Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Syria Open to Intl. Control; Congress Officially in Session; More Lawmakers Against Syria Strike; Selling Syria; Hillary Clinton Talks Syria

Aired September 09, 2013 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Good to see you. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

A major development in the crisis in Syria. Syria's foreign minister said the country, quote, "welcomes a proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control." This is a Russian proposal. But we are just getting word, all of this could actually be a result of a statement by President Obama's secretary of state. Because let me take you back this morning in London. John Kerry may have muddied the waters regarding the march toward an attack against Syria. Take a listen to this, if you would.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there anything, at this point, that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over. All of it. Without delay. And allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn't about to do it and it can't be done, obviously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: That was John Kerry this morning. Syria and its good buddy Russia both seem to think it is a notion worth exploring, putting those weapons under international control as a way to avert an attack.

We have to talk about this more with CNN's Nick Paton Walsh, who is live with us now from the United Nations.

And so, Nick, you have the secretary of state, here he is, he comes out and he says, OK, you know, Syria can avoid an attack by putting its chemical weapons under international control. Walk us through, then, what happened in Moscow.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, then the Russian foreign minister, who's meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Moualem, comes forward and says, look, there is a potential for us to establish an international mechanism. We would suggest Syria puts any chemical weapons under that particular control. The Syrian foreign minister then comes forward and says, you know, we would welcome this, any move to try and prevent American aggression is appreciated and thinks that the Russians have the best benefit of the Syrian people at heart. But a couple of complications here, of course, because Bashar al-Assad, in his recent interview with CBS, didn't even acknowledge that the Syrian regime had chemical weapons.

So, you know, we're into a very complicated game here if this process does take off in any particular direction, Brooke. I mean it seems like the Obama administration very much caught on the back foot here. Really struggling to catch up with the news. They can't dismiss this out of hands because it first emerged out of the mouth of their own chief diplomat, John Kerry. So, they're really going to have to try and work out a way of explaining to people, frankly, the likely cynicism behind this because it's going to be a very complicated, time-consuming game of getting inspectors into a war zone to try and work out where these weapons are, how many of them there are, where they can be moved to be safe and then disposed of. That will take months if at all feasible.

So, a very complicated situation here, but it really messes with 48 hours, which was supposed to begin with Barack Obama giving all these interviews to key networks, getting their message out. Now they're playing catch-up.

Brooke.

BALDWIN: We're going to talk catch-up or damage control, perhaps, versus message in a minute. But let me just follow up on your final point because what's interesting is that we first had this unnamed administration official come out and say that Kerry's initial remarks, and I'm quoting this person, were a, quote, "major goof" and he he'd, quote, "gone off script."

But now, Nick, now the official position out of Washington is, hey, this is worth exploring. This sounds confusing.

WALSH: Yes, I mean, I think it really gives you an idea of how in disarray the strategy is at the moment. They don't seem to have, at this point, the vote in Congress, so potentially this use of the U.N. or international monitors to get the chemical weapons stockpile under control could give them some easy or diplomatic way out. That would be a huge step down for the Obama administration and the president having made it quite clear he's decided to hit Syria as a punishment.

But it also, I think, really brings out the major point here in that they're going to have the forth coming 48 hours about explaining this particular gap. I think the administration had very little choice but to tamp down ideas. This was a mistake by John Kerry and it can't been seen to be disowning their own chief statesmen on the international stage. So an incredibly complex situation that the Russians have seized upon, which some might say with typical cynicism.

Brooke.

BALDWIN: Let's dip into Harry Reid's -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is speaking specifically now about Syria.

Thank you, Nick.

(BEGIN LIVE SPEECH COVERAGE)

SEN. HARRY REID, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: About what will occur Wednesday sometime on the motion to proceed. Under previous order, at 11:00 tomorrow morning, the Senate was to have a motion to proceed to the energy efficiency bill. Of course, it's obvious that we aren't going to be able to do that. I'll work with the Republican leader to reach a consent agreement to defer consideration of that bill to a later time.

On the Syria resolution, I intend the Senate should have a full and open debate. And I encourage senators to come to the floor to begin that debate.

Also this week, President Obama will come to the Capitol to address the Democratic caucus. He's extended this invitation to the Republicans also. I have also -- I haven't heard back from the Republicans as to whether they wish to hear from the president.

(END LIVE SPEECH COVERAGE)

BALDWIN: Senator Reid mentioned the president. You know, looking ahead here in the next couple of hours, next couple of days, it's a presidential push rarely seen from closed door briefings to televised interviews. The president of the United States seems to be using every hour and every top aide to try to convince Congress to authorize a strike on Syria.

This afternoon, he is giving interviews to six, count them, six news channels, including our own Wolf Blitzer, before his huge speech to the nation tomorrow night.

At this hour, and we just showed you a bit of the Senate side, both the House and the Senate, they have opened the floor -- they will be opening the floor to official debate on Syria. The gavel has hit. The Senate could vote this week on whether to authorize military action. So we're watching for that in the coming days.

Meantime, the president's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, is meeting right now with some House Democrats at the White House.

In the next hour, National Security Adviser Susan Rice is set to talk to the Congressional Black Caucus.

And we are minutes away from hearing from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking on Syria.

And then there's this. Our latest poll taken just this weekend shows 59 percent of the public does not want Congress to authorize American military action in Syria. Let me show you another number here. Another poll shows nearly three quarters believe a strike would lead to war.

Let's go straight to Washington to our chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash, live on The Hill.

The gavel has hit, Dana Bash. What's next?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What's next is a lot of debate and a lot of answers that maybe we'll get about what is really up in the air in a way that is kind of stunning right now, and that is, where are the votes, particularly starting with where this is going to begin, the Democratic-led Senate. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, is still speaking. He's making his case for the need for military authorization. He's trying to make the case for the president. This is the first time we are seeing debate on the floor of the Senate because this is the first time they have been in, in five weeks. Despite the fact that we have seen so much action, so much activity here, all last week with members of the administration coming up and trying to make their case.

But, again, I just really want to underscore how unclear the path forward is. The Senate majority leader did say that he expects the first procedural vote to be on Wednesday. That is certainly the plan right now, but my sense in talking to Democratic sources is that if Harry Reid doesn't have the votes, if he's not sure that he can pass this, it's unclear if he will actually bring this up. We're just waiting to see what's going on behind the scenes. I'm told that there are a lot of different scenarios being discussed.

The other thing I should mention is something that's been going on in the Senate that is related to the idea that the Russians brought up, about getting Bashar al-Assad to turn over his chemical weapons. There is a proposal that was put out last week by two conservative Democrats who are voting no on authorization. Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin, and their proposal is to delay any military strikes for 45 days and use that time to encourage him to do just that, to give over his chemical weapons. That, I'm told, will actually have a vote in the Senate this week. So that could be some kind of legislative action. At least maybe that could be the basis of legislative action that could go hand in hand with what they're talking about in Russia.

And, lastly, on this point, we just got a statement from the Senate intel chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, who has been maybe one of the most vocal supporters of military strikes based on what she says she has seen with the intelligence with regard to the chemical weapons in Syria. She said that she welcomes this move by Russia. She's also somebody, not unlike everybody else on Capitol Hill, who is getting pounded from her constituents back home saying, please don't do this.

So we've been talking this afternoon, since we've seen this breaking news, about whether this could be a way out for the president. It also could be a way out for members of Congress who are really out on a limb with something that might not pass.

BALDWIN: Keep your eyes and ears very close, as I know you are, Dana Bash, to what's happening both on the House and the Senate side today because we could always dip in at any moment, as clearly this debate could get pretty interesting.

And many are saying this vote on whether to strike is a Seminole moment in President Obama's foreign policy legacy. Let's talk about it. Let's debate this. Let me bring in Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons and Republican strategist Ana Navarro, who is also a CNN political commentator.

So welcome to both of you. And, my goodness, this day has just gotten more interesting, has it not? Let me just begin, though, with some of these polls. And, Jamal, first to you. Another poll shows lawmakers have room to go against what their constituents say. If you see this, 57 percent of those surveyed said they would not be more or less likely to vote for a lawmaker based upon the yea or nay when it comes to Syria. So we you're hearing all this, and you just heard Dana mention Dianne Feinstein, and we heard from her constituents vary against this -- this possibility of a strike, do you think Congress is voting what their constituents want or what their conscience is telling them?

JAMAL SIMMONS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, you know, the easy thing to do is to do what your constituents want. But I was on the phone with a congressional candidate just earlier this morning and we were talking about how you think through a decision like this. And ultimately what she said to me is, you know, you just -- she's not in Congress, but she said, you know, you've got to decide to do what you think is in the best interest of the country in a moment like this.

And I agree. And I've been with members of Congress and candidates when they've had to make this decision before about what to do in terms of a military strike and ultimately you've got to make a decision about what's best. Your constituents will go with you, they'll give you a little room if they trust you in your judgment to do what you think is best for the country.

BALDWIN: Ana, what do you think?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, Brooke, this isn't different than most issues that come in front of Congress. Different people vote on different issues, on different aspects. Some will vote over partisanship, which is why I think it's important that President Obama do this meeting today with the Democrats because I think the loyalty card is an important thing that he can use with his fellow Democrats. Some will go with what their constituents want. Some will go with their gut, with their conscience, with the information they see. So I think different people bring different things to the table when they look at how to vote on an issue like this.

BALDWIN: So let's say -- this is just a hypothetical because that's where we are right now -- if and when Congress votes no, and let's say the president listens to them and chooses not to strike militarily, Jamal, what is the fallout for the president?

SIMMONS: You know, it's a pretty tough thing that would happen. How does the president choose to defy the will of Congress and continue on with the military action? If he was going to do this one way or the other, he should have just done it and not gone to Congress. But once you go to Congress, it's pretty tough to then walk it back.

And I just want to touch on one thing Ana just said about the loyalty card. You know, this is one of these places where not having consistent relationships with members of Congress is not going to help the president very much. You look at the Congressional Black Caucus, for instance, you got 40 members who only met with the president once over the course of the last couple of years. So I'm not sure that when he goes in that room he's going to have the loyalty card to play. I think he's going to have to make an argument based on the facts and what's in the best interest of the country. I'm not sure they'll be willing to sort of just let them do this for political reasons.

BALDWIN: But, Jamal, let me just push you, because on the flipside, you could see how the president could say, hey, Congress, I've listened to you. You said no to a strike in Syria. I will abide by what you have voted. Therefore, when it comes to the debt ceiling, when it comes budget, when it comes to immigration, let's play nice.

SIMMONS: We'll see. We'll see if that works. I think this is (INAUDIBLE). So --

BALDWIN: You don't think so?

SIMMONS: I think it's so important that people make a decision based on facts. And I think the president is going to have to really marshal up and he's going to have to also do some of the things that some of the progressives want to see happen. They want to see this kind of effort on things that they care about, like the economy and jobs and education. Charlie Rangel has a press release out right now where he's talking about, let's declare war on joblessness and hunger, not on Syria. So he's going to have to really kind of come to the progressives with a little bit stronger of an agenda, I think, to convince them on this one.

BALDWIN: Ana Navarro, last word from you, my friend.

NAVARRO: You know, Brooke, I've heard some of the president's surrogates speak this weekend, talk about how this is not about the president, how this is about the country, how it's about our stature, and all of that is true, but it also is true that it is about President Obama and that if he loses this, it is going to be viewed as his loss, we're going to discuss it as his loss, and it's going to affect the rest of his agenda, the rest of his years and his term. I think it's going to make him a very ineffective lame duck very early on in his second term.

So I think -- I would advise to President Obama and his surrogates, own it. Own it and show some resolution, and some commitment to this cause, because if not, you're going to lose. And whether you like it or not, you're going to be saddled with that loss.

