Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Briefing on Syria; Newt Gingrich, Van Jones on Obama's Syria Plan.

Aired September 09, 2013 - 13:30   ET

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

TONY BLINKEN, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: As we were doing that, we, of course, were working to build strong international support. The president at the G-20 worked on a joint statement on the need to reinforce the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. At that time, 11 countries including the United States signed on. We now have an additional 15 who joined that statement. Secretary Kerry was in Europe working with Europeans and we've been working every day at the U.N. and country by country.

In terms of what we provided Congress, let me just describe the top lines of the briefings. So obviously, I won't get into the classified part. But the bottom line, as we told Congress in these briefings, is that we concluded with high confidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons August 21st with rockets and artillery against its own civilians. We told them we concluded well over 1,000 people have been killed including hundreds of children. We ran through in detail the intelligence that shows preparation for the attack, intelligence that shows the attack itself and its effects, post attack observations by key participants, and then more recently, various physiological samples, blood, skin as well as soil, that showed that sarin was used.

There's also been, as you all know, an extraordinary body of contemporaneous public information coming out about this incident, videos, social media, much of which has been shown recently on television, eye witness accounts, reports from NGOs, from doctors, from hospitals, from other countries. All of this taken together, we told Congress, led us to the conclusion that Assad had poisoned his own people with gas August 21st. We made the case it was very important to stand up for the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, a prohibition that has been in place basically since the end of World War I. We saw the terrible effects of poison gas being used on soldiers in World War I, the Geneva protocol emerged, saying you can't do this again. One of the very positive benefits of that is since World War I, not a single U.S. soldier on the battlefield has been exposed to poison gas.

And we noted for Congress' own strong stances on this prohibition. The Senate, overwhelmingly passing the chemical weapons convention in 1997. Both houses of Congress passing the Syria Accountability Act in be 2003, motivated in part by Syria home run chemical weapons. Now Syria has used them.

We made the case that enforcing this prohibition and this norm is profoundly in the national interest. First and foremost, to deter Assad from using the weapons again and making it more difficult for him to do so, to prevent the threshold against use from dropping lower and lower to the point where our own soldiers and citizens could be exposed, to make a political settlement in Syria more likely, not less likely. And, of course, to stop the threat to the neighbors, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, which as Secretary Kerry said about a week ago, are just a stiff breeze away from Syria.

Finally, we've made the case because others are watching. Iran is watching what we're doing. North Korea, Hezbollah is watching what we're doing. If we don't enforce this prohibition, they will take the wrong lesson from it.

Many members asked how -- what we proposed to do fit into our larger strategy for Syria. And we explained that as we act to deal with the chemical weapons problem, it's in the context of a broader strategy that we've been pursuing for some time to try and bring the civil war in Syria to a negotiated political transition. We believe that's the best way to do it because it offers the greatest prospect for there not being a vacuum after Assad leaves that could be filled with things as bad if not worse and the best prospect for keeping the country together. The broader strategy to deal with the conflict has involved it putting pressure on the Assad regime, isolating it, denying it resources. It's involved building up the opposition and a humanitarian program, the largest in the world by any single country, and involved a diplomatic track to get agreement on the principles for a political transition would look like.

What we're posing to do to deal with the use of chemical weapons on August 21st, is taking place in the context of that the larger strategy, separate from it, but it's happening simultaneous to it. Of course, the primary objective of the force that we propose to use is to deter Assad from using the weapons again, is to degrade his ability to do so but it could have the additional benefit of advancing the broader strategy of ending the civil war by making it clear to Assad we can hold at risk things that he holds very dear.

Finally, the last two points that we made in our briefings to Congress along with some of the details of the intelligence and some of the military plan that we're looking at is we thought it was very important to say what this is and what this isn't. Because what we found in our engagement with members is that many of them had just returned from their home states and home districts and they were going to state fairs, they were going to town halls, and they were hearing from constituents. And it is perfectly normal and understandable that when an American hears in the news a headline or on television hears military action in Syria, they immediately think of the last 10 years, the frame that they process that through is a decade of war -- Iraq, Afghanistan, 100,000 American troops in one, 150,000 American troops in the other. So we made it very clear to the members of Congress we were engaged with what this is and what it isn't. What this is is a limited tailored but effective military action to deal with the use of chemical weapons. What it is not is open-ended. It is not boots on the ground. It's not Iraq. It's not Afghanistan. It's not even Libya.

Finally, the case we made to members of Congress involved presenting the risks of action against the risks of inaction. We made it clear there are always risks in taking military action and we spend many hours trying to game them out to take steps to prevent them and to mitigate them. But it's our judgment that the consequences of inaction are much greater and graver still if we don't act. The international norm against the use of chemical weapons would be dangerously weakened. The threshold for the weapons would get lower and lower. The message to Assad would be he could act with impunity and he'll do it again. It would make a political settlement in Syria less likely and send a message to Iran, North Korea and other groups that it's safe to pursue and even use these weapons.

