Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israel Says Seven of Its Soldiers Killed in Ground Ops in Lebanon; Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) Spar on Policy But Remain Civil at V.P. Debate; Biden Orders Deployment of 1,000 Active-Duty Soldiers to North Carolina. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired October 02, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Pamela Brown in Washington.

And we begin with breaking news out of the Middle East. Israel has just announced that seven more of its soldiers have been killed in ground operations in Southern Lebanon, bringing the total number to eight.

CNN Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciutto is in Tel Aviv. And, Jim, this comes as Israel is sending thousands more troops to take part in a ground fight in Lebanon.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This is a significant loss for the Israeli military, a just in the first couple of days of this ground incursion into southern Lebanon, which we should note, it's the first time in 18 years. You have to go back to the 2006 war for when Israel last sent significant numbers of ground forces into Southern Lebanon. And to have this death toll this early in those operations is a measure of the danger, the danger on the ground there as Israel confronts Hezbollah, not just from the air, as we've seen with a significant number of airstrikes, but in ground combat.

This comes as Israel is considering retaliation for last night's unprecedented missile attack. Some 180 ballistic missiles fired here at Israel, the vast majority of them shot down, but some striking the ground, including around us here in Central Tel Aviv last night.

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): Thanks, Jim. Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: First, I want to begin with this significant Israeli loss. Our understanding, this was in a firefight between an Israeli commando unit and presumably Hezbollah fighters on the other side of the border. This brings back echoes of the 2006 war when Israel suffered significant casualties with an uncertain outcome after the end of that war. It lasted about a month. I wonder, in your view, does this human cost so early on signal that this operation might be more dangerous than some had imagined?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, no, I think Israelis know that it's dangerous, but I think they understand that it's more dangerous to allow Iran proxies on your border. The appeasement of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, can no longer stand. And we saw this actually just yesterday in Tel Aviv with a terrorist attack that's killing people, you know, that were just on the high speed rail.

And so this mission is going to be dangerous. It is limited in scope. It is trying to push Hezbollah back away from the border so that people in Israel can return to their homes. Remember, Hezbollah has fired 9,000 rockets in the Northern Israel. 50,000 plus people have had to flee their homes there.

So, Israel is trying to establish some sort of normal to normalize, you know, the situation in the north so that people can return to their homes, but also to reestablish deterrence with Iran and its proxies.

SCIUTTO: I understand that I've spent a lot of time in Northern Israel and talked to some of those families who have left. But, as you know, Israel's track record of attempting exactly the same is spotty at best. It occupied Lebanon for 18 years, from 1982 to 2000, then again had the war in 2006, perhaps caused some damage some losses for Hezbollah, but Hezbollah lived to survive another day.

And I just wonder, given the parallel efforts for some sort of negotiated agreement where perhaps the Lebanese military takes over control for Southern Lebanon might be a more lasting path rather than military action alone.

MOSKOWITZ: Yes, no I'm not against that. I think you're right. I think we'll have to get to a negotiated solution at some point. But in the meantime, I think Israel wants to degrade the amount of weapons that are on their border, tens of thousands of missiles and rockets, pretty advanced stuff, not like us. And Israel wants to go and degrade some of that capacity before we get to that situation.

[11:05:01]

No one's talking about occupying Lebanon, right? This is a limited mission, a limited incursion, trying to restore some of the balance out there. But also, Jim, this is unprecedented territory, made 180 ballistic missiles launched at Israel yesterday, the second time that has happened. This is all connected. It's not happening in a vacuum, as you know.

SCIUTTO: No question, and we were right in the middle of that missile barrage last night. The question now is how does Israel respond on? And as you know that there is a camp in this country that sees an opportunity now that says that now is the time perhaps to strike Iran's nuclear facilities or even to attempt to bring about regime change in Iran via military action. And I wonder, do you think those are achievable goals for Israel or ones more likely to spark a broader war?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, look, obviously I would like to see the supreme leader gone in Iran. No one should be talking about using this opportunity for regime change. I think that's -- you know, that's just way too far. That being said, I don't think we should take Israel or the United States should take any options off the table militarily as far as the response is concerned. We shouldn't telegraph what we're not willing to do.

At the end of the day, if you're Iran and you don't want your nuclear facilities to be taken out, well, one way to guarantee that is to not launch 180 ballistic missiles at another country that has the ability to take out your nuclear facility. If you don't want your oil fields taken out, don't launch 180 ballistic missiles at another country.

And so, you know, at the end of the day, Jim, we'll see what Israel's response is going to be. I'm sure that's going to be done with talks with the United States. But, yes, this is a very serious circumstance and Israel will have -- there will be severe repercussions for firing 180 ballistic missiles at another country.

