Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Discusses Request for ISIS War Powers

Aired February 11, 2015 - 15:30   ET

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


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Let's go up to Capitol Hill right now, our chief congressional correspondent, Dana Bash.

I assume the reaction has been pouring in from Democrats and Republicans.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right.

And as Jake and Jim were just saying, it's very mixed and it certainly doesn't fall on traditional party lines. I think it's important to remember the context in which the president is sending this request for authorization. He doesn't think he legally needs it. He's been saying that for months, because, remember, this is a mission that has been going on for months, about six months already.

It's been members of Congress in both parties who have been screaming, quite literally in some cases, that they need to be part of the debate. They are the representatives of the American people and that, constitutionally, it's incumbent upon Congress to be debating what's clearly a new threat against ISIS. So that's why they're going to have this debate.

Now just because they are going to have it, they have this language, doesn't mean that they're going to come to a conclusion because of what you just heard from -- because it's very different points of view about how narrow or broad, particularly the idea of troops use by the commander-in-chief should be. Unclear if that can be -- that needle can be thread.

Now the person who's going to be in charge of shepherding this through the committee is Senator Bob Corker, Republican who is now the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I saw him in the hallway just a little while ago. And I said, do you really think that you're going to be able to get this done. And he said of course. We have to. He said, if we can't find bipartisanship in this Congress to confront ISIS, I don't know what we can do.

BLITZER: I want you to stand by, Dana. I want to walk over to our analysts and our correspondents who are all with me right now.

Gloria, I'm always intrigued about the venue. When the president is about to make a major statement asking Congress to approve the use of force, in effect go to war against ISIS, he's doing it sort of mid- afternoon from the Roosevelt Room at the White House. Normally a speech like this would be in Oval Office addressed to the nation in primetime. What's your sense? How important is this right now?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, as Dana just said, the White House believes that it -- that it already has the authority to do what it's asking Congress to do. Congress has asked the president to send something up.

I spoke with a senior administration official this afternoon who said to me, look, this very well may not get through the Congress. We understand that. We tried to thread the needle here. We've talked to Democrats. We've talked to Republicans. We've given on each side.

They're not sure it's even going to get out of committee. But if it doesn't get through the Congress, A, they believe the Congress will look worse than the president of the United States who has sent it up here, and B, they will still be prosecuting the war against ISIS as they've been doing for the last six months.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, Jim Sciutto, nothing is more important for a president of the United States, for Congress than authorizing American men and women to go off and fight a war.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No question. And retroactively. Keep in mind there are already 3,000 American men and women who've been authorized to go into the war zone there.

BORGER: Right.

SCIUTTO: And have been deaths associated with it, though not in combat. You see in fact U.S. forces moving closer to combat despite the administration from the beginning say that wouldn't happen.

This is one thing I would say. You look at this, there is language here, limiting scope, the duration, the use of ground troops, but there is potential here for circumstances to get ahead of whatever language is here. For instance, already associated persons or forces with ISIS. ISIS is already in other countries than Iraq and Syria, Libya, Yemen, purporting to have supporters in other places. You already have a war expanding well beyond Iraq and Syria potentially going forward just as the war against al Qaeda post-9/11 do exactly the same thing.

BLITZER: Danielle Pletka is with us as well, from the AEI, the American Enterprise Institute. You've had a chance, Daniel, to go through the actual proposed legislation, to go through the separate statement that the president said to Congress. What do you think?

DANIELLE PLETKA, SENIOR VP, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: It strikes me that the president is focused on everything that he shouldn't be focused on like a laser beam, not focused on everything he should be focused on, totally vague. So strategy not clear what it is. What are his goals? He doesn't even use his favorite degrade and destroy language about what the strategy is in here. The only thing he's really specific about is what he can't do.

Don't let me -- I'm not George Bush. I'm not going to sending ground troops. Don't let me have any more than 3,000. And they won't be used for whatever an enduring operation ISIS. No one knows what that means but the one thing we can be for sure is he's saying, it's not going to be like Iraq, it's not going to be like Afghanistan.

BLITZER: Let's go to Jay Carney. I want to bring Jay Carney in. He's a CNN political commentator, the former White House press secretary.

Take us a little bit behind the scenes. He sent a letter to Congress saying he's doing this. He submitted some specific language for legislation. What about an address like this, a statement he's about to make? Take us a little bit behind the scenes, Jay. Tell us what goes in to this kind of televised statement.

JAY CARNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, he has prepared remarks. He's reviewing them. He'll be coming out shortly. I think to the earlier point about why in the middle of the day from the Roosevelt Room, not a national address, I think that has to do with the fact that this operation has already been under way for six months. It's basically an -- a request for authorization for something that's already happening and for something he doesn't believe he needs legally to receive authorization.

