
**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 30, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/64 "2006-08-30T14:18:13Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] My rule of thumb is when someone has to construct a strawman argument, it is usually because they cannot find any honest way to dispute an argument. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > So, for the record, it would be fair to say that all of you are claiming that Iraq **was** involved in 9/11. That thumb is only as respectable as the feces it is coated with. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/65 "2006-08-30T14:38:17Z")
To The Great Apologist himself, **Shodan** , please explain how the following comments made by your Imbecil In Charge just [YESTERDAY](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14560336/), cannot be taken as an implication that Iraq was indeed involved with 9/11: > [@Imbecil In Charge](#): > > **‘War came to our shores’** > > The president acknowledged that many Americans were dismayed by the rising number of U.S. service personnel who have been killed in a seemingly ever-more-volatile Iraq. He said that while he did not dismiss that concern lightly, he could not let it temper his resolve. > > **“I have no doubt — the war came to our shores. Remember that,” he said, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes on New York and Washington. “We had a foreign policy that basically said, ‘Let’s hope calm works.’ And we were attacked.”** Go ahead, make my day. Your excuses are getting sillier by the minute. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/66 "2006-08-30T15:34:26Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] To The Great Apologist himself, **Shodan** , please explain how the following comments made by your Imbecil In Charge just [YESTERDAY](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14560336/), cannot be taken as an implication that Iraq was indeed involved with 9/11: Go ahead, make my day. Your excuses are getting sillier by the minute. [/QUOTE] From your own cite, you silly person - > [@](#): > > Bush shot back at critics who accused him of having misled the public into believing Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks: “ **They weren’t Iraqis, nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack** ,” he said. Not that it will make any difference to the Usual Suspects. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 30, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/67 "2006-08-30T15:48:23Z")
> [@](#): > > “They weren’t Iraqis, nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack,” Technically, as true as Clinton’s claim not to have had sex with Monica. If one defines sex as a reproductive act, then fellatio is not sex and he was being truthful. Bush never drew a line from 9/11 to Saddam, he just drew a lot of dots close together. Repeatedly invoking 9/11 and mentioning Saddam in the next breath was no attempt to mislead us, no siree. ---
**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 30, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/68 "2006-08-30T15:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] From your own cite, you silly person - Not that it will make any difference to the Usual Suspects. [/QUOTE] Only a dyed-in-the-wool Bush Apologist[sup]TM[/sup] could overlook the difference between “involved with 9/11” (what RedFury said) and “ordered that attack” (what Bush said). But that is inconvenient to your politics, so you will not respond to this post either. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/69 "2006-08-30T16:16:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If you don’t care to rebut that, all you’re doing is calling an argument a strawman because you can’t answer it. No, you are just making shit up because that’s all you can think to do. Of course, it is hardly the first time. Oh, and **Shibboleth** , did you include the attacks on the _Achille Laurel_, the USS Cole, the embassies, and the 300,000 people Saddam killed pre-invasion? Might affect the figures a bit. [QUOTE=Fear Itself] Only a dyed-in-the-wool Bush Apologist[sup]TM[/sup] could overlook the difference between “involved with 9/11” (what RedFury said) and “ordered that attack” (what Bush said). But that is inconvenient to your politics, so you will not respond to this post either. [/QUOTE] Actually, all it takes is someone who is [list=A][li]fluent in English, and [\*]less stupidly partisan than you.[/list]Hardly a rare combination, at least apart from the SDMB.[/li] > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Bush never drew a line from 9/11 to Saddam, he just drew a lot of dots close together. Repeatedly invoking 9/11 and mentioning Saddam in the next breath was no attempt to mislead us, no siree. Well, [there’s glory for you.](http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm) Like I said, nothing is going to make any difference. If Bush says “black”, all you clowns will claim that he said “white” and nothing can be done about it. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 30, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/70 "2006-08-30T16:27:55Z")
Shodan, I don’t think I’ll ever view the Monty Python sketch where the knight gets all his limbs hacked off one by one, all the while insisting it was only a flesh wound, without thinking of you. I’ve got to hand it to you, your faith in your leader is absolute. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/71 "2006-08-30T16:53:23Z")
Shodan, Got new for you: much of what people retain while listening to politicos/pundits are simply the catchphrases. Note how Dubya starts with a full head of steam: [quote=The Deceider] **‘War came to our shores’!!!** and goes right into THE CLICHE: > [@Decider](#): > > Remember that,” he said, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes on New York and Washington. “We had a foreign policy that basically said, ‘Let’s hope calm works.’ And we were attacked.” Now then, how can you possibly argue that he is NOT implying a connection between the two events? Remember, this whole interview was ABOUT IRAQ. Point being, yeah sure, he later goes on disclaimer mode, but to Joe Sixpack – who’s already flipped channels to the WWF – what remains is the original soundbyte: “9/11…war came to us…fuck them Iriqueeees!” The End. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/72 "2006-08-30T16:55:44Z")
