Ny B10 Farmer Misc- Wh 3 Of 3 Fdr- 3-16-03 Bob Schieffer-face The Nation-cbs Interview Of Cheney 475

Face the Nation - CBS March 16, 2003 SCHIEFFER: Today on Face the Nation, Vice President VICE PRES. CHENEY on war with Iraq. President Bush's diplomatic efforts seem to be in flux, as he left this morning to meet with the British and Spanish allies. How close is war now? What will it mean for America if we have to go it alone in the face of widespread international opposition? And will we really do that? We'll ask the vice president. Then we'll get analysis and perspective from Tom Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times. Finally, I'll have some thoughts on the president's Middle East peace plan. But first, Vice President VICE PRES. CHENEY on Face the Nation. | ANNOUNCER: Face the Nation, with CBS News chief Washington ,J correspondent Bob SCHIEFFER. And now, from CBS News in Washington, Bob SCHIEFFER. SCHIEFFER: Good morning again. And we welcome back this morning the vice president of the. United States, Richard VICE PRES. CHENEY. Mr. Vice President, thank you for coming. VICE PRES. CHENEY: Good morning, Bob. SCHIEFFER: You are saying today that in the next few days, the president is going to have to make a very difficult decision. Is war now inevitable? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the president, of course, is on his way to meet in the Azores with the Spanish and the British prime ministers. We're coming, I think, to the end of the diplomatic phase, if you will.

000556

The president has done everything he could, gone the extra mile, to try to get this matter resolved through the United Nations. But he's made it abundantly clear that if the U.N. is not willing to enforce its own resolutions, that we may then be left with no choice but for the United States and others who agree with us to proceed to disarm Saddam Hussein. And we are prepared to do that. And obviously, given where we are, both diplomatically as well as in the region, we're getting close to the point where the president is going to have to make an important decision. SCHIEFFER: Well, short of leaving, is there anything that . Saddam Hussein can do at this point to avoid military action? VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's hard to see anything other than his departure that would give the international community any confidence that he would, in fact, live up to those requirements and obligations. The difficulty, we've seen it in the past—inspectors go in. After the Gulf War, for example, we stripped him of a lot of that capability. Defectors told us where it was, we were able to get a lot of his chemical and biological, nuclear programs pulled down. But as soon as they were gone, he was back in business again. If he stays in power, has that flow of significant sums coming off oil production, some 3 million—barrels a day, he will devote those resources to rebuilding his biological, chemical and nuclear program as soon as nobody is watching any longer. That has been his pattern for over 20 years, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. SCHIEFFER: What if he did leave? What if he left this afternoon? Would we still go in? VICE PRES. CHENEY: If he left--obviously, I have to be careful not to speculate. I think our goal and objective', and I think the objective of many of the Iraqi people, and the opposition, as well, too, is to establish a broadly representative government in Iraq that has due regard for the various groups and for the human rights, protects the

000557

territory and integrity of Iraq—all of those kinds of considerations would go into what comes next. And the United States and the international community, both folks in the region as well as around the world, .have a vested interest in seeing to it that if, in fact, Saddam Hussein leaves, that a new government has stood up that meets those and satisfies those various standards. It would not be enough, for example, for him to turn it over to one of his sons, both of whom are bad actors, and then depart. It would have to be a new, truly representative government that represented a fundamental break with the past with respect to Iraq and the Iraqi people. And how that would come about, (inaudible) stages, is difficult to speculate on. Clearly the United States would want to help in that effort. SCHIEFFER: But what you seem to be saying this morning is that we have come to the point here where he leaves or we're going in. VICE PRES. CHENEY: We are getting close to that point, I think. Obviously the president will be heard from later today after he completes his meetings in the Azores. And we are coming down to the end of the diplomatic if you will. The president has gone the extra mile, done absolutely everything we can think-of in order avoid military'action, but it may, in fact, come to

phase, he has to that.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, do you think that the president will announce some sort of timetable today from the Azores? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Bob, I don't want to be in a position where I predict what my boss is going to do. SCHIEFFER: I understand. VICE PRES. CHENEY: He will be heard from, I'm sure, over the next few days, and those are decisions for him to make and announce.

