Cheney's Interview on CNN's "Late Edition"

Highlighted Excerpts

On regrets over the way the financial crisis was handled

CHENEY: Well, regrets, you'd rather there hadn't been a financial crisis. It's not one that affects only the United States and I think it's important, too – I'm a conservative. One of the first things I did when I got elected to Congress in '79 was testify against the Chrysler bailout. So I've got concerns about how deeply involved the government

gets in the private sector.

But financing is different. The financial system is different. That is a federal responsibility with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the producer and keeper of the value of our currency and regulation involved, SEC and so forth. When the financial system is threatened only the federal government can fix it and that's what we've been doing.

BLITZER: So you had no choice, basically.

CHENEY: Yeah. So even though I'm a conservative, I feel very strongly that we did the right thing by getting active and involved when we did.

On President-elect Obama's proposed economic stimulus package

CHENEY: Democrats traditionally want to spend more money, public works projects, etc. We Republicans more often want to pursue tax policy as the best alternative to promote growth and to turn around an economic downturn. Again, fairness to the president-elect, I haven't seen his proposal yet so I can't really judge it but if I had to make a choice myself I'd say we ought to look at the tax policy as our first priority.

On the UN Security Council resolution on the Israel-Gaza conflict

CHENEY: I think we've learned from watching over the years that there's a big difference between what happens at the United Nations in their debates and the facts on the

ground in major crises around the world. This is a situation: not likely to be cessation of hostility, if you will, until we see the -- Hamas agree to end their terrorist activities and rocket launches, for example, against Israel. Until we come up with a durable, sustainable ceasefire: find a way, for example, to limit the resupply of Hamas by

their main supporters, Syria and Iran.

So a lot needs to be done here. The real tragedy, as I look at it, Wolf, is what's happening to the Palestinian people. They're innocent bystanders. This is not a struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. It's a struggle where Israel is trying to defend itself against what's been designated by many people as a terrorist organization.

On the war in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden still at large

CHENEY: We've made progress in Afghanistan. We overthrew the original Taliban government that was there that had sheltered Osama bin Laden. We've had a constitution written. We've had national elections. We've got a good start on building up the Afghan national army. And so I think we've made significant progress. But we're going to be there for a long time.

BLITZER: Why? Why haven't you been able to capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 al Qaeda leader?

CHENEY: Well, we've got a few days left yet, Wolf. And...

BLITZER: Something happening we should know about?

CHENEY: No, I can't predict that, obviously. We -- we would like very much to -- to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. But I'm -- my guess is at this point he's operating in an area that's very difficult, very hard to get to, that he's not an effective leader at this stage. He can't really engage his organization without coming out of whatever hole he's hiding in. And the key thing for us, even if we got bin Laden tomorrow, is to take down his organization. And that's what we've been actively doing.

On criticism that the Presidential Daily Briefing provided intelligence about an attack before 9/11

CHENEY: There were things that had occurred that were the result of problems that were built into the intelligence community that we inherited, that we've tried to address since then… So there's no question there were things that needed to be done in order to prevent that kind of an attack. But to say that the August 6 PDB gave us something we should have acted upon is simply not the case. There was not sufficient information there to take any action that would have prevented 9/11.

On the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

CHENEY: Well, the question on Saddam Hussein, I think, can be and should be considered separate and apart from 9/11. But if you're talking about whether or not there was any information connecting Iraq to 9/11, initially there was. The CIA produced the first report that came in, oh, a week after 9/11 that said, in fact, Muhammad Atta had been in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service at that time.

BLITZER: So that proved to be false?

CHENEY: Proved to be false, but the agency didn't put out a report saying it was false, that it's officially declared false, for several years…

… BLITZER: So when you launched the war against Saddam Hussein, did you know then that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

CHENEY: We did not base going after Saddam Hussein on any connection with 9/11. There was a history of a relationship with terror. He'd been a prime state sponsor of terror, as designated by the State Department.

On the highlights of his political career

CHENEY: Well, I've loved being vice president, obviously, in this particular time. But I look back on my experiences, I enjoyed very much being secretary of defense, especially during Desert Storm, having the opportunity to work that closely with our men and women in uniform and in charge of some four million people. And the other thing, the other period -- well, two other periods that had their -- their own special appeal. One was ten years in the Congress, representing Wyoming. And the other was signing on with Gerry Ford when he took over the presidency under extraordinarily difficult circumstances and serving as his chief of staff.

Those have all been highlights, if you will. They were all very different. I hate to rank one over another, but I've been, I think, extraordinarily fortunate to be able to serve in those positions in those periods.

On his advice for Joe Biden

BLITZER: You have one piece of advice for Joe Biden?

CHENEY: I -- the most important thing that any vice president needs to know was to understand where it is the president he works for wants him to do. That really will determine everything in terms of the kind of meetings he attends, the policy issues he gets involved in, the kind of assistance or advice he's asked for by the president and others.It's a very different kind of a job from being an executive, running a big organization, or being senator.

Full Transcript

THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Mr. Vice President, thanks very much for joining us.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT: It's good to see you.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Let's talk a little about the economy right now because it's in the

words of Barack Obama "dire" right now and the economic numbers, the

jobs lost, just reported as we speak right now, 524,000 lost in

December, 2.6 million jobs lost last year alone, since you took office

eight years ago, 5.1 million jobs lost. What's going on?

CHENEY: Well, we're in the middle of a recession, obviously. It started

in a major way last year, coupled with the crisis in the financial

sector. Those two things interacted together to produce significant job

losses. Numbers that were released this week show an unemployment rate

now 7.2 percent. Obviously it's a very, very serious problem and it's

going to be one of the first items that the new administration has to

deal with.

BLITZER: And it looks like it could get a whole lot worse unless

something dramatic happens.

CHENEY: Well, I don't want to – I'm not an economist and I don't want to

predict that but clearly we're in the middle of a serious recession and

we've worked hard on the financial problem which is the first one that

hit last summer. The president put together a program, the so-called

TARP program and I think we've had significant positive impact in terms

of being able to guarantee liquidity of the financial system, adequate

capital and the banking system and so forth …

BLITZER: Does that TARP program, that $700 billion program, you spent

half of it, about half of it so far, 350 …

CHENEY: No, we've committed about half of it. Not all of that has been

spent.

BLITZER: Well, you've committed – but has it delivered what you really

wanted?

CHENEY: I think it has. We've seen interest rates decline. We've seen a

pickup in the ability, for example, of companies to get the short term

borrowing to finance their business operations. The interbank lending

rate is significantly below what it was what back when we had the crisis.

So I think we've had a positive impact.

BLITZER: Because you know, a lot of your fellow Republicans on the Hill,

they don't like it.

CHENEY: That's true. But I …

BLITZER: But you have no regrets.

CHENEY: Well, regrets, you'd rather there hadn't been a financial

crisis. It's not one that affects only the United States and I think

it's important, too – I'm a conservative. One of the first things I did

when I got elected to Congress in '79 was testify against the Chrysler

bailout. So I've got concerns about how deeply involved the government

gets in the private sector.

But financing is different. The financial system is different. That is a

federal responsibility with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the

producer and keeper of the value of our currency and regulation

involved, SEC and so forth. When the financial system is threatened only

the federal government can fix it and that's what we've been doing.

BLITZER: So you had no choice, basically.

CHENEY: Yeah. So even though I'm a conservative, I feel very strongly

that we did the right thing by getting active and involved when we did.

BLITZER: As a conservative, someone who wants to see the federal

government smaller, more constrained, how painful is it for you to see

this federal deficit explode the way it has?

When you took office eight years ago you inherited 100 or $200 billion

budget surplus. Now it's projected for the coming year to be $1.2

trillion deficit. And the national debt has done what, gone from about

$5 trillion to about $11 trillion? That most be really painful for a

conservative who wants a smaller government.

CHENEY: I would rather see a smaller government but we've always said

and I firmly believe that you do make exceptions for budget restraint.

Those exceptions are wars, for example, national crises, we've had to

prosecute the global war on terror, we had to recover from 9/11, we had

to make major investments in homeland security, we had to pay for our

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and then more recently, obviously, to

deal with the financial crisis in the financial sector. So there have

been reasons why we've had to commit those funds and run up the deficit.

I'd rather it hadn't been necessary but I do think it was necessary

given the problems we're facing.

BLITZER: What would you have done different? Looking back, obviously

we're all smarter with hindsight, on this economic issue?

CHENEY: Well, I think I am a big believer in tax policy. I think we've –

if you look back at what we were able to do in the aftermath of 9/11

when we lost a million jobs in a manner of weeks there, we were able to

cut taxes for everybody in the country who paid income taxes and to

reduce the rate on cap gains and on dividends and that put in place the

policies that supported 52 months of consistent, continuing job creation.

That was good policy and a good sound, solid economy. I think what's

happened since, we ran into problems, for example, with Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac, two federally supported financial institutions that a great

many banks around the world had invested in that we tried to reform, we

offered legislation up some years ago to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie

Mac and there was concern about a financial crisis and we couldn't get

it through the Congress. I wish that legislation had been adopted then.

BLITZER: In Robert Shiller, the Yale economist – he is one of the few

that predicted this housing bubble out there and he says this, in the

new issue of "Vanity Fair." He says, "The Bush strategists were aware of

the public enthusiasm for housing and they dealt with it brilliantly in

the 2004 election by making the theme of the campaign ‘the ownership

society.'"

I guess the question is (inaudible) people who couldn't afford these

mortgages and this housing bubble that developed.

CHENEY: Well, I think like all administrations in recent memory and both

political parties we've been strongly supportive of the notion of home

ownership for as many people as possible. That wasn't (inaudible) but it

is something that we believed in …

BLITZER: Did you go too far in allowing this unrelated industry to

explode the way it did?

CHENEY: As I say, I wish legislation was recommended that would have

repaired the situation, imposed significant reforms, had been adopted

some years ago. It wasn't because we couldn't get it through the Congress.

So the – I can remember talking to Alan Greenspan, for example, when he

was still chairman of the Federal Reserve. Alan expressed concern about

the potential for systemic crisis because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

and the way they were structured and relatively unregulated. Those are

the issues we tried to deal with …

BLITZER: So that was the biggest mistake? That there was no regulation?

CHENEY: Well, in terms of coming up with a problem you can point to that

was governmental in origin, that's the one I'm most inclined to point to

but I'm not an economist, I'm not an expert, I think the jury is still

out in terms of the studies that need to be done and will be done over

exactly what happened and why it happened so that we can avoid it in the

future.

BLITZER: As you know, the president elect, Barack Obama, is thinking of

a $775 billion economic recovery or stimulus package himself right now.

Do you think that's a good idea?

CHENEY: I haven't seen it so it's a little hard to judge without knowing

exactly …

BLITZER: In principle.

CHENEY: … what's going to be in it.

Well, I do think we do need to do everything we can to address the

downturn in the economy. There are really two separate problems here,

although they are obviously related. One is the financial sector where I

do think there's a major role for the federal government to play. The

other is with respect to the recession and the overall performance of

the economy and there historically there have been differences in terms

of how we approach it.

Democrats traditionally want to spend more money, public works projects,

etc. We Republicans more often want to pursue tax policy as the best

alternative to promote growth and to turn around an economic downturn.

Again, fairness to the president-elect, I haven't seen his proposal yet

so I can't really judge it but if I had to make a choice myself I'd say

we ought to look at the tax policy as our first priority.

BLITZER: He says maybe half of his recovery plan or stimulus plan will

involve tax cuts for the middle class.

CHENEY: Right. But what about the total economy, what about business,

what about those sectors of the economy that create the jobs that

everybody depends on? Those are the key pieces of …

BLITZER: Is this the worst economic crisis the United States has faced

since the Great Depression?

CHENEY: I can't say that. I don't think we know that yet. I think

certainly if you look at some earlier periods in our history, I remember

back in the late ‘70s when we had a high rate of inflation, stagflation

in effect and a high rate of unemployment, I can remember when I was in

Congress and you were covering me on the Hill we had homebuilders, for

example, mail in two-by-fours. They chopped up two-by-fours in 18 inch

lengths and put postage on them and mailed them in to protest what was

going on in the housing industries. We've had some difficult times. Is

it the worst since World War II? I can't say that. I don't believe the

data shows that yet but it is clearly a serious recession.

BLITZER: I remember those days. My dad was a homebuilder in Buffalo, New

York.

CHENEY: Probably sending me two-by-fours.

BLITZER: In the late ‘70s and interest rates were 15, 18, 20 percent and

we thought it was all over, survived that, but it was a rough patch,

you're right. You're not ready to say this is the worst economic crisis

since the Great Depression.

