| |
MS. IFILL: New question to you, Senator Edwards, but I don't want
to let go of the "global test" question first because --
SEN. EDWARDS: Sure.
MS. IFILL: -- I want people to understand exactly what it is, as you
said, that Senator Kerry did say.
SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. IFILL: He said you've got to do, you know, good -- he was asked
about preemptive action at the last debate. He  said,
"you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes
the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully
why you're doing what you're doing" and "can prove to the
world that you did it for legitimate reasons." What is a "global
test" if it's not a global veto?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first he said in -- in -- in the same
segment -- I don't remember precisely where it was connected with what
you just read, but he said point blank: We will never give anyone a
veto over the security of the United States of America. What he's saying
is we're going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States
of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last
50 to 75 years.
First, we're going to actually tell the American people the truth. We're
going to tell them the truth about what's happening. We're not going
to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else
when, in fact, they're not. We're going to make sure that the American
people know the truth about why we're using force and what the explanation
for it is.
And not -- it's not just the American people; we're also going to make
sure that we tell the world the truth because the reality is for America
to lead, for America to do what it's done for 50 years before this president
and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible.
It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they
can trust what we're doing, what we say -- what we say at the United
Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of other world
-- they -- other countries. They need to know that the credibility of
the United States is always good because they will not follow us without
that.
And unfortunately, we are seeing the consequences of that right now.
It's the -- one of the reasons that we're having so much difficulty
getting others involved in the effort in the Iraq. You know, we've taken
90 percent of the coalition casualties. American taxpayers have borne
90 percent of the cost of the effort in Iraq. And we see the result
of there not being a coalition. The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion.
We're at $200 billion and counting. John Kerry will never give control
over the security of the United States of America to any other country.
We will not outsource our responsibility to keep this country safe.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead
wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces, that have suffered
casualties as well as the allies, they have taken almost 50 percent
of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with
50 percent, not 90 percent.
With respect to the cost, it wasn't 200 billion. You probably weren't
there to vote for that, but 120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated
to Iraq; the rest of it's for Afghanistan and the global war on terror.
The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi
debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate. That plus 14
billion they've promised in terms of direct aid puts the overall allied
contribution financially at about $95 billion; not to the 120 billion
we've got, but, you
know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator.
You also have a situation where you talk about credibility. It's awfully
hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the
war and then you declared, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted
for the war and then you voted against supporting the troops when they
needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and
the body armor. You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous
inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after
time during the course of the campaign. Whatever the political pressures
the moment requires, that's where you're at.But you've not been consistent,
and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction
to successfully carry through on the war on terror.
SEN. EDWARDS: May I -- may I respond to that?
MS. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 30 seconds.
SEN. EDWARDS: What the vice president has just said is just a complete
distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They
don't need the vice president or the president to tell them what they
saw. They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute,
who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done
to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe. He laid out his
plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success
in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there,
AND because they've created a haven for terrorists.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible
if there was a record to back it up. There isn't. And you cannot use
"talk tough" during the course of a 90-minute debate in a
presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States
Senate, and prior to that, by John Kerry, who has consistently come
down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he's faced
as a public official.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, a new question for you. You have two
minutes to respond. When the president says that Senator Kerry is emboldening
enemies and you say that we could get hit again if voters make the wrong
choice in November, are you saying that it would be a dangerous thing
to have John Kerry as president?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I'm saying specifically that I don't believe
he has the qualities we need in a commander in chief, because I don't
think, based on his record, that he would pursue the kind of aggressive
policies that need to be pursued if we're going to defeat these terrorists.
We need to battle them overseas so we don't have to battle them here
at home. I'm not challenging John Kerry's patriotism. I said in my acceptance
speech in New York City at the Republican convention that we respected
his service in Vietnam, and I got applause for that. We've never criticized
his patriotism. What we question is his judgment. And his judgment's
flawed. And the record's there for anybody who wants to look at it.
In 1984, when he ran for the Senate, he opposed, or called for the elimination
of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the
Cold War and are important today to our overall forces.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and '91,
he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to
liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein to -- back to Iraq. The problem
we have is that if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities
of somebody who has conviction. And with respect to this particular
operation, we've seen a situation in which, first they voted to commit
the troops, send them to war. John Edwards and John Kerry. Then they
came back, and when the question was whether or not you provide them
with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition
-- they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially, and then I looked
and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major
progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries
based on an antiwar record. So, they in effect decided they would cast
an antiwar vote, and they voted against the troops. Now, if they couldn't
stand up the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect
them to stand up to al Qaeda?
MS. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.
SEN. EDWARDS: Thank you.
One thing that's very clear is that a long resume does not equal good
judgment. I mean, we've seen over and over and  over
the misjudgments made by this administration.
I want to go back to what this -- what the vice president just said
because it's a continuation of the things he's been doing, unfortunately,
on the campaign trail. It's a continuation of what he began his first
answer with tonight.
John Kerry has voted for the biggest military appropriations bill
in the country's history. John Kerry has voted for the biggest intelligence
appropriations in the country's history.
