Return to Transcripts main page
Wolf
ISIS Now Publishing a Magazine; Newt Gingrich Talks ISIS, Syria, Iraq; Defense Leaders Testify on ISIS on Capitol Hill; Congressional Approval Needed to Combat ISIS?
Aired September 16, 2014 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Again, it establishes that this is an apocalyptic conflict between Islam and non-Muslims. They've got images of American troops here called the crusaders. And they've also got this image of -- they have -- some of them are very graphic images of mutilated bodies of victims, Muslim victims of Western military campaigns. But they also have images of people like James Foley, justifying the killing of James Foley and other things like that. They portray President Obama and people like John McCain as crusaders. And this is really all about kind of galvanizing their support and their message and, again, inspiring people to join the cause -- Wolf?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's not the first time we've seen a terror group go ahead and publish a magazine online.
TODD: That's right. "Inspire" magazine was put out by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That's another glossy, polished magazine dedicated to the messaging these groups want to get out. What's different between "Inspire" and "DABIQ" is "Inspire" has a lot of tutorials on how to carry out attacks and make weapons. There's an article about how to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom. "DABIQ" is framing the ISIS message, getting more and more people to join them. Analysts say it's an impressive production.
As for how effective it is, Wolf, not quite sure yet. There have been three issues of the magazine published since July. We'll have a lot more on "DABIQ" in the 6:00 p.m. hour of "The Situation Room" tonight.
BLITZER: Brian, thanks very much. ISIS clearly has a very sophisticated social media campaign.
Up next, the president's plan to defeat ISIS. Newt Gingrich standing by to weigh in on why he thinks the threat goes way beyond Iraq and Syria.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Washington.
Two American soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, their military convoy hit by the bomb near the airport in Afghanistan's capital. The Taliban immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. One Polish soldier was also killed in that attack.
Top Pentagon officials have been testifying today on the U.S.-led mission to try to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS. This comes as the U.S. conducts air strikes against ISIS near Baghdad, very close to Baghdad.
Let's bring in the former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
If you were still speaker of the House and a vote came up tomorrow in the House to fund the training and arming of moderate Syrian rebels, so-called Free Syrian Army, with half a billion dollars, would you vote yea or nay?
NEWT GINGRICH, CNN CO-HOST, CROSSFIRE & FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'd vote yes but I'd also ask for a lot more thorough and serious strategy to deal with radical Islamism really across the globe. But I don't think we have much choice. These are not people who are going to allow us to run and hide. And so I think this is the first step. But I'd rather support the first step and argue about the next steps than vote no.
BLITZER: Would you support a formal vote in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, for that matter, to authorize the president to go to war against ISIS?
GINGRICH: Yes. And I think that Secretary Kerry did not do himself any favors the other day when he couldn't just be candid and say, look, this is a war. We have people who are killing us in public, cutting off heads on videotape, bombing, doing everything they can. We're going to go back and try to kill them. That's what a war is. And I think it would be healthy for America -- for the House and Senate to debate not just for ISIS, but that we are determined to defeat radical Islamism, whether it's Boko Haram in Syria, al Shabaab in Somalia, it's al Qaeda in Yemen. Every time you turn around, they're all the same movement and they all have the same goals. They all will try to kill us if they can. And we need to resolve, 13 years after 9/11, that we are going to do what it takes to defeat them.
BLITZER: The president says he has the authority but would welcome a vote. But does he have the authority?
GINGRICH: No, there's no -- well, does he as commander-in-chief? Sure. Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli without congressional approval. But as a practical matter, I don't think President Obama wants this to become Obama's war. This should be the American people looking evil in the face, making the decision as a nation that these are bad people who have to be destroyed. And you only get to do that by having the Congress vote. If the Congress votes a resolution to destroy these forces, then the president's in a much stronger position. And frankly, this campaign's going to go on long after he leaves office. So it's very unwise to not have the elected representatives of the American people directly engaged and having to carry part of the psychological burden.
BLITZER: What do you think? Is this going to take three years? Is it going to take 10 years? Is it going to be like the war on crime, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, it's never going to end? What's your assessment? GINGRICH: I think, as a historian, my estimate is if we really worked
at it and we were really intense, it could take 10 to 15 years. But because our opponents also evolve and they have -- I think their minister of propaganda graduated from an American University. We're faced with people who are going to keep changing, keep evolving, keep learning. My guess is this will be a 50-year campaign. And as they become more horrible and the threat becomes more real, it will ramp up in intensity. It will ramp up in toughness. And ultimately, it will be a worldwide campaign because that's where they are. You will have no choice. There are over 10,000 terrorists from over 50 countries currently in the ISIS region, the Islamic State's region. That's how big the movement is.
BLITZER: And you think this could be done without U.S. combat forces on the ground?
