Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Interview with Rep. Trey Gowdy; Ukraine's Poroshenko Pleads for More Aide from U.S.; Negotiations Begin on Iran Nuclear Program; Bad Poll Numbers on Obama's Handling of Foreign Policy, ISIS

Aired September 18, 2014 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Washington.

The Senate could vote later today on President Obama's plan to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against ISIS. It will be part of broader legislation to keep the government operating. The House approved a measure yesterday supporting the presidents a plan to arm and train the moderate Syrian rebels. Even though some Senators expect the plan to pass in the Democratic controlled Senate, the president could see some tough challenges, including some very tough challenges from within his own party.

In the House vote, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, of South Carolina, was among those opposing the Syrian amendment. He's joining us from Capitol Hill. He has a lot going on. He's also the chairman of the Select Committee investigating what happened in Benghazi two years ago.

We'll get to that in a moment, but tell our viewers, why did you vote against this legislation to help these moderate Syrian rebels fight the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad and ISIS?

REP. TREY GOWDY, (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, Wolf, thank you for having me on. I went to great lengths, frankly, to try to support the president and talked to lots of my colleagues who served in uniform and almost universally, they expressed skepticism. Then I did something else unusual. I listened to almost every word of the Senate testimony over the last three days, and I don't know who the moderates are in Syria. When you say "moderate," that doesn't mean you want to educate women. It doesn't mean women have the right to vote. "Moderate" means we're not going to cut your head off. I can't support funding and arming folks if I don't have any clear understanding of who they are.

BLITZER: You think that $500 million the president is seeking, a half a billion dollars, would simply be a waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars? Is that what you're saying?

GOWDY: I don't want to say that because there were people who looked at this issue seriously and they concluded by voting yes, including some of my closest friends and colleagues. This is a conscience vote. And whenever you vote for anything that remotely resembles war, you have to follow your conscience. I talked to my colleagues who served, some Republicans, some Democrats, will this strategy work, who are the moderates, are we going to be successful a year from now, two years from now, and I couldn't get solid answers to that. So I concluded that I should vote no.

BLITZER: Those are fair enough questions, indeed. Any lawmaker should be asking precisely those kinds of questions.

Let's talk about your other role. You're chairman of the Select Committee in the House investigating Benghazi, Libya. Almost exactly two years ago, four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed on that day. So far, in your preliminary investigation, hearings now under way, have you come up with a major new headline that we didn't know before?

GOWDY: I don't think so. We are still relatively early on. And frankly, Wolf, if I had a headline, I'm not sure I would share it because I take this responsibility very seriously. My job is not to generate ratings for the Republican Party. My job is not to impact politics. My job is to find out what happened. Even if we had a new revelation, I wouldn't necessarily share it at this time anyway. We are in the nasant stages of this investigation and I want to do it in a way that inspires the trust and confidence of your viewers.

BLITZER: I hope you do.

Listen to Elijah Cummings, I think, the ranking Democrat on your committee. Certainly a member of the committee. He said this, on CNN. I'm going to play a little clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D), MARYLAND: Too often over the past two years, the congressional investigation into what happened in Benghazi has evolved into unseemly partisanship. We're better than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: I want you to respond to him, Congressman.

GOWDY: We are better than that, which is why I said something similar, although not as eloquent as Mr. Cummings yesterday. These four were neither Republican or Democrat. I just know they were fellow Americans. We ought to have a process worthy of their memory.

You saw the hearing yesterday. There were no political shenanigans. There were very good questions asked on both sides of the aisle on a very important topic, which is what are we doing to provide safety and security for the existing diplomats we send into harm's way. There are things that can transcend politics. I don't mean to sound naive but there are things. If the death of our four fellow Americans can't transcend politics, then I'm in the wrong line of work.

BLITZER: I've been covering foreign policy for a long time. There have been other diplomats who have been killed in service, U.S. officials, civilians, certainly military personnel. And it's really important to learn from those mistakes that may have been made so they have not repeated down the road. And if new recommendations can be made to protect American diplomats serving in dangerous parts of the world, it will be worth it when all is said and done.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

GOWDY: Yes, sir. Thank you for having me.

BLITZER: Good luck with the hearings.

GOWDY: Yes, sir.

BLITZER: Still ahead, a rare joint meeting of Congress with Ukraine's president as a headliner. Hear what he's asking U.S. lawmakers, what he's asking the president of the United States. That's coming up.

And negotiating nukes with Iran. As the deadline gets closer and closer, what do both sides want? We're going to update you on the very latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: In 20 minutes or so, Ukraine's president is scheduled to meet with President Obama at the White House. Petro Poroshenko spoke before a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress and had some specific questions.

Erin McPike is joining us live from the White House.

So what did the Ukrainian president want the United States, the Congress, the president to do?

