UPDATED Video and Transcript : Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War
Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine

The news organisations are scrambling for interpretations of today's private meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, based on "sources" and the public press appearance of the two men. MSNBC is going with "Obama expects positive Iranian response; Netanyahu ready to resume peace talks if Palestinians accept Israel"; CNN holds back with the blander "Obama, Netanyahu discuss U.S.-Israeli disagreements".

We're going to take some time to decode the statements and leaks --- full analysis tomorrow. In the meantime, here's the three-part video and transcript of the press briefing

VIDEO (Part 1 of 3)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epqO4ku0x1A[/youtube]



VIDEO (Part 2 of 3)



VIDEO (Part 3 of 3)



OBAMA: All right, everybody. Just tell me when everybody’s set up. Great. Well, listen, I -- I, first of all, want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this visit. I think we had a (sic) extraordinarily productive series of conversations, not only between the two of us, but also at the staff and agency levels.

Obviously, this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.

I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East, that Israel’s security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as a (sic) independent Jewish state is maintained.

One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran; something that the prime minister has been very vocal in his concerns about, but is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and -women across the political spectrum.

I indicated to him the view of our administration that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

OBAMA: And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.

But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.

And, obviously, the prime minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well. I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that -- on that subject.

We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians.

OBAMA: I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

We have seen progress stalled on this front. And I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.

That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they’ve previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map. They were discussed extensively in Annapolis.

And I think that we can -- there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security, that stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship, and that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel, but that also allows Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.

And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come that we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.

So, let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of -- of having served as prime minister previously, he has both youth and wisdom...

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: ... and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring back historic peace.

OBAMA: I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment and the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.

NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you.

(inaudible) friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader: a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who (inaudible) Israel appreciate it, and I speak (inaudible).

(inaudible) first time that we are meeting as president and prime minister, so I was particularly pleased in your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goal and we face the same threats.

The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace.

The common threat we face are terrorist regimes (inaudible) that seek to (inaudible) the peace and endanger both (inaudible).

In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable (inaudible). It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide.

But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella (ph) to terrorists or worse could actually give (inaudible) nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.

NETANYAHU: So, in that context, (inaudible) I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your -- your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.

I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians (inaudible). I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world. If we could, Mr. President, (inaudible).

I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.

And for this there has to be a -- a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There’ll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share as well.

If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will -- will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself.

If those conditions are met -- Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy -- its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you, a true friend of Israel, for the achievement of our common goals (ph), which are security, prosperity and above all peace.

Thank you.

OBAMA: We’re going to take a couple of questions. We’re going to start with (inaudible).

QUESTION: Mr. President (inaudible) at length, as did the prime minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement -- policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

OBAMA: You know, I don’t want to set an artificial deadline.

OBAMA: I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you’re all (inaudible) reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.

Their elections will be completed in June. And we are hopeful that at that point there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first with the P-5-plus-1 process, which is already in place; potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

I want to re-emphasize what I said earlier: that I believe it is not only in the interests of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons; I firmly believe it is in Iran’s interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways.

Iran can achieve its interests of securing international respect and prosperity for its people through other means. And I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument that there should be a different course to be taken.

And the one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, at least, of negotiations with Iran is that there is a lot of talk, but not always action that follows.

And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon.

That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.

My expectation would be that we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections.

OBAMA: We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.

That doesn’t mean that any (ph) issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this (inaudible).

QUESTION: Aren’t you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad and (inaudible) Mashaal (ph), as weakness?

And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then?

OBAMA: Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) example.

OBAMA: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The example of (inaudible).

They would have preferred to be on your side and move (ph) the extremists to Iran (ph).

OBAMA: Oh, I -- I think...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: Yeah, I’m not sure about that interpretation.

Look, we’ve been in office a little over a hundred days now; close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should.

We didn’t expect, and I don’t think anybody in the international community or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter, would expect, that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months.

So we think it’s very important for us to give this a chance. Now, understand that part of the reason that it’s so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we’ve been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked.

OBAMA: Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished (ph). And so, not talking, that clearly hasn’t worked. That’s what’s been tried.

And so what we’re going to do is try something which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.

The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable, at which point we say, “These talks don’t seem to be making any serious (inaudible).”

It hasn’t been tried before, so we don’t want to pre-judge that. But, as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.

If that hasn’t taken place, then I think the international community will see that it’s not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran. Rather, it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by (inaudible) -- being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people’s security, which ultimately is what we want to achieve.

We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development, commercial ties and trade, and -- and do so without the threat that populations are going to be subject to bombs and destruction.

That’s what I think the prime minister is interested in. That’s what I’m interested in. And I hope that ends up being what the ruling officials in Iran are interested in as well.

QUESTION: Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, can you each react to (inaudible) statement about a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn’t seized and if a peace isn’t achieved now, soon, that in a year, a year and a half we could see renewed major conflict and perhaps more? And do you agree with that assessment?

NETANYAHU: I think we have to seize the moment.

I think we’re fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel, and perhaps a new understanding in the Arab world that I haven’t seen in my lifetime.

You are very kind to me calling me young, but I’m more than half a century old. And in my 59 years, in the life of the Jewish state, there’s never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today, and also see the need to join together in working towards peace, while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.

NETANYAHU: I think we have -- we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency, and we’re prepared to move with the president and with others in the Arab world, if they’re prepared to move as well.

And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, (inaudible) from others in the Arab world (inaudible) give confidence to each other that we’re changing the reality, changing the reality on the ground, changing political realities (inaudible) as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.

And I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me, it’s shared by many others, and I definitely know it’s shared by President Obama.

OBAMA: Look, I think there’s an extraordinary opportunity (ph). The prime minister said it well. You have Arab states in the region -- the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis -- who I think are looking for an opportunity to break this longstanding impasse, but aren’t sure how to do it, and share concerns about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.

In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way, bolstering, to use the prime minister’s word, the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical.

It will not be easy. It never has been easy.

In discussions, I don’t think the prime minister would mind me saying to him -- or saying publicly what I -- I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution, that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to grain -- gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.

The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel.

And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority president, Abbas, as well as President Mubarak here, and I will deliver that message to them. Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with the prime minister the fact that under the road map, under Annapolis, there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.

OBAMA: That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed.

Now, I was along the border in Sderot, and saw the evidence of weapons that had been rained down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities. And that’s unacceptable. So we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons. And it has to be meaningful, because no prime minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.

On the other hand, the fact is is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

So all these things are going to have to come together. And it’s going to be difficult.

But the one thing that I have committed to the prime minister is we are going to be engaged. The United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.

I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills, but also his historic vision (ph) and his recognition that during the years that he is prime minister, his second go, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any prime minister that we’ve seen in a very long time.

And -- and I have great confidence that he is going to rise to the occasion. I actually think that you’re going to see movement in -- among Arab states that we have not seen before.

The trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate, political environment. And that’s why I’m so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the (inaudible) there, as our special envoy, because I’m very confident that, as somebody who was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he’s somebody who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination, and you keep your eye on the long-term goals that the prime minister articulated, which is a wide-ranging peace -- not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging regional peace, that we can make -- make great progress.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the Israeli prime minister (inaudible) Israeli administration has said on many occasions (inaudible) that only the Iranian threat (inaudible) can achieve (inaudible). Do you agree with that kind of linkage?

And to the Israeli prime minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final status issues negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem in the near future based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the link between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian side?

OBAMA: Well, let me say this.

There is no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to -- to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That -- that’s not conducive to negotiations.

And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

OBAMA: Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israel’s security interests and the United States national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

They’re both important. And we have to move aggressively on both fronts.

And I think that, based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they’re both important.

That’s not to say that he is not making a calculation -- as he should -- about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israel’s security. And I understand that.

But, look, imagine how much less mischief Hezbollah or Hamas could do if, in fact, we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief and vice versa.

I mean, so, obviously, these things are related but they are important separately. And I’m confident that the United States, working with Israel, can make progress on both fronts.

NETANYAHU: We’ve had extraordinary friendly, constructive talks here today. And I’m very grateful to you, Mr. President, for that.

We want to move peace forward and we want to ward off the great threats. There isn’t a policy linkage -- and that’s what I hear the president saying, and that’s what I’m saying, too, and I’ve always said -- there’s not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear Iran.

There are causal links. The president talked about one of them. It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And, conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area and disrupt the existing peace agreement.

So it’s very clear to us. I think we actually -- we don’t see closely on this; we see exactly eye-to-eye on this. We want to move simultaneously and in parallel on two fronts: the front of peace and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.

On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to -- is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible and to -- and my view is less one of terminology but one of substance.