If that happened to England or France or any European country, it would be significant. We can't just brush it off and be like, okay, they fired 80-plus missiles, let's get to a ceasefire.

SCIUTTO: Just quickly, because you mentioned the U.S. Are you saying the U.S. should be involved in an Iranian -- rather an Israeli response to this Iranian attack?

MOSKOWITZ: No, I think the Israelis can handle that on their own. I'm just saying that because we have, you know, joint command out there, I'm sure the United States will be well aware of what Israel's planning to do.

SCIUTTO: Understood. Congressman Jared Moskowitz, we do appreciate you joining this morning.

MOSKOWITZ: Thanks, Jim. Stay safe.

SCIUTTO: Pamela, dicey time, lots to watch for out here. We'll certainly keep you updated.

BROWN: It certainly is. We'll check back in with you later. Thanks so much, Jim.

And we have a lot more to get to as well. Of course, there was that debate last night. Did you watch it this morning? Both campaigns are claiming victory following a surprisingly civil vice presidential election, one that we're not really used to seeing one that featured policy over personal attacks. But did the candidates do enough to sway those undecided voters, those movable voters, in a razor thin race that has seemed stuck?

Let's go straight to CNN's M.J. Lee for the latest on last night's debate. So, M.J., how is the Harris campaign reacting to the debate today?

M.J. LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, this was the vice presidential debate, but, of course, the focus really was overwhelmingly on the two people at the top of the ticket, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, throughout the night.

And what we saw was the two vice presidential nominees sparring over a number of most important issues to the voters, including, of course, the issue of foreign policy right off the top, including this unfolding situation in the Middle East, reproductive rights and immigration, two of the most politically salient issues here in the U.S., of course, and also the all important issue of the economy and inflation.

There were no serious fireworks, as you mentioned, Pamela. We didn't see the two candidates doing name calling or trading personal insults or anything like that, but we did see some sparks fly towards the end of the evening when the issue of the January 6th insurrection came up and the question of whether Donald Trump believes that he lost the 2020 election, J.D. Vance would not directly answer that question.

And for the Harris campaign, this was a standout moment for Governor Walz. And overnight, they have already turned this exchange into a political ad. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: He is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election?

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Tim, I'm focused on the future.

WALZ: That is a damning non-answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: Now, I think it's safe to say that neither campaign believes last night and this one debate was going to somehow change the trajectory of the 2024 race, but especially because last night could have been the last debate before Election Day.

[11:10:00]

They obviously recognize that this was a hugely important opportunity to try to speak to a large audience with just a couple of weeks to go until Election Day.

BROWN: Yes, and voting already underway in several states. M.J. Lee, thank you so much.

Well, former President Donald Trump says last night's V.P. debate is yet another reason why you won't see him do a second debate with Vice President Kamala Harris saying, quote, Kamala just put out a request for another debate because they lost so badly tonight again. It's like the fighter who lost who gets up and says, I want a rematch.

CNN's Steve Contorno joins us now. So, Steve, how is the Trump campaign viewing last night's performance by Senator J.D. Vance?

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN REPORTER: They're quite pleased, Pam. You know, this is part of the reason why they picked J.D. Vance as Donald Trump's running mate. They believe that he has been an articulate defender of Donald Trump in many of his media appearances, and they feel like he delivered on some pretty lofty expectations last night. He has been a very good at explaining Donald Trump in ways that Donald Trump himself is somewhat unintelligible on.

And you look at when he talked about Donald Trump's remarks about they're eating the pets in Springfield, Ohio, or that he has, quote, concepts of plans on healthcare. Vance was asked about both those issues last night in those remarks by Donald Trump, and he was able to not only defend Donald Trump, but also go on the offense and explain away those issues.

The question, of course, is how voters ultimately will feel about J.D. Vance's performance. He entered last night with more people having an unfavorable view of him than a favorable view of him, and he certainly tried to project a different kind of personality than the caricature that Democrats have turned him into over the past few months. However, we'll have to wait and see whether voters actually respond to the J.D. Vance that appeared on their television screens last night.

BROWN: Yes, he clearly tried to combat that right off right at the very beginning when he talked about his biography and he comes from a working class family, as you point out. What will that do for the voters' perception? That is really the central question right now.

Steve Contorno, thank you so much.

And still ahead this hour, undecided voters, those movable voters, yes, believe it or not, they do exist, even in such a sharply divided election. The one moment from last night's V.P. debate that changed some minds, that's next.

You are live in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:00]

BROWN: Well, last night's vice presidential debate turned out to be a pretty civil event, actually, with both candidates focusing more on policy than personal attacks.

