I don’t know how I came across this, but I did. Funny how the internet tubes lead you here and there. These are comments from Dick Cheney at a 2000 debate with Lieberman.

MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America’s armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?

CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors. There may be occasion when it’s appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars. And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We’ve seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time we’ve seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he’s now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We’re overcommitted and underresourced. This has had some other unfortunate effects. I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in ‘95 getting ready to get out of the service because he’s only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He’s concerned if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost. It’s a legitimate concern, the fact the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. It’s a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them good leadership and build up the forces.

This is a special interest of mine. I would like a chance to elaborate further, if I might. The facts are dramatically different. I’m not attacking the military, Joe. I have enormous regard for the men and women of the U.S. military. I had the privilege of working with them while I was the Secretary of Defense. No one has a higher regard than I do for them. It’s irresponsible to suggest we shouldn’t have that debate, that we should ignore what is a major, major concern. If you have friends and relatives serving in the U.S. military, you know there’s a problem. If you look at the data that’s available, 40% of our Army helicopters are not combat ready. The combat readiness level in the Air Force dropped from 85% to 65%. Significant problems of retention. The important thing for us to remember is that we’re a democracy and we’re defended by volunteers. Everybody out there tonight wearing the uniform standing on guard to protect the United States is there because they volunteered to put on a uniform. When we don’t give them the spare parts they need, when we don’t give our pilots the flying hours they need, when we don’t give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let’s them know why they’re putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale. That’s an extraordinarily valuable trust. There is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than his role as Commander in Chief. When he decides when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that’s old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties in the next conflict if we don’t look to those basic problems now. This administration has a bad track record in this regard, and it’s available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk to our men and women in uniform, and wants to spend time with the members of the Joint Chiefs, wants to look at readiness levels and other — other indicators. Final point, the issue of procurement is very important because we’re running now off the buildup of the investment we made during the Reagan years. As that equipment gets old, it has to be replaced. We’ve taken money out of the procurement budget to support other ventures. We have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military.

On the middle east:

CHENEY: It has been a difficult area to work in for a long time. Numerous administrations going back to World War II have had to wrestle with the problem of what should happen to the Middle East. We made significant breakthroughs at the end of the Bush administration because of the Gulf War. We had joined together with Arab allies and done enormous damage to the Iraqi armed forces. Iraq was the biggest military threat to Israel. By virtue of the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were no longer a factor. They used to fish in troubled waters whenever they had the opportunity in the Middle East. With the end of the Soviet Union, the implosion of the empire, that created a vacuum and made it easier for us to operate there. We were able to, I think, reassure both Arabs and Israelis would play a major role there. We would deploy forces if we had to to engage in military operations to help our friends. We were able to convene them in a conference. The first time Arab and Israelis sat down face-to-face and began this process of trying to move the peace process forward. I think also a lot of credit goes to some great men like Yitzak Rabin. His tragic passing was a great tragedy for everybody who cares about peace in the Middle East. He was a man who had the military stature to be able to confidently persuade the Israelis to take risks for peace. I think Barak has tried to same thing. I hope that we can get this resolved as soon as possible. My guess is the next administration is going to be the one that is going to have to come to grips with the current state of affairs there. I think it’s very important that we have an administration where we have a president with firm leadership who has the kind of track record of dealing straight with people, of keeping his word so friends and allies both respect us and our adversaries fear us.

MODERATOR: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would, quote, “Take him out.” Would you agree with such a deadly policy?

CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We’ll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions, and an inspection regime was in place under the U.N. and it was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, the work he had been doing that had not been destroyed during the war in biological and chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program. Unfortunately now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and French are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and thumbing their nose at the international sanctions regime. We’re in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It’s unfortunate. I also think it’s unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don’t know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he’s not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to — to stop that activity. I don’t think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

On energy policy:

CHENEY: This is an area where I think again Joe and I have fairly significant disagreements. My assessment is that there is no comprehensive energy policy today. That as a nation, we are in trouble because the administration has not addressed these issues. We have the prospects of brownouts in California. We have a potential home heating oil crisis in the northeast. We have gasoline price rises in various other places. For years now the administration has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, but they haven’t done it. In fact, we’ve gone exactly in the opposite direction. We have the lowest rate of domestic production of oil now in 46 years. You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. Our imports are at an all-time record high. In June we imported almost 12 million barrels of oil a day. We have other problems. We don’t have refinery capacity. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country for ten years. They’re operating at 96% or 97% capacity. Even with more crude available they’re probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating oil. We have a growing problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. We ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction. We need to do a lot more about generating the capacity for power here at home. We need to get on with the business and we think we can do it very safely in an environmentally sound manner. We don’t think we ought to buy into this false choice that somehow we cannot develop energy resources without being cautious with the environment. We can. We have the technology to do it and we ought to do it. We do support the low income energy assistance program. We think it’s important that senior citizens don’t suffer this winter, but we need to get on to the business of having a plan to develop our domestic energy resources in producing more supplies, and this administration hasn’t produced them.

On partisanship:
MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Washington is a caldron of political bickering and partisanship. The American people have had enough. How would you elevate political discourse and purpose?

CHENEY: Well, I think there are a number of ways to do it. First of all, I agree with your assessment. I’ve been out of Washington for the last eight years and spent the last five years running a company global concern. And been out in the private sector building a business, hiring people, creating jobs. I have a different perspective on Washington than I had when I was there in the past. I’m proud of my service for 25 years, but also proud I had the opportunity to go out and get a different experience. And you’re absolutely right. People are fed up. They’ve had enough with the bickering and the partisanship that seems to characterize the debate that goes on in the nation’s capital. I’ve seen it done differently in Texas. I’ve watched George Bush. And one of the reasons I was eager to sign on when he asked me to become his running mate is because I’ve been so tremendously impressed with what he’s done as the Governor of Texas. He came in when he had a legislature completely controlled by the other party. He managed to reached across partisan lines and put them to work to achieve good things for the State of Texas. Partly because he didn’t point the finger of blame looking for scapegoats he was quick to share the credit. He ended up, as a result of that activity, having the top Democrat in the state, Bob Bulloch, endorse George Bush for reelection. It’s possible to change the tone. It is possible to get people to work together and to begin to focus on achieving results. I think it will take new leadership. I don’t think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various groups for failings. I think you have to be able to reach out and work together and build coalitions. I think George W. Bush has done it in Texas and can do it at the national level.