000558

SCHIEFFER: Well, what you seem to be saying is that we should be prepared for war, maybe as early as this week. Is that what you are saying? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn't--! said exactly--! was precise, Bob, and I want to leave it exactly where it was. SCHIEFFER: Well, say that again just so I make sure I understand. VICE PRES. CHENEY: That we are approaching the end of the diplomatic phase here. And that the purpose of the Azores meeting is for the president to sit down with the other two sponsors of the most recent effort at the United Nations, . Spain and the U.K., and decide on what comes next. That is, what is left to be done, for example, from a diplomatic standpoint. And they'll have, I'm sure, comments on what they think lies ahead once they finish their meeting today. SCHIEFFER: But will—Mr. Vice President, do you think that this meeting in any way will be to try to find some new kind of resolution that perhaps could bring the United Nations into support behind this? Or are we past that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don't want to predict that, Bob. I — again, the president's going to sit down with his close friends, the prime minister of Spain and the U.K., and they'll decide what comes next. But the fact is, obviously, we've—the French, for example, have made it clear that they will veto virtually any effort here to come up with a second resolution. And they've consistently, over the years, refused to hold Saddam accountable for his past actions. It's been a standard pattern for them since the mid-'90s. And at this late date it does not appear that they are prepared to change that in any way. They will oppose—have said they will oppose virtually any new resolution. SCHIEFFER: Well, as I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Chirac-President Chirac said this morning that--and he's been talking about some sort of 120 days for a deadline. He is now saying that if the inspectors told him that—or told the U.N. that they could get their work done in 30 days, he might be willing to consider that.

t

000559

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, we come back again to how we got here. Inspectors will not work unless Saddam Hussein is willing to cooperate. We've got ample evidence now that goes back many, many years, that inspectors all by themselves are not the answer. The very system that Jacques Chirac is now saying ought to be relied upon to solve the problem, France refused to support in 1999 when it was set up. They would not vote for the establishment of UNMOVIC that they now want to place sort of the fate, if you will, of whether or not we deal with these issues in Iraq in the hands of that process. And so it's hard to treat that as a credible response. We've had 12 years of resolutions, of speeches, of pronouncements, of meetings, and the U.N. has yet to enforce any of those resolutions. And the French have consistently, in 1995, for example, refused to find him in material breach. In '96, refused to criticize Saddam Hussein for what he was doing to the Kurds. In '97, refused to block the travel of Iraqi intelligence officers. In '98, declared Saddam was free of all weapons of mass destruction. In '99, refused to support UNMOVIC, the very institution now they want to entrust this important responsibility to. So it's difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, well,.you said just a second ago you didn't want to preempt the president who will obviously be talking later today, as will Prime Minister Blair. But what are the president's options at this hour? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, we've continued to work very aggressively on the diplomatic front. The president wanted to go to the United Nations, properly so, to try to build international support and to have the United Nations be effective. We've got a lot of big issues, if you will, ahead of us in the years coming up, especially in the area of nuclear proliferation. If the Security Council can't deal effectively with the Iraqi problem, which involves a rogue nation developing weapons of mass destruction, then it's

000560

difficult to see how they're going to deal with other problems of a similar nature. So it's important to try to have the U.N. Security Council be effective. And the president went to the U.N..to say, NV Look, these are your resolutions. This is the problem. You know, you've got to step up and address it.'' So far after the passage of 1441, which was important last fall, unanimously, now some of those very people who voted for it, such as the French, are refusing to follow through on 1441 and take that next step, which guarantees serious consequences if Saddam fails to comply. SCHIEFFER: But am I hearing you correctly when you are saying--what you seem to be saying to me here is that the only option now is whether Saddam Hussein leaves. Otherwise, military action appears all but inevitable. VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don't want to go any farther than I already have, Bob. Clearly the president has made it abundantly clear to everybody, if the U.N. will not deal with this problem, then the U.S. and our coalition partners will have no choice but to take action. And that's clearly a possibility. SCHIEFFER: If we do have to take action, do you think it will be a long war or a short war? VICE PRES. CHENEY: My own judgment, based on my time as secretary of defense and having operated in this area in the past, I am confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it will go relatively quickly. But we can't count on that. SCHIEFFER: Weeks, months? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Weeks rather than months. There is always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate. But I have great confidence in our troops. The men and women who serve in our military today are superb. Our capabilities as a force are the finest the world has ever known. They are very ably led by General Tommy Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld. And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign.

