Spin

Might as well close the store since nobody's buying anymore:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that "sound policy decisions" by the Bush administration were the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001.

Speaking at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approached, Cheney said that terrorists had mounted successful attacks on targets overseas, including Madrid; London; and Jakarta, Indonesia — but not in the United States.

"No one can guarantee that we won't be struck again. But to have come this far without another attack is no accident," Cheney said, crediting "sound" decisions by President Bush and vigilance by U.S. agencies and the military.

Nice ass-covering. Worship us because we haven't been attacked in the last five years but if we're attacked in the future it's not our fault.

But what does Rummy have to say?

"A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States," he said. "We have only two options in Iraq — victory or defeat."

[...]

But Rumsfeld questioned why people were debating whether or not Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, citing brutal insurgent attacks and statements by terrorist leaders about the central role of Iraq to their cause.

"We should have no illusion … how Iraq fits into the war on terror," Rumsfeld said. "How can so many be debating this issue? It strikes me the answer is there for all to see."

Uhhhh, Rummy? If Iraq is lousy with terrorists just how did it get that way? Few if any terrorists were in Iraq in, say, February, 2003. How come there are terrorists there now? What changed? Well?


.