Let's move on to foreign policy a little bit. Gaza right now. It's a

mess as all of us know. Was – correct me if I'm wrong – Democratically

elected by the Palestinians. You had supported those elections and

certified that they were fair. So the question is this. Should the U.S.

be dealing with the Hamas element of the Palestinian side?

CHENEY: I don't believe so. Because, excuse me, Hamas has been

designated a terrorist organization. It is.

BLITZER: So why did you let them participate in the elections?

CHENEY: Well, remember what transpired here. Israel unilaterally

withdrew from Gaza, took out all of their troops, moved out the settlers

who had settled there, turned it all back to the Palestinians.

At that point the Palestinian Authority was nominally in control. Of

course, Hamas came in and in effect, first won an election, but they

kicked all the others out. And then instead of building Gaza, creating

the genesis for a Palestinian state, they turned it into a launching pad

for terrorist attacks. And the next three years there were 7,000

rockets, at Israel. And Israel finally reached the point where they felt

they had no choice but to go in and to go after Hamas and take down that

threat that they perceived to their country.

We have always defended Israel's right to defend themselves against

terror attacks. That's what Hamas did once they got into office,

obviously, that's created the current crisis.

BLITZER: So is there any prospect of a cease fire from the U.S.

perspective? A truce? What do you say? Because the UN Security Council

did pass a resolution with the U.S. abstaining.

CHENEY: Right. They -- they did pass a resolution. I think we've learned

from watching over the years that there's a big difference between what

happens at the United Nations in their debates and the facts on the

ground in major crises around the world. This is a situation: not likely

to be cessation of hostility, if you will, until we see the -- Hamas

agree to end their terrorist activities and rocket launches, for

example, against Israel. Until we come up with a durable, sustainable

ceasefire: find a way, for example, to limit the resupply of Hamas by

their main supporters, Syria and Iran.

So a lot needs to be done here. The real tragedy, as I look at it, Wolf,

is what's happening to the Palestinian people. They're innocent

bystanders. This is not a struggle between Israel and the Palestinians.

It's a struggle where Israel is trying to defend itself against what's

been designated by many people as a terrorist organization.

BLITZER: Let's talk about Afghanistan right now. Senator Bob Grant,

former senator from Florida, former chairman of the intelligence

committee, he says this right now, and I want to get your reaction: "The

Taliban and al Qaeda have relocated, have strengthened, have become a

more nimble and a much more international organization. The threat is

greater today than it was on September the 11th."

Is the threat from the Taliban and al Qaeda greater today than it was

September 11?

CHENEY: First of all, I make a distinction between those two

organizations. I don't think lumping them together lets you reach the

right conclusion on what's happened.

We've had a major impact on al Qaeda. We have captured and killed (AUDIO

GAP) ... under the gun on a consistent basis. There was a story in the

"Washington Post" this morning that makes reference to -- to the

operations that have succeeded, to some extent, in terms of going after

al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, I believe, for the most part, has been driven out of

Afghanistan. What they have done now is found safe haven and refuge, if

they will -- if you will, in Pakistan.

Taliban is still very much focused on the situation in Afghanistan. They

operate back and forth across the border from Pakistan. I don't believe

that they're any stronger than they were on 9/11, but they're still

actively involved.

We've made progress in Afghanistan. We overthrew the original Taliban

government that was there that had sheltered Osama bin Laden. We've had

a constitution written. We've had national elections. We've got a good

start on building up the Afghan national army. And so I think we've made

significant progress. But we're going to be there for a long time.

BLITZER: Why? Why haven't you been able to capture or kill bin Laden or

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 al Qaeda leader?

CHENEY: Well, we've got a few days left yet, Wolf. And...

BLITZER: Something happening we should know about?

CHENEY: No, I can't predict that, obviously. We -- we would like very

much to -- to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. But I'm -- my guess is at

this point he's operating in an area that's very difficult, very hard to

get to, that he's not an effective leader at this stage. He can't really

engage his organization without coming out of whatever hole he's hiding in.

And the key thing for us, even if we got bin Laden tomorrow, is to take

down his organization. And that's what we've been actively doing.

BLITZER: How frustrating is this to you personally, that he's still at

large?

CHENEY: You know, obviously, I would like to solve that problem. But a

much bigger problem, much more important problem, is keeping the country

safe. We've done that now for seven and a half years.

In fact, we were able, through our terror surveillance program,

interrogation program of high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, all of

those steps we took in the aftermath of 9/11, had, I think, a remarkable

impact, in that there has not been another mass casualty attack on the

United States since -- since 9/11. That's a great achievement, and I

think that's more important than getting any one individual man,

although obviously, I'd like very much to get Osama bin Laden. I'm sure

the hunt will go on after we leave.

BLITZER: Let's go through some of the criticisms that have been leveled

against you and the administration.

The presidential daily briefing memo that the president received on

August 6, 2001. That's before 9/11. It showed that bin Laden was

determined to strike in the United States. The question -- the criticism

has been what did you do between August 6 and September 11 to try to

stop bin Laden and al Qaeda?

CHENEY: Well, there were a series of policies put in place before August

6. But the information that came in, in that memo on August 6...

BLITZER: You saw that, then?

CHENEY: Yes. You know, I see the PDB every day. And it's been a subject

of a lot of debate since. But it didn't provide you with any actionable

intelligence. It didn't talk anything about timing. It didn't say

anything about targets or where they might strike -- try to strike. None

of that information was available.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But the 9/11 Commission did say there was -- you know, the FBI

knew things about pilots flying, wanting to land and not take off.

CHENEY: There were things that had occurred that were the result of

problems that were built into the intelligence community that we

inherited, that we've tried to address since then.

For example, two of the hijackers in California, that one of the

agencies -- I think the CIA -- knew about, but that the FBI didn't know

about. (AUDIO GAP) So there's no question there were things that needed

to be done in order to prevent that kind of an attack. But to say that

the August 6 PDB gave us something we should have acted upon is simply

not the case. There was not sufficient information there to take any

action that would have prevented 9/11.

BLITZER: The -- your, at that time, your chief White House

counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, who became a major critic of

the administration after he left the government, he said on that night

of 9/11, there was a meeting, and the then-defense secretary, Donald

Rumsfeld, is there.

And then he says this. He says, "And I made the point, certainly that

night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do

with 9/11. That didn't seem to phase Rumsfeld in the least."

Was there an immediate sort of knee-jerk reaction after 9/11: "You know

what? Saddam Hussein's got to go"?

CHENEY: Well, the question on Saddam Hussein, I think, can be and should

be considered separate and apart from 9/11. But if you're talking about

whether or not there was any information connecting Iraq to 9/11,

initially there was. The CIA produced the first report that came in, oh,

a week after 9/11 that said, in fact, Muhammad Atta had been in Prague,

Czechoslovakia, and met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence

service at that time.

BLITZER: So that proved to be false?

CHENEY: Proved to be false, but the agency didn't put out a report

saying it was false, that it's officially declared false, for several

years. And in fact, as late as -- as a year later after 9/11, they were

still credibly reporting, or assigning credibility to the report that

Muhammad Atta had been in Prague on that date.

So we were getting information that turned out not to be true, but it

certainly was available at the time. We -- they gave us pictures at one

time. Photographs came from the agency of Muhammad Atta, allegedly taken

in Prague, 70 to 80 percent chance this is Muhammad Atta.

BLITZER: So when you launched the war against Saddam Hussein, did you

know then that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

CHENEY: We did not base going after Saddam Hussein on any connection

with 9/11. There was a history of a relationship with terror. He'd been

a prime state sponsor of terror, as designated by the State Department.

He was paying suicide bombers $25,000 to their families, to attack

Israel. He provided a safe haven and sanctuary for Abu Nidal.

George Tenet, who was the director of the CIA, had been before the

Congress of the United States saying there was a relationship, a

relationship. He didn't say that they were responsible for 9/11, but

said there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that went back

10 years.

That's the information we had. So the question of whether or not we went

in, for example, because there was some connection between Saddam

Hussein and 9/11, that was not our motive.

What we were concerned about was that Saddam Hussein was one of the

worst actors in that part of the world, that he had started two wars,

that he produced and used weapons of mass destruction, that he was a

sponsor of terror, that he provided sanctuary and safe harbor for terror.

