• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

09 April 2003

Cheney Says U.S. Will Break Alliance of Terrorists, Rogue States

(April 9 address to American Society of News Editors, New Orleans)
(10080)
The alliance between terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass
destruction and rogue states that have such weapons constitutes "the
gravest current threat" to U.S. security, and therefore "a vital
element" in America's antiterrorism strategy must be to break the
alliance between these groups, Vice President Dick Cheney said April
9.
"The chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein is known to
have produced are the very instruments that terrorists are seeking in
order to inflict devastating harm on the people of this country, in
Europe, and in the Middle East," Cheney told the American Society of
News Editors in New Orleans, Louisiana.
"That's why from the day the Gulf War ended in 1991, the United States
has supported the efforts of the U.N. Security Council to disarm Iraq
of its weapons of mass destruction. And that is why the United States
today is enforcing that demand."
From seized documents and interrogations, he said, "we know the
terrorists are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and
to use them against us.... Against determined enemies, we cannot
always rely on the old Cold War remedies of containment and
deterrence."
Cheney described the "extraordinary" military campaign undertaken by
coalition forces against Saddam's regime beginning on March 19.
He said operations are proceeding "with speed and success" and that
coalition forces are securing cities, protecting supply lines, and
delivering humanitarian aid. In Baghdad, "the streets are full of
people celebrating.... Across Iraq, we are beginning to see senior
religious leaders come forward urging their followers to support our
coalition, another sure sign that Saddam Hussein's regime is clearly
doomed."
While noting these successes, however, Cheney warned that "we must not
underestimate the desperation of whatever forces remain loyal to the
dictator."
Those forces "have used hospitals, schools and mosques for military
operations. ...tortured and executed prisoners of war. ...forced women
and children to serve as human shields. ...transported death squads in
ambulances, fought in civilian clothes, feigned surrender and opened
fire on our forces, and shot civilians who welcomed coalition troops."
"The hardest combat could still be ahead of us. Only the outcome can
be predicted with certainty: Iraq will be disarmed of its weapons of
mass destruction; the regime will end; and the Iraqi people will be
free."
Removing the Iraqi regime sends "a very clear message" to all groups
that operate by means of terror and violence, he said. "The United
States and our coalition partners are showing that we have the
capacity and the will to wage war on terror -- and to win decisively."
"The actions of our coalition now being taken in Iraq today have come
at a cost," Cheney said. "But the cost of inaction would have been far
greater. And they would have been paid, not just by future
generations, but very likely by our own, as well."
After his opening remarks, Cheney answered questions from the news
editors.
Asked about the role of the United Nations and others in post-war
Iraq, he said "the U.N. has a prominent role to play," particularly in
providing and coordinating humanitarian assistance.
"I think the central role needs to still reside with the coalition
until such time as we can pass it to the Iraqi people, themselves.
And, hopefully, that process will begin within a matter of days."
He reiterated that the plan is to create an Iraqi interim authority,
"run by Iraqis, selected by Iraqis," to build the future government of
Iraq and to administer the nation, and "we'll pass responsibilities
off [to the interim authority] just as quickly as possible."
Cheney said the United States will soon set up a meeting near al
Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq, to "bring together representatives of
groups from all over Iraq, to begin to sit down and talk about
planning for the future with this Iraqi interim authority and getting
it up and running."
Additional questions posed to the vice president included the deaths
of journalists covering the military campaign, the management of
Iraq's oil resources, and the response of Middle Eastern countries and
Gulf states to the eventual establishment of democracy in Iraq.
Following is a transcript of Cheney's remarks and the
question-and-answer session:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President 
April 9, 2003
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWS EDITORS
The Fairmont Hotel 
New Orleans, Louisiana
9:00 A.M. CDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Morning. Thank you. And thank you,
Rena, for the introduction. I count many friends among the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. And it's good to have the opportunity to
join you again. And I look forward to taking your questions in a few
minutes.
Three weeks into the war -- which I want to talk about this morning --
I, obviously, cannot begin my remarks without paying tribute to those
that we've lost on the field of battle. Our campaign is proceeding
with speed and success. But that will not ease the sorrow of the
families of American and coalition troops killed in the line of duty.
We're thinking of these families now with respect and gratitude. And
this nation will always honor the sacrifices made in our defense.
American journalism has also lost two of its finest men over the last
several days. I knew Michael Kelly and greatly admired his work. He
was a superb writer. And as a reporter and editor, he upheld the
highest standards of your profession. David Bloom, of NBC, impressed
everyone with his skill, energy and exuberance. Both David and Michael
were also very decent men with young families. And many people are
feeling their loss today, the same way they feel the loss of the
members of our armed forces. I also want to extend America's
condolences to the families of all the foreign journalists killed in
the war.
These two young reporters were among the 600 American journalists
embedded in coalition military units all across Iraq. The embedding of
journalists has made for some outstanding reporting. I suspect the
arrangement has also led to greater respect all around. For their
part, the troops have come to know reporters who are willing to accept
the hardships and dangers of war in order to get the story right. And
journalists have come to know our military -- not just for the power
of its weapons, but by the character of the men and women who serve.
Since the war, our forces have conducted themselves with all of the
skill and integrity that President Bush and the American people
expected of them. They are in the field at this very hour. Operations
continue all across Iraq securing cities, protecting supply lines,
delivering tons of humanitarian aid. In downtown Baghdad this morning,
we are seeing evidence of the collapse of any central regime
authority. The streets are full of people celebrating. While pockets
of regime security forces may remain, they appear to be far less
effective at putting up any resistance. In southern Iraq today,
British forces are securing the second largest city, in Basra. Across
Iraq, we are beginning to see senior religious leaders come forward
urging their followers to support our coalition, another sure sign
that Saddam Hussein's regime is clearly doomed.
