|
"I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy
did when he sought the presidency."
- Republican Senator Dan Quayle in the Quayle/Bentson
Debates - 1988
"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy.
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
- Democrat Senator Lloyd Bentson in the Quayle/Bentson
Debates - 1988
October 6th, 2004
This is the transcript of the Cheney/Edwards
debate. And BOY! DID IT GET NASTY!! I have taken the liberty
of publishing the transcript for you and linking the questions.
- Opening from Gwen Ifill
- The report you (Cheney) requested
said there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
- Would a Kerry-Edwards administration
have left Saddam Hussein in power?
- Your plan for bin Laden and
other terrorists?
- What did Kerry say about "global
test"?
- Is Cheney saying a Kerry presidency
would be dangerous?
- Is it naive to try to internationalize
Iraq effort?
- Can any administration get
accurate intelligence on terrorism?
- Should sanctions be lifted
against Iran?
- What should be done to end
Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
- What will your administration
do to ease joblessness and poverty?
- Can Kerry guarantee not to
raise taxes and cut the deficit?
- How can Cheney support Bush
administration's ban on same-sex unions?
- What is Kerry and Edwards'
stance on gay marriage?
- Has John Edwards, a former
trial lawyer, been part of the problem of higher medical costs?
- Is Edwards being personally
attacked when Cheney talks about legal reform and the president
talks about a trial lawyer?
- What can the government do
about AIDS?
- What qualifies Edwards to
be vice president?
- Without mentioning [the presidential
candidates] by name, how are you different from the other
vice presidential candidate?
- Is changing positions bad?
- How can the divisions in the United States be bridged?
- Closing Statements
IFILL: 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 Qaeda 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?
The report you requested said there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
CHENEY: 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. 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 Qaeda. 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.
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.
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: 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. 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.
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.
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.
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: 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 Qaeda
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.
Would a Kerry-Edwards administration have left Saddam Hussein in power?
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 Qaeda, 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 Qaeda and Osama bin
Laden. 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 Qaeda 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. 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 Qaeda.
Your plan for bin Laden and other terrorists?
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 Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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. Schools are open. Young girls are going
to school. Women are going to vote. Women are even eligible
to run for office. This is major, major progress. There will
be democracy in Afghanistan, make no doubt about it. Freedom
is the best antidote to terror.
IFILL: Senator Edwards: You have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Someone did get it wrong. But
it wasn't John Kerry and John Edwards. They got it wrong. When
we had Osama bin Laden cornered, they left the job to the Afghan
warlords. They then diverted their attention from the very people
who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror,
and so Osama bin Laden is still at large. Now, I want to go
back to something the vice president said just a minute ago,
because these distortions are continuing. He said that -- made
mention of this global test. What John Kerry said -- and it's
just as clear as day to anybody who was listening -- he said:
We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before
they ever do harm to the American people, first. We will keep
this country safe. He defended this country as a young man,
he will defend this country as president of the United States.
He also said very clearly that he will never give any country
veto power over the security of the United States of America.
Now, I know the vice president would like to pretend that wasn't
said, and the president would too. But the reality is it was
said. Here's what's actually happened in Afghanistan, regardless
of this rosy scenario that they paint on Afghanistan, just like
they do with Iraq. What's actually happened is they're now providing
75 percent of the world's opium. Not only are they providing
75 percent of the world's opium, large-cut parts of the country
are under the control of drug lords and warlords. Big parts
of the country are still insecure. And the reality is the part
of Afghanistan, eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is,
is one of the hardest places to control and the most insecure,
Gwen.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 30 seconds.
CHENEY: Twenty years ago we had a similar
situation in El Salvador. We had -- guerrilla insurgency controlled
roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held
free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the
Congress. The human drive for freedom, the determination of
these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would
come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the
voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied
the right to vote. And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot
better because we held free elections. The power of that concept
is enormous. And it will apply in Afghanistan, and it will apply
as well in Iraq.
EDWARDS: The vice president just said
that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has
moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more
dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has
moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from
one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons.
This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for
lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of
terrorism on the planet. It's a mistake. We should not only
not lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions.
What did Kerry say about "global test"?
IFILL: New question
to you, Senator Edwards, but I don't want to let go of the global
test question first, because ... I want people to understand
exactly what it is, as you said, that Senator Kerry did say.
He said, "You've got to do" -- you know, 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?
EDWARDS: Well, let me say, first, he said
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 are using force and what
the explanation for it is. And 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 the world -- of 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're
seeing the consequences of that right now. It's one of the reasons
that we're having so much difficulty getting others involved
in the effort in Iraq. You know, we've taken 90 percent of the
coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent
of the costs 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 up 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.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90
seconds to respond.
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've
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 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 of 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.
EDWARDS: May I respond briefly? 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 have created a haven for terrorists.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30
seconds.
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.
Is Cheney saying a Kerry presidency would be dangerous?
IFILL: Mr. Vice President,
a new question for you. 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?
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've questioned
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 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,
to 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 anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they
would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean
represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al Qaeda?
IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds
to respond.
EDWARDS: 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 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 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 in 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
a plan to win the peace. We also thought it was wrong to have
a $20 billion fund out of which $7.5 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.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30
seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, 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.
IFILL: And 30 seconds...
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.
Is it naive to try to internationalize Iraq effort?
IFILL: Senator Edwards,
new question to you, and you have two minutes to respond. Part
of what you have said and Senator Kerry has said that you are
going to do 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?
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 --
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 into 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 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 they keep saying
the election's 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.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90
seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it's hard to know
where to start; there are 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. You 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 -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the
sacrifice of our allies when 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 contributions and our sacrifice and pledged
to hold those elections 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.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, 30 seconds.
EDWARDS: 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 cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers.
It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count
the sacrifice and the contribution of 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 sacrifices strikes me as...
EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...
CHENEY: ... as beyond...
EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...
CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...
EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...
CHENEY: ... somehow 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 the take on responsibility for their own security,
which they increasingly are doing.
Can any administration get accurate intelligence on terrorism?
IFILL: New question,
similar topic, because I want to circle back to a question which
I'm not quite certain we got an answer to. But I will
direct it to you first, Senator Edwards. It's a question of
American intelligence. If this report that we've read about
today is true, and if Vice President Cheney ordered it and asked
about this, do you think that, in the future, that your administration
or the Bush administration would have sufficient and accurate
enough intelligence to be able to make decisions about where
to go next?
EDWARDS: Well, let me speak, first of
all, to what the vice president just said, and then I'll answer
that question. This, unfortunately -- what the vice president
is telling people is inconsistent with everything they see every
single day. It's a continuation of, "Well, there's a strong
connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." It's not
true. It's a continuation of at least insinuating that there's
some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It's not true.
It's saying to the American people, as the president said last
Thursday, and the vice president continues to say tonight, that
things are going well in Iraq, contrary to what people who have
been there have seen, including Republican leaders, contrary
to what everyone in America sees on their television every day
-- Americans being kidnapped, people being beheaded, parts of
the country under the control of insurgents, even today, under
the control of the insurgents. The vice president has still
not said anything about what Mr. Bremer said, about the failure
to have adequate troops, the failure to be able to secure the
country in the short term. You know, remember "shock and
awe"? Look at where we are now. It is a direct result of
the failure to plan, the failure to have others involved in
this effort. This is not an accident.
Now, let me go back to your question. If we want
to do the things that need to be done to keep this country safe,
we can't be dragged kicking and screaming to it. One thing that
everybody does agree on is that 9/11 did change things. But
what's happened is this administration opposed the creation
of a 9/11 Commission to find out why it happened and what we
needed to do. They opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland
Security, and then they were for it. We can't react that way.
We must be more aggressive. With John Kerry as president of
the United States, we are committed to immediately implementing
all of the reforms suggested by the 9/11 Commission, so that
we have the information we need to find terrorists and crush
them before hey hurt us.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Gwen, the story that appeared
today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot
of questions as part of my job as vice president. A CIA spokesman
was quoted in that story as saying they had not yet reached
the bottom line and there is still debate over this question
of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The
report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people
were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released,
supposedly at the request of Zarqawi But let's look at what
we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist
camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know
that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to
Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons
facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing
ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still
in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car
bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's
the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages.
He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question,
a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and
he's in Baghdad now after the war. The fact of the matter is
that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over
the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and
that's exactly what we'll do.
Should sanctions be lifted against Iran?
IFILL: Mr. Vice President,
in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you
said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with
Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never
work." After four years as vice president now, and
with Iran having been declared by your administration as part
of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we
should lift sanctions on Iran?
CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the
time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral
sanctions. What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions
is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move
in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any
impact, except to penalize American companies. We've got sanctions
on Iran now. We may well want to go to the U.N. Security Council
and ask for even tougher sanctions if they don't live up to
their obligations under the initial -- International Atomic
Energy Agency Non-Proliferation Treaty. We dealt with Iran differently
than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did,
violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council.
We're working with the Brits and the Germans and the French,
who've been negotiating with the Iranians. We recently were
actively involved in a meeting with the board of governors in
the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there
will be a follow-up meeting in November to determine whether
or not Iran's living up to their commitments and obligations.
And if they aren't, my guess is then the board of governors
will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security
Council for the application of the international sanctions,
which I think would be exactly the right way to go. We're addressing
North Korea on a similar basis, working with the Chinese, the
South Koreans, the Japanese and others to try to bring them
around. One of the great by-products, for example, of what we
did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured
Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced
that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials
to the United States, which he has done. This was one of the
biggest sources of proliferation in the world today in terms
of the threat that was represented by that. The suppliers network
that provided that, headed by Mr. A.Q. Khan, has been shut down.
We've made major progress in dealing here with a major issue
with respect to nuclear proliferation. And we'll continue to
press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well.
IFILL: Senator Edwards?
EDWARDS: Well, the vice president talks
about there being a member, or someone associated with al Qaeda,
in Iraq. There are 60 countries who have members of al Qaeda
in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?
Not only that, he talks about Iran. The reality about Iran is
that Iran has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program
on their watch. They ceded responsibility to dealing with it
to the Europeans. Now, the vice president, as you pointed out,
spoke out loudly for lifting the sanctions on Iraq. John Kerry
and I believe we need to strengthen the sanctions on Iraq, including
closing the loophole that allows companies to use a subsidiary,
offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran. I mentioned
Halliburton a few minutes ago in connection with the $87 billion,
and you raised it in this question. This is relevant, because
he was pushing for lifting sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton.
Here's why we didn't think Halliburton should have a no-bid
contract. While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions
of dollars in fines for providing false information on their
company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with
Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're
now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials
during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a
$7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of
their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done,
because they're under investigation, they've continued to get
their money.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's
going to take more than 30 seconds.
IFILL: Well, that's all you've got.
(LAUGHTER)
CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning
Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen.
They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for
example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored
by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific
details with respect to Halliburton. It's an effort that they've
made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions,
but there's no substance to the charges.
IFILL: Thirty seconds.
EDWARDS: These are the facts. The facts
are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did
business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions
of dollars in fines for providing false financial information,
it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The
same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule
is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when
they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged
the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their
money. I'm happy to let voters make their own decision about
this.
What should be done to end Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
IFILL: Senator Edwards,
as we wrap up the foreign policy part of this, I do want to
talk to you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today,
a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have
been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks,
all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems
absent in the peace-making process. What would your administration
do? First of all, do you agree that the United States is absent?
Maybe you don't. But what would your administration do to try
to resolve that conflict?
EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree
that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely
absent from the peace-making process over the last four years.
And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then
talk about where we are now. First, the Israeli people not only
have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves.
They have an obligation to defend themselves. I mean, if I can,
just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem
a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of
2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning,
headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found
out that that same day, not far from where we were staying,
the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem.
Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed. What are
the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to
watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by
terrorists? They have not only the right to the obligation to
defend themselves. Now, we know that the prime minister has
made a decision, an historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw
from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping
with that process. Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for
attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel
has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for
peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat,
and they need a legitimate partner for peace. And I might add,
it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis
who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism
since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation
in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to
the Israeli people.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Gwen, I want to go back to the
last comment, and then I'll come back to Israel-Palestine. The
reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they
want to obscure their own record. And Senator, frankly, you
have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've
missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost
70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've
missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare
reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator
Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in
the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president,
I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up
in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first
time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the
suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein,
who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally
think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide
attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because
Saddam is no longer in business. We've been strong supporters
of Israel. The president stepped forward and put in place a
policy basically that said we will support the establishment
of two states. First president ever to say we'll establish and
support a Palestinian state next door to Israelis. But first,
there has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with.
And we won't have that, we don't have it now, in a Yasser Arafat.
There has to be reform of the Palestinian system.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, it's your turn
to use 30 seconds for a complicated response...
EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion
of my record. I know that won't come as a shock. The vice president,
I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one
of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10
to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning
plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted
against the Department of Education. He voted against funding
for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday
for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling
for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing
to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.
IFILL: Thirty seconds.
CHENEY: Oh, I think his record speaks
for itself. And frankly, it's not very distinguished.
What will your administration do to ease joblessness and poverty?
IFILL: In that case,
we'll move on to domestic matters. And this question, I believe,
goes to Senator -- to Vice President Cheney. The Census
Bureau...
CHENEY: I think it goes to Senator Edwards.
IFILL: It goes to the Senator. I see you.
I just asked him about Israel, even though we didn't actually
talk about it much.
CHENEY: I concede the point.
(LAUGHTER)
EDWARDS: No, I did talk about it, Israel.
He's the one who didn't talk about it.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, the Census
Bureau ranked Cleveland as the biggest poor city in the country,
31 percent jobless rate. You two gentlemen are pretty well off.
You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can
you tell the people of Cleveland, or people of cities like Cleveland,
that your administration will do to better their lives?
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, there are several
things that I think need to be done and are being done. We've,
of course, been through a difficult recession, and then the
aftermath of 9/11, where we lost over a million jobs after that
attack. But we think the key is to address some basic, fundamental
issues that the president's already working on. I think probably
the most successful thing we can do with respect to ending poverty
is to get people jobs. There's no better antidote to poverty
than a good, well-paying job that allows somebody to take care
of their own family. To do that, we have to make America the
best place in the world to do business. And that means we've
got to deal effectively with tax policy. We've got to reduce
the litigation costs that are built into our society. We've
got to provide the adequate medical care and make certain that
we can, in fact, create the opportunities that are vital to
that process. I'd zero in, in particular, on education. I think
the most important thing we can do is have a first-class public
school system. I'm a product of public schools. And the president,
his first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind
Act. It was the first piece of legislation we introduced. We
got it passed that first summer on a bipartisan basis. We even
had Ted Kennedy on board for the effort. And it does several
things. It establishes high standards. It, at the same time,
sets up a system of testing with respect to our school system,
so we can establish accountability to parents and make certain
that they understand how well their students are doing. And
they have the opportunity to move students out of poorly performing
schools to good schools. It strikes me that that is absolutely
the heart of what needs to be done from the standpoint of education.
It's also important, as we go forward in the next term, we want
to be able to take what we've done for elementary education
and move it into the secondary education. It's working. We've
seen reports now of a reduction in the achievement gap between
majority students and minority students. We're making significant
progress.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Gwen, your question was about
jobs?
IFILL: It was about jobs, and it was about
poverty.
EDWARDS: I thought it was about jobs and
poverty. I hope we get a chance to talk about education, but
that's what the vice president talked about. Here's what's happened:
In the time that they have been in office, in the last four
years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million
manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real consequences
in places like Cleveland. Cleveland is a wonderful, distinguished
city that's done a lot of great things, but it has the highest
poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children
in Cleveland are now living in poverty. During the time that
the vice president and the president have been in office, 4
million more Americans have fallen into poverty. During the
time that the vice president and the president have been in
office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty. And
what the most striking and startling thing is, they are the
first presidency in 70 years -- and I'm talking Democrats, Republican,
presidents who led us through World war, through the Korean
War, the Vietnam War, Cold War -- every one of them created
jobs until this president. We have to do better. We have a plan.
We're going to get rid of -- by the way, they're for outsourcing
jobs. I want to make sure people hear that, the fundamental
difference with us. The administration says over and over that
the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We're
against it. We want to get rid of tax cuts for companies sending
jobs overseas. We want to balance this budget, get back to fiscal
responsibility. And we want to invest in the creative, innovative
jobs of the future.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Gwen, we've got 111 million American
taxpayers that have benefited from our income tax cuts. We've
got 33 million students who've benefited from No Child Left
Behind. We've got 40 million seniors who benefited from the
reform of the Medicare system. The Democrats promised prescription
drug benefits. For years they've run on that platform. They
never got it done. The president got it done. We also dropped
5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls, so
they no longer have to pay any federal income tax at all. So
the story, I think, is a good one. And the data he's using is
old data. It's from 2003. It doesn't include any of the gains
that we've made in the last years. We've added 1.7 million jobs
to the economy.
IFILL: Thirty seconds.
EDWARDS: The vice president and president
like to talk about their experience on the campaign trail. Millions
of people have lost their jobs. Millions have fallen into poverty.
Family incomes are down, while the cost of everything is going
up. Medical costs are up the highest they've ever been over
the last four years. We have this mess in Iraq. Mr. Vice President,
I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind
of experience.
Can Kerry guarantee not to raise taxes and cut the deficit?
IFILL: This next question
goes to you, Senator Edwards. Senator Kerry said in a
recent interview that he absolutely will not raise taxes on
anyone under -- who earns under $200,000 a year. How can he
guarantee that and also cut the deficit in half, as he's promised?
EDWARDS: Because we will do what they've
not done. You know, if you look at what's happened over the
last four years, we have gone from a $5 trillion projected surplus
when George Bush took office to a $3 trillion projected deficit.
They promised they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus
aside from Social Security. Not done. Not only that, it's the
biggest fiscal turnaround in American history. And there's no
end in sight. The Washington Post just reported they have several
trillion dollars of additional tax cuts and spending, no suggestion
of what they're going to do about it. John Kerry and I believe
we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of debt
to our children and our grandchildren. So here's what we're
going to do, to answer you question. To pay for the things that
we believe need to be done -- and I hope to get the chance to
talk about health care and also about education, because we
have plans on both of those subjects -- what we're going to
do is roll back tax cuts. And I want everyone to hear this,
because there have been exaggerations made on the campaign trail:
Roll back tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year;
we will do that. We want to keep the tax cuts that are in place
for people who make less than $200,000 a year and give additional
tax cuts to those middle-class families, tax cuts for health
care, tax cuts to help families pay for their college tuition,
tax cuts for child care. These families are struggling and hurting,
and they need more tax relief, not less tax relief. But to help
get us back on the path to a balanced budget, we also want to
get rid of some of the bureaucratic spending in Washington.
One of the amazing things that's happened is they've actually
layered on more supervisory people, people at the supervisory
level, in this government. We also want to close some corporate
loopholes. Now, I want to be honest with people. We can't eliminate
this deficit. People have heard that over and over and over
in four years. We cannot do it. We're in too deep a hole. But
we can cut the deficit in half. And if we move, we can move
this country back on a path to fiscal responsibility.
IFILL: You have 90 seconds, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: Gwen, the Kerry record on taxes
is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases
-- 98 times in the United States Senate. There's a fundamental
philosophical difference here between the president and myself,
who believe that we ought to let the American people keep more
of what they earn and we ought to empower them to have more
control over their own lives -- I think the Kerry-Edwards approach
basically is to raise taxes and to give government more control
over the lives of individual citizens. We think that's the wrong
way to go. There's a fundamental difference of opinion here.
They talk about the top bracket and going after only those people
in the top bracket. Well, the fact of the matter is a great
many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income
taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small
businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want
to do with the top bracket. That's not smart because seven out
of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses. You
do not want to tax them. It's a bad idea to increase the burden
on those folks. The senator himself said, during the course
of the primaries, that the Kerry plan would drive us deeper
into deficit. Those were the senator's word about his running-mate.
The fact of the matter is, the president and I will go forward
to make the tax cuts permanent. That's good policy. That's what
we ought to do. But with fiscal restraint, we'll also drive
the deficit down 50 percent in the course of the next five years.
IFILL: Thirty seconds, Senator Edwards.
EDWARDS: We are committed to cutting back
anything in our programs that need to be cut back to get us
back on a path to fiscal responsibility. John Kerry, Mr. Vice
President, has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts
for the American people -- over 600 times. And there is a philosophical
difference between us and them. We are for more tax cuts for
the middle class than they're for, have been for the last four
years. But we are not for more tax cuts for multimillionaires.
They are. And it is a fundamental difference in what we think
needs to be done in this country.
IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: Yesterday, the president signed
an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket,
the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax
credit. Senators Kerry and Edwards weren't even there to vote
for it when it came to final passage.
How can Cheney support Bush administration's ban on same-sex unions?
IFILL: The next question
goes to you, Mr. Vice President. I want to read something
you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom
means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently
when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you
used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional
ban on same-sex unions?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years
ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and
I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody.
People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want.
It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question
from the issue of whether or not government should sanction
or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will,
to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue
for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will.
That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that
in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California,
but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court
direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify
their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that
the president felt that it was important to make it clear that
that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Now, he
sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an
issue that the vice president said in his last answer before
we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country
needs to know that under what they have put in place and want
to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool,
collecting their statements to see how much money they're making,
make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than
the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on
the ground in Iraq. Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry
and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We
value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference
between them and us.
Now, as to this question, let me say first that
I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter.
I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything
but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about
the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace
her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents
like that who love their children, who want their children to
be happy. And I believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should
be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term,
committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution
to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has
ever had to recognize another state's marriage. This is using
the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.
What is Kerry and Edwards' stance on gay marriage?
IFILL: New question,
but same subject. As the vice president mentioned, John
Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken
as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage.
Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it. Are you trying
to have it both ways?
EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the
same thing all along. We both believe that -- and this goes
onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe
that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe
that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who
have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated
respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a
gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the
other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven
forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even
arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things
that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president
himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe
that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want
to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which
is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people
understand that the president is proposing a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state
has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let
me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would
not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts,
which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in
the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but
a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide
this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America
on. We ought to be talking about issues like health care and
jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide
this country in a way that's solely for political purposes.
It's wrong.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90
seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank
the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our
daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next
question.
Has John Edwards, a former trial lawyer, been part of the problem of higher medical costs?
IFILL: OK, then we'll
move on to the next question. This one is for you, Mr. Vice
President. President Bush has derided John Kerry for putting
a trial lawyer on the ticket. You yourself have said that lawsuits
are partly to blame for higher medical costs. Are you willing
to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of the
problem?
CHENEY: Well, Gwen...
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: First of all, I'm not familiar
with his cases. My concern is specifically with what's happened
to our medical care system because of rising malpractice insurance
rates, because we failed to adequately reform our medical liability
structure. I was in New Mexico the other day and met with a
group of OB/GYN docs. And they were deeply concerned because
they were fearful that there'd be another increase in malpractice
insurance rates as a result of what they believe are frivolous
lawsuits and that that would put them out of business. And one
doctor indicated that her rates have gone up so much that she's
now to the point where she is screening patients. She won't
take high-risk patients anymore because of the danger that that
will generate a lawsuit, and a lawsuit will put her out of business.
This has had a devastating impact in a lot of communities. My
home state of Wyoming, we've lost the top insurer of malpractice
insurance in the state. The rates for a general practitioner
have gone from $40,000 a year to $100,000 a year for an insurance
policy. We think this has a devastating impact on the quality
of health care. As I say, high risk patients don't get covered
anymore. We've lost one out of 11 OB/GYN practitioners in the
country. We think it can be fixed, needs to be fixed. Now, specifically,
what we need to do is cap non-economic damages, and we also
think you need to limit the awards that the trial attorneys
take out of all of this. Over 50 percent of the settlements
go to the attorneys and for administrating overhead. We passed
medical liability reform through the House of Representatives.
It's been blocked in the Senate. Senator Kerry's voted 10 times
against medical liability reform, and I don't believe Senator
Edwards supports it, either, not the kind that would be meaningful.
IFILL: Senator Edwards?
EDWARDS: Yes. Well let me say, first of
all, I'm proud of the work I did on behalf of kids and families
against big insurance companies, big drug companies and big
HMOs. We do have too many lawsuits. And the reality is there's
something that we can do about it. John Kerry and I have a plan
to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility
on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which
the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed
by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and
meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible
for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible
if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule
so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting
this requirement loses their right to file these cases. That
way we keep the cases out of the system that don't belong in
the system. They talk about frivolous cases. We believe cases
that don't belong in the system should never be in the system.
But we don't believe that we should take away the right of people
like Valerie Lakey, who was the young girl who I represented,
five years old, severely injured for life, on a defective swimming
pool drain cover. It turns out the company knew of 12 other
children who had either been killed or severely injured by the
same problem. They hid it. They didn't tell anybody. They could
have fixed it with a 2-cent screw. That's wrong. John Kerry
and I are always going to stand with the Valerie Lakeys of the
world, and not with the insurance companies.
Is Edwards being personally attacked when Cheney talks about legal reform and the president talks about a trial lawyer?
IFILL: Senator Edwards,
new question to you, same topic. Do you feel personally attacked
when Vice President Cheney talks about liability reform and
tort reform and the president talks about having a trial lawyer
on the ticket?
EDWARDS: Am I personally attacked? I think
the truth is that what they're doing is talking about an issue
that really doesn't have a great deal to do with what's happening
with medical policy in this country, which I think is a very
serious issue. And I would be the first to say that what the
vice president described a few minutes ago, problems with malpractice
premiums, that's true, it's real. It's very real. What doctors
talk about is very serious. And they're getting squeezed from
both sides. I mean, because, they have trouble getting reimbursed,
first of all, for the care that they provide, you know, from
the government or from health-care companies. And, on the flip
side, their malpractice costs are going up. That's very real,
which is why we have proposed a plan to keep cases out of the
system that don't belong there. But it's very important to put
this in context. Because, in context, everything they're proposing,
according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, amounts
to about half of 1 percent of health-care costs in this country
-- half of 1 percent. We have double-digit inflation in health
care costs. We've seen the largest rise in medical costs in
the last four years in the country's history: $3,500 nationally.
And nobody who's watching this debate needs me to explain this
to them. They know it. Medicare premiums are up 17 percent on
their watch. Again, largest increase in Medicare premiums in
the history of Medicare. We think we have a plan to keep cases
that don't belong in the system out, but we also do what they
haven't done. Five million Americans have lost their health
care coverage. Medical costs are skyrocketing. We have a serious
health care plan to bring down costs for everybody, to cover
millions more Americans and to actually stand up to drug companies
and insurance companies which this administration has been unwilling
to do.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Gwen, we think lawsuit abuse is
a serious problem in this country. We think we badly need tort
reform. I was in Minnesota the other day, where I visited an
aircraft manufacturing plant. It's a great success story. This
is a company that started 20 years ago with nothing. Today they're
the second- leading producer of piston-driven aircraft in the
country. He told me that if it weren't for the increased cost
of his liability insurance, in this case product liability,
he could hire 200 more people in his factory. We've built into
the system enormous costs as a result of our practice with respect
to litigation. We have to find ways to get a handle on it. He
mentioned Medicare up 17 percent, somehow that that was something
we caused. No. The 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums
was the direct result of a statute adopted in 1997. John Kerry
voted for it. It establishes the formula for Part B of Medicare
that says, in effect, it has to cover 25 percent of the cost
of the program. And the reason the money had to go into the
trust fund was to make certain that we could cover those eligible
for benefits. While you were in private practice in law and
as a senator, you had the advantage of a special tax loophole,
Subchapter S corporation, which you set up so you could avoid
paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes that would have gone into
the fund. And it's those kinds of loopholes that necessitate
a premium increase under the law that was enacted in 1997, supported
by John Kerry.
IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond.
EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I have paid
all the taxes that I owe. When the vice president was CEO of
Halliburton, they took advantage of every offshore loophole
available. They had multiple offshore companies that were avoiding
taxes. Those are the kind of things that ought to be closed.
They ought to be closed. They ought to be closed for anybody.
They ought to be closed whether they're personal, and they ought
to be closed whether they apply to a corporation. But the reality
is health care costs are going up every day for the American
people, and I hope we're going to get a chance to talk more
about health care.
IFILL: Thirty seconds, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: We've done a lot to reduce the
cost of health care. The Medicare drug benefit that we'll be
providing to seniors beginning in 2006 will provide upwards
to $1,300 a year to help them buy prescription drugs. The drug
savings -- drug discount card that's now available saves an
estimated 15 percent to 30 percent off the cost of prescription
drugs for senior citizens. So we're moving in as many areas
as we can to make certain we hold down and reduce the health
care costs.
What can the government do about AIDS?
IFILL: I will talk
to you about health care, Mr. Vice President. You have two minutes.
But in particular, I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not
about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country,
where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times
more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts. What
should the government's role be in helping to end the growth
of this epidemic?
CHENEY: Well, this is a great tragedy,
Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United
States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic -- pandemic,
really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing
a very bleak future. In some parts of the world, we've got the
entire, sort of, productive generation has been eliminated as
a result of AIDS, all except for old folks and kids -- nobody
to do the basic work that runs an economy. The president has
been deeply concerned about it. He has moved and proposed and
gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to
help in the international effort, to be targeted in those places
where we need to do everything we can, through a combination
of education as well as providing the kinds of medicines that
will help people control the infection. Here in the United States,
we've made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers
with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that
it was -- that they're in epidemic there, because we have made
progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection, and
I think primarily through a combination of education and public
awareness as well as the development, as a result of research,
of drugs that allow people to live longer lives even though
they are infected -- obviously we need to do more of that.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Well, first, with respect to
what's happening in Africa and Russia and in other places around
the world, the vice president spoke about the $15 billion for
AIDS. John Kerry and I believe that needs to be doubled. And
I might add, on the first year of their commitment, they came
up significantly short of what they had promised. And we probably
won't get a chance to talk about Africa. Let me just say a couple
of things. The AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is killing millions
and millions of people and is a frightening thing not just for
the people of Africa but also for the rest of the world, that,
combined with the genocide that we're now seeing in Sudan, are
two huge moral issues for the United States of America, which
John Kerry spoke about eloquently last Thursday night. Here
at home we need to do much more. And the vice president spoke
about doing research, making sure we have the drugs available,
making sure that we do everything possible to have prevention.
But it's a bigger question than that. You know, we have 5 million
Americans who've lost their health care coverage in the last
four years; 45 million Americans without health care coverage.
We have children who don't have health care coverage. If kids
and adults don't have access to preventative care, if they're
not getting the health care that they need day after day after
day, the possibility of not only developing AIDS and having
a problem -- having a problem -- a life-threatening problem,
but the problem of developing other life-threatening diseases
is there every day of their lives.
What qualifies Edwards to be vice president?
IFILL: OK, we'll move
on. This goes to you, Senator Edwards, and you have two minutes.
Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since
1976 to be vice president. Out of those 10, you have the least
governmental experience of any of them. What qualifies you to
be a heartbeat away?
EDWARDS: The American people want in their
president and in their vice president basically three things:
They want to know that their president and their vice president
will keep them safe. They want to know that they have good judgment.
And they want to know that you'll tell them the truth. John
Kerry and I will tell the American people the truth. During
the time that I have served on the Intelligence Committee in
the Senate, traveling to some of the places we've talked about
tonight -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Turkey --
meeting with the leaders of NATO, I have a very clear idea of
what has to be done to keep this country safe. The threats we
face: terrorism, killing terrorists and stopping them before
they can do damage to us, making sure that we stop the spread
of nuclear weapons. I agree with John Kerry from Thursday night,
that the danger of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of terrorists
is one of the greatest threats that America faces. But the one
thing that we know from this administration is -- and I -- first
of all, I don't claim to have the long political resume that
Vice President Cheney has. That's just the truth, and the American
people know that and deserve to know it. But what we know from
this administration is that a long resume does not equal good
judgment. Here are the judgments I would make: My first priority
would be to keep this country safe. I would find terrorists
where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm
to us. We would stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And we would
also strengthen this military, which means providing the equipment
and training that they need. We want to raise the active-duty
forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists
where they are, and provide the kind of support for families
-- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved
ones are serving and protecting us.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90
seconds.
CHENEY: You want me to answer a question
about his qualifications?
IFILL: That was the question.
CHENEY: I see. Well, I think the important
thing in picking a vice president probably varies from president
to president. Different presidents approach it in different
ways. When George Bush asked me to sign on, it obviously wasn't
because he was worried about carrying Wyoming. We got 70 percent
of the vote in Wyoming, although those three electoral votes
turned out to be pretty important last time around. What he
said he wanted me to do was to sign on because of my experience
to be a member of the team, to help him govern, and that's exactly
the way he's used me. And I think from the perspective of the
nation, it's worked in our relationship, in this administration.
I think it's worked in part because I made it clear that I don't
have any further political aspirations myself. And I think that's
been an advantage. I think it allows the president to know that
my only agenda is his agenda. I'm not worried about what some
precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect
to the next round of caucuses of 2008. It's a very significant
responsibility when you consider that at a moment's notice you
may have to take over as president of the United States and
make all of those decisions. It's happened several times in
our history. And I think that probably is the most important
consideration in picking a vice president, somebody who could
take over.
IFILL: You have 30 seconds, if you'd like
to respond to that.
EDWARDS: I think the most important thing
I've learned from this process is what I now know about John
Kerry. I knew him before. I know him better now. He's the one
candidate who's led troops in battle. He was a prosecutor, putting
people behind bars to protect neighborhoods from crime. He fought
for 100,000 cops on the street, and went with John McCain to
Vietnam to find out what happened to our POWs. And the American
people saw for themselves on Thursday night the strength, resolve,
and backbone that I, myself, have seen in John Kerry. He is
ready to be commander in chief.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30
seconds to respond.
CHENEY: Well, I clearly believe that George
W. Bush would be a better commander in chief. He's already done
it for four years. And he's demonstrated, without question,
the conviction, the vision, the determination to win this war
against terror. He understands it's a global conflict that reaches
from the United States all the way around the globe to Jakarta.
And those very special qualities are vital in a commander in
chief. And I think the president has them, and I'm not at all
convinced his opponent does.
Without mentioning [the presidential candidates] by name, how are you different from the other vice presidential candidate?
IFILL: Mr. Vice President,
picking up on that, you both just sang the praises of the tops
of your ticket. Without mentioning them by name at all, explain
to us why you are different from your opponent, starting with
you, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: Why I am different from John Edwards.
Well, in some respects, I think, probably there are more similarities
than there are differences in our personal story. I don't talk
about myself very much, but I've heard Senator Edwards, and
as I listen to him, I find some similarities. I come from relatively
modest circumstances. My grandfather never even went to high
school. I'm the first in my family to graduate from college.
I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers for six years. I've been laid off, been hospitalized
without health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems
that people encounter. So I think the personal stories are,
in some respects, surprisingly similar. With respect to how
we've spent our careers, I obviously made a choice for public
service. And I've been at it for a good long time now, except
for those periods when we lost elections. And that goes with
the turf, as well, too. I'm absolutely convinced that the threat
we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of
our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real and that we have
to use extraordinary measures to deal with it. I feel very strongly
that the significance of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. It forces
us to think in new ways about strategy, about national security,
about how we structure our forces and about how we use U.S.
military power. Some people say we should wait until we are
attacked before we use force. I would argue we've already been
attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl
Harbor. And I'm a very strong advocate of a very aggressive
policy of going after the terrorists and those who support terror.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked.
But we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein. And one thing that
John Kerry and I would agree with you about is that it is...
IFILL: You just used John Kerry's name.
EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. I broke the rule.
