Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Syria Moving Chemical Weapons; P.R. Firm Feels Heat for Helping Putin; Military Veteran Says Syria Attack Bad Idea; Interview with Sen. Bill Nelson; First Lady Under Fire on Water

Aired September 13, 2013 - 13:30   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Right now help is arriving for people in Colorado trying to escape raging floodwaters. The National Huard is evacuating people from the town of Lyons, which has been cut off by flooding.

Also right now, business owners along the Jersey shore are picking up the pieces. A devastating fire destroying an area of the iconic boardwalk that just recently reopened after Superstorm Sandy.

And right now, crucial talks on the crisis in Syria are in day two. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov trying to work out a plan for Syria to give up its chemical weapons.

A key part of the Russian peace plan for Syria hinges on the ability to verify that Syria has, in fact, turned over their chemical weapons.

Yesterday, I spoke to the Pentagon press secretary, George Little, about that challenge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE LITTLE, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: I wouldn't want to get into our intelligence on movements of chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria, Wolf, but suffice it to say it's not unexpected that they would move some of this materiel at least within Syria.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The "Wall Street Journal" reporting today that an elite unit of the Syrian military is doing just that, moving chemical stockpiles to as many as 50 sites around the country. That would seem to seriously complicating any attempt to track or verify the destruction of those weapons.

Let's go to the Pentagon. Our correspondent, Barbara Starr, is standing by.

Obviously, the Pentagon is watching all of this. They've seen movement over the past several months and they've seen, according to them, the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. What are they saying in reaction to what the "Wall Street Journal" is now reporting? BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, for the record, the Pentagon is not confirming the "Wall Street Journal." But we have gone, here at CNN, to numerous other sources across the government. What they are telling us is there is a growing sense that there has been some movement of chemical weapons stockpiles within Syria in the recent time frame. George Little, largely referring to what had gone on in the past, but when there was the threat of military action by the United States, the Syrians apparently, by many accounts, did begin to move weapons stockpiles of chemical agent around the country. Still believed to be largely if not almost completely under the control of the regime.

But this is a big problem if it moves around. You pointed it out. How do you verify where it is? How do you verify it for purposes of some agreement between the Russians and the United States about destroying it all? You've got to know where it is.

But perhaps more importantly for the Pentagon, if they want to have a credible military option on the table, they need to know where the chemical weapons are to make sure they don't inadvertently bomb it. They want to stay away from any weapons bombing the chemical stockpiles. That means they have to know where they are -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Yeah. I'm told there are some Syrian military defector who's apparently have provided some pretty good information to the international community, including the U.S., about where those chemical weapons stockpiles are, but that's a serious issue that has to be further explored.

All right, Barbara Starr, at the Pentagon, thanks very much.

So who helped Vladimir Putin get that op-ed article in "The New York Times"? The answer certainly is intriguing. Some Americans are very angry about that article. Some Americans are making money as a result of that article. We're going to tell you what's going on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Russian President Vladimir Putin's opinion piece in "The New York Times" creating buzz out there on social media with many Americans. Lots of members of Congress blasting the Russian president for saying the United States is not an exceptional country. Now the American public relations firm that worked with Putin is also feeling some of heat.

Brian Todd is working this part of the story for us here.

Brian, you've got a big investigation you're looking into in "The Situation Room" later today. But tell us what you've learned.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we can tell you is the op-ed from President Putin has riled members of Congress and so many Americans. A key instrument in getting that op-ed onto "The "New York Times" opinion page was an American company. That American company is largely responsible for this op-ed getting there. The company is called Ketcham. It operates in 70 countries and makes a ton of money. There's just an indication of all the corruptions and offices that they have all over the world. But it makes a lot of money. According to Justice Department filings, we've been able to look up, Wolf, just in the six months between the beginning of December of 2012 and the end of May of 2013, Ketchum, this firm, was paid more than $1.9 million by the Russian government, paid in the same period $3.7 million by Gas Prom, the giant oil company controlled mostly by the Russian government, promoting their interests doing things like this.

We have to say there's nothing illegal what Ketchum is doing but Americans should know there is an American firm and there are other American P.R. firms that make a lot of money from foreign governments promoting the foreign government's interests in this country but may not mesh with Americans' interests.

BLITZER: Nothing illegal as long as they register with the Justice Department.

TODD: That's right. And this firm has.

BLITZER: Foreign agents for this foreign government and a lot of P.R. firms represent governments all over the world.

TODD: That's right.

BLITZER: But you're going to have a lot more on this --

TODD: Yes, we are.

BLITZER: -- coming up later on "The Situation Room."

Brian, thanks very much.

TODD: Thank you.

