Blow by blow (pun intended): Cheney on FNS

Transcript: Vice President Cheney on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday , January 14, 2007

'FOX NEWS SUNDAY' HOST CHRIS WALLACE: And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Joining us now, the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney.

Mr. Vice President, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: It's good to be back, Chris.

WALLACE: Let's start with the president's speech this week in which he said that U.S. forces in Iraq — and let's put it up on the screen — are "engaged in a struggle that will determine" — his word — "determine the direction of the global War on Terror and our safety here at home."

If you and the president really believe that, why not send even more troops into Iraq? And why depend on the Iraqi army and government, which have failed us again and again? Why not say, "This is a U.S. war, and we will do whatever it takes to win"?

CHENEY: Well, in effect, we have said that. And we are putting in the force we think is what's required to do the job. It's based on the best military advice we can get. [Advice from whom? Yourselves? You just dismissed Abizaid and Pace, who were against more troops. – J]

It can't be just a U.S. show, in the sense that ultimately the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for defending Iraq, for governing themselves. That's always been our ultimate objective, and that hasn't changed.

But it's clear, based on recent developments, that they need help, that we can provide that help by putting additional forces in for the foreseeable future, and work in conjunction with the Iraqis.

The Iraqis will be there, too, right alongside us. This is not just an all-U.S. show. It's always been a question of trying to balance what's the right amount of American force and American leadership with the question of handing over authority and responsibility and transitioning to the Iraqis.

We're still very much engaged in that process. We've clearly made a judgment here, both the Iraqis have and the United States, that we need to do more to get a handle on the situation in Baghdad.

WALLACE: But to repeat my opening question, ultimately, will the U.S. do whatever it takes to win?

CHENEY: I believe we will.

I think that if you look at the conflict that's involved here and remember that Iraq is just part of the larger war — it is, in fact, a global war that stretches from Pakistan all the way around to North Africa. We've been engaged in Pakistan. We've been engaged in Afghanistan. We clearly are working closely with the Saudis, with the Gulf states, with the Egyptians.

That we have gone in and, aggressively, since 9/11, gone after state sponsors of terror, gone after safe havens where terrorists trained and equipped and planned and operated to strike the United States.

And we've got people now like Karzai in Afghanistan and Musharraf in Pakistan who are great allies, who put their lives on the line every single day that they go to work — assassination attempts on their lives. [Great allies!? Karzai has accused Pakistan of harboring and sponsoring al Qaeda, and Musharraf has said pretty much the same – that the only al Qaeda in Pakistan are Afghan refugees. If these guys are allies, Cheney’s idea of enemies must be scary indeed. – JL]

And for us to succeed in all of those other areas, those people have got to have confidence in the United States, that they can count on us. If the United States doesn't have the stomach to finish the job in Iraq, we put at risk what we've done in all of those other locations out there. [But you’re still the ones in charge, Cheney! If you & Bush say, “Iraq’s a lost cause, let’s focus on Afghanistan,” the whole country, including most Democrats, will support you. There’s no reason our pulling out of a civil war in Iraq means we have to throw in the towel completely, unless we’re a nation of pouters. – J]

Remember what bin Laden's strategy is. He doesn't think he can beat us in the stand-up fight. He thinks he can force us to quit. He believes that, after Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, that the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war.

And Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and we must win there. It's absolutely essential that we win there, and we will win there. [For bin Laden, the prize was and still is Afghanistan, the only Mideast country to have been a “true Islamic” state. It’s where he cut his teeth. He likes the people. He wants it back. Shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan would be a smart move, and give bin Laden no room to talk trash about “infidel surrender.” --J]

WALLACE: Over the last 46 months, the president and you have repeatedly said that you are on the path to victory, sometimes proposing exactly the opposite policy of what the president did this week. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight.

BUSH: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

BUSH: Will we be nimble enough? You know, will we be able to deal with the circumstances on the ground? And the answer is, yes, we will.

BUSH: Absolutely we're winning.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, why should we believe that, this time, you've got it right?

CHENEY: Well, I think if you look at what's transpired in Iraq, Chris, we have, in fact, made enormous progress.

Remember where we were four years ago: Saddam Hussein was in power, a guy who'd started two wars, who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, prime sponsor of terror, paying the families of suicide bombers.

