Cheney on Iraq puts White House to work on unmuddling message
WASHINGTON -- Dick Cheney placed himself on the 2000 Republican ticket as a kind of regent. Apparently, the Bush family was looking for a Washington veteran with foreign policy experience to advise the less experienced George W. Bush. Cheney, who headed the search committee for a running mate, offered up himself.
During the campaign, it was widely believed that Cheney, like most older Washington hands, would be a moderating influence, offering a dose of political reality to temper the administration's more radical enthusiasms. That proved way off the mark, as Cheney, who was chief of staff in the Ford administration and defense secretary in Bush I, used his knowledge of Washington the way a football coach uses knowledge of the opponent's defense: He looked for holes and pushed through his initiatives. Some, like his energy task force, carried a stench of political favoritism. Others, like the Iraq war, were bold and apparently idealistic.
But lately, Cheney has carried his advocacy out of the back rooms and into the public fray, and the sheer stubbornness of his positions has surprised Washington yet again. Suddenly, it seems as if the younger Bush, no stranger to stubbornness himself, is a moderating influence on the older Cheney.
In a television interview last month, Cheney discussed a link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as though it were a live possibility, not something that had long ago been determined to lack credibility. That prompted an unusual rebuttal from Bush, who declared that there was no evidence of a link between Hussein and Sept. 11.
The fact that the correction came from Bush, not Cheney, raised questions no one wanted to answer. After all, the government has a monopoly on overseas intelligence, and the public rightly assumes that reports of threats to the United States represent the best possible assessments by teams of professionals. Is Cheney refusing to accept the president's judgment? Does Cheney know something Bush doesn't? And who's really in charge here?
Then, on Friday, Cheney again repeated an assertion that others in the administration have steered away from. Hussein, Cheney told the Heritage Foundation, "had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in . . . poisons, gases, and making conventional bombs."
The question of whether Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda remains of importance to those here and particularly overseas deciding whether to support the unfinished war. In stating it so baldly, as a fact, Cheney is committing the government's credibility to his assertion.
But what's the evidence for it? Cheney offered none. If he knows something others don't, he should put it on the table. The only time the administration was asked to provide evidence, in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations, the link between Hussein and Al Qaeda seemed far less certain.
Powell declared one captured operative reported hearing that Al Qaeda sent an emissary to Hussein to ask for training in "chemical or biological" weapons. Later, this operative said, the emissary reported his mission had been accomplished. This was the sum total of the evidence that Hussein trained Al Qaeda in biological "or" chemical weapons. Against this piece of evidence are the declarations of dozens of members of Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda who insist Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other.
Is the captured operative credible? Does accomplishing the mission necessarily mean training took place? If so, where could it have taken place? After all, US arms inspectors haven't found chemical or biological weapons. It's important to note that Cheney did not say "we think Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda," or "a captured operative said Hussein had a relationship"; he stated the "established relationship" as a fact.
Cheney's assertions can be explained by two possible scenarios. Some Democrats have said the administration deliberately intends to mislead people. While Bush's comments about Iraq include various hedges to maintain deniability, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld make much broader assertions that, if ever called upon to justify, the administration could write off as Cheney's or Rumsfeld's personal interpretations, not shared by the president or the CIA.
But the sheer disorganization of the administration's response to postwar crises argues against this interpretation. What seems clear is that this administration, once admired for its discipline, is split into warring factions over Iraq. And the seasoned veteran put on the ticket to help Bush resolve these kinds of disputes is not a helper but a participant.
