Cheney Again Links Iraq With The 9/11 Attacks

Comments (14)

hquain wrote on August 28, 2006 6:17 PM:

Cheney appears to be responding to this line of argument: "The invasion & occupation of Iraq has created a climate of hatred for the US, which will inspire terrorism. So it's actually safer for us to get out." He counterargues: 'they' hate us anyway (e.g. 9/11), so it won't matter, terroristically speaking, whether we stay or leave.

This is a bit like arguing against someone who advises you not to drive drunk by pointing out that you had an accident while sober.

But it's not the same as accusing Iraq of being behind 9/11 (which would follow from a formulation more along these lines: "since we weren't in Iraq on 9/11, the terrorists were able to hit us.")

Tom Wright wrote on August 28, 2006 6:40 PM:

This line has been used plenty by admin members. It's especially galling because it reverses cause and effect. They won't mention that Osama mentioned our presence in Arabia as a reason, or that we have since simply relocated to Iraq, moving into bigger and better accomodations.

cpl wrote on August 28, 2006 7:03 PM:

Cheney's statement is, like most of his statements, very carefully constructed to say one thing while leaving exactly the opposite impression.

The literal meaning of the statement is that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected. The impression left by the statement is "They overlook a fundamental fact..terrorists attacked us anyway.

Furthermore, the presence of the two admittedly unrelated events in a single sentence raises the unasked question: If we had been in Iraq prior to 9/11 would we have been attacked by terrorists?

This is a brilliant example of how Cheney and Bush play fast-and-loose with the truth, even as they walk very carefully through the facts.

seashell wrote on August 28, 2006 7:41 PM:

The literal meaning of the statement is that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected. The impression left by the statement is "They overlook a fundamental fact..terrorists attacked us anyway.

Exactly. The statement also endorses use of the military to counter terrorism and the most recent US support of, and contributions to, Israel's war against Hebollah.

In other words, only warfare and not a change in US foreign policies will secure the US against terrorism.

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000

cscs wrote on August 28, 2006 7:43 PM:

Depends on the meaning of the word "link." If you argue with a wingnut, you'll be challenged that no one ever said the literal words "Saddam was behind 9/11," just like no one ever said Saddam's threat was "imminent."

But, in those cases as well as what Cheney is doing today, 9/11 and Iraq are being "associated." By saying those two things in the same sentence or in two sentences next to each other, it has the effect of implying the two were connected. In fact, reading Cheney's statement, it seems to me the terrorists of which he speaks came from Iraq, and they hit us before we got there.

And, of course, the above cited article says: "But prior to the U.S.-led invasion, Cheney suggested that one of the September 11 hijackers met in Prague before the attacks with an Iraqi intelligence agent."

So Cheney, of any in the cabal, has actually done the most to directly implicate Iraq in the 9/11 attacks.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Bronto1 wrote on August 28, 2006 9:01 PM:

It is way beyond the point that anyone except the core Bush cultists would waste their time and listen to anyone in this administration, and expect to hear some truth that was going to do some good for America. Fifty three troops dead so far in August in the noble cause.

hoppycalif2 wrote on August 28, 2006 9:21 PM:

 We had no lunar colony in 2001, but the terrorists attacked us anyway.  We were not growing coconuts in 2001, but the terrorists attacked us anyway.  We were not watching the Sacramento Monarchs playing as Champions of the WNBA in 2001, but the terrorists attacked us anyway.  New Orleans had not yet been destroyed in 2001, but the terrorists attacked us anyway.

Hoppy in Sacramento

TheOkie wrote on August 28, 2006 11:22 PM:

"By saying those two things in the same sentence or in two sentences next to each other, it has the effect of implying the two were connected."

I agree.

He may also be hedging his bets: "If the terrorists hit us again, it can't be due to the Iraq war because they attacked us before we got there."

kosmotropic wrote on August 29, 2006 2:55 AM:

We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway."