But he does want Congress' buy in on this. He did from the beginning and said so. It was very clear in the fall that Congress wasn't prepared to deal with this issue in the run-up to a midterm election. Now we have a new Congress here. It's the beginning of 2015. And he wants to see if he can get this done.

I think to Danielle's point, I think it's a pretty profound statement to say this is not like Afghanistan and not like Iraq. Those were pretty major wars. The longest in our history and very consequential in terms of our presence in the Middle East and our strategy going forward.

There's no question that given where this president has been, that he believes open-ended, blank check authorizations are not the right way to go. He very famously and probably did himself some harm in doing so said he didn't want to strike Syria without Congress' vote and Congress wasn't going to pass that vote. And he got criticized for it.

So I think he wants this. He'll move forward with the operation if he doesn't get it but it is important to restrict it so the American people don't think we're going into another open-ended war in the Middle East.

BLITZER: Hold on for a moment. Everybody, hold on. We're just a -- Jake Tapper, just a few seconds away from the president of the United States who will be walking into the Roosevelt Room here at the White House to make this statement. He knows he's addressing not only members of Congress. He's addressing the American public. But he's also in effect addressing the world right now including in Iraq and Syria and ISIS for that matter.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER": That's right. And the message is very important exactly. And you're going to probably hear messages that are a little bit conflicting in terms of the need to defeat this group. Actually in the preamble to the resolution, the White House has written the names of the American hostages, the four American hostages who have been killed by ISIS, including most recently Kayla Mueller, whose death was confirmed yesterday.

But at the same time he's also going to be trying to reassure the American people at the same time he's trying to scare ISIS that this is not going to be an open-ended conflict like the ones that they have grown so weary of, and like the one that helped elect him -- his opposition to the Iraq war that helped elect him and get him into the position he is right now -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. So the president is going to be making this statement. I suspect there won't be an opportunity for reporters who may be in the Roosevelt Room at the White House to ask the president any questions but he'll go on. He's got a very carefully drafted statement right now which will reinforce the letter he sent to Congress and at the same time the specific authorizing legislation for the United States to use military force and go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

This is an important statement that the president is making. His supporters on Capitol Hill say if he wants to get this legislation passed, he's going to have to work it, he's going to have to work it hard, he's going to have to convince members of his own party as well as conservative critics that his is the right thing for the United States to do right now.

And one of the loopholes in this proposed language that the president wrote in his letter to Congress is it would allow U.S. combat forces, the U.S. to use combat forces -- here comes the president -- if there were special operations.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon.

Today as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations, including Arab countries, our men and women in uniform continue to fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. More than 2,000 coalition air strikes have pounded these terrorists. We're disrupting their command and control and supply lines, making it harder for them to move.

We're destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We're taking out their commanders, their fighters, and their leaders.

In Iraq local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria, ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani, losing countless fighters in the process. Fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. We've seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause. And make no mistake, this a difficult mission and it will remain

difficult for some time. It's going to take time to dislodge these terrorists especially from urban areas.

But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive and ISIL is going to lose. Its barbaric murders of so many people including American hostages are a desperate and revolting attempt to strike fear in the hearts of people it can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.

With vile groups like this, there's only one option. With our allies and partners we're going to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.

When I announced our strategy against ISIL in September, I said that we are strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together. Today my administration submitted a draft resolution to Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIL.

I want to be very clear about what it does and what it does not do. This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL. It supports the comprehensive strategy that we've been pursuing with our allies and our partners. A systemic and sustained campaign of air strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, support and training for local forces on the ground including the moderate Syrian opposition, preventing ISIL attacks in the region and beyond including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries.

Regional and international support for an inclusive Iraqi government that unites the Iraqi people and strengthens Iraqi forces against ISIL, humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of Iraq and Syria who are suffering so terribly under ISIL's reign of horror.

I want to thank Vice President Biden, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and General Martin Dempsey for their leadership in advancing our strategy. Even as we meet this challenge in Iraq and Syria, we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists like ISIL, a critical part of our strategy, is the values we live here at home.

One of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people including people of all faiths.

The resolution we submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. The 2600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases. And, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment, but they do not have a combat mission. They are focused on training Iraqi forces including Kurdish forces.

As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That's not in our national security interest and it's not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL and that's what they're doing.

At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn't have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven.

So we need flexibility but we also have to be careful and deliberate. There's no heavier decision than asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives on our behalf.

As commander-in-chief, I will only send our troops into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary for our national security.

Finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 Authorization of Force for the invasion of Iraq and limits this new authorization to three years. I do not believe America's interests are served by endless war or by remaining on a perpetual war footing. As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force. After all, it is our troops who bear the cost of our decisions and we owe them a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.

So this resolution will give our armed forces and our coalition the continuity we need for the next three years. It is not a timetable. It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president's term.