This vice president, when he was secretary of Defense, cut over 80 weapons
systems, including the very ones he's criticizing John Kerry for --
for voting against. These are weapons systems a big chunk of which the
vice president himself suggested we get rid of after the Cold War.
The reality is that John Kerry has consistently supported the very men
that he served with Vietnam and led.
On the 87 billion, it was clear at the time of that vote that they had
no plan to win the peace. We're seeing the consequences of that every
day on the ground right now. We stood up and said, for our troops, we
must have plan to win the peace. We also thought it was wrong to have
a $20 billion fund out of which 7-1/2 billion was going to go to a no-bid
contract for Halliburton, the vice president's former company. It was
wrong then. It's wrong now.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I -- I think the record speaks for
itself. These are two individuals who have been for the war when the
headlines were good and against it when their poll ratings were bad.
We have not seen the kind of consistency that a commander in chief has
to have in order to be a leader in wartime and in order to be able to
see the strategy through to victory. If we want to win the war on terror,
it seems to me it's pretty clear the choice is George Bush, not John
Kerry.
MS. IFILL: And 30 seconds --
SEN. EDWARDS: John Kerry has been absolutely clear and consistent from
the beginning that we must stay focused on the people who attacked us,
that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be addressed directly,
that the weapons inspectors needed to have time to do their job. Had
they had time to do their job, they would have discovered what we now
know: that in fact Saddam Hussein had no weapons, that in fact Saddam
Hussein has no connection with 9/11, that in fact Saddam Hussein has
little or no connection with al Qaeda.
MS. IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, and you have two minutes
to respond. Part of what you have said and Senator Kerry have said,
that you're going to do it in  order
to get us out of the problems in Iraq, is to internationalize the effort.
Yet French and German officials have both said they have no intention,
even if John Kerry is elected, of sending any troops into Iraq for any
peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize
this effort seem kind of naive?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, let's start with what we know. What we know is that
the president and the vice president have not done the work to build
the coalition that we need, so dramatically different than the first
Gulf War. We know that they haven't done it and we know they can't do
it. They didn't, by the way, just reject the allies going -- in the
lead up to the war; they also rejected them in the effort to do the
reconstruction in Iraq, and that has consequences.
What we believe is, as part of our entire plan for Iraq -- and we have
a plan for Iraq. They have -- they have a plan for Iraq, too: more of
the same. We have a plan for success, and that plan includes speeding
up the training of the military. We have less than half of the staff
that we need there to complete that training. Second, make sure that
the reconstruction is sped up in a way that the Iraqis see some tangible
benefit for what's happening. And by the way, if we need to we can take
Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It's so dangerous
on the ground that they can't be trained there. We can take them out
of Iraq for purposes of training. We should do whatever has to be done
to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process.
That works in conjunction with making sure the elections take place
on time. Right now the United Nations, which is responsible for the
elections in January, has about 35 people there. Now that's compared
with a much smaller country like East Timor where they had over 200
people on the ground. You need more than 35 people to hold an election
in Cleveland, much less in Iraq. And we -- and they keep saying the
election's on -- on schedule, this is going to happen. The reality is
we need a new president with credibility with the rest of the world
and who has a real plan for success. Success breeds contribution, breeds
joining the coalition.
Not only that, I want to go back to what the vice president said.
He attacks us about the troops: they sent 40,000 American troops into
Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the
armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting,
they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height
of hypocrisy.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it's hard to know where to start,
there's so many inaccuracies there.
The fact of the matter is, the troops wouldn't have what they have today
if you guys had had your way. We talk about internationalizing the effort.
They don't have a plan, basically; it's an echo. You made the comment
that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We
had 34  countries
then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us. It's hard, after
John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and
the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate
in this process. You end up with a situation in which you talk about
demeaning, in effect -- or, you demean the sacrifice of our allies and
you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the
way, send troops. Makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent.
There isn't a plan there.
Our most important ally in the war on terror in Iraq, specifically,
is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session
of Congress that I presided over with the Speaker of the House. And
John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where
he came and he thanked America for our contribution, for our sacrifice,
and pledged to hold this election in January, went out and demeaned
him, criticized him, challenged his credibility. That is not the way
to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition
with that kind of attitude.
MS. IFILL: Senator Edwards, 30 seconds.
SEN. EDWARDS: Thank you.
The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries
involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost
the American people $5 billion. And regardless of what the vice president
says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent
of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties,
are American casualties. Ninety percent of the costs of this effort
are being borne by American taxpayers.
It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.
MS. IFILL: Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice
and the contribution of our Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're
in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their
necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and
the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb
job. And for you to demean their sacrifice, that strikes me as --
SEN. EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not -- I'm not --
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: -- as beyond the pale. It is indeed. You suggested
that somehow --
SEN. EDWARDS: That -- (inaudible) -- I'm not.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: -- they shouldn't count because you want to be
able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice.
You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize
the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their
own future. We'll win when they take on responsibility for governance,
which they're doing, and when they take on responsibility for their
own security, which they increasingly are doing.
|
|
