Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Saudi Arabia Supports Strike on Syria; The Shocking Videos that Senators Saw; Congress Returns to Tackle Syria; Battle Over Syria Looms in Congress; Kerry: Evidence Is There of Sarin Attack; Several Hurt in Swing Ride; Anonymous Photos Against War Go Viral; Chemical Weapons Use In Syria Could Have Far-Reaching Impact; Rumsfeld: Obama Lacks Clarity on Syria; Assad Raised to Build a Dynasty; Arab League Condemns Syrian Gas Attacks

Aired September 08, 2013 - 15:00   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to the second hour on this Sunday afternoon. Hello, everyone. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. A look at our top stories this hour, the Obama administration is speaking out about the disturbing videos of a suspected chemical attack in Syria. A top official says it's critical Congress sees the graphic images. We'll tell you why.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pushes for action abroad and reveals information where a key U.S. ally stands on a potential military strike in Syria.

Plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces go online to oppose a strike, public descent within the military straight ahead.

Secretary of State John Kerry is very busy trying to convince the international community to take military action against Syria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: What we are seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. We are not seeking to become engaged in or party to or take over Syria's civil war.

WHITFIELD (voice-over): He met with Arab League foreign ministers today and Syria was on the agenda.

Foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott is live for us right now in London, where she's traveling with the secretary.

So Elise, Kerry will be meeting with whom today?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, tonight, Fred, he's meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. This European trip was supposed to be focused on the Middle East peace process, which Secretary Kerry really has been spending a lot of time in since he took office.

But clearly, Syria eclipsed that. He met earlier today, as you said, with the foreign ministers of the Arab League and seemed to get some Arab support. He said that Saudi Arabia supported any U.S. strikes. He was expecting some announcements from other countries in the next 24 hours, showing some support for this G20 statement that was passed on Friday. That was passed by -- signed by about a dozen nations.

And now, he's expecting some more Arab nations to sign on, including Qatar, whose foreign minister today said that they support it.

WHITFIELD: To what extent will they be supporting? Are they willing to give details?

LABOTT: It's a little unclear. Every country will speak for themselves. I don't think you will see all Arab nations signing up for any type of military coalition. Saudi Arabia has indicated it would be willing to support strikes and maybe even take part. You know, they haven't said so explicitly yet, but Secretary Kerry's announcement sure seemed to move in that direction.

The Qatari foreign minister said his country would be looking what it could do and you might have other nations showing political support, but clearly the Obama administration thinks that it's building more international consensus.

This statement that came out of the G20, that so far has about 13 nations, is quickly becoming the vehicle of choice, if you will, for international consensus to act in Syria and hold the Assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons.

WHITFIELD: All right. Elise Labott, thanks so much for joining us from London.

President Obama is getting ready to make a major pitch to Congress and the American people on why the U.S. should launch an attack on Syria. Tomorrow, he will give interviews to journalists from six television networks, including our own Wolf Blitzer.

Then Tuesday night he lays out his case to the American people in a primetime speech from the White House, 9:00 pm Eastern time.

Meantime, Secretary of State John Kerry is speaking out about why the administration showed a Senate committee extremely graphic videos of a suspected sarin gas attack in Syria. We must warn you: this video is graphic and appears to show people dying from a gas attack.

CNN was the first to obtain the clips of the victims, men, women, children, all seen convulsing on the ground, struggling to breathe; some are dead. Kerry said today it's important Congress know what the chemical weapons attack did to Syrian civilians before they vote on whether or not to strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody anywhere by any standards, and that it is the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this. This is not our values. This is not who we are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN's Barbara Starr is at the Pentagon.

So Barbara, what makes U.S. officials believe these tapes are authentic and that there's more?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fredricka, what they are pointing to is that these tapes, horrific as they are, were shot from multiple angles. So some of the data points match that the outdoors around these facilities, these areas which are known areas, they were confirmed by overhead satellite imagery, and that some of the surviving victims were able to confirm some of these details.