And we thought he had constituted a significant threat, not only to the

governments in the region, but also to us. And based on that. The

president made the decision he did. And frankly, I think the world and

the United States are better off today, and Iraq, because Saddam is gone.

BLITZER: And the charge that, quote, "cherry-picked" the intelligence to

make the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, stockpiles of

weapons of mass destruction, the charge amplified in that famous Downing

Street Memo, you're familiar with that British memo that Sir Richard

Dearlove, head of British intelligence, came to Washington, returned to

London, briefed the British government, and wrote in this memo on July

23rd, 2002, this is before the war.

He said: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified

by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts

were being fixed around the policy."

CHENEY: Well, it's not true. And I haven't seen the Breedlove (sic)

memo, but I do know that the Senate Intelligence Committee, for example,

conducted an exhaustive review of all of the material, especially in

connection with the NIE that was done on weapons of mass destruction,

the Robb-Siblerman Commission did.

Everybody came to the same conclusion, that there was no manipulation of

the process or pressure brought to bear on the analysts who prepared

those reports to in any way change or shape or effect what they reported.

BLITZER: How much were your…

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: Every single person who was asked in that process, both of those

commissions run by Americans, Democrat and Republican alike, said that

the administration had not attempted to shape or alter their reporting.

BLITZER: How much of the information, including that sensitive issue of

those mobile biological warfare labs that Colin Powell spoke about at

the United Nations Security Council was the result of information or

disinformation from that guy known as "Curveball," that Iraqi who the

Germans had access to who was saying all sorts of things which turned

out to be baloney?

CHENEY: What was the question?

BLITZER: The question on "Curveball." How much were you relying on his

information? I'll read to you what the German foreign minister at the

time, and Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer says.

He says: "I was astonished that the Americans used 'Curveball,' really

astonished. This was our stuff. But they presented it in a way we knew

it not to be true. They presented it as a fact and not as a way of

intelligence assessment is -- could…

(AUDIO GAP)

BLITZER: … hard fact, what "Curveball" was saying?

CHENEY: I -- from our perspective, we were not involved in dealing with

"Curveball" or dealing with the Germans on this matter. That's the kind

of intelligence that would be fed into the intelligence community. And

intelligence community deal with that.

That is, it wasn't for the policy types to say, well, you know, here's

the reporting from "Curveball." I had never heard of "Curveball" until

after the NIE had turned sour sometime later.

I do know, for example, I recall very clearly that in March of '03,

after we already had troops in Iraq, were on the way to Baghdad, we got

reporting from our intelligence community, said be careful of the WMD,

when you get close to Baghdad there was every reason to believe Saddam

Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction, i.e., chemicals or

biological agents against our forces.

It was as late as March of '03 when we were already in there, the

intelligence is still providing us with intelligence, and the commanders

in the field in effect saying Saddam has WMD.

Now it turned out he didn't have it. It turned out he had the capacity

to produce it that he had in the past, probably would have in the future

once sanctions were lifted. But he did not have stockpiles. He did not

have active programs at the time. The NIE was just wrong.

And that happens from time to time. But there wasn't anything the

administration did to create that inaccuracy on the part of the

intelligence. We did the best we could with what we had. But I still

think and would argue aggressively that even knowing what we know now

about that NIE, we did the right thing when we went in and got rid of

Saddam Hussein.

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a quick couple of questions and then

I'll let you go. Waterboarding, it was used how many times?

CHENEY: It was on three different individuals.

BLITZER: And the information you believe that was received was valid?

CHENEY: I do.

BLITZER: It stopped -- you stopped using it after, what, 2003?

CHENEY: There has not been an occasion since.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: There has not been an occasion since.

BLITZER: Was there no need?

CHENEY: I'm just going to leave it that way. You know, when we get into

talking about the application of specific techniques to prisoners, then

we'll get into the business of signaling to our adversaries what we

might or might not do and they can train for it.

It has been publicly acknowledged that we did use waterboarding. That we

did use it on three different individuals. And I believe it was Khalid

Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah and one other, I think al-Nashiri.

Those three individual were subjected to waterboarding during the course

of their interrogation. But that's it.

BLITZER: Because I've always been perplexed, if it is so good and so

useful, there are bad guys out there right now, why not continue to use it?

