Transcripts For KQED Washington Week With Gwen Ifill 20130907

This insane maniac in syria is doing anything to place my country in danger or to violate or National Security. Gwen as the president prepares for a national address, he also faces basic political questions. My credibility is not only the line. The internal communitys credibility is on the line. America and congresss credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international enormous are important. Gwen but can congress or the public be persuaded . Covering the week, susan davis of usa today, John Dickerson of slate magazine and cbs news, ed ed of the Washington Post and david sanger of the new york times. Awardwinning reporting and analysis. Covering history as it happens. Live from our nations capital, this is Washington Week with gwen ifill. Corporate funding for Washington Week is provided by we went out and asked people a simple question. How old is the oldest person youve known . We gave people a sticker and had them show us. A lot of us have known someone whos lived well into their 90s and thats a great thing. But one thing that hasnt changed, the official retirement age. How do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all f these years . Additional funding for Washington Week is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and my contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Once again, live from washington, moderator gwen ifill. Gwen good evening. This has been a perplexing week for the president and a challenging one for congress. The president said he has decided its important to strike syria in order to punish president Bashar Alassad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Then he asked congress to back him up. At first, leaders from both parties and both chambers climbed onboard. Once the Administration Made this call, though, i think there is a real need for us to back it up or america becomes a paper tiger. I think we should go ahead and strike. And it cant be one just day or two or three days of tomahawk missiles. Gwen the president s war cabinet went to capitol hill. Having defined americas interests and military objectives, we almost must examine the risks and consequences of action as well as the consequences of inaction. Gwen but tonight, many members of congress from liberals to conservatives remain unconvinced. People understand its not our problem. Its not going to do any good, its expensive and dangerous. If you want to get us into a third war in the middle east, this is the way to do it. I do think that many of us have learned how difficult it is based on the iraq experience r the United States to get disengaged once we take a military action. Gwen so ed, lets keep count. Where do we stand tonight . As of tonight as we go onto the air, according to the Washington Post, there are 224 lawmakers that are either no or leaning no in the house. Youre going to need 217 to defeat a resolution when it comes balls there are two vacancies right now in the house. The magic number is 217. In the senate at this point just 15 are opposed. Four democrats among them. Another 10 are leaning no and a majority are still undecided. You talk to senior congressional aides, read the tea leaves when it comes to the House Democrats especially and heres a belief that when many leaning no lawmakers return on monday and begin reading the materials it might make some remain skeptical or undecided through the remainder of the week. There are those that say whats the riske to the United States and that is the argument the president will have to answer in the coming days. Gwen it seems that republicans like john boehner, who was in support right off of the president and their base are the ones abandoning them on the far left and far right. One problem you have with boehner and eric cantor, who also came out northwesterly support is this is a conference that does not necessarily follow in line of our leadership. The idea that the speaker and majority would get behind something doesnt necessarily translate into votes. On the opposite end you have nancy pelosi which is a certain amount of irony, being an dvocate for the pulitzer prizewinner on capitol hill. Theres more of an idea that this is the democrats president and that theyre going to have to put more of the numbers on the board to get this passed. As youve seen liberals like theyre d others say not in support. Its hard to see where it stand today that the house is going to have the votes to get to. And the president is going to have to make such an overwhelming case in his address to the nation that its going to have to swing a lot of votes. Gwen the president keeps saying he is making an overwhelming case but obviously the arguments against and for are breaking down clearly. What are the reasons for this debate . Why is this so up in the air . Ive got about 18 different distinct reasons given to not do it. Everything from members who have said we need to spend this money at home. Others have said this will set off a con that graduation in the region. And con that graduation in the reason. I think the biggest hurdle for phones and t, the email inboxes are overflowing with people saying to not do this. I talked to one office and the other office i said is running 100 to one. He said here its running 8001. People against. Why are the against in the majority . People think its unpredictable. No matter how much the president talks about this being a limited targeted strike, they think iran will end up responding or russia. Theres nothing the lawmakers can go back to their constituents that will allay their fierce. Theyre going to have to get them to forget the fears, thats a big task. Gwen one question people have is whether this evidence is real. What is the evidence that makes this such and i guess john kerry wants to retire the term slam dunk but so certain . In an odd way its almost the reverse of iraq. In iraq the question was were there weapons and not who would use them if the weapons are actually there . Here theres no doubt there were weapons. Weve seen the photographs of people who clearly were asphyxiated in chemical attacks. The u. S. Has emerged with physiological evidence. The u. N. Inspectors have not yet filmed their evidence but the indications are they have the same thing that the u. S. Has. Whats unknown is who actually used it and thats where you have to do the digging because as you look at these attacks, which appear to have used sarin gas, its not a very easy thing to you. There are individuals who can do it. Those attacks in tokyo more than a decade ago were sarin but it require as lot of planning and training and in this case they were launched on rockets and theres no evidence at all that the gas supplies have left the hands of the government. And then the u. S. Says there are intercepts, which we have not heard yet directly so we kind of take their word for it or not of syrian commanders planning for this and then talking about the event after the fact. Gwen the president has made the argument that the u. S. Has said and the congress has said in 2003 that this is a line that shouldnt be crossed, yet he gets annoyed when hes asked about his red line. First of all, i didnt set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 8 of the worlds population said the f chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty for their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratifyed that treaty. Gwen he doesnt like this question either but the credibility issue, who set the red line, whether congress is capable of fulfilling its promises. Is that conversation happening at capitol hill as well . I think so. One of the things we heard from lawmakers this week in the hearings is that theres a lot of doubt about because theres a perception of lack of support in the international community. If there was more of an International Response it would be easier to make the case to congress. Theresen the arlington an argument that the immediate United States National Security interests are threaten end at this point. That is not only a hard sell for lawmakers to their con instead of went but they dont necessarily believe it. Be the we do act theres the nknown quantity of if we react and people do respond . And that scares lawmakers. Yes, the world set a red line in 1925 and again in the 1970s but the u. S. Has ignored other chemical weapons attacks, including during the iraniraq war. Then the president set a red line and he set it clearly and said pretty clearly what the consequences would be. So while the world said it then barack obama adopted it. You can say its understandable why he did. He takes weapons of mass destruction seriously. He got elected on the thought of bringing down Americas Nuclear stockpiles. We have just gotten rid of americas chemical stockpiles but its taken 14 or 15 years and its not done yet. The second point is what ed raised about the immediate National Security interests and the fact of the matter is assad cant reach the United States. He doesnt have the missiles that can reach the u. S. Chemical weapons are not something that pose an existential threat the way Nuclear Weapons do, but he can reach American Allies and if the country implodes, which it may do even if the u. S. Doesnt intercede and those weapons get loose, then theres the question of whether theyll where theyll turn it elsewhere in the middle east. They keep talking about the norm against the use of chemical weapons. Its a word that i wonder how much puffs that has in the real world. If the use of chemical weapons is not stopped, the whole fear of handling of chemical weapons get looser. That i start to float around and officials have intimated they could come here. Thats a very charged and emotional argument and its also a stretch. Its a bank shot, how it directly affects the safety of the security of americans. We saw in the runup to the iraq war a lot of this argue men station which felt like a stretch and then in the end when the evidence wasnt there really felt like a stretch. Lets face it, moving chemical weapons is not easy. Its easier in a way to move small Nuclear Weapons than it is chemical. Gwen thats the granola of this argument. But how much of this is politics . I think the most fascinating thing is how suddenly lawmakers are looking at their call sheets every morning. And you alluded to this john. John culberson, republican from the houston area came out of a close closinged door briefing yesterday and he said 96 of the calls and emails ive gotten are opposed to going into syria. He said i cant think of 96 agreement on anything. Republican from south dakota, 854 calls or emailses opposed to in support of military action. Bern earn Bernie Sanders in vermont, famous liberal. This is the funny one. 488 phone calls, 10 in support. Gwen how many people have call sexblesd its a good thing . Very few. Heres the tough point. And the president , im going to summarize his remarks. He said its not always our jobs to vote for the most popular things. Was trying to appeal to morality and decency, which i think was a huge part of the message of john kerrys address on capitol hill. Im not sure its the most effective. This is a white house that has had really bad rhythms with capitol hill. They dont have a reservoir of political good will of strong or trust rhythms. This is a president who most recently has said i dont need congress and now is trying to corral them. Gwen theres also a moral argument that congress doesnt have a morale that sticks. Not only from iraq but the previous administration. Lets listen to what the president said in his fare well address in st. Pierce burg. When people say it is a terrible stain on all of us that hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in rwanda. Imagine if rwanda was going on right now and we asked should we intervene in a wande . Rwanda . I think its fair to say that it probably wouldnt poll well. Gwen thats an interesting connection, between the moral argument and the polling argument. He is but its an interesting argument from barack obama because 100,000 people died in syria from conventional causes just of ordinary civil war and he was leading a group within the administration saying theres no way to affect the outcome of the ground and you dont go in unless off plan that will actually affect the outcome on ground. Hen 1,000 people, 1,4 oh, 1,400 if you believe the administration, 350 in some of the International Intelligence reports get killed by chemical weapons. This is the great strategic disconnect in his argument because he keeps saying this is a limited strike, a day or two to teach a