Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With Vice President Cheney

Aired September 14, 2002 - 17:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ROBERT NOVAK, HOST: I'm Robert Novak at the vice president's residence in the U.S. Naval Observatory on the 20th anniversary of the "EVANS AND NOVAK," currently the "NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS," program.
My guest is the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK (voice-over): Richard B. Cheney has been called the most influential vice president in the nation's history. He has been both a spokesman and a policy-shaper on Iraq policy and on much else.

His long career in government has included service as White House chief of staff, congressman from Wyoming, rising to House Republican whip, and secretary of defense during the Gulf War.

He was CEO of the Halliburton Company, with his political career apparently ended, when George W. Bush selected him as running mate in 2000.

This is Dick Cheney's 16th appearance on this program.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, thanks for being with us again.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, it's a special occasion, Bob, to be back here on the 20th anniversary.

NOVAK: We're honored.

Mr. Vice President, the president went before the United Nations this past week to ask for approval for military action to remove Saddam Hussein. What happens if the Security Council turns him down, if there's a veto for example?

CHENEY: Well, I think the important part of the speech was that he emphasized to the United Nations that this is a problem that must be resolved. The U.N. has a responsibility that has not really been carried out. There's been no consequence for Saddam Hussein violating all of these resolutions.

And in effect, what he said is that he wants the U.N. to address it and solve the problem, but if they don't, then the United States will be left with no choice but to do so. I think it was pretty clear that we'd prefer to do this on an international basis with the approval and cooperation and support of other nations, but that this is deemed to be such an important issue and such an important problem that we will address by ourselves if we have to.

NOVAK: What do you think the prospects are, sir, of getting it through the Security Council without a veto by either Russia or China?

CHENEY: I think -- I don't know yet, I guess is the best answer I can give you, Bob. I think we'll make some progress. I think the progress comes in part from the president's speech. I thought he was very effective yesterday, I think, as he lays the case out and reminds the members of the United Nations that they have a lot at stake here, that they're the organization that may become irrelevant if nations can ignore their resolutions with impunity.

And my guess is that there is support building out there now, that there are going to be a lot of countries that will say, "Look, the U.S. is serious, President Bush is serious about this, and we basically want to sign on and support that effort." So I think we'll gain over the next few weeks here.

Exactly what the final vote will look like, what kind of resolutions will be offered or how that will be resolved, all of that still is open to discussion. General Powell, Secretary Powell is working it aggressively. The president is. A lot of us are.

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, the Iraqis have been very negative about the president's speech, about, even about weapons inspectors, but they can change on a dime. If they do change and say, "Yes, bring in your inspectors," that could start a very long process. Are you willing to go that route? You've been very skeptical in the past about the efficacy of weapons inspection in Iraq.

CHENEY: The important point, the point the president has made repeatedly, is that the emphasis here has to be on compliance with those resolutions. He has to give up his biological and his chemical weapons and his nuclear weapons program. Inspections are just a means to get there.

Now, if he were to suddenly change his spots and come into compliance with all of those resolutions, something he's refused to do for 11 years, that obviously would be a different prospect. But I'm not sure that anybody believes that he's really capable of that.

It's not just enough, going to be enough here to simply invite inspectors back in and say, "There, the problem is solved." He's operated for the last four years without inspectors. It would clearly indicate that he's had the opportunity to build significant additional capability. We know he has, from intelligence sources. And even before that, there was an awful lot the inspectors were never able to account for.

So the test is going to be whether or not they can come up with an effective program to guarantee that he no longer has this capability. He's going to have to produce it, and he's going to have to destroy it. And we'll see how they get there.

Now, the Security Council hasn't met on this issue yet. They're just now beginning the negotiations processes. Inspections, in some form may be a part of that, but it's not just enough to say, "Well, the inspectors can come back in there. Everything is taken care of." It's not that kind of a problem.

NOVAK: Let me, let me give a hypothetical; it may be unrealistic. Can he avoid, can Saddam Hussein avoid regime change if he is forthcoming on inspection?

CHENEY: The test isn't just inspections. The test is compliance on all those resolutions. I think there's some 16 of them, going back to 1990 and '91. And that's what has to happen.

He's got to meet the test of abiding by those resolutions. I'd say inspections may be a part of that, but they were only a piece of 687 originally. U.N. Resolution 687 specifies with respect to terror, with respect to biological and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons.

