Transcripts For KQED PBS NewsHour 20130905 : vimarsana.com

Snowden. Ifill roughly one out of every six new yorkers is over 65. Hari sreenivasan reports on efforts to make the big apple a little more agefriendly. Woodruff and are colleges too focused on Career Training . Jeffrey brown sits down with the author of the new book why teach . Thats all ahead on tonights newshour. Major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by bnsf. Supported by the john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation. Committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And. This program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Ifill president obama began a trip to europe today for an economic summit, but syria stayed at the top of his agenda. The administrations push for military action advanced in Congress Even as the president issued a new appeal to the world. My credibilitys not on the line. The international communitys credibility is on the line. Ifill arriving in stockholm today, the president immediately moved to turn up the pressure on potential allies, and he defended his yearold statement, saying syria should not cross a red line by using chemical weapons in its ongoing civil war. First of all, i didnt set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 of the worlds population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Ifill syria never signed the 1993 International Convention on chemical weapons, but mr. Obama insisted Bashar Assads government must not be allowed to act with impunity. Instead, he appealed again for russia a major ally of the assad regime to stop blocking u. N. Security Council Action on syria. I think that International Action would be much more effective, and, ultimately, we can end deaths much more rapidly if russia takes a different approach to these problems. Ifill the president heads to st. Petersburg, russia, for a g 20 meeting this week, but, in moscow, russian president Vladimir Putin dismissed the u. S. Appeal. He warned the west has no right to initiate military action without u. N. Support. translated i do not exclude this, but i would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect. Only the u. N. Security council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method can only be interpreted as an aggression. Ifill back in washington, president obamas policy passed its first test in congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution authorizing the limited use of force, but it bars any deployment of american combat troops. Republican john mccain won approval of an amendment that also advocates a broader strategy of strengthening the syrian rebels. I feel in the strongest terms that we need to have that provision that calls for reversal of momentum on the ground battle against bashar assad. If bashar assad remains in an advantageous position, he will never leave syria. He has to know that he is losing, and that way you get a negotiated settlement for his departure. Ifill todays Committee Action marked the first vote approving military strikes since october 2002, when congress authorized the invasion of iraq. On the other side of the capitol, the House Foreign Affairs Committee Heard from secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel and general martin dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Antiwar protesters waved hands painted red, simulating blood, as kerry spoke. There are risks of acting, but believe me it is our judgment collectively and the president s that the greater risks are not acting. We will have said to him, nobody cares, gas your people, you do what you need to to stay in office and back off. That would be. I honestly find that that would be one of those moments that will live in infamy. Ifill the president reaffirmed his desire for congressional support in his stockholm appearance today, but he suggested a no vote would not tie his hands. As commander in chief, i always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of Americas National security. I do not believe that i was required to take this to congress, but i did not take this to Congress Just because its an empty exercise. I think its important to have congress support on it. Ifill in paris, the French Parliament began its own debate on a military response as the Prime Minister echoed the warnings from washington. translated to not act would be to put in danger peace and security in the entire region, but, also beyond that, our own security. I ask the question, what credibility would our International Commitments have against nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction including Nuclear Weapons . Ifill meanwhile, the fighting in syria continued, unaffected by debates around the globe. Rebels and Regime Forces engaged in heavy gun battles on the outskirts of damascus. Woodruff now a view from the white house. Tony blinken is president obamas Deputy National security adviser. I spoke with him a short time ago. Bli, thank you very much for joining us. Let me just start by asking if you you think the administration will have the votes it needs in congress to take military action. Judy, i do. Look at what weve seen over the last couple of days. Yesterday, we saw the emergence of strong bipartisan support for this authorization. We had speaker boehner. We had leader cantor. Leader pelosi in the house. We have a strong Bipartisan Group in the senate, including the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, senator monday, and senator corker. And just today, we have the passage in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of our resolution authorizing the use of force. So the momentum is there, and i think were heading in exactly that direction. Woodruff tony, in an interview with the newshour last week, the president said the