It doesn't get to the exact question of what part of the Syrian regime the U.S. believes carried out the attack per se, but there is very much, I think, fair to say, a growing body of information that this horrific act happened; the U.S. does feel it was at the hands of the regime.

WHITFIELD: And Barbara, clearly the Obama administration is trying very hard to make its point with the president making himself available tomorrow and then a primetime address to the nation, as it pertains to Congress.

Where do we understand the support is?

STARR: Right. Right now, what you're going to see in the next few days, as Dana Bash and our whole congressional team have reported, full court press, meetings, briefings, phone calls, back and forth between administration officials and the Hill, both parties trying to get that support for what the president wants to have happen.

We've had a bit of a look at it ourselves at CNN. And here's our calculation. In the Senate, 25 yes at this point; 20 senators no; 55 undecided, if you will.

But if you go across Capitol Hill to the House, you see a much bigger problem emerging for the administration politically here, because the calculation there is that you have 24 yes votes, 123 no votes, 272 undecided, 14 unknown. So a lot of work to do on both sides of the aisle on the House side, Democrats and Republicans, to get support for what the president wants.

They may not vote for several days yet, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Barbara Starr for the Pentagon, thanks so much.

One fact the president cannot escape. For the last month, members of Congress have been in their home districts and they've been getting an earful from a number of their constituencies. The president will get ready to make that major pitch to Congress and to the American people on why the U.S. should launch an attack on Syria.

Tomorrow he'll give interviews to journalists from six television networks, including our own Wolf Blitzer and then again Tuesday night he lays out his case to the American people in a speech from the White House at 9:00 Eastern time.

Meantime, Secretary of State John Kerry is speaking out about why the administration showed that Senate committee extremely graphic videos of that suspected gas attack is Syria. He continues to press the case for the White House objective, to try to launch some sort of military attack. Right now, he's overseas and, of course, the push will continue here stateside.

Meantime, again, the constituents are indeed telling their congresspeople what they think about a potential attack on Syria. Our Dana Bash brings us this wrap-up of events.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I am unalterably opposed to having a single American boot on the ground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not good enough. We sent you to stop the war.

BASH (voice-over): For undecided lawmakers, watching what happened to pro-Syria bombing Senator John McCain back home is a cautionary tale.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is what I think of Congress. They are a bunch of marshmallows.

Why are you not listening to the people and staying out of Syria? It's not our fight.

BASH (voice-over): Even for a town hall veteran like McCain, this was rough.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We cannot afford to turn Syria into another Iraq or Afghanistan. I beg you.

BASH: Lawmakers are hearing that kind of opposition all across the country. It's part of the reason even the president's most loyal supporters, like members of the Black Caucus are very wary of authorizing a strike.

REP. GREG MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: Of course there's a large number of them that say we don't want you to go to war.

BASH (voice-over): A House Democratic leadership source insists to CNN the majority of lawmakers are still persuadable because they have not yet been briefed. The problem for the president is how many, especially fellow Democrats, are reluctant even after attending classified briefings intended to persuade them.

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), MARYLAND: They are our allies and what will they do? I know that 37 nations have said that they would support us, but what does support mean?

BASH (voice-over): Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is a combat veteran of the Iraq War. REP. TULSI GABBARD (D), HAWAII: We've seen firsthand the extreme costs of war, both overseas, as well as here at home, is something that is giving me a unique perspective, but great pause.

BASH (voice-over): She is like many who don't question whether Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, but do question Obama officials' ability to answer key questions in public or private about military contingencies after the U.S. bombs. Like what if Assad finds a way to use chemical weapons again?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Do we strike again? Well, that's the definition of further entanglement. That's the definition of our becoming deeply involved in a war.

BASH (voice-over): Dana Bash, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: So, again, America has seen the horrific videos showing victims of that chemical attack in Syria.

But what do the images really tell us? A former U.N. weapons expert weighs in next in the NEWSROOM.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Just what do the images that you've been seeing of the victims of the chemical attack tell us?

Is there any direct evidence linking them to the Assad regime?

Let's bring in Charles Duelfer, a former chief weapons inspector at the United Nations.

