Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Mike Huckabee: Homosexuality Is a Lifestyle; Anxiety Over ISIS Hostage's Fate; Obama Won't Call Terrorists "Radical Islam"

Aired February 02, 2015 - 13:30   ET

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

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: But when you look at a larger strategy, if he were by some chance to become the nominee, look at where the American public is right now, 74 percent of Democrats are for gay marriage, Wolf, 58 percent of Independent voters are. If you're a Republican candidate, and you've got to appeal to those Independent voters to win a general election, you have to talk very difficultly about gay marriage or being gay as a lifestyle choice? That is not something that Independents or Democrats would twig to at all.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: But, Ana, I don't know if you saw the interview he did with Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

(CROSSTALK)

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I did.

BLITZER: He says, for him, this is a religious issue, a Biblical issue, and basically he makes the points his views on marriage equality, same-sex marriage are the exact views that is President Obama had back in 2008 when he was running for presidents. We know that President Obama has changed his views dramatically over the past six years.

NAVARRO: I think he's making a valid point. He's saying there can be people with different points of view but we don't need to shut them out from the debate, we don't need to shut them out from their lives. It is a Biblical issue for some people. Some people are not going to change their minds on it. I think that part of the interview where he made those points, those are valid, legitimate points. The problem comes when he starts making these types of comparisons and calling it a lifestyle choice. That comes across as very offensive to many homosexual and many who, like me, who have gay friends and understand it's not a lifestyle choice. I use profanity, that's my lifestyle choice. I drink, that's my lifestyle choice. Being heterosexual is not a lifestyle choice. It is what I am. I think that's what most gay people feel they are, and where he runs into trouble.

But this has been a consistent approach by Mike Huckabee. We have seen him picking a fight with Beyonce and Jay-Z, and now we see him talking about women who use profanity, and now we see him doing this. And we're talking about him. So it's not a bad short-term approach, as Gloria mentioned.

BORGER: When you hear Jeb Bush, your favorite candidate, Ana, talk about it, Jeb Bush has said and warned the Republican Party about being perceived as anti-gay, even though when he was asked about gay marriage, he didn't endorse gay marriage, but he said it's an issue that's up to the states. But he warned if the party wants to win a general election, it can't be negative about families, it can't be negative about gay marriage, either. I think Huckabee's strategy is much more geared toward Iowa, South Carolina, but not the general election.

BLITZER: You agree with --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: But, Gloria, the reality is --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Ana, Ana, hold on minute. Gloria just said she thought that Mike Huckabee's chances of winning were miniscule. That was the word she used. Do you agree that Huckabee's chances of winning the nomination are minuscule?

NAVARRO: I think he would do well in Iowa. I think he's got a track record there. He's got appeal, and he's got a folksy approach. I expect him to be spending a lot of time in Iowa. I wouldn't be surprised if he does quite well in Iowa.

The question is, what is his long-term strategy going from there? Can he raise the money? Can he build the structure? And does he have the ability to sustain a campaign for the long term? Because it's looking more and more like the Republican primary will be a long-term process.

BLITZER: It certainly is.

And, Gloria, Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, in this new Des Moines poll, is up on top. He did well a week ago at that event in Iowa. But he brings a lot to the table apparently.

BORGER: And what you see now, again, we can't say it enough, is that there is a split in the Republican Party between the social conservatives and so-called establishment. With Mitt Romney now out of it, you've got a fight between Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Jeb Bush you'll see, I think, also talk about his traditional values and try and let the American public know he was more conservative as the governor of Florida than we remember. So I think he will remind us of that. And I think he's going to compete in Iowa because he just hired Romney's former Iowa strategist to work for him, and perhaps even run his campaign.

BLITZER: We're only a few months away from that first Republican presidential debate in Iowa as well.

Guys, we've got to leave it there.

Thank you very much, Ana and Gloria.

Just ahead, another Japanese hostage apparently beheaded by ISIS. But what about the captured Jordanian pilot? Our analysts will discuss what all this means, whether the U.S. is winning or losing this current war against ISIS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Anger and grief in Japan, anxiety and uncertainty right now in Jordan. Both nations caught up in the brutality of ISIS. The terrorist group has released a video of the apparent beheading of the Japanese journalist, Kenji Goto. He's the second Japanese hostage believed to be killed by ISIS. Meanwhile, Jordan is still trying to free its captured F-16 fighter pilot, a pilot captured by ISIS when his plane went down over Syria. They offered to let the Jordanian pilot go in exchange for the release of a female terrorist that's been held for about 10 years, but Jordan is demanding proof that their pilot is still alive.

Joining us is Josh Rogin, CNN political analyst, columnist for "Bloomberg View," and our national security analyst, Peter Bergen.

Why aren't they releasing some proof of life if ISIS is serious about a swap for this would-be suicide bomber, this female terrorist? Jordan is saying we'll do the swap, but we want proof of life.

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: ISIS has not been negotiating in good faith for any of them. When they asked for money for James Foley, it wasn't serious. The $200 million wasn't serious. So unfortunately, I don't think they're negotiating in good faith about this.

