Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Fiorina Secures Spot on Main Debate Stage; Trump on the Attack Against Fiorina, Carson & Clinton; Remembering the September 11th Attacks 14 Years Later. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired September 11, 2015 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:02] JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICIAL ANALYST: But that's part of her personality.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Sure.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Margaret, John --

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think there's a reason she's protective of her privacy and her dancing.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMEROTA: On that note, John, Margaret, thanks so much. Have a nice weekend. Thanks for being here.

Make sure to watch the CNN Republican debate. It is this Wednesday, if I haven't mentioned that. It's September 16th. Set your DVRs.

The first happy hour round, this is who will be on stage, 6:00 p.m. Eastern. And at 8:00, here, we are happy to announce who will be on the main stage, these 11 candidates 8:00 p.m. when they take the stage.

Michaela?

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Fourteen years after 9/11, how much progress have we made fighting terrorism? Are we being misled by government's so-called "happy talk"? We are going to discuss that ahead.

Right now, though, we leave you with a live look at the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan on this September 11th.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:35:05] PEREIRA: The lineup for next week's CNN Republican debate is set. Carly Fiorina is going from the undercard debate to the main stage. She'll be alongside ten other top candidates from the first debate. Donald Trump will be in the middle of the stage with Carson to his right, Jeb Bush to his left. Trump drawing more fire in Hillary Clinton's direction, saying debating her would be one of the easiest challenges of his life.

CUOMO: Federal authorities arresting a Florida man and foiling what they say was a plot to attack a 9/11 memorial event in Kansas City. The target, a Kansas City stair climb in honor of victims of September 11th. Officials alleged the suspect 20-year-old Joshua Goldberg was recruiting people online. They say he distributed information to an informant about how to manufacture a bomb.

CAMEROTA: Disturbing photos giving us our first look at the site of one of the worst mass shootings in American history. We warn you, these pictures are very disturbing. Turn away if you don't want to see them because this is the Colorado movie theater where James Holmes went on his shooting spree. You can see seats torn apart by the force of bullets. You can see bloody napkins, foods strewn on the floor. Holmes' gun lying on the ground along with flip-flops left behind by someone trying to escape.

PEREIRA: Pope Francis speaking n calling on world leaders on how to preserve the environment. The pontiff addressing a group of scientists who gathered in Rome to participate in a two-day conference on climate change. It is the first time he has spoken on the environment since his controversial encyclical was published back in June.

CUOMO: He actually added abusing the environment a list of deadly sins.

CAMEROTA: Wow.

CUOMO: Oh, yes.

CAMEROTA: Yes, he's doing all sorts of bold things. We look forward to his visit here.

PEREIRA: Coming very, very soon.

CAMEROTA: Yes, it will be news worthy, no doubt.

CUOMO: Fourteen years to the day since America's darkest hour, with the New Yorkers and the nation remembering 9/11. We're going to take a closer at the war on terror. It's part of what we mean when we say "never forget".

So, how is it going now that we hear the government is rewriting intelligence reports? Are they trying to keep us in the dark, again?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:41:10] CUOMO: This is Lower Manhattan today on 9/11. More of a reminder of what was there than what you see now. In just a few hours, we will hear the reading of the names of those who lost their lives at the site of the Twin Towers 14 years ago.

We say never forget, and part of that is dealing with the threat of the terrorists. So, have we gotten better, safer?

We asked these questions in light of a new report from the "Daily Beast" that says intelligence reports about ISIS, the leading threat in the world. Those reports are being watered down.

Let's discuss. Phil Mudd, CNN counterterrorism analyst and former CIA counterterrorism official.

Good to have you, my friend.

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Good morning.

CUOMO: Let's start with the big question first. We'll get to the specifics about "The Daily Beast" right after. But 14 years later, are we safer? What does that mean to you in terms of analysis of threat and our ability to deal and react?

MUDD: I remember being evacuated 14 years ago. I never forget. It felt like a movie set. I was at the executive office building at the White House.

And now, as I look back, it's about how you ask the question. The architects of 9/11, they're gone. The al Qaeda organization, not ISIS but al Qaeda, gutted, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans.

If you talk about how America thinks about terrorism, you've just seen reports over the past 24 hours, American intelligence leaders say they see no major threat to America today that they would warn people about on 9/11.

If you told Americans that on September 12th, 14 years ago, I think they'd say, wow, no catastrophic attack, al Qaeda gutted, no big threat on 9/11, we are OK. If you ask a question about the future, I would say ISIS holds it seeds for threatening the United States for maybe 10 or 20 years.

The British arrested more people last year in Britain, more British citizens, including more women and girls than they have since 9/11. It was their biggest year ever since 9/11. So, I think we are doing OK, but I think we've got another couple of decades of this stuff.

CUOMO: Well, and in terms of the duration, that takes us to the specific question of the day, "The Daily Beast" reporting, which is how do we fight this war? What are we told about? I'll put up the full screen that is really driving the intrigue.

This from "The Daily Beast", "Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are."

OK? Let's keep it there so they can read the rest for themselves online.