So he's got a lot of work to do to come in to compliance. I don't know whether or not he can.

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, you were a former secretary of defense, you're still close to the military. Some of the generals I talk to feel they are stretched badly on manpower. With the present responsibilities of the United States worldwide, not to mention a military operation in Iraq, do you need more manpower to fulfill these commitments of the United States globally?

CHENEY: I don't think we've reached that conclusion yet, Bob. That's a decision, obviously, the secretary of defense, the current secretary, Don Rumsfeld, would have to come to and then make a recommendation to the president.

I would expect, if anything like that's going to be considered, he'll do it in connection with the upcoming budget cycle. But to date, there's been no such request forwarded to the White House. The president hasn't had to act on that.

I think our military is very good, superb. I think we've invested heavily now in the last year or so with supplementals and the additional funding, with respect to supporting operations in Afghanistan. But there's no question but that they've been working hard and if it became necessary to use military force in some fashion in Iraq, clearly that would be an additional mission that the military would have to carry.

But aside from generalized concerns, I haven't heard anybody suggest to me or to the president that they don't have the resources to do what's necessary here.

NOVAK: Some of the generals have told me that they thought that perhaps Saddam Hussein has learned from experience and this may not be a cakewalk in Iraq. Senator McCain, the other day, said he thought it would be pretty easy. How do you come down on that? CHENEY: Depends on, obviously, how it unfolds. I mean, all of this is speculative.

But I think if you just look at our capabilities versus his capabilities, we're much stronger today than we used to be. Our precision-guided munitions were impressive in the Gulf War, but that was a small percentage of the weapons we used. Today a much higher percentage of the weapons, probably 70, 80 percent, would be precision-guided. We'd be much more devastating now than we were 10 years ago from the air.

I think his forces are in worse shape, in terms of his conventional forces. He's got fewer divisions, fewer tanks and so forth. The one place where he has obviously made a significant investment and continues to do so is to try to upgrade his biological and chemical capabilities and his effort to develop nuclear weapons. I think that's where the bulk of his investment has gone. And we'd have to take all that into account in any operation, if one were decided upon by the president.

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, I'd like to turn to the domestic arena. One of the real problems, I think, for the county and for the Republican Party and for the administration has been this issue of corporate corruption.

Democrats are saying that you're bringing up Iraq, trying to get a vote, to change the subject before the election. How do you respond to that?

CHENEY: I don't give it any credence. I've talked with a lot of Democrats, and I find a lot of them are going to be supportive of what needs to be done here.

This is one of those issues where I don't think the American people respond well to the suggestion that somehow this is just a political issue or something that's being done spur of the moment.

Anybody who looks at the record will see that we've talked about the problem in Iraq and seen it develop now for over the past year. The president addressed it in his State of the Union speech in January. He talked about it again at West Point in June. I've talked about it in virtually every speech I've given for the last six months. So to suggest that this is somehow a spur-of-the-moment development simply isn't accurate.

Some have suggested we ought to wait and take it up next year perhaps. I think that would be a very foolish idea. We don't know how fast he's going to be able to complete his programs, but we are concerned that it's vital that the president have whatever authorization he needs to move forward here.

And the idea that somehow Congress can set this aside and not address it before they go home, then go home for November and December and come back in January and start to work in February, and then address it next spring, strikes us as a seriously flawed concept. Remember, Bill Clinton four years ago, in 1998, spoke just as strongly as we have about the threat and the danger that Saddam Hussein represents, about his refusal to comply with those resolutions, about his development of these deadly weapons and the expectation that Bill Clinton himself said that at some point he might use them.

So this problem has been around for a long time. It wasn't addressed earlier, but it's gotten worse now because of the growing threat.

NOVAK: Are you worried about the investment climate, the business climate because of this corruption issue? Do you think something new has to be done by the administration to reassure investors?

CHENEY: Well, a lot has already been done, of course. And I am concerned. I think anybody who looks at it sees today a combination of things -- the downturn in the economy, sort of the bursting of the so-called bubble. Some people saw a bubble there. The stock market declines coupled with the corporate governance problem, I think all of that has created hesitation on the part of a lot of people.

People are reluctant to invest either in the market, or businesses reluctant to invest, concerned about taking risk of any kind at this point.

A lot has been done on the corporate governance front, in terms of new legislation being pushed, a very aggressive program with respect to the administration and the regulatory agencies moving forward. People who've been indicted, for example, we've seen in recent weeks.