ERIN MCPIKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, President Poroshenko offered an impassioned speech saying Ukraine is on the forefront of fighting for freedom and democracy, and democracies should support each other. In that spirit, he asked the United States for more tangible support in terms of economic and military assistance than they've given. Listen here to his specific request.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETRO POROSHENKO, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: They need more military equipment, lethal and nonlethal --

(APPLAUSE)

POROSHENKO: Blankets, night vision goggles are also important, but one cannot win the war with blankets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCPIKE: So far, the White House has stuck to only non-lethal aid, that's equipment and armor, not heavy weaponry. Right after that speech, the White House announced a new aid package of $53 million. $46 million is nonlethal aid still. Still that's equipment and armor and non-weaponry. And another $7 million for humanitarian aid. On top of that, Poroshenko asked for specific funds for more American investment in Ukraine. And in response to that, the White House announced they are sending a U.S. delegation to Ukraine next week, led by Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, to seek more investment opportunities. It's not what Ukraine asked for, but it's better than a photo op -- Wolf?

BLITZER: He also asked in his address before Congress, Erin, for the United States to designate Ukraine as a major non-NATO ally to give Ukraine that status. Japan has that status. South Korea has that status. Israel has that status. Any word from the White House whether the Obama administration supports granting that special status, major non-NATO ally, to Ukraine?

MCPIKE: Wolf, I think that's something that's been discussed, but it hasn't been flushed out fully. I do want to point out to you some of our polling just about how much of a concern this is in the United States, and that it is on the top of our radar. Our latest polling shows that 27 percent of Americans are very concerned about this situation. Another 45 percent have some concern. But I want to point out this number to you. There is that cease-fire that began on September 5th. White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, yesterday called that a tenuous cease-fire. And I'll point out that 73 percent of Americans in our polls say they don't trust Russia to keep that cease-fire -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Erin McPike at the White House. We'll see what happens over at that meeting. The president getting ready to welcome the Ukrainian president over to the Oval Office.

This note, later today, I will speak live with President Petro Poroshenko. From the White House, from Congress, he's coming here to CNN. I'll speak with him in "The Situation Room," ask him if he's getting what he wants from the United States and if it's enough to help stabilize his country and prevent Russia from moving into more parts of Ukraine. The interview later today in "The Situation Room," 5:00 p.m. eastern.

Still ahead, President Obama's doubling down on his strategy to fight ISIS. But a new poll finds more Americans disapprove of his approach to terrorism. Our political panelists getting ready to weigh in.

Also, the nuclear debate with Iran. We're taking a closer look at the stakes as negotiators get back to the bargaining table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Talks are resuming in New York on Iran's nuclear programs. Negotiators from the United States, Iran, five other nations are working on what has been an elusive agreement on Iran's nuclear future.

Joining us to talk about what's at stake, Mark Dubowitz, executive director for the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, spent a lot of time studying this issue.

What do you think, mark, the deadline for the agreement is late November. Originally been earlier, but was extended. Is there any reason to believe this deal will get done?

MARK DUBOWITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY: Well, Wolf, the U.S. government is working long and hard to figure out if it can accommodate Iran's supreme leaders' red lines. The question before us is not whether they're going to work hard but are they sufficiently going to cave to the supreme leader to accommodate those very red lines. If they're willing to do so, there will be a deal. If not, they'll stand tough and get another extension.

BLITZER: Do you have confidence the U.S., the five other members who are non-permanent members, permanent and nonpermanent members, involved in this negotiation, that they will get the deal that you would like?

DUBOWITZ: Wolf, I'm not confident. There has been a systemic erosion of the U.S. negotiating position over the past year. I think we have done a lot to try to accommodate Iran's supreme leader. He has just responded with one simple word, "No." And we continue to try to find technical compromises to try to find this elusive agreement. But he knows we want the deal more than he does.

BLITZER: What is the major sticking point from your perspective?

DUBOWITZ: Well, the major sticking point that's been publicly announced is the question of enrichment capacity and really the number of centrifuges that we're willing to allow the Iranians to have for a short duration of time. The major sticking point, fundamentally, is that this is a regime that's committed to having a nuclear weapon. We know that. But we are in the sort of elaborate Kabuki dance to try to pretend we can actually find a deal that will sufficiently constrain their nuclear ambitions.

BLITZER: As you know, the U.S. and Iran, right now, they have one thing very much in common. They both hate ISIS and they both are trying to destroy ISIS in different ways. How does that potential collaboration or cooperation in this war against ISIS factor into the nuclear negotiations?

DUBOWITZ: Wolf, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, are really two sides of the same jihadist core. And Iran really benefits from the rise of extremism in the Middle East. I think any kind of collaboration with Iran is going to only undermine our negotiating position. The Iranians fully understand any cooperation from them will come at a cost. They will take their pound of flesh at the negotiation table and it will only seriously erode our negotiating position which already is tenuous.

BLITZER: But they have gone after ISIS on several fronts. They have a lot of influence in Iraq, including Iranian Republican Guard military personnel. They are trying to beat ISIS right now, right?

