May 25, 2004
Berkowitz: Well, No. 1, your opponent opposed this war from the get go. Barack Obama has argued that there was no imminent danger, that we should have worked with other countries, that we should have worked multi-laterally, that we should have contained Saddam Hussein. What do you say to that?
Ryan: I think it is a very risky proposition; We found this [out] on 9/11. [it is a] very risky proposition to wait until something is imminent. When would we have stopped the terrorists under that theory who attacked us on 9/11? What we learned from 9/11 is better [to] be proactive, better there than here, better now than later and remember the first rule of government is to make sure that we keep our children and our families safe from harm
Hmm, 9/11 and Iraq? I wasn't aware that there was any, any, evidence connecting the two. That's because there isn't. In fact, General Zinni and other hawks like Brent Scowcroft have not only repeatedly said that Iraq was sufficiently contained, but that the war in Iraq has taken away from the real 'War on Terrorism.' Notice how Ryan here isn't even able to pretend that Iraq has anything to do with stopping Al Qaeda inspired terrorism. He just sticks 9/11 and Iraq the same sentence and hopes that he can scare people into buying his point. Every time you hear a supporter of the war link it to 9/11 in any way, stop them immediately and ask them to spell out what they mean. Otherwise they can keep up this dangerous rhetorical slight of hand.