BLITZER: You don't think they're willing to make the exchange?

BERGEN: We don't know if this pilot if still alive. There's no evidence that the pilot is alive.

BLITZER: Jordan will not move this woman to the Turkish/Syria border for possible exchange unless they first have hard proof of life evidence.

You agree, right?

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG VIEW Absolutely. And we saw on Saturday ISIS propaganda Twitter feeds, the release of new video of the beheading of what they said was the Jordanian intel agent. In other words, they didn't kill the Jordanian pilot but they claimed to have killed another official, right as these negotiations are going on. The message to the Jordanians from ISIS is clear, we will not stop beheadings. We're OK with beheadings. And we'll continue to do this unless our demands are met. In other words, they're raising the stakes, not backing off their policy.

BLITZER: This pilot, this Jordanian F-16 fighter pilot is a hero in Jordan right now. He comes from a very distinguished family. The king, King Abdullah and others know -- who, by the way, is coming to Washington later this week, King Abdullah of Jordan. Everyone apparently knows who this pilot is. I'm told by officials who are pretty knowledgeable that if they kill -- if ISIS kills this Jordanian pilot, then all hell is going to break loose. That Jordan is really going to retaliate against ISIS in ways that are not necessarily typical of the way Jordan behaves. Have you heard that?

BERGEN: I haven't. The Jordanians, they have a way --

(CROSSTALK)

BERGEN: The Jordanians -- they have a way into ISIS that other countries have not had so far. One of the things about hostage negotiation, you're gathering intelligence on the other side, their location, their interests, and they may put that to good use.

BLITZER: What do you think? I'm hearing that Jordan would be very, very not only angry, but they would be very vindictive, they will seek revenge, and ISIS will pay a price.

ROGIN: It's interesting, that phrase "pay a price" was used by both Jordanian and Japanese officials in the wake of the failed negotiations. Both of these conditions are being put to the test. Both of them have mixed feeling about being involved. It's not uniform in these societies, but now that this issue has come to the front of both of these culture, they have to make a decision. Both governments are pledging to double down, but that's the beginning, not the end of the debate, though they'll have to start to think about what that means. They don't have the answers to that yet. Are they willing to commit the resources of going against ISIS? What does that mean for their militaries, for their political structures? That's what they'll be poring over in the coming weeks.

BLITZER: Peter, you've had heard all this buzz coming from U.S. officials, others, that ISIS is suffering, losing a lot of their commanders, they're losing a lot of fighters, they lost Kobani. The Peshmerga, other Kurdish forces are on the upswing now. They're making treat process. Is all that buzz justified or is it exaggerated?

BERGEN: It's all true, but then look at the flip side. We have the head of Special Operations Command say at a conference yesterday --

BLITZER: The U.S. Special Command.

BERGEN: -- that there have been 19,000 foreign fighters coming in. We've also heard reliable estimates there are 1,000 recruits coming in every month. That's 6,000 fighters in five months or so. If 1,000 fighters keep coming in, that's sort of a draw. If you look at the situation in Syria, yes, they may have lost Kobani, but that's a very small town. It's a hard picture to draw in Syria, but they are maintaining ground or perhaps even gaining ground in Syria. Another thing we should bring fourth, we've seen groups all around the Muslim world, elements of the Taliban, groups in Libya who killed the American contractor in Tripoli last week, groups in the Sinai who killed 32 people last week in attacks, all saying they're part of ISIS. So at the same time, we're getting this spreading ISIS.

BLITZER: Is ISIS on the defense right now? Are they losing? What do you think? ROGIN: It's clear the Obama administration feels that the successes

have been significant. They feel that ISIS has suffered a strategic defeat in Kobani. Yet, there's a gap between the political people in the White House and the military intelligence people on the ground who believe that ISIS is expanding in Sinai, in Libya, in many other countries around the world. The president, in his interview with Fareed Zakaria, on CNN, in India, said clearly we have to take a limited approach to this threat and not play Whack-A-Mole in countries around the world. The fear, the risk is as long as we combat ISIS only in Iraq and Syria, where they are the strongest, we'll be neglecting these other areas.

BLITZER: Josh Rogin, thanks very much.

Peter Bergen, thanks to you as well.

Still ahead, a war over words. President Obama says he doesn't want to quibble over labels. Some of his critics say otherwise at issue is the president's refusal to use the phrase "Islamic extremism." What's going on? We'll discuss that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Now to a brewing battle over words. President Obama is coming under fire for refusing to label the fight against terrorism, war on "radical Islam." He made that point again in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, FAREED ZAKARIA, GPS: Lindsey Graham says he's bothered by the fact that you won't admit that we are in a religious war. There are others who say the White House takes pains to avoid using the words "Islamic terrorists." My question is, are we in a war with radical Islam?

