Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Another American Beheaded; Boots on the Ground Scenario; ISIS Video Shows Murdered American; Immigration Showdown; Obama and Republicans on Collision Course

Aired November 17, 2014 - 13:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, another American beheaded by ISIS and now word that a French citizen was involved. We'll examine the video for clues about the state of the terror group.

Boots on the ground. President Obama outlines one scenario where he would send ground troops in to fight ISIS. How big of an about-face did this represent?

And right now, a new political scandal involving the Republican Party polling data and secret Twitter accounts. We'll have the exclusive details.

Hello, I'm Jim Sciutto in today for Wolf Blitzer. And I want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

An act of pure evil. That's what President Obama is calling the execution of American, Peter Kassig, at the hands of ISIS. His death was posted in a new video from the terror over the weekend. Kassig is a former Army Ranger who went to Syria as a humanitarian aid worker. He's the third American hostage and fifth westerner killed by ISIS in just the past few months.

But the video showing Kassig's death is different from the rest. We want to bring in our own Brian Todd. What are the major differences here, and it might surprise our viewers, Brian, to learn that this one is even more gruesome than what we've seen in the past.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It really is, Jim. A lot of very strong differences between this video and previous ISIS execution videos. We can tick through some of them now. For one, the victim, Peter Kassig, also known as Abdul-Rahman Kassig, he was not made to give a speech before his execution, at least not on this video. The victim here is clearly -- not very clearly recognizable. You just see the head. There is no body displayed. There was no sign of him in an orange jump suit prior to being executed.

Also, a very striking difference here, Jim, no other hostages brought forth at the end of this video and threatened with execution. And now, some experts say this suggests that the video was hastily made, maybe suggesting that ISIS is under more pressure now. And, again, we're kind of running this to ground with intelligence officials to get their take on this. We're going to have more on this in "THE SITUATION ROOM" later today.

But also, Jim, this -- in this video, this is much longer than the other execution videos. In the video, they go through the history of ISIS. They track it back to the days of Al Qaeda in Iraq with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And that image that you're seeing there on the screen is another very strong difference.

In this video, they display what they say are Syrian pilots being actually killed by ISIS militants. And the militants themselves, aside from that man you're looking at right there, do not have masks on. They clearly show their faces. They're -- they show them of diverse nationalities to display maybe the fact that they recruit militants from all over the place. The one hooded ISIS militant, known to many of us as, quote, "Jihadi John," he also speaks in the video. But another difference in this video, Jim, is that he is actually seen killing someone for the first time. He is seen killing one of those Syrian soldiers.

So, again, very strong differences between this video of Peter Kassig and previous execution videos. We're running this to ground with analysts and intelligence officials -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Got you to just shake your head. The others have already been so upsetting, this one even more so.

TODD: Right.

SCIUTTO: Thanks very much to Brian Todd in Washington.

So, he just described some of the clues that international investigators are looking at. They are also looking closer at the other people shown in the video, as Brian said.

Joining me now is our Nic Robertson from Washington as well as CNN Intelligence and Security Analyst Bob Baer. He's in Irvine, California. Bob, if I can start with you, looking at the differences in the video, what do they tell you, if anything, about the state of ISIS now and if it's under any sort of pressure?

BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Jim, I think they're definitely under pressure. They failed in the siege of Kobani. They failed in the siege of Beirut. They had wanted to get into Beirut to take the airport. They'd been turned back in Beiji (ph). This execution looks to me, or at least the publication of it, as an act of desperation. They certainly didn't set up the two cameras, plan the propaganda around this. So, they are lashing out, at this point. And what I think this means is the bombings are having an effect on them.

SCIUTTO: Nic, do you agree? Do you think that you see signs of the campaign working?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think there's an element here that ISIS has wanted to show that it's resisting. It doesn't go into any details whatsoever or admit any sort of number of casualties in the bombings. And it's inviting the United States to come and send more troops into the area and it is ready for them. That's what it says.

But this seems to be them sort of rather than addressing the real issues that are facing them right now, an intensive air campaign that's disrupting their activities on the ground. This is a mission statement of where they plan to go in the future. This particular video, 15 minutes long, the Peter Kassig part is a relatively small part. It shows where they say they're expanding, Algeria, Tunisia (ph), Egypt, Libya, Yemen. These are all places where they say that they -- ISIS is getting buy-in from local jihadists. There's evidence on the ground in some of those countries to support some of that. And this is part of their narrative, the history but the future rather than looking at their tight spot and situation that they're in right now. But there's no doubt about it, they are inviting attack on them even more -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: We're familiar now with this person who's been named Jihadi John, speaks with a -- possibly an English accent. But now, French investigators looking into the possible connection in this video, the killings in this video, to two French nationals. And, in fact, they announced that one of them is 22-year-old Maxime Hauchard. The French government citing photographic resemblance in naming him. Nic, are you hearing the same thing? Are they solid in thinking that that's who this man who is pictured here?