lesson a shot across the bow i think he said to asod. And one of the questions youre hearing from congress i think from people who would otherwise i think be inclined to support him, tell me what happens the day after . Gwen theres a real slippery slope thing going on. Its the slippery slope and the disconnect. He says on the one hand he wants assad to be out but the other is this will have no connection to that previous strategy. Gwen this is not about regime change unless when it is, when john mccain says it is. We saw on the vote in the community of Foreign Relations in the Senate John Mccain ball could at the authorization ever,000 language because it wasnt Strong Enough so they tweenged it. That this attack is going to degrade the syrian ability. Thats different. That means affect more things and maybe tip the balance of power. What we see is this committee on Foreign Relations is the sliply slope. It needs to get more aggressive to buy john mccain off. Gwen you have to listen to this piece of sound from john kerry during that hearing, speaking of slippery slope, when you stalk to talk about exactly how far youll go. Lets listen. In the event syria imploded, for instance, or in the event here was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling someone, i s of dont want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country because i dont want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibility so lets shut that door now as tight as we can. Gwen first he opened the door and shut it again. The committee shut it for him right after that. The resolution they ended up passing and i think it was compeled in part of what he said in that hearing was no u. S. Combat troops, maybe a rescue mission if you had to but thats it. In expanding the language, youve probably cost the senate maybe 10 democratic votes. Theyve lost tom you dahl, chris murphy. Tom you dal, chris murphy. I think that one of the things important in this is the perception among lawmakers too that the pentagon is very lukewarm about this mission. Theres a perception this is not something that the pentagon is actively engaged in, something they want to do. He did not wow in front of the hearings. He certainly didnt exhuled or make a compelling case. A lot of lawmakers have incredibly strong relationships with the pentagon and if we are hearing that from officials theyre hearing it twel. As well. One president in support said that dempsey looked like he was a hot during the testimony. John kerry was aggressive and energetic and dempsey, all of his body language this person said, was almost difficult to watch. You can see the tension in the administration between the sort of dempsey camp and the kerry camp. It was pretty evident in that hearing. Why is this happening . In part because the pentagons view, the u. S. Militarys view of any kind of intervention like this is if you send u. S. Troops in you better be sending them in to make a point that no one in the world is ever going to miss. So when the president says we are there to send a warning shot, the pentagon says we dont do warning shots. We do something to make it clear that you dont cross the u. S. Military again. Gwen they dont do humanitarian missions either. They will if that is the sole mission, but in libya before ben zpwazz benghazi and all that that was considered a success not simply because they protected the people of benghazi but because in the end, the government failed and dempsey had to say i cant tell you if its going to make a difference on the ground. Gwen we have a big speech tuesday night. The president is going to make his case again, hopefully for a larger all of a sudden. What does he have to do . How much are people hanging on his powers of persuasion tuesday night . Very much. Lawmakers of both parties. They want to see him give a speech, stick his neck out there and try to make his is his case to the American People and the next morning theyll wait to see what kind of reception they get from the con switch owens si. It is that iraq con tip kenzie. They want to hear what does it mean for the rest of the region and why would i it affect someone in illinois or the dakotas. Of all of the two sideline efforts that are going to make an effort, dont underestimate the value of the members coming back and getting into the room together. They not only look to the president but other members to form opinions. Many of them havent seen this classified briefing. The other thing is apac, is israeli lobby has said theyre going to do a fullcourt press to members to vote for this next week. The president , the tone we saw it in his remarks today, about the children who were killed, making a moral case with a very, sort of graphic deprippings of what this did to innocent children. Thats what makes this a distinction from the previous killing in syria. They think theyre their most powerful emotional case is in that area. Hes got to decide whether hes making a humanitarian case or a National Security case. Hes tried a little bit of both and i think its been unconvincing. Gwen thats what theyre planning on the plane flying back from russia tonight. Thank you, everyone. Were done here for now but we always have a couple ways for you to stay part of the conversation. At pbs. Org Washington Week where the webcast extra will stream live 8 30 p. M. Eastern and all week weekend long and exciting news. Thank you, again. Coming up tomorrow on the premiere edition of pbs news hour weekend, all of the turmoil in the middle east, an important story getting little attention. Israels huge energy discoveries. How will they change life there and throughout the region. Thats tomorrow. Again . Gwen the brandnew pbs news hour weekend airs saturdays and sundays. Check your local listings for the exact time. And keep your dial on pbs because starting monday Judy Woodruff and i take over the anchor deskal the pbs news hour. And then, well see you next week right here on Washington Week. Good night. For porate funding Washington Week is provided by prudential. Additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you.  a kqed television production. Like sort of old fishermans wharf. It reminds me of old san francisco. The calories, the cholesterol. Its like an adventure. Oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. I did. Inhaled it