|
Dick Cheney
U.S. Vice President
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: What's the difference in running the country from running a business?
A: Well, I remember a conversation I once had when I was at the Defense Department with Don Atwood, who was the deputy secretary and had spent his entire career in General Motors and then retired and came on board and took on a very difficult assignment as the number two man in the Defense Department. And we were talking one day, comparing private life with public life. And I asked him that question. I said, "Don, how does this differ from what you did at General Motors?" We were talking about the Congress and all of the Washington institutions that you had to deal with. And he thought for a moment and he said, "Well," he said, "You know, at General Motors at least, we were convinced the Board of Directors wanted us to succeed." And he was never too sure about the Congress.
It's different in many respects, obviously, but there are a lot of transferable skills back and forth. I guess I would like to see us make it easier to get people to move from the private sector into the public sector, but I think it's become increasingly difficult to do that, and that's unfortunate.
Q: Last Friday, the Senate gave the executive fast-track authority. What does the president plan to do with it?
A: We have been - because of our lack of fast-track authority, it was - when it last expired, early in the Clinton administration, it was not renewed. And as a result, there have been numerous trade negotiations around the world over the last seven or eight years that we have not been a party to. And we want to actively participate in the Doha round that was kicked off last year in Qatar, in the Gulf. We've got a fairly aggressive agenda that I referred to in my speech with respect to South America and Central America. And we're eager to consider, as the president said yesterday when he signed the bill, the possibility of free-trade agreements with not only Morocco and Chile, but also Australia, a number of other places around the world where we think we'll be able to offer a significant improvement in our trading relationship.
So we think it's a very important authority. It doesn't deny the Congress the opportunity to vote, by any means; they have to approve whatever we negotiate. But it'll be an up-or-down vote; they have to take it as a package. They won't be able to offer amendments in ways that would in effect involve the Congress in negotiating these trade agreements. It's a good system. It's been there for about five different presidents, and we think it's a very important piece of legislation that the president signed yesterday.
Q: What key political events need to occur before the U.S. or an international coalition commences an invasion of Iraq?
A: Well, let me say a word about Iraq, because it is, obviously it has become a focal point of attention. I think it's important for us to remember exactly what the circumstances are: that Saddam Hussein, at the end of the Gulf War, entered into an agreement that is embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 687, that basically required him to get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction - to end his nuclear weapons program, to get rid of his chemical and his biological weapons - and provided a mechanism, an inspection regime, so that the international community could be confident that he had in fact done that.
What we know now, from various sources, is that he has continued to improve - if you can put it in those terms - the capabilities of his chemical and biological agents. And he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. That program suffered a severe setback in 1981, when the Israelis bombed the Osiraq reactor. It obviously suffered a major blow when we did Desert Storm and in the aftermath of that. But we know from testimony from defectors - including his own son-in-law, who used to supervise the program and came out in the mid-'90s - that he has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
He sits on top of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, and he has enormous wealth being generated by that. And left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future he will acquire nuclear weapons. And a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein is not a pleasant prospect for anyone in the region or for anyone in the world, for that matter. Sooner or later, the international community is going to have to deal with that. But, again, I think it's important for us to remember that the transgressor here, the one who has not complied with the UN Security Council resolutions, the one who has not lived up to the commitments that were undertaken at the end of the Gulf War, is Saddam Hussein. And I think the burden ought to be on him to prove that he, in fact, is in compliance. And I'm not sure at all that that's likely to happen.
So the international community will have to come together in some fashion and figure out how we're going to deal with this growing threat to peace and stability in the region, and obviously, potentially for the United States itself.
Q: If Iraq agrees to international weapons inspections, would we call off the war - or not move forward in that effort?
A: Well, let me emphasize that the president has not made a decision at this point to go to war. We're looking at all of our options. It would be irresponsible for us not to do that. But the issue here isn't inspectors. That's a secondary item, if you will. The issue is the fact that he's required to dispose of his weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors are merely the device by which the international community can assure itself that he's done so. So many of us, I think, are skeptical that simply returning the inspectors will solve the problem. A great deal depends upon what conditions they would operate under; would they be able to go anywhere, anytime, without notice on extensive searches? You've got to remember he's had about four years now to hide everything that he's been doing, and he's gotten to be very good at that, worked at it very aggressively. So even if you had the return of inspectors, I'm not sure they would be able to do enough to be able to guarantee us and our friends in the region that he had, in fact, complied. He's gotten very good at denial and deception. But we do know, as I say, from defectors and from other sources, that he continues to have robust programs, and a debate with him over inspectors is simply - I think, would be an effort by him to obfuscate and delay and avoid having to live up to the accords that he signed up to at the end of the Gulf War.
Q: How does the U.S. justify continual alliance or even inaction against Saudi Arabia, seeing that's where the pilots who terrorized our nation came from?
A: There has been a lot of talk with respect to Saudi Arabia. I think it's important, first of all, to recognize that we've had a very good relationship with the Saudis now for about 60 years. It's been a very productive relationship in terms of the values that we gain from it and that the Saudis gain from it as well. And while we do have our differences - obviously, there are fundamental differences in our cultures and our political systems and the way we operate - that doesn't mean that we should in any way ignore the benefits that both countries derive out of that very close relationship. So I'm comfortable that we can have honest differences with the Saudis. Certainly, the Saudi government had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11. There were - and there are - in Al Qaeda individuals of varying nationalities - some American citizens, many from other countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. It is, in fact, the Al Qaeda organization, a multinational entity.
It happens that Osama bin Laden, the man who founded it and set it up, is Saudi by birth. He's been, in effect, stripped of his citizenship by Saudi Arabia, and so it would be a mistake for us to assume that the events of 9/11 were in any way, shape or form sanctioned by or supported by the Saudi government.
Q: Can you talk a little bit about the administration's evolving policy with regard to Israel? Can you discuss any potential link or perceived link between our policy with regard to Israel and that with Iraq? And beyond condemning violence, how might this latest round of violence change the administration's policy?
A: The United States is actively committed to trying to bring about resolution of the decades-old conflict now between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The president is heavily engaged in the effort, as are Colin Powell and the rest of us. The president, in effect, broke a lot of new ground back in June with his speech on the subject, when he in effect called for fundamental reforms in the Palestinian Authority as a sort of a prerequisite to being able to make progress. The ultimate vision, clearly, is for two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side, peace and security for both. We believe that is not possible, after years of effort, unless there are some fundamental changes in the Palestinian entity. So we pushed aggressively for reform. We've got a major effort underway that involves the European Union, the Russians, the United Nations, as well as many Arab nations in the region - the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and so forth. We hope that that effort will bear fruit, that there will be created a Palestinian entity, if you will, that is capable of being an effective interlocutor for the Israelis, and that will set the stage then for the kinds of resolutions that obviously are going to be required in order to bring that conflict to an end.
We feel like we're making progress. But I don't want to underestimate the extraordinary complexity and difficulty of the task at hand. It is as intractable a problem as I've ever tried to deal with. As I say, I think we are making progress, but there's a long way to go, and a great deal of suffering on both sides, both Palestinian and Israeli. But establishing a viable Palestinian Authority is going to be key to being able to safeguard Israel against attacks launched against Israel from Palestinian territory, and beginning to make progress on the basic peace process itself.
Q: How can you resurrect investor economic confidence when so many high-profile leaders and companies are under investigation for fraud and accounting improprieties? How would the accounting practices at Halliburton while you were there hold up under the current new corporate checks-and-balances law?
A: Well, I, first of all, have great affection and respect for Halliburton. It's a fine company, and I'm pleased that I was associated with the company and with the men and women of Halliburton, some 83,000 strong around the world, during my tenure there. There currently is an inquiry underway by the SEC with respect to Halliburton's accounting practices. I am, of necessity, restrained in terms of what I can say about that matter, because there are editorial writers all over America poised to put pen to paper and condemn me for exercising undue, improper influence if I say too much about it, since it is a matter pending before an independent regulatory agency, the SEC. If you're interested in the facts of the Halliburton situation, I would refer you to the Halliburton website. I would recommend you pull up the transcript of the quarterly conference that was held a couple of weeks ago with securities analysts, where my successor CEO, Dave Lesar, and the current CFO, responded for a long time to a lot of very detailed questions about the SEC inquiry. And I think I'm - from my perspective, I need to leave it there.
Q: Why don't we have better relationships with Iran, that supports Hezbollah, that sent that ship to Israel with those weapons for the Palestinians?
A: Well, the situation within Iran is interesting. It's different than circumstances elsewhere out there. The government, the current government in Iran, clearly has actively and aggressively supported, especially, Hezbollah. It has been a major source of state-sponsored terrorism, if you will, and devoted to the effort to destroy the peace process. We find that, clearly, something that we can't accept. And we've made clear our opposition to that, as well as to their efforts to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. They're actively working trying to acquire ballistic missile technology, as well as nuclear weapons themselves.
But our argument with Iran is not with Iranian people. What we find is I think that the potential exists that underneath that regime whose policies we find so objectionable, there is a growing body of opinion on the part of the Iranian people that favors and supports democracy, that wants to build a good relationship with the United States, that believes in an opening to the West. And we think the prospects there are promising in some respects.
The president spoke out recently about the yearning of the Iranian people for democracy. We think that's something we need to support and we've been very forthright in encouraging that. And so we'll see what happens, but that's clearly a different situation than we have in some of the other places where we're operating.
Q: Do you expect to be on the GOP ticket as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004? Under what conditions would you reconsider plans to seek reelection? How's your heart?
A: Well, I suppose two people are going to figure very prominently in that decision. One is, obviously, the president; the other is my wife. And I have enjoyed immensely my time with the president. The return to public life carries certain penalties. You pay a price once you get into the public arena, because you do become a target. But, by the same token, the opportunity to serve alongside President Bush for these last two years, the campaign and all that we've been through as an administration, has been clearly, I think, the high point of my professional life, and I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
In terms of what happens next, he'll have to make a decision by this time about two years from now when the convention rolls around, in terms of deciding who he wants to have serve as his vice president in a second term, and that will be his call. And I'll be happy to support whatever decision he chooses to make.
With respect to my health, it's good. I have been probably watched more now than I have ever been. I've got the doctor following me around everyplace I go, literally. When I get on the elevator, there's a guy there with a black bag - actually, two guys with black bags. One has the football, the other has medical capabilities. And so I don't have any complaints. I'm proof positive of the enormous value of the wonders of modern medical technology, and for that I'm very grateful. I've been able to pursue a full and active career, even though I have coronary artery disease. And so if the president's willing, and if my wife approves, and if the doctors say it's okay, then I'd be happy to serve a second term. But I emphasize again, that's the president's call, not mine.
