TULLY FRIEDMAN: I think I saw some of the
press clap. Good morning. My name is Tully
Friedman, and I’m chairman of the board
of trustees of the American Enterprise Institute.
We’re delighted to welcome again to AEI
my fellow trustee, the former Vice President,
the former Secretary of Defense, the former
White House Chief of Staff and former Congressman
Dick Cheney.
The vice president joins us on the eve of
the 13th anniversary of 9/11 and at another
critical moment for the nation. With Russian
troops on the move, much of the Middle East
in collapse, and when our own secretary of
defense describes a new enemy – ISIS – as
beyond anything we’ve seen, we have a lot
to discuss today and we’ll begin with the
talk by the vice president followed by a moderated
Q&A session.
Thank you for joining us at AEI today.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD CHENEY: Thank
you, Tully. It’s great to be back at AEI.
I’ve spent time here over the years as a
fellow, as a trustee, as an out- of-work politician,
and it’s always a great pleasure to come
back. Being a fellow and a trustee at AEI
has always put me in the company of some of
the people I like and continue to admire most
in the city. The American Enterprise Institute
is one of those places where serious matters
receive serious attention, and that’s the
spirit that brings me here this morning.
President Obama will be speaking later today
on the situation on Iraq and the Middle East
which has quickly become the most pressing
of many national security issues. Among all
the various concerns and issues that compete
for our time and energy in Washington, nothing
matters more than the security of the United
States – nothing. Everything else we do
depends on our safety from the dangers of
the world.
And of all the things our federal government
attempts to do these days, the one obligation
that only it can do is to defend the nation.
It is a defining duty of the president as
commander-in-chief under Article Two of the
Constitution and the test of leadership that
matters more than any other.
The finest of our presidents have measured
up to that test and I’ve seen some of them
in action. It’s been my privilege over the
years to play a part in some of the more critical
national security decisions we’ve faced.
There have been five Republican presidents
since Dwight Eisenhower. I worked for four
of them and worked closely with the fifth,
President Reagan, as a member of the House
leadership during his term in office. These
five leaders, I’ve observed, accomplished
great things, often overcame great difficulties
and the same could be said of others in my
lifetime going back to Roosevelt and Truman.
Next year, we’ll commence the eighth decade
of what we still call the postwar era. In
that time we’ve seen one of the supreme
achievements of human history: a structure
of security formed in the years after the
Second World War and underwritten, guaranteed,
and defended by the United States of America.
What makes it all real in the end is the fact
of American military superiority. Without
that, we would be just one more nation with
good intentions and strong opinions. It is
not some arbitrary cycle of history that made
the postwar era what it has been. It is American
power and American leadership.
Before we credit the wisdom of even our best
statesmen and diplomats in this long era,
always remember where the greatest credit
truly belongs. It belongs to the generations
of men and women who gave the best years of
their lives and laid down their lives in brave
service to our nation.
Against this backdrop, and five and a half
years into the presidency of Barack Obama,
a few fundamental problems are evident. He
has served in office now longer than 26 of
his predecessors. So it’s hardly too early
to draw conclusions about his conduct of foreign
policy and about the basic ideas and assumptions
that he has followed.
We know what those notions are, because at
times the president has been not only clear
about them, but quite emphatic. He has demonstrated
his own distrust for American power as a force
for good in the world. Five years ago this
month, he put it this way to the United Nations.
Quote: “No world order that elevates one
nation or group of people over another will
succeed,” end quote.
This is one sample from a whole collection
of such sayings seem to regard American influence
as a problem to be solved in the world, rather
than a solution to be offered. However we
interpret President Obama’s words, they
are a far cry from John Kennedy’s vision
of Americans as, and I quote, “the watchmen
on the walls of world freedom” with “the
military, the scientific, and the economic
strength to do whatever must be done for the
preservation and promotion of freedom,”
end quote.
Compare those presidential declarations, and
it’s more than a difference in time that
we’re dealing with. They are two radically
different outlooks on the world and on America’s
responsibilities in it. And when you have
a president whose primary concern is never
to, quote, “elevate” America, it’s no
surprise that we also have a defense secretary
in a serious state of alarm. “The world,”
as Secretary Hagel said a few weeks ago, “is
exploding all over.”
