07 August 2002
Cheney Says Administration "Looking at All Our Options" on Iraq
(Q and A session following August 7 speech in San Francisco) (3170) President Bush has not made a decision at this point to go to war to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, Vice President Dick Cheney said August 7 in a question and answer session following a speech in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California. "We're looking at all of our options. It would be irresponsible for us not to do that," Cheney said. Hussein has not complied with U.N. Security Council resolutions nor lived up to commitments made at the end of the Gulf War, Cheney said, and "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." On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Cheney said "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 in the basic peace process itself." The United States, he said, is actively committed to trying to bring about resolution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. "The president is heavily engaged in the effort, as are Colin Powell and the rest of us," he said. "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," Cheney said. "The ultimate vision clearly is for two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in 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." Asked about Saudi Arabia and a possible connection of that government to terrorist activity, Cheney said "certainly the Saudi government had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11." He pointed out that al Qaeda members come from a variety of countries, including nations in the Middle East and Southeast Asia and the United States itself. He pointed out that al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden has been stripped of his citizenship by Saudi Arabia. "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," he said. Cheney said the United States has 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." Asked about Iran, and its support for terrorism, Cheney said the current government has been a major source of state-sponsored terrorism and is "actively working trying to acquire ballistic missile technology, as well as nuclear weapons themselves." "But our argument with Iran is not with the Iranian people," he said. "What we find is, I think, that the potential exists that underneath that regime that -- 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 opening to the West." Following is the transcript of the question and answer session: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary August 7, 2002 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOLLOWING VICE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS TO THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB OF CALIFORNIA Fairmont Hotel San Francisco, California THE VICE PRESIDENT: (in progress) -- 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 U.N. 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? THE VICE PRESIDENT: 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, any time, 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: There are many questions evidencing some concern about Saudi Arabia. For instance, 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? THE VICE PRESIDENT: 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 from 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: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. While we're on the subject of the Middle East, 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 this latest round of violence might change the administration's policy? THE VICE PRESIDENT: 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 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 under way 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: Mr. Vice President, turning to the economy a bit, a two-part question. How can you resurrect investor economic confidence when so many high-profile leaders and companies are under investigation for fraud and accounting improprieties? And I know you know this is likely to come up, but people want to know how would the accounting practices at Halliburton while you were there hold up under the current new corporate checks-and-balances law? THE VICE PRESIDENT: 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 under way 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 web site. 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: Thank you, Vice President Dick Cheney. My question has to do with the war on terrorism and the massive weapons of destruction. Why don't we have better relationships with Iran, that supports Hezbollah, that sent that ship to Israel with those weapons for the Palestinians? Thank you. THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, why don't we have better relations with Iran? Q: Yes. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the situation in 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: Mr. Vice President, a last question. 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? And then, put a different way, how's your heart? (Laughter.) THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose two people are going to figure very prominently in that decision. One is, obviously, the President; the other is my wife. (Laughter.) 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 now than I have ever been. (Laughter.) 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 -- (laughter) -- actually, two guys with black bags. One has the football, the other has medical capabilities. (Laughter.) 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. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
