On Monday at the National Press Club, Dick Cheney offered a substantially different link between 9/11 and Iraq. For 7 years, Cheney insisted Iraq was directly linked to Al Qaeda through terrorism training, based entirely on a lie that was tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

But Monday's argument was very different:

CHENEY: The problem we were faced with in the aftermath of 9/11 was the possibility of another 9/11-style attack, only with much deadlier technology, a 9/11 with nukes or biological agents of some kind. That concern drove a lot of our thinking in that period, in those months after 9/11.

Yes it was possible that Al Qaeda could attack again with nuclear or biological weapons, but Iraq could not have given Al Qaeda either. As David Swanson and I documented in detail,

there was no actual evidence Iraq had such weapons, and the White House knew it.

Even after the invasion proved Iraq had no WMD's, Cheney still defended the invasion: 

I think it was a sound decision to make. I think it was an important part of our overall strategy in the Global War on Terror. I think it saved lives. 

Cheney is dead wrong on all three counts:

1. Invading Iraq was not a "sound decision" - it was utterly reckless.

2. It did not help the U.S. defeat terrorists - it pulled crucial resources out of Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to get stronger than ever, now threatening Pakistan.

3. It did not save lives - it cost over 4,300 U.S. lives and over 1 million Iraqi lives.

It's incredible that no one in the Foreign Policy Establishment is willing to call Dick Cheney a despicable liar.

Update 1: Cheney also tried to blame Dick Clarke for 9/11, as Ali Frick reports:

CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his book.”

In fact, it was Cheney who “missed” the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials: