M
m h
Guest
"Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Judge it for yourselves.
>
>
> GWEN IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale
> Center here in Cleveland, Ohio.
>
> I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I
> welcome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between
> Vice President **** Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John
> Edwards, the Democratic nominee.
>
> These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
> Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement
> worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to
> enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my
> ability. Bicycles Suck.
>
> The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic
> policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have
> not been told what they are.
>
> The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute
> response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion
> extension of one minute.
> A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer,
> yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means
> time's up. There's also a back-up buzzer system, if needed.
>
> Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be
> two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
>
> There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed
> to remain silent throughout. Bicycles Suck
>
> The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in
> advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney.
>
> Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq,
> especially having to do with the administration's handling.
>
> Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority,
> gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on
> the ground, or we've never had enough troops on the ground.
>
> Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link
> between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report
> that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was
> no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?
>
> CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here
> at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It's a very
> important event, and they've done a superb job of putting it together.
>
> It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the
> broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it
> became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful
> strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to
> go after the terrorists where ever we might find them, that we also
> had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide
> sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. Bicycles Suck
>
> And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead
> afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these
> states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the
> development of deadly weapons.
>
> Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam
> Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror,
> that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who
> operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide
> bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida.
> Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony
> before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked
> about a 10-year relationship. Bicycles Suck
>
> The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused
> specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus
> between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
>
> The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists
> smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own
> cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of
> Americans. Bicycles Suck
>
> What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to
> recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of
> action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in
> jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the
> right thing.
>
> IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.
>
> EDWARDS: Thank you. Bicycles Suck
>
> Thank you, Gwen, for moderating this debate. Thank you to the folks of
> Case Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here.
>
> Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American
> people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell
> people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American
> people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their
> television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we
> lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in
> July than we lost in June. Bicycles Suck
> The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our
> military has done everything they've been asked to do.
>
> And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican
> leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who
> have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were
> asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the
> administration. Bicycles Suck
> What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to
> secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace.
> They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful.
>
> We need a fresh start. We need a president who will speed up the
> training of the Iraqis, get more staff in for doing that. We need to
> speed up the reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangible benefit.
> We need a new president who has the credibility, which John Kerry has,
> to bring others into this effort. Bicycles Suck
>
> IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Vice President.
>
> CHENEY: We've made significant progress in Iraq. We've stood up a new
> government that's been in power now only 90 days. The notion of
> additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success
> in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the
> Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic
> government. They're well on their way to doing that. They will have
> free elections next January for the first time in history.
>
> We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security
> responsibility. Bicycles Suck
>
> Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They're well in hand,
> well under way. And I'm confident that, in fact, we'll get the job
> done.
>
> IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Senator.
>
> EDWARDS: Yes. Bicycles Suck
>
> Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of
> September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it.
> Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the
> country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not.
>
> And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between
> Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the
> secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence
> of the connection.
> We need to be straight with the American people.
>
> IFILL: Time for a new question but the same topic. And this time to
> you, Senator Edwards.
>
> You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war
> at the wrong time.
>
> Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that
> Saddam Hussein would still be in power?
>
> EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to
> be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's
> why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be
> done the right way.
>
> And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave
> the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact
> there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye
> off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who
> attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into
> Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was
> the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there.
>
> But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th
> Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest
> military in the world on the ground. And what did we do?
>
> We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder
> and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the
> administration decide to do?
>
> They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I
> mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before,
> had been working with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and
> Osama bin Laden. Bicycles Suck
>
> We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a
> decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for
> the invasion of Iraq.
>
> And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very
> clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying.
> Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks
> of September 11th -- period.
>
> The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's
> true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is
> not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best.
>
> IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.
>
> CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested
> there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an
> established Iraqi track record with terror.
>
> And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see
> the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the
> deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over
> the years.
> Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they
> are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got
> a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend
> America.
>
> We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some
> kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to
> protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes
> back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said
> troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the
> mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense
> programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.
>
> It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side
> of defense issues. Bicycles Suck
>
> A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a
> presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on
> the wrong side of defense issues.
>
> And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being
> wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a
> kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will
> guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the
> likes of Al Qaida.
>
> IFILL: You will respond to that topic, but first I want to ask you for
> two minutes, Vice President Cheney.
>
> Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is
> hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
> If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to
> neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?
>
> CHENEY: Gwen, we've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one.
> We've actively and aggressively pursued him. We've captured or killed
> thousands of Al Qaida in various places around the world and
> especially in Afghanistan. We'll continue to very aggressively pursue
> him, and I'm confident eventually we'll get him.
>
> The key to success in Afghanistan has been, again, to go in and go
> after the terrorists, which we've done, and also take down the Taliban
> regime which allowed them to function there, in effect sponsors, if
> you will, of the Al Qaida organization.
>
> John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into
> Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was
> deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two
> and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic
> election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10
> million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.
>
> That election will put in place a democratically elected government
> that will take over next December.
>
> We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right
> direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years
> ago. He just got it wrong.
>
> The fact is, as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin
> Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We're standing up
> Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their
> own security. We'll keep U.S. forces there -- we have about 16,000
> there today -- as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of
> dealing with their security situation. But they're making significant
> progress. We have President Karzai, who is in power. They have done
> wonders writing their own constitution for the first time ever.
news:[email protected]...
