Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Death of Kayla Mueller Confirmed as Obama Asks for AUMF; Fighting in Ukraine Intensifies Head of Peace Talks; Netanyahu, Obama at Odds over Visit to Congress; 63-Year-Old Woman Stowaway on Plane.

Aired February 10, 2015 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Washington.

We now have sad confirmation of Kayla Mueller's death and it comes right as the political battle heats up on whether Congress should authorize the use of military force against ISIS. The White House will ask Congress either today or tomorrow for formal approval to continue military operations against the radical Islamist terrorist group.

Our chief congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, is joining us from Capitol Hill.

Dana, what does the White House specifically want as far as new legislation authorizing the United States military to use force against ISIS?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The irony here is that the White House has for a very long time insisted that they don't need this authorization. You mentioned this is already a mission under way, and has been for six months. So they clearly feel they have the legal authority to do this. But the legal authority and the congressional approval and having a debate among members of Congress who represent the citizens of this country are two very different things. And there's been a lot of pressure on the White House from Republicans and even some really vocal Democrats saying they need to have their stamp on this.

So what the White House is doing -- I should say as we speak, Wolf, the White House Council is meeting with Senate Democrats to go over some of the gist of it. But it is going to be to authorize a mission to confront ISIS, to cancel out that controversial 2002 authorization that allowed the war in Iraq to begin with in the first place. But the key question is going to be what this says about ground troops. That it's going to be the most controversial issue that is going to be debated when this thing gets started.

BLITZER: And then there will be a long series of not only debates but eventually there will have to be some votes, right?

BASH: Yes. BLITZER: These potentially could be very sensitive votes for

Republicans and Democrats, whether they authorize in effect a new war.

BASH: That's exactly right. Now, you do see a lot -- I'm hearing, just been walking the halls talking to Senators -- a lot of bipartisan support for the concept of authorizing it. But, of course, the devil is in the details. I mentioned the question about ground troops. The language that I'm hearing from congressional aides at the White House is going to send up will talk about an enduring offensive system or enduring offense against ISIS. The question is, what does that mean? And so when Congress, at least the Democratic-led Congress, in December passed their own version of this, they were very specific saying, no ground troops at all, except in three or four cases, including rescue missions. Sounds like, from what I'm hearing, the White House is asking for something more broad. So what we may see, Wolf, say, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee takes this up, for example, is a bipartisan vote in that you'll probably see it pass, whatever the "it" turns out to be, with Democratic and Republican support, because a lot of Democrats will say, we don't want to support what is in effect another war that could include ultimately ground troops.

BLITZER: It was a sensitive vote back in 2002-2003 leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Hillary Clinton when she was a Senator, for example, she voted for that authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein. But that was pretty unpopular in her bid to get the presidential nomination. Barack Obama, then a state legislator in Illinois, opposed going to war. He eventually got that nomination. A lot of people will be looking at that example, wondering if this is a smart vote for them or not-so-smart vote. We'll see what happens --

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: And how they craft it is really going to matter.

BLITZER: It will be a sensitive issue.

Thanks very much, Dana, up on the Hill.

Rockets rained down across eastern Ukraine. But is the latest fighting tied to a new peace initiative? We'll go live to Ukraine. Nick Paton Walsh is on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's go to Ukraine now where fighting has intensified ahead of tomorrow's planned peace talks. There are scenes from a government-controlled city in eastern Ukraine.

Take a look at this. This is one of the two areas hit hard by rebel rocket fire today. The second strike hit the Ukrainian military headquarters in the area. I want you to take a close look now at video shot inside a soup kitchen as rockets fell in another part of eastern Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (EXPLOSIONS)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: These scenes are playing out across the region.

Tomorrow, representatives from Ukraine's government, Russia, Germany and France, the leaders of those countries will meet to talk about a peace plan. That would include the withdrawal of heavy weapons from these areas and set aside a so-called demilitarized zone. President Obama called the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, earlier today to discuss the situation there and the upcoming peace talks tomorrow.

Joining us to talk about all of what's going on in Ukraine, our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, here in Washington with me; and our senior international correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh, who's in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine.