Mr. Duelfer, good to see you.

CHARLES DUELFER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you for inviting me, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Earlier this morning on "Face the Nation," Charlie Rose said that he has interviewed Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, and that Assad told him that he did not authorize the use of chemical weapons or had nothing to do with the attack. You've spent over 25 years in the national security agencies of the U.S. government, including the CIA.

So how does one go about discerning the origin of the chemical weapons? Whose fingerprints are on them?

DUELFER: Well, that's the key question is whose fingerprints are there?

It's pretty evident from the video and other evidence that sarin gas was used in this attack. The question is who was responsible for it. There will be surrounding intelligence data to make the case that it was in fact the Syrian regime. There will be the munitions which were used, which are specialized, if they're for sarin gas.

There'll be the data about where they were launched from, where they were targeted. There will be presumably as well communications information. The part where it may get tricky for the administration is if there's not a clear link to Bashar al-Assad himself.

If there's communications between various lower levels where Bashar al-Assad could make the case that he did not authorize it and the statements which he made to Charlie Rose may in fact have been accurate, if in fact it was a sublevel group that just took matters into their own hands.

WHITFIELD: Because apparently there's a possibility that defectors, those who once were with the military, run by the Syrian government, that they had the expertise, would know how to launch that kind of weaponry, would be able to have access to it and that they could potentially have been the ones who may now be on the side of the rebels; they could be the ones that are launching these chemical weapons.

Does that sound feasible, reasonable, possible at all?

DUELFER: Well, I think that's a case that the Russians may try to make to sustain ambiguity about who the responsible party was. That might have some residents in the international community and the security council that may be able to create some doubt, saying, well, the United States has been encouraging Syrian army people to defect.

Maybe they defected to the rebels and the brought their chemical weapons with them and then decided to use them to muddy the waters. I think that's a very weak case, but it could be enough to cause things to be unclear when the U.N. weapons inspectors finally report and that information is debated in the security council.

WHITFIELD: You had mentioned the thing that would have to be evaluated and collected, munitions data that would say -- the launch from site, communications information.

Who would have access to that?

Is that something that would be revealed in the U.N. report or is that something separate that the U.S. intelligence community would have to have their hands on?

DUELFER: That is a good point, Fredricka. That is the difference that's going to be evident between what the U.N. weapons inspectors can report -- and bear in mind that their utility is that they are seen as credible and unbiased. But they don't have the types of information the intelligence community has.

The United States will have all these other bits of data, in terms of communications intelligence, perhaps the trajectories and the points of origin for these artillery or rockets. They will have all that surrounding data which can be quite convincing but perhaps not quite believable by other members of the international community.

It could be persuasive on Congress and be quite convincing the Bashar al-Assad regime, perhaps up to and including Bashar al-Assad was responsible for this. But making that case internationally may be more difficult.

WHITFIELD: Working with both U.N. weapons inspecting side as well as U.S. intelligence, would you believe that this administration would have all of those ducks in order before making a case like this?

DUELFER: I think they'll have a pretty strong case to make.

The issue tends to be, I think, is this the highest level priority that -- at the top of the hierarchy of things we need to worry about in the region right now?

The case is being made we need to respond to the use of chemical weapons because that's an international norm and we need to sustain that international norm.

But is that the highest priority?

Is that the thing that we need to do to risk everything on right now?

We have got other aspects of this: Iran, the stability of Jordan. There are so many other things which can go badly wrong. We could be making things worse and not really know it.

WHITFIELD: Charles Duelfer, thanks so much for your insight. Appreciate it.

DUELFER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: The U.S. says the evidence is there of a chemical attack in Syria. In a moment, we'll take a closer look at those planes and exactly where the evidence came from.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

WHITFIELD: The U.S. says there is no doubt Syria's Assad regime launched a gas attack against its own people. The evidence is all there to prove it. CNN's Brian Todd looks at what the evidence is and where it came from.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Samples from the bodies of victims, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, give U.S. officials the evidence they need. JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: It has tested positive for signatures of sarin.

TODD (voice-over): But what are those signatures?