I’m here to tell you that there’s a connection
between these problems – between a disengaged
president and some very volatile situations
abroad. In a few hours, we’ll hear what
he has in mind for the terrorist onslaught
currently in Iraq. We can hope for – and
we should look for – signs of a forceful,
bold, and immediate strategy to defeat ISIS.
We can say already, however, that such a plan
would mark an abrupt and dramatic departure
from his record thus far.
This is the same president, after all, who
not long ago was assuring the nation that
“the tide of war is receding.” Those words
suited his purpose at the time, in 2012. And
yet of course that was the very time when
dangers now obvious to all were gathering.
In fact, all that receded from Iraq and elsewhere
was American power, influence, and leadership.
And if you think that American withdrawal
marks an ebbing of conflict and a return to
peace, then consider the new jihadist caliphate
and all that will now be needed to clean it
out.
A few months ago I traveled through the Middle
East visiting with old friends in governments
in Arab nations and in Israel. Again and again
I heard the same question – just what is
Barack Obama doing? How could he so carelessly
sacrifice America’s hard- won gains in the
region, walking away from friends, leaving
violent enemies to fill the void? Like many
in our own country, these friends of America
cannot understand why the president was so
insistent on withdrawing American leadership
just when it was needed most.
A policy of nonintervention can be just as
dogmatic as its opposite, and this president
has seemed at times only more sure of himself
as he is disproved by events. Syria is just
one example. After the regime used chemical
weapons against thousands of children, the
administration took a stance of what you might
call principled indifference: we cared – went
the message – just not enough to do anything
about it. And never mind the high-minded warnings
and meaningless red line.
So often, President Obama responds to crises
abroad by announcing all the things he will
not do; and here, again, we can only hope
the pattern ends tonight. Too often, threats
and aggression have been met with stern declarations
of inaction by the United States, supported
by lengthy explanations of our inability to
shape events. And inaction by America spells
opportunity for our adversaries; as in the
case of Syria, where we saw the Russians move
in for their own advantage.
Meanwhile, of late, Vladimir Putin has moved
in to take Crimea, subjected Ukraine to coercion
and intimidation, and generally worked to
frustrate American objectives at every turn.
This all goes down, as the administration
likes to put it, as “19th- century behavior,”
an expression of disapproval that never seems
to quite translate in the Kremlin.
They play a rough game over there, and they
don’t much care to which century we ascribe
their conduct. The test for some players in
this world is simply this: can they get away
with what they want to do? If they can, they
will. End of discussion.
We all know, for example, what the mullahs
in Iran want most of all: to acquire nuclear
weapons. Try to imagine life in Israel, or
anywhere else for that matter, if we and our
friends ever permit that day to come. The
regime in Iran gives close study to every
sign, in every context, of American resolve
– or to its absence.
Draw a bright red line for Assad and then
let him pass right over it with impunity,
and your problems don’t end in Syria. In
Tehran, too, they’ve been watching you tested
and they’re not impressed.
Whether it’s outright enemies like the regimes
in Iran and North Korea, or strategic rivals
like Russia and China, hostile people are
drawing conclusions from the choices we make.
They take note of the hard things we do as
the preeminent democracy, and of the hard
things we finish. This has been a fact of
life for every American president going back
to FDR, and the finest of them knew how to
choose a message of strength. I think of Truman
and Kennedy handling crises in Berlin; Nixon
standing by Israel in the Yom Kippur War;
or the Reagan military buildup of the 1980s
– American resolve in unmistakable terms.
Or I think of 2003 a few days after Saddam
Hussein was taken into American custody. Among
others who were paying attention was the dictator
of Libya, who let it be known that he would
continue to – that he could come in and
take away his entire inventory of nuclear
components, which he did. What kind of weapons
might Gadhafi have had by 2011, if he hadn’t
surrendered his nuclear materials to us long
before? And when the uprisings came his way,
with real trouble outside his compound, how
might the dictator have maintained his power?
They watch what our leaders do, the enemies
of America, and they listen to what our leaders
say. And a few of our most single-minded enemies
might well have wondered why, in recent years,
President Obama was talking about the terrorists
being on the run, in retreat, when precisely
the opposite was happening.
By the estimate of Seth Jones at the RAND
Corporation, quote, “Since 2010, there has
been a 58 percent increase in the number of
jihadist groups, a doubling of the number
of jihadist fighters and a tripling of attacks
by al Qaeda affiliates.” In other words,
while the president was claiming the tide
of war was receding and core al-Qaeda had
been decimated, the threat was actually increasing.
From Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, over to Pakistan,
all the way down to Somalia and Nigeria, in
various places under various names, a whole
new wave of jihadists was on the rise.
Likewise, we have the recent account of General
Mike Flynn, who just stepped down as director
of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He said,
and I quote, “When asked if terrorists were
on the run, we couldn’t respond with any
answer but no. When asked if the terrorists
were defeated, we had to say, no. Anyone who
answers yes to either of those questions either
doesn’t know what they are talking about,
they are misinformed, or they are just flat
out lying,” end quote.
The general’s point is that the terrorist
threat, far from receding like a tide, has
been advancing and multiplying. And the RAND
report was done before the rise of ISIS and
the establishment of a caliphate – a new
terrorist safe haven covering vast territory
in the heart of the Arab world.
ISIS is now attracting thousands of radicals
from Europe and potentially hundreds from
the United States, eager to join in the slaying
of non-believers. A fair number are doubtless
intending to return home to Britain, France,
and elsewhere – that is, unless their Western
passports are canceled, which ought to happen.
These are but a few of the features that make
the situation today one of the most dangerous
we have faced certainly in my lifetime – and
far more dangerous than the administration
has been willing to admit.
When the president speaks today, we need only
to listen carefully for a true understanding
of the nature and extent of this danger. And
let me suggest a few markers to keep in mind,
the basic signs of serious strategic thinking.
A realistic strategy has to recognize that
ISIS is a grave, strategic threat to the United
States. The situation is dire and defeating
these terrorists will require immediate, sustained,
simultaneous action across multiple fronts.
Phasing in our actions will not suffice. Such
a strategy will only prolong the conflict
and increase the casualties.
ISIS does not recognize a border between Syria
and Iraq so neither should we. We should immediately
hit them in their sanctuaries, staging areas,
command centers, and lines of communication,
wherever we find them. We should provide significantly
increased numbers of military trainers, Special
Operations Forces, an intelligence architecture,
and air power to aid the Iraqi military and
the Kurdish Peshmerga in their counteroffensive
against ISIS.
As we work to defeat ISIS and prevent the
establishment of a terrorist safe haven in
the heart of the Middle East, we must move
globally to get back on offense in the war
on terror. This means first recognizing and
admitting the size and scope of the threat
we face. Al Qaeda is not diminished, nor is
the tide of war receding. Wishing doesn’t
make it so. Our president must understand
we are at war and that we must do what it
takes, for as long as it takes, to win.
Winning will require allies. Across the broader
Middle East, we have to reassure our friends
and allies that America will not abandon them.
After five and a half years of an administration
sending regular messages of retreat, withdrawal
and indifference, we have lost credibility
and the trust of allies that we need to win
this war.
We must now demonstrate through increased
intelligence activity and cooperation, military
assistance, training, joint exercises, and
economic support that we know they are on
the front line of the war on terror. We should
do everything possible to defend Jordan against
ISIS. We should immediately provide the support
that the government of Egypt needs to fight
the terrorist insurgency in the Sinai.
We should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood
is the ideological source for most of the
radical Islamist terrorists around the globe.
We ought to designate it as the terrorist
organization it is, and we should provide
full backing and support for those governments
across the Middle East who are standing against
the Muslim Brotherhood.
We should make clear that a nuclear-armed
Iran is an existential threat to Israel and
to other nations in the region as well. We
should refuse to accept any deal that allows
them to continue to spin centrifuges and enrich
uranium. The regime in Tehran must be made
to understand that the United States will
not allow that to happen, and that we will
take military action if necessary to stop
it.
To avoid repeating President Obama’s arbitrary
and hasty withdrawal of residual forces from
Iraq – the tragic error that gave us the
caliphate – we should have the drawdown
of our troops in Afghanistan halted. The terror
and chaos in Iraq today will only be replayed
in Afghanistan if we now abandon that country.
I might add that by now, with all that’s
happening in Iraq and well beyond, we should
hear no more talk about treating the fight
against terror as a matter for law enforcement.
The idea that terrorists are just criminals
of a different stripe has been a dogma of
this administration from the very beginning,
and it’s time we put it to rest once and
for all.
