Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Live Coverage of the White House Press Briefing; Obama Has No Plans for Syria Yet; Ukraine Says Russian "Invading"; Great Britain Raises Terror Threat Level

Aired August 29, 2014 - 11:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We do not have a strategy yet. Those words have been so controversial over the last 24 hours. President Obama acknowledging that he and his advisers do not have a plan yet, a military plan yet, to battle ISIS militants inside Syria. Those comments come as today, just a little over an hour ago, the United Kingdom raised its terror threat level to severe. That is the second highest level in Britain, indicating they believe a terror attack is highly likely. And right now, we're waiting a White House press briefing, the press secretary will face questions really any minute now. This comes as the U.S. Faces down war on two fronts, ISIS now claiming it has slaughtered hundreds of Syrian soldiers, as the number of Syrian refugees hits three million.

And in Ukraine, what NATO is calling a serious escalation of Russian aggression, the Ukrainians called it an invasion. Russia's president is calling on rebels to create a humanitarian corridor so Ukrainian troops can retreat. President Obama is weighing more sanctions but as conflict rages on, is the United States making the right moves?

Obviously, questions that will be facing Josh Earnest when he faces that podium you saw right there in just a few minute. We could see more of the White House in damage control. Josh Earnest has been answering a whole lot of questions since the president went out yesterday and said he and his advisers have no strategy to deal with is in Syria.

This is what we know, President Obama this week authorized military surveillance flights over Syria, fueling speculation that U.S. Airstrikes were imminent and then yesterday, before speaking with reporters, the president met with his national security team in the White House situation room to discuss the ISIS threat in both Iraq and Syria.

I want to bring in our panel right now, White House correspondent; Michelle Kosinski; our political analyst, Josh Rogin; and military analyst, Mark Hertling, retied Army Lieutenant General, joins us.

Michelle, I want to start at the White House with you because it has been very busy there. Normally the president speaks and they let it sit, however, since the president spoke yesterday, White House advisers have been out again and again and again and again to explain his explanation.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. You might say they were the non-shots heard around the world and critics were quick to jump on it. I know the Republican party tweeted out, what is the Obama strategy, not having a strategy and the White House was equally quick to explain that he was only referring to military action as a possibility in Syria, saying that those options were still being presented, worked up by the Pentagon and the president will consider those when the time is right, but, yeah, it does kind of take on this aspect of damage control. I mean the White House will say he didn't misspeak, if you listen to the speech, he explains fully that there is a strategy and a sort of well-laid out one in their opinion in Iraq. It was just referring to Syria. Those words sort of strike to the heart of Americans. Is has been a threat in Syria for a long time.

We've seen a very, very quick evolution that the White House concedes, yes, it's grown a lot even in the last six months. So many are asking now, why isn't there a strategy now as opposed to later? The White House response has been, well, it's way more complicated than that. There's even the factor of identifying targets, gathering information. What the White House has really been emphasizing, in terms of Syria especially, it's going to take more of a regional coalition, an international coalition to really get results, that going in with bombs isn't necessarily going to change anything. Of course, some would disagree with that, but keep in mind, we do still have American hostages there. Their lives hang in the balance, and the White House is also agreeing some critics the White House doesn't want to telegraph its plans immediately. So really there's this huge and complex back and forth -- John?

BERMAN: Before I get to Josh and General Hertling, I want to ask you if there's been any White House response yet to the announcement that the United Kingdom is elevating its threat level to severe.

KOSINSKI: So far no. We ask for a response first to the threat level change and then to Cameron's speech, that's still being work out. We haven't heard anything yet.

BERMAN: General Hertling, I want to ask you this. The president said we have no strategy now to deal with ISIS militants inside Syria, is that telegraphing too much information to a group that you might be soon at a minimum bombing.

GENERAL MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Not to run into a bad scene with the president, but yes that is telegraphing too soon. I think the strategy of the United States is to protect U.S. citizens and defend our values, and saying something like that, even though it's -- they are probably looking at a variety of options to deal with ISIS in Syria, and a variety of options of what to do next in that part of the region, it's probably not a good thing to say something like that to the press.

BERMAN: And, Josh, you cover politics, you cover national security. You know, no matter what the White House says, it's not the headline they wanted to be dealing with when they got up. No new strategy.