How can we be sure this isn't a repeat of the slam-dunk that wasn't, the claim that Iraq had WMD?

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, who's previously looked for these traces in Iraq, says a signature of sarin is not something you can see or smell.

DAVID KAY, FORMER U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Think of how any other chemical that you're familiar with around the house or food substance will break down into other things. So you're not looking for smell or discoloration.

TODD: Kay says that, unlike mustard gas, sarin does not burn your skin. The victims who die from it, he says, die because, when it's breathed in, it shuts down your nerves. Then you suffocate.

Experts say to find out if that's happened, to find that signature, you take blood, hair, brain tissue, clothing samples, then, a portable version of this, a gas chromatography machine, will give you spikes indicating that sarin was used.

TODD (voice-over): But there's another key question about signatures of sarin.

TODD: How reliable are those samples? How reliable are these tests?

KAY: If you're going to get a single sample or, say, half a dozen of samples, I think most of us would be concerned, because you're concerned about how they were collected and all. That's why the inspectors were so careful to get -- to take multiple samples from places.

TODD (voice-over): Kay says nothing is 100 percent in these situations, but if the U.N. inspectors took enough samples and if they controlled them well enough, the reliability should be high.

A U.N. official we contacted wouldn't say how many samples they took or talk about methods. What we do know: many of these victims never had a chance.

TODD: Sarin, specifically, what happens to you if you don't have one of these?

AMY SMITHSON, CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES: If you don't have one of those, you're very much out of luck because literally, within minutes, your body will begin to shut down. It's not just the types of things that you've seen on these videos with the twitching and the convulsing and the difficulty seeing things and foaming at the mouth.

Your body will short circuit; you'll die within minutes. TODD: Could there be false positives in the testing of those victims? David Kay says not if you do the testing well enough. He says it's more likely you'll get inconclusive results in a given sample if the traces are minute or if there are no traces because of the shelling of the area that Syrian forces did after the chemical attack -- Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: We're just now getting details into the NEWSROOM about an amusement ride accident involving children. We'll have more on that right after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

WHITFIELD: This breaking news now coming into the CNN NEWSROOM, several people have been hurt in Norwalk, Connecticut, after an accident on a children's swing ride. Right now we don't know how many people are injured or how many of them are children. Some reports are saying as many as a dozen kids were hurt and some may have been trapped. It happened during Norwalk's Oyster Festival. And we'll bring you more details as soon as they become available.

Meantime we're at the bottom of the hour right now. Welcome back to the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Five other things crossing the CNN news desk right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD (voice-over): Number one, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Arab League foreign ministers today. He is pushing for their support in a military strike against Syria.

KERRY: What we're seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. We are not seeking to become engaged in or a party to or take over Syria's civil war.

WHITFIELD (voice-over): Number two, tomorrow, President Obama will talk to all six television networks including CNN about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. His interview with our own Wolf Blitzer will air at 6 o'clock Eastern time in "THE SITUATION ROOM".

Number three, a few days after a break-in at Buckingham Palace, police thought they had caught another intruder. They approached a man walking in the palace's garden and asked him to verify his identity. Well, it turns out, the intruder was this man, Prince Andrew, the brother of Prince Charles.

Andrew, by the way, was born in Buckingham Palace and still keeps his office there.

Number four, NASA engineers have fixed a glitch that threatened to derail a space probe on its way to the moon. NASA says the lunar atmosphere and dust environmental explorer had some trouble with one of the wheels soon after it was launched in Virginia Friday. The probe is set to orbit the moon starting October 8th.

Number five, a big matchup next hour in the women's U.S. Open finals. Serena Williams going for her 17th grand slam title against Victoria Azarenka. Williams' tennis game has been called unstoppable lately, especially after cruising to a semifinal victory over Li Na on Friday. But defending Azarenka today won't be easy for Williams. She already has lost to Azarenka twice this year.

And some photos on the Internet are creating controversy in the military community. They appear to be active service members speaking out against any U.S. involvement in Syria. The men and women on the Facebook page are all in uniforms and holding signs condemning a possible strike. CNN has not been able to independently verify any military status.