Now, you say it's not as simple as that. How does it work? Why isn't this just a watering down a deception?

MUDD: I think there's two questions. First, the boring management question. There's clearly some sort of toxic management environment here that leads analyst to say, I've got to object through other channels. There's a different question about whether analysis was watered down.

And I will tell you, this story is more complicated than it looks, simple reason why -- we have been at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for nearly 15 years. There's a lot of intelligence professionals and generals who've done a lot of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The analysis that is done is not analysis of facts. It's an analysis of judgment. How do we think we are doing against ISIS? Those people reviewing it might look at the work and say, I have been there, I don't believe this. Why would I go tell the president or the Congress, I have different views on a situation?

The last thing I would say is analysts, generally, themselves are bias. I've managed thousands of analysts. Analysts come to the table. And every day, they are going to tell you, the sky is falling, something is wrong, we're not -- they are not paid to say things are doing well.

CUOMO: Here is the concern. When you hear this, the words that pop into your head or mind, at least, are yellow cake.

MUDD: Yes.

CUOMO: Yellow cake pops into my head, where the intelligence was designed to suit a narrative. Many people believe that got us into a war that took a lot of lives and treasure, and didn't need to and didn't help us.

[06:45:03] Do you believe that goes on? And if so, is this exposure of it?

MUDD: It's not clear to me that that's what happened in this case. I think it's worth investigating. The inspector general from the Pentagon has to investigate it. I sat there, let me be blunt, in front of Dick Cheney, the former vice president, before Iraq. He crushed me. That's difficult situation for an analyst to sit in front of the vice president and have him question everything you say.

If you don't have the courage to stand-up and say, I'm sorry Mr. Vice president, I'm sorry Mr. General --

CUOMO: Crushed you how? Were you saying that you don't think it's there and he was saying, no, it has to be there?

MUDD: Well, the conversations we have had and this has been documented about the extent of Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda. His perspective was different than ours at the agency. He came over to the agency and we had some difficult conversations.

I don't think that's wrong, I think it's important for analysts to have a voice, as a career analysts, when I heard analysts say, I don't feel like I have a voice, and then complain when they're under political pressure, I'd say, you can't have it both ways.

CUOMO: But did you feel the political pressure that was coming at you, and I ask this because I think it's instructive of the point, that they wanted to go to war and you were telling them, we don't think your basis for wanting to go there will hold up?

MUDD: No, I think it was slightly different. They wanted to go to war. This was not an intelligence driven-war. The White House wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And our answer would have been, that's a political decision if you want to put American lives at risk. If you want to use intelligence this way, we can't back you.

CUOMO: That's the concern, right?

MUDD: Yes, yes, absolutely.

CUOMO: Does the rhetoric meet the rationale from those we're supposed to know? Philip Mudd --

MUDD: That's right. Just quickly, again, analyst complain, the inspector general has to figure out whether the commanders had the intent to change it because they wanted to water it down or because they thought the analysts were wrong.

CUOMO: That's the issue.

Philip Mudd, thank you very much.

MUDD: Thanks.

CUOMO: I wish you the best on this day.

MUDD: Take care.

CUOMO: Mick?

PEREIRA: Hillary Clinton taking aim at Donald Trump for insulting women, including one of his Republican rivals. But does Trump really have a problem with women voters? Where does Clinton stand with them?

The head of the National Organization for Women joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[06:51:17] HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And there is one particular candidate who just seems to delight in insulting women every chance he gets. I have to say, if he emerges, I would love to debate him.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Hillary Clinton there talking, of course, about Donald Trump, the candidate in trouble for comments he made about a woman this time, Carly Fiorina's looks, which he defended here on NEW DAY in his interview with Chris yesterday.

But Trump's contentious comments about women, they don't seem to be hurting him in the polls. Why is that?

Joining us now, Terry O'Neill, she's the president of the National Organization for Women. That group has endorsed Hillary Clinton. We'll talk about that in a moment.

But, Terry, thank you for joining us.

I think we have to talk right off the bat about those numbers. When you look at the polls, Donald Trump takes a third of the Republican women's votes. In fact, since August, he's up 13 percent.

What do you think is going on?

TERRY O'NEILL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: You know, I think what's going on is women voters actually are looking at their pragmatic concerns, their pocketbook concerns. And Donald Trump has talked about imposing taxes, realistic taxes on the wealthiest. That is something that is very popular among women. Donald Trump has talked about the minimum wage. He's talked about universal health care. Those are all issues that are very popular with women.

I think that the surge in women's support for Trump reflects women's real concerns about their families' finances.

CUOMO: Well, Ms. O'Neill, please explain that to the audience a little bit better, because there are plenty of high earning women, however, there's a transition in American culture about women being the heads of households. Tell us about the nature of those households, what the financial burdens are, and why women care about certain issue.

O'NEILL: Exactly, Chris. Look, 40 percent of households have women as the sole or primary breadwinner. More than half of households in this country, the women's wages are absolutely essential to the ability of that household to keep its head above water.

And the reality is, two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. These are workers who don't get health care benefits, and they are working at poverty wages. The federal minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour.