So, let's discuss more with our panel, chief content officer for the Daily Beast, Joanna Cole, senior political commentator for Puck, Tara Palmeri, and Washington correspondent for the Atlanta Journal- Constitution, Tia Mitchell.

So, we're hearing from both campaigns, right, spinning this as a win for each of them. No surprise there. But we've heard from the voters who are really -- they're the ones that matter right now, and a lot of them told us that, look, they were pleasantly surprised. It seemed like a breath of fresh air. They expected a heat of back and forth and attack after attack. It really wasn't like that.

Joanna, what is your take, and how much do you think the debate could impact voters in the end? I mean, that's really what matters.

JOANNA COLE, CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER, DAILY BEAST: Well, my take is I really want to move to Minnesota. It sounds absolutely fantastic, number one in healthcare, it's easy to buy a house there. I thought Tim Walz did a good job of promoting Minnesota. I think he failed to land a few blows on J.D. Vance.

And I think probably J.D. Vance woke up this morning feeling hugely relieved. He went into this, as you said earlier before the break, incredibly unpopular, startlingly unpopular with his own party, as well as voters. He wants a national abortion ban. He's admitted making up stories about immigrants eating pets, which has led to all sorts of problems in Ohio. Even the Republican governor has come out and asked him to stop doing it. And he's the man that said he wouldn't have ratified the 2020 election.

So, I think he woke up feeling happy this morning. I think Don Jr., who clearly recommended him to his father woke up feeling a little bit more relieved that his man delivered. And I think what you saw is a man who's really good in a T.V. debate studio, which is what you get from learning law at Yale.

But I think the polls looks as if voters were sort of split either way. And it was a better evening for J.D. Vance than I think it was for Tim Waltz.

BROWN: Yes, let's talk about the polls. They show that there's no clear winner in last night's debate, that it was a virtual tie. Tara, to bring you in, would you agree with that or did one of them stand out to you? We just heard Joanna say she thought it was a better night for J.D. Vance than Walz.

TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: I think I'd absolutely agree with the polls. And I think if you are a partisan, you will think that your man won last night. You'll give, you know, Tim Walz a little grace for his awkwardness, his obvious nervousness about being there, you know, his inability to really fight J.D. Vance. He seemed to not want to go into the fray with him and fact-check him in the way that he could because he's clearly not as good as good as J.D. and being in hostile environments, dealing with direct, pointed questions.

[11:20:05]

He frankly hasn't had many press opportunities. He hasn't taken them himself to face, you know, the heat and the press. He admitted that he was not a good debater before. We thought it was all expectation setting, but he was actually a lot weaker than I think a lot of people imagine. But I do think if you're looking at it, you probably gave him the benefit of the doubt just because he seemed like a nice enough guy, right? And he really did -- he did get excited and he knew a lot about the policy positions. J.D. Vance -- Governor Waltz, actually allowed J.D. Vance to up his favorability because he didn't take him to task. He allowed him to sort of make some, you know, obvious untruths, lies, misstatements and didn't call it out on it. And he agreed with him a lot. He gave him credit for some of his statements. They seemed to get along and it presented a more likable version of J.D. Vance. And I think you saw that in some of the snap polls at CNN that he went up by 20 points in his favorability rating.

So, you know, either side, you come out of it, you're like, I feel like I know about this guy a little bit more, but I don't think people are going out to vote for the vice presidential debate, people who are still undecided. They probably weren't even tuned in at all. And I doubt many ads are going to be clipped around this, maybe some viral videos. Donald Trump seemed to be ready to move on. He was tweeting about Pete Rose in the middle of the debate.

BROWN: Let me jump in here because you talk about the undecided voters, and actually we did talk to some after the debate, our Phil Mattingly. And actually I want to play a clip from one of them. I think it's always good to hear from the voters themselves, because, again, that's what matters here. That's why we do these debates. And here's one who actually said that he's voting for Kamala Harris after last night's debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm going to be voting for Kamala Harris. You know, one of the stark sort of aspects of that debate that really stuck with me was when they were talking about January 6th and how Mike Pence certified the election and they were wondering if J.D. Vance would certify the election should Trump lose. And, you know, J. D. Vance didn't really give us a definitive answer and I am disappointed in that fact. And I don't think that I can trust someone, you know, with my vote if they're not going to respect it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And, of course, there were also voters who listened to what J.D. Vance had to say and also said they're going to vote for Trump now.

But, Tia, to bring you in because you have been right there in the think of it on the campaign trail, are there a lot of undecided voters right now who are movable this close to Election Day? I mean, this has been a race that's been pretty stuck and stubbornly stuck for a while.

