Vice Pres. Cheney gave an interview to reporters traveling abroad with him earlier this week with the understanding that they must say their source was a “senior administration official,” not Cheney himself. But even this he screwed up — big time. Here’s a partial transcript:
That’s not the way I work. I don’t know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn’t know what I‘m doing, or isn’t involved in it.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The reason the President wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border — a threat to Afghanistan, clearly, in our efforts there, the Taliban, cross-border operations; a threat to Musharraf and his government…
Let me just make one editorial comment here. I‘ve seen some press reporting says, “Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.” That’s not the way I work. I don’t know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn’t know what I‘m doing, or isn’t involved in it. But the idea that I‘d go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.
I would describe my sessions both in Pakistan and Afghanistan as very productive. We’ve had notable successes in both places. I‘ve often said before and I believe it’s still true that we’ve captured and killed more al Qaeda in Pakistan than anyplace else. And I think we’re making progress in Afghanistan.
My sense of it was Karzai was more positive and optimistic than I‘d seen in my recent visits. That doesn’t mean that there’s no threat. That doesn’t mean — no rosy scenario. There’s a hell of a lot of work to be done…
Q You’ve spoken … though, about some of the things that Speaker Pelosi and Representative Murtha have said how that does play to the hands of —
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was asked by one of your colleagues.
Q But your answer was very articulate.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I responded very carefully.
Q And you suggested that they make — they lend comfort to terrorists, essentially.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, what I said was that that the al Qaeda strategy is based on the notion that they can break the will of the American people. They know they can’t beat us in a stand-up fight. But they do believe — and I think there’s evidence to support this — that they can, in fact, force us to change our policy if they just kill enough Americans, create enough havoc out there. And they cite Beirut in 1983; Mogadishu, 1993, kill Americans, America changes its policy and withdraws. And Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri believe this. They talk about it. It’s not a mystery.
And my point was that if we follow what I believe Speaker Pelosi really wants to do in terms of withdraw, that that would validate the al Qaeda strategy. I was very careful in those words I selected. I didn’t say “give aid and comfort to terrorists.” I didn’t say “unpatriotic.” I said it would validate the al Qaeda strategy….