Saddam has been brought to justice. He's dead. He was executed, as we all know, here a few weeks ago. His government is gone.

There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a new constitution. There's a new government that's been in place now for all of nine months. A lot of people are eager to go out and write them off now. I think it's far too soon. [A constitution, elections, and a government that has only made the formal Kurd-Shiite-Sunni separation more formal. There is no unity as a result of this government – which, by the way, is basically impotent. – J]

The fact is we've come a long way from where we started in Iraq. We still have a lot to do. It's been tougher and taken longer than we thought it would. One of the things...

[Now, Chris Wallace of FOX just gave Cheney an open mike to talk about "all the good news coming out of Iraq" to prove that "we've made enormous progress," [Cheney's own words], and Cheney could only mention a few highly dubious achievements. I'm not disputing that there are positive things happening in Iraq here and there, but why should I blame a Lib'rul Media conspiracy for keeping those good things "hidden" when the VP himself chose not to talk about them -- and not for the first time? Is it because he forgot? Is it because he thinks the American people don't care? Or is it because he himself doesn't care about all the billions of dollars spent on reconstruction, hospitals, schools, roads, and utilities? We can only speculate, because our own Prez and VP choose to leave us in the dark. But if these two had been hired as salesman for the Iraq occupation, any sensible boss who believed in the cause would have fired them by now. We can only conclude that they don't give a shit about all that non-security stuff, and have nothing but contempt for the U.S. taxpayers who have funded so many reconstruction projects. -- J]

WALLACE: But the fact is, some of these policies that you've proposed, that we talked about there, haven't worked. Why should we believe this policy will?

CHENEY: One of the things that, in fact, transpired that's changed the circumstances over there was the successful strategies that Zarqawi pursued. We went up, until the spring of '06, the Shia sat back and did not respond to the attacks on them. They sat there and took it. But after they got hit at the Golden Dome in Samarra, that precipitated the sectarian violence that we're seeing now.

We've got to get a handle on that in order to be able to succeed. We do have to change and adjust and adapt our tactics if we're going to succeed from a strategic standpoint. But that's what we're doing.

Now, no war ever goes smoothly all the way. Lots of times you have to make adjustments, and that's what we're doing here.

WALLACE: Throughout this war, the president has said that he listens to the generals on the ground and he gives them what they want.

But in November, General Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, spoke before the Senate committee and said that, after meeting with every divisional commander, that sending more troops into Iraq would prevent the Iraqis from taking on the responsibility they should take. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID: General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, "In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?" And they all said no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, why did you and the president decide to overrule the commanders?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think we've overruled the commanders. The fact is the plan we've got here now has been embraced by Abizaid, by General Casey, by...

WALLACE: But how do you explain what he said right then, less than two months ago?

CHENEY: Well, it was two months ago.

We've, in fact, looked very carefully at the situation, and we have a plan now that has, in fact, been endorsed by the generals, including Fox Fallon, who's the new CENTCOM commander who's about to replace General Abizaid, and Bob Gates, who's the new secretary of defense.

Part of the debate has been, Chris, over this question of how much emphasis you put on the priority of transitioning to Iraqi control and how much you put on the question of using U.S. forces to deal with the security situation. And there's a balance to be struck there.

And the old balance basically, in the past, placed the emphasis on transition to the Iraqis. But we've made the decision and came to the conclusion that, until we got a handle on the security situation in Baghdad, the Iraqis weren't going to be able to make the progress they need to make on the economic front, on the political front and so forth.

And so, the conclusion is that, with the plan that we put in place now, that we're going to place a greater emphasis upon going after the security problem in Baghdad, that that has to come first. Political reconciliation is important, economic progress is important, but that we've got to get a handle on the security situation in Baghdad. That means more Iraqi forces; that means more U.S. forces.

WALLACE: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, I think it's fair to say, has disappointed us over and over again. Let's take a look at the record.

In mid-October, he demanded that the U.S. military free an aide to Muqtada al-Sadr who was suspected of leading a death squad. On October 31st, he made the U.S. end a blockade of Sadr City, where we were searching for a missing U.S. soldier. On December 30th, he ignored our calls to delay the execution of Saddam Hussein, leading to an event the president says was right below Abu Ghraib as an embarrassment for our country.

Question: How direct has the president been with Maliki that he can't fail us again?

CHENEY: Well, we've been very direct with him. And I think Maliki and his government understand very well that they, in fact, need to step up and take responsibility; that we need to have new rules of engagement, that there will not be any political interference, if you will, phone calls from government officials that interfere with the legitimate military activities of the security forces...

WALLACE: Let me ask you a specific question about that. If U.S. forces want to go into Sadr City and take on Muqtada al-Sadr, can you pledge to the American people we'll do that regardless of what Maliki says?

CHENEY: I believe we'll be able to do whatever we need to do in order to get a handle on the security situation there, and Prime Minister Maliki will be directly involved in it.

This is just as much his program as it is ours. He's the one, ultimately, who has to perform, in terms of the capabilities of Iraqi forces.

So I think we do have the right understanding. Time will tell. We'll have to wait and see what happens here.

But I do believe that, based on the conversations we've had with Prime Minister Maliki and with his senior people, direct conversations between the president and Prime Minister Maliki, commitments that we've made to him and that he's made to us, that, in fact, we do have an understanding that will allow us to go forward and get the job done.

WALLACE: The question a lot of people ask is, "Or else?" In other words, the Iraq Study Group said if Maliki didn't live up to his promises, we would begin to cut aid, support troops. What do we do if he doesn't live up to his promises? Is there an "or else"?

And specifically, because there's all this talk about, "Well, it's a democracy," would the U.S. consider backing another Iraqi?

CHENEY: I'm not going to get into that, Chris. We've got a good plan. We're just now beginning the execution of the plan. Why don't we get together in a couple of months and see how it worked.

WALLACE: Well, that's an invitation that I'll accept.

CHENEY: All right.

WALLACE: But the question is, is there anyone else?

CHENEY: I'm not going to go beyond what I've said. We're focused on making this plan work.

WALLACE: But it's not an open-ended commitment.

CHENEY: We're focused on making this plan work.

WALLACE: Does Congress have any control over how you and the president conduct this war?

CHENEY: Well, Congress certainly has a significant role to play here. They have clearly been instrumental and a major player, in terms of appropriating the funds to support the force and the activities in the global conflict as well as our operations in Iraq.

We talk to the Congress a lot. We consulted with over 120 members of Congress before the president made his pronouncement.

We agreed to set up an advisory group, if you will, that draws on the chairman and ranking members of the key committees of the House and Senate, as we go forward.

So Congress clearly has a role to play. It's an important...

WALLACE: But that's a consultative role. The question I'm asking...

CHENEY: It is a consultative role.

WALLACE: ... though, is, if they want to stop it, can they?

CHENEY: The president is the commander in chief. He's the one who has to make these tough decisions. He's the guy who's got to decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force.

And the Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse. So they've got a role to play, and we certainly recognize that.

But you also — you cannot run a war by committee, you know. The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief.

WALLACE: So let me ask you a couple of specific questions. If Congress passes a resolution opposing increasing the troops in Iraq, will that stop you?

CHENEY: It would be a sense of the Congress' resolution, and we're interested in it and what Congress has to say about it. But it would not affect the president's ability to carry out his policy.

WALLACE: What do you say to members of Congress who may try to block your efforts, your policy in Iraq? Would they be, in effect, undercutting the troops?

CHENEY: Well, I think they would be.

But I think, more than that, Congress clearly has every right to express their opinion and to agree or disagree with administration policy, and they will. They haven't had any qualms at all about that. But there's a new element here, I think, Chris, and that is to say, the Democrats have now taken control of the House and the Senate. It's not enough for them to be critics anymore.

We have these meetings with members of Congress, and they all agree we can't fail; the consequences of failure would be too great. But then they end up critical of what we're trying to do, advocating withdrawal or so-called redeployment of force, but they have absolutely nothing to offer in its place.