If a kind mod happens bye (and we’ve got planty of them) please fix coding in above post. Oh, and in the first as in the second that’s supposed to read: **The Decider**. Thanx in advance! ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/73 "2006-08-30T17:05:11Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] If a kind mod happens bye (and we’ve got planty of them) please fix coding in above post. Oh, and in the first as in the second that’s supposed to read: **The Decider**. Thanx in advance! [/QUOTE] You’ve been letting your Dobie do your coding again, haven’t you? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/74 "2006-08-30T17:19:40Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] You’ve been letting your Dobie do your coding again, haven’t you? [/QUOTE] Not _exactly_. But it’s not easy to code with her sticking her nozzle into my arms so I pet her. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/75 "2006-08-30T17:21:46Z")
[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front\_Page/HH18Aa01.html](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH18Aa01.html) > [@](#): > > …And in February, according to a unique Zogby poll of US troops serving in Iraq, “85% said the US mission is mainly ‘to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the [September 11] attacks’; 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was ‘to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaeda in Iraq’”… Wherever did they get such an idea? Certainly not from The Leader, whose record of candor and truthiness is purity itself. Why, our fighting heroes are sacred to the patriots who infest the Halls of Power, they would never permit our heroes to act under false pretenses! What, never? Well, hardly ever… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/76 "2006-08-30T17:22:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Recently one of our great allies, Prime Minister Tony Blair, said, we are never going to succeed unless we understand the terrorists are going to fight hard. What do “the terrorists” have to do with Iraq? Oh that’s right, you’re trying to conflate Iraq with the GWoT. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt on that, then. Your Administration expected that we’d be greeted as liberators. Obviously, you folks did **not** expect that, once we’d defeated Saddam’s armies, anyone would “fight hard” against us there. And when they started to do so, they were just a bunch of “dead enders” who would be dealt with in short order. And then the level of violence in Iraq was on the same level as that of our big cities. And so forth. IOW, by Blair’s standard, you were **not** prepared to succeed when you and Bush took us into Iraq. > [@](#): > > And we are learning, as previous generations learned, that wartime conditions are a fierce test of military skill and of national will. This is especially true in the war on terror. The War on Terror isn’t much of a test of national will at all. Pretty much everyone recognizes that we need to fight that war; pretty much everyone supports it. Many of us wish you’d get around to doing some of the obvious stuff involved in prosecuting that war. There’s a long list of stuff that was on what everyone’s to-do list for America right after 9/11 that hasn’t been started at all. Seems your office had some correspondence with the chemical industry lobby, and the idea of imposing security requirements on chemical plants was quietly dropped. > [@](#): > > Five years ago, President Bush told Congress and the country that the path ahead would be difficult; that we were heading into a long struggle, unlike any we have known. All this has come to pass. Which is why it would have been good to plan and act for the long term, rather than doing things, like invading Iraq, ignoring homeland security, and alienating the Muslim world, that work to our long-term detriment. > [@](#): > > At the same time, we must realize that this is a multi-front war, requiring every element of our national power. And those of us in positions of responsibility must do all we can to figure out the intentions of an enemy that likely has combatants inside the United States. We live in a free and open society, and the terrorists want to use those very advantages against us. And so we have an urgent duty to learn who they are and what they are doing, and to stop them before they can act. The first step in learning the intentions of such an enemy is to have good human intelligence. The path to good humint in the war against ‘Islamofascists’, as the wingers call them, is to minimize the numbers of Muslims sympathetic to the terrorists, so that other Muslims who overhear clues about the terrorists’ intent are much more likely to relay that information to those who would pass it to us. This entails attacking the terrorists themselves in a way that doesn’t alienate the Muslim world at large. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which didn’t have anything to do with terrorism until after we’d been there awhile, got plenty of Muslims mad at us, without any GWoT benefits at all. Cooperating with Israel’s attacks on Lebanon entire under the guise of fighting Hezbollah may have had something to do with the generic “the terrorists” although Shi’ite Hezbollah and Sunni al-Qaeda have little to do with each other. But be that as it may, bombing Lebanon’s infrastructure from north to south and in between struck the Muslim world as a totally disproportionate response to a group that exists primarily in southern Lebanon, and was incapable of attacking Israel from anywhere but southern Lebanon. Not to mention, our willingness to casually steamroll over the closest thing to a true democracy in the Arab Middle East pretty much put paid on the idea that our goal is to bring democracy to the region. So we have alienated the Muslim world. This adds to the ranks of our enemies, and greatly increases the ranks of those who sympathize with them more than with us, and are unlikely to pass along information having to do with terrorists. So if we want to find out what the terrorists are doing before they do it, we’re going about it completely ass-backwards. > [@](#): > > To this end, in the days following 9/11, the President authorized the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications. On occasion you will hear this called a domestic surveillance program. That’s more than a misnomer; it is a flat-out falsehood. We are talking about international communications, one end of which we believe – or have reason to believe is related to al Qaeda or to terrorist networks. It’s hard to think of any category of information that would be more important to the safety of the United States. You have reason to believe a communication is related to al-Qaeda? Good. Get a FISA warrant. You don’t even need to do this ahead of time - you can get the warrant up to three days _after_ the wiretap. The fact is, we don’t _know_ what you’re doing; there are no checks operating here. There is no way for the public to be sure that you are telling us the truth, even now, about the limits of this program. > [@](#): > > The authorization the President made after September 11th helped address that problem in a manner that is fully consistent under the Constitution and consistent legal authority of the President and with the civil liberties of the American people. The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. We have only your word for any of this. > [@](#): > > The recent ruling by a federal judge ordering an end to this program is just dead wrong. We are confident it will be reversed on appeal. Dream on, fascist pig. > [@](#): > > If you’ll recall, the 9/11 Commission – (applause) – if you’ll recall, the 9/11 Commission focused criticism on the nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists at home and terrorists overseas. The term that’s used is “connecting the dots” – and the fact is that one small piece of data might very well make it possible to save thousands of lives. And the very important question today is whether, on five years’ reflection, we have learned all the lessons of September 11th. They were talking about the CIA being allowed to talk to the FBI, not about spying wholesale on millions of conversations and emails. > [@](#): > > In the decade prior to those attacks, our country spent more than two trillion dollars on national security. Yet on 9/11, we lost nearly 3,000 Americans at the hands of 19 men armed with box cutters and airline tickets. And we were spending it on the sort of big-bang programs you and your friends love and lobby for - new bombers! new jet fighters! new battleships! new tanks! new troop carriers! All the stuff that makes companies like Lockheed Martin drool with anticipation, but doesn’t do a thing against such a foe. > [@](#): > > In the case of al Qaeda we are not dealing with large armies we can track, or uniforms we can see, or men with territory of their own to defend. Their preferred tactic, which they boldly proclaim, is to slip into the country, blend in among the innocent, and to kill without mercy and without restraint. They have intelligence and counterintelligence operations of their own. They take their orders from overseas. This is actually true - whaddaya know. > [@](#): > > They are using the most sophisticated communications technology they can get their hands on. I doubt it - they’ve known for years that ‘sophisticated’ communications media are the most vulnerable to intercept. > [@](#): > > Since 9/11 they have successfully carried out attacks in Casablanca, Jakarta, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh, Baghdad, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm al-Sheikh, Bombay, and elsewhere. We’ve done a really good job of finding out about their attacks before they happen, evidently. > [@](#): > > Here in the U.S., we have not had another 9/11. No one can guarantee that we won’t be struck again. But to have come this far without another attack is no accident. We have been protected by sound policy decisions by the President, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of our people in the armed services, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security. But wouldn’t most of the intel we gather about al-Qaeda be equally likely to tip us off to both domestic and foreign attacks? Seems to me that if there have been that many attacks abroad, it’s a combination of distance and dumb luck that’s protected us for five years. Or maybe they don’t want to attack us again unless they can do something that will rival 9/11, so there hasn’t been anything to test our defenses yet. > [@](#): > > The President of the United States regularly makes decisions based on the intelligence briefings he receives. The information in those briefings is critical to assessing risks, and to allocating security assets inside the homeland, as well as overseas. “OK, you’ve covered your ass.” > [@](#): > > Throughout our military, intelligence has a daily, indeed hourly, influence on the movement of ships, fighter and bomber missions, and orders given to those whose commands control the tip of the spear. Gathering the best information, and getting it into the hands of the war fighter, makes all the difference for the safety of our forces and the security of the nation. Members of the VFW: I want each one of you to know that the President will not relent in the effort to track the enemies of the United States with every legitimate tool at his command. (Applause.) Our ships, our fighter and bomber missions, have diddly-squat to do with fighting an enemy that doesn’t operate openly. Sheez. > [@](#): > > The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured, yet still lethal and still desperately trying to hit us again. I love this