Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Obama on Trump: 'I Don't Think He's Qualified to Be President': Clinton, Trump Square Off at Forum; Trump: U.S. Generals Have Been Reduced to Rubble'. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 08, 2016 - 06:00   ET

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

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:58:31] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome to your NEW DAY. And we do begin with breaking news. President Obama just minutes ago on an international stage saying last night's forum makes clear Donald Trump is not qualified to be president.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: The president warning voters about Trump hours after Trump criticized the president's foreign policy. CNN White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski is traveling with the president, and she joins us live from Laos -- Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You know, after what was said last night, let's put this in perspective. There's another press conference two days ago. The president was not asked a single question about Donald Trump.

This time it was the first thing out of the gate. Asked about Donald Trump's comments on generals, that Obama has reduced them to rubble. Asked about what Donald Trump said about President Obama being humiliated on this trip to Asia.

And we heard President Obama respond in a way similar to how we've heard him -- things that we've heard him say before. He started off by saying Donald Trump is unqualified to be president of the United States, and the president said he confirms that every time he speaks.

But then he took it a step further, saying that you need to listen to some of the things Donald Trump says. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think the guy's qualified to be president of the United States. And every time he speaks, that opinion is confirmed.

And I think the most important thing for the public and the press is to just listen to what he says and follow up and ask questions about what appear to be either contradictory or uninformed or -- there is this process that seems to take place over the course of the election season where somehow behavior that, in normal times, we would consider completely unacceptable and outrageous becomes normalized.

People start thinking -- behavior that, in normal times, we would consider completely unacceptable and outrageous becomes normalized. And people start thinking that we should be grading on a curve.

But I can tell you, from the interactions that I've had over the last eight or nine days with foreign leaders, that this serious business. You actually have to know what you're talking about, and you actually have to have done your homework. And when you speak, it should actually reflect thought-out policy that you can implement.

And I have confidence that if, in fact, people just listen to what he has to say and look at his track record or lack thereof, that they'll make a good decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOSINSKI: You know, on this trip, White House sources have told us that the president has been wanting to get back out on the campaign trail, but his schedule really hasn't allowed him to do that.

He sees the enormous stakes involved. He watches the poll numbers, and he knows the power of his own voice among Democrats, among young people to get out there and vote, which is going to be critical, of course, in this election. But this press conference gave him a chance to weigh in.

And we heard him, you know, say some things that were similar to what he said in the past, but when he rounded it out, you know, he didn't simply say, "I've weighed in on this before. I'm not listening to what Donald Trump is saying." This really gave him a chance to say a little more, to go a little bit further before he can get out on the trail again next month.

CUOMO: All right, Michelle. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

So last night Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump answered questions one after another to a crowd of largely veterans and their families. It was a test on what each would do as commander in chief in a very dangerous world. The two facing tough questions at this national security forum, Trump defending a past tweet about sexual assault in the military and had more praise for Vladimir Putin. Clinton made the case for why she is qualified to be president.

CNN's Sunlen Serfaty joins us with more. The highlights, my friend. What a night.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, what a night, indeed. And both candidates appeared back to back at this national security forum in what quickly turned into a small preview of how they could potentially handle themselves at their first real faceoff at the debate later this month. Both trying to gain the upper hand on the big question: who is ready to be commander in chief.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SERFATY (voice-over): Donald Trump drumming up more controversy.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The man has very strong control over a country. SERFATY: Praising Russian President Vladimir Putin while trashing

President Obama.

TRUMP: He's been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.

SERFATY: And attacking the performance of U.S. military generals, standing by his statement claiming he knows more about ISIS than the generals do.

TRUMP: Under the leadership of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the generals have been reduced to rubble. They have been reduced to a point where it's embarrassing for our country.

SERFATY: But giving no details on his plan to defeat ISIS.

TRUMP: I have a substantial chance of winning. If I win, I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is.

SERFATY: Hillary Clinton making clear her plan to fight ISIS will not include ground troops.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We've got to do it with air power. We've got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again, and we're not putting ground troops into Syria.

SERFATY: Clinton getting grilled over her use of a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state and her vote to go to war with Iraq.

CLINTON: Classified material has a header which says "top secret," "secret," "confidential." Nothing -- and I would -- I will repeat this, and this is verified in the report by the Department of Justice, none of the e-mails sent or received by me had such a header.

I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake.

[06:05:07] SERFATY: Later, Trump repeating his false claim that he opposed the Iraq War from the start.