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Yes, I would say, like Georgia, there are enough voters to swing an election and a close election, like we expect battleground states like Georgia, like North Carolina, (INAUDIBLE). So, undecided voters do count. You mentioned J.D. Vance did not have a great answer and just admitting to the truth that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, which is very obvious yes answer. And we know that Democrats have already cutting at replaying that clip over and over again.

The question is, how many voters who are undecided are like the gentleman who you guys just showed, that that could be a deciding factor, know that usually for undecided voters, they're more motivated by the economy, the cost of goods and things like that.

And that's where I think not so much the debate last night, but the overall messages from the campaigns, there has to be contrast. That's what the debate last night showed us, that when you have a good debater, like J.D. Vance, you can blur some of that contrast and make either side more (INAUDIBLE).

BROWN: It sounds like we're having a little bit of issue with your signal there.

I want to go to Joanna on this next question. This was -- to me, it stuck out as a moment, Joanna, for Walz when he was pressed on his time in China, specifically his claim that he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. He says he misspoke, but then he also seemed to say again that he was there when, in fact, he wasn't there. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALZ: I got the opportunity in the summer of '89 to travel to China.

We would take basketball teams, we would take baseball teams, we would take dancers, and we would go back and forth to China. I've not been perfect, and I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The question was, can you explain the discrepancy?

WALZ: All I said on this was, is I got there that summer and misspoke on this. So, I will just -- that's what I've said. So, I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest went in. And from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:25:03]

BROWN: What did you think about that? Does it need to go further in clearing it up?

COLES: I think it was very clear to people that he'd exaggerated. He tried to put himself nearer the center of extraordinary global drama. And I thought actually him saying, listen, I was a knucklehead was a perfectly good, understandable answer.

I was a little surprised he didn't have slightly better preparation for it but it was endearing. And I think Tara's point about people giving him a little bit of grace for the fact he was clearly nervous is probably true. But what's sort of fascinating is how comfortable he is on big rallies, on a big stage, how comfortable he is also in a donut shop but actually how much more he's got to learn about being in a television studio.

And I did think there's one point. It's fairly typical that people say, oh, the vice presidents don't really matter, they don't swing it either way. The only thing that I think is different about this election is that it is at the top of people's minds that Donald Trump has actually been -- you know, come within quarter of an inch of actually losing his life in an attempted assassination. So, President Vance is actually much more of a possibility than one would normally think.

And I thought last night, actually, he appeared much more presidential than he has done to date. And also what's interesting is that the debate format in each of the three debates we've had this year has favored the younger candidates, so Trump over Biden, Kamala over Trump, and I think last night, J.D. Vance over Walz.

BROWN: But it was interesting. We didn't even get to talk about this. We have to go. But, you know, the idea of him trying to build trust with voters on issues, like abortion, for example, when you have Trump flip-flopping on that so many times, you have Vance saying he didn't go for an abortion ban -- federal abortion ban, even though he has in the past, and you have to question how that is building trust.

That conversation to be continued, so much more to dive into, but we have to go because we have some breaking news on the other side of this break. Thank you, Joanna Coles, Tara Palmeri, Tia Mitchell.

We're just learning in CNN that President Biden has directed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to deploy 1,000 active duty soldiers to help with Helene recovery efforts.

I want to bring in CNN's Arlette Saenz from the White House. When could the hardest hit areas see this help? Tell us more, Arlette.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, the White House says that these troops will be available for deployment immediately starting today. Many of these troops would be coming from a battalion base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and President Biden directed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to approve the deployment of up to a thousand active duty soldiers to help with the recovery efforts down in North Carolina specifically.

Now, the goal here is that having these troops on the ground will helpfully help speed up the delivery and access to some of the key resources that these devastated communities need in this moment. This is actually on top of the already hundreds of North Carolina National Guard who are working around the clock to try to clear out roads, try to get more resources into these hardest hit communities.

Now, this announcement comes as President Biden in just the next hour is expected to leave the White House to travel down to see some of this devastation first hand. He will be making stops in South Carolina and North Carolina, really focusing on emergency management. He will also be taking an aerial tour of Western North Carolina, one of the hardest hits areas. Officials explaining the reason he's doing an aerial tour is because so many of the roads are inaccessible in that Asheville area, as you've seen these devastating images play out. But the White House at this moment trying to show that they're taking more steps to help this storm ravaged community recover. Biden said that this will be a recovery that will take quite some time.

BROWN: All right. Arlette Saenz from the White House for us, thanks so much.

And still ahead this hour, new details about the Israeli military bases struck by Iranian missiles. The IDF is vowing to retaliate.

We're going to take you live to Tel Aviv up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:00]