NETANYAHU: And I ask myself, how do -- what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza -- the president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen because a terror base next door, cities that doesn’t (inaudible) recognize Israel’s existence, calls for our destruction and acts for our destruction is not interested (ph) in peace.

If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come to a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live side by side in security and peace. And I add prosperity (inaudible).

So I think the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think -- I think we can move forward on this.

I have great confidence in -- in your leadership, Mr. President, and your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is both come together, peace and security are intertwined, they’re inseparable. And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.

OBAMA: Thank you, everybody.

Video and Transcript: Dick Cheney on Fox News (12 May)

Related Post: Torture Now - Jon Stewart Takes on the New Dick Cheney
Related Post: Video and Transcript of Dick Cheney on “Face the Nation” (10 May)

Yep, him again. Fed lines by Fox's Neil Cavuto, Cheney blew more smoke with the demand that Government memoranda providing the effectiveness of torture be released, covering up the inconvenience that Government memoranda have been released and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of "enhanced interrogation". He raged against the next symbolic moment, the possible release of hundreds of photographs of the programme (think Abu Ghraib, magnified many times), and repeated how Obama is endangering the nation and the world.



CAVUTO: We’re getting word that by May 28th, up to potentially 2,000 pictures are going to be released by the White House showing various interrogation methods, up to 2,000. What do you think of that?

CHENEY: Well, I guess what I think is important is that there be some balance to what is being released. The fact of the matter is the administration appears to be committed to putting out information that sort of favors their point of views in terms of being opposed to, for example, enhanced interrogation techniques.

But so far they’ve refused to put out memos that were done by the CIA that I’ve requested be declassified that show the positive results of the detainee program, and all of the information and the intelligence we were able to garner from these high-value detainees.

CAVUTO: And you say there are at least two such CIA memos that point to...

CHENEY: Two specifically that I requested.

CAVUTO: To the enhanced interrogation and that it did yield results.

CHENEY: Yes, well, that specifically talked about detainees, about the contributions that we got to our overall intelligence picture. Publicly General Hayden, who used to be director of the CIA, said as late as 2006 a majority of the intelligence we had gotten about al Qaeda came from detainees, high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, like Abu Zubaydah, people that we captured during the course of our campaign against al Qaeda.

And they, of course, were obviously also the people that the debate has focused on with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques. So I...

CAVUTO: Have you spoken to anyone in the White House lately about this? And did they give you a head’s up, we’re going to release all of these interrogation...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: Well, what I did was make a formal request for declassification through the National Archives, which is the way you do it, and then it goes out to the agency responsible, in this case, the CIA. And I’m still awaiting a formal answer from them.

CAVUTO: Your daughter, Liz, was on a rival news network this morning.

CHENEY: She was.

CAVUTO: And she made the comment that the White House should have called my dad, I’m paraphrasing here, Mr. Vice President, but it was clearly -- the inference was that that did not happen.

What happened? When this whole dust-up started happening on interrogation and then eliminating waterboarding, did anyone from the White House give you or President Bush a head’s up that this policy was about to be reversed?

CHENEY: Well, I didn’t discuss it with anybody in the administration, but I’m not offended by that. They campaigned all across the country, from one end of the country to the other against enhanced interrogation techniques, and made it very clear they were opposed to that. They called it torture.

I don’t believe it was torture. We had attorneys who gave us a clear guidance as to what was appropriate and what wasn’t. The reason we’ve gotten into this debate at all is because the administration saw fit to go back and release OLC opinions, opinions out of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Justice Department dealing with its classified program.

Now that’s a very rare occurrence. You don’t ordinarily release those opinions, especially when it deals with classified programs. They did it in a way that sort of blocked so far any real discussion of the results of the program, and instead focused upon the techniques themselves.

And they really began the debate then with the suggestions that perhaps people should be prosecuted for having participated in the program or the lawyers who gave us these opinions should be disbarred. I think it’s an outrage.

I think the proposition that a new administration can come in and in effect launch an attack on their predecessor because they disagreed with the legal advice that was given by the Justice Department or because they find that they don’t like the policies that were pursued by the prior administration.

It’s one thing to come in and change the policy, it’s an entirely different proposition to come in and say that you’re somehow going to go after the lawyers and the Justice Department or the agents who carried out that policy. I just -- I think that’s outrageous. And that’s why I’ve spoken out as I have to defend the policy and...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But you have, but President Bush has not. And that, to your critics, is a sign of his statesmanship and your lack of it. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I don’t pay a lot of attention to what the critics say, obviously. From my standpoint, that a notion that I should remain silent while they go public, that I shouldn’t say anything while they threaten to disbar the lawyers who gave us the advice that was crucial in terms of this program, that I shouldn’t say anything when they go out and release information that they believe is critical of the program and critical of our policies, but refuse to put out information that shows the results of what we were able to achieve.

Bottom line is we successfully defended the nation for seven and a half years against a follow-on attack to 9/11. That was a remarkable achievement. Nobody would have thought that was possible, but it was. I believe it was possible because of the policies we had in place, which they’re now dismantling.

CAVUTO: So by that definition, are we more likely to be attacked now? Is that what you’re saying?

CHENEY: I think that we are stripping ourselves of some of the capabilities that we used in order to block, if you will, or disrupt activities by al Qaeda that would have led to additional attacks. I think that’s an important debate to have. I don’t think we should just roll over when the new administration says -- accuses of us committing torture, which we did not, or somehow violating the law, which we did not. I think you need to stand up and respond to that, and that’s what I’ve done.

CAVUTO: Have you raised this with President Bush? Have you talked with him and said, look, I’m going to go out and I’m going to be talking to Fox, I’m going to be talking, I want to let the world know how I feel?

CHENEY: You know, I’ve had a number of conversations on the telephone since January 20th.

CAVUTO: Any recently?

CHENEY: Those are -- oh, it’s been a couple of weeks. But we’re...

CAVUTO: How were those conversations? What do you talk about?

CHENEY: Well, those were private when we were in the White House and they remain so today.

CAVUTO: So you’re not going to tell me?

CHENEY: No.

CAVUTO: OK. Fine.

All right. We’re getting word out of “The Jerusalem Post,” Mr. Vice President, that Iran has deployed mobile ground-to-air and ground-to- sea missiles along the Strait of Hormuz, and perhaps beyond, in the Persian Gulf.

How bad is this getting?

CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the reports. I think it’s important to be aware of or recognize that Straits of Hormuz obviously are a key waterway, not just from the standpoint of the United States, but that about -- these numbers are rough, but about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through those straits every day. It’s something close to 18, 19 million barrels that come out of the Gulf, come out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and so forth. That’s the major export route, if you will, and so anything that potentially threatens the free flow of that traffic, obviously, would be of concern.

CAVUTO: Well, what they’re obviously doing is saying, you attack us, then we respond in spades (ph). And then the whole world is dealing with $100, $200 a barrel oil, right?

CHENEY: Well, I don’t know what they’re doing, obviously. I can’t speak for what the Iranians are up to. They’re difficult enough to follow when you’re talking to them, and we’re not talking to them and haven’t for a long time. But I do think...

CAVUTO: Well, we are making overtures to them, right? CHENEY: Well, the...

CAVUTO: This president is trying, and that the time for that type of behavior, as well as opening up more to folks like Hugo Chavez and all, the time is now for that, because we got nowhere (ph) this administration is doing. But you did, which was effectively to isolate these guys.

What do you make of that?

CHENEY: The Iranians have a track record. We tried to resolve the issue diplomatically. We worked with our European friends and allies. We tried to persuade them that they did not need to enrich uranium to weapons grade, that the Russians, for example, were prepared to sell them fuel for their reactor and then take the spent fuel back after the fuel had been used.

A lot of ways for them to acquire nuclear power-generating capabilities without producing weapons. They clearly seem to be in the business of wanting to produce weapons. We were unable to talk them out of it previously, and there was a very serious effort diplomatically, working through the United Nations and with the EU3, the way we refer to them, the British and the Germans and the French.

The fact is that, as far as we know, they’re still in the business of trying to produce that capability, and that would be a fundamental threat not only to the folks in the immediate region, but potentially others around the world, including the United States. They’re working on missile technology, and they can marry up a weapon with the missile, and they become a formidable power.

CAVUTO: President Obama is going to be in Egypt next month (INAUDIBLE), which he will use that nation as an address to the Muslim world. He is not stopping by Israel when he is in the neighborhood, so to speak. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: I don’t know that it has any significance. But obviously, I haven’t been part of scheduling for the new administration, so I don’t know what considerations go into that. But I don’t think I can attribute motives one way or the other.

CAVUTO: So, to Israelis who are concerned that maybe this administration, again, with a vested interest for the whole region at heart, is more inclined to engage Muslim nations, maybe even some radical nations. It’s giving some Israelis pause. Should it?