DUBOWITZ: Well, they are for their own reasons. If that's the case, let them. There's no reason we should be collaborating and cooperating. We're communicating and maybe de-conflicting and that's important to a military operational perspective. But there's no reason to collaborate. They've been partially responsible for the rise of the Islamic State. It should not come at a cost at the negotiating the prize, which is a good agreement that constrains Iran's nuclear weapons capability.

BLITZER: Do you accept the general assessment that the new president is better than Ahmadinejad, his predecessor?

DUBOWITZ: He's better with respect to his desire for maybe a more moderate approach internally within Iran. But he is very much to the same objective that the supreme leader is committed to, the Revolutionary Guards are committed to, and that's a nuclear weapon. I think there is unity amongst Iran's elite on the question of that question. There may be disunity on the issue of tactics and exactly how to get there. But I think this is a man who is a pragmatist but who is also deeply committed to a nuclear weapon and what that would mean for Iran and its regional influence.

BLITZER: Mark Dubowitz, with the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, thanks for joining us.

DUBOWITZ: Thank you.

BLITZER: We'll watch these critical negotiations in the days to come. And the deadline ended in November.

Just a note, I'll be anchoring our coverage at the United Nations starting on Monday as heads of state come to New York to address the General Assembly. The president will address the General Assembly on Wednesday. We'll have full coverage on CNN throughout the week.

Still ahead, is President Obama being tough enough when it comes to ISIS? We'll get the results of a brand new poll. Our political panel standing by to sort out the results.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: As President Obama digs in on a strategy to fight ISIS in the Middle East, his policies aren't necessarily winning over the public here at home. A new poll by "The New York Times" and "CBS News" finds just 41 percent approve of how the president is handling the threat of terrorism. 50 percent disapprove. The numbers are even worse when it comes to the president's overall handling of foreign policy. Results are similar to what a CNN/ORC poll found earlier this month.

Let's bring in our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger; and political commentator, Republican strategist, Ana Navarro.

Gloria, what do you make of the results?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You have a public that's anxious of what's going on in Iraq and Syria. They have seen a president who has vacillated they believe if you go back to last year. They have seen his ambivalence and while they themselves are ambivalent, Wolf, because they support air strikes, they don't like to see a president who looks ambivalent. They want to see a president that is decisive. And I think they don't think he's strong enough even though, ironically, they agree with what he's doing.

BLITZER: The other results from "The New York Times"/CBS poll, Ana, is the president's dealing with ISIS tough enough. 57 percent say not tough enough. 31 percent say about right. Other question, sending ground troops into Iraq or Syria. 55 percent, Ana, say they oppose. The president opposes it as you know as well. How's he doing?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR & REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Gloria is completely right. Part of the problem is there's been so many mixed messages coming out of the administration. They can't seem to stick to one thing and all talk out of the same page. One day they tell you it's war. One day they tell you it's not war. One day, General Dempsey tells you there may be a need for boots on the ground, while the president is out there constantly saying no boots on the ground. So I think it's very confusing for the American people and it's very confusing for us, frankly, who are watching it on a daily basis.

BORGER: As Dick Cheney might say, I think this is the new normal because --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: Please don't quote Cheney.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: Because the ambivalence is everywhere. It's in the American public. They see these beheadings, and public opinion changed dramatically.

NAVARRO: That was game changer. You're right. People want a resolute, clear thinking, clear talking commander-in-chief.

BORGER: Particularly, when they're ambivalent. That's the problem.

BLITZER: Am I -- right or wrong, I'm frustrated that in the United States Senate on an issue as important as war or peace they can't have a specific vote whether to fund and train Syrian rebels. They got to put it in part of a bigger piece of legislation whether or not the government will shut down or won't shut down. Why can't they have a simple vote? At least in the House they did.

BORGER: I think it's because of the election, as you know, and --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Are they afraid it wouldn't pass if they let an up-and-down roll call --

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: I think it's a combination of things. One, the White House doesn't believe it can depend on Congress. Two, as you saw yesterday, there was a substantial Democratic vote against the president. And they've got endangered Senators running in red states that they are very concerned about.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: However, I agree with you, they should have a vote.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: Because there was bipartisanship in support and bipartisanship in the opposition. I think part of what's happening in the Senate is you have both the chair and ranking member, Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who are both telling the administration you need a new Use of Force authorization, the Use of Military Force Authorization, and you should be getting one. So there's a lot of discontent with the White House saying we would welcome one but we don't need one and we're not asking you for one.

BORGER: These are -- many of these are same Republicans who were saying this is the imperial president. He does everything by executive order. And then when it comes time to vote, a lot of Republicans are shying away. Mitch McConnell says he would like a vote.

BLITZER: You can blame the president all you want for there not being a real vote in the Senate but the Senate majority leader should make that decision.

BORGER: Harry Reid.

BLITZER: He's dodging it. He's not doing the right thing. They'll go on vacation later tonight or tomorrow.

BORGER: Everyone has their own reasons for dodging it and none of them are good.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: That's it for me. I'll see you at 5:00 p.m. eastern in "The Situation Room."

NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.