TRUMP: I've always said, shouldn't be there.

HOWARD STERN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Are you for invading Iraq?

TRUMP: Yes, I guess so. You know, I wish it was -- I wish the first time it was done correctly.

SERFATY: And declaring that the U.S. should have stolen oil from Iraq.

TRUMP: But if we're going to get out, take the oil. If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS. Used to be to the victor belong the spoils. SERFATY: And sparking outrage for defending his controversial 2013

tweet that suggests sexual assault in the military is the result of women serving alongside men.

TRUMP: It is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that's absolutely correct. You have reported and the gentlemen can tell you, you have the report of rape, and nobody gets prosecuted. There are no consequence.

SERFATY: Also drawing criticism, NBC News anchor Matt Lauer being accused of aggressively questioning Clinton.

MATT LAUER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I want to get to a lot of questions...

CLINTON: I will talk quickly.

SERFATY: ... and not fact-checking Trump's claims throughout the event.

TRUMP: I was totally against the war in Iraq. Perhaps almost as bad was the way Barack Obama got out. That was a disaster.

LAUER: People talk about you and commander in chief and not just Secretary Clinton, but some of your Republican opponents in the primary season, and they wonder about your temperament.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SERFATY: And afterwards, both sides slammed the other over their performance. The RNC chair, Reince Priebus, specifically calling out Clinton for, in his words, being angry and defensive the entire time, tweeting out that she had no smile and was uncomfortable, upset that she got -- was caught wrongly sending our secrets.

And the Clinton campaign shooting right back, saying that's just what taking the office of the president seriously looks like. So once again, Chris and Alisyn, both sides here really trying to gain advantage over the question of who has the right temperament for this job.

CAMEROTA: All right, Sunlen. Thanks so much for laying all that out for us.

If you are just waking up, a lot has happened last night and overnight. We have a super panel here this morning.

We have CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr; CNN counterterrorism analyst and former CIA counterterrorism official, Philip Mudd; CNN political analyst and national political reporter for "The New York Times," Alex Burns; and CNN political analyst and host of "The David Gregory Show" podcast, David Gregory. Great to have all of you here this morning. We have a lot to talk about, David.

What about the president? Let's just start with what the president just said moments ago. He's in Laos, and he was asked about the presidential election back here at home. And he weighed in on Donald Trump. What did you hear?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think what's striking is the president has repeated that he doesn't think that Donald Trump is qualified to be president, based on his most recent comments that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader, is more qualified than President Obama.

I think that anybody who has covered the presidency, anybody who is a student of foreign affairs, knows that Donald Trump speaking about Vladimir Putin in such glowing terms betrays a great lack of preparedness on his part with regard to foreign policy.

You have Vladimir Putin, who has -- who has essentially played two presidents and confounded their trust, both President Bush and President Obama. I think that Donald Trump could have a very difficult time as president assuming this kind of knowledge.

So I think the president saying that is also important, because as a surrogate, he's going to be somebody who's going to be making this argument. He's got enough support out in the country that I think that can be politically important.

CUOMO: Donald Trump basically saying that Vladimir Putin is a better leader than the president of the United States. Here's some of the sound on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him. I've already said he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, "Oh, isn't that a terrible thing." The man has very strong control over a country. Now, it's a very different system, and I don't happen to like the system. But certainly in that system, he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Barbara Starr, forget about the read in the room. What where you hearing from your sources about how that type of talk of favorably comparing Putin to the president of the United States went over?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's fair to say this is going to cause some anxiety, if you will, amongst top military commanders, who are having to confront the Russians around the world.

I mean, look at the moves the Russians are making in Eastern Europe right now. They have thousands of troops in Crimea. They're working on a major military exercise there. They're demonstrating air and ground power to Europe to show that they could defend Crimea and that they could make additional moves in Europe. And you're having Donald Trump praise the man who is behind all of this.

The Russians moving ahead in Syria, causing a good deal of anxiety in the U.S. The Russians behind the bombing campaign against Aleppo that is such a humanitarian disaster right now. That's the kind of leadership, this kind of bombing of civilians and hospitals in Aleppo, that's the kind of leadership that Vladimir Putin is demonstrating right now. And that is the kind of thing that is causing the U.S. military and the Obama administration a lot of concern.

[06:10:08] I can't think of anything that they would disagree with Donald Trump on perhaps more than this.

CAMEROTA: Let's move on to something else controversial that came up at the commander in chief forum last night. And that was the crisis of sexual assault in the military. Matt Lauer asked Donald Trump about this tweet that he had sent out in 2013.

Donald Trump sent a tweet that said, "26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military, only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?" That was the tweet that he sent out.

And then last night when Matt Lauer asked about it, here was his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, it is -- it is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that that's absolutely correct. And we need to have a strength...

LAUER: So this should have been expected, and does that mean the only way to fix it is to take women out of the military?

TRUMP: Well, it's happening. And by the way, since then, it's gotten worse. No, not to kick them out, but something has to be -- happen. Right now part of the problem is nobody gets prosecuted. You have reported, and the gentlemen can tell you, you have the report of rape; and nobody gets prosecuted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right, Alex. What are you hearing about his response there and how that went over?

ALEX BURNS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Alisyn, I think they're -- you see Trump in a pretty familiar pattern on that answer, where he gets held to account for something intemperate or ill-considered that he said in the past. And he won't apologize. He won't back down. And he won't even really defend the substance of his remarks. He just kind of turns on his fog machine where he starts talking about a bunch of related topics, and by the end of his answer, you've kind of moved off the main question.

That's going to be a really, really hard act to sustain over the next two months. When Democrats see him giving that kind of answer, and frankly when Republicans who don't care for him see him giving that kind of answer, they just see fodder for days and days of asking other Republicans to support or disavow his comments, of asking Mike Pence if he agrees with Donald Trump on these issues. It's just a wealth of opportunities. You see it on the Russia policy

stuff, as well, where Trump offered new material in a way that Hillary Clinton, as uncomfortable as she may have been here and there, really didn't.

CUOMO: Trump said last night that an undocumented immigrant may be able to stay in this country as long as they want to serve in the military. If that's not a departure from what he's been saying in the past, I don't know what is.

But one of the things that kept coming up last night in responses I got from the forum was this is the first time that people got to see Clinton and Trump answering serious questions from people who deserve answers, the veterans. You know, forget about reporters.

Do you believe that last night showed that there is no parity between these two when it comes to matters of policy?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Well, to me, the answers I saw were fundamentally different. Just looking at it through a national security lens.

For example, Secretary Clinton talking about how she would or would not deploy troops overseas. And she's saying she would not. Very clear, I though, answer. You can dispute the answer, but I know where she stands.

I would contrast that, from a national security perspective, with another candidate, Mr. Trump, saying that we should have taken oil from Iraq when we moved in.

Let's be clear, Chris. This is Iraqi oil. We move in as an American people to defend other peoples and to defend American security. That sounds to me like plunder. It doesn't sound to me like national security. So when I saw the debate, I did see a difference between how they answered in terms of specificity and seriousness.

GREGORY: I think that we're going to see some -- this is really a preview of the debates. They're going to be on the same debate stage at the same time and interacting with each other more in the debates, but I think that's what's interesting, to your point.

When he is shooting from the hip like this, people are going to make a judgment. He can make good arguments about the state of the world and what culpability Secretary Clinton has as former secretary of state, but I come back to this Putin thing.

To -- to praise Putin as a leader, who's an authoritarian leader in Russia because he has control over his system, yes, most authoritarians do. And we have both President Bush and President Obama, who have seen -- I said they were played by President Putin. What I meant was that he really betrayed their trust as a leader in bilateral relations. Donald Trump doesn't seem to understand how difficult this relationship would be.

I think people, whether they're following Russia policy, are going to make a determination about can I see this guy in the Oval Office? That's what matters.

CAMEROTA: Last night Hillary Clinton's vote to go into Iraq also came up. She has said that that was a mistake, and she regrets it. But last night she flipped it, basically, about how because of that mistake, she's the best equipped to know how to move forward. So listen to her response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake. I also believe that it is imperative that we learn from the mistakes. I think I'm in the best possible position to be able to understand that and prevent it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Barbara, what did you make of that response from the Pentagon perch?

[06:15:00] STARR: Well, I think that, you know, the Iraq War continues to be a great issue of sensitivity. So many troops serving so valiantly and so many losing their lives there. That service still very much by the Pentagon honored.

The question, of course, what, you know, 13 years ago or now, what it always goes back to, was the intelligence good, was there WMD, was that the basis for going into the war? And I think you have to look at it through that lens at that time and the decisions made at that time, certainly not what is happening now.

I want to go back to what Phil said, however. This issue of that Mr. Trump believes the U.S. military should move in and take the Iraqi oil. Trump said last night -- you know, he cited that cliche: to the victor go the spoils. The U.S. military could not be more different than that. That is not what the U.S. military is about. The U.S. military does not go in and take these so-called spoils of war.