So I don't think there should be any doubt in anybody's mind about the ability or the willingness of the government to do what's necessary here to deal with these problems.

We've also seen, though, I think, the reporting requirement that was imposed in August, where all of the corporate CEOs needed to sign up and sort of renew their confidence, if you will, in their numbers, worked out pretty well. We didn't have very many companies that weren't able to come and do that.

And I think there's good reason to believe that we're through the worst of that problem and that, in fact, the economy is fairly sound and that it's just a matter of time before we'll be able to move forward here and see resumed growth.

NOVAK: There's been a lot of proposals made on the possible tax proposals to be made by the president, and let me just quickly give you some of them, some of them coming from your administration.

For example, you think it would help investors in the economy to diminish the double taxation of dividends?

CHENEY: I think eliminating the double taxation of dividends would be good policy. It's something that I think a lot of us have supported for a long time.

Whether or not it's the right thing to do at this particular moment -- can Congress get anything done, for example, between now and when they go home -- that's a separate question. But the basic notion that we ought to eliminate the double taxation of dividends, I think, is a sound one.

NOVAK: How about a capital gains cut?

CHENEY: I would support it.

NOVAK: And how about the president on a long-range tax reform? Do you think that's something that can be looked forward to in the future?

CHENEY: I think it will be seriously considered. We've talked about tax reform. He hasn't made any decisions yet, in terms of the program going forward. But we've considered both the short-term measures, as well as looking at the longer term. And as he puts together his program for next year, I assume we'll look at tax policy as one of the possibilities. I wouldn't want to forecast at this point whether or not there will be an initiative in that area or what might be in it. Those decisions haven't been made.

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, you were on this program 15 times with me and Roland Evans, and one of them provided one of the most memorable moments in the 20 years of this program, when in April of 1989 we asked you about the fate of Mikhail Gorbachev, and this was your reply:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: If I had to guess today, I would guess that he would ultimately fail. That is to say that he will not be able to reform the Soviet economy, to turn it into an efficient, modern society. And that when that happens, he's likely to be replaced by somebody who will be far more hostile than he's been, in terms of his attitude toward the West.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: What kind of reaction did you get in the Bush administration at that time?

CHENEY: In the old Bush administration? Well, it stirred things up a bit. I did say that quote; I remember it well at the time. And you turned it into quite a story, as I recall. It got a lot of attention. The -- and I'd have to say now that I was wrong on certain parts of it.

NOVAK: You were right about him going.

CHENEY: I was right about him going, and I was right about him not being able to reform the Soviet system.

I think you do have to give Gorbachev credit for having at least had the good sense not to resort to force to try to maintain the old Soviet Union.

I think, frankly, the Soviets have done better than I expected, with respect to Yeltsin and now Putin. They still have a long way to go, but clearly, the expectation I voiced then, that we'd have a far more hostile and less friendly government coming to power after Gorbachev, was incorrect. I'm sure, Bob, you never made a mistake like that, but I did.

(LAUGHTER)

NOVAK: Mr. Vice President, I've made so many mistakes.

But one last question, you had a cardiac examination this week. It was reported very satisfactory. You're feeling well?

CHENEY: I am. No, I'm -- I've got more medical care now, Bob, than I know what to do with. I've got docs following me wherever I go. But I've got great care, and they've taken due cautions and procedures with me. And today everything went fine, so I've been signed off for another period ahead.

NOVAK: Thank you very much for being with us on this special program.

CHENEY: Thank you, Bob.

NOVAK: We have to take a break. But when we come back, we'll take a look back at some highlights from 20 years of the "EVANS AND NOVAK," "NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS" programs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: In June of 1998, Al Hunt of the "Wall Street Journal" and syndicated columnist Mark Shields joined my partner, Rowland Evans, and I, stretching the title to "EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS."

Here are some moments from those programs.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLAND EVANS: I'm Rowland Evans. For the next 30 minutes and each week hereafter, Robert Novak and I will hold a controversial news figure in the camera's eye.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: I remember the first show very well. It was Ed Meese, former (ph) attorney general and then the presidential counselor in the White House, was our first guest. And this was 1982, and it was not quite certain whether President Reagan would seek reelection.

NOVAK: Will Ronald Reagan run for reelection? Yes or no?

ED MEESE: Well, nobody can say for sure. If I had to bet right now, I'd bet that he would.