It's conceivable that the mission is completed earlier. It's conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area. And the people's representatives with a new president should be able to have that discussion.

In closing, I want to say that in crafting this resolution, we have consulted with and listened to both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. We made a sincere effort to address difficult issues that we discussed together and the days and weeks ahead we'll continue to work closely with leaders and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands. I'm optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.

Today our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL and we salute them for their courageous service. We pray for their safety. We stand with their families who miss them and are sacrificing here at home.

But know this. Our coalition is strong. Our cause is just and our mission will succeed. And long after the terrorist we face today are destroyed and forgotten, America will continue to stand free and tall and strong.

May God bless our troops and may God bless the United States of America.

Thank you very much, everybody.

BLITZER: The president flanked by his National Security team including the vice president, the secretary of state, the outgoing secretary of defense in the Roosevelt Room, speaking relatively briefly, seven or eight minutes, about justifying his decision to go ahead and seek congressional authorization for the use of military force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Jake, the president was very, very precise, saying he's not seeking what President Bush sought, a full-scale war in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. He wants a very limited operation.

TAPPER: That's right. And yet he also did say, as I suppose a way of trying to reassure those who are concerned about this three-year end date for this authorization that that doesn't necessarily mean the authorization will end there. And he said very clearly that this is not a timetable. They're not ending things in three years. It's just a recognition that Congress should revisit this issue at the beginning of the next president's term.

It's conceivable the task will have been accomplished and conceivable there will be more to be done. So it is attempting to take off the table this debate over whether this three-year period is a liability. He's saying it's not a liability. The next president should debate it and the next administration.

BLITZER: I want to go to northern Iraq right now. Phil Black is on the scene for us right in the middle of a lot of that fighting in Dahuk, in northern Iraq.

So how is this likely to play over there where you are, Phil, the statement by the president that we all just heard?

PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, you heard the president there talking about local forces being best in place to take the fight to ISIS. Up until now that has meant only one local force. That is the Peshmerga, the military force of semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan.

This has been the fighting force that has been on the ground stopping the ISIS advance in this region of northern Iraq, steadily rolling back their gains, and it is the same fighting force that has now contained them, limited the area of operation to ISIS within this region.

Now the leadership of that fighting force does not expect greater U.S. involvement on the ground here. That's what they tell us. In fact that is the source of some disappointment to them. They would gladly see what they describe as greater commitment. They say that could include potentially ground forces but if not ground forces than some other form of greater practical support to help them out in their fight against ISIS here on the ground.

Because their view is that while they are grateful for the air strikes that have no doubt played a huge part in the military's successes in this part of the world over the last six months or so, they need greater support because they say they are unarmed, they are -- not unarmed, but outgunned certainly. They do not have the armor, the heavy weapons necessary to go up against ISIS.

So from the Iraqi Kurds, disappointment that this policy is not going to change in the near term certainly. From the central government in Baghdad that would be a much harder sell when it comes to the idea of getting ground forces back into Iraq again. American ground forces in Iraq once more would be a much harder sell to the broader Iraqi-Arab public, and the central government in Baghdad certainly -- Wolf.

BLITZER: I want you to stand by, be careful over there, Phil Black is in northern Iraq, in Dahuk.

I want to go back to the White House. Our senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta was listening very carefully to what the president said. We had a statement that he submitted to Congress earlier, proposed legislation and now these televised remarks, if you will. Give us your analysis, Jim, of what we just heard.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, and, Wolf, and I've been noticing this over the last several days, the talk coming from this president has been amped up considerably. When you heard the president say at the very start of his remarks our coalition is on the offensive. ISIS is on the defensive. ISIS is going to lose.

You know, he has not been speaking in that sort of stark terms, I don't think, for some time. He may have been taking a tip from David Cameron who was talking like that when he came to Washington a couple of weeks ago.

But, Wolf, I think more notable than anything was the president's, I guess, acknowledgment to these nervous Democrats at the very end of his comments saying that this new authorization would not bring about what he called endless war. That is almost off of liberal bumper stickers that may be driving around, you know, in support of the Obama campaigns of '08 and 2012.

Democrats don't want endless war and the president trying to say to those Democrats, you're going to get a three-year timetable here and at that point, time is up on this mission, time is up on this authorization. You're not going to get endless war.

BLITZER: He's got two years left in his administration as we all know.

Capitol Hill, let's go there right now. Dana Bash has been getting reaction, I don't know if you got any reaction yet but earlier there was plenty of criticism coming from the left and from the right. How do you think what the president just said is going to play?

BASH: It's -- you know, it's very similar to what the tone that he set in the letter that he sent here to Capitol Hill that accompanied the actual legislative language. But one thing I want to point out is when the president talked about the fact that very clearly said this is not the same kind of thing as Afghanistan, not the same kind of thing as Iraq, that matters when it comes to this authorization and here's why.