CHENEY: Well, I think it’s giving not only Israelis pause, it’s also - excuse me - creating concerns on the part of nearly everybody in the region. And I would put in that category, although I haven’t talked to him recently, the Saudis, the Gulf states, the Emirates and so forth, because they have been more concerned in recent years about developments in Iran than anything else, than any other issue in the area or the region. And that’s because they believe if you - if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it’ll fundamentally change the dynamic in that part of the world.

CAVUTO: How close are they, by the way, do you think?

CHENEY: Well, you can get all kinds of estimates. They clearly have installed thousands of centrifuges. That’s their claim. But there have been inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that can give us fairly precise information on how many centrifuges are installed and so forth. In terms of how close they are, I - you know, there are estimates, but I can’t give you a precise read or take on how much it is.

CAVUTO: Well, what would U.S. policy be, Mr. Vice President, if were to see Benjamin Netanyahu act alone, unilaterally to take out those centrifuges?

CHENEY: Well, I can’t speak for the administration, obviously, and that’s where you need to go to find out.

CAVUTO: What would you think?

CHENEY: I would find it that it would be a reflection of the fact that the Israelis believe this is an existential threat to the state of Israel. That Iran has taken a position and supported it over the years, that Israel should cease to exist, should go out of business, and Iran remains one of the prime sponsors of terror in the world, especially Hezbollah, and that all things considered, I think the Israelis look at developments in Iran, and they have stated publicly that they believe a nuclear-armed Iran is something that fundamentally threatens their existence. So, I would expect them to try to do something about it.

CAVUTO: Soon?

CHENEY: I can’t predict that. I don’t - I obviously don’t know, and can’t predict what they’ll do or when they’ll do it.

CAVUTO: Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired General David McKiernan from leading (ph) Afghanistan and said that whatever we were doing - I’m paraphrasing here, sir - wasn’t working and that we need more of a special-operations guy than we supposedly have now, and saying that the battle game and plan for Afghanistan has changed. Has it?

CHENEY: I think there’s been a significant increase, obviously, in the focus on Afghanistan, which I think is good. We had completed a review of our policy in Afghanistan shortly before we left office, and then decided that we would not put it out at that point, that that would feed into whatever the Obama administration wanted to do and might help them form a sounder policy. One of the things they’ve done and I think makes good sense is send more troops. I also believe the decision yesterday to send Stan McChrystal, lieutenant general, to take over in Afghanistan is a very good one. Stan’s an absolutely outstanding officer. I’m not saying anything critical of General McKiernan, who’s leaving. But Stan McChrystal was head of the Joint Special Operations Command. He’s been a superb officer...

CAVUTO: So, you support that choice?

CHENEY: I think the choice is excellent, and you’d be hard put to find anybody better than Stan McChrystal to take on that assignment.

CAVUTO: If you don’t mind, sir, I’d like to go back to terror (ph) for a second, and...

CHENEY: Excuse me.

CAVUTO: Sure. Nancy Pelosi has been caught up in when did she know and how much did she know, as far as the waterboarding issue, elevated interrogation techniques, and says she was aware of a 2003 meeting, but the way it’s been characterized that she was aware of all the details is wrong, and that painting (ph) her any other way is wrong. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: I don’t know the specifics of what sessions she was in. I know she was listed in a memorandum I’ve seen, a timeline that talks about when various members were briefed that the agencies produced in the last few days as public documents.

CAVUTO: When you say “briefed,” briefed on specifically waterboarding?

CHENEY: Briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

CAVUTO: That include waterboarding.

CHENEY: I don’t know. I wasn’t in the meetings, and I can’t speak to the content of the meetings. I know what the intention was. I know that the CIA basically took the responsibility of briefing members of Congress, a few in number, chairman and ranking member of the intelligence committees about the program.

CAVUTO: Congresswoman Jane Harman was among those who did write the letter of protest.

CHENEY: I don’t know about that, but I...

CAVUTO: Now, she passed along her concern to Nancy Pelosi , who I guess went through the legislative channels, who didn’t want to disrupt the legislative channels, to let her do the speaking, if I’m interpreting it correctly. But what...

CHENEY: You’re down in the weeds now.

CAVUTO: I guess I am.

CHENEY: I’m generally, obviously, aware of the program. I’m aware of the fact...