All that we achieved in protecting the country
after 9/11 came from the understanding that
terrorists are not just common lawbreakers
and terrorism is not just street crime on
a bigger scale. Despite years of criticizing
those policies, President Obama himself has
lately been pointing to the Bush-Cheney security
apparatus as evidence that he’s keeping
America safe. This is a quote: “Since 9/11,”
he said at a fundraiser last month, “we
have built up a security apparatus that makes
us in the here and now pretty safe” – nice
to hear, especially from someone who used
to speak so disparagingly about the steps
we took after 9/11. After years of saying
that America had lost its way, abandoned our
values in building up that security apparatus,
now he’s invoking it to give assurance that
we are prepared.
I know something about that apparatus. I was
one of its architects. And President Obama
seems willfully blind to one of the key facts
about the post-9/11 security apparatus: it
is not self-sustaining. Those programs and
policies must be kept strong and current.
The Obama administration has failed utterly
in that task. After five and a half years
of dismantling the apparatus we put in place,
he cannot honestly claim that same apparatus
will now keep us safe. And this is the most
critical measure we could apply to the president’s
remarks today: Any serious strategy has to
include a major new commitment to restoring
our nation’s military preparedness.
We simply cannot pursue a comprehensive strategy
against terrorism at the same time we’re
sending pink slips to captains and majors
in the combat zone. And yet this and more
is happening.
In this very time of hasty withdrawals, continuous
disengagement, and such self- congratulation
for all of it, we have also seen dramatic
and devastating drawdowns in the
military power of the United States. Ours
is the power that underlies so much else,
yet even this has been taken for granted during
these years. We’re nearing a crisis point
in the decline of American military power.
It has to be addressed, and right away.
The administration should be aware of this
by now because the bipartisan National Defense
Panel – appointed by the president’s own
defense secretary – recently warned of untenable
reductions in force levels. It’s a bipartisan
group chaired by John Abizaid and by Bill
Perry, former secretary of defense. And they
did a superb job and I commend it to anybody
who’s interested. If we take almost any
element of our defense capability, and it
has been reduced in some cases with further
reductions to come, Army, Air Force, Navy,
and Marines – all of them have been subjected
to irrational budget cuts having nothing to
do with the strategic needs of national security.
Soon, for instance, we’ll actually be looking
at an Army and Marine Corps with authorized
strength levels beneath what they were prior
to 9/11. Of the Army’s 40 brigades, only
four are combat ready. Meanwhile, we’ve
seen crucial programs and weapons systems
delayed or cancelled, either arbitrarily or
else by the flimsiest of rationales. Under
this president we are in the midst of a systematic
pullback of defense investment in ways that
will severely hinder our force structure,
projection power, and general ability to meet
and deter threats.
It was one of the highest honors of my life
to have the opportunity to serve as secretary
of defense. There is no finer group of people
anywhere than the men and women who wear the
uniform of our nation. We need to do everything
we can to make sure that every expenditure
is justified, but the defense budget is different
from every other part of our federal budget.
In most other areas, you start with questions
like, what do we have and what can we afford?
When you are looking at the defense budget
of the United States, you start with the question:
what do we need?
But that kind of careful thought is not what
is driving the massive defense reductions
now underway. And whatever the thinking behind
these decisions, it bears little relation
to a strategic environment that is complex,
demanding, and becoming more dangerous by
the day.
Look around: other major powers are seriously
adding to their military capabilities, some
with a view to exploiting what they regard
as America’s new vulnerabilities. We’ve
got, among other problems, nuclear-armed countries
with uncertain political futures. There is
still a constant threat of WMD proliferation,
which can be effectively countered only with
American leadership and American power. We’ve
got all this and more besides going on in
2014, and we’re investing in defense as
if the dangers of the world were all in quiet
retreat.
Of course, they are not, as the next commander-in-chief
will likely appreciate from day one in office.
That next president, unless we start matching
our military investment with the threats and
challenges we face, will also find that his
options have narrowed dramatically. All the
capacities we need to shape events, protect
our interests,
and work to peaceful ends may not be there.
Even the wisest, boldest calls in the Situation
Room will not come to much without the assets
to follow through, whether by land, sea, air,
space, or cyberspace. And when the next Congress
convenes in January, I can think of no more
urgent business than this: leaders in both
parties working together must ensure that
the highest priority in our federal budget
is the defense and security of the United
States of America.
