Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Six Days Until Possible Government Shutdown; Obama Addresses United Nations General Assembly
Aired September 24, 2013 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Carol Costello. We are just minutes away from President Obama's address to the United Nations. At the podium right now in New York City is the president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff. President Obama's address is expected to focus on the threats in North Africa and the Middle East. The president is also expected to talk about the crises in Syria and Iran's nuclear program. We'll bring you President Obama's address live in just a few minutes.
Also speaking at the United Nations this afternoon Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani. The White House saying this morning it will leave the door open for a face to face meeting between the two men but as of right now, nothing is set in stone.
Said the Capitol Hill time is running out for Congress, lawmakers had six days to pass a spending bill or the government will shut down. Republican Senator Ted Cruz is sounding the call to his fellow Republicans to join his filibuster. He wants to stop Senate Democrats from stripping language from a House spending bill that would also defund Obamacare. But not all of his Republican colleagues are exactly standing by his side. CNN's chief congressional correspondent is on Capitol Hill with more. Good morning, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Usually when we get this close to a deadline, we've seen a lot of them in recent months and years. They're scrambling behind the scenes, back room dealing. Meetings going on that we're trying to cover. That's not happening now at all. This time it's very different because there is really no negotiating going on at all. This is one man and some of his colleagues in the Senate making a very clear case that they want to stand by principle and not negotiate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice-over): The way Ted Cruz sees it --
SENATOR TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Obamacare is a disaster.
BASH: He's simply keeping a campaign promise, do whatever it takes to destroy Obamacare.
CRUZ: That should be our priorities, not simply continuing business as usual in Washington.
BASH: Cruz's scorched earth strategy, tying defunding Obamacare to a must-pass spending bill is inflaming many fellow Republicans who think if this causes a government shutdown, they're going to get burned. Republican Peter King called him a fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: The issues are too important, too serious to require real conservative solutions, not headline-hunting scheme.
BASH: In the Democratic-led Senate, the votes are not there. Some of Cruz's Republican colleagues are so miffed it has gotten really personal. Bob Corker tweeted, I didn't go to Harvard or Princeton but I can count.
(on camera): They don't like what you're doing. They don't like what you're putting them through, these are fellow Republicans.
CRUZ: Well, you know, individual politicians can choose to say whatever they want and launch whatever personal insults they want. I would note in the House that the Republicans, including those who have criticized me, voted to defund Obamacare. In the Senate, I think the votes are fluid.
BASH (voice-over): To be sure, among many grassroots conservatives, Cruz is a hero, but in the Senate, one on relationships, he's rubbed GOP veterans the wrong way. John McCain called him a wacko bird and now Cruz is now embracing.
CRUZ: If they want to insult me, they can knock themselves out. My focus is on the substance on stopping Obamacare. Why, because it's hurting the American people.
BASH: Now he's warning Senate Republicans, support his filibuster.
CRUZ: Any senator who votes for cloture on this bill is voting to give Harry Reid the authority to fund Obamacare with just 51 votes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: But that message is not resonating even with his own party leaders. The top Republican in the Senate, Carol, Mitch McConnell is going to go to the Senate floor momentarily to talk about why he is opposing Ted Cruz's filibuster and just to give you a sense of the politics within the Republican Party. Already he's getting slammed by the Tea Party groups and by his primary opponent. He is running in a race against a fellow Republican in his home state of Kentucky. That goes to show you how dicey these kinds of politics and decisions are for people within the Republican Party.
COSTELLO: All right, Dana Bash reporting live from Capitol Hill. We understand President Obama has arrived at the United Nations in New York. He's expected to speak in just about 7 minutes. I'm going to throw it to my colleague Wolf Blitzer who is also in New York City. Good morning, Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, Carol. Thanks very much. A very, very important potentially historic day here in New York at the United Nations, world leaders from across the globe, nearly 200, they're all in one place though all eyes right now will be on two countries. That would the United States and Iran. Headlining today's speakers, the president of the United States, President Obama, and the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. The White House says the door has been left open for a potential face to face meeting between these two presidents. As of right now nothing is formally or officially been set. If it has been it certainly hasn't been announced yet.
The president of Brazil, the first speaker at the U.N. General Assembly is speaking right now. When she's done the president of the United States will be invited to the podium. The world's attention certainly is focused on places like Iran, but Syria also very much on the agenda right now, two places the United States has a tremendous interest in and these two topics expected to have a high place in President Obama's address once again only a few minutes away.
The talk won't just center around the podium behind the scenes, the president will be very busy today. He's holding meetings with the president of Lebanon, the United Nations' secretary general later this afternoon. After a much talked about lunch, the president will meet with President Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority. The president will speak at length in his remarks about the Israeli- Palestinian peace process.
Let's discuss what's going on, set the stage for the president of the United States joining us here in New York, the host of CNN'S "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Fareed Zakaria, our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta and our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto.
Look, the excitement is building. An American president, an Iranian president, they have not met since 1979 when the Iranians took the Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, held them for 444 days. That relationship has been a deteriorating mess ever since. But today, Fareed, there is a possibility Rouhani and Obama could meet.
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, CNN'S "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": There is a possibility they'll meet and that would be a game changer because it raises the stakes of this seeming (inaudible). If it happens I would guess that what the White House decided was that the Iranians made so many overtures both from the president, but also the supreme leader who talked about flexibility and the importance of not having nuclear weapons that they want to add to the momentum.
They want to in some way reciprocate and this is the only chance really for the two presidents to meet short of something like an actual meeting where Rouhani would come to Washington or Obama would go to Iran. That's obviously too high stakes. So this is a way for them to in some way add to the momentum.
BLITZER: There have been some, Jim Acosta, who have suggested the president should not reward the Iranian leader with such a meeting until he at least does something tangible as opposed to saying nice things. The president will be criticized if he goes ahead with this meeting.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Former presidential candidate, Rick Santorum was on CNN earlier this morning saying that the president should not meet with President Rouhani, should not shake his hand. Wolf, three big themes we should expect from this speech in just a few moments.
The president will be taking about, of course, the Iran nuclear program, Syria's chemical weapons and what the administration is referring to peace in the Middle East. He will be talking about setbacks and challenges with the Arab spring. But Wolf, if President Obama had given this speech two weeks ago, this would have been all about Syria. It just shows you how hugely important the shift is with the Iranians.
That now everybody is talking about whether or not the president will shake hands with President Rouhani. I've been told by a senior administration official the White House has essentially now left the door open to this face to face meeting with Rouhani. We will know by the end of the day. President Obama leaves tonight whether or not this historic moment has happened. It gives a whole new meaning to the term handshake.
BLITZER: The president of Brazil has now wrapped up her remarks over at the United Nations. The president is now being introduced. Let's go to the United Nations right there. There is Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations. The president will be introduced momentarily.
Jim Sciutto, as we await the president and the formal introduction, I think it's about to happen right now, the stakes are enormous throughout the region.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No question. One big question is Iran has reached its hand out pretty far. The question is if even a handshake with the president too far because President Rouhani getting his own criticism at home as President Obama is. One thing to watch for here would be does President Rouhani stay in the hall for President Obama's speech? That would be another gesture short of a handshake, but still meaningful, something to look for.
BLITZER: When Mahmoud Ahmidinejad used to speak, a lot of people just left, but here's the president about to make a historic address --
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. Each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution, for most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires and divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies. The idea that nations could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.
It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. The leaders who built the United Nations were not naive, they did not think this body could eradicate all wars, but in the wake of millions dead and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet. They understood that humanity could survive the course it was on and so they gave us this institution, believing it could allow us to resolve all conflicts and enforce rules of behavior and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.
For decades the United Nations has, in fact, made a difference, from helping to eradicate disease to educating children to brokering peace. But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges. This body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage as nation states and members of an international community to squarely meet those challenges, whether the United Nations can meet the test of our time.
For much of my tenure as president some of my most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crises of our lifetime. Now five years after the global economy collapsed and thanks to the coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized and people are once again being lifted out of poverty.
But this progress is fragile and unequal and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunities that they need to thrive in the 21st Century. Together we've also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harm's way. And the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world.
Today all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. These new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war footing. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United States, where capture is not feasible and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.
We're transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Just as we reviewed how to deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we begin to review the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share.
As a result of this work and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today's headlines indicates that dangers remain. In Kenya, we've seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall and our hearts go out to the families of those who have been affected.
In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside of church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a terrible part of life. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which doesn't give them the capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies as an old order is up ended and people grapple with what comes next. Peaceful movements have too often been answered by violence from those resisting change and from extremists trying to hijack change.
Sectarian conflict has re-emerged and the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of peace. Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria. Their peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter.
In the face of such carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identity, Alowite and Sunni, Christian and Kurd, and the situation spiraled into civil war. The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is still born. America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.
But extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crises. Assad's traditional allies have propped him up citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. On August 21st, the regime used to chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people including hundreds of children. The crises in Syria and the destabilization of the region goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront.
How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, conflicts between countries but also conflicts within them? How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas or embroiling ourselves in someone else's civil war? What's the role of force in resolving disputes and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct and what's the role of the United Nations and international law in meeting cries for justice?
Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues. With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the national security of the United States to prohibit the origins are older than the United Nations itself.
The ban against chemical weapons even in war has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing members of soldiers suffocating in the trenches. Jews slaughtered in gas chambers. Iranians poisoned and the many tens of thousands. The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.
I know that in the immediate after math of the attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as I've discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in p St. Peter Petersburg, my preference has always been diplomatic.
In the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control and then to destroy them. The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stock pile. Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments. There must be consequences if they fail to do so.
If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says. Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria.
I do not believe that military action by those within Syria or by external powers can achieve lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria. That is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.
It's time for Russia and Iran to realize insisting on Assad's rule will lead to what they fear and increasingly violent space for extremists to operate. Those of us who continue to support moderate opposition must persuade that a collapse cannot be reached without addressing legitimate fears and concerns of Alowites and other minorities. We are committed to working this political trek and as we pursue a settlement, let's remember this is not a zero summit endeavor.
We're no longer in a cold war. There is no great game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons and ensuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria's civil war.
As we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries. America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort. Today, I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million. No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate people to survive.
What broader conclusions can be drawn from America's policy towards Syria? I know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to oppose Assad and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of American resolve in the region. Others have suggested that by willingness to direct military strikes shows we've learned nothing from Iraq and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purpose.
In this way the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades. The United States is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy. At the same time the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the regions problems and indifference towards suffering Muslim populations. I realize some of this is inevitable.
But they have a practical impact on the American people's support for involvement in the region and allow leaders in the region to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves. Let me take this opportunity to outline what has been a U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power including military force to secure our core interest in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners as we did in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world, although America is steadily reducing our own dependence, the world still depends on the region's supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.
We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations. But when it's necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.
Finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. We consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own security. We undermine a global non- proliferation regime. To say that these are America's core interests is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous.
We'll continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American actions, particularly through military actions. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with the countries and peoples of the region. So what does this mean going forward?
In the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab- Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region's problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace. The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979.
This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America's role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the cold war. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians and threatened our ally, Israel with destruction.
I don't believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship. One based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Since I took office, I've made it clear in letters to the supreme leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran's nuclear program peacefully although we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
We are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions.