Rosa Flores has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Political messages like these posted on a Facebook page by a group called the Armed Forces Tea Party showing anonymous people in military uniform condemning a U.S. military strike on Syria have gone viral.

This one reads, "I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war."

This other one directed to the president, quote, "Obama, I will not deploy to fight for your Al Qaeda rebels in Syria. Wake up, people."

FLORES: What do you think these messages will do?

JOSE VASQUEZ, IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST WAR: The messages on Facebook, I think it creates an awareness, that there is a difference of opinion within the military.

FLORES (voice-over): Jose Vasquez served in the Army for 15 years and understands why these service members are speaking out. He's not linked to the Facebook page, but says he was honorably discharged as a conscientious objector, meaning he left the military on the grounds of freedom of thought.

VASQUEZ: In my case, I just did a lot of reading, went to college, understood that the majority of the people that are injured during war are civilian casualties, by and large.

FLORES (voice-over): If the anonymous people in these photos are indeed active military personnel and they are identified, retired U.S. Army General Spider Marks says they could be in real trouble.

GEN. SPIDER MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): If anybody that's in uniform right now disagrees in advance with what the discussion is all about, they run the risk of being punished (inaudible). FLORES (voice-over): Or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Department of Defense and the Tea Party groups declined to comment to CNN regarding these photos and their potential action.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Rosa Flores joining us live now from New York, so, Rosa, what type of punishment are we talking about potentially?

FLORES: We talked to retired U.S. Army General Spider Marks about this.

And he tells us, that, first of all, they would have to identify the section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would apply in this case and then he says that it would be circumstantial. It would depend on the type and manner of service that these individuals have brought forth.

But Fredricka, there are a lot of ifs in this story. This is if these individuals are actual active military members, if they are identified and if the DOD decides to take action, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Rosa Flores, thanks so much.

As the case is being made for military action against Syria we're seeing more and more images of atrocities there.

What does the carnage in Syria mean for the rest of the region?

Up next, a bioterrorism expert tells us how much further he thinks this could potentially go.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Videos appearing to show Syrians being attacked with chemical weapons are part of the White House campaign to get Congress on board with the military strike. So to warn you, the video is very graphic. Today, Secretary of State John Kerry said images like these are important because everyone needs to know what's at stake.

Joining me now from New York is bioterrorism expert and author of "The Anthrax Letters," Leonard Cole.

Mr. Cole, good to see you?

LEONARD COLE, BIOTERRORISM EXPERT: Thank you. You, too.

WHITFIELD: How worried do Syria's neighbors need to be if indeed chemical weapons are being used in Syria?

COLE: In the short term, very worried. In the slightly longer term, I think the entire world should be worried.

It's not only the people who will be on the receiving end of chemical weapons or any sort of weapons of mass destruction who will be in trouble, but I think the more that these are used without opposition, without efforts to stop their use, the greater then the possibilities that they will be used elsewhere, spread and become more common, what I term weapons of mass destruction anarchy.

We do not want that to happen.

WHITFIELD: How does a country get them?

How are they manufactured?

Is that something that's in-country manufactured or is it being delivered, shipped from elsewhere?

COLE: All of the above. There's no doubt that at some levels -- and one doesn't have to have a major industrial capability to develop chemical weapons. Some of the less effective weapons like mustard agent, chlorine, hydrogen cyanide, these are fairly common, easy to get and rather easy to manufacture. That's in the area of chemical weapons.

Biological weapons like bacteria, viruses, they can be developed in laboratories not much larger than a medium size kitchen. So yes, there is a danger. The taboo against the use of these weapons, I think, has been quite effective, reasonably effective. We're in danger of seeing that taboo weakened more. I'm concerned about that.

WHITFIELD: If Syria is using these on their own people, what are the launch capabilities?

COLE: The launch capabilities range from longer or medium range missiles, rockets that would have ingredients like sarin in them, where they can be disseminated, right on to very primitive methods of release.

Think back to 1995 when a Japanese cult, Om Shin Rikyo, released sarin in the Tokyo subway system.

