Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Briefing; Beheading a Terror Attack

Aired August 22, 2014 - 14:00   ET

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

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: That was our George Howell reporting.

I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. For our viewers around the world, stay tuned for "News Center." And for our viewers here in the United States, the NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Don, thank you so much.

Hi there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for joining me on this Friday.

We will take you to Ferguson here momentarily. But I want to just pause and go straight to the (INAUDIBLE). This is Ben Rhodes. He is the deputy national security adviser for President Obama. And this is a quote/unquote White House briefing. It's not at the White House. The president is on Martha's Vineyard. So that's where this is taking place. They're addressing Russia-Ukraine right now. But what we're listening for is what the White House will say as far as ISIS is concerned. Let's dip in.

(BEGIN LIVE BRIEFING COVERAGE)

QUESTION: Can only be defeated if you - if the fight is taken to them in Syria. I wondered, is that -- does the president agree with that? And if so, how does he intend to undertake it, and would it mean a significant change in the mission against Islamic State?

BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, we certainly agree that any strategy to deal with the ISIL organization has to deal with both sides of the border, Iraq and Syria. The strategy that we are already undertaking does address that in the sense that we are providing training and equipping and assistance to the Iraqi security forces and Kurdish security forces who are fighting them on the ground in Iraq. We are also providing support and military assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition. What we would like to see is those -- those efforts squeeze the space where ISIL operates.

But there are other elements to our strategy. One is to enlist the support of partners in the region and the international community because this poses a significant threat not just to the United States and to the Iraqi and Syrian people, but to the entire region. And there are things that we can do with partners to mobilize communities in places like Iraq to work to expel ISIL.

Then there's the question of U.S. military action. And the president has already authorized U.S. military action on the very specific missions of protecting our people and personnel and our facilities in Baghdad and Erbil. He's also authorized military action to deal with the humanitarian crisis on Mt. Sinjar.

Again, as we look ahead, and look forward, we are going to do what is necessary to protect Americans. And so if we see plotting against Americans, we see a threat to the United States emanating from anywhere, we stand ready to take action against that threat. We've made very clear time and again that if you come after Americans, we're going to come after you, wherever you are. And that's what's going to guide our planning in the days to come.

Steve.

QUESTION: Has the president signed off on air strikes against ISIL in Syria?

RHODES: Well, again, I don't want to get ahead of decisions. The president hasn't, you know, been presented with specific militant options outside of those that are carrying out the current missions in Iraq. But we would certainly look at what is necessary in the long term to make sure we're protecting Americans.

Again, the long-term strategy is going to have to involve people on the ground taking the fight to ISIL. And that is Iraqi and Kurdish forces. That is Syrians who we are supporting on the ground. But if we have a need to protect Americans, and to take action in -- when we see plotting against the United States and our interests, we'll reserve the right to do so. But I'm not going to get ahead of those decisions.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) it's fair to say you're actively considering air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria?

RHODES: Well, again, you heard the president say we will be relentless against ISIL and we will do what's necessary to protect Americans and see that justice is done for what we saw with the barbaric killing of Jim Foley. So we're actively considering what's going to be necessary to deal with that threat. And we're not going to be restricted by borders. We've shown time and again that if there's a counterterrorism threat, we'll take direct action against that threat, if necessary.

QUESTION: Last thing. On Ukraine, the Russian convoy, do you see that as a direct invasion of Ukraine?

RHODES: Well, at this appointment, again, we see this as part of a pattern of a flagrant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. A direct incursion into their territory. They continue to have masses of military forces on the border, too. That would be a further escalation were they to move into Ukraine.

We're giving the Russians a clear message that they need to remove this convoy from inside of Ukraine's borders. If they don't, we will be making determinations with our international partners about how to ratchet up the costs and consequences on them.

