Low-Impact Collision

By David Corn, The Nation. Posted October 6, 2004.

Vice presidential picks haven't mattered in the past. And vice presidential debates haven't mattered. Neither will this one. Dick Cheney and John Edwards each argued the case well for their man, probably better than George W. Bush and John Kerry did for themselves five nights earlier. They scored points and blocked attacks, reinforcing each campaign's major talking points of the moment. For Cheney it was, Kerry is weak on national security and too inconsistent to be an effective commander-in chief at a time of war. For Edwards, it was, Bush and Cheney have not told Americans the truth about the war in Iraq and the ongoing mess there, and we have a plan to do better in Iraq and at home. But neither succeeded in their attempts to knock the other out of the ring. Edwards went after Halliburton, but Cheney was hardly defensive about his old company. And he did not come across as a dark, behind-the- scenes force. Cheney accused Edwards of amassing a do-nothing record in the Senate, yet Edwards demonstrated he was as well-versed on the issues as Cheney and denied Republicans the chance to shout about a stature gap between the two.

Did I already say this debate won't matter? Voters don't think about vice presidential candidates on Election Day. (Didn't Dan Quayle prove that?) This 90-minute session at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland was political sport – an exhibition game that only would have an impact if a player suffered a major injury. And there were none. But the debate did show that neither campaign is departing from its established gameplan. Cheney emphasized national security, suggesting that only Bush can keep the nation safe. Edwards attacked the Bush-Cheney record in Iraq, but he also expanded the critique to encompass domestic matters, slamming Bush and Cheney for cutting taxes for the wealthy and for doing nothing to provide health care coverage to the uninsured. It was a sign the Kerry campaign, after Kerry's successful outing in the foreign policy debate last week, wants to land some blows on Bush regarding kitchen-table issues.

Let's go to the (irrelevant) highlights.

The first question of the night – which moderator Gwen Ifill partially flubbed – concerned Iraq and the alleged connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Cheney once again claimed that Hussein had "an established relationship" with al Qaeda. But the day before the debate, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had said he had not seen "hard evidence" of any operational alliance. And, of course, Secretary of State Colin Powell, the 9/11 commission, and the CIA had also concluded there was no working relationship. Yet Cheney cannot drop this bone. He noted, "The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction." But there were no WMDs in Iraq, and no al Qaeda terrorists – at least before the invasion. Al Qaeda at that point was more likely to obtain loose nukes originating in the former Soviet Union or WMD assistance from sympathizers in the Pakistan military.

Edwards did not immediately challenge Cheney on any of this. Instead, he led off with the credibility and competency issues: "Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq – the American people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June.... And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration.... We need a fresh start." But moments later, Edwards blasted Cheney for having implied a connection between 9/11 and Hussein.

Cheney tried to argue this point. "The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney commented. "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror." But after 9/11 Cheney did suggest there was an Iraqi role in the attacks by repeatedly referring to the allegation that Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had once met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. He even cited this allegation after it was debunked by the CIA and the FBI. Yet tonight he claimed he had done no such a thing. A senior moment? Or a flip-flop?

Edwards did a fine job – and perhaps was more effective than Kerry – in explaining Kerry's position on Iraq. He remarked, "Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way. And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden."

Cheney countered by insisting that Kerry does not have the mettle to do what needs to be done in the fight against terrorists: "The big difference here, Gwen, is they are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend America. We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States." That is not what Kerry said at the first debate, but it is the spin that the Bush campaign has been hurling since the moment Bush and Kerry walked off the state.

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and author of "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2004! Sign up now »