One thing that we agree about is the need to be offensive in
going after terrorists. The reality is that the best defense
is a good offense, which means leading -- America returning
to its proud tradition of the last 75 years, of once again leading
strong coalitions so we can get at these terrorist cells where
they are, before they can do damage to us and to the American
people. John Kerry made clear on Thursday night that -- I'm
sorry, I broke the rules. We made clear -- we made clear on
Thursday night that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively.
But there are things that need to be done to keep this country
safe that have not yet been done. For example, three years after
9/11, we find out that the administration still does not have
a unified terrorist watch list. It's amazing. Three years. What
are we waiting for? You know, we still don't have one list that
everyone can work off of to see if terrorists are entering this
country. We're screening our passengers going onto airplanes,
but we don't screen the cargo. There are so many things that
could be done to keep this country safe. You have to be strong,
and you have to be aggressive. But we also have to be smart.
And there are things that have not been done that need to be
done to keep the American people safe.
IFILL: Would you like to respond? Thirty
seconds.
CHENEY: No.
Is changing positions bad?
IFILL: OK, we'll move
on. This goes to Senator Edwards. Flip-flopping has become a
recurring theme in this campaign, you may have noticed. Senator
Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the
president to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about
whether a homeland security department was a good idea or a
9/11 Commission was a good idea. What's wrong with a
little flip-flop every now and then?
EDWARDS: Well, first of all, let me say
that John Kerry has -- I can use his name now?
IFILL: Yes.
EDWARDS: OK. John Kerry has been, as have
I, been completely consistent about Iraq. We've made very clear
from the beginning -- and not an afterthought; we said it at
the time -- that we had to confront Saddam Hussein and that
we had to have a coalition and a plan to be successful. And
the vice president didn't say much about it in your earlier
question, but Paul Bremer has now made clear that they didn't
have enough troops and they didn't have a plan. And the American
people are seeing the results of that every single day, in spite
of the proud and courageous service of our men and women in
uniform. Now, flip-flops: They should know something about flip-flops.
They've seen a lot of it during their administration. They were
first against the 9/11 Commission; then they were for it. They
were for a Department of Homeland Security -- I mean, they were
against the Department of Homeland Security; then they were
for it. They said they were going to put $2 trillion of the
surplus when they came into office aside to protect Social Security;
then they changed their minds. They said that they supported
the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in
Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied
to have their combat pay cut. They said that they were going
to do something about health care in this country. And they've
done something: They've made it worse. They said that they were
going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short
today. Over and over, this administration has said one thing
and done another. This president said -- I listened to him the
other night at his 2000 debate saying: I'm for a national patients
bill of rights. I know something about this. John McCain and
Senator Kennedy and I wrote it, got it passed in the Senate.
We don't have a patients bill of rights because of one man today,
the President of the United States. They've gone back and forth.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I can think of a lot
of words to describe Senator Kerry's position on Iraq; "consistent"
is not one of them. I think if you look at the record from voting
for sending the troops then voting against the resources they
needed when they got there, then saying I actually voted for
the $87 billion before I voted against it, saying in response
to a question knowing everything I know now, yes, I would have
cast exactly the same vote and then shortly after that saying
wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, consistency doesn't come
to mind as I consider that record. The question of troops is
an interesting and important one. We have looked to our commanders
on the ground in Iraq for guidance on what they think they need.
If they need more troops, they'll ask us. But the key here is
not to try to solve the problems in Iraq by putting in more
American troops. The key is to get the Iraqis to take on the
responsibility for their own security. That's exactly what we're
doing. If you put American troops in there in larger number
and don't get the Iraqis into the fight, you'll postpone the
day when you can in fact bring our boys home. It's vital that
we deal with any need for additional troops by putting Iraqis
into the effort. Forty-nine percent increase in funding for
elementary and secondary education under No Child Left Behind;
that's a lot of money even by Massachusetts' standards.
IFILL: You have 30 seconds if you choose.
EDWARDS: Yes, but they didn't fund the
mandates that they put on the schools all over this country.
That's the reason 800 teachers -- one of the reasons -- 800
teachers have been laid off, right here in Cleveland. One-third
of our public schools are failing under this administration.
Half of African-Americans are dropping out of high school. Half
of Hispanic-Americans are dropping out of high school. John
and I have -- and I don't have the time now -- but we have a
clear plan to improve our public schools that starts with getting
our best teachers into the schools where we need them the most
by creating incentives for them to go there.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Gwen, No Child Left Behind, they
were for it; now they're against it. They voted for it; now
they're opposed to it. We are making significant progress there.
We are closing the achievement gap. The results coming in from
a number of studies show, without question, that on math and
reading, that in fact our minority students, our Hispanic and
African-American students are doing better, and that gap between
them and the majority population is, in fact, closing. So we
are doing exactly the right thing. They're the ones who have
been for the Patriot Act and against it, for No Child Left Behind
and then against it.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, our final --
I'm sorry, you have 30 seconds, Senator Edwards.
EDWARDS: Are you sure -- yes, he started.
Yes, 30 seconds, please, yes. We are for accountability, and
we are for high standards. John and I voted for No Child Left
Behind because we thought that accountability and standards
were the right thing to do. But they make -- did you figure
out you were wrong?
IFILL: I did figure out I was wrong.
EDWARDS: Well, in fairness, if you feel
like you need to go to him, we'll -- I'll stop.
IFILL: Well, I do, because we're actually
on the final question. I apologize for giving you an extra 15
seconds there.
How can the divisions in the
United States be bridged?
IFILL: Well, I do,
because we're actually on the final question. I apologize for
giving you an extra 15 seconds there. I go now to Vice
President Cheney. Whichever one of you is elected in November
-- you mentioned those three electoral votes in Wyoming and
how critical they've turned out to be. But what they're a sign
of also is that you're going to inherit a very deeply divided
electorate, economically, politically, you name it. How will
you set out, Mr. Vice President, in a way that you weren't able
to in these past four years, to bridge that divide?