I have yet to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side, with respect to an alternative to what the president's proposed in terms of going forward. They basically, if we were to follow their guidance — the comments, for example, that a lot of them made during the last campaign about withdrawing U.S. forces — we simply go back and revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from day one, that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit, that we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's not an answer. [So, as I’ve pointed out before, our foreign policy is now predicated on what bin Laden will or won’t “like.” Why don’t we give him a Cabinet level position, ask him his official stance on all matters, and then just do the opposite. That would save a lot of time & headaches. – J]

If, in fact, this is as critical as we all believe it is, then, if the Democrats don't like what we're proposing, it seems to me they have an obligation to put forward their proposal. And so far we haven't seen it. [Cheney’s right about that. – J]

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, it's not just Democrats, though, who oppose the plan. This week there were a number of leading Senate Republicans who also came out against it. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. NORM COLEMAN, R-MINN.: I'm not prepared, at this time, to support that.

SEN. DAVID VITTER, R-LA.: Too little, maybe too late.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-NEB.: The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

WALLACE: Aren't you losing a lot of support in your own caucus?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think Chuck Hagel has been with us for a long time.

The most dangerous blunder here would be if, in fact, we took all of that effort that's gone in to fighting the global war on terror and the great work that we have done in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and across the globe out there and saw it dissipated because the United States now decides that Iraq is too tough and we're going to pack it in and go home. And we leave high and dry those millions of people in their part of the world that have signed on in support of the U.S. or supported governments that are allied with the U.S. in this global conflict. [What the hell does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt? To hear Bush & Cheney speak, their “war on terror” is apparently a house of cards: remove one card, like Iraq, and the whole thing comes tumbling down. That kind of idiotic thinking allows for no U.S. flexibility whatsoever. There is no damn reason we can’t draw down from one country and increase our forces in another. The only thing stopping us is the guys at the top – Bush & Cheney. For them to act like their hands are tied is dishonest & ridiculous. – J]

This is an existential conflict. It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years.

We have to prevail, and we have to have the stomach for the fight, long term. And for us to do what Chuck Hagel, for example, suggests or to buy into that kind of analysis — it's not really analysis; it's just criticism — strikes me as absolutely the wrong thing to do.

These are tough decisions, but the president's made it. It's a good decision. It's a good policy. We think, on reflection, it's the best way for us to move forward to achieve our objectives...

WALLACE: I want to ask you one more question about this, and then we'll talk about other issues.

Iraq was a big issue in the November election. I want you to take a look at some numbers from the election. According to the National Exit Poll, 67 percent said the war was either very or extremely important to their vote, and only 17 percent supported sending in more troops.

By taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored the express will of the American people in the November election?

CHENEY: Well, Chris, this president, and I don't think any president worth his salt, can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls. The polls change day by day...

WALLACE: Well, this was an election, sir.

CHENEY: Polls change day by day, week by week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq. The challenge for us is to be able to provide that. But you cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, "Gee, public opinion's against; we'd better quit."

That is part and parcel of the underlying fundamental strategy that our adversaries believe afflicts the United States. They are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that, is evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't have the stomach for the fight in this long war against terror.

They believe it. They look at past evidence of it: in Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, Vietnam before that. They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us. They can't beat us in a stand-up fight, but they think they can break our will.

And if we have a president who looks at the polls and sees the polls are going south and concludes, "Oh, my goodness, we have to quit," all it will do is validate the Al Qaeda view of the world.

It's exactly the wrong thing to do. This president does not make policy based on public opinion polls; he should not. It's absolutely essential here that we get it right.

[It would validate al Qaeda’s view of the world that we live in a democracy and they do not. What’s so freaking negative about validating that? Al Qaeda is not the reason things are going bad in Iraq, and so they wouldn’t be the reason we’d leave. The only people saying that they are the ones influencing events in Iraq – which is downright stupid & false – are bin Laden, Bush, and Cheney. They’re right on the same page on that lie – in contradiction of common sense, and U.S. intelligence agencies.

A more telling statement about Cheney's true ideological beliefs he could not have made. Cheney thinks democracy, and the checks & balances our Founders created, is a harm & hindrance in the fight against al Qaeda. Well, actually, he says democracy has been a hindrance in at least three other U.S. conflicts. Think about that. Think about it! Cheney sincerely believes that an imperial presidency is the only way to win wars. He thinks democracy is a weakness; and U.S. voters are feckle fools whose opinions blow in the wind. Did you know Cheney thought you were such an easily manipulated idiot? – J]

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, we have to take a quick break here, but when we come back, we'll talk about Iran and the Democrats taking control of Congress. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And we're back now with Vice President Cheney.

