Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rebels in Yemen Seized U.S. Vehicle and Weapons; Obama Sends Power Request to Congress; NBC Suspends Brian Williams; Interview with Representative Earl Blumenauer

Aired February 11, 2015 - 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: And good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thanks so much for joining me.

Right now in Washington, a debate over the use of force in the war against ISIS. President Obama's resolution now in the hands of leaders in both the House and the Senate.

Plus, at any minute now, Republican House leaders are expected to address the press.

Also, peace talks at Belarus. The leaders of France and Germany bringing Russia, Ukraine and separatist groups to the table. The hope to hammer out a cease-fire made intense fighting in Ukraine.

We're watching all of these live events this hour for you. But we begin with this breaking news.

Troubling developments out of Yemen. Houthi rebels have now seized U.S. vehicles and military weapons that were left behind by American embassy personnel at the airport. This just hours after the U.S. and U.K. suspended embassy operations and evacuated staffers out of the capital city of Sana'a. France will close its embassy doors later this week.

Now Yemen has been batting chaos since rebels seized control of key government facilities and forced the country's leader to resign. This morning there are major fears that rebels will enter the U.S. embassy within the next 24 hours.

So let's get the latest from CNN's chief national correspondent Jim Sciutto.

It seems unimaginable to me that the Marines would just leave their weapons behind, Jim.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, they didn't apparently leave them on purpose. They were confiscated from them by the Houthi rebels who control the airport as the Marines and the rest of the remaining U.S. embassy personnel left. So you now have the U.S. embassy in Yemen closed, and really an ignominious departure as they leave showing the instability on the ground there.

I'm told by a senior U.S. military official that they took all precautions necessary as they left that embassy compound. That means destroying documents, disabling some weapons, which were left there. That's before they got the remaining staff to the airport, Carol. And it's at the airport where those Houthi rebels who control the airport basically took everything else off them, their weapons, et cetera.

The good news here is those embassy staff and personnel got out of the country safely. You know, the bad news is, you leave behind really a gaping hole in one of the most important countries in the region there. This is where AQAP is in Yemen and without a U.S. embassy there you lose a lot of things. You lose intelligence -- some intelligence gathering on the ground, political contacts, military contacts, et cetera. And it's not the only one.

You now have no U.S. embassy in Syria, none in Somalia and none in Libya for major countries with major terror issues now. It's a real problem across the region -- Carol.

COSTELLO: So obviously the Houthi rebels, they do not like the United States so how might this -- I mean, I know the geography there. But how might the rebels affect the war on terror?

SCIUTTO: Well, it's a confusing situation in Yemen because the Houthi rebels, they're backed by Iran. They're actually against AQAP. They fought their own battles against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is America's chief enemy on the ground there. Doesn't mean the Houthis are our friends but, you know, the principal enemy there is AQAP. But of course you have these Houthi rebels now taking over the U.S. embassy.

I mean, the focus of U.S. resources on the ground in Yemen remains AQAP. I am told by military officials the counter terror operations will continue there. That means that drone strikes will continue particularly over the southern part of the country here, the southwestern part of the country where AQAP is concentrated. But you have the Pentagon spokesman, John Kirby, acknowledging yesterday that losing that embassy presence will have an impact.

He's not going to shut it down but it will have an impact. You know, there's something to keep in mind. Embassies, yes, they do visas and they do diplomatic missions, et cetera. But they're also listening posts for intelligence. They are cooperation posts in effect for military cooperation, et cetera, which is essential to the U.S. relationship with Yemen.

So no matter how you slice it, this is a loss and it's not the only country in the region. Count them. Four. Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia. All with terror issues and no longer a U.S. diplomatic presence on the ground.

COSTELLO: All right. Jim Sciutto, reporting live, thanks so much.

Just about an hour ago President Obama sent a formal request to Congress asking lawmakers to grant him war powers to fight ISIS.

CNN's Michelle Kosinski is at the White House with more on this.

Good morning. MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Hi, Carol.

Everyone has been waiting for the exact language on this and debating it even before it came out. Because this was always going to be a balancing act between getting rid of unnecessary or undesired breath in the previously existing authorizations for the use of military course that the White House has been operating under. But also leaving some flexibility to change as the situation changes because you never know what's going to happen down the road.

This does strike something of a balance. I mean, it gets rid of the 2002 authorization that pertains to Iraq but leaves in place the one from 2001 relating to al Qaeda. It also leaves some flexibility for fighting groups allied with ISIS, fighting alongside them like the al- Nusra Front. It also doesn't set any limits on geography so it allows the president to fight ISIS wherever they may turn up and gain strength.

Where it does set a limit, though, and this has been talked about for a while, the use of combat troops. And the language of the AUMF it says that it doesn't to authorize the president to use forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. And in the letter that he accompanied with this, he said, would not authorize long-term, large scale ground combat like those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you could say that this does leave the window open for shorter term, smaller scale ground combat operations. But, you know, some Republicans disagree even with this limitation. We heard John McCain saying that you shouldn't have Congress limit the powers of the commander-in-chief ever. He was saying it shouldn't happen and that it wouldn't happen as long as he breathes -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Michelle Kosinski reporting live from the White House. Many thanks.

Now, well, let's go to Capitol Hill and chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash.

Dana, you've been getting reaction from the Hill. What are people saying? What are lawmakers saying?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that there are more and more Republicans who agree, maybe not in as colorful terms as John McCain, saying that he won't let this go as long as he breathes, but agreed that this is too narrow. And I've been speaking right now about the House speaker, John Boehner. I know we expect him to show up shortly for a press conference. But ahead of that he actually just issued a statement, which I have here, where he says that it is -- it doesn't give military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people.

And again, we're talking about that important sentence that Michelle talked to you about. Talking about not authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

We're in this very ironic kind of bizarre world situation where you have Republicans wanting to give President Obama more flexibility, more latitude, and you have Democrats, people in his own party, wanting to give the president less latitude when it comes to the use of military force.

And again, the flipside of that is that that is what we're hearing from Democrats. We heard it all day in the halls yesterday. A lot of concern that this is simply too broad and the thing to keep in mind is this proposal is for three years. The president is not going to be there. President Obama, for three years. So what we're hearing from Democrats kind of quietly in the hallways is, OK, we trust that the president won't -- President Obama won't take this and run with this but who knows who the next president is going to be.

So that's why there's concern there and they're just about setting precedent with regard to what Congress does and doesn't do.

COSTELLO: All right. Dana Bash reporting live from Capitol Hill. Thank you -- thank you very much.

As Michelle Kosinski and Dana Bash just mentioned included in President Obama's request to Congress an operation limited to three years, limited use of ground troops for rescue operations and a campaign of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

So let's talk about this from a military perspective. CNN military analyst Lt. General Mark Hertling is on the phone.

Welcome, sir.

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Hello, Carol. How are you this morning?

COSTELLO: I'm good. I'm eager to know your general impressions.

HERTLING: Well, I read the letter that the president has drafted and prepared to send to the over 500 members of the legislative branch. And I think it's a very good move on his heart. It will help eliminate or at least refine some of the debate that has been ongoing over the last several months about the use of force. What his strategy is and it's clear what his strategy is, but at least the military strategy and what he's trying to do, but it also provides some very good guidelines for the military commanders.

And this isn't just for Congress, Carol. I would suggest this is also a signal to the other potential members of the coalition, especially those in Iraq. This is what he is going to ask his military to do and it's the same messages to the government of Iraq saying you've got to step up to do this. We are not going to do this for you. And that's very plain to me as I read the letter.

COSTELLO: OK. Everybody is concerned about this one line about the authorization for the use of ground troops but it can't be for an enduring offensive. What does that mean?

HERTLING: Right. Well, that tells me what he's saying is we can -- we can allow for advisers. We can allow for special operators. We can allow for intelligence and planners and the logistics and the operations arena, but what we don't want is to put a large number of forces in combat formations for large-scale offensive maneuvers.

And I think what he's basically saying is we will help other people do that but we're not going to be there for a long time. This is a refinement and a limitation of the use of the force in Iraq.

COSTELLO: Because you know what many Americans are concerned about that we'll get ourselves into a huge military conflict once again involving tens of thousands of American -- of American troops. Does this proposal prevent that?

HERTLING: I think -- I think it does. And, you know, as you well know, Carol, being a journalist, there has been much debate over the last couple of months. Every time a new group of soldiers or military personnel are asked to do something, there is a suddenly a human cry about mission creep or more boots on the ground.

What the president is attempting to do is provide unique guidance on here's what we are trying to do and here are the limits of our actions. So you can talk all about mission creep or more boots on the ground but as long as it meets these criteria, we can continue to act and that's the criticality of what he's trying to do with this particular military strategy.

COSTELLO: All right. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, thank you so much for your insight. I appreciate it.

I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: The truth is not setting Brian Williams' free but it is giving him some free time. NBC announcing last night they're taking Williams off the air for the next six months. The network statement reads, in part, quote, " While on 'Nightly News' on Friday, January 30th, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq war in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian's position."

For more than a decade Williams shared various versions about his time in Iraq. He was called out last week admitting he got it wrong. He then apologized but now you see what happens. He's been suspended for the next six months without pay. And we're talking about a $10 million contract.

So let's talk about this. I'm joined by Brian Stelter, our CNN media analyst and former military journalist Thomas Day.

Welcome to both of you.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Brian, I want to start with you because -- good morning. Thanks for being here.

But, Brian, I do want to start with you because you just got off the phone from -- with some executives at NBC. What did they tell you?

STELTER: Yes. I've been trying to piece together what the strategy is going to be going forward. You know, because this is the day after the suspension. Now the network is going to try to get back on its feet. And what I'm hearing is sort of two different possibilities.

Imagine two different scenarios here. One is that Brian Williams is never going to come back. And people are being pretty honest that that's a possibility. That he won't be able to return. That Lester Holt or someone else will take over "Nightly News" even six months from now. But the other possibility is this. And I think this is still -- you know, there's still a chance it could happen.

Maybe with a lay low for months, stay quiet. Don't say anything. And then profusely apologize. Really, truly apologize for what's happened. Explain what's happened. And then hope people, you know, provide forgiveness.

Certainly this is an apologetic country, isn't it, Carol? We do tend to give second chances to celebrities and public figures that have done wrong. So that might be the NBC strategy going forward. We'll see.

COSTELLO: But this has to do with the military. So, Thomas, I'm going to pose that question to you.

You worked for the military as a soldier and as a journalist. Do you think that military personnel will forgive Brian Williams?

THOMAS DAY, FORMER MILITARY JOURNALIST: I think so. I mean, let's recognize that what Mr. Williams did was entirely human. It is sadly not uncommon for folks who were over there to want to feel engaged and want to tell their, you know,, friends back home, their colleagues, that they were maybe more involved than they really were.

I certainly have had those feelings at some -- at some point. I constantly -- I mean, candidly, I did not, when I was a trooper in Iraq fire my weapon. I wasn't -- I wasn't directly fired at. But you know, when I'm asked, like what did you see over there? It's a natural instinct to want to say -- you know, it's a natural impulse to want to at the very least extenuate the stories and maybe even embellish --

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: Right. Embellish and make it more exciting. And I certainly get it. But Brian Williams is a journalist. Right, Brian? And credibility is important especially in the seat he occupies.

STELTER: Yes, I would say that the bar is so high because he is so high, because he is the most popular single cable -- single network news anchor in the United States. And also the senior most in that network news chair. So the bar is that high for that reason. COSTELLO: And, Thomas, I'm also curious, what do military personnel

feel when an anchor from New York drops onto the battlefield to report for a few days and then goes home?

DAY: Yes, I mean, I can't speak for everybody who served in the military but certainly there is a cultural divide between places like Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and as you mentioned, reporters who come in from New York or Washington, you know, typically have degrees from places like Columbia, Northwestern, and frankly are in networks and social circles that are far different than the ones that troops, officers and enlisted alike, hang out in -- back in their installations.

There's a real cultural disconnect that I suspect in many ways this Brian Williams fiasco speaks to.

COSTELLO: And just be more specific by that. Do you mean that they just kind of resent him for being there? Because here's this guy from New York and he's going to come in and we're going to have to protect him while he tells his stories to people in New York. Is that how they feel?

DAY: Well, you know, I'm kind of -- I'm reminded of a standup that Kathy Griffin did about Anderson Cooper when he was covering Hurricane Katrina. She said, there's Anderson Cooper, covering Hurricane Katrina in Prada. It's all -- it's all in jest I know. And I have a great deal of respect for Anderson Cooper. I watch his show all the time. But, you know, listen, I mean, there are predominantly the folks who serve in the military.

