Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Growing Pressure on Pentagon to Reduce Troop Levels; Dick Cheney Interview; Democrats Facing Intense Pressure From Two Directions on Iraq; Hastert Parachutes Back Into Immigration Wars
Aired June 22, 2006 - 16:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Live coverage there of a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, General Casey, adding his voice to the big political debate here in Washington about whether there should be public a time line for pulling out U.S. troops in Iraq. Live coverage again there of the Pentagon briefing just this hour on CNN.
To our viewers, you are in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, Washington sends a message to U.S. troops in Iraq, as you were.
It's 4:00 PM here in the nation's capital, where the Senate is saying no to plans for a pullout. What is the Pentagon saying about troop reductions?
Also this hour, my exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, we talk at length about Iraq and the political here at war at home. His case, the Democrats are dead wrong and his no-apology approach to his own controversial statement.
Plus questions about some of the sharpest thorns in Cheney's side, from the CIA leak trial, of his former chief of staff, to his image as the Darth Vader of the Bush White House.
Wolf is off today. I'm John King, you are in THE SITUATION ROOM.
In the midst of a political war over bringing the troops home, there's growing pressure on the Pentagon to reduce force levels. Military sources tell CNN the commanding general in Iraq, George Casey, is considering recommending a small and gradual troop reduction in Iraq.
Sources say this would amount to, at most, some 6,000 to 10,000 troops. General Casey appeared just moments ago with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a Pentagon briefing. They were asked if an announcement on troop cuts is imminent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Having discussed current conditions in Iraq with General Casey, including the points he just outlined, where do you stand today on decisions to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq over the coming months?
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We have asked General Casey and the ambassador to work with the new Iraqi government, which is now in place for the first time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The United States Senate made its own statement today about the future of American troops in Iraq. The Republican majority rejected a pair of Democratic plans to start a withdrawal by the end of this election year. The outcome was expected but that didn't make it any less emotional.
Here's our congressional correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana?
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi John, it certainly was emotional and highly partisan, that should be no surprise, but this debate was all about teeing up the campaign tactics for November.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice-over): An overwhelming defeat for Senator John Kerry's call to bring combat troops home by July of next year.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Let me say it plainly, redeploying United States troops is necessary for success in Iraq and it is necessary to be able to fight a more effective war on terror.
BASH: Kerry declared the 13 Democratic votes he got a dramatic step forward. The Democratic counter proposal urged the president to start pulling combat troops out this year, but no date certain for total withdrawal.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: This is not some arbitrary, fixed timetable.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The yeas are 39, the nays are 60.
BASH: That failed, too, but nearly all Democratic senators voted yes, a fact they raised to the camera to point out. Hoping to change the story line of the debate from Democrats are divided to Democrats are united.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: When you get 80 percent of Democrats agreeing on the specifics of a policy, folks, you have a strong consensus of Democrats.
BASH: The election year Senate debate sets the stage for how both parties hope to turn Iraq to their political advantage. For Republicans, the same strategy they believe worked in the last election, warning that Democrats demanding any withdrawal are handing a victory to terrorists and would make Americans less secure.
SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Of what importance is it, given the fact that they're there now, mutilating and killing American soldiers and Iraqi citizens? What do the terrorists have in mind if we pull out?
BASH: Democrats tested their campaign tactics, too. Paint Republicans who say stay the course complicit in a war policy Americans increasing call misguided. The Democratic leader quoted Teddy Roosevelt.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: If we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American people.
BASH (on camera): Now there have been some Democrats who privately worry that what this debate means and what it actually has done to the Democrats argument in 2006, why? That is because the debate really had focused on the one issue that does divide Democrats. That is the question of troop withdrawal.
So John, it was interesting to watch how the 2006 candidates of the Democrats voted on these amendments, both Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, they voted against both Democratic measures, Ben Nelson, in particular, had told us yesterday that he simply does not think a timetable at all, any timetable is a good idea.
Bob Menendez of New Jersey, also in a tight race, he voted for Senator Kerry's amendment, which did, of course, say that troops should come home next year. He also put up an add, television add, that said my opponent supports George Bush's war, I couldn't disagree more.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Well Dana, sounds like a little blue state, red state calculation by those 2006 candidates there. Do the Democrats think that this sends a clear message to their base, which is predominately anti-war, or do they think given these different votes by the different candidates, it just adds to the confusion?