main point of any military strike would be to punish and deter the assad regime. Now, though we hear senators mccain and graham saying in their conversation with the president , hes talking about degrading the capabilities of the assad regime. Thats going a step further, isnt it . What does that mean to degrade . Judy there are two things going on here that are important to understand. With regard to the underlying conflict in syria, there has been a civil war going oas you know. And weve been working very hard to end that war and we think the best way to do that is through a negotiating transition that moves assad out through a political process. In order to do that, weve got to get him to the negotiating table and that involves, in part, putting the pressure on him, isolating him, and billion up the opposition, which weve been doing in recent months, as well as having a diplomatic track. And there we will be, i think, doing more to support opposition as they try and convince assad that he needs to negotiate an end to this. Within that, we have this terrible chemical weapons attack of august 21. And we believe that its imperative that we respond to that because theres been a norm against the use of chemical weapons for nearly 100 years. If we allow this to go unchecked, assad will continue to do it with impunity. Other countries around the world and in the region who have weapons of mass destruction or seek to acquire them will conclude they can use them with impunity. The action were proposing would be focused on the chemical weapons and making sure that assad is deterred from using them again, and that his ability to use them again is degraded, and thats what this is focused on. Now, its also true in any action we take, assad is very likely to conclude things he holds dear are at risk, and in that sense, hes likely to have a greater incentive to want to negotiate an end to this underlying conflict. Woodruff so in other words, in addition to punishing, you want to weaken the assad regime, make it easier for the opposition to take over the government. So, the focus of this military effort that were proposing is limited and focused on his chemical weapons capability and its to deter him, to tell him dont do it again but its also to make it a lot harder to do it again if he makes the mistake of trying to do it again. But in that context, hes also going to learn that things that are important to him militarily are at risk, and that can have the effect of convincing him that he need to negotiate an end to the underlying conflict as well. Woodruff well, in terms of helping the rebels, we know there was a very prominent news report yesterday that military lethal aid had not yet reached the opposition. Now were hearing that it may be close to reaching the opposition. Can you tell us whether it has at this point, and if not, is it about to . So, judy, a number of countries have been providing assistance to the opposition, including the United States. And some months ago, youll recall, that when our Intelligence Community concluded initially that assad had been using on a small scale chemical weapons over the past year, the president said that we would be increasing our support to the opposition. And weve spent some time putting in place an effort to do just that. And what i can tell you now without detailing any of the support is that we have moved out on that. Woodruff so lethal aid has reached the opposition, is reaching it now . So, judy, what i can say is without detailing the kind of assistance were providing ifs we have significantly increased the assistance that is getting to the opposition. Woodruff glood how long do you any any Campaign Strike against the assad regime will take. The reason ski is we know in striking kosovo many years ago, the clt administration spoke about it lasting a few days. 20 on for Something Like 72 days. Once Something Like this get started, how do you know you can put an end to it . Judy, its really important that people understand what this is and what this isnt. And its understandable that people have concerns about this being some kind of openended potential action. It is not. The reason people tend to have that as an initial reaction is they are look at this through the frame of the last decade, a war in iraq, a war in afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of american troops committed. Well, what this is is a very targeted, very focused, timelimited action to deter assad from using chemical weapons again, and to make it harder for him to do so. What it is not is openended. It is not boots on the ground. It is not iraq. It is not afghanistan. Its not kosovo. Its not even libya. I cant be any more precise than that, but it is var limited, targeted action, but an effective one to deal with the use of chemical weapons. Woodruff and is the administration prepared for unintended cons qebses . The syrian foreign minister is saying today theres no way of knowing what will be the repercussions of a u. S. Strike. He talks about syria striking back at turkey, at israel, and at lebanon, if the u. S. Hit his country. We are very well prepared. We know that any action has risk, any action can have unintended consequences. We do a lot of work to make sure we anticipate what those might be and to take steps to mitigate them. But we also believe fundamentally that not acting would have far greater and far griever consequences. If we dont act to enforce a norm of the use of chemical weapons that has been around for nearly 100 years that congress has gotten strongly behind over the last decade, if we dont do that, assad will conclude he can use these weapons again with impunity. Other countries who have such weapons or aspire to get them will also conclude they can acquire them andue them with impunity. That will do terrible