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY BEAST: Right. It's a political problem, but frankly I think it's obvious that the White House doesn't have a strategy for Syria. This is a war that's been going on for three years. As was noted, ISIS was a threat to Syria for three years. We already know it doesn't have a strategy. It doesn't come as a surprise to them or reporters either. The question is why not? What are they waiting for? This is the split inside the administration that me and my colleague reported this morning. There are officials who are saying yes, we don't have a strategy. That's the problem. We need to do something now. It has to involve Syria. Maybe it involves strikes, maybe not. We just got to decide. We can't wait any longer, so that's the real issue. The fact that President Obama acknowledged it in front of the nation was kind of shocking and politically, you know, inn elegant to be sure. Now they are mopping it up. They can't mop up the fact that they still don't have the strategy and until they come up with that, this is going to be a continuing problem that gets worse and worse, not just for the president, and the American people, but also for the people of the region who are suffering from this growing and very dangerous and brutal threat.

BERMAN: Josh, it's very difficult to see where the American people are on this right now because there's been this sense for years now that the United States is war weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. But this new poll indicates that 54 percent of Americans think that the United States is not taking a strong enough role over seas, that could include, you would think, in Syria.

ROGIN: Right, it's clear that Americans are war weary and it's clear that major intervention in Syria is not favored by the majority of Americans, but that's a straw man. That's never really been an option. There's no serious person who advocates American boots on the ground in Syria. The Obama administration has been very risk averse and there are good arguments to support that. What we find mostly in foreign policy, that the polls follow the leadership and messaging coming from the military and administration and Congress. So the more that we can't ignore Syria, the more that Americans get killed or Americans go to fight there, the threat to Americans becomes more real and more obvious, the more that Americans all over the country are going to realize that this is a problem that can't be ignored.

That's not going to en courage people to support boots on the ground in Syria but it is going to encourage people to ask the question, as everyone is doing today is what are we doing about it and there are a range of options. Some of them are more risky than others, and Americans want to know what's the plan, and when President Obama says we don't have one, that's disconcerting to a lot of people and that's something that they are going to fix, not just through fixing the statement, but through fixing the policy.

BERMAN: All right, guys. Stick around, because we can hear more on this subject. We can hear more about plans, more details.

We're awaiting a briefing from the White House, set to begin any minute. This, of course, on the heels of that revelation that we keep talking about, that the administration has no strategy yet to deal with ISIS in Syria. We'll hear about that and also the new terror threat in the United Kingdom right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: We're watching the White House right now, and specifically the White House briefing room, because any minute we can be seeing a press briefing by White House secretary Josh Earnest. A lot of questions for him and the administration regarding the United Kingdom raising its terror threat level not to mention the strategy in Iraq and Syria against ISIS. Just last hour, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that Britain has raised its terror threat level to severe, indicating they think an attack is highly likely. He pointed directly to attacks by ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq as the impetus, also the fact that some 500 people from Britain have gone to Syria to fight in the battles there. This all comes a day after President Obama acknowledged that his national security advisers are still working out a plan for military options to keel with the ISIS threat in Syria.

I want to bring in Barbara Starr, our Pentagon reporter, and retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling.

Barbara, what are the options available to the president?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The only realistic one that the Pentagon is looking at is in fact limited airstrike inside Syria. You know, you could increase arming the rebels in Syria, not very likely. That's been problematic all the way along. You could put U.S. Special operations on the ground, extremely unlikely. The president is not likely to even authorize U.S. boots on the ground, so you are looking at limited airstrikes, but I think it's important, one of the distinctions, you just made, John, the president yesterday was talking about military options for Syria and Iraq vis-a-vis is. What Prime Minister Cameron is talking about, which the U.S. Has already talked about as well, is dealing with that threat to the homeland, that is may pose as fighters return from that battlefield to their home countries in Europe, and even back -- try to return back to the United States.

BERMAN: It is a very important distinction, and in Britain, that homeland concern is obviously much greater, I think, in some cases than it is here in the United States, but it's also of greater concern to the British than their role inside Iraq and Syria. The British not taking part in the airstrikes in Iraq so far, it doesn't appear they have any plans to join any potential action in Syria.

General Hertling, we talk about possible airstrikes. The president does have the secretary of state heading to the region. He has been talking to other leaders in the region, developing a coalition, working the diplomat side of it. That is a crucial part of the strategy? HERTLING: That gets to the strategy, John. You've hit the nail on

the head. It just isn't dropping bombs. That's what any military professional will tell you. It's a diplomatic approach, economic approach, I think what you have with the vice president going to the region is exactly that. I think there is probably other activity going on in NATO right now, beyond the Ukrainian Russian situation of how we come together with our NATO allies to address this issue, there's informational messaging and there's probably economic thinks coming around that we aren't around that we aren't aware of. Prime minister come ran as addressed the home land security. The president has the homeland security chief that we may not be seeing that, but that's going on.

BERMAN: Barbara, the United States has begun to receive cooperation at the military level and diplomatic level inside Iraq from its allies in the region. How difficult will it be to translate that cooperation from Iraq into Syria if that is the way the White House decides to go?

STARR: You know, it's really -- that's a tough question, but obviously a good one and a crucial one. Working with -- there's going to be a new Iraqi government shortly. The U.S. Hope is now the former prime minister, Nouri al Maliki is gone, they can work with this new government, the U.S. Is now increasingly publicly talking about holding Maliki responsible for the rise of ISIS inside of Iraq. If Maliki had been more an inclusive leader, the Sunni population would not have become so disaffected, and joined forces with ISIS in Iraq. There might have been more limited in their operations. They might have stayed to some extent on the Syrian side of the border. But, you know, getting international cooperation, getting some kind of strategy to act inside Syria is going to be very tough. Everybody wants to talk about working against ISIS but you got to get countries to sign up for it and that still really hasn't happened.

General Hertling, I apologize in advance, I might have to cut you off any second. The United States has the Kurds to work with, the Peshmerga to work with inside Iraq. How important will it be to develop a closer military relationship with these moderate anti Assad rebel groups but also anti ISIS groups inside Syria?

HERTLING: The Free Syrian Army, they could be critical. That's part of the overall design of the strategy. What ways do you have, what means do you have, to get after what's going on in Syria itself? Could it be the Free Syrian Army? Could it be a blocking of the border as the Iraqi government gets stood up a little bit better and they can put border patrols up there? Can you contain ISIS in one area while you're helping the Iraqi government free them from their area? That's part of the strategy, sausage making, if you will, that's probably going on right now.

BERMAN: We are awaiting. The White House press briefing will begin any second.

I want to go to the United Kingdom. Our Erin McLaughlin is there. The highest threat level there in three years. Erin, remind us why they made that move now. ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They made a move now based on

intelligence reports. This was a decision that was taken independent of government ministers. It's the fourth highest level possible. The next level being critical. As you mentioned. Meaning that a terrorist attack is, quote, highly likely. They made this based on an assessment, a comprehensive assessment, it would seem, of intelligence reports. Unclear if there was a specific report that prompted this particular decision. But what it does mean for people here in Britain is they go about their daily lives in a normal way but remain vigilant if they see anything unusual, to report that to police, security personnel, both private and public, have been asked to remain on a state of heightened alert as well -- John?

BERMAN: All right, as we said, we're awaiting this White House press briefing. I'm just reminding you, because I may have to cut you off at any minute. I believe we have it going on right now. That is the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. He's been talking a lot since the president briefed the press yesterday. Let's hear what he has to say.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday. Nice to see you.

Before we get started, and just for the sake of efficiency, I know that there is at least one aspect of the president's news conference yesterday that attracted some attention. So, I thought I might just sort of go over at least one aspect of that argument, and it's specifically this: The president stands squarely behind the decision that he made yesterday to wear his summer suit at yesterday's news conference.

(LAUGHTER)

EARNEST: The Thursday before Labor Day, he feels pretty good about it.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Looked good.

EARNEST: Anyway, with that bit of frivolity out of the way, Nedra...

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: So why aren't you wearing tan (ph)?

EARNEST: I will say that I contemplated it. It seemed like it might be a little too much.

So, Nedra, do you want to get started with some more serious questions today?

QUESTION: Yes, does the United States see a higher terror threat here following the announcement by Britain today? EARNEST: Well, Nedra, I can confirm that the British government has raised its domestic threat level from substantial to severe. Senior White House officials and other national security officials in the administration have been in touch with their British counterparts about this.

I'd refer you to the British for the explanation about why they have made this determination in terms of their own terror threat level. I do understand that they have -- that, generally speaking, that it's related to the threat posed by foreign fighters that are -- that have western passports, that have British passports, that are fighting alongside ISIL in Syria.

This is a threat that the United States has been focused on. We've been coordinating closely with our allies, both the Brits, but others in Europe, about countering this threat and mitigating it. We've been doing that by cooperating through law enforcement channels, through national security channels, but also through intelligence channels as well.

As it relates to the United States national terror alert system, I don't anticipate at this point that there are -- that there's a plan to change that level. But those are official announcements that are made by the Department of Homeland Security, so I'd refer you to them for an official determination on that. But it's my understanding right now that there are no plans to change it.

QUESTION: Does the administration believe that the Islamic State militants currently pose a threat to Americans here in the United States?