There may well be hard fighting yet ahead. Regime forces are still in
control in northern Iraq -- in Mosul and Kirkuk and Tikrit. Yet the
conclusion of the war will mark one of the most extraordinary military
campaigns ever conducted. It's proceeded according to a carefully
drawn plan with fixed objectives and flexibility in meeting them. In
the early days of the war, the plan was criticized by some retired
military officers embedded in TV studios. (Laughter.) But with every
day and every advance by our coalition forces, the wisdom of that plan
becomes more apparent. Secretary Rumsfeld, General Franks, General
Myers and General Pace at Pentagon -- and their subordinates -- have
done a superb job. It's been a most impressive performance. And coming
on the heels of the Afghanistan operation last year, it's proof
positive of the success of our efforts to transform our military to
meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Having been involved in planning and waging the Persian Gulf War in
1991 as Secretary of Defense, I think I can say with some authority
that this campaign has displayed vastly improved capabilities, far
better than we did a dozen years ago. In Desert Storm, only 20 percent
of our air-to-ground fighters could guide a laser-guided bomb to
target. Today, all of our air-to-ground fighters have that capability.
In Desert Storm, it usually took up to two days for target planners to
get a photo of a target, confirm its coordinates, plan the mission,
and deliver it to the bomber crew. Now we have near real-time imaging
of targets with photos and coordinates transmitted by e-mail to
aircraft already in flight. In Desert Storm, battalion, brigade and
division commanders had to rely on maps, grease pencils and radio
reports to track the movements of our forces. Today our commanders
have a real-time display of our own forces on their computer screens.
In Desert Storm, we did not yet have the B-2. But that aircraft is now
critical to our operations. And on a single bombing sortie, a B-2 can
hit 16 separate targets, each with a 2,000-pound, precision-guided,
satellite-based weapon.
The superior technology we now possess is, perhaps, the most obvious
difference between the Gulf War and the present conflict. But there
are many others. Desert Storm began with a 38-day air campaign,
followed by a brief ground attack. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
ground war began before the air war. In 1991, Saddam Hussein had time
to set Kuwait's oil fields ablaze. In the current conflict, forces
sent in early protected the 600 oil fields in southern Iraq, prevented
an environmental catastrophe, and safeguarded a resource that's vital
for the future of the people of Iraq. During Operation Desert Storm,
Saddam managed to fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia. This
time was different, again, thanks to Special Operations Forces, which
seized control of the missile launch baskets in western Iraq,
preventing their use by the enemy. Our Special Ops forces -- joined by
those of the British, the Australian, and the Polish allies -- have
played a vital role in the success of the current campaign.
During Operation Desert Storm, we faced a massive flow of refugees in
need of aid and shelter. But so far, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we've
averted a large-scale humanitarian crisis. U.S. and Royal Marines
succeeded in taking the Al Faw Peninsula and cleared a path for
humanitarian aid. And today, even as fighting continues, coalition
forces are bringing food and water and medical supplies to liberated
Iraqis.
Looking at the overall effort, Saddam Hussein apparently expected that
this war would essentially be a replay of Desert Storm. And although
he realized that some 250,000 Americans and coalition forces were
stationed in the Gulf on the eve of the war, he seems to have assumed
there was ample time to destroy the oil fields he had rigged to
explode and the bridges that he had wired. But the tactics employed by
General Franks were bold. They made the most of every technological
advantage of our military, and they succeeded in taking the enemy by
surprise.
Let me quote the military historian Victor Davis Hanson writing
several days ago: "By any fair standard of even the most dazzling
charges in military history, the Germans in the Ardennes in the Spring
of 1940, or Patton's romp in July of 1944, the present race to Baghdad
is unprecedented in its speed and daring, and in the lightness of its
casualties." Hanson calls the campaign "historically unprecedented"
and predicts that its "logistics will be studied for decades". Bottom
line, with less than half of the ground forces and two-thirds of the
air assets used 12 years ago in Desert Storm, Secretary Rumsfeld and
General Franks have achieved a far more difficult objective.
Yet until this war is fully won, we cannot be overconfident in our
position, and we must not underestimate the desperation of whatever
forces remain loyal to the dictator. We know full well the nature of
the enemy we are dealing with. Servants of the regime have used
hospitals, schools and mosques for military operations. They have
tortured and executed prisoners of war. They have forced women and
children to serve as human shields. They have transported death squads
in ambulances, fought in civilian clothes, feigned surrender and
opened fire on our forces, and shot civilians who welcomed coalition
troops.
In dealing with such an enemy, we must expect vicious tactics until
the regime's final breath. The hardest combat could still be ahead of
us. Only the outcome can be predicted with certainty: Iraq will be
disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction; the regime will end; and
the Iraqi people will be free.
In removing the terror regime from Iraq, we send a very clear message
to all groups that operate by means of terror and violence against the
innocent. The United States and our coalition partners are showing
that we have the capacity and the will to wage war on terror -- and to
win decisively.
When I last spoke to this organization in 1990, the Cold War was
ending, and I said then that we were looking at a new era in national
security policy. Today, we are not just looking at a new era, we are
actually living through it. The exact nature of the new dangers
revealed themselves on September 11, 2001, with the murder of 3,000
innocent, unsuspecting men, women and children right here at home. The
attack on our country forced us to come to grips with the possibility
that the next time terrorists strike, they may well be armed with more
than just plane tickets and box cutters. The next time they might
direct chemical agents or diseases at our population, or attempt to
detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. These are not abstract
matters to ponder -- they are real dangers that we must guard against
and confront before it's too late. From the training manuals and
documents that we've seized in the war on terror, and from the
interrogations we've conducted, we know the terrorists are determined
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and to use them against us.