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam, and they're doing damage in a lot of countries around the world. But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don't even recognize it as being Islam. And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it's very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent Muslims who are looking for the same thing we are looking for -- order, peace, prosperity. And so, you know, I don't quibble with labels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But there are critics and they disagree with the president. Listen to what some had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI, (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm a big critic of the president not using the words "Islamic extremists" terrorism. He's the only world leader that doesn't, by the way.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We're in a religious war with radical Islamists who have embraced a religious doctrine that requires them, compelled by God, to purify their religion, to kill all moderate Muslims or people who don't agree with them within the faith, to destroy every other religion. And when our president doesn't acknowledge that this is a religious-driven war, it's going to be very hard to win it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Even some Democrats are baffled by the president's word. The Iraq War veteran, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii, had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TULSI GABBARD, (D), HAWAII: Well, I'm upset that the president and the White House, whether it's today or yesterday or tomorrow, is not actually saying, this is a war that the Islamic extremists are posing against the United States and against the West, and we recognize who our enemy is and come up with a strategy to defeat that enemy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: All right. Let's bring in Michael Smerconish. He's our CNN political commentator, the host of "Smerconish" that hosts here on CNN on Saturday morning; also, joining us, Democratic strategist, Karen Finney.

Michael, what do you think about the president's refusal to call it "radical Islam"?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, SMERCONISH: I wish he would. I wish he would do it with some regularity. I'm not entirely satisfied with what I heard from Lindsey Graham. To me, that suggests that we, too, are acting through faith. What faith would it be? I don't want to call it a religious war that we're involved with, but I think transparency and honesty demand that the president, from time to time, acknowledge that these are jihadists who are acting through a perversion of the Islamic faith.

BLITZER: Karen, go ahead. You support the president's position, right?

KAREN FINNEY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I do. I understand where he comes from. We had a group of civil rights and religious leaders yesterday -- you can find it at mediamatters.org -- talking about their concerns about their depiction of Muslims and the Islamic State in this context. And, you know, Kareem Abdul Jabbar said it the best, and that he is, to people that are in the faith of Islam, people who are Muslims, what we see these terrorists doing, it's not just a perversion, but to them, they don't recognize it as their religion. So why do we give the benefit of having some kind of moral underpinning when what they are doing, they are terrorists, right, they are extremists and terrorists. And I think what we do when we do that, we create a wedge between those Muslims and followers of Islam who are peace loving, want to be a part of the communities where they live but feel that there's sort of this blanket, I think, put over the whole religion, even though people are trying to say they are extremists. I think a lot of people within the faith feel very prejudiced against.

BLITZER: Michael, what do you say to that?

SMERCONISH: I say to that that when there's crime in the United States, we want to know who did it and why did they do it, what was the motivation? When we have mass killings in the United States, always a part of the story is to report on exactly what the motivation was. And it feels to me dishonest by omission if we don't explain what exactly the motivation is in these instances.

I think something else that I would offer to Karen, which is, it puts pressure on the 99.9 percent who are not acting in a perversion of the Islamic faith to make that clear. I mean, it makes them have some skin in the game and calls upon them to say, hey, they don't speak for us and we certainly don't act accordingly.

FINNEY: But, Michael, here's the problem I have with that. By that comment, you're assuming that the 99.9 percent doesn't feel already some degree of responsibility, and why should they? I mean, I am a Christian. The KKK considers themselves a Christian organization. I don't consider them a Christian organization. I don't consider them following the teachings of Jesus in any shape or form. When we talk about Islam -- look, many, many Muslim leaders have come forward numerous times to denounce that activity, and it doesn't get as much attention as does the extremists. Maybe we need to have a better balance in that.

BLITZER: Go ahead, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I think we would be creating an exception. We'd be saying that for all incidents of crime and mass killings, we'll tell you the particular story, but when it comes to this particular sphere of mayhem, we won't tell you the whole story. I don't think that Islam -- this perversion of Islam is deserving of that exclusion.

FINNEY: I guess what I'm saying, those of us who don't know much about the Islamic faith, we see it as a perversion of Islam. The people who are in the faith are saying, no, it's not actually a perversion, it's not even part of our faith. I feel to some degree that we need to trust the people who actually know the religion and know the faith and maybe come up with a different kind of label.

BLITZER: Karen, what do you say to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii? She is a Democrat. She fought in the war in Iraq. She says, you have to define your enemy, and the first step in winning a war, if you're going against ISIS or anyone else, you have to define who they are, otherwise, you're not going to know who you are fighting. FINNEY: Again, I think there might be a different definition that we

could come up with that does not engage sort of the religion of Islam, again, from those who are in the faith who say, this isn't us, this isn't a representation of our faith. You know, I worked with a group of young people who are Muslim wanting to run for office, and the level of racism that they faced and prejudice simply by their zip code, which was associated with being Islamic or Muslim, when these were kids that wanted to serve their country.

BLITZER: All right. Last word, very quickly, Michael.

SMERCONISH: David Cameron came to the White House last month, and on this issue, I prefer his approach to it than President Obama's. He called it out for what it is.

BLITZER: All right. The debate over whether to use the phrase "radical Islam" clearly will continue.

Thanks, guys, very, very much.

That's it for me. I'll be back at 5:00 p.m. eastern in "The Situation Room."

For our international viewers, "Amanpour" is up next.

For our viewers in North American, "Newsroom" with Brooke Baldwin will start right after a quick break.