EARNEST: Well, the concern, Nedra, that we have articulated is not just dissimilar from the threat that the British have identified and acted on today.

For a number of months now, we have been monitoring those individuals that have western passports, that are citizens of western countries, either United States or -- or in Europe, who have made the decision to travel to Syria or take up arms alongside ISIL.

They pose a threat because they are -- they've received military training, they are now battle hardened, and they've demonstrated a willingness to risk their lives for their cause. Those individuals, as I mentioned, have western passports, and that does give them some freedom of movement that could allow them to come back to the west and carry out acts of violence.

That is why the United States, in conjunction with our partners, so these are other allied countries of ours, have been monitoring the situation, have been tracking or at least monitoring the movements of these individuals.

You know, Interpol is involved in this effort. There are also countries in the region that have been supportive of -- of the efforts of the United States and our allies to monitor this situation.

The United States is always making adjustments to counter terrorism measures. You know, some of those measures are seen, and some of those are unseen. We talk about this typically when it comes to aviation security. But it is true, as it relates to, you know, other aspects of our nation's homeland security system.

So this is a threat we are monitoring. It's one that we have been focused on for quite some time. It has been the focus of intensive discussions inside the administration. It's also been the focus of intensive discussions with governments in the region and around the world.

QUESTION: Can you explain why the president changed his travel plans today to come back to the White House tonight? Is it -- does it have anything to do with this terror threat?

EARNEST: It is not specifically related to any sort of assessment or change in the terror threat that's currently emanating from that region of the world. Merely, this is an opportunity for the president when he saw his schedule decided that he'd rather just make the late-evening flight back here home to the White House. He can sleep in his own bed, do a little work tomorrow, spend some time with his family, and then travel back to -- back to New York tomorrow evening to attend a private event.

QUESTION: When you say "do a little work," is he planning to meet with advisers on any of these current, pressing world problems?

EARNEST: I don't know at this point of any specific meetings. But if there are meetings that take place that we can tell you about, then we'll let you know.

OK. Steve?

QUESTION: Did the president, yesterday, mean to signal that he's nowhere near a decision on airstrikes in Syria, and in fact is -- is not convinced that it's a good thing to do?

EARNEST: I think the president was pretty explicit that he is determined to make sure that every element of his national security strategy is thought through. The strategy that he has laid out is multi-faceted. It includes a lot of important diplomatic work, both with the Iraqi government but also with governments in the region. It includes some military work separate from active, kinetic strikes. But military work that's focused on offering support to the Kurdish and Iraqi security forces. There's a lot of -- there's an important military-to-military relationship there, and one that we're going to continue to cultivate.

But military action by the United States is also a part of this -- is also an important component of the strategy. The president has authorized military action in -- in Iraq, and there -- those military actions have produced some positive results just in the last few weeks. Because of American military action, we averted a humanitarian disaster at Mount Sinjar.

Because of military action in support of Kurdish and Iraqi security forces, we were able to blunt the rapid advance on Erbil. That's important because there's an American consulate in Erbil, and American citizens -- American personnel, who are working in Erbil on a range of functions, including closely coordinating with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. There is also important work that was done by the United States military to conduct strikes in support of Iraqi and Kurdish security forces to retake the Mosul Dam. That's a piece of critical infrastructure in Iraq.

So we have already demonstrated, and the president has already demonstrated, A, a willingness to order military action and strikes in Iraq. Those were part of a thought-through strategy in terms of trying to safeguard American citizens who are in Iraq, and the president is -- wants to be similarly rigorous as we think through other aspects of our strategy that could include military action.

There are some who have called for the president to take action or order military action in Syria. The Pentagon is developing plans or military options for the president to consider if he decides that it's necessary to do so. But at this point, the president hasn't made any decisions and hasn't ordered any military action in Syria, but if he does take that step, it will be one that is carefully considered, one that is deliberately arrived at, and one that will be made in close consultation with the United States Congress.

QUESTION: And what sort of time frame are you looking at on your decision-making process?

EARNEST: Well, I wouldn't speculate about -- about time frame at this point. The president has been deliberate about this process. He'll continue to be. And I think that was evident from his answer on this question yesterday.

QUESTION: And lastly, on the immigration order question, is there -- are you thinking about delaying it for a little while because you don't want to impact the discussions over the C.R. that could trigger a budget shutdown, a government shutdown?

EARNEST: Well, at this point, Steve, I don't have an update in terms of timing. You did hear from the president yesterday where he reiterated his strong commitment to take action within the scope of his authority to solve or at least address so many of the problems that are created by our broken immigration system.