With September 11th as a fresh memory, no rational person can doubt
that terrorists would use such weapons of mass murder the moment they
are able to do so.
The government of the United States has a moral duty to confront those
threats, and to do whatever it takes to defeat them. And as the
leading power, we have a further responsibility to help keep the peace
of the world and to prevent terrorists and their sponsors from
plunging the world into horrific violence. President Bush takes that
responsibility very seriously, and he is meeting it with great resolve
and with clarity of purpose.
If we are to protect the American people and defend civilization
against determined enemies, we cannot always rely on the old Cold War
remedies of containment and deterrence. Containment does not work
against a rogue state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and
chooses to secretly deliver them to its terrorist allies. Deterrence
does not work when we are dealing with terrorists who have no country
to defend, who revel in violence, and who are willing to sacrifice
their own lives in order to kill millions of others. To meet the
unprecedented dangers posed by rogue states with weapons of mass
destruction, and terrorist networks with global reach, our
administration has taken urgent and, at times, unprecedented action.
One of these important things we have done is to strengthen the
defense of the homeland. As the President requested, Congress created
the Department of Homeland Security to mobilize against a wide range
of potential threats. We have put more marshals on airplanes; stepped
up security at airports, power plants, ports and border crossings. We
have inoculated our troops against anthrax and smallpox and made the
vaccines available for first responders, who are stockpiling enough
smallpox vaccine for every American. We have proposed and urge
Congress to pass Project BioShield -- a comprehensive effort to
develop and make available modern, effective drugs and treatments to
counter a chemical or biological attack. And Project Bioshield is a
critical element of defense in this new era.
But we know that playing defense isn't enough -- we have to seize the
offense against terrorists. So we are going after the terrorists,
hunting them down, freezing their assets, disrupting their chain of
command. We've had great successes recently with the capture of two
key figures in the September 11th attacks -- Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and
Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And, of course, we still have forces on the
ground in Afghanistan working with that country's government to rid it
of the Taliban and al Qaeda elements.
Our war on terror continues on every front, from law enforcement, to
intelligence, to military action. The President has made clear from
the beginning that this will be a long and a focused effort -- not
only because the terrorists operate in the shadows, but also because
they enjoy the backing of outlaw states. It is this alliance between
terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass destruction and rogue
states developing or already possessing these weapons that constitutes
the gravest current threat to America's national security.
Therefore, a vital element of our strategy against terror must be to
break the alliance between terrorist organizations and
terrorist-sponsoring states. The chemical and biological weapons that
Saddam Hussein is known to have produced are the very instruments that
terrorists are seeking in order to inflict devastating harm on the
people of this country, in Europe, and in the Middle East. That's why
from the day the Gulf War ended in 1991, the United States has
supported the efforts of the U.N. Security Council to disarm Iraq of
its weapons of mass destruction. And that is why the United States
today is enforcing that demand.
As we meet this morning, I cannot predict with certainty how soon this
war will be over. Although I am pleased, as is everyone else, to see
the reports coming out of Baghdad today, I want to caution everybody
that we still have a lot of work to do yet. I am certain that when it
is successfully concluded, the friends of the United States --
throughout the world and in the Middle East -- will be deeply
heartened by this victory and will prove far more willing to stand up
to the tyrants and terrorists in their midst.
The end of Saddam's regime will remove a source of violence and
instability in a vital part of the world. A new regime in Iraq will
also serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other
nations in the Middle East. As President Bush has said: "The United
States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace
in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can
come over time. The power and the appeal of human liberty is felt in
every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to
overcome hatred and violence and turn the creative gifts of men and
women to the pursuits of peace."
The actions of our coalition now being taken in Iraq today have come
at a cost. But the cost of inaction would have been far greater. And
they would have been paid, not just by future generations, but very
likely by our own, as well. By their skill and courage, the American
armed forces joined by the finest of allies are making this nation and
the world more secure. They are bringing freedom where there is
tyranny, relief where there is suffering. As a former Secretary of
Defense, I've never been more proud of those who wear the uniform of
the United States military.
Later this morning, here in New Orleans, my wife, Lynne, and I will
visit the National D-Day Museum, the museum founded on the initiative
of the late Stephen Ambrose, whose writings did so much to acquaint
Americans of today with the heroism of the World War II generation. In
one of his books, Ambrose related a soldier's memories of that period
in our history. "In the spring of 1945," he said, "around the world,
the sight of a 12-man squad of teenage boys armed, in uniform, brought
terror to people's hearts. But there was an exception: a squad of
G.I.'s, a sight that brought the biggest smiles you ever saw to
people's lips and joy to their hearts. G.I.'s meant candy, cigarettes,
C-rations, and freedom. America had sent the best of her young men
around the world, not to conquer, but to liberate; not to terrorize,
but to help."
Ladies and gentlemen, in the spring of 2003, the American people and
the watching world are seeing another great generation. The citizens
of Iraq, like so many oppressed peoples before them, are coming to
know the kind of men and women that America sends forth to meet danger
and to defend freedom. We can all be thankful that our country still
produces such men and women -- this great force of volunteers, placing
themselves between our country and our enemies. And when their mission
is accomplished, we look forward to welcoming them home with pride and
with gratitude.
