Text 2877, 422 rader
Skriven 2006-06-22 23:34:32 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0606228) for Thu, 2006 Jun 22
====================================================
===========================================================================
Interview of the Vice President by John King, CNN
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 22, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by John King, CNN
The Vice President's Residence



8:59 A.M. EDT

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you for your time, a lot of ground to cover so
let's get right to it.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, John.

Q The Democrats will put on the floor of the Senate today a proposal --
they don't have the votes -- but they say this administration's policy in
Iraq has failed. And the leading Democratic proposal would say, let's have
a partial withdrawal -- they call it a redeployment -- and then require the
administration to put forward a plan. Now, they say this is not cut and
run, it's not retreat, but they say three years and three months later, it
is time for the administration to tell the Iraqi government you cannot have
this indefinite American security blanket. You need to do a better job of
preparing your own people to take over security, what's wrong with that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's wrong in many respects, John. First of all,
they're wrong. We are making significant progress. We've had major success
on the political front in terms of three national elections last year by
the Iraqis. They've stood up a brand new government under a new
constitution for the first time ever. We've got a quarter of a million
Iraqis now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight. So there has been
significant progress made with respect to what's going on in Iraq.

What the Democrats are suggesting basically you can call it withdrawal, you
can call it redeployment, whatever you want to call it, basically it's --
in effect, validates the terrorist strategy. You got to remember that the
Osama bin Laden types, the al Qaeda types, the Zarqawi types that have been
active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United
States' will. There's no way they can defeat us militarily. But their whole
strategy -- if you look at what bin Laden has been saying for 10 years --
is they believe they can, in fact, force us to quit, that ultimately we'll
get tired of the fight, that we don't have the stomach for a long, tough
battle, and that we'll pack it in and go home.

If we were to do that, it would be devastating from the standpoint of the
global war on terror. It would affect what happens in Afghanistan. It would
make it difficult for us to persuade the Iranians to give up their
aspirations for nuclear weapons. It would threaten the stability of regimes
like Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudis in Saudi Arabia. It is --
absolutely the worst possible thing we could do at this point would be to
validate and encourage the terrorists by doing exactly what they want us to
do, which is to leave.

Q You say -- excuse me for interrupting you -- you say validating and
encouraging the terrorists, the Democrats say they're tired of validating
what they view as a failed policy. And as you know some Democrats want to
go even further. Senator Kerry wants to have a complete withdrawal within a
year or so.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Jack Murtha, an old friend of yours, with whom you have sparred recently
in the House, he says, look, when President Reagan realized the policy in
Beirut was failing, he withdrew the troops. Call it cut and run if you
will. When President Clinton realized the policy in Somalia was failing, he
withdrew the troops. Again, some might say cut and run. He says this war is
costing $8 billion a month, $300 million a day, there's no end in sight.
And forgive me, but he says, you don't have a plan, so let's not have more
kids killed.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He's wrong. I like Jack Murtha. He's a friend. We did a
lot of business together in the past when I was Secretary of Defense and he
was chairman of defense appropriations sub-committee. But the instances he
cites, Beirut in '83, Somalia in '93 is what bin Laden cited back in 1997
and '98. He made speeches where he, in effect, argued that the Americans
didn't have the stomach for a fight, that ultimately the terrorists would
win, al Qaeda would win. And he's cited as evidence of that, what happened
in Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. That's my point.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a global conflict. It's not just
about Iraq. It's -- we've seen attacks around the world from New York and
Washington, all the way around the Jakarta and Indonesia over the course of
the last five years. Our strategy that we adopted after 9/11 of
progressively going after the terrorists, going after states that sponsor
terror, taking the fight to the enemy has been crucial in terms of our
being able to defend the United States. I think one of the reasons we have
not been struck again in five years -- and nobody can promise we won't --
but it's because we've taken the fight to them.

And if Jack Murtha is successful in persuading the country that somehow we
should withdraw now from Iraq, then you have to ask what happens to all of
those people who've signed up with the United States, who are on our side
in this fight against the radical extremist Islamic types of bin Laden and
al Qaeda. What happens to the 12 million Iraqis who went to the polls last
December and voted in spite of the assassins and the car bombers? What
happens to the quarter of a million Iraqis who've gotten into the fight to
take on the terrorists? The worst possible thing we could do is what the
Democrats are suggesting. And no matter how you carve it, you can call it
anything you want, but basically it is packing it in, going home,
persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans
don't have the stomach for this fight.