So, women across the country are very much aware of the economic insecurity many of them face. And part of the reason why the minimum wage hasn't gone up is because too many politicians are enthralled to too many forces, too many corporate forces that want to keep the minimum wage low.

CAMEROTA: So, is that -- I mean, so given that Donald Trump is talking about that and of course your own household income is at the top of your head as a voter over whatever stat he's in with Carly Fiorina. But should people be speaking out more forcefully against Donald Trump's attacks often on women's looks?

I mean, even Carly Fiorina herself basically said, I don't want to get into that. I'm getting under his skin. Should she have said something more forceful?

O'NEILL: You know, I think that there are studies out there that show two interesting tings, that when a woman politician is attacked on her looks, on her appearance, on what she's wearing, her poll numbers will go down unless and until she calls it out. She identifies the attack as misogynist, which is what Mr. Trump's attacks on women are, very misogynist.

And when that gets called out, then the women politician numbers tend to go up. So, basically, the politician who says -- who calls it out, then shakes it off is in the best position to respond to these misogynistic attacks.

CUOMO: He says he cherishes him, ask his wife and his daughter. How do you reconcile that with some of the things that he says?

[06:55:01] O'NEILL: It's like Hillary Clinton said. That's not the same thing as respect.

I have been really struck by the passion in Donald Trump's attitude toward women. It's a passionate hate, quite frankly. It doesn't take much to trigger him to explode in a really passionate venting. He calls women animals and he says they are horrible and he said about Megyn Kelly, you know, being on her period, but that's why she was angry.

This comes from a really deep emotional place, it looks, with Donald Trump. So, it's serious and I think that's going to hurt him, ultimately, with women voters.

PEREIRA: Meanwhile, we know your organization has thrown its support behind Hillary Clinton. We know that there are other candidates who said they have support and have proven they support women.

Tell us why the organization is endorsing this candidate.

O'NEILL: Yes, you know, the good news is on the Democratic side, that we have great candidates and potential candidates, from women's point of view.

When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she uniquely insisted on bringing women's rights and women's equality into every aspect of what the State Department of the United States did. She did not just meet with the elite women when she visited different countries. She didn't just go with the Sheryl Sandberg's of those countries. She wanted to meet with the leaders of the organized women's movement. These are the people at the grassroots level that are working for equality for women.

She understands the need to push and to create policies that will really get us towards equality. And I -- and that's why our organization endorsed her, proudly and early.

PEREIRA: Terry O'Neill, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

And for those of you at home, if you want to get involved in the conversation, you can tweet us using #CNNNewDay. Also, post those comments on Facebook.com/NewDay.

We are following a lot of news on this Friday. Let's get right to it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Big news about the debate. We now know who is on the stage on Wednesday.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump continues to defy political convention.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R-LA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The idea of Trump is great. The reality is awful.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm pretty confident I'm going to be the Republican nominee.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: New polls have Sanders edging ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People are sick and tired of establishment politics.

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Be careful what you wish for.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some 50 boats land on this Greek island a day.

The orange life jackets, kind of unofficial uniform for the migrants.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 14th anniversary of one of the most tragic events in U.S. history.

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota and Michaela Pereira.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Good morning, everyone, and welcome back to your NEW DAY. It is Friday, September 11th.

And this morning, we can't help but reflect on the terror attack that changed all of us 14 years ago. Here is a live look for you at One World Trade. They are commemorating at the World Trade Center site and at the White House and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

As well as, here is the Pentagon, where the American flag was just unfolded. CNN will have coverage of this throughout the day.

CUOMO: Few things concern and unite Americans like terrorism and, of course, it's a major issue facing the candidates vying to be the next commander in chief. This morning, we have a brand new poll that shows more to celebrate for Donald Trump and Ben Carson. But a real stunning slide for one candidate who once led in the state polls.

So, we also have a big win for Carly Fiorina. She's secured a spot in the main stage in CNN's GOP debate. But can she shine in prime time like she did in happy hour? Legit questions.

CNN's Athena Jones begins our coverage this hour from Washington -- Athena.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Chris.

That's right. More good news for Trump, he's still on top in this new Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Republicans. Take a look here, Trump there at 27 percent. Carson is right behind him, Ben Carson, also an outsider candidate, never been elected to public office. Both of them up a lot since July.

And there you see Scott Walker. This is very bad news for him, his lead has evaporated. He has fallen down near the bottom you see him. He has fallen 15 points in Iowa since June.

But here is another important number from that poll. Look at how many people say they would definitely not support Trump or Jeb Bush, for that matter. Take a look here. That number is 25 percent for Trump. Bush is right behind him at 23 percent.

And then take a look all the way to the bottom of the list. You have Ben Carson down there at 3 percent. Only 3 percent of folks saying they would not support him. So, very good news for Ben Carson.

And lastly, when you look at the favorability numbers for the top two candidates in this poll, you see that Ben Carson leads Trump on that point by nearly 20 points. Take a look. Seventy-nine percent for Carson compared to just 60 percent for Trump. That number for Trump is high. But his unfavorable numbers are also much, much higher than Carson's there at 35 percent.