BLITZER: Most Americans don't want the United States to get militarily involved in Syria's civil war. I'll talk with an historian, a 23 year veteran of the U.S. military, who agrees. Why he says U.S. military action is the wrong move. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The Obama administration says the threat of military strikes against Syria has to remain an option. Syria's president wants the U.S. to call off the threat before he gives up his chemical weapons.

Andrew Bacevich is a 23-year-old Army veteran who says military action against Syria is a bad idea. He's now a professor at Boston University. His latest book is just out and entitled "Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country." He's joining us right now.

Professor, thanks very much for coming inning

ANDREW BACEVICH, PROFESSOR, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, ARMY VETERAN & AUTHOR: Thanks very much for having me on the program.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the president of the United States. He made a powerful moral argument for potentially launching air strikes against targets in Syria to stop their using chemical weapons against their own people. You think that will threat alone, military threat should not be on table. Is that right?

BACEVICH: Well, we should talk about the moral issues. I think we need to begin with a discussion of what's in U.S. interests. And there, I'd want to put Syria in a broader context. When you think about it, going back 30 years, we have used U.S. forces in any number of countries in the Middle East. We've occupied, we've invaded, we've bombed. We've come in on humanitarian purposes, all with an expectation that U.S. military actions ultimately will lead to a more stable, perhaps more democratic region. Well, it hasn't worked. And so why we would think that opening up a new front in this military effort in Syria would produce a different outcome just strikes me as absurd.

Now, if you want to make the moral argument, then we have to say what are the actions which can practically and effectively redress the suffering of the Syrian people? And there I have to say I don't understand why waging war is the best way to render assistance. There are any number of people in refugee camps living in squalor. Why don't we focus our attention on actually helping people who need to be helped rather than attacking Damascus?

BLITZER: So what would you say to the president's argument and the secretary of state's argument that at least this military threat has convinced, played a significant role in convincing the Syrians and the Russians to give up -- potentially give up Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles?

BACEVICH: Well, I have to say -- I'd say let's give it a little bit of time. You know, the pace with which this story is unfolding is very striking. And as a historian of American diplomacy -- I really have concluded that diplomacy works best when there's a serious foundation been laid. What we going on with Secretary Kerry is we're making it up as we go along. The latest is rather than just trying to get rid of the chemical weapons, why don't we have a peace conference. There's no foundation that's being laid. There's no consultation with allies. And so I'm actually quite skeptical that the outcome of this process will lead to anything other than probably giving Assad time, time to move weapons, time to continue prosecuting his war against the militants.

BLITZER: Your new book, entitled "Breach of Trust," but the subtitle is "How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country." Professor, in a nutshell, because we don't have a lot of time, tell us how Americans failed their soldiers and their country.

BACEVICH: Well, the subject of the book is the relationship between the military and society. And on the surface, that relationship is one that's warm and affectionate. We all support the troops, as we like to say. My argument is that there's a considerable degree of posturing and fraudulence in that notion, that we don't really support the troops because we're not engaged with the troops. We've allowed Washington, the state, to claim control of this military of ours that we're so proud of. And if you look at what we've been doing with that military over the past decade or more, they've been subjecting our troops to great abuse. And as people, we let it happen. In a nutshell, that's the failure.

BLITZER: And the book is entitled "Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country." The author, Andrew Bacevich, professor from Boston University.

Professor, thanks very much for joining us.

BACEVICH: Thank you for having me on the program.

BLITZER: So we just heard, from Professor Bacevich, one side of the argument. He opposes military intervention. Coming up, we'll hear a different perspective, of Florida Senator Bill Nelson. He says the U.S. needs to keep that military option open. He's standing by live. We'll discuss when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It seems like a classic "good cop, bad cop" with superpowers. The U.S. threatening military action against Syria while Russia swoops in to play peacemaker, offering up a deal to leave Bashar al Assad alone if he turns over his entire chemical weapons stockpile.

The Florida Senator Bill Nelson is joining us now.

Senator, thanks very much for coming in.

SEN. BILL NELSON, (D), FLORIDA: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: You just heard Professor Bacevich make the case that all this military power exerted in the Middle East over the past 10, 12 years has not paid much benefits. The region is a mess right now. The U.S. is still very unpopular right now. He wants that military option to go away and to deal in diplomatic and peaceful ways with these enormous problems out there. What say you?

NELSON: Well, with the whole Middle East, you have to separate each. But since the item on the agenda is Syria, if we don't keep the pressure on, of a strike, obviously, Assad and to some degree, Putin, are going to play us. And I think Putin is already toying with us. And the fact the news today that Assad is moving his chemical weapons around is another indicator that these guys are not serious. And so I hope that the U.S. is going to keep the option to strike still alive at every moment.

BLITZER: If necessary, would you want the U.S. to get involved militarily in Syria?