BASH: Well, they definitely think the first, that part of the whole strategy here, absolutely, was to send a message to the Democratic base that regardless of where any Democratic senator stands when it comes to troop withdrawal, they understand, here in the Senate, Democrats that is, that their base want them to stand up to George W. Bush, quite frankly, and say that they understand that there are many people, many Democrats out there who think that the war for them is the number one issue that they will be voting on this election year. Democrats wanted to make it clear, they get that.
KING: Dana Bash, a few exciting days on Capitol Hill. Words we will here from until November.
Now, Vice President Dick Cheney tells me the Senate did the right thing today. He says it would be wrong and devastating to set a timetable for a troop pullout.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting. And no matter how you carve it, you can call anything you want, but basically it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that Americans don't have the stomach for this fight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: I sat down with the vice president today for an in-depth and exclusive interview on Iraq, the threats from Iran and North Korea, and his own political problems. That interview in its entirety coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
The Bush administration is prodding Iran's president again today to respond to an offer of incentive to stop its nuclear program. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley says it would be quote, "helpful and useful" to know where Iran stands before June 29th. That's when foreign ministers of the world's most industrialized nations me and Moscow. But Iran said today it won't respond before mid-July.
On the threat from North Korea, Stephen Hadley said preparations are very far along for a possible test launch of a long-range missile, but Hadley says it's not certain North Korea will actually go ahead with that launch. Hadley had been traveling with President Bush in Europe. They are now on their way back to the United States.
Before leaving Hungary today, Mr. Bush likened Iraq's fledgling democracy to Hungary's bloody revolt against Communism 50 years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The success of the new Iraqi government is vital to the security of all nations, so it deserves the support of the international community. We will continue to help the Iraqi government establish free institutions to achieve its goals, and we will continue to help Iraq take its rightful place alongside America and Hungary as beacons of liberty in our world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: President Bush in Hungary earlier today.
And our Zain Verjee joins us now from the CNN Global Headquarters in Atlanta with a closer look at other stories making news. Hi, Zain.
Technical problem there, Zain, in Atlanta. We will try to get back you to. We lost her mic, so instead, let's just see if we can work this out. Jack Cafferty standing by in New York with the -- Jack -- "Cafferty File." Jack, your mic working?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, but my guess is the public would prefer listening to Zain Verjee.
KING: We will put that in our poll.
CAFFERTY: OK. President Bush, John, found himself on the defensive at the European summit meeting yesterday in Austria, and he didn't like it. A reporter confronted the president with poll numbers that suggest U.S. foreign policy has become a threat to world stability. Mr. Bush snapped, "that's absurd," but is it?
Recent polls show a lot of Europeans don't think it's so absurd at all. People in Great Britain, France, and Spain all say the U.S. war in Iraq is a greater danger to world peace than the governments of Iran or North Korea, and those are our friends.
Here's the question: Has U.S. foreign policy become a threat to global security. E-mail me your thoughts, CaffertyFile@CNN.com, or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- John.
KING: Looking forward to the answers, and we hope your mic works when we get them. Thank you, Jack.
And if you want a sneak preview of Jack's questions, but an early read on the day's political news and what's ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM, sign up for our daily e-mail alert. Just go to CNN.com/situationroom.
And coming up, my exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, from the war in Iraq to the next presidential election, to any regrets he has had for things he has said. You won't want to miss this one, a one-on-one chat you will see only here on CNN.
Plus, new fireworks in the battle over immigration. House Republicans speak out against their colleagues in the Senate. And later, the political battle over Iraq and the race for the White House. We will tell you how the presidential hopefuls voted in the Senate today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're going to succeed on take two, our Zain Verjee now standing by at the CNN Global Headquarters in Atlanta with a look at other stories making news. Hi, Zain.
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: John, an already tragic tally grows even more grim. Five more American service members are now dead. Yesterday, four marines were killed in separate attacks in the western Anbar province.
Today, the military says an American soldier died after his vehicle hit a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. The deaths of these American service members increases the number of U.S. fatalities. That's now 2,510.
In the other war, the one in Afghanistan, more deaths of American soldiers. Four U.S. soldiers are dead after a fierce battle with militants today near the Pakistani border. It was part of Operation Mountain Lion, a campaign to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan's eastern provinces. At the time the soldiers died, coalition forces were attacking enemy positions in a remote area.
Today, Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, called for Ayman al-Zawahiri's arrest and said he may actually be in Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai was reacting to the three minutes and 44 seconds of hate in a new video message from Osama bin Laden's number two lieutenant. In it, al-Zawahiri accuses the U.S. of crimes against Afghanistan, and he urges young people in Kabul to rise up and attack foreign troops.
And it was their first physical contact in a year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. They met today in the Jordanian town of Petra, a direct first sponsored by Jordan's King Abdullah. Olmert used the occasion to apologize to Abbas for the 13th civilian death in recent Israeli airstrikes, but Olmert stressed that Israel will continue to strike at militants -- John.
KING: Zain, thank you very much. Zain Verjee in Atlanta.
And in a White House that has seen its share of controversy, Vice President Dick Cheney is, and has been, one of the most divisive and contentious figures.
He doesn't do interviews that often, but he sat down with me today for an exclusive at length interview at his home here in Washington. It happened at a time when the president's political fortunes are looking up a bit, and just a short while before the Senate voted to reject a public timeframe for starting to withdraw troops from Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Mr. Vice President, thank you for your time. We have a lot of ground to cover, so let's get right to it.
CHENEY: Hey, John.
KING: The Democrats will put on the floor of the Senate today a proposal. They don't have the votes, but they say this administration's policy in Iraq has failed, and the leading Democratic proposal would say let's have a partial withdrawal -- they call it a redeployment -- and then require the administration to put forward a plan.
Now, they say this is not cut and run, it's not retreat, but they say three years and three months later, it's time for the administration to tell the Iraqi government you cannot have this indefinite American security blanket, you need to do a better job of preparing your own people to take over security. What's wrong with that?
CHENEY: Well, it's wrong in many respects, John. First of all, they're wrong. We are making significant progress. We have had major success on the political front in terms of three national elections last year by the Iraqis. They've stood up a brand new government under a new constitution for the first time ever. We have got a quarter of a million Iraqis now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight. So there has been significant progress made with respect with what's going on in Iraq.
What the Democrats basically -- you can call it a withdrawal, you can call it redeployment, whatever you want to call it. Basically, it, in effect, validates the terrorist strategy. You got to remember that the Osama bin Laden types, the al Qaeda type, the Zarqawi types that have been active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United States' will.
There's no way they can defeat us militarily. Their whole strategy, if you look at what bin Laden's been saying for 10 years, is they believe they can in fact force us to quit, that ultimately we'll get tired of the fight, that we don't have the stomach for a long, tough battle and that we'll pack it in and go home.
If we were to do that, it would be devastating from the standpoint of the global war on terror. It would affect what happens in Afghanistan, it would make it difficult for us to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations for nuclear weapons. It would threaten the stability of regimes like Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudis in Saudi Arabia. It is absolutely the worst possible thing we could do at this point; it would be to validate and encourage the terrorists by doing exactly what they want us to do, which is to --
KING: You say -- excuse me for interrupting -- you say validate and encourage the terrorists. The Democrats say they're tired of validating what they view as a failed policy. And as you know, some Democrats want to go even further -- Senator Kerry wants to have a complete withdrawal within a year or so.
Jack Murtha, an old friend of yours, with whom you have sparred recently in the House, he says, Look, when President Reagan realized the policy in Beirut was failing, he withdrew the troops. Call it cut and run, if you will. When President Clinton realized the policy in Somalia was failing, he withdrew the troops. Again, some might say, `cut and run.'
He says this war is costing $8 billion a month, $300 million a day. There's no end in sight. And forgive me, but he says you don't have a plan, so let's not have more kids killed.
CHENEY: He's wrong. I like Jack Murtha. He's a friend. We did a lot of business together in the past when I was secretary of defense and he was chairman of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee. But the instances as he cites, Beirut in '83 and Somalia in '93, is what bin Laden cited back in 1997 or '98.
He made speeches where he, in effect, argued that the Americans didn't have the stomach for a fight, that ultimately the terrorists would win, al Qaeda would win. And he cited as evidence of that what happened in Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. That's my point.
The fact of the matter is that we are in a global conflict. It's not just about Iraq. It's -- we've seen attacks around the world, from New York and Washington all the way around to Jakarta and Indonesia over the course of the last five years. Our strategy that we adopted after 9/11, of progressively going after the terrorists, going after states that sponsor terror, taking the fight to enemy, has been crucial in terms of our being able to defend the United States.
I think one of the reasons we have not been struck again in five years -- and nobody can promise we won't -- but is because we've taken the fight to them. And if Jack Murtha is successful in persuading the country that somehow we should withdraw now from Iraq, then you have to ask what happens to all of those people who've signed up with the United States, who are on our side in this fight against these radical, extremist Islamic types of bin Laden and al Qaeda.