They had the sarin in liquid form in plastic bags, and once the individuals carrying these bags were on a subway platform or in the train, they punctured these plastic bags with umbrella tips. And then the material was released and it killed a dozen people and made perhaps a thousand people quite sick.

WHITFIELD: How long does this chemical or -- whether it's sarin or some other type of chemical weapon -- stay in the air, permeate the air, victimize people?

When we look at these videotapes, we're also seeing someone is shooting that video and you see the people suffering. Is the person who's shooting the video likely wearing a gas mask or is there a certain period of time in which the chemicals are no longer a danger to you?

COLE: Absolutely a terrific question.

By the time the person who is shooting the video or whatever the time elapsed I don't know. My suspicion is it was a fair amount of time, certainly several minutes.

Sarin, depending on the weather conditions and the environment around it, can begin to disintegrate fairly rapidly after a few minutes of release and exposure.

But sarin can also, in some forms, last somewhat longer. There are other materials, nerve agents like VX which actually has a staying power of a couple of weeks before it begins to degrade seriously. So there is a danger of coming into contact with these people soon after the exposure.

WHITFIELD: Wow. Incredible. All right. Thanks, a host of information there, Leonard Cole, appreciate your insight.

COLE: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Straight ahead, he led the American military during the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld weighing in on whether the U.S. should strike in Syria and much more.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been a strong critic of President Obama's approach to the crisis in Syria. On CNN's "NEW DAY," Chris Cuomo asked Rumsfeld for reaction to the president's statement that he didn't set a red line on Syria's use of chemical weapons; the world set that red line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it's a stunning comment. It conjures up the thought of the uncertain trumpet, or the trumpet that provides an uncertain sound.

Who will prepare themselves? It's exactly the reason that there is not a large coalition wanting to support the president. It's a reason that the Congress is confused, because he has spent so much time saying what he would not do and what it would not amount to that I think people are confused.

And the essence of leadership is clarity and providing a vision, and he has not done that and I think as a result it's perfectly understandable that people in the Congress are getting arranged to oppose what he's proposing because they find that it's uncertain and lacks clarity.

CUOMO: Don't you think a big obstacle especially abroad is the legacy of how we got involved in the Iraq War, the suspicions that we had it wrong there, obviously, and that we may be wrong again, don't you think that's a big problem here?

RUMSFELD: I suppose it's part of the problem. If intelligence were a fact, it would be called a fact, and not intelligence. And I think when Colin Powell went before the United Nations with George Tenet, the director of intelligence, talked about the intelligence they had in great detail, and then it turned out that stockpiles were not found, that people were cautious and began to recognize that intelligence is intelligence and not necessarily a fact.

But I don't think that's what's going on here. I think what's going on here is almost any president in my adult life I think would have provided stronger leadership and greater clarity and as a result generated broader support in the international community and in the country and in the Congress.

CUOMO: Is it fair criticism coming from to you put it all on the president when, as you well know in the United Kingdom and in Russia they talk about not that the intelligence was wrong going into Iraq but that it had been manipulated and that there was politics and spin that now make them suspicious of the U.S. motives when they say they have proof.

Isn't that just the fact?

RUMSFELD: I think not. In fact, I've not heard people say that responsibly, and if you'll recall the Congress looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusions and there were Democrats who supported it, including very prominent Democrats who enthusiastically supported it. President Clinton had signed a resolution supporting regime change in Iraq.

And the international, the United Nations had 17 resolutions against Saddam Hussein. So I think that there may be people on the fringe who say the kind of thing that you're saying, but I don't think anyone responsible has said anything like that.

CUOMO: So just to be clear, you believe it's a fringe notion that the perception of how the U.S. handled intelligence getting into the Iraq war, you think that's a fringe notion that there's suspicion about it, that there's concern we didn't have it right and we had it wrong for the wrong reasons?

RUMSFELD: You don't listen carefully. I didn't say that. I said that there are people on the fringe who say what you said.

CUOMO: Right.

RUMSFELD: But I conceded the fact that that experience unquestionably has affected some people's judgment and attitude and impressions during this situation.