So that may be something else that people will have to consider as they make their judgments about the Iraq War of several years ago and what U.S. troops are doing in that region right now.

GREGORY: I think it's important, what lessons did she learn from the invasion of the occupation of Iraq, from intelligence to what was misinterpreted about our -- you know, our long stay there. And how did she apply those lessons to her support for invading Libya, which was really a policy disaster, as the president has said. That's something that she should be pressed on here in terms of how she's actually learned these lessons.

BURNS: Well, that was one of those -- you know, you saw her really sort of sweating the e-mail questions at the top of that event last night, but there were so many moments where, on real substantive questions related to national security, there were opportunities to press her and push for sort of explanations of -- and on inconsistencies in her record. That pledge last night, which sounded pretty ironclad to me that, that

she will never send American troops back to Iraq ever, that's a pretty remarkable thing for a president.

CUOMO: She did segue and say you have to look at these case by case. And I think you expect that at some level. I mean, the idea that you can be absolute about a world that's always changing is a little naive.

The -- one point for you that you want to make, on the Iraq War thing, by the way, Donald Trump doubled down once again on the idea that he was against the war, and he cited two sources that do not prove his point. If you want to go and look, a NEW DAY mug for anybody who can find any proof of Donald Trump being against the war at the time that the war was being considered or before that. NEW DAY mug for you. You won't find it.

You were upset about what he said about his intelligence briefings. Why?

MUDD: Upset would be understated. Anybody in the intelligence business who heard that snippet -- and I'm sure 99 percent of the American people who weren't in the business missed it -- would be offended.

If you walk in -- and I know some of these guys who talk to Secretary Clinton, who talk to Mr. Trump -- you have a simple objective. Here's what's going on in a critical area. For example, China, Russia, Iran.

If the question is what is the U.S. government doing, that's a question for the White House. It's not an intelligence professional's question. Furthermore, any intelligence professional who would comment on that would be released for being unprofessional.

CUOMO: He said their body language. He said their body language showed that they don't like the administration's plan.

MUDD: So you're telling me that you sensed that an intelligence briefer was unprofessional, in my view unacceptably unprofessional, because of body language. Are you kidding me?

CUOMO: Yes, that's what he said.

CAMEROTA: The way I interpreted it was he determined from body language that the generals or the intelligence officials were not comfortable with what they were hearing from the president.

MUDD: Again, that would be an unprofessional briefing by an intelligence -- intelligence professional.

You walk in the room and explain what the global event is. If someone like Mr. Trump says, "What do you think about what the White House is doing?" your answer is, "I appreciate your question. Please go ask the White House." You don't sit there with body language and say, "I'm uncomfortable with what you're asking." I thought that was completely unacceptable. Missed by most of the American people. Cringe-worthy by me.

CAMEROTA: There you go. Phil Mudd, thank you very much.

Panel, great to get all of your insights. Thanks so much for being here.

Donald Trump is under fire for his criticism of the nation's generals. He said they've been, quote, "reduced to rubble" and have become, quote, "an embarrassment for the country." So we will ask two retired generals what they thought about that. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[06:23:30] TRUMP: I think under the leadership of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the generals have been reduced to rubble. They have been reduced to a point where it's embarrassing for our country.

You have a force of 30,000 or so people -- nobody really knows -- but probably 30,000 people. And I can just see great, as an example, General George Patton spinning in his grave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton facing off last night over who is best to handle national security issues. But many are taking issue with Trump's comments there that the current U.S. military generals have been, quote, "reduced to rubble," and saying the situation is an embarrassment.

So let's discuss this with retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. He's a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, and CNN military analyst, retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here. Great to have both of you.

General Kellogg, what did you think when you heard Donald Trump say that the generals have been reduced to rubble? How did you interpret that?

LT. GEN. KEITH KELLOGG, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR TO TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Great question. I think it comes to temperament. And I think that's the reason why he'll be a great commander in chief when he's elected president of the United States. I believe there's three points to that question.

One, he's got a great view for people. Two, he asks the right questions. The tough question. I call them edge questions. But three, and most importantly, and this gets directly to the question you just asked, he's got an ability and desire to win. And that's important.

The question he's got now is after 14 years, we really haven't won. And there's nothing different about demanding senior officers to want to win on a battlefield. [06:25:00] George C. Marshall did it in World War II when he replaced

virtually all of his generals to make sure he had a winning attitude. And then Abraham Lincoln did it in the Civil War when he replaced George McClellan, the army of the Potomac, for not fighting.