GINGRICH: I think that we should very consistently hire, pay for, train local indigenous forces, use Americans primarily for training and for intelligence and for airpower. I think that it's very expensive to put American professional forces in these places. My guess is if you look at the lifetime cost of an American soldier, you could hire somewhere between 30 and 50 Afghans for every American soldier that we're currently putting in Afghanistan. So I would always go for a very light training, intelligence and airpower model with very heavy local forces, who speak the language, who know the people, and who are capable of engaging. But I'd invest much more than we have so far in building up local forces everywhere we have to fight.
BLITZER: Newt Gingrich, thanks very much for joining us.
GINGRICH: Good to be with you.
BLITZER: Up next, major decisions in terms of battling ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Congressional approval, will that occur? But with the coming midterms, will that complicate the overall situation? Our panel will weigh in. Gloria Borger, Donna Brazile, Dana Bash are all standing by.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you see General Dempsey's comments as opening the door to the possibility of ground troops in the future?
SEN. CARL LEVIN, (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, U.S. ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: No. Opening the door -- he said in that meeting --
(CROSSTALK)
LEVIN: -- if they're not needed. Every military leader is going to say if there's a change in circumstances he's going to be open to a different recommendation. That doesn't mean he's suggested they may be needed. He suggested that if, in fact, they are needed in the future that he will then -- if the circumstances are different, he is then open to and required to make a different recommendation. But I think if the media reads this whole discussion here this morning as somehow or other that General Dempsey is suggesting that ground forces may be needed, I think you're taking what he said in a way that he did not say and did not intend. OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF: That's Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They just wrapped up their hearing with the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey.
Let me play for you precisely what General Dempsey said before the Senate committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Our military advisers will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support and coordinate our coalition activities. If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraq troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I'll recommend that to the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Those words obviously causing a lot of stir right now. The House of Representatives is expected to begin debate later today on the plan to arm and train Syrian -- moderate Syrian rebels, part of the president's strategy to defeat ISIS. A vote in the House could come as early as tomorrow.
Let's discuss all this. Joining us, our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger; our chief congressional correspondent, Dana Bash; and CNN political commentator, Donna Brazile.
Gloria, what do you make of this story that's emerged, that General Dempsey leaving open the possibility he may have to go to the president and say, if you want to degrade and destroy ISIS, it may require U.S. combat troops to accompany Iraqi forces on the battlefield?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, I think he's leaving every possibility open, as a military man does. I think what Senator Levin said is true. Because, what Dempsey said was, look, the president told me if I need to go back to him, go back to him. You don't say we're not going to do this in advance of military action. You say all options are on the table. Would they not want to put ground troops there? Of course not. Everybody has said that. But he just said, you can't rule anything out. This is war.
BLITZER: Dana, you know this, because you cover the Hill. This was in the -- not in response to a random question. This was in his opening prepared statement which goes through numerous drafts, as approved by all sorts of agencies of the U.S. government. He himself raised the possibility he may have to go back to the president and recommend ground troops. DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Like Gloria
said, he's a military guy and he does want to keep all options on the table.
But there's something else is going on here. Here's part of the back- story. You have, surprise, a little bit of a partisan split here. You have Republicans who are annoyed with the president that in his big speech the other night he took ground troops off the table, not because they want to go to war but because strategically they think that it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. Clearly, the fact that General Dempsey had this in his opening statement, he agrees with that.
On the flip side, you have Democrats who support the president saying, the last thing we want to do is even signal to the American public we're going to send our troops, our treasure into harm's way and spill more blood on the ground. That's the divide and that's why you saw the Democratic chairman of the armed services committee just try to walk it back or clarify it. But it's not that clear. And it's almost a little bit of a Rorschach test.
BLITZER: Those words by General Dempsey, Donna, they're going to give word for all the liberal Democrats who don't want to send in ground troops right now --
(CROSSTALK)
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It might also give some heartburn to the isolationists in the Republican Party if they come back to the table and say, we're not longer interventionists. But this is a serious conversation that the Congress should have. That is, should we authorize -- give the president additional authorization to launch these air strikes in both Iraq and Syria or do we continue to narrow, tailor it to Title X of the defense authorization act-
BORGER: You think there should be a broader authorization?
BRAZILE: I think we should have the debate and there should be truth --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: There should be transparency -- I'm not --
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
BRAZILE: But there should be transparency. The fact that we're going to hide beyond the C.R. to give certain lawmakers cover I think is a cowardly act.
BORGER: Have you told the president that? That's exactly what he's doing --
(CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: I'm not an adviser to anyone. This is Donna Brazile --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: The House is going to vote --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: I strongly believe -- look, I was there as a young congressional staffer in 1991. I saw the debate. I think it's important to have this debate.
BORGER: I agree.