CAVUTO: Would you say more (ph) people knew than are saying so about these interrogation techniques?

CHENEY: I think it paralleled the surveillance program, for example, the terrorist surveillance program that we ran where I ran the briefings. And we briefed every few months the chairman and ranking member, and at one point, the “Big 9,” the speaker and majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate, on the substance of the program, on what we were doing, on how we were doing it, sought their advice and guidance on whether we should continue it.

CAVUTO: Well, do you remember any of them, Mr. Vice President, saying, whoa, whoa, whoa! This is a little too far for our tastes. We don’t want this.

CHENEY: No. On the terrorist surveillance program, after we’d given them the brief in the Situation Room in the basement - I presided over it - I went around the table and asked if they thought we should continue the program. They were unanimous. Then I asked if they thought we should...

CAVUTO: Who was unanimous?

CHENEY: The speaker, the majority and minority leader of the House and Senate, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

CAVUTO: On everything that had been stipulated, including these interrogations?

CHENEY: No, on the terrorist surveillance program.

CAVUTO: Gotcha.

CHENEY: I’m just giving you an example. And then I asked if they thought we should go back and get additional congressional authority, and they said absolutely not. That would reveal the existence of the program. And I think what happened with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques is, the CIA did go up. They did brief the relevant people, and I think what often happens in these circumstances is once a controversy develops, then some of the people that were briefed get forgetful.

CAVUTO: Let me just, on one last foreign policy issue before we hit on some economics. I know your time is tight. On Gitmo. The administration’s intelligence director had said that detainees who are just misplaced and are here have a right to, among other things, and could get who are just misplaced and are here, have a right, to among other things, and could get welfare, for example. How do you feel about that?

CHENEY: I think it’s a terrible idea. While we were running things at Guantanamo, there were several hundred people that processed through there, that were held there for a period of time and were ultimately sent back to their home countries.

The ones that are remaining, about 245, are the hardcore, the worst of the worst. They’re cases have been reviewed, they were given an review down at Guantanamo, and they were kept in custody because we believe they constituted a threat to the United States, so they had some continuing value.

Of those that were released, we had about a 12 percent recidivism rate, 12 percent that went back into the terrorism business. I think the recidivism on the ones that are still there would be far higher. It includes people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

Now, I think they’re having a very hard time finding anybody around the world who wants to take these folks. I know when we tried to place a few Uighurs, Chinese terrorists...

CAVUTO: Right, right.

CHENEY: And while we were still in office, ultimately, the only country that would take them was Albania. Everybody else rejected them.

CAVUTO: Where do you think they’re going to end up?

CHENEY: Well, I think they need to keep Guantanamo open. I think it’s a mistake to try to close it. I think if you didn’t have it, you’d have to invent it. If you bring those people to the United States, I don’t know a single congressman who is going to stand up and say, gee, send me some terrorists. I’d like to have some al Qaeda-types living in my district. That’s not going to happen.

So I think they’re going to find someplace where they can locate these folks. Guantanamo is a great facility. It’s very well run. These people are very well treated. It’s open to inspection by the International Red Cross and the press and so forth. It’s a good facility, it’s an important program, and we ought to continue it.

CAVUTO: Senator Biden was making his, today, spin to a union group, saying, we have to rebuild the middle class and the way to do that is to help labor unions grow. What do you make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I’m not anti-labor union. I carried a ticket for six years in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in my youth. I built power line transmission line all over Wyoming, Utah, Colorado. That’s how I paid for my education. So, I’m not anti-union.

I do think the legislation that the administration is supporting and that the unions are pushing hard, the so-called Card Check Law, would do away with a secret ballot in terms of the question of organizing unions. I think it would be a huge mistake. I don’t think we want to get into the business where we make it easier for there to be the kind of intimidation that we’ve sometimes seen in these operations in the past and where people wouldn’t be able to cast a secret ballot in terms of whether or not they want to join a union.

CAVUTO: Jack Welt (ph) said they be deliteriates (ph) to our economic recovery. Do you agree?

CHENEY: Well, I always felt that what Ronald Reagan did back in 1981in the early part of his administration when he was very tough with the air traffic controllers was a good, sound, solid move. I think that, as I say, people want to join a union, fine. That’s their business. There are provisions for that that allow unions to be represented.

But I think what the unions are trying to do here is dramatically expand the base in terms of membership and they will, in turn, generate vast sums of money in terms of dues and political contributions. And I think it does have wide- ranging ramifications and that the current system where we have secret ballots for people to decide whether or not want to be represented by unions is a good way to go. We ought to preserve it.