sentence. It’s a much more effective way of saying, “we’re winning the war, but you still need to be as scared as ever.” > [@](#): > > They hate us, they hate our country, and they hate the liberties for which we stand. This is not a war we can win on the defensive. But you know what? A good defense damned sure should be part of the plan. Just because they can circumvent some of our possible defenses, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it harder for them to smuggle, say, a dirty bomb into the country. > [@](#): > > Either we are serious about this fight or we are not. And the enemies of America need to know: We are serious, and we will not let down our guard. (Applause.) “Letting down our guard” is about defense. We have no guard up: 95% of imported containers unscreened, no chemical plant or chemical transport security, no air cargo screening, you name it. Apparently we’re _not_ serious about this fight. > [@](#): > > Ladies and gentlemen, on a Tuesday morning five years ago, the nation we all love experienced one of the cruelest acts the modern world has seen. In our sorrow we also felt inspiration, as we learned of airline passengers who rose up against hijackers to prevent greater loss, and rescuers who charged into burning towers and died by the hundreds, and the many examples of kindness and brotherhood that Americans showed to each other on one of the worst days in our history. > > From that hour of destruction to this very moment, the people and the government of the United States have answered violence with justice, honor, and moral courage. We have tortured people to death; we have held persons randomly captured for years without an opportunity to prove their innocence; we have shot numerous civilians approaching movable checkpoints; we have dropped bombs on the people we supposedly came to rescue; we have hired private armies, sent them to Iraq, and put them beyond the reach of both Iraqi and U.S. law; and who knows what-all else. Funny definition of justice, honor, and moral courage. > [@](#): > > America is a good, a decent, and generous country. The ideals that gave life to this nation are the same ideals we uphold at home and that we serve abroad. We fight not only to protect ourselves and to overcome the dangers to civilization, but to liberate the oppressed, and to give others the chance to decide their own destiny, so that all of us can one day live in peace on the foundation of human freedom. So who have we liberated? Who have we given the opportunity to decide their own destiny? How have we furthered peace in the Middle East? Sure looks a lot more like a conflagration than it did four years ago. > [@](#): > > Liberty and equality; justice and humanity; self-government, tolerance, respect, and the rule of law – these are the principles by which we fight, the principles by which we live, and the principles by which we will prevail. I’m trying to think of a one of those principles you haven’t repeatedly violated, and I’m coming up empty. ---
**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 30, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/77 "2006-08-30T17:25:07Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Now, now. Don’t go putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Bush is a lying scumbag who can’t be trusted. It’s true and I’ll say it now, but I didn’t say it then. I don’t think the quotes I gave require much of a stretch at all to imply a Saddam-9/11 connection. [/QUOTE] You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “it’s a stretch”. Don’t get me wrong on this, I do think that is one possible explanation-- I just don’t think it’s the only one, nor the most likely. But that’s kind of a quibble, because I would say that Bush’s attempt to tie Saddam to al Qaeda was as much of a lie as an attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11 would have been. This is one area where I have no problem saying “Bush lied”. I guess we just disgree over the exact nature of the lie. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/78 "2006-08-30T17:29:04Z")
Here’s an unedited transcript of the exchange in Bush’s press conference last week that’s so pertinent to this discussion. > [@](#): > > THE PRESIDENT:..Imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would – who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. > > Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was – the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question – my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. > > You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. > > Q What did Iraq have to do with that? > > THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what? > > Q The attack on the World Trade Center? > > THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it’s part of – and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a – the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. So Bush is absolutely right: he didn’t just say that Saddam ordered the attacks of 9/11. But he certainly does tie the two concepts together…and got called on it to his face. The press corps is finally growing a pair. ---
**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 30, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/79 "2006-08-30T17:30:31Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Actually, all it takes is someone who is [list=A][li]fluent in English, and less stupidly partisan than you.[/list][/li][/QUOTE] Ouch! The old \*\*\*You’re a Poopy-Head, So I Don’t Have to Address Your Argument \*\* \* gambit. And the judges say: **Fear Itself 1 Shodan 0** ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-were-not-in-iraq-on-9-11-but-the-terrorists-hit-us-anyway-cheney/370655/80 "2006-08-30T17:40:53Z")
> [@](#): > > …who had relations with Zarqawi… Thankfully, the exact nature of those “relations” is not spelled out. But he had them, those “relations”! Which certainly proves…well, something… [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=3) [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=5)