What happens to the 12 million Iraqis who went to the polls last December and voted in spite of the assassins and the car bombs? What happens to the quarter of a million Iraqis who have gotten into the fight to take on the terrorists? The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting.
And no matter how you carve it -- you can call it anything you want, but because it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don't have the stomach for this fight.
KING: You disagree with the Democrats' plan, but they are stepping in to a political environment in which the American people clearly -- some have anger, some have dissatisfaction, some have doubts about this war and the administration's plan for this war.
Fifty-four percent of the American people say it's a mistake, 55 percent say things are going badly in Iraq, 53 percent in our polling say the American people actually support a timetable. Why is it that the administration has failed to articulate to the American people that -- the American people don't think you have a plan, sir.
CHENEY: Well, they're wrong. We do have a plan. It's there for anybody who wants to take a look at it. The Democrats have repeatedly made this charge. It's simply not the case. There's a good plan in place. We are making significant progress. This is a long-term fight. I think there are a lot of people out there...
KING: Let me jump in -- that one of these points here is, is it wrong -- you say it's wrong to publicly set a timetable. And I understand the argument for that. You'd cue off -- cue the terrorists to what you're going to do.
Has the Iraqi government been told, privately, you need to meet certain benchmarks, training your troops, improving security, by a date certain, because the American people are not going to pay for this forever?
CHENEY: No, I think they know full well that we're expecting them to take on more and more responsibility. It's one of the reasons the president went to Baghdad recently. And all of our conversations with them, they know what we're trying to do and they've stepped up to that task and that responsibility. Fact of the matter is that obviously we've lost a lot of people. Wish we hadn't lost anybody. But the heavy casualties are being taken by the Iraqis. There are a lot more Iraqis being -- becoming casualties in this conflict at present, because they are now in a fight.
Again, I come back to the basic proposition. What happens, in the global war on terror, if the United States bails out on Iraq? And that's exactly what withdrawal is. You know, you're going to take your troops before the conflict is over with.
You're not going to complete the mission if we follow the Democrats' advice. And, in fact, we will have set up the situation in which the al Qaeda types can win. They have a plan to establish a caliphate that stretches from Spain all the way around to Indonesia, to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, to destroy Israel, to take down most of those regimes in that part of the world. And they will do anything they can to achieve that objective.
But ultimately, what they're betting on is that we don't have the stomach for the fight, and we can not afford to validate that strategy. We can win -- we are winning -- but we've got to stay at it.
KING: In the political debate over the war, even your friends say that you have given the Democrats a couple of doozies, by saying early on we would be greeted as liberators, by saying about a year ago the insurgency was in its last throes. I know factually you have said you stand by those students based on the circumstances at that time. You're not new to this game -- you've been in national politics for 30-something years. In the political environment, do you wish you could take those words back?
CHENEY: No, I think that in fact we're making very significant progress. There's no doubt in my mind that we're going to win. We will prevail in Iraq. We will prevail in Afghanistan. And I think the evidence is there for anybody who wants to look at it.
With respect to the overall course of the campaign, I think it's been very successful. With respect to this question of liberation, we have indeed liberated 50 million people, 25 million in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, 25 million in Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein, two of the worst regimes in modern times, very, very significant achievement. But we have to stay the course.
It does not make any sense for people to think that somehow we can retreat behind our ocean, leave the Middle East, walk away from Iraq and we'll be safe and secure here at home. 9/11 put the lie to that. We lost 3,000 people that day. Nineteen people, armed terrorists, armed with boxcutters, came to the United States and did enormous damage to us. If we pull out, they'll follow. It doesn't matter where we go.
This is global conflict. We've seen them attack in London, Madrid, Casablanca, Istanbul and Mombasa in East Africa. They've been on a global basis involved in this conflict. And it will continue, whether we complete the job or not in Iraq. Only it will get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. They'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends and allies in other parts of the world.
KING: You acknowledge this past week that the administration and you personally underestimated the strength of the insurgency. As you know, even friends of the administration, supportive of this war, have criticized the administration, saying that not enough troops would be sent in at the beginning. You have a unique perspective on this.
You were the defense secretary in the first Gulf War; you're the vice president now. In the first Gulf War, it was the Powell doctrine -- you're going to put U.S. troops at risk, so go in, in overwhelming numbers with overwhelming force so that there is no doubt. Secretary Rumsfeld prefers the leaner force, more mobile force.
As history looks at this, is one early lesson is that the Powell doctrine trumps the Rumsfeld doctrine?