Q Well, you disagree with the Democrats' plan, but they are stepping into a
political environment in which the American people -- clearly, some have
anger, some have dissatisfaction, some have doubts about this war and the
administration's plan for this war. Fifty-four percent of the American
people say it's a mistake; 55 percent say things are going badly in Iraq;
53 percent in our polling say the American people actually support a
timetable. Why is it that the administration has failed to articulate to
the American people then? The American people don't think you have a plan,
sir.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, they're wrong. We do have a plan. It's there for
anybody who wants to take a look at it. The Democrats have repeatedly made
this charge. It's simply not the case. There is a good plan in place. We
are making significant progress, but this is a long-term fight. I think
there are a lot of people out there --

Q Let me -- let me jump in. One other point here, is it wrong -- you say
it's wrong to publicly set a timetable.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And I understand the argument for that. You'd cue off -- tee the
terrorists off to what you're going to do.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q Has the Iraqi government been told privately you need to meet certain
bench marks, training your troops, improving security by a date certain
because the American people are not going to pay for this forever?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think they know full well that we are expecting
them to take on more and more responsibility. It's one of the reasons the
President went to Baghdad recently. In all of our conversations with them,
they know what we're trying to do, and they've stepped up to that task and
that responsibility. The fact of the matter is, obviously, we've lost a lot
of people, which you wish you hadn't lost anybody. But the heavy casualties
are being taken by the Iraqis. There are a lot more Iraqis being --
becoming casualties in this conflict at present because they are now in the
fight.

Again, I come back to the basic proposition: What happens in the global war
on terror if the United States bails out in Iraq? And that's exactly what
withdrawal is. You're going to take your troops out before the conflict is
over with. You're not going to complete the mission -- if we follow the
Democrats' advice. And in fact, we will have set up a situation in which
the al Qaeda types can win.

They have a plan to establish a caliphate that stretches from Spain all the
way around to Indonesia, to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, to
destroy Israel, to take down most of those regimes in that part of the
world. And they will do anything they can to achieve that objective. But
ultimately what they're betting on is that we don't have the stomach for
the fight, and we cannot afford to validate that strategy. We can win. We
are winning, but we've got to stay at it.

Q In the political debate over the war, even your friends say that you have
given the Democrats a couple of doozies by saying early on "we would be
greeted as liberators," by saying about a year ago, "the insurgency was in
its lasts throes." I know factually you have said you stand by those
statements based on the circumstances at the time. You're not new to this
game. You've been in national politics for 30 something years. In the
political environment, do you wish you could take those words back?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think that, in fact, we are making very
significant progress. There's no doubt in my mind but we're going to win.
We will prevail in Iraq. We will prevail in Afghanistan. And I think the
evidence is there for anybody who wants to look at it.

With respect to the overall course of the campaign, I think it's been very
successful. With respect to this question of liberation, we have, indeed,
liberated 50 million people -- 25 million in Afghanistan from the rule of
the Taliban; 25 million in Iraq from the rule of Saddam Hussein, two of the
worst regimes in modern times, a very, very significant achievement. But we
have to stay the course.

It does not make any sense for people to think that somehow we can retreat
behind our oceans, leave the Middle East, walk away from Iraq, and we'll be
safe and secure here at home. 9/11 put the lie to that. We lost 3,000
people that day. Nineteen people, armed terrorists armed with box cutters
came into the United States and did enormous damage to us. If we pull out,
they'll follow us. It doesn't matter where we go. This is a global
conflict. We've seen them attack in London and Madrid and Casablanca and
Istanbul and Mombassa and East Africa. They've been on a global basis
involved in this conflict, and it will continue whether we complete the job
or not in Iraq. Only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for
terrorists. They'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends
and allies in that part of the world.