Clearly, again, this is not something that is started today. From the arming and training of Russian-backed separatists, to the shoot-down of MH-17, we've seen escalation. And this adds to that escalation in a dangerous way. The Russians should take a path to de-escalation. If they don't, they're just going to find themselves further isolated, not just from the people of eastern Ukraine but from the entire world.

Yes, Michelle.

QUESTION: The way the administration, including yourself, is talking about ISIS today, it seems like a big jump from what the president himself said in January, calling ISIS JV players. So would you still agree with his assessment just a few months ago?

RHODES: I think what the president was speaking to a few months ago was the fact of the matter is, you have many different groups operating across the Middle East and north Africa. As we shift from a situation in which the counterterrorism threat principally emanated from al Qaeda core, we are going to need to evaluate which of these groups pose a threat to the United States, which of these groups pose a threat to our personnel in the region and which of these groups are more localized militia type forces that are potentially dangerous but can be handled by local security forces.

Clearly, ISIL, which has a long history and an origin dating back to AQI, al Qaeda in Iraq, has gained capacity in the last several months. As the fighting in Syria has given them some safe haven there and as they've advanced across Iraq and gained heavy weaponry, and as they've become better funded through various funding streams, including what they're able to sell in terms of oil and gas, the ransoms that they've been able to obtain.

And that has developed their capacity in a way that has increased the threat. And they pose a greater threat today than they did six months ago and we're taking it very seriously. That includes the direct military action we're taking in Iraq. That includes the support -- increased support that we've provided to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces and to the Syrian opposition. And we're going to do what's necessary to deal with this counterterrorism challenge.

Kristen.

QUESTION: Ben, thanks.

Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell said of James Foley's death, quote, "this is ISIS' first terrorist attack against the United States." Do you agree with that assessment? Is that a terrorist attack against the United States?

RHODES: Well, absolutely. When you see somebody killed in such a horrific way, that represents a terrorist attack. That represents a terrorist attack against our country and against an American citizen. And I think all of us have the Foley family in our thoughts and prayers.

The fact of the matter is, we've actually seen, you know, ISIL seek to advance too close to our facilities, certainly for our own comfort. And so the president's decision to take military action a number of weeks ago was out of direct concern that if they were able to get into Erbil, that they could pose a threat to our personnel and our consulate there. So we have seen them pose a threat to our interests in the region, to our personnel and facilities in the region, and clearly, the brutal execution of Jim Foley represented an affront, an attack, not just on him, but he's an American, and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that.

QUESTION: And how would you assess the threat that they pose to Americans living in the United States? Do you take their threats seriously?

RHODES: Well, Kristen, we have to take their threats seriously. To date, they have operated much like an insurgency in Syria and Iraq. And again, they're deeply rooted in the insurgency that we faced in Iraq for many years as the legacy organization of al Qaeda in Iraq. And they, of course, pose a huge threat to the people of that region. And it's important to underscore, as the president did the other day, that it's not simply the threat they pose to the United States. It's the threat that they pose to the entire world. And they've killed thousands of civilians, and they've killed Muslims more than any other faith. So whatever pretense they have to establish themselves as speaking for the Muslim world, I think is completely disproven by their actions in that part of the world.

For Americans in the homeland, I think what we'd say is, we monitor very closely whether or not ISIL will seek to develop plots that are aimed at the west, aimed at beyond this geographic area where they've been operating. We are doing that. We are actively consulting with European partners about how to watch the threat that they could pose to the west. We take their threats seriously because we have to take every threat that's made against the United States seriously. And we're going to deal with that through our -- again, the action and strategy we have in the region to squeeze them.

We're also dealing with it through Homeland Security and the president's going to convene at the head of state level, a U.N. Security Council meeting in September to deal with the issue of foreign fighters who are heading to Syria, because we're concerned about the ability of foreign fighters to come from western countries and seek to come back.

QUESTION: And could they pull off a 9/11 size attack? Are they capable of that?

RHODES: Look, to date, we have not seen them focus on that type of planning. But that doesn't mean we're not going to be very mindful that they could quickly aim to pivot to attacks against western targets outside of the region. And so, again, this is something we're going to monitor very closely because we certainly take seriously the fact that this is an organization that has a cadre of fighters who are clearly willing to do horrific things, as we saw in that video, and as we've seen as a massacre -- innocent civilians in Iraq. They have significant stream of funding that they've acquired over the last year or two. And, again, if they show the intent or they show plotting against the United States, we'll be prepared to deal with that as necessary. John.

QUESTION: Yes. The bigger picture of what we're doing in Iraq, is the United States now engaged in a broad counterterrorism effort to defeat ISIL?

RHODES: The Iraqi government is certainly the front of an effort to defeat ISIL inside of Iraq. And we're providing them with support in order to do that. I think the strategy is one that we want to evict ISIL from their safe havens and squeeze the space that they're operating in and ultimately, again, push them out of that space.

Our contribution to that will come in many ways. It comes in the form of the air strikes that are protecting Baghdad and Erbil that have given space for Iraqi forces to push forward against ISIL. It comes in the form of military assistance and advice and intelligence sharing that we have with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground. It comes with our political support in service of a new inclusive Iraqi government, which should be able to broaden the coalition against ISIL so that we see more of Iraq's neighbors again working with, for instance, Sunni communities to evict ISIL.

So this is going to have to be a team effort. But we have very unique capabilities that we can bring to bear in supporting those on the ground who are working to fight against ISIL on the front lines.

QUESTION: But just a basic question. Is it the objective of the U.S. efforts here to defeat ISIL? Is that a U.S. objective?

RHODES: Look, absolutely, in the long term, our objective would be to see an organization like ISIL defeated. Our military objectives -- I'm - so I'm just separating out the fact that we have military objectives that the president has articulated that aim to protect our facilities in Iraq and prevent this humanitarian catastrophe. In that long-term strategy of working for the defeat of ISIL, we will participate, not just through our military action, but through our training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, Kurdish security forces on the ground, because ultimately they are the ones who are going to have to work to evict ISIL from their communities.

And again, their efforts to form an inclusive government in Iraq I think will go a long way towards enlisting the support of those communities who have been somewhat disaffected from the government in recent years.

QUESTION: And I'd like to get you to response to Michael Foley, Jim Foley's brother, pretty emotional comments. He said, and I quote, "the United States could have done more on behalf of the western and American hostages over there."

RHODES: Well, first of all, our hearts go out to Mr. Foley and the entire Foley family. I cannot imagine how it must feel to lose a loved one and to lose a loved one in such a horrible way. And I certainly understand that any family would want to make sure that we are moving heaven and earth to find and bring home American hostages. I can assure you that we have done everything that we can possibly do

to try to bring home our hostages. It's an incredibly difficult circumstance in a place like Syria, again, where you have such a violent conflict raging. But we've used all of our military intelligence, diplomatic resources that we can bring to bear to try to pull through, to find out where our hostages are, to try to rescue them, when we saw an opportunity, to try to work with any country that might have any means of locating them. And, tragically, we weren't able to rescue Mr. Foley. But we're going to keep trying for all of our hostages, not just in Syria but around the world.

QUESTION: Do you know how many are there - how many American hostages are being held by ISIL?

RHODES: John, we don't want to put out a specific number again out of respect for the fact that there are sensitivities involved with that. But, you know, this is a small number of hostages who are held within Syria. And we're going to continue to do what have we can to try to bring them home. Every day that they're in custody they're -- is a day that they're at risk.

Major.

QUESTION: At the White House the president said the goal was to contain ISIL. The secretary of state two days later said the goal was to destroy ISIL. Which is it? How far and how long are we prepared to carry out whichever campaign it is?

RHODES: Well, Major, I think the president has spoken to the fact that our military objectives in Iraq right now are limited to protecting our personnel facilities and addressing this humanitarian crisis. We have to be clear that this is a deeply rooted organization. They have been there for 10 years, when you go back to AQI. It is going to take time, a long time, to fully evict them from the communities where they operate. We can do things, though, in the immediate term to address the threat to the United States and our people and to push them back and to give space for these security forces who are taking the fight to them. We can create a coalition that can support Iraqis and moderate Syrian opposition in their efforts to squeeze ISIL. And that's what we're doing.

But it's going to take time when you talk about an objective like the ultimate defeat of ISIL. It's going to take time to dislodge a group that has been operating in this part of the world for the better part of a decade in an insurgency. But what we can do is address the threat to the United States, give these security forces the space that they need, go on the offense, push them out of the communities that they're in, and then work towards that ultimate goal of defeating ISIL.

And as the president said the other day, Major, this is a cancer that has to be eradicated. And that's how we look at this. We have to have our near-term goals that put the safety of Americans front and center. And then in the long term, we'll be working with our partners to defeat this organization.

QUESTION: You're saying first contain, then destroy? RHODES: Well, I think, obviously, by definition, Major, you need, in the immediate term, to contain the threat. So, yes. But as you're doing that, you need to make sure that if is there a threat to the American people, that we have the ability to take action. And that's what the president did, for instance, when they were bearing down on our facilities in Erbil.

But we are already pushing them back. You saw after we began our air strikes, for instance, the Kurdish forces with our support were able to make advances. And to retake a big piece of critical infrastructure in Iraq, the Mosul Dam. So that's the dynamic that we're seeking to foster. One that doesn't just contain, but that allows those forces on ground to go on the offense.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) crisis continues to mount in severity. What degree is the president briefed on that and is there any serious consideration or (INAUDIBLE) administration of sending additional assets to the region, such as the USS (INAUDIBLE), which are platform able vessel hospitals that might be able to provide some assistance to some number of people (INAUDIBLE) in those countries by this (INAUDIBLE).

RHODES: So we always look at whatever resource is necessary to deal with an outbreak like Ebola that we've seen. We have prioritized getting people and resources on the ground in places likely Liberia and Sierra Leone so that we're working to strengthen their public - public heath architecture. There are clear steps that we believe they can take to contain the outbreak and to make sure that people are getting appropriate care. That's what we focused on with the CDC and other U.S. agencies. And if there are opportunities for us to do additional things, we'll review those. But the best solution in our mind is to put the public health infrastructure in place in those countries to contain this outbreak, treat those who are suffering from it, and ensure that it doesn't spread beyond their borders.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

RHODES: I don't - I don't have any updates for you on additional military resources. We focused on public health resources to date.

Last one. I'll take Mike.

QUESTION: When the president announced the air strikes in Iraq, he came to the American people and made a statement and he laid out a specific case for what was happening, what's going to happen and what was not going to happen. Do you all believe that that case that he made then covers what he might do in Syria, as well, both from a -- kind of public relations perspective what he needs to tell the American people? And then on the legal side, are there things that he would -- if you all decide to take military action in Syria, along the lines that you just talked about to protect American interests, would he have to come to Congress, would there be additional legal either here in the United States or international legal authority that he would have to seek to do that?

RHODES: Well, on your first question, Mike, look, the president always keeps the American people updated about the status of any military action and major foreign policy, national security actions. Even since he announced those air strikes earlier this month, I'd note that he has spoken a number of times to developments in Iraq and developments associated with our efforts against ISIL.

So, clearly, I think any additional action that he would take is one that he would explain to the American people, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else. And we will keep the American people fully informed. And I think the American people understand that this president is very deliberate about the use of force. He doesn't rush towards a military option. He takes very seriously when we put U.S. military action on the table, when we have our pilots flying missions, like the air strikes undertaking Iraq.