CHENEY: I don't think so. I think you've got to look at each individual circumstance and figure out what makes sense in terms of the kind of forces you'll need to bring to bear, what your enemy's capable of, what your goals and objectives are. I think you have to be very careful about generalizing from one conflict to the next.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Next up, much more of my exclusive interview with the vice president. Find out what Dick Cheney has to say about the Iranian nuclear standoff and the missile standoff with North Korea. Plus, the vice president speaks out about the next race for the White House and whether he'll be forced to testify in the trial of his former aide, Scooter Libby.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to THE SITUATION ROOM. Wolf Blitzer is off today. I'm John King in Washington.
More now of my exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney on global threats and politics here at home.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: One of the key issues facing the world right now and the Bush administration is North Korea. It has a missile on the launchpad.
Apparently, our intelligence suggests it may test that missile any day now. Former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, who served in a Democratic administration, writes an op-ed in today's "Washington Post," saying: Mr. President, take it out. Launch a military strike. Take that missile out. You will destroy not only the missile, he says, but a launchpad that is capable of launching nuclear weapons.
Why not? CHENEY: Well, I think that -- you know, I appreciate Bill's advice.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: I bet you do.
(LAUGHTER)
CHENEY: And I think that, at this stage, we are addressing the issue in a proper fashion. And I think, obviously, if you're going to launch strikes at another nation, you better be prepared to not just fire one shot.
And the fact of the matter is, I think the issue is being addressed appropriately.
KING: Do we know what's on that missile? Is it a satellite? Is it a warhead? Is it a test?
CHENEY: We don't know. That's one of the concerns, is that this is a regime that's not transparent, that we believe has developed nuclear weapons, and now has put a missile on a launchpad, without telling anybody what it's all about. Is it to put a satellite in orbit or a simple test flight?
They will obviously generate concern on the part of their neighbors and the United States, to the extent that they continue to operate this way. As the president has made clear, this is not the kind of behavior we'd like to see, given the fact that the North Koreans do have a nuclear program and have refused to come clean about it.
KING: And what do we know about their capabilities? Some have said this new longer-range missile could reach Guam, perhaps Alaska. Others say, no, it might be able to reach Los Angeles, and there are some who think maybe even right here, Washington, D.C. What do we know?
CHENEY: Well, we -- this is the first test of this particular type Taepodong-2 missile. We believe it does have a third stage added to it now. But, again, we don't know what the payload is.
I think it's also fair to say that the North Korean missile capabilities are fairly rudimentary. I mean, they're -- they've been building Scuds and so forth over the years, but their test flights in the past haven't been notably successful. But we are watching it with interest and following it very closely.
KING: I want to ask a quick question about another international standoff, which is Iran's nuclear program. The president in Europe yesterday said, Iran should hurry up with its response. It shouldn't wait months. It should get an answer in days, or weeks, at the most.
As you consider that confrontation, many experts have said your options are limited because of the way the Iranians have built their nuclear program. Many think that it is invulnerable, if you will, that it is protected from military strikes.
I know the president has said, diplomacy first; it would be the Security Council next, if the Iranians don't accept this proposal on the table.
But, when you look at the contingency planning, are you confident that, if it came to it, the United States has a capable military option of taking out that program?
CHENEY: As the president has emphasized, John, we are pursuing the diplomatic option. We think that's the right way to go.
But he has also made it clear that nothing has been taken off the table, and I'll leave it at that.
KING: I want to bring you to some domestic issues here at home. I have spent a fair amount of time in recent months in court with your former chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby, who, of course, is charged in the CIA leak investigation.
One of the things that his defense has introduced as evidence is this. It's a copy of this "New York Times" article that started all this, by Ambassador Joe Wilson. And these scribbles are allegedly yours. Is that a fact?
CHENEY: John, I am not going to comment on the case.
It's -- I may be called as a witness. Scooter Libby, obviously, one of the finest men I've ever known, he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. And I have not made any comments on the case up until now, and I won't.
KING: Let me ask you one question, one more question about that, then. You say you may be called as a witness. The president urged everyone very early on to cooperate in this investigation.
Does that mean that, if you are called as a witness, that the administration would, under no circumstances, cite any privileges, either to shield you from testifying about certain issues or protect certain documents or anything like that?
CHENEY: Well, you're getting into hypothetical now, and I'm not able to answer that. We have cooperated fully with the investigation from day one.
KING: Let me ask you another question. Your daughter recently wrote a book in which she discussed her role in your campaign, but also her decision, some time ago in her life, to come to you and Mrs. Cheney and disclose that she was a lesbian.