CAVUTO: You mentioned Ronald Regan, sir, and Jeb Bush made some news recently made some news recently saying that the party, and I’ll paraphrase here, obsesses a bit too much about Ronald Regan and have got to move on and move forward. What do make of that?

CHENEY: Well, I like Jeb. I think he’s a good man. I’d like to see him continue to say involved politically.

CAVUTO: For president?

CHENEY: I’d probably support him for president.

CAVUTO: Would you really?

CHENEY: He’s a good man.

CAVUTO: Over Mitt Romney?

CHENEY: I’m not - I’m not endorsing anybody today. I’m not...

CAVUTO: Any candidate you like?

CHENEY: I’m not in the business of endorsing anybody at this point, Neil. But I’m a big fan of Jeb’s.

I think, in terms of the Regan legacy, I think it’s important to the party. I think it was a period of time when we had an administration that understood that the engine that drives the American economy is the private sector. That one of the things that was most important from the standpoint of government was to get out of the way of the private sector and let small businesses grow and develop and create jobs and create wealth. You had to reduce the tax burden to the maximum percent possible. Exactly the opposite of the kind of policies we see coming out of the administration today when we’re experiencing a vast - a proposal for a vast increase in the power of the government over the private sector.

CAVUTO: Without, you know, any regard for party, it started with your administration, right? I mean, the bailout, the financial bailouts of the banks and looking to help the auto companies being in very dire economic moments, certainly, was started by you and President Bush.

CHENEY: Well...

CAVUTO: Do you regret any of that?

CHENEY: I disagreed with bailing out the automobile companies. I would have encouraged the process to go forward for a Chapter 11.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What about the banks?

CHENEY: ...to go.

The banks were different. And the reason the banks are different is because they are part of the financial system that is the heart and soul of our economy. And the federal government has major responsibilities for the health of our financial institutions. You’ve got the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the FDIC, SEC, et cetera. And when the markets began to seize up, when people couldn’t get credit any more, when the collapse, for example, of the subprime mortgage market and so forth, put at risk the basic fundamental health of our economy because it threatened that core of our financial system and there isn’t anybody other than the federal government that can fix it. And therefore, we felt that we had no choice. But it’s still...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But it’s still in shaky shape, right? After all...

CHENEY: It’s still in shaky shape, but there are...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: ... bankruptcy like you recommended for the auto companies be applied to the banks...

CHENEY: Not for the banks.

CAVUTO: Really?

CHENEY: I really think that would have been a serious problem when you have...

CAVUTO: Now, what did you see, can you say now, what did everyone see that was going to be so horrific that ...

CHENEY: Well, when we have the secretary of the Treasury or the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve come in and say we’ve got a major crisis on our hands and within 48 hours major financial institutions are going to go down in flames. Or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that dominated the mortgage market out there were suddenly in trouble financially because of the collapse of the subprime mortgage...

CAVUTO: But you must have seen where that was going, right? What you do for one, all expecting then - it’s an expectations game, right?

CHENEY: Right. But again, I think you’ve got to, and we did, make a distinction about the financial sector, because it is different than the other parts of the economy. The other parts of the economy can’t function without a strong financial sector, without credit, without sound monetary policy and actions by the government and the Federal Reserve to establish and maintain the value of our currency. Trying

CAVUTO: But now we’ve got the president, the government dictating salaries at these institutions rescued - which, I guess, happens if you take taxpayer dollars - and dictating their very business, right?

CHENEY: Well, the thing I find objectionable is that people are taking what was done with respect to the financial sector and without discriminating, trying to do the same thing for a broader range of sectors. And think that’s a mistake.

CAVUTO: Do you think it went too far?

CHENEY: I think so. I would have kept it focused on the financial institutions. But I do - I worry that the current situation is a set of circumstances where the administration is using the excuse of the economic difficulties in order to significantly broaden the power and authority of the government over the private sector. I think that’s a huge mistake.

CAVUTO: In “The Wall Street Journal’s” story that has it that the president’s tax hikes actually go in to those earning $235,000, not $250,000. What do you think of that?

CHENEY: I haven’t seen the story, but I worry. I don’t see any way you can do what he’s trying to do in terms of the vast expansion of governmental programs and the huge federal deficit and major tax increases without the kind of tax increases that are going to hit virtually every American.