So that's the case we made. We asked Congress to support a limited but decisive response to the use of chemical weapons.

And let me stop with that.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: With that, we'll start a few questions for Tony.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I thank you for doing this today. One of the other questions some lawmakers have is whether the president plans to proceed with a strike regardless of how they vote. And you said over the weekend that it is not the president's desire, nor his intention to use his authority without congressional backing. Do you stand by that statement that he has no intention of striking without congressional authority?

BLINKEN: What's important here -- again, we heard at the very outset in our earliest consultations with Congress, they wanted their voice heard. That's the reason the president went to Congress is because he believes we're stronger when we act together. We heard clearly from them that they wanted to be in on this debate. I'm not going to jump ahead with the process. I didn't speak very artfully. The president, it is clearly is his desire and intent to secure the support of Congress for this action. But I don't want to get into hypotheticals of what will or will not happen after the vote.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You're not necessarily standing by that?

BLINKEN: I'm saying there's no point in jumping ahead of where we are now.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Tony, as you gather more evidence and this physiologic evidence that you said, and you move past having simply heightened your confidence to 100 percent certitude that this happened?

BLINKEN: Here's what's important to understand. The intelligence community has different levels of confidence that it expresses in any given assessment, low, medium and high. High is as high as they can go. They will not tell you with a 100 percent guarantee that anything has happened in terms of the assessment that they make. They put together the facts. And we have certitude the facts. And you put those facts together and you make an assessment and then you evaluate that assessment. You grade it. And their grade is high confidence. That is well beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a standard that I think many Americans are familiar with and that is the standard that we've been using.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did this decision go all the way up to Assad himself?

BLINKEN: Assad, we believe and we have the intelligence and evidence to back this up, is in control of the chemical weapons program and would have -- let me put it this way. Any standing orders to use these weapons would have been issued by Assad. And our colleagues in the intelligence community showed in great detail the different individuals in the chain of command who were engaged in the activities of August 21st.

BLINKEN: A couple things. Charlie Rose interviewed President Assad and said several things. Among the things he said is there would be repercussions if there's a United States military strike and that the United States should be fearful of that direct and indirect repercussions. He made a couple veiled references to 9/11. I'd like your reaction to that.

Secondly, today, the Syrians and Russians have announced the concept of international supervision and control of or maintenance of the chemical weapons stockpiles of Syria. Do you have a reaction to that? Is that something that the administration would regard as a favorable move or not?

And lastly, you've had the briefings but lost ground in the Senate. There are more Senate delegations saying they don't want to support this than do. Why are you losing ground?

BLINKEN: First question with regard to Assad's comments, let me just say this. First of all, we take every possible precaution to make sure we can prevent and defend against that might arise from the use of military action. And we've done that and we'll continue to do that. And it is our judgment that President Assad and Syria would have very little interest in picking a fight with the United States of America. So I don't think that is likely at all.

Second, with regard to the reports today about this Russian initiative, we've seen the reports. We want to take a hard look at the proposal. We'll obviously discuss the idea with the Russians. And, of course, we would welcome a decision and action by Syria to give up its chemical weapons. The whole point of what we're doing is to stop Syria from using these weapons again.

But I think it's important to keep a few things in mind. First of all, the international community has tried for 20 years to get Syria to sign onto the Chemical Weapons Convention, joining 189 other countries in doing so. Now it is only one of only five countries that haven't done it. Just last week, President Assad wouldn't even say whether he had chemical weapons despite overwhelming evidence he's actually used them. Of course, we also tried to work with the Russians at the United Nations repeatedly on Syria and chemical weapons for months. Until now, they have blocked all of our initiatives, including press statements, never mind a Security Council resolution. It's also important to note Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of weapons around the world. It would certainly take time, resources, and probably a peaceful environment to deal with this.

All of that said, we'll take a hard look at this and talk to the Russians about this. It's important to note this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerted. It's even more important that we don't take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he's requested.

Finally, in terms of where we are with Congress, you know, my sense is this -- from all of these briefings, my sense is that when members of Congress have a chance to see the intelligence, to read it, to get the briefings, to ask questions, they come away convinced of two things: Chemical weapons were used August 21st against civilians in Syria and the Assad regime is the one that used them. Many members have yet to get this classified brief. Now as they're coming back today and this week, they'll have the opportunity to do that. We have senior officials going out to provide the same briefing we gave last week. I believe when they see the evidence, it is compelling. It's overwhelming.

