1 Boring Old Man

We’ve been warned that the architect, Karl Rove, thinks that the key to success in the midterm elections is maintaining the link between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror [and, by implication, 911]. Vice President Cheney spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada today. The Reuters article on his speech begins:

So, as expected, his speech is going to make this link, just like Bush tried to do in his Press Conference [see below].

"Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone," Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada. "A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be … a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States."

Cheney did not use the word "Democrats," choosing instead the anonymous "some," but he rejected the argument many have made that by invading Iraq in March 2003, the United States simply "stirred up a hornets’ nest."

"They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway," he said, in a reference to the hijacked plane attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

…

Cheney said terrorists wanted to arm themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, "to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries and to cause mass death in the United States."

He suggested critics were naive and did not understand the magnitude of the threats.

"Some might look at these ambitions and wave them off as extreme and mad," he said. "Well, these ambitions are extreme and they are mad. They are also real and we must not wave them off, we must take them seriously."

Cheney said he welcomed the vigorous debate over Iraq but added: "There is a difference between healthy debate and self-defeating pessimism. We have only two options on Iraq – victory or defeat – and this nation will not pursue a policy of retreat."

I read this over and over again trying to make sense of what he was saying. First there’s a made up thing, "Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." I don’t know anyone who thinks that. It never even occurred to me that it was something to think. I think those of us who want us to pull out think that we shouldn’t have ever been there in the first place. We think that staying there isn’t doing anybody any good. We think it’s costing us a gajillion dallars and American lives. We think the notion of imposing an "American Democracy" by force is a comic book idea. We think a million things, but not what Cheney says. We don’t see a link between the Terrorists and Iraq. How many different ways can we say that? We do think the invasion stirred up a further hornet’s nest – but not the hornet’s nest that was already stirred up.

Then he says, "They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway." Again, what in the world is he talking about? No one I’ve ever heard claimed that leaving Iraq would immunize us from Terrorism . And worse, he’s claiming that being in Iraq in some way stops Terrorism. What is he talking about? How does our War in Iraq prevent Terrorism? They keep saying it, but never saying why [probably because there is no why].

Then he says that the Terrorists want "to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries and to cause mass death in the United States" like any of us don’t know that, or doubt the reality of the Terrorist danger. We all know that, in spades. Of course we know the Terrorists are dangerous – very dangerous.

He never explains how staying in Iraq is related to Terrorism. All he does is create an "us" that holds absolutely ridiculous opinions, and then attacks those ridiculous ideas. He makes no attempt at saying why staying in the Iraq War is connected with 911 or with the Terrorists. I guess now that all of the former "why" arguments have been debunked, he still thinks he can get away with making his monotonous assertion without any explanation at all. They’re down to only one tactic – the Straw Man argument: create an absolutely absurd opponent, then say "our opponents are absurd."

Finally, he says,"We have only two options on Iraq – victory or defeat – and this nation will not pursue a policy of retreat." The truth of the matter is that we have no options in Iraq. We never had any in the first place…

Rumsfield is having a shot at it tonight in the same venue. I can’t wait to hear his version…