CAVUTO: Do you think it stops at 39.6 percent?

CHENEY: I’m afraid it won’t, not if you go with a government of the size and scale that the administration apparently envisions.

CAVUTO: What do you envision that we’ll ultimately get to?

CHENEY: Well, I’d much prefer a situation in which we did not embark upon a course of the vast expansion of the authority of the federal government over the private sector. I’d be much more focused on tax cuts and reducing the economic burden on the private sector that the federal government represents as the best way to get the economy up and running again. I think you need to create jobs, you need to support small business, you need to encourage people to go out and save and invest and create the kind of entrepreneurial activity that really has given us the greatness that is the American economy, not expand the size of the federal government.

CAVUTO: Finally, Mr. Vice President, many have urged the Republican Party to moderate, to get more mainstream, to do what Democrats did at the time that Bill Clinton in the late ‘80s into ‘92, become more palatable to a wider section of the population. What do you say?

CHENEY: I think we need to run a party that is broadly based, where people of a wide variety of viewpoints are welcome. I don’t think we ought to change the basic fundamental philosophy of the Republican Party. I personally am a conservative Republican. I obviously believe in my philosophy, and I think that’s the basis upon which we have to build any resurgence of our party. I think we will, but I think we’ll do it by being true to our principles, not becoming more like the Democrats.

CAVUTO: So, you don’t think you’d isolate the Republicans going your route?

CHENEY: No.

CAVUTO: Mr. Vice President, thank you very, very much.

CHENEY: Pleasure as always, Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you very much.

CHENEY: Good to see you.

Bye Bye Zardari (Again)? Washington Considers The Political Alternative in Pakistan

Latest Post: More on "Bye, Bye Zardari", Hello Pakistan Military

Enduring America, 18 March: "Having failed to get “stability” with Musharraf, having failed with Zardari, it is not hope that moves Washington but this question: Who or what can come next?

Soon after the Obama Administration took office, we concluded that its Pakistan policy was going around President Asif Ali Zardari, rather than working with him. Two weeks ago, we wrote that the US was behind a de facto military leadership of Pakistani policy, especially in the fight against insurgents in the northwest of the country.

Now Washington's idea of a political alternative is emerging. The New York Times revealed on Saturday that the US is trying to bring Zardari's long-time rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured), into the Pakistani Government. Administration officials told the newspaper, "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have both urged Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif to look for ways to work together."

That in itself is not news. The Long March demonstrations in March exposed Zardari's political weakness and, conversely, elevated Sharif as leader of democratic opposition. During the protests, Clinton and Holbrooke talked to both men to avoid a violent showdown.

What is significant in the latest report is the open backing of Obama officials of Sharif, formerly seen as too close to "Islamist" (the shorthand for conservative religious groups, backed by Saudi Arabia) elements in Palistan. The simple reason? In the aftermath of the Long March, Sharif is seen as generally popular in contrast to widespread dislike for Zardari. An Obama official said bluntly, "The idea here is to tie Sharif’s popularity to things we think need to be done, like dealing with the militancy."

Washington's readiness to ditch Zardari, or at least push him to the side, was evident last week in statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and President Obama; however, it reached a new level in leaks from General David Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command. After Petraeus spoke with US Congressmen, Fox News claimed that the General asserted “the Pakistanis have run out of excuses” for their failure to confront the insurgency.Petraeus reportedly gave the Pakistani Government two weeks to take "concrete action to destroy the Taliban".

Zardari's allies have tried to push back, rather lamely, with claims that the President is already talking to Sharif about their co-operation in Government. As the Pakistani military reclaimed the town of Buner, 60 miles north of Islamabad, back from insurgents, the Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, used The Wall Street Journal --- the preferred outlet of Zardari's public-relations machine --- to counter-attack:

President Asif Zardari has repeatedly declared the war against them a war for Pakistan's soul.....Meanwhile, the change of administration in the U.S. has slowed the flow of assistance to Pakistan. Unfortunately, ordinary Pakistanis have begun to wonder if our alliance with the West is bringing any benefits at all.

It appears, however, that all this is too late to persuade Washington that Zardari is reliable. On Saturday, Petraeus was in all-day meetings with senior Administration officials on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It may be too early to decode the latest American moves --- Secretary of Defense Gates' interview with CNN, airing today, was recorded earlier in the week --- but here's a safe bet:

If Washington has its way, President Zardari will be pushing his chair to the back of the room.