Thank you. (Applause.)
It's my understanding the drill is, for questions, I think we've got
microphones in each aisle, and anybody who wants, step up and I'll be
happy to respond as best I can. Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Edward Seaton (ph) from the Manhattan Mercury
in Kansas. As you know, 11 journalists have been killed in this war. I
think that represents about 9 percent of the total of U.S. and British
troops who have been lost. Yesterday was a particularly grueling day
for journalists, both U.S. journalists and international journalists.
There were three journalists who died yesterday, and there were three
strikes that have been questioned, particularly in the Arab world,
that have the look of perhaps more than simple military action -- at
least that's been the allegation in some quarters. Abudabi TV was hit,
was struck by U.S. fire. A missile hit Al Jazeera TV, and the
Palestine Hotel was struck by tank rounds. I wonder if you could speak
to those allegations that we're hearing from the Arab world, and just
generally, the issue of safety, particularly of journalists who are
not embedded with U.S. forces or British forces.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate the question. Obviously,, as I
mentioned in my remarks, any loss of innocent life in the military
action is to be regretted. The suggestion that somehow the United
States would have deliberately attacked journalists is obviously
totally false. After all of the effort we went to to make the
battlefield, so to speak, available to journalists, to embed hundreds
of journalists, both Americans and foreigners, with our forces, to be
right there on the front lines where they could report in real time
what's going on, has been, I think, a very important and positive
contribution. But the suggestion that having done that, we would
somehow then encourage deliberate attacks on journalists makes no
sense at all. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that.
The fact is that our troops have come through three weeks of fighting
through southern Iraq into Baghdad. They have, during that period of
time, been fired upon from mosques, from schools, from other kinds of
civilian facilities. They have seen the enemy take off their uniforms
and put on civilian clothes. They've seen civilians used as human
shields. They've been fired upon under a white flag of truce. And they
are specifically authorized under the rules of engagement, anytime
they believe they believe they're fired upon to return fire, to defend
themselves. And I have no reason to believe that that wasn't the case
here. That is to say that their response was simply the act of troops
in a combat zone responding to what they perceived to be threats
against them.
It's always unfortunate -- we try to remind people, especially
reporters, that when you go into a war zone it is risky. There are
great dangers in that kind of a setting, and we cannot guarantee
everybody's safety. We do the very best we can, but it's still a war
zone. And hopefully, the conflict will end as soon as possible and
there won't be any more loss of innocent life, either civilians or
reporters. So, we regret that it happened, but unfortunately, it's the
kind of thing that happens in modern warfare.
Q: Mr. Vice President, I'm Chris Pack (ph), the editor of the Memphis
Commercial Appeal and a Wyoming native.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- ranger, I believe.
Q:  That's correct.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: A great newspaper. They used to endorse me when I
ran for Congress.
Q: Yes, they did. (Laughter.) You talked about the technological
advantages we have in the war in Iraq. Could we talk a little bit
about the psychological aspects of the war? Do you think, after this
war, that we're going to have a difficult time making the case in the
Arab world that we are there as liberators and not aggressors? And how
do you think we're going to need to deal with the Arab leadership and
the tremendous anger that's being portrayed and projected towards
America as a result of this war?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there's no question but there's work
to be done in that area. I've always found a little bit frustrating,
all the years that I've been dealing with problems in that part of the
world, going back now, I suppose, 20-some years, to find this
criticism that's sometimes leveled at the United States based on our
operations out there when I think the record of the United States over
the years may not be perfect, but we have gone to war now on a number
of occasions, frankly, to protect Muslims, to role back Saddam
Hussein's aggression in Kuwait in 1990 and '91, in the Balkans, in
Bosnia, and elsewhere.
In this case, we were, after great provocation and after 12 years of
unsuccessful efforts by the U.N., acting to eliminate one of the most
brutal dictators of our time. A man who probably was responsible for
the death of at least a million Muslims, half of them his own people.
A man who ran a horrific police state. And I see that, and I see the
outpouring of joy in the streets of Baghdad today by the Iraqi people
at their liberation, and still the U.S. is subject to criticism from
our friends in the region.
And I think we need to do everything we can, partly to tell our side
of the story. I think most people who live in that part of the world
don't have access to free media, and I think it would be an
improvement if they did. There's clearly more work that needs to be
done in that area by us. But I think, in the final analysis, history
will judge us, and hopefully, the people of the region will judge us
based upon what happens next in Iraq, in how we conduct ourselves
going forward, in whether or not we keep the commitment we made --
which we definitely will keep just as quickly as possible, to
establish a viable representative, democratic government in Iraq, and
to withdraw our forces just as quickly as we can.
We are not there as occupiers. We have no interest in the oil. We have
no interest in maintaining forces there a minute longer than is
necessary. And I think when they see how we function, how rapidly we
move in that direction, whether or not we keep the commitments we
made, hopefully they'll come to judge that what we've done here was,
in fact, necessary and appropriate to the circumstances, and that the
people of Iraq are far better off for our having eliminated this
horrific regime than they were if we had not acted.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Clarence Pennington (ph), retired member. We
know you have a plan to reorganize and rebuild Iraq. You, along with
the President and the coalition. Could we hope that you also have a
precise plan to give France and Germany a role in Iraq that is
consistent with their pre-war behavior? (Laughter.) -- that will help
you avoid the wrath of --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm trying to think if this is an
opportunity or if I should be scared here about the answer that I'm
about to -- (laughter.)