And she has issues with the Republican Party on the issue of same-sex marriage. And she wrote this: "If the Republican Party fails to come around on this issue," same-sex marriage, "I believe it will find itself on the wrong side of history and on a sharp decline into irrelevance."
Do you agree with your daughter Mary on that?
CHENEY: My -- I've got great love and affection for my daughter, obviously. I think it's a very good book, and I'd recommend people read it.
KING: I'm going to make another attempt at it.
The president urged the Senate to vote on this constitutional amendment. Senator Frist, a leader in the party, someone who may run for the presidency, brought this amendment up. Is that a mistake?
CHENEY: I made my views known a long time ago, John, that I think that the fact that the states have traditionally been the ones that regulate marriage is a procedure that I think is the right way to go.
I think that it ought to be a state matter, a state function. That's not new to anybody. The president sets policy for the administration, and I support the president.
KING: As you know, you had a recent dust-up with Senator Specter, the chairman, the Republican chairman, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who wanted to have hearings, wanted to bring the phone companies in to see how and whether they have cooperated with this domestic eavesdropping program.
And he says you were working behind the scenes, meddling, in his words, to try to get other members of the committee to put the lid on that, to not force the phone companies to come up and testify publicly.
Did you do that, sir?
CHENEY: I wouldn't call it meddling. I am the president of the Senate.
The fact is, I'm actually paid by the Senate. That's where my paycheck comes from. I often talk with my Senate colleagues about legislation. And that's exactly what I did in this case.
Arlen Specter is a good man. I've known him a long time. I think he is an effective chairman of the committee. But, if we disagree, there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't, on behalf of the administration, express administration policy to the members of that committee. And that's what I did.
KING: I want to close by asking you a few questions about yourself and your image, and one of them flows from that.
As you know, some of your old friends say, where is the Dick Cheney, the sarcastic Dick Cheney, the practical joker Dick Cheney? And your critics say, Dick Cheney has become this dark, nefarious force in the administration that believes in secrecy at all price, that believes congressional oversight is a nuisance. True?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think I've changed any. I think I have been very consistent over time. I think, partly, it's important to remember how significant 9/11 was. And we are now engaged in a constant effort, obviously, to protect the nation against further attack.
That means we need good intelligence. It means there have to be national security secrets. It means we need to be able to go after and capture or kill those people who are trying to kill Americans. That's not a pleasant business. It's a very serious business. And I suppose, sometimes, people look at my demeanor and say, well, he's the Darth Vader of the administration.
I guess the other thing that's working here, John, is, I'm not running for anything. My career will end, politically, with this administration. I have the freedom and the luxury, as does the president, of doing what we think is right for the country. And the advice I give and the positions I take on issues are based upon that fundamental proposition.
We do -- we're doing what we're doing in Iraq, in terms of here in the U.S., with the terrorist surveillance program and so forth, because we think these are essential policies for the nation to follow. We're not trying to improve our standing in the polls. We're not out there trying to win votes for ourselves. Neither one of us will ever be a candidate again.
We're doing what we think is right, and I'm very comfortable with that.
KING: You're also a human being, though. Your poll ratings are lower than the president's. You have an image that, I think it's fair to say, is not positive with the majority of the American people. That doesn't trouble you at all?
CHENEY: There is a great sense of freedom when, in fact, you don't have to worry about the polls. We don't worry about the polls. They go up. The polls go down.
The fact of the matter is, we're doing what we think is best for the nation. And that's what the American people elected us to do.
I think, ultimately, in the final analysis, the history will judge this president as a very successful, very effective leader. and I'm proud to be part of his team.
KING: You are unique, in that you're the vice president, the first vice president in quite some time who is not seeking the presidency in a second term.
Let's make a little news. You have a favorite for '08?
CHENEY: No.
(LAUGHTER)
CHENEY: Republican. (LAUGHTER)
CHENEY: I won't go beyond that. We may get involved eventually, but, for now, there are a lot of great candidates thinking about it, and I think it's going to be a wide-open race. And I think it's very healthy.
KING: Mr. Vice President, thank you for your time.
CHENEY: Thank you, John.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: The vice president, in his words. Shocking -- he is going to vote Republican next time.
Next hour, we will break down the interview. Two political heavyweights, Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett, join me to talk about Mr. Cheney's comments.
And, if you missed any part of the interview, no worries. We will replay it in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour.
But, coming up next: What does today's crucial vote in the Senate have to do with the next race for the White House? Actually, quite a bit.