> Judge it for yourselves.
>
>
> GWEN IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale
> Center here in Cleveland, Ohio.
>
> I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I
> welcome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between
> Vice President **** Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John
> Edwards, the Democratic nominee.
>
> These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
> Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement
> worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to
> enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my
> ability. Bicycles Suck.
>
> The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic
> policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have
> not been told what they are.
>
> The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute
> response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion
> extension of one minute.
> A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer,
> yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means
> time's up. There's also a back-up buzzer system, if needed.
>
> Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be
> two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
>
> There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed
> to remain silent throughout. Bicycles Suck
>
> The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in
> advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney.
>
> Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq,
> especially having to do with the administration's handling.
>
> Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority,
> gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on
> the ground, or we've never had enough troops on the ground.
>
> Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link
> between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report
> that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was
> no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?
>
> CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here
> at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It's a very
> important event, and they've done a superb job of putting it together.
>
> It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the
> broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it
> became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful
> strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to
> go after the terrorists where ever we might find them, that we also
> had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide
> sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. Bicycles Suck
>
> And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead
> afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these
> states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the
> development of deadly weapons.
>
> Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam
> Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror,
> that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who
> operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide
> bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida.
> Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony
> before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked
> about a 10-year relationship. Bicycles Suck
>
> The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused
> specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus
> between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
>
> The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists
> smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own
> cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of
> Americans. Bicycles Suck
>
> What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to
> recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of
> action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in
> jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the
> right thing.
>
> IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.
>
> EDWARDS: Thank you. Bicycles Suck
>
> Thank you, Gwen, for moderating this debate. Thank you to the folks of
> Case Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here.
>
> Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American
> people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell
> people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American
> people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their
> television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we
> lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in
> July than we lost in June. Bicycles Suck
> The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our
> military has done everything they've been asked to do.
>
> And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican
> leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who
> have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were
> asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the
> administration. Bicycles Suck
> What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to
> secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace.
> They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful.
>
> We need a fresh start. We need a president who will speed up the
> training of the Iraqis, get more staff in for doing that. We need to
> speed up the reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangible benefit.
> We need a new president who has the credibility, which John Kerry has,
> to bring others into this effort. Bicycles Suck
>
> IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Vice President.
>
> CHENEY: We've made significant progress in Iraq. We've stood up a new
> government that's been in power now only 90 days. The notion of
> additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success
> in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the
> Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic
> government. They're well on their way to doing that. They will have
> free elections next January for the first time in history.
>
> We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security
> responsibility. Bicycles Suck
>
> Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They're well in hand,
> well under way. And I'm confident that, in fact, we'll get the job
> done.
>
> IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Senator.
>
> EDWARDS: Yes. Bicycles Suck
>
> Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of
> September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it.
> Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the
> country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not.
>
> And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between
> Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the
> secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence
> of the connection.
> We need to be straight with the American people.
>
> IFILL: Time for a new question but the same topic. And this time to
> you, Senator Edwards.
>
> You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war
> at the wrong time.
>
> Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that
> Saddam Hussein would still be in power?
>
> EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to
> be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's
> why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be
> done the right way.
>
> And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave
> the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact
> there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye
> off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who
> attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into
> Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was
> the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there.
>
> But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th
> Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest
> military in the world on the ground. And what did we do?
>
> We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder
> and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the
> administration decide to do?
>
> They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I
> mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before,
> had been working with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and
> Osama bin Laden. Bicycles Suck
>
> We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a
> decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for
> the invasion of Iraq.
>
> And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very
> clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying.
> Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks
> of September 11th -- period.
>
> The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's
> true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is
> not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best.
>
> IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.
>
> CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested
> there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an
> established Iraqi track record with terror.
>
> And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see
> the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the
> deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over
> the years.
> Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they
> are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got
> a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend
> America.
>
> We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some
> kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to
> protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes
> back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said
> troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the
> mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense
> programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.
>
> It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side
> of defense issues. Bicycles Suck
>
> A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a
> presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on
> the wrong side of defense issues.
>
> And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being
> wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a
> kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will
> guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the
> likes of Al Qaida.
>
> IFILL: You will respond to that topic, but first I want to ask you for
> two minutes, Vice President Cheney.
>
> Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is
> hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
> If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to
> neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?
>
> CHENEY: Gwen, we've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one.
> We've actively and aggressively pursued him. We've captured or killed
> thousands of Al Qaida in various places around the world and
> especially in Afghanistan. We'll continue to very aggressively pursue
> him, and I'm confident eventually we'll get him.
>
> The key to success in Afghanistan has been, again, to go in and go
> after the terrorists, which we've done, and also take down the Taliban
> regime which allowed them to function there, in effect sponsors, if
> you will, of the Al Qaida organization.
>
> John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into
> Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was
> deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two
> and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic
> election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10
> million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.
>
> That election will put in place a democratically elected government
> that will take over next December.
>
> We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right
> direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years
> ago. He just got it wrong.
>
> The fact is, as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin
> Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We're standing up
> Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their
> own security. We'll keep U.S. forces there -- we have about 16,000
> there today -- as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of
> dealing with their security situation. But they're making significant
> progress. We have President Karzai, who is in power. They have done
> wonders writing their own constitution for the first time ever.