Nick, how much of the fighting right now is going on, perhaps designed to strengthen the respective positions of the parties ahead of the talks in Minsk, Belarus, tomorrow?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is very possible, particularly if you look at the ferocity of that strike, which I should point out, the Ukrainians did it to themselves. That's difficult to swallow. But 12 are now dead from that, dozens injured, including dozens of servicemen on that airfield that was hit. I've been there myself. It's a series of trenches and tents, very little protection. And of course, those civilian areas struck as well.

We saw ourselves today, too, how the fight for a key city to the north of where I'm standing. A lot of heavy shelling in the direction of that town, which separatists say they have encircled, but the Ukrainians suggest they're still having a fight for the key access road in and out of there.

The I videos showed earlier, both -- one showing how civilians are hit on the separatist side and also the Ukrainian side -- really show how civilians are caught up, frankly, in the middle of this. Today, no exception at all. The fears being if we don't see some sort of cease- fire results tomorrow, the death toll will simply continue to rise -- Wolf?

BLITZER: It's intriguing to me, Jim, that missing from the peace talks in Belarus tomorrow in Minsk will be these pro-Russian separatists, no delegation representing them. Putin will be there. And the United States won't be there either. What does that say?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The first point, the perception is Russia controls those separatists. If Russia is pulling the strings and they make an agreement, they'll be able to hold them back. There are some plausible questions about that because there had been previous splits or public comments by some of the separatist leaders in previous agreements saying, we're not pulling back. But they are being armed by Russia, so they hold the real leverage there.

The U.S. not being presence, when you speak to U.S. diplomats about this, they say, listen, we are in lockstep with our European partners, our NATO allies, Germany, et cetera, if they're there, we're in agreement on how to proceed. But we saw yesterday, one area of disagreement is whether arming -- potential disagreement, because the president hasn't made a decision -- is on this idea of arming Ukraine forces.

BLITZER: Not in lockstep --

SCIUTTO: That's right.

BLITZER: -- on potentially arming the Ukrainian military.

So how is that playing in Ukraine over where you are? So far, the U.S. is saying no decision has been made on whether to send so-called defensive lethal aid to the Ukrainian army.

PATON WALSH: I think that is, in so many ways, a longer-term perspective, Wolf. It will take months to get to kind of weaponry the Ukrainians need in service on the battlefield, unless you'll put U.S. troops in the battlefield here using them. It's a complex task, and potentially used more as rhetoric ahead of these diplomatic talks, taking that center division perhaps with the good cop, bad cop that Angela Merkel and Barack Obama aired earlier this week.

I should point out the separatists are sending a delegation to Minsk, just not their top leaders. The concern is potentially that they won't be able to make the key decisions at those tables there. But so much really undermining those talks on the battlefield here, not the least the fact that the separatists are open. They want all of the Donetsk region here. One of them said recently, they're taking no step back in Minsk.

It's going to be a tough job simply to stop the violence, let alone hatch some kind of peaceful, long-term political settlement here given how far apart Kiev and the Donetsk separatists are now -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Nick Paton Walsh, be careful over there, Jim Sciutto, we'll have you guys back later today. Thanks very much.

Coming up, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, he's talking tough. Only moments ago, he was very, very stern in saying this deal that the president of the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council are trying to come up with on Iran on its nuclear program could endanger Israel's very survival. He's mincing no words. We'll share what he says right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: A major dispute involving politics, protocol, and policy is playing out in the public spotlight right now. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama are at serious odds over the prime minister's scheduled visit to Washington early next month. Netanyahu has been invited to address a joint meeting of the United States Congress. It's expected he will seriously criticize President Obama's policy on Iran.

Just a short while ago, the prime minister fended off criticism surrounding his upcoming speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I'm going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the president, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country. I intend to speak about this issue before the March 24th deadline, and I intend to speak in the U.S. Congress because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Let's go to Jerusalem right now. I'm joined by our global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott.

Elise, the prime minister's statement was very strong. At one point, he says, "We do have, today, a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5-Plus 1," members of the Security Council in Germany, "over the offer that has been made to Iran." Then he says these very ominous words, "This offer," this is the proposal that the president of the United States, the secretary of state, presumably support, "would enable Iran to threaten Israel's survival."