Q:  And I have a follow-up.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, all right. Let me say a word about the
problem we encountered. Obviously, I think we're disappointed, most
Americans are, at the fact that nations that have historically been
close friends and allies of the United States, in this particular
case, did everything they could to stop us from doing what we thought
was essential, from the standpoint of our own national security, as
well as the -- our friends in the region.
The President made a very deliberate decision last fall to go to the
United Nations to sort of give Saddam Hussein one more chance to come
clean, but also to try to restore the U.N. Security Council process to
a position of competence and integrity at dealing with these kinds of
international problems. There are likely to be other problems like
this in the future that we'll have to deal with. And if the
international community can come together effectively, obviously,
that's preferable.
In this particular case, that didn't happen. And the French and the
Germans, in particular, did everything they could to prevent us from
going forward and enforcing the U.N. Security Council resolutions.
They seemed to be less interested in solving the problem than they did
in restraining the United States from taking action.
That's history, that's behind us now. It's time for us to get on with
business and do what we set out to do in Iraq originally. I think the
preeminent effort at this point, obviously, is going to be led by the
United States and our coalition partners -- by the Brits, the
Australians, the Poles and a great many other nations that have
supported this effort. They've already demonstrated their willingness
to be part of an effort to deal with this problem and I think we can
expect them to step up and conduct themselves in the fashion that is
reflective of the commitment they've already made.
With respect to others who didn't support the effort, perhaps time
will help in terms of improve their outlook. I think once they see the
results of our efforts, that they'll be interested in trying to help
at least on the humanitarian side. And that's appropriate.
There's this debate raging over the United Nations, what kind of role
should the U.N. have in Iraq. I think the U.N. has a prominent role to
play. They do great things with respect to refugee assistance and
coordinating the work of the non-governmental organizations and
charitable organizations that are very valuable in this kind of
setting.
But the key role, going forward, has to be -- especially as long as
there's a security threat, which there's likely to be for some
considerable period of time -- has to reside with the U.S. government.
And our plan that we've talked about and that we will carry through on
is just as quickly as possible to stand up an Iraqi interim authority,
run by Iraqis, selected by Iraqis, that is both building the
government of the future in Iraq, as well as administering the nation
today. And we'll pass responsibilities off at -- just as quickly as
possible.
We don't believe that the United Nations is equipped to play that
central role. They'll play a very important role, but I think the
central role needs to still reside with the coalition until such time
as we can pass it to the Iraqi people, themselves. And, hopefully,
that process will begin within a matter of days.
So we'll continue to work with our friends and allies. I guess I -- I
look at Europe, and it's important for us to remember that there are a
large number of European nations that stepped up and supported us in
this enterprise, and we shouldn't forget that. We appreciate very much
the support we got from them. And hopefully, should similar problems
arise in the future, maybe our French and German friends will
reconsider their position.
Q: Good morning, Mr. Vice President. I'm Deanne Davis (ph) with United
Press International. Within the last three weeks, we've seen a number
of coalition forces taken prisoner and some gone missing. You
mentioned in your remarks this morning about POWs being tortured and
killed. Can you add anything this morning to what is known about the
POWs or perhaps those who are missing?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I cannot. We have a very carefully developed and
elaborate process for notifying next of kin when we do find people or
get information about people who are either missing or possibly held
as prisoners, and we don't make any announcements, except through the
regular orderly process. It would be unwise for me this morning to
make any announcements here. I don't have any to make, anyway. Those
announcements would come out of the Pentagon, and that's how it should
be.
Q: Mr. Vice President, there's a growing perception among librarians,
academicians, researchers, historians, reporters, editors, publishers,
broadcasters that the Bush administration is a foe of openness in
government. Is that an unfair perception? And if it is, what can you
do affirmatively to change that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do think it's an unfair perception; that it's
not the way I view our approach. I think the -- some people have
focused on -- Rena mentioned in her introduction the work of the
energy task force that I chaired two years ago. The debate has now
been settled, in effect. The court has ruled in favor of the
administration that we did handle it in an appropriate way. And the
dispute with the GAO and the Congress on that issue has now been
resolved in favor of the administration.
The issue that was involved there was simply the question of whether
or not a Vice President can sit down and talk with citizens about an
issue and gain from them their best advice and counsel on how we might
deal with a particular issue. The charge was made that I should have
to tell the Congress, specifically a Congressman, Henry Waxman of
California, every time I met with somebody, on what it is they told me
and what kind of advice they gave me. That was the original request.
I said, no, I didn't think that was reasonable at all. In terms of
what our policy recommendations and decisions were, none of that was
secret. We published a 120-page brochure, passed out thousands of
copies that laid out all of our policy decisions and recommendations,
so everybody knew exactly what we believed and what kinds of policies
we felt we ought to pursue. But the Vice President should not have to
answer any congressman and say, well, at 2:00 p.m. last Thursday I
talked to Joe and here's what he recommended. That would put an
absolute chill on our ability to get good advice from private citizens
or anybody else. We have to be able to have those kinds of
conversation.
Some people may have taken that as a, "chilling" the information
process. I don't. I think it restored some of the legitimate authority
of the Executive Branch, the President and the Vice President, to be
able to conduct their business. And as I say, now the matter has gone
to court. The GAO brought suit and the federal district court has now
ruled that they were wrong, and supported the administration position.
In other areas, if we talk about openness, I can't think of anything
that better demonstrates our commitment to the free flow of
information about very important events than this whole exercise we're
in the middle of right now, with respect to imbedding the press corps
with U.S. military forces.