NELSON: On a strike, of limited proportions, and of limited duration, yes. BLITZER: How do you know that would do any good? They could withstand a strike of limited duration, limited proportion. What good would that do?

NELSON: Well, you can degrade his ability to carry on a strike. You can also do a strike -- I'm talking about Assad, degrade his ability to utilize those weapons. And you can deliver such a serious blow that you deter him from using those chemical weapons again.

Wolf, every person ought to look at the videos in their entirety, the 13 that have been cleared. And if that doesn't convince you that this is a monster that would put this weapon of mass destruction, which the civilized world says that we should not use and have for almost a century, and yet he uses them, then you've got to deter him some way. And --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I guess the question is, Senator, if he's such a monster, such a threat to the United States, the region, his own people, the world, why just do it in a limited way? Why not do it in a major way?

NELSON: Well, we don't want American boots on the ground. We don't want to have to get involved in another war.

But this is behavior so egregious that someone has to stand up to it. And I believe that -- I'll even go further. That within the course of three weeks from the president's speech, if there is not serious movement verified that he is allowing the inspections and the eventual dismantling of those weapons, that the president ought to be able to strike without a resolution having been passed by the Congress.

BLITZER: Senator Nelson, thanks very much for joining us.

NELSON: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.

Still ahead, the first lady wants Americans to drink up. But one of the health claims she's making about water is being shot down by a lot of the critics out there. We'll explain the debate right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The First Lady Michelle Obama has made a healthier America her mission. Now she's trying to get people to drink more water, just one extra glass of water a day. Some of her previous pushes for healthy living have come under fire, particularly from critics of the president.

As Elizabeth Cohen shows it, some experts are saying she's overselling the benefits of water.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we have been hearing for years about Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. Now the first lady is putting the spotlight on water.

(voice-over): First Lady Michelle Obama launches a new seemingly innocuous public health campaign.

MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: You're going to drink something. And what you drink is up to you.

COHEN: She wants you to drink more water.

OBAMA: Drink just one more glass of water a day and you can make a real difference for your health, for your energy and the way you feel.

COHEN: Advice she says that's worked wonders for her family.

OBAMA: The more water we drank, the better we felt.

COHEN: But that advice has caused a splash of controversy --

(MUSIC)

COHEN: -- among some experts who say the first lady is just plain wrong. They say most Americans are sufficiently hydrated so an extra glass of water isn't going to increase your energy or make you feel better.

DR. STANLEY GOLDFARB, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: There's no good evidence that drinking extra water is going to lead to a healthier existence.

COHEN: Another claim from the first lady that's all wet, according to the experts we talked to, drinking more water helps you have more energy to do more, longer, and with better focus. The experts say extra water won't do any of those things.

GOLDFARB: They decided to sort of support some of these urban myths that have been really debunked over the years.

COHEN: They do applaud the first lady's initiatives on diet and exercise.

DR. JOHN DOOLEY, FOXHALL INTERNISTS: The first lady's health came pain is based on a lot of science. The claims about extra water itself leading to extra benefits that's a bit overstated.

COHEN: The bottom line: of course, you should stay hydrated, and water is better than soda. But don't think one extra glass is going to change your life.

(on camera): Critics say Michelle Obama missed a great opportunity to tell people specifically to drink water instead of soda, which, of course, is full of sugar and calories.

Now, this campaign that's being promoted by the American Beverage Association, which makes, in addition to others things, soda -- Wolf?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Elizabeth Cohen, thanks very much.

Let's get to something a little more exotic than water right now. For that, we have Anthony Bourdain. He's back with season two of "Parts Unknown" this coming Sunday night, and his journey starts in Jerusalem. Here's a taste.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The old city is divided into four quarters. There is Muslim quarter. There's a Jewish quarter. There's a Christian quarter. And there's an Armenian quarter. Each one functions independently, but people that live in a certain area are all from that religion.

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, HOST, PARTS UNKNOWN (voice-over): Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now we're talking in the steps of Jesus Christ, right?

BOURDAIN: As I so often do.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this is Via Dolorosa, which is the last trip Jesus did before he was crucified. So people feel very emotional. They come here and think, oh, my god, I'm walking in the steps of Mohammed, David or Jesus.

BOURDAIN: Jesus was here. I feel like I should be more -- something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A little bit more pious?

BOURDAIN: A little bit.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, it's too late for me.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: You can see the entire report, Anthony Bourdain's culinary and cultural journey through Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank this coming Sunday night, "Parts Unknown," season two, starts 9:00 p.m. eastern. Check it out. You will enjoy.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer. I'll be back in "THE SITUATION ROOM," 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

NEWSROOM continues right now with Brooke Baldwin.