Dick Cheney can't resist linking 9/11 and Iraq, no matter how nonsensical the claim:
Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway.
Here's Holly Martins at Wonkette trying to understand the reasoning behind this statement:
Wah-huh? So let's get this straight: If you suggest any policy in Iraq other that the administration-approved "Stay the Course" you are handing a nation over to terrorist control. But if terrorist activity, or the threat thereof, seems sufficiently worrisome to contemplate another policy then. . .it doesn't matter, because the terrorists will attack us anyway? Withdrawal from Iraq is appeasing the terrorist enemy--but 9/11 demonstrates the mindset of that enemy is irrelevant. Wouldn't the logic of the latter claim suggest that the terrorists simply might not notice we had withdrawn and/or attack us no matter what? Are they all-powerful evildoers, or Ritalin- deprived ADD cases? Also: There were all sorts of things we weren't doing in 2001. We hadn't yet thrilled to the magic of Gigli, or whatever the name of that sucky Coldplay record is. Does this mean if there's no Gigli sequel, the terrorists win? Please make our head stop hurting like this, Mr. Vice President, Sir!
Richard Cohen puts it even more simply:
Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.
Comments