BRAZILE: I understand the need to put in a congressional resolution to fund the government so we can avoid all these political conversations. But the truth of the matter is, we Americans deserve to have this conversation.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Well, I don't think -- this is -- I don't think anybody wants to have it before the election. The White House has been shy about it. They're saying, OK, we have all the authority we need for now for the next 90 days. The leadership of the House Democrats is very sheepish about taking this vote because she knows it's going to divide her party. The Republicans -- the Democratic leader of the Senate, the same way. So I think because the parties are all split, nobody wants to take this vote. And I think it's a little hypocritical --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: And the Republicans don't want to stand behind the president at a time when we should all be standing together and have a comprehensive strategy.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: -- because of the policy.
BASH: You're exactly right. Both parties are divided. The one thing I will say a narrow vote, which we talked about, just to authorize the president to arm and train the Syrian rebels.
BLITZER: $500 million.
BASH: $500 million. That is likely to come as soon as tomorrow. But it's not the big authorization. It is narrow. But that is something --
(CROSSTALK)
But you probably will see some Republicans --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: -- and Republicans will support it.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Hold your point for a moment.
I have to take a quick break. We're going to resume this conversation right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're back with Gloria, Dana, and Donna.
Donna, you wrote an excellent column on CNN.com.
Among other things, on the specific issue of a vote, you say this, "There are plans this week to vote on the narrower proposition that the bipartisan -- that has bipartisan support arming the Syrian rebels. But what about the larger issue of voting to authorize war against ISIS? Yea or nay? Check that after the election. That's when politicians vote."
BORGER: Right. They're not --
BLITZER: Snarky words.
BORGER: Little snarky, but true, sorry to say. Is that they're sort of kicking the can down the road, which I know you're all shocked about. Which is why Congress has a 14 percent approval rating. This, as Donna was saying before, deserves a serious debate and a serious vote. And if you have to stay in session a little bit longer, that might benefit the American public to actually watch Congress debate what's going on. You don't want mission creep here.
BASH: Right.
BORGER: You don't want this to go on without having --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Listen --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: -- to make their case to the American people --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Right.
BLITZER: Before the midterm elections, but they're only in session for another two weeks.
BASH: I have to tell you, I cover them every day. They're very busy. They've got to go home and get their jobs --
(CROSSTALK) BORGER: Right.
BORGER: But can I just say, these are --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Am I wrong?
(LAUGHTER)
BORGER: But these are the same Republicans who are complaining that President Obama is the imperial president because he does too much on his own, all of these executive orders. And suddenly, John Boehner tells Dana Bash, oh, no, no, no, I think we have to wait for the president to come to us.
BRAZILE: They want it both ways, Gloria.
BORGER: If you think he is the --
BRAZILE: They want to have it both ways. They want --
BORGER: And by the way --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: The president's not tough enough. He's not being deliberative enough. And he is tough enough. He's been deliberate. We've already had about 160 air strikes.
BORGER: Democrats don't want the vote either.
BASH: No, exactly.
BRAZILE: There are some Democrats who do. They want a vote.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: But there are many Democrats do not wish to vote because they're opposed the kind of military action that we launch almost a decade ago. And look where we are now.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: So I think we should have this debate so everybody can get these views on the table. And --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: You know, I will say one quick thing. What is potentially dangerous for the president, and obviously they know that, it's not just necessarily about trying to protect the endangered political Democrats. It's also, what if they take the vote and you have a divided Congress. Then that does not send a good signal internationally, that the president has the backing of the American public. (CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: House Democrats voted against the Iraqi war in the first place. Give them an opportunity to come back to the table and tell the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: And by the way, then maybe the president would consult with the Congress. Even if he doesn't believe he has to ask their permission. Maybe instead of having an embarrassing vote, which I agree with you, maybe they could all actually sit around a table like this, talk about what's doable, what they can do, where they ought to be going. And then have a vote.
BLITZER: Here's the problem. So many members of the House and the Senate regret the vote they cast.
BORGER: Yeah.
BRAZILE: Absolutely.
BLITZER: At the end of 2002, authorizing President Bush to go to war against Saddam Hussein, they look back and say, we have weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, all sorts of -- but they regret that vote.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: And, Dana, correct if I'm wrong, they don't want another vote right now.
BASH: I don't think they want -- no, you're right. Many of them do not want another vote. In fairness, some of them do. You've heard Senators saying, at this hearing with General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel, telling them, please, tell us, Congress, to stay here and not leave to go campaign and so --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: We've got to leave it, guys, unfortunately.
BRAZILE: We had a debate. We had a debate. Congress should have the same debate.
BLITZER: Yeah.
An excellent debate, good discussion.
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: We had a debate.
BORGER: And, by the way, they get paid to vote.
BLITZER: About $174,000 last time I checked. BLITZER: Donna, Dana, Gloria, guys, good discussion. Let's do it
again tomorrow.
That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'll be back 5:00 p.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin will begin after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