BALDWIN: Great to get both --

SIMMONS: And, Brooke, in that last point --

BALDWIN: Yes.

SIMMONS: I do think that this is one of those moments where the entire prestige of the United States is at stake. We said that we -- that we're not going to tolerate chemical weapons. We've got to act. I think the Congress has got to support him. But the president's got to do a better job of convincing them.

BALDWIN: We will be watching for him tomorrow night, won't we? Jamal Simmons and Ana Navarro, thank you. And we'll be watching him with Wolf before that this afternoon.

A lot more to get to this hour, including this.

As President Obama blitzes the media tonight, the question remains, what happens if Congress rejects his plan?

Plus, Rodman the diplomat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DENNIS RODMAN, FORMER NBA STAR: Why, Obama, are you afraid to talk to Dennis Rodman? You're not afraid to talk to Beyonce and Jay-z. Why not me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: The baller issues a direct challenge to President Obama after his trip to a rogue nation.

And as the man who confessed to driving drunk faces charges --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW CORDLE: I hit and killed Vincent Canzani.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Wait until you hear how the victim's family is reacting to his video. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Well, here's a question, how do you sell an air strike in Syria to a public that is increasingly against it? If President Obama's schedule is any indication, you saturate the airwaves. President Obama about to kick off his last-minute media blitz pushing his plan to strike Syria.

So let me just take you back to Saturday afternoon where more or less this started. You had our chief Washington correspondent, Jake Tapper, he obtained these incredibly graphic videos showing the aftermath of an apparent chemical attack. And that horrifying video, shown to a few select senators, was in turn then given to us to show you, the public.

Flash forward to today. The president will be giving interviews to six major news networks. By the way, his interview with Wolf Blitzer will be airing at 6:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN. Definitely tune in for that.

Tomorrow night, the president will take to the airwaves again, making a national address from the White House. The president clearly hoping a lot of face time with the media will turn public opinion on the strike in his favor.

So joining me now is Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

Frank, great having you on. Goodness. The first question has to do with clearly what happened in the last couple hours that we've learned about. The president not getting help from the secretary of state, John Kerry, today, making, and I'm quoting this official, "a major goof," saying that Assad, quote, "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons" to avoid potential U.S. military action.

This is actually not a serious proposal according to this U.S. official. So my question to you, sir, is, how much of these upcoming interviews, including the one with Wolf, will actually be damage control now?

FRANK SESNO, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDIA/PUBLIC AFFAIRS, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV.: Well, that's the problem, a lot of it is going to be damage control. You have such competing narratives here, OK. The media need a simple storyline. The public needs a fairly straightforward story line at this time because this is a huge decision, right, does the nation launch military strikes or not? What do we have instead? You have the Kerry initiative, which may have been an off the cuff kind of comment that now muddies the waters.

You have the interview with Bashar Assad, who's now saying this is -- these are all lies, there's not a shred of evidence and now they're dangling this thing with the Russians. You have the politics on Capitol Hill. You have public opinion, which, as you mentioned, is going south. So now the president goes forth, carries on these interviews, but he has to answer all of these questions. This is a big difference from just being able to go out there as the commander in chief and make a simple case. This is not simple.

BALDWIN: So he has the case to make, though. We'll be watching tomorrow night in primetime in tomorrow night's address. I just want to play some sound from one of the newest members of the CNN team, "Crossfire" host Newt Gingrich. And he talked this morning, Frank, he was talking about the president's media blitz today. This was his opinion. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": Candidly, I think it's probably a mistake to do the six interviews. The presidency should be above the norm. Tomorrow night's speech is what matters. If he is successful tomorrow night, he will convince the American people, however reluctantly, that we have no chose but to hit Assad. If he is not successful tomorrow night, his proposal is doomed and will go down to a very, very serious defeat in Congress. So, I think tomorrow night is what matters.