Our Bill Schneider will explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Back now to our top story -- the Senate's rejection of two plans to start withdrawing troops may seem, at first glance, like a defeat for Democrats.
But our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is taking a closer look -- Bill.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: John, the Senate votes today said suggest that Democrats may have finally found their voice on Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Democrats are facing intense pressure from two directions on Iraq. From the right, Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to cut and run. From the left, the party's anti- war base is energized and angry. They favored the John Kerry amendment, which set a date certain July 1, 2007, for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: There's no other reason to be in Iraq a year from now than standing up the Iraqi forces or chasing al Qaeda or protecting our facilities.
SCHNEIDER: Only 12 out of 43 Democratic senators present voted for the Kerry amendment. Among the Democratic senators often mentioned as future candidates for president, only Kerry and Russ Feingold voted yes.
Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama all voted no. But all of the presidential Democrats voted for the Carl Levin amendment, which set a date for the beginning, not the end, of troop withdrawal.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: It says, by the end of this year, in the next six months, begin the phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: Thirty-seven out of 43 Democrats voted for the Levin amendment, a strong majority. Six Democratic senators voted with the Republicans against both amendments, including Joe Lieberman, who is facing a furious anti-war primary challenge. Under pressure from the left and the right, Senate Democrats did something unexpected. They carved out a strong consensus in the middle.
SEN. KENT CONRAD (D), NORTH DAKOTA: I do not believe that it is a wise policy to set a specific date for a withdrawal from Iraq. I do believe it makes sense to begin to redeploy our forces some time this year.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Both amendments failed to pass, but the Democrats did accomplish something. They found their voice -- John.
KING: We will see if they keep it between now and November.
Bill Schneider for us -- Bill, thank you very much.
And Bill Schneider and, as you saw earlier, Dana Bash, part of the best political team on television -- CNN, America's campaign headquarters.
Coming up: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld takes questions today about reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq. We will go live to the Pentagon at the top of the hour to find out just what he said.
But next: the political file over immigration. House Republicans take on their colleagues in the Senate. We will go live to Capitol Hill when we return.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: House Speaker Dennis Hastert parachuted back into the immigration wars today. And he effectively thumbed his nose at the Senate and the White House.
Our congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel is following this new development.
Hey, Andrea.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, John.
Well, House Republican leaders and other committee members, some of the top committee members in the House, flanked the speaker, Dennis Hastert, this afternoon, as the speaker made clear that the House wasn't going to compromise on immigration reform just because it's an election year.
Dennis Hastert also said that the House wanted to get a -- an immigration bill to President Bush by the end of this year. But it was also clear that House Republicans -- what House Republicans think is a good immigration bill, one that is focused, really, exclusively on beefing up border security, isn't going to be enough for President Bush, who has thrown his support behind the Senate comprehensive immigration bill, which focuses on border security, a guest-worker program, and on this earned path to citizenship, what critics call amnesty.
Now, House Republicans really feel that they have gotten a bum wrap. One of them, in particular, the Judiciary chairman, James Sensenbrenner, vented, not just at the media, but at Senate Democrats, for a procedural glitch that he says has delayed negotiations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R), WISCONSIN: And the answer to the question is, we're not negotiating because the Senate hasn't sent us a bill to negotiate over. You know, I am sick and tired of you folks in the media blaming the House for obstructing the process.
The Senate passed a bill a month ago. It has not sent the papers over for us to proceed to the next step. And I think one of the reasons it hasn't done that is, they violated the Constitution in putting about $50 billion worth of taxes in their bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: Now, Speaker Hastert also elaborated on his plan to have a series of field hearings, public hearings, across the country this summer, in Laredo -- in Laredo, Texas; in San Diego, California; in Arizona, among some places.
He said it was going to be an opportunity for Republicans to better explain the Senate immigration bill, one that they describe as the Senate Democrat immigration bill, John, even though 23 Republicans signed onto it.
KING: I guess, Andrea, the bottom line today is, Republicans together on Iraq, not so much on immigration.
Andrea Koppel, on Capitol Hill, thank you very much.
A new report painstakingly details how disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Tom DeLay aide Michael Scanlon bilked Indian tribes of tens of millions of dollars. Senator John McCain's Indian Affairs Committee has just released the report online.
Standing by with the latest, our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: John, the report is called "Gimme Five. That's a reference to the name that Abramoff and Scanlon gave their secret deal to defraud six Indian tribes of millions of dollars.