It's now possible, in part by virtue of technology -- 12 years ago,
when we did Desert Storm, we weren't able to do it. We had a very
different system for handling it that was frustrating for everybody,
with pool coverage on a limited basis. I mean, if we were devoted to
secrecy and trying to keep information from the press, we certainly
wouldn't have taken 500 or 600 of them and put them out there with the
3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne and the 1st Marine
Division to be right there, side-by-side with our troops, all the way
into Baghdad. So I don't accept the criticism, or I disagree with it,
anyway.
Q: Mr. Vice President, I'm Sandra Kies (ph), the editor of the
Honolulu Advertiser, where we tend to look with equal interest on
events in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also terrorism in Philippines,
Indonesia, and in particular, now what's going on in North Korea, and
to wonder whether the administration's focus of diplomatic attention,
military strategy and so on, on Iraq now has caused a dilution of
energies to confront in particular the situation in North Korea.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't believe it has led to a dilution of
effort. I know I just finished, before I came to speak this morning,
our morning intelligence brief. We have an arrangement where every
morning at 8:00 a.m., Washington time, the CIA comes in and briefs the
President, myself, the National Security Advisor on events around the
world -- the PDB, the President's daily brief.
That was followed by a National Security Council meeting that focused
on Iraq and the Middle East in particular today, Afghanistan, as well.
But the PDB, sort of a -- it covers those areas that we're most
interested in and following at any moment. And I can assure you that
that process gives a lot of attention to other parts of the world than
where the public focus might be at any particular point in time.
So we receive regular reporting on the situation in North Korea. There
are ongoing diplomatic efforts to try to deal with that. It is a very
serious problem, and it has not been ignored, I can assure you that.
We may not have anything publicly to announce at this particular
moment. The world's attention is focused on what's going on in Baghdad
this morning, but that doesn't mean that we can afford to, or that we
are in any way ignoring other parts of the world.
The thing that I'm struck by -- this is, I guess, my fourth
administration that I've worked in, now going back over 30 years. And
to a greater extent than ever before, in my past experience, there are
more balls in the air now than previously. Life used to be relatively
simple, when I think back to the Cold War days, and sort of gave a
structure to your morning when you got up, in terms of what you had to
worry about. (Laughter.) And that's no longer the case. It's a big,
complicated world out there, and we're having to deal with multiple
moving parts on any given day. And we do, in fact, do that.
Q:  May I follow? Are you --
Q:  -- tension to be at this time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm reluctant to do that because we are involved
diplomatically right now. We've spoken before, we think it's important
that there not be the development of nuclear weapons capability on the
Korean Peninsula. We think everybody in the region agrees with that.
Certainly, in terms of the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese
and the Russians, they're all most directly affected by this. And we
believe there ought to be a multilateral approach to persuade the
North Koreans that it's not in their interest to proceed down the
track of developing nuclear weapons.
But I'll just leave it at that, partly because for me to go beyond it
might upset ongoing discussions, and I wouldn't want to do that.
Q: Charlotte Hall (ph) from Newsday, New York. Mr. Vice President, you
have alluded this morning to the administration's vision of how a
civilian authority and an Iraqi government will be established. I'm
wondering if you can give us any details about how the administration
sees the next six months, in terms of the management of oil resources
of Iraq, their production, their sale? And should any of the oil
revenue go to defray our costs for the war?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We've spent a fair amount of time thinking about
how we manage that resource. We are committed to see to it that it's
put to use for the people of Iraq. It's their oil, their resource. One
of the real tragedies we're finding is that not only did Saddam
Hussein forego over a hundred billion dollars worth of revenue over
the last 10 years, because of his refusal to comply with the U.N.
resolutions, that kept sanctions on -- he wasn't able to sell over a
hundred billion dollars worth of oil. That's revenue that didn't flow
to the Iraqi people, obviously. And what oil revenue did come in, he
spent on himself, building these magnificent palaces all over the
country, and on his programs -- military programs, developing weapons
of mass destruction.
So the standard of living in Iraq today is significantly below what it
was 10 or 12 years ago. And one of the keys, we believe, to the
reconstruction of Iraq and to getting it stood up and back and
functioning again, is to get those oil fields up and functioning. And
we now control virtually all of the fields in the south. I think this
morning there was one well still on fire, the others had all been put
out. The fields in the north are still under control of the regime,
but hopefully they'll be taken over eventually without having them
destroyed.
And once we can get Iraqi oil production back up and functioning, it
could generate as much as $20 billion a year for the Iraqi people.
That money will go to Iraq. We'll establish, as part of a interim
Iraqi authority, an organization to oversee the functioning of their
oil ministry. That will be composed primarily of Iraqis. It may have
international advisors from outside, as an advisory group, but they,
ultimately, are going to have to make the decisions about how much
they want to reinvest. And investment is needed in the fields; Saddam
let them deteriorate, so they're in bad shape today. But with some
investment, we ought to be able to get the production back up on the
order of two-and-a-half, three million barrels a day within --
hopefully, by the end of the year. And that revenue will then flow to
the Iraqi government and give them a resource base to start to do
those things they need to do.
They're still going to need outside help and assistance. And we're
prepared to do that. I'm sure that the United Nations is prepared to
help. And that other members of the coalition will be willing to stand
up and provide some additional resources, as well. But the oil revenue
is not to be diverted to any purpose other than specifically to
service the immediate and, hopefully, long-term needs of the people of
Iraq.
