Fair and Balanced

The 9/11 commission has released their report, and along with the news about unpreparedness, we have yet another confirmation that there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That doesn't matter to Dick Cheney -"As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."" He has his defenders - Andrew Sullivan, for instance:

CHENEY VERSUS THE NYT: The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"?

But I'm not sure how that matches what the Times, even, said. Just take the rest of the paragraph quoted by Sullivan:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," one of the staff reports released on Wednesday said. "Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

Doesn't that say that whatever repeated contacts there were were one sided - Bin Laden trying to get Iraq involved - and Iraq turning him down? Is Cheney using Bin Laden's apparent willingness to ask Hussein for help to condemn Iraq? I don't know enough to be categorical about it, but that's what it looks like.

I think Cheney's purpose in all this is to create "debate". I find it difficult to believe, at this point, that even the Bush administration thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or even with Al Qaeda. But by trotting that stuff out they create noise - they create the impression of debate. They make it seem as is this were a difference of opinion, rather than a difference of evidence. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated, in even the loosest sense. But by continually repeating that story - evidence be damned - they keep the discussion right where it is - and since the press does not tend to call liars liars, the dispute is portrayed in Cheney says/other experts dispute terms, rather than, Cheney blows smoke.