The president talked very tough about Iran this week. And it's not just rhetoric. He has authorized the arrest of Iranians making trouble in Iraq. He has moved against Iranian banks. You've sent two carrier groups and air defense systems into the region.

What's the message that you're sending to Iran? And how tough are you prepared to get?

CHENEY: Well, I think it's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has responded to that, as you suggest. I think it's exactly the right thing to do.

And Iran's a problem in a much larger sense. They have begun to conduct themselves in ways that have created a great deal of tension throughout the region. If you go and talk with the Gulf states or if you talk with the Saudis or if you talk about the Israelis or the Jordanians, the entire region is worried, partly because of the conduct of Mr. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who appears to be a radical, a man who believes in an apocalyptic vision of the future and who thinks it's imminent. [And they’re worried because they’re Sunni and Iran is Shiite. And all of those countries have sizable Shiite populations who are treated as inferior. This is not America’s problem or America’s doing, this is Islam’s problem, and these countries’ doing. – J]

At the same time, of course, they're pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. They are in a position where they sit astride the Straits of Hormuz, where over 20 percent of the world's supply of oil transits every single day, over 18 million barrels a day.

They use Hezbollahas a surrogate. And working through Syria with Hezbollah, they're trying to topple the democratically elected government in Iran. Working through Hamas and their support for Hamas in Gaza, they're interfering in the peace process.

So the threat that Iran represents is growing, it's multi- dimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region.

WALLACE: So what message are you sending to Iran, and how tough are you prepared to get?

CHENEY: I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want them doing what they can to try to destabilize the situation inside Iraq. We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home.

They've been important, for example, in providing improvised explosive devices to some of the forces inside Iraq.

The presence of U.S. military out there, not only in terms of what we're doing in Iraq but also with our carrier task forces, for example, is indicated as reassurance to our friends in the region that the United States is committed to their security and that we're a major presence there now and we expect to continue to be one in the future.

WALLACE: So are you increasing the pressure on Iran to stop these activities?

CHENEY: Well, the pressure, obviously — we're focused diplomatically on the nuclear problem. We've gone through the United Nations. We've gotten the U.N. Security Council resolution unanimously through that body to impose sanctions on Iran.

There's no reason in the world why Iran needs to continue to pursue nuclear weapons. But if you look down the road a few years and speculate about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world, that's a very serious prospect. And it's important that that not happen.

WALLACE: Well, you say it's important that not happen. In fact, it was the basis of the Bush doctrine: You will not allow the world's most dangerous powers to get access to the world's most dangerous weapons.

Can you pledge that, before you and the president leave office, you will take care of the threat of Iran?

CHENEY: I think we're working right now, today, as we speak, on key elements of that problem, specifically through the United Nations, for example, with the nuclear program...

WALLACE: They're continuing the cascades...

CHENEY: ... through our military presence in the Gulf, with respect to our friends and allies in that part of the world, and obviously inside Iraq in terms of the actions we've taken or ordered be taken against Quds Force personnel that are making trouble inside Iraq.

WALLACE: There's a report in the New York Times today that's been confirmed by administration officials that the Pentagon and the CIA have been obtaining financial records about hundreds of Americans suspected of involvement in either terrorism or espionage.

Why involve the CIA and the Pentagon in domestic intelligence- gathering?

CHENEY: Well, remember what these issues are. This is a question, as I understand it, of issuing national security letters that allow us to collect financial information, for example, on suspected — or, on people we have reason to suspect.

The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets. We've got hundreds of thousands of people, innocent Americans...

WALLACE: But why not let the FBI do that, sir?

CHENEY: Well, they can do a certain amount of it, and they do.

But the Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act that was renewed here about a year or so ago.

It's a perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights. And if an institution that receives one of these national security letters disagrees with it, they're free to go to court to try to stop its execution.

So, you know, this is a dramatic story, but I think it's important for people to understand here this is a legitimate security effort that's been under way for a long time, and it does not represent a new departure from the standpoint of our efforts to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks.