NY B9 Farmer Misc- WH 1 of 3 Fdr- 1-27-02 Sam Donaldson-Cokie Roberts-This Week-ABC Interview of...

8/14/2019 NY B9 Farmer Misc- WH 1 of 3 Fdr- 1-27-02 Sam Donaldson-Cokie Roberts-This Week-ABC Interview of Cheney 458

1/19

/This Week - ABCJanuary 27, 2002DONALDSON: This morning, a rare interview with the vicepresident of the United States, Dick CHENEY. SinceSeptember 11, he's been largely out of sight, but not outof touch, playing a vital role in shaping both domestic andforeign policy.We'll get answers on...ROBERTS: The Enron debacle. In his first in-depthinterview, find out what the vice president thinks and whywon't he turn over key energy documents?DONALDSON: Plus, the economy, the war on terrorism, thefate of Yasser Arafat, and much more, all as President Bushprepares to deliver his State of the Union address onTuesday.ROBERTS: Also this week, voters talk about those very sameissues and what they really think of American Taliban JohnLindh.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)(UNKNOWN): This guy fought against America, he foughtagainst his country. He's a traitor. He should be shot.(END VIDEO CLIP)DONALDSON: A THIS WEEK focus group~gauges the mood of thenation.ANNOUNCER: That's This Week, featuring George Will andGeorge Stephanopoulos.Now, Sam DONALDSON and Cokie ROBERTS.DONALDSON: Welcome to our program.Today our guest is the vice president of the United States,Dick CHENEY.ROBERTS: Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for beinghere.CHENEY: (inaudible), Cokie.

000323


2/19

ROBERTS: Nice to have you in town. Are you spending time intown now?CHENEY: I am. We still try to avoid being predictable interms of the president and me being in the same place atthe same time, but...ROBERTS: But you're not living in a bunker.CHENEY: Not living in a bunker, not this week.ROBERTS: That's good.You know that over the weekend, again, the investigativearm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, said thatthey were going to take you to court if necessary to turnover the papers of the energy task force that you headedlast year to create energy policy. Obviously I want to talkto you about all of the domestic issues, the State of theUnion, all that.CHENEY: Sure.ROBERTS: But let me just get this out of the way, becauseit is today's news. You've been here a long time, thesethings generally end up with people turning over thepapers. The Republicans are dying to have you turn over thepapers. Why not turn over the papers?CHENEY: Well, the important thing here is, probably willget resolved in court, Cokie, because it is an importantissue, and it's an important principle. And in fact whathappened is, the GAO, at the request of Henry Waxman, hasdemanded information on how we put together the president'senergy package. This is it right here. It wasn't secret. Weproduced thousands of copies of it, put it out all overtown.But what they're asking for, what they asked for, a lot ofit, we provided. We gave them information what the agenciesand departments did, how the money was spent, et cetera.But key question though, where the debate lies, is whetheror not they have a right to--from the vice president, toinformation on every meeting that I hold, notes on thosemeetings that were taken, who attended, what kind ofinformation was provided.

000324


3/19

And the difficulty with that is that the GAO authority, wedon't think, extends there. The lawyers decided last springthat in fact, the GAO did not have the authority to go thisfar, that it's important to preserve for the president andthe vice president, constitutional officers, not creationsof the Congress, but important to preserve our ability toget unvarnished advice from anybody we want on anysubject...ROBERTS: Well...CHENEY: ... we want, without having to put it out in thenewspapers or give it to members of Congress.ROBERTS: It is a principle that everybody can understand.CHENEY: Vital principle.

ROBERTS: But as you know, the politics of it, you've beenon the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue...CHENEY: Right.ROBERTS: ... and your former colleagues are saying, This iskilling us. As I said, you know, it just looks like they'rehiding something. People are beginning to ask that age-oldWashington question with a new twist, which is, What didthe vice president and when did he know it?

CHENEY: Well, first of all, what'swhen we took thisposition last August, the GAO sort of backed off. They ineffect then said, Well, maybe we aren't going to pursue itat this point. What's reenergized it now is the question ofEnron, and some efforts by some of my Democratic friends onthe Hill to try to create a political issue out of what'sreally a corporate issue.What Enron's all about is a corporate collapse, maybemalfeasance in office, and that'll be dealt with. Thepresident's got a very aggressive investigation under wayto find out if laws were broken, and we'll make sure peopleget prosecuted.But if the principle was valid last August, the collapse ofEnron should not be permitted to undermine...

VJ .

ROBERTS: But... 000325


4/19

CHENEY: ... the principle, and you and...ROBERTS: ... there is politics.CHENEY: There are politics, and you and I have been in towna long time. I've probably been here longer than you, 34years, anyway. I won't debate that. But during...ROBERTS: I'd have to give you my age, which is how longI've been here.CHENEY: All right. But in 34 years, I have repeatedly seenan erosion of the powers and the ability of the presidentof the United States to do his job. We saw it in the WarPowers Act. We saw it in the Budget Anti-Impoundment Act.We've seen it in cases like this before, where it'sdemanded that presidents cough up and compromise onimportant principles.ROBERTS: And they always do.CHENEY: Exactly, and that's wrong.ROBERTS: So in the end, it always comes out anyway, sowhy...CHENEY: It's wrong. Andwell, but the...ROBERTS: ... go through this agony?CHENEY: Because the net result of that is to weaken thepresidency and the vice presidency.And one of the things that I feel an obligation, and I knowthe president does too, because we talked about it, is topass on our offices in better shape than we found them toour successors. We are weaker today as an institutionbecause of the unwise compromises that have been made overthe last 30 to 35 years.

Now, the fact is, Enron didn't get any special deals.Enron's been treated appropriately by this administration.There's some things I'm sure they disagree with, somethings they agree with. But the record to date isoverwhelmingly clear that everybody in this administrationthat dealt with Enron did so in a totally appropriatefashion. 000326


5/19

ROBERTS: But you talk about the office of the presidency.Now you know in newspaper stories over the last few weekshave connected the secretary of the Army and asked aboutconflicts with his--he used to be a high-level official inEnron, a former staffer of majority leader Armey haslobbied for Enron, lobbied with you, apparently, and thetask force. A former campaign operative got a job withEnron through the White House.What this seems to be adding up to in the minds of theAmerican people...CHENEY: Are any of those illegal or improper...ROBERTS: Well, but the question is...CHENEY: ... or inappropriate?ROBERTS: ... when you talk about the presidency and thepower of the presidency, so much of that power rests ontrust in the presidency, which this president has had agreat deal of.CHENEY: Right.ROBERTS: But look at today's New York Times poll on thisquestion. ""When it comes to their dealings with Enron, doyou think members of the Bush administration are tellingthe entire truth?11 Seventeen percent. ""Mostly telling thetruth but hiding something?'' Fifty-eight percent. ""Mostlylying,'' 9 percent.Now, those are hardcore Democrats, probably, but...CHENEY: Probably.ROBERTS: ... but that--you start to erode the veryprinciple that you're trying to defend if people start tothink...CHENEY: But...

ROBERTS: ... your administration's in bed with thesecorporate bullies.CHENEY: But the reality is, it's hard to prove thenegative, Cokie, and charges can be made, but there's noevidence to support any of those charges. Tom White's a

000327


6/19

totally honorable individual, and he was a great Armyofficer . . .ROBERTS: Secretary of the Army.CHENEY: ... he's now secretary of the Army. We're fortunateto have him, and he's always conducted himself in anethically fine manner.There's no evidence to indicate anybody did anything wrongin the administration. This issue of Enron isn't about theadministration. What it's really about is whether or notlaws were broken or laws need to be changed with respect tothe functioning of a major corporation.Now, that was a great tragedy, what happened to Enron. Butthe way to deal with it is through reform of our pensionsystem, our 401 (k) plans, if that's what's necessary, newstatutes, new regulations on the books, and we'll do all ofthose things .ROBERTS: And would you support some of those bills that areup there on limitations on contributions of corporate stockto 401 (k) and separating auditing and consulting?

,,^ CHENEY: I think what we need is a thorough understanding ofJ what happened at Enron and Arthur Andersen before we_ ^ - finally draw conclusions on that.

And we have to be careful not to throw the baby out withthe bathwater. For example, if you look at corporateAmerica, one of the innovations of recent years, one of thegood-governance developments, has been to expand stockownership on the part of employees, to not just give stockor stock options to a handful of people at the top but togive the employees a stake in the success of the company.And that's been widespread. Everybody thought it was a goodidea. Now, in the case of Enron, there may have been flawsin the way it was done or some fixes that are needed in theregulations. But I don't think we want to destroy...ROBERTS: Do you. . .

CHENEY: . . . the principle that employees should own stock.ROBERTS: Are--I want to move on. But just--you said thatnothing was done wrong in the administration. Do you thinkthat Enron officials were morally obligated or--to telltheir employees? Did they do something wrong?

000328


7/19

CHENEY: My suspicion is they did. But again, you know,we're still dealing at this point just with news reportsand just the very beginnings of the investigations.But there's no question, if you look at what happened atEnron, if you look at the tragedy that befell investors andemployees, if you look at the sudden collapse of what wasby some believed to be the seventh-largest corporation inAmerica in a matter of months, there is no questionsomething very seriously went wrong. And exactly what itwas, I think we'll find out in due course.ROBERTS: Now, Tuesday night, the president will come to theCongress, give his State of the Union message. We've beenhearing a lot of it through the week, $48 billion more fordefense, $38 billion for homeland security, more forbioterrorism, more for borderland patrols.I'm wondering where the money is going to come from. We'veseen a report this week from the Congressional BudgetOffice with the deficit numbers, where they have said thatthe deficit, which was projected at $5.6 trillion over 10years is now down to $.16 trillion, $4 trillion gone. Andthat was before all of this new spending.So where's the money coming from?CHENEY: Well, first of all, what's happened, of course, isthe recession has in fact significantly eroded revenues.The bulk of the decline, if you will, in the surplus is adirect result of the economic slowdown.ROBERTS: But you knew that was going to happen, becauseyou're the first person who said we were in a recession,and that was before we did a $1.3 trillion...CHENEY: And before...ROBERTS: ... tax cut.

CHENEY: And before we took office.But the reason for cutting taxes is to stimulate theeconomy. The way to solve the problem in the deficit andthe amount of surpluses available is to end the recessionand renew economic growth, more economic growth, youcollect more revenues, and the deficit disappears.And the purpose of the tax cut is, in fact, to create theeconomic...

000329


8/19

ROBERTS: But...

CHENEY: ... that'll guarantee...ROBERTS: ... the chairman...CHENEY: ... those revenues...ROBERTS: ... of the Federal Reserve...CHENEY: ... (inaudible).ROBERTS: ... Alan Greenspan, this week was very cautiousabout further tax cuts or even further enacting this taxcut and more spending, saying deficits should be kept inmind before you do any of that. Is that a warning signalfor the administration to...

CHENEY: I've talked with Alan and saw part of histestimony. He did--he was a supporter of the tax cuts thatwe put through last year that will feed in over a period oftime. My recollection of it is, he wasn't clear or hedidn't say at this stage whether or not he wants to have...ROBERTS: He wasn't clear?CHENEY: ... a stimulus package (inaudible).ROBERTS: Mr. Greenspan?CHENEY: No, I've known him for a long time,_and he's asclear as he wants to be.The--we believe that a stimulus package is appropriate. Wewished one had been passed last fall. We got it through theHouse, but it was blocked by Tom Daschle and theDemocrats...ROBERTS: Well, yes, let's...CHENEY: ... in the Senate.ROBERTS: ... look at exactly what he said on the stimuluspackage.CHENEY: Sure

1 0 0 0 3 3 0


9/19

ROBERTS: Because that's pretty clear. He said, V X I don'tthink it's critically important to do. I think the economywill recover in any event.''Do you think the economy's in recovery?CHENEY: I thinkI've got great confidence in Alan'spredictive abilities, and I think the economy isrecovering. Question is how fast it will recover. Andthere's still some doubts out there, there's still someuncertainties, if you will. And we think we can removethose uncertainties, we can enhance the prospects of astrong recovery, we can accelerate that recovery and returnmore jobs more quickly if, in fact, we go forward with thestimulus package.ROBERTS: I don't want to eat into my colleague Sam's time,but I just want to ask you, Tom Daschle, the majorityleader of the Senate, you're going to have to be workingwith him on all of these things. You have called him anobstructionist.Are you going to be the guy out there attacking while thepresident's hugging?CHENEY: Well, I said it with a smile. I've known Tom a longtime. We arrived in Congress together. But the fact is, wefelt, and I believe--! mean, it's true--that the evidenceshows that last fall when we could have had a stimuluspackage in October that would have advanced the recoveryfrom the recession, Tom's the one who blocked it in theSenate, wouldn't allow a vote.Now he's back, seems to be more interested in a stimuluspackage. We hope he's serious about it.ROBERTS: Thank you very much.When we come back, Sam DONALDSON will have more questionsfor the vice president, including ones on the war andwhether victory requires getting Osama bin Laden. Plus, ourroundtable. Stay with us.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)DONALDSON: Mr. Vice President, let's resume now.) 000331


10/19

Now, the president yesterday in his radio address said onceagain the military would be given every resource, everyweapon needed to achieve a full and final victory in thewar against terrorism. Does this require getting Osama binLaden? Most Americans say it does.CHENEY: Well, we clearly want to get Osama bin Laden, andwe expect to get him. I think eventually there's noquestion we will run him to ground. The point we've triedto make, though, is that this is not just about Osama binLaden. He's the focal point because of what happened on 9-11, because it was his organization.But what we really have here is a worldwide terroristnetwork. In the al Qaeda organization alone, it may be insome 65 to 70 countries. We had upwards of 100,000terrorists trained in those camps in Afghanistan, andthey're out there now, and we've uncovered in recent weeks,thanks to the efforts of the intelligence community and ourlaw enforcement people, cells in--not only here in theU.S., obviously, that did the act on 9-11, but also in theU.K., in Spain and Italy and Singapore, in Malaysia andIndonesia and the Philippines. It's a very widespreadnetwork.And it's going to...DONALDSON: But must we get Osama bin Laden?CHENEY: ... it's going to be there whether or not we getbin Laden. And we want bin Laden, and I think we will gethim, but I'm more concerned about disrupting all of theseterrorist cells out there. Bin Laden by"himself isn't thatbig a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwideorganization of terror is a threat. We're going to go afterhim, but we're also after the network.DONALDSON: So you would agree with Secretary Rumsfeld whenhe says we can be successful without getting bin Laden.CHENEY: I think we can probably prevent future attacksagainst the United States even if we don't get bin Laden. Iwant bin Laden because of what he did on 9-11.DONALDSON: You know, the president in his radio addressalso repeated something that he said before, and that isthat America must not rest until every terrorist group witha global reach has been defeated.

0003321 0


11/19

What does v vglobal reach 1 1 mean? Mr. Vice President, aswe've seen, anyone who can get on an airplane or cross theborder on foot has a global reach.CHENEY: Well, in a sense, what it means, Sam, is that thecapacity of these organizations to train people in thespecial skills and talents needed is an integral part ofit. Some kind of logistics network that allows them totravel, provides them financing, that can move them fromplace to place around the globe, access to weapons, maybeweapons of mass destruction, all of those things add to thenature of the threat.DONALDSON: Well, except for weapons of mass destruction,the IRA fits the description that you've just given.CHENEY: The IRA has not operated against the United Statesat this point...DONALDSON: So that's the key, sir.CHENEY: ... they'rewell, that's...DONALDSON: The people who attack the United States, ourinterests.CHENEY: That's our first priority, that's our firstobligation, obviously, as a government is to defend theUnited States of America.But what we find is, a lot of these are knitted together.In fact, there will be on occasion alliances of mutualconvenience. You'll see terrorist organizations, groupsworking together temporarily, perhaps, on a particularproject.So we need to root out all aspects of terror that we canget our hands on on a worldwide basis. . .DONALDSON: Without the.. .

CHENEY: ... so...DONALDSON: Excuse me, sir. Without belaboring the point,and you're not really saying that we have to go after, forinstance, FARC and Marulanda in Colombia, the Tamils in SriLanka, every single organization that has been branded.

0003331 1


12/19

CHENEY: You know, some are tougher than others, some arebigger threats than others, some have more of a globalreach than focus on a specific local situation. But I wouldargue, for example, FARC in Colombia is certainly aregional problem for us, they are...DONALDSON: So we go after FARC?CHENEY: Well, we're--we've worked very closely with theColombian government. We've provided a lot of money, a lotof training, a lot of equipment already to try to help themcope with that terrorist threat that FARC represents.DONALDSON: Let's talk about a man that's been labeled aterrorist by the state of Israel and others for decades,Yasser Arafat. Now, there's a story this past week thatsome Washington officials centered in your office,according to the story in The Washington Post, want tobreak ties with Yasser Arafat. True?CHENEY: That's not the complete story. And the situationhas been that Arafat made certain undertakings when he wassort of let back into Israel, Palestinian, if you will,enter into the peace process. He promised to renounceviolence, give up terrorism.What has happened is that we've been deeply disappointed byhis inability or his unwillingness to control the terroristthreat launching from Palestine against Israeli civilians.We. . .DONALDSON: Do you think we should break ties?CHENEY: ... we've had--I'll come to that in a second. We'vehad another attack this morning, over 100 people injured inJerusalem by a suicide bomber.DONALDSON: May have been a woman.CHENEY: I don't know who it was. But we're not going to geta handle on the peace process until somebody gets controlof those terrorist activities, and that's Yasser Arafat'sresponsibility. He has not fulfilled thoseresponsibilities.The other thing he's done, of course, is we've just seenevidence that he was involved in this Korine A shipment, aneffort to import by ship 50 tons of weapons...

1 2 000334


13/19

DONALDSON: He denied it...CHENEY: ... from Iran.DONALDSON: ... in a letter to the president of the UnitedStates.CHENEY: We don't believe him.DONALDSON: He's a liar.CHENEY: We don't believe him. He has been implicated now inan operation that puts him working with a terroristorganization, Hezbollah, and Iran, a state that's devotedto torpedoing the peace process. So he has not lived up tohis commitments and his obligations.

Now, he has--up to now, he's the representative of thePalestinian people, and we would like very much to see himfulfill his obligations and his commitments so we can getthe peace process back on track.DONALDSON: I apologize for interrupting you, but you saidyou then would come to my question. Do you think we shouldbreak ties with him?CHENEY: I--at this point I've got views on those subjectsthat I reserve from conversations with the president. Idon't talk about what I advise the president, Sam.DONALDSON: This town, to quote Cokie,"ih talking about whatwe perceive, that would almost confirm it.CHENEY: No, I wouldn't--! don't think I've confirmed it atall. I have never talked about the advice I give thepresident.DONALDSON: All right.Now, there's a story that the Pentagon wants to set up ahome command with a four-star general, a CINC here for theUnited States, always resisted in the factin the past onthe grounds that U.S. military probably should not getinvolved in law enforcement.CHENEY: Right.

0003351 3


14/19

DONALDSON: But is this a good idea now?CHENEY: I think it is. The problem we've got now, ofcourse, changed dramatically on September 11 with theterrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon. And when youmarry up that vulnerability with worldwide terroristnetworks, with the possible use of weapons of massdestruction, of a nuclear or a biological or a chemicalweapon of some kind, then you have the kind of impact onthe United States that clearly is going to require militaryinvolvement to deal with the consequences of that sort ofan attack.And we've got a lot of--the military's got a lot ofresources that would automatically be drawn upon were thatkind of eventuality to occur. And having a command, a CINC,if you will, a commander in chief on a regional basisresponsible for the U.S., I think makes sense, I think it'sa good idea.DONALDSON: Well, the CINC would be responsible for U.S.troops, for the National Guard.

" "\ CHENEY: Right.

DONALDSON: But what about law enforcement officers, statepatrols, for instance?

CHENEY: Well, the--this would not involve law enforcementofficers. Justice Department's still going to be the leadthere, and the FBI, your local first responders are goingto be crucial, just as they've always been.The point is, though, that in a major crisis in the U.S.,that an organization that's got uniformed troops, peoplewho will follow orders, medical facilities, transportationcapabilities, et cetera, is the U.S. military. And youwould want to mobilize those forces to help deal with acrisis.And one of the things we've learned over the years, it'svery important to have integrity in the chain of command,to have a unified command, you know who's in charge, who'sgot command of the troops, who can give the orders to makethings happen, and establishing a U.S. CINC, if you will, I\kis a good idea.

00033614


15/19

. DONALDSON: John Walker Lindh, the American who fought withthe Taliban, came to a hearing in Alexandria this past weekto hear the charges against him, not to plea or to have abail bond hearing, that'll come later.But his lawyer clearly set up the idea that when he signeda waiver of his desire to have a lawyer and his fullknowledge that anything he said would be used against him,he really wasn't of sound mind, and it was really coercion.Here's a little of what James Brosnahan said.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)BROSNAHAN: He began requesting a lawyer almost immediately,which would have been December 2 or 3 . For 54 days, he washeld incommunicado.(END VIDEO CLIP)

. DONALDSON: He was held incommunicado while beingquestioned. Lawyer have a point?\:Well, I don't know the specifics, obviously, of

J what transpired in Afghanistan. We do know that he wascaptured with the Taliban, that he was at Mazar-i-Sharif,where prisoners rioted and staged a major battle, whereU.S. personnel were killed, Mike Spann, who worked for theCIA, and he was captured within that context.I think he has been treated appropriately up till now. Thequestion of his fate is now a legal matter. It's going tobe adjudicated in court. He'll be allowed to exercise hisrights as an American citizen. I'm sure he'll be treatedfairly and appropriately.What the outcome will be, I don't know. It's really amatter that I can't get into and shouldn't get into. We'llhave to wait and see what the...DONALDSON: Let me ask you...CHENEY: ... the court (inaudible)...DONALDSON: . . . about something you just said. Judging frome-mails and all of the evidence you can see, there are

;| many, many Americans who say, This man is a traitor, and he

i s 000337


16/19

is not entitled, he's not entitled to the safeguards that anormal American citizen would be entitled to in a court.How would you respond to that?CHENEY: I would disagree. I don't like what he did, or isalleged to have done, shall we say. But the fact of thematter is, he's an American citizen and he's entitled to betreated in accordance with our Constitution and our Bill ofRights, and he will be.DONALDSON: Then why aren't the prisoners at Guantanamo andelsewhere entitled to be treated under the GenevaConvention? It's not just their humane treatment. I thinkthere have been several groups go down there that havereported that they are not being mistreated.CHENEY: They are being treated humanely.

DONALDSON: Humanely. But that they should under the GenevaConvention. There's a story that the secretary of state isreally arguing this point.CHENEY: Well, it's an interesting issue, Sam. Everybody inthe administration, including my good friend Colin Powell,agree these are not POWs in the conventional sense,prisoners of war, that they are...DONALDSON: Why not?

DONALDSON: ... they are--they're unlawful combatants. Theydon't meet the re_quirement of the laws of war. They targetcivilians. That's a violation of the laws of war. Theydon't war uniforms, they don't come in as representativesof the army of a state and satisfy the requirements thatare in the Geneva Convention.Geneva Convention applies specifically to war betweenstates. There are provisions in there that apply to civilwars. But there's a real question about whether or not theGeneva Convention, as a convention, can be interpreted toapply to the new situation we're faced with, where we'vegot terrorist attacks on the United States aimed atkilling...DONALDSON: Will you continue to... ^^ ^_000338CHENEY: ... (inaudible)...

16


17/19

DONALDSON: ... discuss whether they should have theserights, even if you do not call them prisoners of war?CHENEY: No, I--the legal question is, there is a categoryunder the Geneva Convention for unlawful combatants, andone argument, the State Department argument, is, they oughtto be treated within the Geneva Convention but under thatconvention deemed unlawful combatants, and therefore not--they don't extend to the rights of a prisoner of war.The other argument is, the Geneva Convention doesn't applyin the case of terrorism, and that leads you down adifferent track from a legal standpoint.The ultimate result is, they will be treated humanely, butthey are not going to be accorded the treatment you wouldaccord, for example, the Iraqis that we captured in theGulf War, who were treateda prisoner of war, for example,has to give only name, rank, and serial number.These are bad people. I mean, they've already been screenedbefore they get to Guantanamo. They may will have

~\n about future terrorist attacks against theI United States. We need that information, we need to be able

to interrogate them and extract from them whateverinformation they have.And those--so there are very good reasons why they're beingtreated...DONALDSON: I'm now stealing prodigious amounts of time from"our next section...CHENEY: All right.DONALDSON: . . . but I have to ask you one final question. . .CHENEY: Yes, sir.DONALDSON: ... before I get to the end. And that is, nowthe military, the Pentagon has said that female militarypersonnel in the United States and Saudi Arabia do not haveto wear the full head-to-toe abayah (ph) when they gooffbase. But they have to ride in the backseat of avehicle, and they still cannot go offbase unlessaccompanied by a man. 000339

17


18/19

Doesn't it make sense to lift those restrictions?CHENEY: Well, why dont' you direct that question to my goodfriend Don Rumsfeld. He's the...DONALDSON: I'm directing it to you, sir.CHENEY: Well..(LAUGHTER)We've made progress. Don made the ruling that the abayah(ph) should go, that that wasn't appropriate. Now, whatother restrictions are still...DONALDSON: Well, if you were a woman in the militaryfighting for your country, would you think that you shouldbe allowed to go off base, if you conduct yourselfproperly, without being accompanied by...CHENEY: The issue at the moment was this question of theabayah (ph), and there we've clearly lifted thatrestriction and moved in an enlightened direction. And I'msure, if further movements justify it, Secretary Rumsfeldwill provide it.^DONALDSON: All right. Mr. Vice President, GeorgeStephanopoulos went to the Midwest, to the Chicago area,and talked to some American voters about their concerns.What is your sense of what American voters are concernedabout today?CHENEY: Well, I think there is still great concern outthere about the war, the importance of defending the nationand wrapping up the terrorists. I think there is greatconcern as well about the economy, about the importance forus to respond aggressively to the economic problems thathave been occasioned by the terrorist attacks.We were already in a recession. The attack of 9-11 made itworse, deepened it, prolonged it. And we need to doeverything we can to end it as quickly as possible.And in the final analysis, and the president has spent alot of time on this in his State of the Union speech, weneed to make sure we do everything necessary to guaranteejobs for all Americans in the future prosperity of this 000340

18


19/19

country. And my guess is that's very much on their minds,too.

DONALDSON: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much forbeing with us today. Hope you will come back.CHENEY: Thank you, Sam.

000341

19

NY B9 Farmer Misc- WH 1 of 3 Fdr- 1-27-02 Sam Donaldson-Cokie Roberts-This Week-ABC Interview of...

Documents

Transcript of NY B9 Farmer Misc- WH 1 of 3 Fdr- 1-27-02 Sam Donaldson-Cokie Roberts-This Week-ABC Interview of...