However, I think the American people also understand that there are some threats that have to be dealt with. And we're dealing with the threat from ISIL in Iraq by protecting our people there. And as we have done against al Qaeda around the world, we'll take whatever action is necessary to protect our people. And President Obama has shown that he'd do that, whether it's in Pakistan, with the bin Laden operation, in Yemen, in Somalia, we will take direct action against terrorists who threaten the United States, even as we develop long- term solutions that empower partners on the ground.

With respect to legal matters, I wouldn't want to prejudge an action that we haven't taken. I would say that the actions we're taking in Iraq are obviously at the invitation of the Iraqi government and consistent with the president's constitutional authority. The action that we took to try to rescue hostages in Syria was entirely legal, of course, because we were seeking to save Americans from imminent danger. And that is at the core of justification for military action. I think that any additional actions that we'd take, we'd want to consult with Congress.

(INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: Finally, I seems to me you'd drawn about -- about Iraq was that you were invited in, what you just mentioned. In Syria that, obviously, wouldn't be the case. So there's -- isn't there a distinction and wouldn't you have to (INAUDIBLE)?

RHODES: I don't want to speak hypothetically about an action we haven't taken. But to take the example of what we did, you don't need to be invited in if you're trying to rescue your people from imminent danger. And so that was the basis for the action that we took to try to rescue our hostages.

Going forward, we would obviously have a legal justification for any action we take. And I do want to be clear, we would consult with Congress. This is, again, a problem that we have to deal with as a nation. And so whether it's our ongoing operations in Iraq or additional steps that may need to be taken against ISIL, we would carry those out in very close consultation with Congress about their support and their role in providing support for our efforts.

Thanks. QUESTION: Ben, (INAUDIBLE) does the U.S. need to review its policy of

not paying ransom for hostages?

RHODES: Yes. We, obviously, understand that Americans who have loved ones who are in harm's way want to do anything to try to bring them home. And we provide support in any way we can with our military, our diplomacy, our intelligence resources, our law enforcement resources. But as a matter of policy, we do not provide ransom or any funding for terrorist organizations.

We feel very strongly that it is not the right policy for governments to support the payment of ransom to terrorist organizations. In the long run, what that does is, it provides additional funding to these terrorist organizations, which allows them to expand their operations. It incentivizes the kidnapping of foreigners in ways that we've seen, frankly, with organizations like ISIL and some the al Qaeda affiliates.

So, again, as a matter of policy, I think the U.S. government remains absolutely committed to the notion that we will not provide funding for terrorist organizations that we believe -- that only creates perverse incentives for those terrorist organizations going forward, and a source of funding. And we want to cut off and choke off their resources of funding. What we will do is use all the resources of the U.S. government to try to find and if possible bring home those Americans who are missing. And as I said, that will include our military, our intelligence, our law enforcement, and our diplomacy.

Thanks.

(END LIVE BREIFING COVERAGE)

BALDWIN: All right. That was Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for the president of the United States there speaking from Martha's Vineyard. Really focusing much -- that's because of the questions that were thrown at him from members of the media about ISIS. Of course, all of this in the wake of this horrendous, evil beheading of American journalist James Foley early this week.

So a couple of headlines. Let me just -- what I noticed is he did corroborate -- he was asked whether he agrees with the former deputy of the CIA, Chief Mike Morell, and he says yes, indeed, he believes this was the first terrorist attack on the United States from ISIS. And said that the president -- you know, a lot of questions both to the secretary of defense yesterday when we were watching that Pentagon meeting and again to Ben Rhodes, you know, would the president consider signing off on U.S. air strikes in Syria. No real definitive answer. Again, sort of echoing what we heard from the secretary of defense, we'll explore all options.

So let's stay on ISIS. And there has been a starkly worded warning about the threat to this country from ISIS. And this is the warning being issued from the highest ranks of the Pentagon and it pretty much speaks for itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end of days strategic vision and -- which will eventually have to be defeated.

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: They have no standard of decency, of responsible human behavior.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't the calculation though that ISIL presents a 9/11-level threat to the United States?

HAGEL Jim, ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group. Oh, this is beyond anything that we've seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.

DEMPSEY: It's an immediate threat. That is to say the fighters who may leave the current fight and migrate home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So as we said, the words that really speak for themselves here from the top brass there from the DOD. In the words of Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, "ISIS must be defeated." And then you heard also from the secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, "we have never seen anything like this." And he's saying, we have to get ready.

With me now from Los Angeles, one of our go-to guys, Bob Baer. He's former CIA.

So, Bob, given all of, you know, how they're stressing -- again, this is beyond anything we've ever seen, you heard in the Q&A a moment ago in the vineyard our own White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski saying, hang on a second, it was the president six months ago making that JV comment and here you have this potential 9/11-level threat. Did someone drop the ball six months ago here?

BOB BAER, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Oh, the ball was dropped, absolutely. I wouldn't blame the White House. The problem was, Brooke, that for the last couple years, we've been listening to Maliki in Baghdad, we've been talking to a Shia government who has down played the Sunni threat, downplayed ISIS, downplayed what was happening in Anbar province and we just simply looked the other way and listened to him and it was a terrible mistake. And I think we can blame the State Department for that, you know, first -- the first place.

But -- and now we've seen this. I've been talking to the Sunnis in Anbar province and I said, well, what is going on with ISIS? And they said, look, we are aligned with them. We don't share their ideology. We certainly don't share their attacks on the United States. But right now we are going to carve out a homeland for the Sunni in Iraq and we are working together. And until we get that homeland, we are. This is a major change that has occurred since the awakening, which we missed. Yes, it's an intelligence failure.

BALDWIN: So then is the U.S. going to war with ISIS, and not just in Iraq, Bob, but Syria?

BAER: We have to go into Syria. We have to go into Raqqa, where they are headquartered. We have to decapitate this organization. There is no way that it can be allowed to survive. I totally agree with the administration. It tends to do us violence, whether it's Europe or in this country, whether it can or not is another question. I don't have the information to answer that, but it will do us violence. Whether it's capable of doing another 9/11, I don't know that either. But when the secretary of defense opens that possibility, it's scary.

BALDWIN: You talk about decapitating ISIS and I've heard you use that word before. But you just heard Ben Rhodes say, and I'm just looking down at my notes quoting him, this organization is deeply rooted, been in this region for 10 years, so it will take a long time to evict them. I mean, first, you have containment, then destruction. It's not just the U.S., as we've been hearing from the administration, you need help from the ground. But who?

BAER: Oh, absolutely. We need the Kurds. We need to arm the Kurds. I know that's distasteful to Baghdad, but they need weapons. They're doing quite well against ISIS. We need to arm the Sunnis, who are against ISIS. That's going to be distasteful. And we need to keep the Shia out of Anbar province. And we need to -- you know, we need to bring in the joint special operations command. This is an enemy who tends to do us harm. And if they need to go into Syria to decapitate this organization, we have to do it. I don't see another way. I don't like conflict in the Middle East, because it's always messy. We always get it wrong. But in this case, we're dealing with a new beast that's got to be taken care.

BALDWIN: A cancer that needs to be eradicated, according to President Obama.

Bob Baer, thank you, as always, very much.

And as we've been telling the story of ISIS, it's affected a great number of people in Iraq and also Syria. You know, thousands of men and women, children, fleeing the violence each and every day. So if you would like to help, you actually can. You can help these refugees in Iraq. Go to our Impact Your World website, cnn.com/impact. You'll find links to charities helping those refugees in Iraq with medical supplies and humanitarian aid. Again, that is cnn.com/impact.

To Ferguson, Missouri, now, where there are now questions around the main witness to Michael Brown's shooting. The eyewitness here, Dorian Johnson, is his past relevant?