With crises in Iraq, Ukraine, and so much
else unraveling, there is little comfort in
President Obama’s reminders, now and then,
that ultimately things have a way of working
out, and that, ultimately, the bad actors
of the world are destined to fail. The terrorists,
he’s observed a time or two, are on the
wrong side of history, a useful thought only
if it is expressed in the active and not the
passive mode to motivate and not just to console.
The terrorists who threaten this country and
our friends are on the wrong side of civilization.
They will be on the wrong side of history
only if we put them there.
We must deal with threats before they become
grave dangers and dangers before they become
catastrophes. That’s where the best kind
of history is made – the story of awful
things that never happened because our foresight
and resolve did not allow them.
President Obama likes to talk about cycles
of history. I can tell you it is the leadership
of brave men and women that make history.
In particular, it has been the United States
of America, time and again, that has answered
threats, taken swift and determined action,
kept the peace, and liberated millions.
In all that we now face, the worst, most self-defeating
illusion is the idea that American power and
leadership are optional, as if with or without
us the world will somehow get by. Ask around,
among friends and allies, and you’ll hear
otherwise. They still welcome and desire American
influence in any matter where freedom is on
the line or security in the balance. They
still believe in American leadership as a
force for good like no other. And they know
their security and ours depends upon American
power and will only be guaranteed with a restoration
of American leadership and strength.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MARC THIESSEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice
President.
The vice president has to leave, but he’s
asked – he’s agreed to take a few questions,
and several of you have submitted some very
good ones here. We ask also that once the
event is over, if you could please stay seated
so the vice president can depart and then
– and then we’ll have everyone come out.
I will take the moderator’s privilege of
asking the first question.
The Washington Post reports that you received
a rapturous reception yesterday up on Capitol
Hill when you came to speak to House Republicans.
But it then says, quote, “The young and
dovish libertarians sat silently on Tuesday
morning as former Vice
President Dick Cheney addressed a gathering
of House Republicans on Capitol Hill.” All
of the advice that you’ve just given, don’t
we have to convince a lot of people in our
party first?
MR. CHENEY: Yes, we do. And it was a great
reception. I was impressed. They never treated
me that way when I was vice president. (Laughter.)
There is without a question – without question
a strain of isolation, if you will, that some
people call it a strong feeling against war.
It’s a view you’ll find in various places
of our society and there is a certain part
of our party, I think, that holds to those
precepts.
Now, I’ve tried to make the point repeatedly
that anybody who went through 9/11 or watched
what happened when 19 men armed with airline
tickets and box cutters came here and destroyed
the World Trade Center, took down a big part
of the Pentagon, killed 3,000 of our people
– a worse attack than Pearl Harbor – that
it’s difficult to buy into the proposition
that somehow we’ll be safe if we just stay
behind our oceans and then let the rest of
the world stew in its own juices. I simply
don’t believe it. I’m outspoken about
it, but I do think it’s – as I think about
it, part of the problem, obviously, is to
remind my friends on the Republican side of
the aisle, as well some of the Democrats,
that the issues I talk about in here are very
real and very imminent.
We can’t pursue the course, for example,
that says, when we get the defense budget,
well, at least we got something. We do indeed
need to play a very active role in the world.
And I just believe those who advocate an isolationist
course are dead wrong.
MR. THIESSEN: This question comes from Betsy
Klein of CNN. What would you say to President
Obama in advance of his speech tonight and
what did you tell the House Republicans yesterday?
MR. CHENEY: Well, I’ve just told the president
– I don’t know if he’s watching or he’s
going to read my speech – I tried to lay
out there what I think of the principal things
that need to be done, especially recognition
of the threat, being honest about what’s
happening out there, reversal of the course
the administration has been following with
respect to defense spending. There are some
very specific things that we need to take.
The reception I got on the Hill yesterday
from my former colleagues was very warm. There
were – I’m sure there were probably a
few in the audience who disagreed. I think
the Washington Post found two of them. (Laughter.)
But, no. I thought it was a good meeting.
And, frankly, part of it is I consider myself
a man of the House. I served 10 years in the
House, eight years as president of the Senate.
And I’ve always been very clear I prefer
the House. I didn’t say that when I was
the president of the Senate.
But, no. It’s a fascinating time in our
history and I have great respect and affection
for those who serve. I spent a lot of years
as a member of the Congress or part of it.
And I think we’ve got some very good people
there. I think we’re going to have a tough
fight in the fall campaign here with respect
to the upcoming election. But we will
renew our commitments to democracy and we’ll
have a new Congress come January, and hopefully
it will be more successful than recent ones
in terms of arriving at some important decisions.
