Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

White House Press Briefing; U.S. Drops "Mother of All Bombs" on ISIS in Afghanistan. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 13, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Secretary Tillerson, as you know, was in Russia yesterday to meet with his counterpart and ensure that they are made fully aware of the United States positions in both areas of practical cooperation, such as defeating ISIS, and areas where Russia does not share our interest and values.

[13:30:06]

As you know, the vice president will be departing for his 10-day trip to South Korea, Japan, Indonesia and Australia on Saturday morning. His office will be providing more information later today.

SPICER: Finally, I'm glad to announce the president will host the prime minister of Italy for an official working visit to the White House next Thursday, April 20th. The leaders will discuss the upcoming G-7, which will be hosted in Italy -- Italy and Sicily -- on a range of issues of mutual concern.

With that, glad to take some of your questions.

QUESTION: Sean, where is the administration on cost-sharing subsidies for insurance companies?

SPICER: That is an area that is being internally discussed at this time.

QUESTION: So undecided?

SPICER: It's not undecided. There is an ongoing discussion on that matter.

Matt?

QUESTION: The last few days have seen a number of policy shifts by the president -- China as a currency manipulator, the Ex-Im Bank, the (inaudible) taxes. There's more, but I won't belabor the point. What should the American people make of these shifts? And are there any policy areas that are nonnegotiable?

SPICER: Well, I think, you know, respectfully, I think you can look at what you're referring to as a shift in a lot of ways. And by that, I mean I saw a couple of instances with respect to NATO being one of those shifts yesterday. And if you look at what's happened, it's those entities or individuals in some cases, or issues, evolving towards the president's position. On NATO in particular, he talked about the need of countries to pay their fair share, to live up to their commitments of 2 percent of GDP. He talked about the need for NATO to focus more on terrorism. NATO has done just that. And it's something that he pointed out in the debate -- the first debate in September of last year.

He talked about the fact that -- that NATO is moving towards what he has been calling for. And I think in some cases, the issues involved that it's not just a clear and fast statement that this is -- this -- that the entity itself is moving towards his, or the issue is evolving towards the position that he -- that he articulated. And that -- that can't be proven more true in the case of NATO, where he laid out two very clear positions that he had an issue with NATO. And as far back as September of last year, started to recognize that that institution was moving much more towards his position. The secretary general noted that as well yesterday.

QUESTION: A quick followup, if I may.

The Ex-Im Bank is another one. That's an institution that hasn't changed at all. So I'm wondering on some of these other policy shifts, where you haven't seen the type of change you're talking about with NATO, what should we make of those types of shifts? And again, are there any policy areas that are not negotiable, that are off limits?

SPICER: Well, there's always going to be, I think, that there's -- there's going to be areas where I think, again, it depends on the outcome. In the case of NATO in particular, as I pointed out, it's the most illustrative. I think you look at the president's position, where he wanted to see NATO in particular evolve to, and it's moving exactly in the direction that he said it was in terms of its goals of increasing the amount of participation from other member countries; and two, it's having a greater focus on terrorism.

So I think it was reinforced by the secretary himself -- secretary general himself when he was here. I think when you look at these issues and you recognize the direction in which they're moving, they're moving in a direction that the president stated very clearly.

John?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean.

On the GBU-43 bomb...

SPICER: Yes?

QUESTION: ... the first time its ever been used. Why did you choose this particular location? And would you say that this bomb won't be used again in another flashpoint around the world, like Syria, like North Korea, for instance?

SPICER: Yeah, as I noted at the beginning, John, I would refer you to the Department of Defense on specifics.

QUESTION: On a separate matter, you mentioned what you see as a win at the U.N. Security Council.

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: I'm curious as to why you believe this is a win? After all, this particular resolution did not pass.

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: If you look at what's happened at the U.N. Security Council in the past, for instance, the Security Council resolution which gave the green light for the Persian Gulf War, you actually had all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council voting yes. So why are you saying this is a win, when not all five permanent members of the Security Council actually vote yes? You had one, Russia, blocking it.

SPICER: Well, I think it's very significant, China's abstention in particular. I think Kazakhstan is another one in terms of that one, in terms of its proximate location and history with Russia. You see a break-away of Russia, aligning itself with a position that is not only shared with the U.S., but the rest of the world.

So that would be a natural position that they might have taken in the past.

But secondly, I think China's abstention is a significant win for the president. He went down at had discussions with President Xi, and I think you all saw that, heard his remarks about how he walked through that. And I think it really shows the success of the trip, first and foremost. But secondly, it continues to show how Russia is isolated on this particular matter. That's important.

So I think on a variety of fronts, it really was a huge win for the United States and for the persuasiveness of the president.

SPICER: John Gizzi?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean.

In his remarks to us off-camera, OMB Director Mulvaney talked about a vision of the federal government being reorganized as, in some cases, more agencies. And he said also that the final plan will come not just from right-wing think tanks; I believe that was his phrase.

Coupled with the president's statement on the Ex-Im Bank, is he already receiving any criticism or voices of disappointment from small-government conservatives who backed him strongly? I refer to groups such as Americans For Tax Reform or the Cato Institute.

SPICER: Well, I -- I can't say that I've scanned every group's statements about this particular subject. But I can tell you that he's -- he's gotten a lot of very positive feedback, as well as Director Mulvaney, for their effort.

As the director noted, you have a government that in large part has never been reorganized, it's just been added to. And when you look at the disparate (ph) number of agencies and programs that now flow throughout the government to do, in some cases, the very same thing, and are housed in a variety of agencies throughout the government, the question that you have to ask yourself is -- is not only, "Is the taxpayer getting the best bang for their buck?" but "Are the people that those services are intended to be provided for getting the best services?"

So Director Mulvaney's effort, at the president's direction, to really look at how government is organized and operating I think is a very significant step.

And I think one of the points that he noted is that this is something that should unite conservatives and liberals and Republicans and Democrats. Good government, an effective, efficient government, is something that really doesn't have an ideological home. I think it's something that we all can agree on, that the more that we can effectively deliver for the American citizen and deliver for the American taxpayer effective and efficient government, is something that we should all probably be in line with.

Richard?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean. The U.S. ambassador at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons says that the -- that Syria possesses and uses chemical weapons, abetted by Russ -- Syria uses the weapons, abetted by Russia's continuing efforts to bury the truth. Has the -- was the president offered truth of such truth-burying efforts by Russia?

SPICER: Was he offered...

QUESTION: Truth, truth of this, evidence that this is happening in Russia...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: No?

I would like to know also, you've been putting in the same sentence Syria, Iraq and North Korea as failed states, Russia being not a failed state but part of this. Has it become the -- the -- to use an old expression, the axis of evil of this administration?

SPICER: I just -- I think it's important to note who Russia is on the side with right now and where they stand. That -- that -- I think it draws a huge contrast to show who's -- who's on what side of this argument in this crisis. And I think it's important to note the difference that who they're with. And that's, I think, a very notable thing.

I'm not going to go any further than to -- to say that.

QUESTION: Very quick, last question...

SPICER: Yes.

QUESTION: ... with the National Hockey League playoffs just started, will the president cheer for the Rangers or the Caps?

(LAUGHTER)

SPICER: Respectfully, that's really not been a subject that's come up too often in the White House.

(LAUGHTER)

So I'm going to keep with our Richards, and go to Richard Elliot from WSBTV in Atlanta, Georgia.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) obviously, our concern is the reconstruction of 85. We understand that the president is meeting with the first responders this afternoon; in just a few minutes, actually.

Wanted to ask about the federal commitment to getting I-85 rebuilt, as far as federal dollars and easing some federal regulations to get the job done quickly.

SPICER: So, a couple things on that front. Immediately following the tragedy that ensued in Atlanta, the president directed the Federal Highway Administration to release $10 million and then we have begun to work with the appropriate agencies to expedite that process.

I know that there are critical repairs that have to get made, and I think that not only the initial funding will help with that for the roads and the bridges and the emergency access that needs to get handled, but under emergency relief efforts, there are ways to expedite some of that funding.

And -- and I would -- the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are probably the best way to get a better answer on that. But there are ways that some of that funding can be expedited beyond the initial commitment that the federal government has made.

Mary (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean.

Back on some of these shifts, on China in particular, the president did not mince words during the campaign. Now he says he and President Xi have been bonding, Xi means well. He says China's not a currency manipulator.

What message does this send to the president's supporters, who sent him to the White House thinking he'd be following through on this tough talk against China?

SPICER: I think the -- the president's tough talk was on -- on a variety of subjects, was to get results for the American people.

That's -- that's what he has pledged to do, to get more jobs here, to grow more manufacturing, to keep our country safe.

The president and President Xi had a great meeting. The president likes President Xi, and got to know him really well in Mar- a-Lago, and I think has established a really good relationship working (ph) forward.

But at the end of the day, this is always about developing a better situation for the American people, and I think he's done that.

QUESTION: And a follow-up if I may, the president told the Wall Street Journal that President Xi helped him realize that North Korea is not so easy.

Did the president underestimate the complexities of this? Did he underestimate how difficult this was going to be?

SPICER: No, I don't think so at all. And I think if China is able to help get a deal with -- with China (sic), the president would appreciate that.

I think this would be great for China as well. And, as the president noted this morning, if -- if China can help us do that, it'll be great, and if not, we'll go and handle that ourselves with our allies.

Steve (ph)?

QUESTION: Sean, on currency manipulation, why specifically did he decide to abandon this? And what is he -- what other tools does he have in his toolbox to try to modify China's trade practices (ph)?

SPICER: I -- that's a very, very complex issue and I think the president -- I'm going to leave it to the president to specifically answer that.

QUESTION: But he...

SPICER: Vivian (ph)?

QUESTION: Has he given up on trying to modify China's...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: No, he -- he is -- it's not -- I think the president is going to continue to make significant progress when it comes to that issue and to how our relationship is with China.

He showed already what a great relationship he has with President Xi. And the results are already starting to pour in. And I think that that is an issue, in particular, that the president is best to address.

Vivian (ph)?

QUESTION: Two questions, Sean.

You were very forthcoming about the tick-tock leading up to the missile launches in Syria. So can you give us any background on the MOAB in Afghanistan? Was there was a situation room scenario with the president? Was it several days in the making? And my second question is, the president has been very critical of the intelligence community leading up to his inauguration. He's obviously been working very closely with the intel community on these -- at least on these situations in Syria and Afghanistan. Has his opinion changed toward the I-state (ph)?

SPICER: In terms...

QUESTION: Intelligence (ph).

SPICER: In the first question, again, I -- I think General Nicholson at United States Forces-Afghanistan is best to address the tick-tock on -- on the situation over there.

QUESTION: But as far as the president's consultation...

SPICER: I understand.

I think that the -- U.S. Forces- Afghanistan, as well as the Department of Defense, are best to walk through the military operations that are ongoing there.

I think with respect to the intelligence community and the national security team, as you know, the president has put together a world- class Cabinet of top-notch national security experts, from General Mattis to General Kelly, General McMaster and others, that continue to provide him the best advice to make the best decisions for this country.

And it's -- that -- you know, he continues to rely on them and Director Pompeo, Director Coats at DNI. They continue to give him sage advice about how to best position the United States.

Zeke?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean.

Follow on economics, but did the president specifically order -- authorize the use of this piece of ordnance?

SPICER: Yeah, again, I'm not going to get into the details right now...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: I -- I -- I'm not -- as I mentioned, I'll let the Department of Defense handle the lead on this one.

QUESTION: And a follow-up (inaudible) question earlier regarding Ex-Im Bank, you didn't answer specifically what has changed about the Ex-Im Bank that had led the president to reevaluate his previous...

SPICER: I'll -- let me get back to you on the Ex-Im Bank specifically. I think -- that's a -- it's a very complex issue and I -- I would like to get back.

Anita (ph)?

QUESTION: Two questions about the budget.

Are you all prepared to hold things up? You know, we've got a couple weeks left here. How serious are you about getting money for the wall? Would you hold up the spending plan for that?

And I had one other question on...

SPICER: So, the government is currently funded through April 28th under a continuing resolution.

We've made very clear to Congress that the president's priorities are increasing military spending and security of our border. We're going to continue to have conversations with Congress, and we feel confident that they'll do their job. But those conversations are ongoing.

QUESTION: So you can't say whether you would have to have money in this budget (inaudible)?

SPICER: I -- I -- I will leave it to our team to continue the negotiations that they're having.

QUESTION: OK.

And then the second question on the budget was, there's a proposal now to punish members of Congress who do not pass this spending plan in a variety of ways: withhold salary, even arrest. Do you support that Congress should be punished if -- if...

SPICER: Let's -- let's -- let's see.

I think we're making significant progress. I feel very good about the momentum. And so, I don't want to start getting into whether -- who's going to be naughty and nice.

(CROSSTALK) SPICER: Kayla (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean.

(inaudible) sitting presidents have refrained from stating preferences on where parts (ph) of the free market economy goes. Yesterday President Trump said he wants low interest rates, he wants a weaker dollar and then the market followed his preferences.

So given his criticism of other economies and their intervention, how do you characterize that response?

SPICER: I think the president has made it very clear from the beginning that he's going to do what he can to fight on behalf of American consumers and American businesses to make sure that we can help create an environment here in America where businesses grow and industries continue to hire and jobs can come back, and then middle- income Americans can get some tax relief and keep more of their money and their hard-earned dollars. QUESTION: But traditionally, (inaudible) interest rates when the economy is weak and need help, and then they recover when the economy is strengthened. So what was he trying to get...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: I understand.

I think what he is trying to do, as you know through a lot of the coverage and a lot of the meetings that you guys have covered and seen here at the White House, the president is continuing to meet with business leaders and people who are creating jobs, union leaders, to find out what we can do. And the president has heard a lot, and gotten a lot of feedback, and already taking great steps to make sure that we can create a regulatory and tax environment that's going to help grow America's economy and put people back to work. That's plain and simple.

And I think what he'll continue to do is fight on behalf of the American people.

I hate to cut this short, but we literally have 10 minutes before the president's going to speak.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Thank you very much.

[13:46:18] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So there you have the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer wrapping up a relatively short briefing. But he opened up with a very important statement confirming CNN's reporting that the U.S. now, for the first time, has dropped what's called the Mother of All Bombs, the first ever in combat, a bomb developed by the U.S. military back in 2003, but it has not been used until now.

Listen to Sean Spicer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPICER: We targeted a system of tunnels and caves that ISIS fighter used to move around freely, making it easier for them to target U.S. military advisers and Afghan forces in the area. The United States takes the fight against ISIS very seriously. And in order to defeat the group we must deny them operational space, which we did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Quickly, I want to go to Barbara Starr. She broke the story here on CNN just a little while ago.

Barbara is getting ready. We'll go to her in a moment.

But, Dana Bash, we did not hear from Sean Spicer, he didn't answer the question whether President Trump personally authorized the first-ever use of this 21,000-pound bomb. DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Explicitly saying

that's something that's going to have to come from the Defense Department, Central Commander, the military operations that are in charge and did OK this military operation. Look, it's unusual. It's unusual for something of this magnitude to not have -- I mean, we did hear from Sean Spicer in fairness talking about actually confirming what Barbara Starr broke first exclusively here, the whole notion that this was used, that the MOAB was used. But in times past, we have seen after an operation the white House press secretary come out and maybe not give a whole tick tock, but say the president was informed, the president OKed, something having to do with the commander-in- chief's knowledge or participation in something like this. The fact that he wouldn't do it is now on the long, long list of things that break with convention and break with tradition.

BLITZER: It's called the MOAB. Technically, that stands for Massive Ordinary Air Blast bomb, but everyone calls it the Mother of All Bombs. It's 21,000 bomb. It's a smart bomb. It's dropped from a U.S. Air Force cargo plan, a C-130. It's never been used in battle. It was available back in 2003 during the Bush administration, certainly during the Obama administration. Developed for the war in Iraq but, until now, it had never been used.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER & EDITOR-AT-LARGE: And Dana pointed this out, and I didn't know, but two past presidents, worth noting, two past presidents had this available and didn't use it. Circumstances change. This is obviously something you don't want to use in a very populated area of civilian casualties. I do think that is worth noting. Dana used the word unusual which is the word I was thinking. It's odd that days after we got this detailed down to the food description of how -- from Donald Trump of how he made the decision of what to do with the Tomahawks as related to that Syrian air base that we're now referring things to the Defense Department. Sean Spicer isn't the president of the United States. These are obviously two unique missions, but it is a little odd. At the end of the press briefing, someone shouted, I don't understand why you can't just confirm or deny whether the president OKed this personally or not. I would agree. I thought it was strange.

BLITZER: Me, too.

The bomb was dropped, Elise Labott, in Afghanistan, very close to the Pakistani border. We haven't received any information from the government of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Everyone is waiting for bomb- damage assessment reports to see if civilians, what they call "collateral damage," in targeting these tunnels that ISIS controls. This was a clear mission designed to send a powerful signal, a devastating signal to ISIS.

[11:50:26] ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: And this is what President Trump has said in his number-one priority. Even as he did this strike in Syria, he's been saying all week that the priority is still ISIS. If you think back a year or two ag ago, you didn't hear much about ISIS in Afghanistan or Pakistan. This is an area that the Trump administration and Obama administration, as it left office, was looking at very closely about gaining a foothold there. It's very significant. It also sends a message to al Qaeda and the Taliban about President Trump's resolve, I think. But it also just sends a signal that the eye is still on ISIS, and no matter where they are -- look, it was in Afghanistan but it could be in Libya tomorrow where ISIS is gaining a foothold in -- all across the Middle East, it has these areas that you're not hearing a lot about by this administration but they are keeping an eye on them.

BASH: To that point, because when you think of ISIS, you think of primarily Syria and Iraq.

LABOTT: And when you think of Afghanistan, you think of the Taliban.

BLITZER: Let me go to Barbara Starr. She is at the Pentagon.

Barbara, you broke the story here on CNN more than an hour ago. First reported here on CNN. You're getting new information. Update our viewers on the very latest.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think you heard Sean Spicer at the White House a short time ago really spell out what the administration is saying here, which is that they went against a complex of ISIS tunnel and caves in this very remote area of eastern Afghanistan. U.S. forces, Afghan forces have been operating up there for some weeks trying to clear out ISIS areas. Let's be frank, combat, killed ISIS fighters in the area, but they decided to use this weapon now for the first time in combat because of the target that they were looking at, which was a remote area, minimum chance of civilian casualties, they believe -- we will have to find out if that's accurate -- caves and tunnels.

This is a weapon that's quite different. It's a blast weapon. So it's not the kind of weapon that we might be used to from years of Iraq and Afghanistan and even Syria. It's not that it penetrates into a building or into the ground and then explodes. It's an air blast. It explodes in the air, and most of the damage and destruction is done through that concussive blast.

This was a target that might have been optimum for that weapon, by all accounts, spread out over some distance, so you get the large blast in the air and you can accomplish the military goal. But they're going to have to fly over the area and conduct some reconnaissance and see if the weapon really worked as planned.

21,600 pounds, this weapon is so heavy. You see some of the images from the testing of it over the years. Never been used. So heavy at 21,600 pounds. It's put in the back of an Air Force Special Operations cargo plane. A parachute is attached and it's basically pushed out the back of the plane falling to earth and detonating before it hits the ground.

So quite interesting choice of weapons, I think most people would agree. But I think there's a big unknown here. How did it work? Did it work as planned? Did they get the result they wanted? Was this the right weapon for the right target in the minds of the military? Right now, they say absolutely yes.

BLITZER: Barbara, excellent reporting.

General Marks, let's talk about why this 22,600-pund bomb was not used. It was ready to go back in 2003 during the Iraq war. It could have been used then. What was the delay all about?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I think it's a combination of factors. Primarily, it was not the right weapon system as the United States invaded Iraq, where you had Saddam's military fleeing, and in many cases, choosing not to engage. And then these initial insights into this insurgences that were creeping up, those targets were nested and tucked in with civilians. So as Barbara reported, it's the collateral damage-estimate process that needs to go into the choice of this weapon system. In Kandahar, where it was used, this was a wide-open area and the target had a lot of ISIS-types of capabilities, primarily fighters, in a concentrated area, folks going into Afghanistan, folks going into Pakistan. The time was right. There was actionable intelligence. And it seemed to me that it was a good use, a low-risk use of a weapons system. You don't have to put any fighters on the ground at risk to go after this target.

[13:55:24] BLITZER: We know each one of those MOAB bombs cost many millions of dollars. We'll get a damage assessment, see if that mission was successful. I'm sure they are working on it right now.

Everyone, stand by.

We're learning new details about this nearly 22,000-pound Mother of All Bombs, as it's called, just dropped on ISIS targets in Afghanistan, a very remote area not far from the Pakistan border. The very latest when our special coverage continues right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)