CHENEY: Well, I must say it's one of the
disappointments of the last four years, is that we've not been
able to do what the president did in Texas, for example, when
he was able to reach across the aisle and bring Democrats along
on major issues of the day. We had some success early on, I
think, in No Child Left Behind, when we, in fact, had broad,
bipartisan support. We had a lot of support for the Patriot
Act, when we passed that on a bipartisan basis. Now we're seeing
objection to that by the other side. All I know is to continue
to try to work it. It's a disappointment, in a sense, that I
remember from my earlier service when things worked much differently,
when, in fact, some of my best friends in the Congress were
people I worked with, like Tom Foley, who was a majority leader
and later speaker of the House. One of my strongest allies in
Congress when I secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat
who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
We used to be able to do more together on a bipartisan basis
than seems possible these days. I'm not sure exactly why. I
think, in part, it may be the change in the majority-minority
status in the Senate has been difficult for both sides to adjust
to. And the Senate, of course, has been very evenly divided,
50-50, then 51-49, then 49-51 the other way. We'll keep working
at it. I think it's important for us to try. I believe that
it is essential for us to do everything we can to garner as
much support from the other side of the aisle as possible. We've
had support -- we had our keynote address at our convention
was delivered by Zell Miller. So there are some Democrats who
agree with our approach. And hopefully in a second term, we'll
see an improvement along those lines.
IFILL: Senator, there's 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Thank you. The president said
that he would unite this country, that he was a uniter, not
a divider. Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you
ever seen Washington more divided? The reality is it is not
an accident. It's the direct result of the choices they've made
and their efforts that have created division in America. We
can do better than that in this country. Now I want to go back
to the whole issue of health care, because we touched it, but
I think the American people deserve to know what we would do
different. I mean, 5 million people losing their health care
-- everyone who's watching this knows health insurance premiums
are through the roof. We need to talk about what we will do
that they haven't done. First, we're going to make the same
health care that's available to members of Congress available
to all Americans. We're going to cover all kids. Not only that,
we're going to bring down costs by pooling the catastrophic
costs so we bring down premiums. And we're going to give tax
breaks directly to families, save them up to $1,000 a year,
and to businesses -- the vice president talked about that a
few minutes ago -- so that they can provide health care to their
employees. And we're also going to finally do something about
the cost of prescription drugs. They've blocked allowing prescription
drugs into this country from Canada. We're going to allow it.
They would not allow the government to use its negotiating power
to get discounts for seniors. We're going to allow it. We're
also going to stand up to the drug companies and do something
about these drug company ads on television which are out of
control.
IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond
to that, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen -- I'm sorry, it's
hard to know where to start. The fact of the matter is, the
most important and significant change in health care in the
last several years was the Medicare reform bill this year. It's
the most sweeping change in 40 years. Medicare used to pay for
heart bypass surgery but didn't pay for the prescription drugs
that might allow you to avoid it. The fact is that when that
came up, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted against it.
It'll provide prescription drug benefits to 40 million senior
citizens. It's a very, very significant piece of legislation.
IFILL: Thirty seconds.
EDWARDS: They had a choice on allowing
prescription drugs into this country from Canada, of being with
the American people or with the drug companies. They were with
the drug companies. They had a choice on negotiating discounts
in the Medicare prescription drug bill of being with the American
people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.
They had a choice on the patients' bill of rights, allowing
people to make their own health care decisions and not having
insurance companies make them, be with the American people,
be with the big insurance companies. They're with the insurance
companies. John Kerry and I will always fight for the American
people.
Closing Statements
IFILL: As previously
agreed, we'll go to closing statements now, 2 minutes each.
Senator Edwards, you begin.
EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you, Gwen. Thank
you, Mr. Vice President, for being here. You know, when I was
young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into
the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow
of the television. And I'd see my father sitting at a table.
He wasn't paying bills, and he wasn't doing paperwork from work.
What he was doing was learning math on television. Now, he didn't
have a college education, but he was doing what he could do
to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud
of him. I'm still proud of him. And I was also hopeful, because
I knew that I lived in a country where I could get a college
education. Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light
of America. But that light is flickering today. Now, I know
that the vice president and the president don't see it, but
you do. You see it when your incomes are going down and the
cost of everything -- college tuition, health care -- is going
through the roof. You see it when you sit at your table each
night and there's an empty chair because a loved one is serving
in Iraq or Afghanistan. What they're going to give you is four
more years of the same. John Kerry and I believe that we can
do better. We believe in a strong middle-class in this country.
That's why we have a plan to create jobs, getting rid of tax
cuts for companies outsourcing your jobs; give tax cuts to companies
that'll keep jobs here in America. That's why we have a health
care plan. That's why we have a plan to keep you safe and to
fix this mess in Iraq. The truth is that every four years you
get to decide. You have the ability to decide where America's
going to go. John Kerry and I are asking you to give us the
power to fight for you, to fight to keep that dream in America,
that I saw as a young man, alive for every parent sitting at
that kitchen table.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney.
CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you. It's
been a privilege to serve as your vice president these last
four years and to work alongside President Bush to put our economy
on an upward path. We've cut taxes, added 1.7 million new jobs
in the last year, and we'll continue to provide opportunities
for business and for workers. We won't be happy until every
American who wants to work can find a job. We believe that all
Americans ought to have access to available -- to medical care
and that they ought to have access to the finest schools in
the world. We'll do everything we can to preserve Social Security
and to make certain that it's there for future generations.
I've worked for four presidents and watched two others up close,
and I know that there's no such thing as a routine day in the
Oval Office. We saw on 9/11 that the next president -- next
decision a president has to make can affect the lives of all
of us. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike
any we've ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists
could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon
into the middle of one of our own cities. That threat -- and
the presidential leadership needed to deal with it -- is placing
a special responsibility on all of you who will decide on November
2 who will be our commander in chief. The only viable option
for winning the war on terrorism is the one the president has
chosen, to use the power of the United States to aggressively
go after the terrorists wherever we find them and also to hold
to account states that sponsor terror. Now that we've captured
or killed thousands of al Qaeda and taken down the regimes of
Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, it's important that we stand
up democratically elected governments as the only guarantee
that they'll never again revert to terrorism or the production
of deadly weapons. This is the task of our generation. And I
know firsthand the strength the president brings to it. The
overall outcome will depend upon the ability of the American
people and the strong leadership of the president to meet all
the challenges that we'll face in the days and years ahead.
I'm confident we can do it.
|