AL HUNT, CO-HOST: Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, an important figure but not a household word. And I asked him the first question about the FBI, which was in the news then. He gave a perfunctory 15, 20 second response, and then on his own initiative, immediately launched into an attack on John Ashcroft.

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R), WISCONSIN: I get very, very queasy when federal law enforcement is effectively saying, going back to the bad old days when the FBI was spying on people like Martin Luther King.

MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: One of the most painful personal experiences was that of Archbishop Harry Flynn, the archbishop of Minneapolis-St. Paul, who right after the Dallas meeting of the bishops in the middle of the child abuse scandal, the predator priests, that rocked the Church and shock the confidence of Catholics and non-Catholics alike and remains the case. When I asked him about his attitude or his feeling toward the "Boston Globe..."

HARRY FLYNN, ARCHBISHOP OF MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL: I would take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the media for what the media has done for the church. I think the media has helped enormously.

HUNT: When we interviewed Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska. And it was the first time, I think, where someone dis- endorsed a candidate. He dis-endorsed George W. Bush. He had supported Bush for president in 1998 before his pal, John McCain, got in the race.

NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Bush?

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: No, well, I told -- in fact, it was answer to a question out in western Nebraska in August, when somebody said, "What do you think about candidates?" And I said, "I think right now George Bush is the preeminent candidate." That was before my friend, John McCain, informed me he was...

NOVAK: So who is your choice now?

HAGEL: Well, I don't have to make a choice right now. And I would be very comfortable with either one.

SHIELDS: Watching John McCain during the primaries joust with my colleague Robert Novak, especially over the subject of taxes, an issue in which Mr. Novak has more than a passing interest, and John McCain was not only prophetic about the very, very transitory nature of the budget surplus as we then had in the country and the fact that we could return to a deficit in a hurry, but the humor and the warmth and the appeal of the man came through.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: First of all, I -- did we forget somehow? Did we get amnesia? There's a $5.6 trillion debt that we've accrued also. There's a $7 trillion unfunded part of the Social Security trust fund. I don't know -- and the Medicare system is about to go bankrupt. So let's put it in that context.

NOVAK: We had the first time, the only time, a prime minister of Japan gave an interview in English. It was very bad politically for him to speak English like he was kind of kowtowing to the Americans, but we did that from Tokyo.

I'm Robert Novak in Tokyo at the prime minister's official residence.

My guest is Kiichi Miyazawa, prime minister of the Japan.

SHIELDS: The White House remains very special. We interviewed, I remember, Andrew Card, the chief of staff to President George W. Bush. And he was very candid about life expectancy of a chief of staff.

ANDREW CARD, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S CHIEF OF STAFF: If you look at history, you'll find that the chief of staff has had an average tenure of 22 months. And I want to do a good enough job for the president so that he keeps me as long as I'm doing a good job for him.

SHIELDS: He expected probably not to exceed that too much, I guess. He already is fast approaching that. But, you know, that kind of an interview is one that remains with you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: We have to take a break, but when we return, a look back at my partner, Rowland Evans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Rowland Evans hosted this program with elegance and wit from its beginning until his untimely death in March of last year. He was my partner in the column-writing business for 30 years.

Rowley Evans was a fighting Marine, a great reporter, and an insatiable lover of politics, as demonstrated in these comments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

EVANS: Covering politics is the highest art form in journalism, for reporting, because politics and the impulses of power that direct politicians toward certain goals and away from other objectives, that put them in contact with each other, that makes -- the politics that make for the great movements in history come from the soul and the heart of politicians.

And for a reporter to be able to spot the origin as these developments begin to occur in a political being, the politician, and to watch how the politician then tries to sell his view, tries to put it in practice, mobilizes allies, gains new allies, makes enemies, is the highest calling in human nature, finding out how human nature works. But really, when you get down to it, Nancy, human nature is very wound up with the aspirations of gaining power, whether it's political power or family power, business power, money power, whatever. And you do it in politics, you're seeing the ultimate (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: In a moment, some thoughts of my own on 20 years of interviews.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Twenty years is a long time for any television program, and I am grateful to CNN for permitting it to happen, particularly because this has been an old-fashioned kind of program.

When we appear here, the hosts try to shed ideological baggage and find out what the public deserves to know from the men and women who wield national and international power.

At the same time, we want to be civil, even courteous. Can you have excitement without shouting? Can you be serious without being dull? We keep trying, and we hope you keep listening.

Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com