Q You acknowledged this past week that the administration and you
personally underestimated the strength of the insurgency.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I --

Q As you know even friends of the administration, supporters of this war
have criticized the administration saying not enough troops were sent in at
the beginning. You have a unique perspective on it. You were the Defense
Secretary in the first Gulf War.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q You're the Vice President now. In the first Gulf War, it was the Powell
Doctrine: If you're going to put U.S. troops at risk, do so in overwhelming
numbers with overwhelming force so that there is no doubt. Secretary
Rumsfeld prefers the leaner force, a more mobile force. As history looks at
this, is one early lesson that the Powell Doctrine trumps the Rumsfeld
Doctrine?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think so. I think you've got to look at each
individual circumstance and figure out what makes sense in terms of the
kinds of forces you need to bring to bear, what your enemy is capable of,
what your goals and objectives are. I think you have to be very careful
about generalizing from one conflict to the next.

Q I want to move on to some other issues. One of the key issues facing the
world right now and the Bush administration is North Korea. It has a
missile on the launch pad. Apparently our intelligence suggests it may test
that missile any day now. Former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, who served
in a Democratic administration, writes an op-ed in today's Washington Post
saying, Mr. President, take it out. Launch a military strike, take that
missile out. You will destroy not only the missile, he says, but a launch
pad that is capable of launching nuclear weapons. Why not?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that -- I appreciate Bill's advice.

Q I bet you do. (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And I think that at this stage we are addressing the
issue in a proper fashion. And I think, obviously, if you're going to
launch strikes at another nation, you'd better be prepared to not just fire
one shot. And the fact of the matter is I think the issue is being
addressed appropriately.

Q Do we know what's on that missile? Is it a satellite? Is it a warhead? Is
it a test?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We don't know. That's -- one of the concerns is that
this is a regime that's not transparent, that we believe has developed
nuclear weapons, and now has put a missile on a launch pad without telling
anybody what it's all about. Is it to put a satellite in orbit or a simple
test flight?

They will obviously generate concern on the part of their neighbors and the
United States to the extent that they continue to operate this way. As the
President has made clear, this is not the kind of behavior we'd like to
see, given the fact that the North Koreans do have a nuclear program and
have refused to come clean about it.

Q What do we know about their capabilities? Some have said this new
longer-range missile could reach Guam, perhaps Alaska. Others say, no, it
might be able to reach Los Angeles, and there are some who think maybe even
right here, Washington, D.C. What do we know?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we -- this is the first test of this particular
type No Dong II missile. We believe it does have a third stage added to it
now, but, again, we don't know what the payload is.

I think it's also fair to say that the North Korean missile capabilities
are fairly rudimentary. I mean, they've been building Scuds and so forth
over the years, but their test flights in the past haven't been notably
successful. But we are watching it with interest and following it very
closely.

Q I want to ask a quick question about another international standoff,
which is Iran's nuclear program. The President in Europe yesterday said,
Iran should hurry up with its response. It shouldn't wait months. It should
get an answer in days, or weeks, at the most.

As you consider that confrontation, many experts have said your options are
limited because of the way the Iranians have built their nuclear program.
Many think that it is invulnerable, if you will, that it is protected from
military strikes. I know the President has said, diplomacy first, it would
be the Security Council next, if the Iranians don't accept this proposal on
the table. But when you look at the contingency planning, are you confident
that, if it came to it, the United States has a capable military option of
taking out that program?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: As the President has emphasized, John, we are pursuing
the diplomatic option. We think that's the right way to go. But he has also
made it clear that nothing has been taken off the table, and I'll leave it
at that.

Q I want to bring you to some domestic issues here at home. I have spent a
fair amount of time in recent months in court with your former chief of
staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who, of course, is charged in the CIA leak
investigation. One of the things that his defense has introduced as
evidence is this -- it's a copy of this New York Times article that started
all this, by Ambassador Joe Wilson -- and these scribbles are allegedly
yours. Is that a fact?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: John, I am not going to comment on the case. It's -- I
may be called as a witness. Scooter Libby, obviously, one of the finest men
I've ever known -- he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. And I
have not made any comments on the case up until now, and I won't.

Q Let me ask you one question, one more question about that then. You said
you may be called as a witness. The President urged everyone very early on
to cooperate in this investigation, does that mean that if you are called
as a witness that the administration would under no circumstances cite any
privileges, either to shield you from testifying about certain issues or
protect certain documents, or anything?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're getting into hypothetical now, and I'm not
able to answer that. We have cooperated fully with the investigation from
day one.