 It's a pretty sophisticated piece of political propaganda.  Let me see if I can put it in cannonical logical form:

Let "we were in Iraq on Sept 11, 2001" be replaced by the symbol I

Let "The terrorist hit us on September 11 (anyway)" be replaced by T

then symbolically it would read  ~I&T

Notice that logically he is NOT saying that the Iraqis hit us on September 11, 2001, nor is he saying that we went to Iraq because we were hit by them on September 11, 2004.  That is, he is not saying that in a logical/legal sense.  But he is implying it.  How does he achieve this implicature?  Well for one, the way he phrases the sentence by conjoining 'Iraq' and  'Terrorist' in the same sentence implies some causal connection.  Otherwise the sentence would be total nonsense.  People have a tendency to attribute sense whenever possible to a speakers output.  Call it The Principle of Charity of conversational implicatures  ( see the writings of  the philosopher of language Herbert Paul Grice (1913 - 1988),   The unwary reader of Cheney's speeches will read into what Cheney says what he thinks he actually intended to say.  The Principle of Charity requires you to do that in conversational contexts.  So Cheney can say "I did not lie" and it would be true, yet according to Grice and others who study the pragmatics of language he would be violating a fundamnetal principle of language usage.  Politicians in general--but particularly this bunch--will engage in such morally questionable tricks all the time.

 We need to familiarize ourselves with what the rules of conversational communications require and then we can see when people like Cheney flout these rules to spread--deliberately--disinformation

Eddie-george wrote on August 29, 2006 7:35 AM:

What is Cheney trying to say... quite simply, our foreign policy vis a vis Iraq has no bearing on the terrorist threat.

The inverse to this statement - that our foreign policy (e.g. regime-change in Iraq) does mitigate the terrorist threat - is sufficient to expose Cheney's deceit.

Perhaps the important thing to remember is that the Iraq War hawks - whether they be Neocon regime-changers, self-described "Truman Democrats", military-industrial complex profiteers, Big Oil geopolitical strategists, Rovian political fixers, or crusading Rapturites - have one objective in mind. They must sustain the argument that pre-emptive war is good, our Middle East policies are all a-okay, and that means squelching any suggestion there is a correlation between terrorism and Western foreign policy. Or claiming that democracy in Iraq will ameliorate the terrorist threat.

Goes without saying that these two claims cannot logically co-exist, but that won't stop Bushco trying to present both with equal conviction... "Stay the course", "we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up", but remember our reasons for invading iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. But our actions now will help prevent future terrorist attacks.

I don't agree with what Bushco does. I despise them for their duplicity.

brewmn wrote on August 29, 2006 10:38 AM:

"But it's not the same as accusing Iraq of being behind 9/11 (which would follow from a formulation more along these lines: "since we weren't in Iraq on 9/11, the terrorists were able to hit us.")"

He's intentionally associating the 9/11 attacks and our reasons for invading Iraq. He's suggesting that the invasion was a justified response to 9/11 and the threat of terrorism in general. Several earlier posts in this thread describe his intentions and his tactics quite well.

Cheney knows that the news will air his statements without parsing them the way you just did. And less-well-informed listeners (i.e., the vast majority) will once again associate Iraq and 9/11.

Bartman wrote on August 29, 2006 10:47 AM:

He's saying that aWol's invasion of Iraq did not cause 9/11. It's simple and true.

PW wrote on August 29, 2006 11:06 AM:

Sometimes these days Cheney sounds less sinister and more gaga.

As others are pointing out, the Administration often sounds gaga when in fact their statements have always been conscientiously crafted to keep them out of trouble in the event of investigations -- defining what they mean by "is," so to speak. I don't think there are many "less well-informed" listeners left, just the ones who are willfully deaf -- a thinning clique.

From the get-go, Bush has been working in a kind of cosa nostra White House, surrounded by defenders and mafia lawyers. Minutaglio has come out with the description of the step-by-step crafting of Alberto Gonzales into a user of the law to protect Bush interests. That, "Fiasco," films about New Orleans, dire predictions about Iraq, anti-Bush books and films all over the place -- most people can't avoid at least having second and third thoughts... Above all, it's not fashionable anymore to defend Bush, not even out here in redland. The most benign reaction to the President in our local papers is a knowing chuckle, but these days even that's hard to find.

JaDe wrote on August 29, 2006 1:06 PM:

The Vice President is simply re-making the argument that al-Qaida attacked us in hard-to-reach New York & Washington because they did not have a more convenient target.

 In other words, paraphrasing President Bush, it's better that they attack us in Iraq than here.

This claim also contains shades of "America is a taget of al-Qaida regardless of whether we are in Iraq."

These are utterly shameless arguments that essentially equate to "Badches!  We don't need no stinking Badches!"

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)