I don't have the exact figures off the top of my head. The majority of folks serving in the military I suspect come from rural areas and while not many or most military service members come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

COSTELLO: Right. Right.

DAY: Many of them do. And I mean, there's a social --

COSTELLO: No, no, we --

DAY: -- discussion that needs to be had.

COSTELLO: We get it. We do get it.

DAY: Yes.

COSTELLO: And I think that, Brian, that probably added, you know, to the resentment that some military personnel felt when Brian Williams kept embellishing these stories.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Some people -- and I think I subscribe to this belief, Carol. Some people would say that there's this reflective embrace and reverence for the military at all times and all reasons with the -- with the risk being if you don't, it's un-American, it's unpatriotic, and perhaps Brian Williams fell into that trap.

You know, military members of our armed forces are some of the most critical of the wars, for example. They are not as reverent necessarily as people who have not served. And so I do wonder if Brian Williams by trying to celebrate veterans but by making it about himself instead of the veterans fell into a trap.

COSTELLO: All right. Brian Stelter, Thomas Day, thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, the ramblings growing in Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planning to speak in front of Congress. Why some Democrats are planning to boycott that speech. We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't backing down when it comes to visiting Washington next month. The Israeli leader was invited to the nation's capital by Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

But here's the thing. Boehner never consulted the White House and many say a visit by Netanyahu just two weeks before Israeli elections is simply inappropriate. But Netanyahu is doubling down and says it is his duty to deliver an Iran-focused speech to Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I'm going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the president but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak out on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Now some lawmakers are threatening to boycott that speech including Democratic Congressman Earl Blumenauer from Oregon.

Welcome, sir.

REP. EARL BLUMENAUER (D), OREGON: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Why do you plan to boycott?

BLUMENAUER: Well, I think it's inappropriate to have a deliberate effort by the speaker and Prime Minister Netanyahu to sabotage the negotiations that we have with Iran that are reaching a delicate point to be able to stop them from getting nuclear weapons and to inject us into Israeli domestic politics.

One only has to look at the last campaign where Netanyahu used footage of his previous speech to Congress as part of a campaign commercial. I just think it's inappropriate. I think it's unfortunate. And I agree with the majority of the Israeli people who think that it shouldn't happen. COSTELLO: So you don't think that Benjamin Netanyahu is sincere when

he says he just wants to address Congress because he's so concerned about Iran, both from Israel's perspective and from the United States.

BLUMENAUER: Now I'm not going to question his sincerity. I'm questioning what he is doing in the middle of a heated election in Israel and doing it so at a time where we're undercutting the relationship between the administration and the Israeli government, and it's an effort as I say to sabotage these negotiations where the Iranian hard liners will look for any excuse not to reach an agreement. I think it's unfortunate. It's unnecessary. And I don't think it's appropriate. I'm not going to attend.

COSTELLO: We all know that President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't have the best of relationships. And you heard what Benjamin Netanyahu said in that sound bite. He said, you know, this is not meant as a confrontation to President Obama or anything like that. Do you believe him when he says that?

BLUMENAUER: No.

COSTELLO: Or will this just widen the rift between the president and Benjamin Netanyahu?

BLUMENAUER: He's a very sophisticated man. He's been involved in the political process. He understands American politics. He knows exactly what he's doing. He could have delivered this speech to a large gathering of supporters of Israel that are in our nation's capital at approximately the same time.

There are other venues, other approaches to do this without consultation with the administration, with this forum I think was calculated. I understand I think why he's doing it. I disagree and I agree with the majority of the Israeli people who think it's a mistake.

COSTELLO: OK. Also, and I just wanted to bring this up to see what you thought. This is a statement by the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It's from his media adviser. And the statement reads, "Disagreements over Israel's security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the left and from right and American presidents from both parties. None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States."

Might this rift lead to a rupture in relations between the two countries?

BLUMENAUER: Well, I think this is pretty over the top. I think it is calculated to exercise that influence and I think it does so in a manner that is deliberately insulting to the president. They didn't deal with the White House or the State Department. I think it's a mistake. I understand there's somewhat of a backlash in Israel itself. But it's not what Congress should be doing. It's a bad precedent. And I hope that we don't dignify it.

COSTELLO: All right. Congressman Earl Blumenauer from Oregon, thank you so much for being with me. I appreciate it.

BLUMENAUER: My pleasure.

COSTELLO: I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)