Q Let me ask you another question. Your daughter recently wrote a book in
which she discussed her role in your campaign but, also, her decision, some
time ago in her life, to come to you and Mrs. Cheney and disclose that she
was a lesbian. And she has issues with the Republican Party on the issue of
same sex marriage, and she wrote this, "If the Republican Party fails to
come around on this issue -- same-sex marriage -- I believe it will find
itself on the wrong side of history, and on a sharp decline into
irrelevance."

Do you agree with your daughter Mary on that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I've got great love and affection for my daughter,
obviously. I think it's a very good book, and I'd recommend people read it.

Q I'm going to make another attempt at it. The President urged the Senate
to vote on this constitutional amendment. Senator Frist, a leader in the
party, someone who may run for the presidency, brought this amendment up,
is that a mistake?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I made my views known a long time ago, John, that I
think that the fact that the states have traditionally been the ones that
regulate marriage is a procedure that I think is the right way to go. I
think that it ought to be a state matter, a state function. That's not new
to anybody. The President sets policy for the administration, and I support
the President.

Q As you know, you had a recent dust-up with Senator Specter, the chairman
-- the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, who wanted to
have hearings, wanted to bring the phone companies in to see how and when
they had cooperated with this domestic eavesdropping program. And he says
you were working behind the scenes, meddling -- in his words -- to try to
get other members of the committee to put the lid on that, to not force the
phone companies to come up and testify publicly. Did you do that, sir?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't call it meddling. I am the President of the
Senate. The fact is, I'm actually paid by the Senate. That's where my
paycheck comes from. I often talk with my Senate colleagues about
legislation, and that's exactly what I did in this case.

Arlen Specter is a good man. I've known him a long time, and I think he is
an effective chairman of the committee. But if we disagree, there is
absolutely no reason why I shouldn't, on behalf of the administration,
express administration policy to the members of that committee. And that's
what I did.

Q I want to close by asking you a few question about yourself and your
image, and one of them flows from that. As you know, some of your old
friends say, where is the Dick Cheney, the sarcastic Dick Cheney, the
practical joker Dick Cheney. And your critics say, Dick Cheney has become
this dark, nefarious force in the administration that believes in secrecy
at all price, that believes congressional oversight is a nuisance. True?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't think I've changed any. I think I have
been very consistent over time. I think, partly, it's important to remember
how significant 9/11 was. And we are now engaged in a constant effort,
obviously, to protect the nation against further attack.

That means we need good intelligence. It means there have to be national
security secrets. It means we need to be able to go after and capture or
kill those people who are trying to kill Americans. That's not a pleasant
business. It's a very serious business. And I suppose people sometimes look
at my demeanor and say, well, he's the Darth Vader of the administration.

I guess, the other thing that's working here, John, is I'm not running for
anything. My career will end, politically, with this administration. I have
the freedom and the luxury, as does the President, of doing what we think
is right for the country. And the advice I give and the positions I take on
issues are based upon that fundamental proposition.

We're doing what we're doing in Iraq in terms of here in the U.S., with the
terrorist surveillance program and so forth, because we think these are
essential policies for the nation to follow. We're not trying to improve
our standing in the polls. We're not out there trying to win votes for
ourselves. Neither one of us will ever be a candidate again. We're doing
what we think is right, and I'm very comfortable with that.

Q You're also a human being, though. Your poll ratings are lower than the
President's. You have an image that, I think it's fair to say, is not
positive with the majority of the American people. That doesn't trouble you
at all?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is a great sense of freedom when, in fact, you
don't have to worry about the polls. We don't worry about the polls. They
go up, the polls go down. The fact of the matter is, we're doing what we
think is best for the nation. And that's what the American people elected
us to do.

I think, ultimately, in the final analysis, the history will judge this
President as a very successful, very effective leader, and I'm proud to be
part of his team.

Q You are unique in that you're the Vice President, the first Vice
President in quite some time, who is not seeking the presidency in a second
term. Let's make a little news, do you have a favorite for '08?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No. Republican. I won't go beyond that. We may get
involved eventually, but for now, there are a lot of great candidates
thinking about it, and I think it's going to be a wide open race. And I
think it's very healthy.

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you for your time.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, John.

END 9:15 A.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060622-8.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)