VAN JONES, HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": I agree with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So, Frank, on tomorrow night, what do you think is more important as he addresses the nation? Is it -- is it the smoking gun proof or is it just from the president, as the president as a father as well, seeing these videos of the children in Damascus? Is it just raw emotion?

SESNO: Well, I've been at the White House when presidents have had to give these kinds of speeches to America. What the president confronts this time is a much more skeptical media. So he's not just going to get a free pass going to the public -- a very, very skeptical, anxious, and war-weary public. Essentially, Brooke, he's got to do all of the above. He's got to have something resembling a smoking gun because he's got to say, this actually happened, our allegation is legitimate. He's got to be able to make a moral case for yet another military intervention by this country. He's got to say what something approaching an end game is going to be. What's the point of these strikes. He's got to address America's diplomatic and maybe military isolation or relative isolation. It's a herculean task right now and that's why you're seeing this frenetic maneuvering behind the scenes.

By the way, Newt Gingirch may well be right. I can't recall seeing a president go to so many places, so fast, so urgently. It's part of the all of the above strategy, but it -- and the risk is that he stretches himself too thin, says something that's off message some place that then comes back to haunt him. He's really got a sisofian (ph) task here.

BALDWIN: Six interviews tonight and then the big primetime address. Frank Sesno, than you so much, from George Washington University. We always appreciate having you on.

Let me just remind you, watch it live, set your DVRs now, tonight at 11:00 p.m. Eastern, Jake Tapper leads our coverage of the crisis in Syria. "The Decision Point," tonight, 11:00 p.m.

Coming up, as we are watching and waiting to hear for the first time publicly on this, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighing in. Her thoughts on Syria. And if she thinks the United States should intervene. We will take that for you live when that happens from the White House.

Also a new report suggests Bashar al-Assad did not personally sign off on a chemical weapon attack. Does that matter to the U.S.? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Well, if you're seen his latest interview, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is still denying his government used chemical weapons. In fact, he's saying his troops were actually victims of the chemical weapons launched by the rebels. Here he was talking to CBS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASSAD, SYRIA: Our soldiers, in another area, were attacked chemically. Our soldiers. They went to the hospital as casualties because of chemical weapons. But in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video, and we only have pictures and allegations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: All right, getting word here, we're going to pull away from the interview and go straight to the White House. There's her daughter. Hopefully --

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you all.

BALDWIN: Behind this head is Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state. There we go. Everybody's seated and we can take a listen as she is expected to address, for the first time publicly, Syria.

CLINTON: Exciting announcement, very important on this issue, earlier. Thanks to all of my former colleagues in government, thanks to all the ambassadors and other representatives of countries concerned about wildlife protection and the urgency of stopping the killing and the poaching. And thanks especially to the leaders of both American and international conservation groups who have been in the trenches for so long on this issue.

I especially want to thank Judith McHale, who is chairing the council of distinguished outside advisers, some of whom you have just heard from. In addition to her service as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, when Judith was president and CEO of Discovery Communications, she helped produce the landmark 1989 documentary "Ivory Wars," which built crucial support for passage of the international convention on wildlife trafficking. And it is not only time, it's probably past time to galvanize a new international movement against poaching and trafficking. So it's wonderful having Judith and her colleagues back on this case.

Before I get to the subject at hand, I'd like to say a few words about Syria.

A vigorous and important debate is underway in Congress and around kitchen tables all over America. This is a challenge that has catalyzed the kind of debate that I think is good for our democracy. As you know, this is a fluid situation with statements from Russia, Syria, and others in the last several hours. I've just come from a meeting with President Obama where we discussed the latest developments. And three points in particular are at the heart of the decision our country and our Congress has to make in the days ahead.

First, as the president has said, the Assad regime's inhuman use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent men, women, and children, violates a universal norm at the heart of our global order and therefore it demands a strong response from the international community, led by the United States.

Second, the international community cannot ignore the ongoing threat from the Assad regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons. Whether they are used again against Syrian civilians or transferred to Hezbollah, or stolen by other terrorists.