CUOMO: Good, thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate it, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Let's move on to something else. You know better than most the toll that military action can take on a country. We're still dealing with fallout in Iraq, right, we all know that.

Given that, do you think it is the better course right now to use military action in these circumstances, or would you advise the administration to think about going heavier on arming the rebels, letting them fight for themselves, heavier on humanitarian aid, and wait, wait in this situation?

RUMSFELD: Well, it seemed to me that the time to have helped the rebels would have been a year or two before, before 100,000 people were killed. And the effect of it might have been greater.

Where we are today, my personal view is that what he has proposed is not something that will have a sufficient effect that it's worth doing. And I would personally not be in favor of supporting what he's proposing.

CUOMO: And that's an interesting perspective in terms of what the effect will be.

And what about the notion of how do we get out?

Obviously another part of the legacy of the Iraq war. What's your advice there about -- we haven't heard a lot about how we get out of this situation.

Do you have concerns that if the plan goes forward the way we're hearing it being articulated in the Senate right now that we may be, the U.S. may be too optimistic about how easy it will be to stop this type of action?

RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know that I agree with that. I think that Dean Acheson said that all the easy decisions are made down below and the tough decisions are -- always reflect and represent uncertain outcomes.

And war is -- the use of military force is a terrible thing. It does result in uncertain outcomes. You can't be certain, because the enemy has a brain and adjusts and adapts. And plans have to adjust with first contact with the enemy. So you can't predict what's going to come.

The question is, what's the right thing to do? And absent resolute leadership, it seems to me, the right thing to do is to not get engaged.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And tune in to "NEW DAY" tomorrow, 6:00 am Eastern, for extensive coverage and for all the latest overnight developments on the crisis in Syria.

Up next, was Syria's Bashar al-Assad born to be a dictator? We'll take a look at his family roots -- and it is very revealing.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

WHITFIELD: We have an update now to this breaking news we brought you moments ago. At least 13 children have been hurt in Norwalk, Connecticut, after an accident on a swing ride during the city's Oyster Festival. Preliminary reports say most of the injuries are minor and the children were treated and released from the scene. At least two were seriously hurt and had to be taken to nearby hospitals. And of course, we'll bring you more information as soon as it becomes available.

Was Bashar al-Assad raised to create a dynasty? Those who study him say his father, Hafez al-Assad, set him on the path of dictatorship from the time he was a young boy. Our Brian Todd traces the roots of the Syrian leader.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Recognize the boy on the swing? It's Bashar al-Assad. As he looked on, his father, many believe, envisioned a dynasty.

But he likely wouldn't have imagined it taking the turn it has.

TODD: Is this a dynasty and is it crumbling right now?

ANDREW TABLER, AUTHOR: It's a mafia dynasty and it's definitely crumbling.

TODD (voice-over): Andrew Tabler and other experts say to understand what's happening in Syria now, it helps to know about the strange regime built by the current dictator's late father, Hafez al-Assad.

TABLER: Hafez al-Assad was the most Machiavellian, cutthroat, cunning leader in a region full of brutal dictators.

TODD (voice-over): From a poor background, Hafez al-Assad rose through the ranks of the Syrian air force, but it was hardly that straightforward. The man thrived in the backrooms of Syrian palace intrigue where, according to most accounts, betraying friends, killing and banishing enemies puts you on the fast track.

TODD: In Syria, there were more than 20 successful and unsuccessful coups between 1949 and 1970 when Hafez al-Assad took power. He himself was involved in three of them. Through the '70s, '80s, and '90s, he played the Middle East power game like a fiddle, alternately fighting with and negotiating peace with Israel while keeping America from being a full-fledged enemy.

TODD (voice-over): That was the contradiction. Hafez al-Assad stayed in power by torturing and killing his enemies from within, by making friends with terrorist groups like Hezbollah. But in 1990 and '91, when President George Bush needed to build a coalition against Saddam Hussein, look who was on his side.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bush even met with Syria's President Assad despite the fact that the U.S. still considers Syria a haven for terrorists.

