"Some have suggested by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we simply stirred up a hornet’s nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq in September 2001 and the terrorists hit us anyway."
That’s what Dick Cheney said two days ago. Yes, he’s still making the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. It’s a sickness, in my view.
And "hornet’s nest"? If 9/11 was a bee sting, Iraq wasn’t the hive. That’s the problem, and your critics are right, Dick.
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 Wouldn’t the logic of the latter claim suggest that the terrorists simply might not notice we had withdrawn and/or attack us no matter what?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!
In related news, the Wall Street Journal provides a rationale for the Iraq war which may surprise some for its candor: the Iraq invasion was about creating a home base from which the United States can launch future wars against Iran and Syria:
The invasion of Iraq was not only about weapons of mass destruction…It was also about establishing a U.S. war-fighting beachhead in the heart of the Middle East, the principal breeding ground of terrorists. The invasion took out one terrorism sponsor, Saddam Hussein, and gave the U.S. a presence for intimidating two others, Iran and Syria.
According to WSJ author Melloan, we need to finish the job in Iraq quickly – not so we can send the troops home – but so we can get ready to fight Iran:
Nowhere is the antipathy toward America and the West more clearly manifested than in Iran…Getting Iraq under control is urgent because of what may be the next threat in the Middle East.
Don’t expect the string of wars to end anytime soon. Melloan concludes that the fight could last “30 years in the view of some analysts.”
That’s a lot of beehives.