CHENEY: Well, you don't use it on somebody because what we were

attempting to do and what we did to persuade these individuals who had a

lot of intelligence and information about al Qaeda -- remember, we

captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I think it was, spring, March of '03,

in Karachi.

At the time we didn't know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn't know

a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he

didn't have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running

the counterterrorism program?

The fact of the matter is that we were able to persuade them to

cooperate, to give us the intelligence we needed, and to give us the basic…

(AUDIO GAP)

CHENEY: … geography and so forth that was essential in terms of

defending our country against further attacks.

Now you don't go in and pull out somebody's toenails in order to get

them to talk. This is not torture. We don't do torture.

BLITZER: John McCain says it's torture.

CHENEY: Well, John is wrong. You know, I have a fundamental disagreement

on this point. But what the agency did was they sought formal guidance

from the senior leadership of the administration, as well as the Justice

Department in terms of what was appropriate and what wasn't. And they

got that guidance. And they followed that guidance, as far as I know.

I have no reason to believe anybody out at the agency violated any tenet

of the obligations and responsibilities we have in terms of statutes or

treaty obligations. I think it was done very professionally. I think it

was done very few times, when it was necessary.

I think it produced good results and it…

(AUDIO GAP)

CHENEY: … alive today because we used that technique on those three

individuals.

BLITZER: And if necessary, would you authorize it again?

CHENEY: Well, I'm not in the chain of command, but if necessary, I would

certainly recommend it again.

BLITZER: Waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

BLITZER: Let's end it on a different note. You've been in government for

a long time. Looking back...

CHENEY: Come on. Don't make it sound that long.

BLITZER: Well, you've been coming here for a long time.

CHENEY: Forty years.

BLITZER: Yes, let's -- what was the best job you ever had in government?

CHENEY: Well, I've loved being vice president, obviously, in this

particular time. But I look back on my experiences, I enjoyed very much

being secretary of defense, especially during Desert Storm, having the

opportunity to work that closely with our men and women in uniform and

in charge of some four million people.

And the other thing, the other period -- well, two other periods that

had their -- their own special appeal. One was ten years in the

Congress, representing Wyoming. And the other was signing on with Gerry

Ford when he took over the presidency under extraordinarily difficult

circumstances and serving as his chief of staff.

Those have all been highlights, if you will. They were all very

different. I hate to rank one over another, but I've been, I think,

extraordinarily fortunate to be able to serve in those positions in

those periods.

BLITZER: So what -- what's next?

CHENEY: Well, I don't have any immediate plans. Giving some thought to

writing a book. Haven't made any commitments yet at this point. I will

spend more time with the family. We'll split our time between Wyoming

and -- our home in Wyoming and here in Washington. I continue to have

interests here, I guess. The grandkids all live here.

So I look forward to the future. I've been through these transitions out

about four times now. And there are always good things down the road

that will occupy my time and interest.

BLITZER: You have one piece of advice for Joe Biden?

CHENEY: I -- the most important thing that any vice president needs to

know was to understand where it is the president he works for wants him

to do. That really will determine everything in terms of the kind of

meetings he attends, the policy issues he gets involved in, the kind of

assistance or advice he's asked for by the president and others.

It's a very different kind of a job from being an executive, running a

big organization, or being senator. You really are there in sort of a

combination staff capacity, sometimes surrogate for the president,

active in doing all those things the vice president does: fundraising,

et cetera. But the degree of influence you have, whether or not its

inconsequential (ph) vice-presidency, if you will, is going to depend

almost solely upon the president and what he wants.

BLITZER: And finally, as you leave office, are you encouraged or worried

about the Obama administration?

CHENEY: I -- obviously, I didn't vote for Barack Obama. I voted for John

McCain. I'm a Republican, a conservative. He's a liberal Democrat.

On the other hand, I have the same feeling that I think many Americans

have, that it's really remarkable that -- what we're going to do here in

a few days: swear in the first African-American president of the United

States. When I came to town in 1968, we'd had the Martin Luther King

assassination, Bobby Kennedy assassination, riots in the cities,

racially motivated. Things have changed so dramatically that we're now

about to swear in Barack Obama as the president of the United States.

That's really a remarkable story and I think a record of tremendous

success and progress for the United States.

BLITZER: Pretty historic; pretty exciting.

CHENEY: It is.

BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, thanks very much.

CHENEY: Thank you, Wolf.

- END