Q: Good morning. My name is Kevin Willey (ph) with The Dallas Morning
News. My question has to do with if, in fact, a democracy of some sort
is ultimately established in Iraq, how would you describe what you
expect to be the response to that in some of the surrounding nations
-- Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, others, both in terms of the royal
families that rule those areas today, but also among the populace of
those countries? What sort of a reaction do you expect?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, I would hope if we're able to stand up a
representative, democratic government in Iraq -- one that has due
regard for the human rights of the people of Iraq, preserves its
territorial integrity, isn't a threat to its neighbors and so forth --
that they will come to see this as, obviously, a significant
improvement over Saddam Hussein, who started two wars, twice invaded
neighbors, launched ballistic missiles at neighbors and so forth. So
from that perspective, it'll be a plus.
Exactly what it will look like is something the people of Iraq are
going to have to determine. I think it would be a mistake for we, as
Americans, to say, well, look, here's a cookie mold, this is how we do
it, this is, therefore, exactly how you have to do it. I don't think
that will work. I don't think that takes into account their unique
culture and historical experience and so forth. They're going to have
to work it themselves and figure out what makes sense from their
standpoint, given the social organization and the way their society
has functioned in the past. And it'll be a difficult task. But they've
got some very able people already engaged in thinking about those
kinds of thoughts and issues.
What that means for the neighboring states, I think it's important for
the United States -- the President has made this an important priority
for us -- to continue to encourage reform in that part of the world.
And reform can take many forms. It can be economic. You've got serious
economic problems among many of those nations, in terms of rapidly
growing populations and inadequate economies to support them. I think
it can mean educational reform, and we want to encourage that so that
we end up with young populations that have got useable skills for the
marketplace, rather than just -- don't finish their educational
systems and don't have opportunities or have skills they can use for
that purpose.
There are already growing democracy movements in some of the countries
in the region. Places like Bahrain, Qatar, for example, have begun to
move in that direction -- Kuwait. So exactly what it'll look like, in
terms of being able to say, this is their form of government, I don't
want to be prescriptive. I don't think we should be. But I do think
once Iraq is given the opportunity, and the people of Iraq given their
-- this was historically a sophisticated nation, with a well-educated
middle class, a great deal of technical expertise, a significant
resource base, second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi
Arabia -- that if there's a potential in that part of the world to
create a modern state with a good, strong representative government, I
think, hopefully, Iraq is it. We have to do our best to get them off
and running. And if it works in Iraq, it may encourage positive trends
in other parts of the region.
Q: Good morning, Mr. Vice President. Amy Net (ph), the Star Ledger.
With postwar reconstruction plans already in the works, I was
wondering if you could give any assurances, especially in view of the
large role played by foreign countries -- in particular, the British
-- that the British will have an opportunity to participate in postwar
reconstruction?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think they will. But, again, a lot of those
decisions are going to have to be made by the new Iraqi interim
authority. As they get up and running, they'll have to decide what
kinds of long-term relationships they want there. But we're not trying
to exclude anybody. We've stood up an organization under Retired
Lieutenant General Garner, who's got a great deal of experience in the
area; he ran the relief operations for the Kurds 10 years ago in
northern Iraq; he's well-known to the people in the region; he's got a
very good team drawn from all over the government working with him,
specialists in various fields -- the State Department is involved, the
Defense Department is involved, a lot of our civilian agencies.
And they'll be making the decisions about what kind of work is needed,
as well as getting, as I say, the Iraqi interim administration up and
running. And in the final analysis, a lot of those decisions will be
made out there in the field by those individuals. And there's no
desire on our part to exclude anybody. I think the work will go to
whoever is qualified to do it.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Rich Oppel (ph), with the Austin American
Statesman. Both the President and you in your remarks this morning
have begun to sketch-out a relatively limited role for the United
Nations in postwar Iraq. The outline of that role seems pretty vague
at this point. You mentioned, for example, working with -- the United
Nations working with NGOs, this morning. Does the United States see
any role for the United Nations in formation or the development of the
Iraqi interim authority? Or in the formation of an oil ministry?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: As I say, the perception we have, the concept is
right now General Franks is in charge. We've got troops throughout the
country. We're still conducting combat operations, so there is a major
military ongoing task that's not yet completed.
At the same time, we've already begun the humanitarian relief
operations. We've already got the International Red Cross operating in
parts of the country. We're already delivering -- oftentimes with
military units -- delivering food and medicine and water, for example,
to those areas that have already been liberated. And I think we'll
gradually see that humanitarian effort take on greater and greater
significance.
At the same time, we're getting up and running with this organization
that will be headed up by General Garner. He's already in the theater,
he's already got a lot of his people out there with him. And they will
get into the business of finding out what's the status of the various
ministries, what kind of shape are they in, what kinds of resources
they've got; how soon can we get the health ministry up and running;
how soon can we get the oil ministry up and running; are there people
left in those bureaus and agencies that can be part of the new Iraq,
have we gotten rid of all the Baath Party folks in there who were
Saddam Hussein cronies. You've got to vet people that are going to
come in and be part of that process, but to get those ministries up
and going as quickly as possible.
We're going to have a meeting on the 12th, just three days from now,
Attalio (ph), outside al Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq, where we will
bring together representatives of groups from all over Iraq, to begin
to sit down and talk about planning for the future with this Iraqi
interim authority and getting it up and running.
Now, what role does the U.N. play in all of that? Well, I think the
United Nations, as the President said, has got a major role to play. I
would not say their role is insignificant, by any means. They bring a
lot of expertise to certain types of activities -- in particular, to a
lot of the humanitarian agencies that they have significant influence
over, the work of the NGOs and so forth, that I mentioned earlier.
Traditionally, the Secretary General appoints a personal
representative. It's what happened in Afghanistan. He sent a very able
international civil servant out to represent the U.N. in a lot of the
deliberations that took place in Afghanistan. Similar kind of
arrangement may be the right way to go here.
