Iraq = 9/11 QED

On February 23, Dick Cheney sat down for an interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News. Here's what he said:

Q    Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were?  Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in --

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, I stand by what I said in '91.  But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11.  We've found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren't safe and secure behind our own borders.  We weren't in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11.  But we got hit in '93 at the World Trade Center, in '96 at Khobar Towers, or '98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole.  And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn't respond effectively, because they believed we were weak.  They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions.  That day has passed.  That all ended with 9/11.

So this, as near as I can tell, would be his answer to any questions about the discrepancies between what he said so famously in 1994 and what he's saying now. Which is to say that he'd not answer the questions at all and instead attempt to implicate Iraq in the '90s bombings and in September 11. He'd also entirely ignore the fact that--no matter how many acts of terrorism America suffered--nothing changed about Iraq that would make overthrowing the regime any less of a quagmire.

Also that last bit: "They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions." I'd say we proved them wrong they were entirely correct in their assumptions. And to devastating effect for the United States. 

Comments

[jmc]

Why do I feel like Afghanistan is the ignored middle child of the GWOT?

The thought that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is somewhat valid - that's why the US invaded Afghanistan, to topple the Taliban and disrupt Al-Qaeda's operations.

HOW ON EARTH DOES THIS APPLY TO IRAQ? [banging head against wall]

[JimPortlandOR]

Cheney: They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions."

Well, there was some truth to this prior to 9/11. And after 9/11 we did change our policy - we invaded a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, and overthrew the Taliban government of Afghanistan, but starved it of attention and sufficient forces and resources to build a lasting barrier to radical islamism - leading to the current condition where essentially the Taliban are a major threat to the government.

If al Queda's intent was to cause a significant weakening of US capabilities across the region and inflame the large majority of Moslems against the US, they have succeeded well beyond what they could have expected to happen.

The small hits to the US reputation from withdrawal from Lebanon, lack of reaction to Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia, withdrawal from the chaos of Somalia, etc. are overwhelmed by the dramatic inability of the US to achieve its aims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yet, Cheney et.al. can't see what their policies have actually brought about. If we had vision problems before 9/11, we are now totally blind.

[Seven Star Hand]

Greetings,

Want to understand just how deceptive and duplicitous Cheney and crew really are? Read the following link to understand that they were saying one thing publicly, while actively planning both 9/11 and the Iraq war ( PNAC, etc.). Follow the links in the article and be prepared to have your head spin...

Read more...