ROBERTSON: They're saying it's a strong presumption, at this time. But they have a file on this guy. This guys, as you say, 22 years old. They say that he's from a relatively small village in Normandy in the north of France. That he was radicalized online. That he had even gone to look for training camps as early as 2011, had come back disappointed, had gone to Syria in 2013, had done an interview with a French news outlet over the past year or so. You know, proselytizing for ISIS, trying to exhort other people to come and join them. He's just one of what French officials are saying are over 1,000 young men that have gone from France, and women, to join radical groups in Syria and in Iran.

And they have a tendency, also, not just to join ISIS but to join Al Nusra, and, therefore, perhaps, fall under the sway of the Khorasani group that has an attention to focus its attacks more in Europe and the west than back there. And the French are very aware of people like this one, Maxime Hauchard. While he's attacking right now in Syria, there's also a submessage here that these people will be coming back as well and Baghdadi says that in his video, too.

SCIUTTO: That's the other thing here. And that is, as you know, Bob, and Nic mentioned there, there's been a supreme concern of U.S. western intelligence officials, certainly the British the French, about not just the threat of young men being radicalized and going there to fight and carrying out these horrible acts, like we're seeing today in this video, but the possibility of coming home and bringing terror home. A specific reference to that threat in this video. How serious is that? And does that indicate at all that such attacks are imminent?

ROBERTSON: Well, I don't know if they're imminent but I think it's almost inevitable that these people are going to come home from the battlefield. They did after Afghanistan. They did after Pakistan and the rest. And they will attempt attacks in the west, I think. As intelligence officials tell me, it's inevitable. Where and when, they're not certain. But once you get these scales in the battlefield and commitment, the tendency is, and especially when you're -- when you're starting to lose, is to strike out at the west, the western capital, including the United States.

SCIUTTO: And, you know, of course, there's also the concern of folks who were radicalized who were already here in the U.S. or Canada, et cetera. Thanks very much to Nic Robertson and Bob Baer, as always, giving us context on this latest gruesome video from ISIS.

Well, later today, we want to let you know that we expect to hear from Peter Kassig's parents. They're appearing in public for the first time since this horrible video surfaced. Ed and Paula Kassig will speak to the media 3:30 Eastern time. That's from Indianapolis. And we're going to bring that to you live.

Now, just ahead, President Obama talks about the prospect of U.S. ground troops in Iraq. The Joints Chief chairman says he can't rule out that recommendation. We're hear what the president said in response.

And taking executive action on immigration reform. Our political panel discusses the coming showdown between the president and Republicans in Congress.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: And welcome back. President Obama returns from his overseas trip and heads towards a showdown with Republicans in Congress. The president plans to issue an executive order on immigration reform as early as this week. Republicans are up in arms over this go it alone approach.

Plus, the Senate votes tomorrow on the Keystone Pipeline. That could trigger a presidential veto. And Republicans say they will keep up their effort to repeal Obamacare when they take control in of Congress in January.

Joining me now, CNN Political Commentators Paul Begala and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker. Great to have both of you here. Paul, I wonder if I could begin with you. The president has said, in explaining this choice to act with executive privilege on immigration reform this week, that Congress has had its chance and, by implication, that Republicans in Congress have had their chance to act. They didn't so now he's going to take this action. Does he risk spoiling any chance there was of working together in these last two years?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. Frankly, they have had their chance. I think he's got the better of the argument. You -- I think -- I always think it's been a myth that somehow now that the Republicans have full control of the Senate, now they'll be reasonable. The people who were elected by this country, free and fair elections, ran on platforms of opposing President Obama. Not one of them ran one ad saying, if you send me to Washington, I'll work in a bipartisan fashion. That's fine. That's fair. But it's just this big myth that we should expect them to, all of a sudden now, break their campaign promises and work with Obama.

The House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republicans now for a couple of years. They've had 508 days to pass the Senate passed bipartisan immigration plan, 508 days the president has given them. OK? He has got to act. We have a real problem in this country. We have a broken system. We have families being torn apart. He's got an obligation to act. And if the Republicans don't like it, they can pass a better law themselves and then negotiate it out with the president.

SCIUTTO: Newt Gingrich, I'm going to guess that you might disagree.