MR. THIESSEN: This question doesn’t have
a name attached to it, but do you feel the
current threat in the Middle East is contained
to the threat from the militant Islamic forces
or does it have broader global implications?
And you touched a little bit on Iran in your
speech. We now have a situation in Iraq where,
actually, just recently, the US military was
essentially providing air cover for Iranian-backed
Shia militias. Those were the ones that were
killing American troops. Can you talk a little
bit about that and about the Iranian threat?
MR. CHENEY: To talk about Iraq, a broader
set of concerns than just radical Islam. I’m
very, very concerned – and I’ve talked
about it frequently. I touched on it in my
remarks today. And that’s the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, in particular
nuclear materials. And it isn’t just limited
to the Middle East.
We found on our watch – I always remember
when Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad, came
in one day and sat down with Steve Hadley
and myself and started laying down photographs.
They were color pictures taken inside the
reactor in eastern Syria that had been built
by the North Koreans for the Syrians. The
North Koreans are very much players in this
business.
There’d been reporting at one point from
A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani program,
that the North Koreans had bribed senior Pakistani
officials to get the latest technology for
highly enriched uranium. I think if we look
at that whole area of the proliferation of
nuclear capability that it’s the – it
is a major threat. We don’t know where it’s
going to go.
We’re just lucky, for example, when eastern
Syria fell to ISIS, they didn’t find a nuclear
reactor at al-Kibar. It wasn’t there because
the Israelis took it out in the fall of ’07.
We were just lucky Gadhafi decided to surrender
his materials after he saw what happened to
Saddam Hussein. So it does have worldwide
ramifications, and the future of developments
in that part of the world clearly are relevant
to – well, not just the United States or
the neighborhood, but on a global basis.
MR. THIESSEN: And one last question. This
is from Chandler Thornton, a student at American
University. He asks: what is the best strategy
or strategies for maintaining diplomatic support
in nations throughout the Middle East and
how can this support complement military action
to combat ISIS?
MR. CHENEY: My experience has been – and
as I mentioned, my daughter Liz and I traveled
to the region this spring. I’ve kept up
a lot of my ties back there since Desert Storm
really, 25 years ago, when I worked with all
of them when we were dealing with the First
Gulf War.
There is a perception – and, again, these
are some Israelis, Arabs and so forth – perception
that the United States cannot be trusted the
way we had been in the past and that we need
to go in and act, to work with them closely
to restore their faith in our commitments
because it’s been seriously eroded.
There’s a deep belief, for example, that
– I don’t want to zero in on any one particular
country, but it’s general throughout the
region that the United States has been supportive
of the Muslim Brotherhood. And in that part
of the world, the Muslim Brothers are perceived,
having been founded in 1928, as the group
from whence emerged Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
al Qaeda, Hamas – you can go down a long
list, and they can all trace their backgrounds
to the Muslim Brothers. And the United States
needs to convey the fact that we understand
that. It’s not just their concern, it’s
our concern as well too.
We need to keep commitments that we’ve made
and prove to them that we have. When, for
example, when Morsi was toppled in Egypt and
General Sisi took over, I was – I met him
for the first time during that trip and I
was very impressed – the immediate reaction
here was to start talking about withholding
our traditional military-to-military relationship
and flow of support and supplies that historically
the Egyptians have received from us. That’s
exactly the wrong way to deal with those kinds
of circumstances.
They want to know that we are, in fact, allies.
They want to know that we’ll keep our commitments.
They want to know that we understand that
they are on the front lines of the war on
terror. They’re the ones that are battling,
in many cases every day, to survive against
the most radical elements that have now taken
part of Iraq, part of Syria, created the caliphate.
It’s a task diplomatically and militarily
from the standpoint of the United States.
We’ve got to go prove ourselves and restore
those relationships which have been badly
damaged by the way the United States has conducted
itself over the last few years.
MR. THIESSEN: Mr. Vice President, thank you
very much. I would note that this is not the
first time that you’ve had a long scheduled
speech and the President of the United States
has decided to give a speech the same night.
MR. CHENEY: I don’t think they’re related.
(Laughter.)
MR. THIESSEN: Well, we’ll see what he says
tonight. Thank you very much for your –
MR. CHENEY: All right. Thank you. (Applause.)
(END)