TODD (voice-over): How did the dynasty unravel after Hafez al-Assad's death in 2000?

Analysts say it's partly because they ruled so brutally as a minority, part of the Alawite Muslim sect over majority Sunnis who have resented them. And Bashar al-Assad has had other difficulties changing the old ways of his father.

TABLER: Hafez al-Assad stabilized Syria through a closed system, people couldn't travel or communicate very well, international news was very limited. When Bashar came to power, he lifted the restrictions on travel, allowed people to read international newspapers, satellite, television and the Internet, and it opened Syrians' minds.

But how do you control this system? And how do you basically perpetuate authoritarian and tyrannical rule?

TODD (voice-over): Bashar al-Assad was apparently warned that he couldn't do that. Analysts say when Bashar brought Internet into Syria, it was against the advice of his security staff, who were his father's old cronies. They told him it would be dangerous, that they'd have trouble controlling it. They were right -- Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: President Obama has received very little support from around the world for a military strike on the Assad regime in Syria. Saudi Arabia is one important exception, however.

Secretary of State John Kerry met with Arab League ministers this morning and after the meeting he said Saudi Arabia agreed to support military intervention.

But in this case, political support won't necessarily translate in to actual military support, as Tom Foreman and General Spider Marks explain.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Fredricka, the Arab League is a little over 20 countries and they have sent a clear message saying that the international community should take the necessary measures to deal with these suspected chemical attacks in Syria. That's widely seen as a green light for an American missile strike upon Syria.

But if these nations are in favor of this, why don't they join in in a military sense? There's three key reasons for this. First of all, there's culture.

Many Arab nations feel that they're all part of the same community. All Arabs are brothers, they will say, joined by culture, by religion. They don't like the idea of a sanctioned attack of one Arab nation upon another or anybody else upon an Arab nation.

Second, there's U.S. ties, involvement in the region is long and controversial. Many leaders do not want their soldiers photographed next to U.S. soldiers, even if they like the idea. They're afraid their people will not, and they could be in trouble as a result. And lastly, you can never talk about any of this without talking about Israel. The idea is that many Arab nations feel if they help the U.S., by proxy they're helping Israel and they will not stand for that.

But let's put all that aside. Let's say for some reason these countries did decide to get involved.

General, what sort of military might would they bring to the game, particularly someone like Saudi Arabia?

MARKS: Saudi Arabia has a very modern military, longstanding relationship with the United States. Their air force is what I talk about. It has a very modern, very capable air force so all air missions that you could expect associated with a strike against Syria, Saudi Arabia could provide support.

FOREMAN: Not so much, though, if you're talking about a missile mission, though. What about United Arab Emirates? Smaller.

MARKS: The UAE has a very small, very nice military, very modern, but its defensive primarily focused against Iran.

FOREMAN: And what about some of the more unusual players out there, in particular I'm thinking about Jordan.

MARKS: Jordan is a really good case. Very modern military, special operations command. Have really grown over the course of the last decade. Their intelligence is what I would pay attention to. They also have history of supporting the United Nations in peacekeeping missions.

FOREMAN: So their intelligence forces are robust, some of the most robust in the region. And it wouldn't be surprising if they were right now helping pick targets in Syria in case there is a missile strike.

MARKS: Tom, I would expect they are already across the border into Syria.

FOREMAN: Anybody else we should mention briefly in the region?

MARKS: You can't be in this neighborhood without talking Iraq. It has a military over a million folks. We, the United States, have helped train that military, but they're involved and distracted in their own sectarian missions and challenges.

Egypt has been displaced on the front page by Syria and they're in the middle of a coup and government transition, but a very modern, capable military. But one country that is not a member of the Arab League that needs to be talked about is Turkey. Turkey has a very modern military, it's a member of NATO, it's in the neighborhood and it borders Syria.

So it has influence. FOREMAN: And it has very vested interests in that region, too. I'm certain we'll be talking about it more in the weeks and months to come.

Fredricka?

WHITFIELD: Thanks so much. Tom Foreman and Spider Marks.