Those are strong words coming from the prime minister of Israel, basically saying that the president of the United States is going to, if he goes along with this deal, threaten Israel's very survival. Those are powerful words.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Powerful words, Wolf. Let's be clear, that agreement is not finished. The U.S. and the P5- Plus 1 are still negotiating with Iran, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has seen and heard enough of the agreement to know that he finds it unacceptable. But he also made a statement that this is not about President Obama. There's been a lot being made about the relationship between these two leaders, which is bad, and keeps gets worst every day. But he made this clear, this is not about me and President Obama. I appreciate everything the president has done for Israel. And I think the president also appreciates the responsibility that I have in coming and having to do what I need to do to protect the people of Israel.

So you talk to U.S. officials, and they acknowledge that there's a profound disagreement with Iran -- with Israel over Iran, but they feel that over the years, they've really been successful in talking to the Israelis, keeping them up to date, working with them on intel, working with them on the sanctions, and they say that they'll continue to do so. BLITZER: But the president, Elise -- the prime minister is basically

saying that President Obama, if he goes ahead with this deal, that Israel doesn't like, would be complicit in threatening Israel's very existence. I don't remember a time where a prime minister of Israel has basically laid out a charge as serious as that is against a sitting president of the United States. I know it's only going to be two weeks before the March 17th elections in Israel, and the prime minister is getting severely criticized by his political opponents over there, but that's a very serious charge that Netanyahu is making against the president. Basically, he doesn't trust him, and he doesn't like this deal that's in the works.

LABOTT: Well, it's a very serious charge, and I think, Wolf, over the years, it's been clear that the U.S. and Israel see Iran, in some very clear terms, the same way, and some in different terms. For the United States, as it's negotiating an agreement, it has to take into consideration its own national security interests and Israel's. Because the U.S. isn't close to Iran, it can accept a little bit more of a risk, a calculated risk in terms of a nuclear program. They take that into consideration. But I think they feel that as this deal goes on, as they can put verification in place, that they'll be able to have a deal that Israel can agree with.

As you say, it is an election season, and this is the issue that Prime Minister Netanyahu is campaigning on. He knows this is talking to his base. That's what he's really doubling down to. This does not hurt him with that base, Wolf. It also deflects from issues he doesn't want to talk about, like the economy, which is a big issue here.

BLITZER: Prime minister of Israel just said he thinks the offer that's already been made to Iran by the United States and the other negotiators is an offer that would enable Iran to threaten Israel's survival. Those are very strong words from Netanyahu. If the relationship was strained between him and the president of the United States before, it's going to be even more strained in the aftermath of the statement he made within the past hour. I suspect there's no doubt about that.

All right, Elise. Thanks very much.

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: One woman has apparently found a way to beat the high price of flying. Get this. She stows away on board the plane. Authorities in Florida say 63-year-old Marilyn Hartman managed to sneak on board a plane from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Jacksonville, Florida.

Our aviation and government regulation correspondent, Rene Marsh, is here to tell us what's going on.

What is going on?

RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION & GOVERNMENT REGULATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, investigators are still trying to get to the bottom of this. Right now we know that TSA, as well as airport officials, they're going through surveillance video to essentially confirm this woman's story. Remember, this is her story. She told authorities that she was able to board a plane from Minnesota to Florida without a plane ticket. So they're looking into that to see if that's true. If it is true, this wouldn't be the first time she was able to pull off a stunt like this. About a year ago, she was able to bypass document checkers in San Francisco. We're talking about the TSA and the airline document checkers. She was actually seated on a plane bound for Hawaii when the passenger, whose seat she was in, arrived, and she was arrested before takeoff. Then six months ago, she pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for stowing away on a flight from San Jose to Los Angeles. Again, she bypassed TSA and airline document checkers, and she was able to fly without a plane ticket. You look at her mug shot, she looks like, you know --

BLITZER: 63 years old, yeah.

MARSH: -- maybe someone's grandmother.

BLITZER: But how does she get through the TSA, the security over there, without a ticket?

MARSH: So that's the problem. In at least one of the cases, TSA is saying it was a configuration of the airport, essentially, that made it very easy for her to do that. They've since changed that. But they're looking into this latest.

BLITZER: They better learn to see what's going on.

All right, Rene, thanks very much.

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

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

For our viewers in North America, "Newsroom" with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.