But as to the question of whether or not we're going to turn
everything over to the United Nations and put them in charge of this
process, the President has made it clear we're not going to do that;
that we want them to play a major role. Kofi Annan has indicated,
frankly, that the vision he has is pretty close to the one we have.
So, I think it will work.
I think there's going to be more than enough work there for everybody
to do. But our objective, as I say, is to just as quickly as possible
get this interim authority up and running that's composed of Iraqis
and transfer authority to them; not to the United Nations, not to any
other outside group, but specifically to get them in a position to be
able to make decisions for themselves -- begin to deliver basic
services at the local level, begin to build over time -- because it
will probably take time -- begin to put together that political
structure that ultimately, hopefully, will result in a new
representative government for the people of Iraq.
Q:  Will U.N. representatives be at the April 12th meeting?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't know. I don't know. Yes.
Q: Paul Vanslambrick (ph) of The Christian Science Monitor. Mr. Vice
President, many people feel the central issue to the U.S. standing in
the Arab world is the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Do you see the conditions now lining up post-Iraq to enable a serious
push by the U.S. on that issue? And do you foresee progress on it?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think the potential for progress does exist. I
think there's some hopeful signs. The President's made it clear that
he will make sure that we make a major effort in this area to try to
make progress on the peace process in the months immediately ahead. I
go back to the speech the President delivered last June, on June 24th,
that laid out a vision with respect to the future, in terms of the
Israeli- Palestinian conflict. He talked about the establishment of a
Palestinian homeland -- the first time an American President ever
called for that -- about democracy and democratic reform of the
Palestinian Authority.
We made it clear that we've reached the point where we didn't believe
Yasser Arafat could any longer be the principal interlocutor for the
Palestinians, that that simply hadn't worked. And they now are moving
on the creation of a post of prime minister selected by the
Palestinian Parliament. And those negotiations within the Palestinian
Authority are continuing. Hopefully, if they can, in fact, establish a
credible government under a prime minister, we can begin to make some
progress.
The problems are horrendous. I don't want to underestimate how
difficult it is, but I think there's no doubt we'll continue to push
very hard to try to end the violence, to try to re-establish the peace
process, and move in the direction laid out by the President in his
speech last June 24th. So it will be a priority for us.
I'm going to do one more question, then I've got to go. Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Neil Brawn (ph) of the St. Petersburg Times in
St. Petersburg, Florida. If I could shift gears for just a second, I
was wondering if you could give us your outlook on the American
economy. And as a fiscal conservative who used to argue against
deficit spending, are you concerned about the deficits we're running
up right now?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: With respect to the economy, it's still soft. I
had spent some time on Friday, I guess it was -- sat down with a group
of outside economists, which I do periodically. We have a regular
practice now in the White House; on Mondays, the economic team gets
together. Steve Friedman is the White House Assistant for Economic
Policy. Secretary Snow, Secretary Evans, myself, several others review
where we are. We do that every week. And I think the general view is
that the economy is still pretty soft, that it began to pick up at the
early part of this year. But since about February, it's sort of been
flat.
There are two views: One is that a lot of that has to do with the
uncertainty created by the war - how soon is that going to get
resolved, what would be the cost, how long would it last, and so
forth. Hopefully, that will now recede as a factor. And if that's the
case, then we would expect to see some resumption of a more normal
pattern of growth.
We believe it's important now to go forward as quickly as possible
with an insurance policy. That's why we recommended to the Congress a
stimulus package this year, the tax reform package that we asked
Congress for. There's a debate raging now between the House and the
Senate -- getting ready to go to conference this week on the budget
resolution that will really set the parameters of how big that package
can be. And then later this year, we pass the revenue measures to
actually implement it. I think that's important to do.
With respect to the deficit, now, I have been a deficit hawk. If you
go back and look at my voting record, it was pretty conservative. But
those of us, even, who are deficit h awks have always made an
exception for war or national emergency. And we found ourselves, I
think, with today's deficit resulting from the slowdown in the economy
that resulted in lower revenues that really began the first quarter of
2001. That's continued.
Once the bubble burst in the stock market, we're not collecting those
capital gains revenues any more -- the way we were for a while. That's
had a big impact on revenue. The terrorism attack of 9/11 clearly
didn't help. It had a significant impact. You look at industries like
the airlines, the travel business, and so forth, they've all been
adversely affected by that. And, of course, we've got the ongoing war
on terror, and now the operations in Iraq. So, I think it's not
surprising that we got a deficit at this stage.
If I look at it in historic terms, the deficit today is not nearly as
large as a percentage of our total economic activity of our gross
domestic product as it was, say, back in the early '80s. And in terms
of our total national debt to the total size of our economy, we're in
relatively good shape. We've made significant progress in recent
years.
Do we have watch it? Certainly. We need to be restrained going forward
with respect to spending. We've got to look especially at our
mandatory programs, our entitlement programs, and to make sure that
doesn't get out of control. But, today, at this stage, with respect to
where we are with the economy, as well as what our needs and
requirements are, today's deficit is not as much concern as was the
case, say 10 or even 20 years ago. I think we're in much better shape
then we were then.
Let me wrap it up. I thank all of you this morning and for listening.
These obviously are important and challenging times. But we do
appreciate very much the enormously important role the free press
plays in America, and all of you represent that. We'll complain from
time to time, but that's our right as politicians. And you complain
from time to time about us. That's your right as editors. But we
really do appreciate the opportunity to spend some time with all of
you this morning. So, thank you very much. (Applause.)
END     10:00 A.M. CDT
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)