And then it comes down to a pretty basic question. Are we or are we not going to do anything about the fact that Assad poisoned his own people with gas, including hundreds of children. That's the question before the members of Congress. When they have the evidence and see the facts I think they'll come to the right conclusion.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Tony, you said you are taking a hard look.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: There you heard the news from the deputy national security advisor to the president, Tony Blinken, saying that they are getting ready to study what the Russians have proposed.

Jim Acosta of CNN now asking a question.

BLINKEN: -- some hours ago, we haven't had a chance to look at it yet or talk to the Russians about it yet. We will.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you aware the secretary said Assad could turn all of it over without delay, that that was not -- I mean, that seemed to set off this --

(CROSSTALK)

BLINKEN: No, I think he was speaking -- I believe he was answering a question and speaking hypothetically, what if he were to do that. Of course, we would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons, doing it in a verifiable manner so we can account for them and destroy them. That's the whole purpose of what we're trying to achieve, to make sure he can't use them again. That would be terrific.

But unfortunately, the track record to date, including recent statements by Assad not even acknowledging he has the weapons, doesn't give you confidence. But that said, we want to look hard what the Russians have proposed, and we will. ACOSTA: So is this an ultimatum coming from this White House to Bashar al Assad? Is this an escape hatch for him?

BLINKEN: Again, we'll look at what the Russians proposed. We'll talk to them about and we'll see where it goes.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: So there you have it, an opening, a potential opening, a relatively encouraging reaction from the deputy national security advisor, Tony Blinken, saying, regarding this Russian proposal to put Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles under some sort of international control, we would welcome the proposal if, in fact, it were to happen. He then said they're doubtful, they're skeptical about it. But it does have an opening for the United States to avert any military action against Syria.

Gloria Borger is our chief political analyst.

Gloria, this may be -- and I'm very cautious right now -- it may be an opening to avoid what so many members of Congress want to avoid, what so many people in the American public want to avoid, U.S. military involvement in Syria if the Russians are serious and the Syrians are serious.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you have to hear the skepticism though in Tony Blinken's answer because his answer was, don't forget, this comes in the context of the threat of force. If you want to unwind this a little bit and go back to when the Secretary of State John Kerry said this, it was more of a point of debate. It did not seem to be a serious ultimatum. I think probably a lot of people who were kind of surprised about it. It was more hypothetical than it was real. Obviously, the Russians then jumped on it and said, OK, you know, maybe this is a way out of it. So I think what you're hearing from the administration is saying, look, now that the Russians are trying to do this, we can't sort of cast it aside but I think their skepticism is very clear about whether Assad would do this, given the fact that he has always denied he had chemical weapons in the first place.

BLITZER: You did hear Tony Blinken, the deputy national security advisor to the president, also say, if this is serious, if the Russian proposal is serious --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Hold on. If the Russian proposal is serious, if the Syrians take this seriously, it would be as a result of the impressive threat of U.S. military force that convinced Bashar al Assad maybe that this is his only way to survive, and if he believes this is his only way to survive and avoid a U.S. military involvement in Syria, you know what? You don't know if -- what he's going to do.

BORGER: That's right. So you don't know whether what something Secretary of State Kerry said inadvertently perhaps may actually provide a little bit of an opening for the White House. And so we'll have to see how this plays out. Obviously, they're skeptical. But you're right, you just never know, given the fact that there's overwhelming public sentiment in this country against a military strike.

BLITZER: And this could put on hold any decision on a military strike for a while. May even make votes in the U.S. Senate and House unnecessary if, in fact, this Russian proposal to end this crisis --

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: -- lots of members of Congress are hoping for that.

BLITZER: They would like that. A lot of them don't want to vote on it. The president doesn't want to lose that vote. So maybe gives him an opening as well.

Gloria, you're going to be joining me later in "The Situation Room." As well, we have some analysis coming up. The new hosts of "Crossfire," they are standing by to discuss this latest breaking news.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Later today, we will see the return of CNN's "Crossfire." That begins at 6:30 p.m. eastern.

Let's get a preview. Joining us, Newt Gingrich and Van Jones, two of the hosts, four all together, of the new "Crossfire."

Guys, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, Newt -- I don't know what to call you anymore.

(LAUGHTER)

Let's call you Newt. Let's talk about this. There may be an opening right now. Let's be cautious. There may be an opening, A, to avoid votes in the Congress, avoid a U.S. military strike if, in fact, this Russian proposal to control all of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles is serious.

NEWT GINGRICH, (R), FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE & CO-HOST, CNN'S CROSSFIRE: Apparently, the Syrian foreign minister has said, yes, we're very interested in working this out. And I was reminded of Bobby Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when they got a very hard message from Khrushchev and a soft message at the same time. He went back and talked (INAUDIBLE) and all of (INAUDIBLE) novels where the woman would drop a handkerchief at the dinner table, and when a man would pick it up, she would say, yes, I will accept your proposal of marriage.

(LAUGHTER) And because it was Victorian novels, he didn't want to hurt her feeling, so they got married. Kennedy said, Bobby said, skip the hard message, go to soft message and see if we can build that.

Well, you have the Russians and apparently the Syrians saying, and the secretary general of the United Nations saying, why don't we have the U.N. take control of the Syrian stockpile? This is an opportunity potentially for the president to have an enormous victory.

BLITZER: It would be an enormous victory for the president because he could say, as we just heard Tony Blinken, his deputy national security adviser, saying if this could happen, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, says not only control all of the Syrian chemical weapons, and there's a lot of them, but destroy them at the same time. If the United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution with Russian and Chinese support for that, the president could legitimately say, thank you very much. It was the threat of U.S. force. Bashar al Assad was so nervous about the fact of going down in the face of U.S. pressure, he agreed to destroy his weapons stockpile.

VAN JONES, CO-HOST CNN'S CROSSFIRE: This could play out like a good episode of the "West Wing." Usually, these get botched up and get worse and worse. This could be the case like in Greek theater, things get messed up and then a god comes down from the machine and fixes everything. That could be the case. Literally, a misstatement by John Kerry.

BLITZER: We don't know for sure it was a misstatement. It may have been.

JONES: It seemed like it.

BLITZER: It may have been something --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Over the past couple weeks, people have been saying, experts outside of the government and others have been saying, there's a military solution or the U.S. could do nothing, but maybe there's diplomacy in the middle that might work, and maybe if he could get the diplomats on board, he could avert warfare, if you will.

JONES: Yes. I'm saying this could work out very, very well. If he did it on purpose or not, to your point, if the world is smart enough to take up the statement from John Kerry and run with it, get us out of an impossible situation for everybody. Right now, we're in a situation where the president of the United States is likely to lose a vote in Congress, which is unprecedented, which would be horrible, and then he has to go against Congress, which would be horrible, or stand down, which would be horrible. The only hope is this possible misstatement from John Kerry that now the world seems to be rallying around.

BLITZER: Maybe it could work. If you're Bashar al Assad and you say, what do I do, give up my chemical weapons and survive or not give up my chemical weapons and face the wrath of the United States military? GINGRICH: I have a good friend, Jack Falkland (ph), who knows the Russians very well. He has been saying for the last six weeks that Putin would solve this if Obama understood how to ask. The truth is, if Putin picks up the phone and says to Assad, this is it, if you don't do cave, they're going to bomb you, and we are not going to help you.

JONES: There is one trick though that could be up his sleeve. Let's not forget, this is Assad. He knows every dirty trick in the book. There is Hezbollah. He can give some of those weapons over and still give his allies some others. So that then he gets to have his cake and eat it. We have to let this thing play itself out.

BLITZER: There's a timeliness. If he's going to agree to this to keep them under control, it could be two, three, four weeks, he could ship some of those. Van is absolutely right.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: Let's not get too happy.

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: There have been four efforts this year to do that, and the Israelis have bombed all four.

(LAUGHTER)

The Israelis make it very clear, every time you put a truck on the road to Lebanon, if we think it has something dangers, we kill it.

BLITZER: They have done the four air strikes, they didn't announce anything in advance, it happened afterwards, they just did it, and there was no real response.

GINGRICH: They understand it's a tough neighborhood.

Again, it will be interesting to see, even this evening when you do the interview that will be on at 6:00, does the president now take into account the possibility that you could actually have a diplomatic solution that is better than anything he had thought of? That would be --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Not only deferring and degrading. That would potentially be eliminating Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. That would be a huge political, diplomatic, national security win for the U.S., right? The president would have to deserve a lot of credit for that.

GINGRICH: He could take the credit. He would deserve the credit. And I think it would get him out of what is going to be an embarrassing defeat coming down the road next week.

BLITZER: Very quickly. JONES: To your point, creativity in a crisis, this is what I think people have been hoping for. We wound up down this rabbit hole. My big hope is tht if this is not the right creative outcome, there are others. We don't need another war in the Middle East. There's got to be a way out.

BLITZER: Two of the new hosts of "Crossfire," Van Jones and Newt Gingrich.

Guys, thanks very much.

Expect a lot more lively debate when "Crossfire" returns later tonight, 6:30 p.m. eastern, every week night after "The Situation Room." It will be Newt versus Van along with Stephanie Cutter, S.E. Cupp filling out the roster. Stay with us for "Crossfire," week nights, 6:30 p.m. eastern.

I'll be back later today in "The Situation Room," 5:00 p.m. eastern. My interview with President Obama at the White House. That will air at 6:00 p.m. eastern.

NEWSROOM continues with Brooke Baldwin after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)