It's almost 400 pages long. It's there at the Indian Affairs Committee Web site. And if you go through it, you can just see how much money was flying around, at least $66 million from these tribes they brought in. You can see just how it was flying around, in terms of what they were buying. Scanlon paid in cash $1.6 million for a Washington home.
You can also see from the report the contempt that the duo showed these Indian tribes. "SagChip idiots," that's what Abramoff referred to them as. "Losers" was another one. This was a particular tribe that they got $10 million from.
We have put this entire report online at CNN.com/SITUATIONREPORT -- John.
KING: Another reminder, beware of what you put in e-mail.
Abbi Tatton, thank you very much.
And coming up: a campaign dropout on our "Political Radar."
And next hour: new concern Southern California may be overdue for a potentially catastrophic earthquake. We will go live to Los Angeles for details on a disturbing new study.
Stay right here. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: On our "Political Radar" this Thursday, a dropout today from the Maryland governor's race. Democrat Doug Duncan says he is getting out because he's suffering from depression.
That clears the way for Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley to win the Democratic nomination and challenge Republican incumbent Robert Ehrlich this fall.
Did Ernie Fletcher, the embattled Republican governor of Kentucky, block state employees from reading liberal Web sites? That's exactly what some liberals in the Bluegrass State allege.
Our Internet report, Jacki Schechner, has the details -- Jacki.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: John, this article ran in "The New York Times" on Tuesday.
And, in it, the liberal blogger at the Kentucky blog BluegrassReport.org, Mark Nicholas, criticized the governor. Well, the following day, he got a bunch of complaints from people who worked within the Kentucky state government, saying that they could no longer get access to his blog from their office computers.
Well, Nicholas and other liberal bloggers wanted to know why this was. We contacted the office within the Kentucky State government that regulates all Internet access from the executive branch. And they say they have been monitoring for some time where government employees are spending their government time on non-government-related business. And blogs seem to be a big problem.
So, they decided to use their filtering software to filter out the category that includes blogs. And they say this has been ongoing for some time and had nothing to do with "The New York Times" article that criticized the governor.
Now, as to whether or not there was any distinction between liberal and conservative blogs, we had an employee with the state government run a little test for us. We gave the employee five liberal blogs and five conservative blogs. Half of them were blocked. There was no pattern to political affiliation. Daily Kos and Think Progress, on the left, were accessible, John. And Red-State and Power Line, on the right, were not.
KING: Jacki Schechner, thank you very much.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: We will keep an eye on that one. We have got a ways to go.
And still to come: Jack Cafferty wondering about U.S. foreign policy. Is it a threat to global security? He's standing by with your e-mail.
Also, President Bush finds himself grappling with Iran and North Korea on his European visit. We will get an update from Budapest in our next hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Jack Cafferty has been studying your e-mails. He's back now with "The Cafferty File."
Hi, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Hi, John.
Responding to a European reporter's question, President Bush said it was absurd to call the U.S. a greater threat to world stability than Iran or North Korea. That's the question: Has U.S. foreign policy become a threat to global security?
Lots of mail.
Jeremy in Texas: "U.S. foreign policy increases the risks to the United States itself, regardless of what it does to the rest of the world."
Scott in Ottawa: "I disagree with Europe. The foreign policy of the United States is what will save the Western world in the long run. It is and will continue to be tough in the short term. But I agree with your president and vice president about the way this war on terrorism needs to be conducted."
John writes: "The majority of the world sees U.S. foreign policy as not only threatening, but aggressive, bullying, and a blatant attempt to be the world's policeman. The U.S. makes up only 6 percent of the world's population. There simply cannot be an American solution to every problem."
Sue: "As history tells it, I believe, the English and French allowed the Nazis to come to them before they defended themselves. I do not want the terrorists here ever again. I support the president and, more importantly, our troops, in defending our country before the enemy is at my home, cutting off my head and torturing my children."
And, finally, Ben in Mount Vernon, Indiana: "American foreign policy is not the problem. Remember, the world was with us when we went into Afghanistan. They turned against us when we stopped hunting bin Laden and started going after the oil in Iraq. The problem is the Cheney-Bush policy and the rubber-stamp Congress we currently have" -- John.
KING: Jack, I'm glad they always tell you exactly what they're thinking.
CAFFERTY: And they're pretty smart, too.
KING: Yes, they are. Yes, they are.
Thank you very much, Jack.
CAFFERTY: The dumb ones watch FOX.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. That's going to bring some more e- mail.
(LAUGHTER)
CAFFERTY: I know.
KING: Jack, thank you very much.
(LAUGHTER)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