CAMEROTA: But are you saying that the generals now don't want to win?

KELLOGG: Well, we haven't had a winning strategy in 14 years. If you call what we've done in the last 14 years winning, I'd sure as heck hate to look at what defeat looks like.

But when you look at what the last 14 years, what's happened out there, we have a Middle East that's really in a broken -- in a broken state. When you look at Iraq, when you look at Syria, 400,000 dead, 3 million refugees, trillions of dollars spent. When you look at Libya and you look at the whole Middle East that's out there, if this is considered victory, then we've got a problem.

CAMEROTA: General Hertling -- I'm going to bring in General...

KELLOGG: All right.

CAMEROTA: General Hertling, how do you interpret those comments?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I love my brother, Keith Kellogg, what I tell you. I saw it completely different than this, Alisyn. It was embarrassing, insulting, outrageous, outlandish. Pick the descriptor, and that's what I thought when I heard him say this. And I've been one of the guys fighting on the battlefield.

Truthfully, this is a very complex fight. As Keith said, all of the Middle East is inflamed. And it's considerably difficult to get that under control. And it's something that we've been fighting for. We've certainly made some mistakes. But I've got to tell you, the American soldier and the American generals have been doing very good in terms of doing what politicians have been asking us to do.

CAMEROTA: Do you disagree? I mean, you heard your colleague here saying that he found it insulting, because the generals have been trying.

KELLOGG: I don't find it insulting. And just before we go any further, I really respect Mark Hertling. Mark Hertling and I are friends. We've been together. We were on 9/11 in the Pentagon together. He's a great military commander and tremendous respect for him.

But we haven't won out there. And when you look at -- I'll use an example of somebody else on another competitive show that's out there, a four-star general who I really respect.

He said the strategy is disarray. And so the generals are responsible for creating this strategy going forward in civilian leadership. And I don't -- I don't think -- we haven't gotten there. And somebody asked the question, why haven't we won after 14 years? Why haven't we been able to put some stabilization into that area?

CAMEROTA: OK, General Hertling, your response to that. I mean, I think that both of you are saying, obviously, the generals deserve respect on some level, but that they're not winning, because they're taking bad advice from the politicians.

HERTLING: Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's a complex situation. And the politicians are responsible for the strategy. And when I say that, I'm not talking about just the U.S. politicians. There are politicians on the other side. It's a condition of the battlefield.

You have to consider what the other side is doing, not just the enemy, but the allies you're working with. And that in the Middle East is sometimes extremely difficult.

But I think what we have seen from a military perspective is continuous gains. Yes, you can't put a win on it. You can't put a flag on the ground and say we're signing the peace accords, because we've claimed victory. But truthfully, every time the military has worked, and the generals I've been associated with have done a phenomenal job executing the strategy, as it seems. There have been some other factors which have affected that. And that's what I'm saying.

And again, I just go back to the words. I look for in my leaders the ability to communicate. When a presidential contender uses the word that the generals are in the rubble and then starts talking next about taking oil and, in the past, killing terrorist families and waterboarding, it tells me that he refuses to relinquish the fact that he doesn't have a good ability to communicate; and he has a lack of intellect regarding the complex situation on the ground.

CAMEROTA: I want to bring up one of the points that you just made. And that is what Donald Trump said last night about Iraq oil. Let me play this for everyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I've always said, shouldn't be there, but if we're going to get out, take the oil. If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS. Because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil.

LAUER: How are we going to take the oil? How are we going to do that?

TRUMP: Just we would leave a certain group behind, and you would take various sections where they have the oil.

You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said, take the oil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: General Hertling, let me start this one with you. What did you make of those comments?

HERTLING: Well, first of all, his beginning statement that he was always against the Iraq War, we know that not to be true. And I would like to get that bet of Chris Cuomo, win that NEW DAY mug. But no one's going to get that, because he's never, from the beginning, against the Iraq War.

Secondly, to say we should plunder and take the oil, as Phil Mudd described it, plundering, is exactly against the American way of war. And having been in northern Iraq for almost two years and knowing that a third of the oil is there, I'm just not sure the physics associated with taking the oil after you've invaded a country. What do you do? You leave Mobil and Exxon there to just pump it out while the rest of the civilians stay there and try and regain their security and stability? I just don't know how that works. Maybe I'm slow, but it's confusing to me.