»*»•/*«

000561

The challenging part to some extent may come in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try to stand up a new government and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to govern the nation. SCHIEFFER: What do you think is the likelihood now that Saddam may strike the first blow? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don't know. That's a possibility. It's a risk that, to some extent, increases as you allow more and more time for debate, dialogue, diplomacy. That's one of the reasons I think we've about run out the string with respect to diplomacy. Clearly, he has done everything he could to manipulate the process. He continues to do that. But after 12 years, we're getting close to the point where action has to be taken if in fact we are going to deal with this problem. SCHIEFFER: Should the American people be prepared for terrorist attacks in this country if we do take action against Saddam? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think that's clearly a possibility. But remember, we've had terror attacks against us without our doing anything militarily. We didn't do anything in advance of 9/11 and still got hit. We know Al Qaida's out there, for example, doing everything they can to organize strikes against us. Saddam tried in '91 to organize terrorist attacks and failed dismally. These, I'm sure, will try again. He may be more effective this time around at trying to use terrorist attacks against U.S. interests at various places around the globe and possibly here in the United States itself. So we have to consider that as a possibility. But one of the things I'm convinced of, Bob, is if you look back at our track record, I think our failure to respond adequately to terror attacks in the past has to some extent encouraged the terrorist organizations. I think Osama bin Laden, for example, saw that we didn't really respond effectively to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in '83 or the World Trade Center attack in '93 or the Khobar Towers attack this '96 or the East Africa bombing in '98 or the USS Cole in 2000, a whole

00056Z

series of attacks there where the U.S. didn't really have an effective response. And I think he felt he could launch attacks against us with impunity. He found out different, obviously, that this Bush administration is different than the ones that had gone before. And 9/11 clearly was a significant event. The American people are now prepared to support a more aggressive posture to deal with the threats and to eliminate them before they can be used against the United States. SCHIEFFER: You seem to be saying that the longer we delay, the greater the possibility of terrorist attacks, and that increases the possibility that he might strike first. VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we are rapidly approaching the point where, having done everything we can diplomatically—and the president clearly has, I think, managed to convey to the American people that he has taken every possible step that was conceivable before he resorts to the ultimate use of force—that having done that, having worked as aggressively as we know how with the international community, that time is not on our side. That if we allow additional time to lapse here, Saddam Hussein is likely to continue to try to develop nuclear weapons, for example. May in fact, try to mount terrorist attacks of various kinds against us. And we need to get on with the business of solving this problem and eliminating this threat. SCHIEPFER: If Saddam should choose to leave, obviously we would grant him safe passage. Do we guarantee him anything beyond that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm not sure we--that we would want to do that. It's a decision the president would have to make. Obviously, he... SCHIEFFER: We would guarantee him safe passage. We would let him leave? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I assume we probably would, yes, Bob. But I don't want to forecast how that ultimately would be handled. If he were to depart, that would solve an immediate problem, with respect to Iraq. xs/s/\Kr»o

000563

But you wouldn't want him, for example, to relocate someplace out there with billions of dollars in assets, which he has developed, and be free to plot further terror attacks against the United States and our allies. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you something, because it raises an interesting point. Have we given him some indication of where we would allow him to go? Or is there a place that we have in mind for him to go? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, we've not given him any such indication. Although, I'm sure if, you know, he were to announce he was leaving Baghdad tomorrow, we would welcome it and not interfere with that. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question. Here we are taking on one of the great criminals in the history of the world, a mass murderer. And I don't think there is anybody that would disagree with that characterization. And yet, around the world there seems to be this rising hatred against us. Why do you think that is? VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is no question but that there are a lot of folks out there who oppose U.S. military action in | this case. J VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think it has to do with the fact that we are going through what I think of as a watershed period here, Bob. If you look at our threats that we've had to deal with in the last century—the possibility of all-out global nuclear war with the Soviet Union, having—to deal states that had significant military power, strategies of containment and deterrence and building alliances and so forth worked very effectively to forestall that. Then we had a 9/11. And on this side of 9/11, if you will, as we get into the 21st century, threats have changed dramatically. Containment or deterrence doesn't work against a terrorist. They don't have anything they choose to defend. They're prepared to die simply in the pursuit of the death of as many Americans as they can. And we are now faced with the prospect of a terrorist using perhaps a nuclear weapon against us. And we know as a result of 9/11 that we are vulnerable. It is possible for them to get through our defenses and launch a devastating attack against the U . S .

AAACP/I

And under those circumstances, I think we are faced with, and to some extent, again, through this watershed that most of the world hasn't been through yet--they didn't face the attacks of 9/11, they didn't suffer the death of 3,000 people in a matter of hours. And I think eventually a good part of the world, especially our allies, will come around to our way of thinking. But there is no question but that there is a difference between those of us who suffered and were present for the attacks of 9/11 and the rest of the world that didn't face that threat. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for coming this morning. We hope you come back. VICE PRES. CHENEY: Thank you, Bob.

I

000565 10