damage to our security and the security of other countries around the world. There are always dangers in acting, we do what we can to mitigate them. Woodruff the top security advisers are recommending the president cut off aid to the egyptian military. Hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliation for the removal of the morsi presidency. Is that the case . Is that what you and others are recommending to the president . So, judy, we know that after what happened in egypt, as the president has said, its not going to be business as usual. And in the wake of the violence that we saw after morsi was pushed out of power, we suspended the delivery of f16s. We suspended a Major Military exr size. And the rest of our assistance is under review. We also have a strong incentive to encourage the egyptians to get on a democratic track, to have an inclusive process that brings an inclusive government into power, and were working with them on that. Beyond that, at this point, all i can tell you is we look at this on a regular basis and weve already taken steps to suspend some of our assistance. Woodruff tony blinken, the Deputy National security adviser to president obama, thank you. Thanks for having me, judy. Next a view from the senate. Last night i talked with michigan democrat carl levin. Tonight we speak with fisher v. University of texas. We spoke earlier this fngs. Tonight, where do you stand on the president s request for a war authorization . I have many concerns. We need to look at the consequences of any action that we take in syria. We need to know what the strategy is, whats the mission, what are the goals, both long term and short term. Term. Ifill you know, the process was in stockholm today as im sure youre aware. One of the things he was talking about is its not his credibility on the line, its the worlds credibility, congress credibility bhap do you think about that, whose credibility, if anybodys, was on the line. I was pretty surprised by his comment. It was the president who drew that line. Its the president s credibility. Hes now come to the United States congress and well be looking at his mission, as hes going to define it. But i think it is his credibility. He needs to make the case, and he needs to make it to the people of this country. Id like to see the president have a meeting, have a press conference in the oval office, have an address, and lay this out, lay out the mission, lay out the goals. The people of this country truly understand that theyre warwise. Theyre not just war weary. Martha raddatz said that on a sunday program and i think its very insightful. The nebraskans i talk to understand war. They understand war in the middle east. Weve been there. Weve done it. We know whats coming. So the president has to make things th case. Ifill lets talk about what congress and the senate in particular is trying to do to make this war authorization fit. Its almost like a goldilocks too hot, too cold choice in this case whether its too broad, whether you end up with boots on the ground and involved in a civil war, or tooinaree, a limited strike that doesnt accomplish much. What do you think is the greatest concern in trying to strike that balance . I think the greatest concern is to understand what the mission is. Ive said that before. We can have a narrow strike. But then is that a shot across the bow . What does that mean . Lets define that. Lets define what the submission. Theres a lot of unintended consequences out there. Ive been in that region twice now. Ive had the opportunity to meet with officials with the jordanian government. They have many, many concerns going forward. So this just doesnt affect us as a country. It affects our allies as well. It affects this entire region. It affects the world. Again, the president has to make a case. Ifill the president , the secretary of state, and the latest drafts in these resolutions have all made the point there would be no u. S. Boots on the ground in any kind of enterprise in syria. Do you agree with that . Is that taking it too far . I think the American People dont want to see boots on the ground. As i said, weve been in the conflicts in that region before. Were not ready to go back. We need to understand what the ramifications are. We can say no boots on the ground, but what if assad uses chemical weapons again . How do we respond . Its happened 14 times. Were just responding now. The british Prime Minister said this has happened 14 times. So why are we just responding now . Thats a question that needs to be answered as well. Ifill so there is as you try to figure that out, why it didnt happen before, have you ruled out in your mind that it should happen now . You know, i havent ruled out anything. Were learning more and more every day. We just heard from the secretary of defense, secretary hagel today, that the russians are supplying chemical weapons to syria. We didnt know that before. Ive gone through two conference calls, briefings. I went through a briefing with the Armed Services committee this morning. We just heard that today. So what else dont we know . If the russians are involved in this, are they supplying the syrians with with chemical weapons, and what consequences arconsequencesare we going to st action . How are they going to respond if we go in and attack syria. Ifill how important if this resolution is granted is it to to you that the president at some date concern come back to congress . As i said, the president needs to talk to the American People. Lets have that address from the oval office, have him lay out his case. Were getting more and more information in briefings, but the American People have so many questions on this. They need to be a part of this discussion, too. And its up to the president to be able to put that case forward. Ifill is one