In what the president proposed, it specifically cancels out the 2002 authorization for war. That was voted on to address the war in Iraq. But it doesn't address at all the one in 2001 which was after 9/11 meant to green light forces to go into Afghanistan to go after al Qaeda. That is still the law of the land. So one of the discussions isn't just here about ground troops and about how that should be phrased.

It's also about whether or not Congress should take the opportunity now to repeal that first authorization because President Obama and more importantly, his successor, can continue to use that which is pretty broad to go after al Qaeda affiliates, ISIL is one of them, across the globe. So that is something that you're hearing more and more from Democrats -- senior Democrats about this way that they want this to be changed.

BLITZER: All right. We're just beginning to get reaction to what the president of the United States just said. We're going to have much more analysis, much more coming up. We'll take a quick break. We'll go back to the White House and a lot more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq. The 2600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases, and yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment, but they do not have a combat mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: President Obama speaking only moments ago seeking congressional authorization for the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria but clearly insisting this is not going to be another war like Iraq was or Afghanistan was.

Gloria Borger, what's your analysis? What do you think?

BORGER: Well, I think you have to take a step back for a moment and look at what the president is saying today through the prism of his own political history.

This is a man who was elected by challenging Hillary Clinton's vote on the floor of the Senate to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002. He is now coming before the American people and saying, I'm not doing that again, I was opposed to that, I'm not George Bush, I'm not Hillary Clinton in 2002.

I am doing a very prescribed kind of military force that is non- combat, that isn't going to be perpetual, that is going to give me some flexibility but I don't want you to think that I'm not the person you thought I was when you elected me in the first place, and by the way, he's had this problem also with the question of drones, with the question of NSA surveillance.

You know, this is a president you see arguing with himself and having to kind of fine tune anything he does on these issues.

BLITZER: Jim Sciutto?

SCIUTTO: Well, it's not just fine-tuning, though, right? Because we've seen -- he has set limits here but we've seen those limits change over time.

BORGER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Let's start a game, count the qualifiers in the phrase "enduring offensive ground combat operations." Four qualifiers there. Yes, it's not going to be Iraq and Afghanistan. Fact is, his own commanders have said repeatedly they will not take limited ground operations off the table whether you're talking ground controllers for air strikes, et cetera. And let's keep in mind as well, there actually have been American boots on the ground in Syria.

We know that because there have been two failed operations at high risk to take back -- to take back those prisoners. But also we know there was talk of putting military advisers on the front lines of assault in Mosul, that kind of thing. And also just -- you see the evolution, not only the strategy but of the limitation.

Because remember early on he said no boots on the ground. Fact is, there are boots on the ground. He said no combat troops. And it's the first time I've heard him introduce the term no ground combat forces. Joining those two words together.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: But this is what Democrats are saying, they said you're opening the door. This is way too much.

BLITZER: That's what --

BORGER: For them.

BLITZER: We got concern on the left.

Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprises, your reaction to the president?

PLETKA: We just had this conversation. We're all talking about Barack Obama. We're not talking about ISIS, we're not talking about Kayla Mueller's brutal murder, we're not talking about the security of the American people. We are talking about Barack Obama's history and the place he's trapped

in and the politics of America and the problem here is this is about confronting a very serious enemy.

BLITZER: Hold a second. I want Jay Carney, the former White House press secretary, to weigh in.

Go ahead, Jay.

CARNEY: I think Danielle makes a good point. This is really what this is about. But I also think that regardless of Barack Obama's history, the American history here is important. And you don't have to wage war against an entity like ISIS with a blank check. There is no reason why you can't continue an operation that has seen some success already in Iraq and expand it as necessary without allowing for or even introducing a full scale ground combat operation.

What I think -- what I have yet to hear from critics of this limited strategy is a better alternative that somehow falls short of a full scale invasion because everyone knows that that won't be supported by the American people and it won't even be supported by Congress.

BLITZER: But is it a problem, Jay, for the president to be saying all of this because ISIS is listening, they must be saying to themselves, you know what, the United States is not going to come in with ground forces, we could take a sigh of relief.

CARNEY: Well, look, I think I've always thought that's a little misguided in the sense that, you know, ISIS isn't making -- its making its decisions based on what the president's saying in afternoon remarks in the Roosevelt Room. It's experiencing the coalition attack now, both in the size of its -- of the attack and in its limits, and the fact that it doesn't include ground forces beyond forces in Iraq and the rebels in Syria.

So they know what they're getting. But what they also know they're not getting no matter what the president said is a ground invasion. It's not in the cards and it would be foolhardy strategy to begin with.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to have to leave it right there. I'll be back in one hour in "THE SITUATION ROOM. Our special coverage, though, will continue right now.

Jake Tapper and "THE LEAD" pick it up.