NEWT GINGRICH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think part of what Paul just said was very revealing and I agree with him. This is the American people's Congress. It was voted on at an election. Overwhelmingly, Kelly and Conway reports 74 percent of the people who voted, Democrat and Republican, said they do not want the president to take executive action by himself on issues like immigration. Now, the recent Gallup Poll said that the country prefers the Republicans to take the lead in policy. And the president himself said on October 2nd at Northwestern, my policies are on the ballot. Well, guess what, the American people repudiated his policies.

There's a level of arrogance and almost self-destruction in the president responding to this election by going further to the left with China, further to the left with Obamacare, further to the left with what he's doing right now in terms of immigration. And he's going to stay on the left, I suspect, I'll be shocked if he signs the authorization for the Keystone pipeline. The question will be, how clever can Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell be in corralling the president? The Constitution gives them the tools to do it. I suspect he's going to find this very expensive.

SCIUTTO: You raise the Keystone pipeline. I want to get to that. But as well, former President Bill Clinton injecting himself, you might say, into the debate here, urging President Obama to keep fighting for his agenda over the next two years. I'm just going to play a short clip. Have a listen to what he said over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S PRESIDENT: I think that he should minimize the chances of being a lame duck, which he can do by continuing to have an agenda and using the budget process to make deals with the Republicans, because now that they have both houses, they have a much greater vested interest in not just being against everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So, Paul Begala, don't be a lame duck, advice from President Clinton.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. SCIUTTO: Do you think that's fair advice? How can the president avoid falling into that category?

BEGALA: Well, I'm a little biased because I was actually in the room when he said that and I was visiting with him this weekend in Little Rock. It was the tenth anniversary of the Clinton Presidential Center, his library in Little Rock. And the point he was making, look at what he did, and he worked with Speaker Gingrich, did very important things. We doubled thee funding for the National Institutes of Health through the budget process. Probably saved millions of lives. Certainly created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in wealth by advancing research and technology. We created the children's health program, which insured 2.5 million children. We can do a lot and the president can do a lot now working with Republicans in the budget process.

But when you must, you have to stand strong. President Clinton issued far more executive orders than Barack Obama did. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves with an executive order. My goodness, Harry Truman integrated the military with an executive order. And George Bush turned Americans into torturers with his executive order. So there's vast powers in executives orders. And he has to work with the Congress, especially through the budget process. I thought it was good advice.

SCIUTTO: Newt Gingrich, you're a student of history of Congress, might even say a professor of the history of Congress. Do you question Paul Begala's laying this in an historical context?

GINGRICH: No, I think the historical context he's raising is ludicrous, but executive orders exist within the law. It's also true that presidents live in a constant balance of power with the legislative branch, the House and the Senate. This president is not going to be able to work with Republicans, as President Clinton has suggested, if he starts the dance by doing something which is guaranteed to outrage three out of four Americans who voted in the last congressional election, Democrat, Republican and Independent. There is no precedent - and, in fact, Obama himself used to tell his supporters he didn't have the authority to do what he has now decided to do.

If he does this, I predict that the House and Senate will methodically and calmly find ways to raise the pain level to the president to a point where he rescinds it. I think this will not stand. It is too great an outrage against the American system and the legislative branch has lots of tools to deal with a president who doesn't want to deal with reality.

SCIUTTO: Gentlemen, just -

BEGALA: It is true that Reagan and Bush both - Reagan and Bush, two Republican presidents, Bush senior, both used executive orders to legalize the status of undocumented people here who were not covered by the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill in 1986. So there is precedent. Both two Republican presidents did it and nobody made a peep. Now a Democratic president wants to do it and we're going to freak out. GINGRICH: No, and -

SCIUTTO: Paul - Paul Begala and Newt Gingrich, please stay because we're keeping you with us.

BEGALA: (INAUDIBLE).

SCIUTTO: I'd ask you to stay right after this break. Questions like this, as well as serious foreign policy challenges for the president. But what if air strikes do not get the job done against ISIS? The latest on what the president is saying about the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Before the break we'd been talking about some of the domestic challenges ahead for President Obama, but he is also, of course, facing many challenges on the international front. During a news conference at the G-20 Summit in Australia, the president was asked about comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey about keeping the option open for ground troops in Iraq. And the president offered this hypothetical.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we discover that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So let's bring back CNN political commentators Paul Begala and Newt Gingrich, former House speaker.

This seems like a very extreme scenario. Newt, was there meaning behind that? Do you think the president was opened the door to saying, yes, there are circumstances, plural, where I might order ground troops?

GINGRICH: Well, both his military advisers and the secretary of defense have been pressuring him and he is slowly, gradually walking his promise back from no ground troops to some ground troops but only as trainers, to maybe ground troops under extraordinary circumstances. Martin Dempsey was not talking about a unique nuclear weapons situation. What he was saying was pretty straightforward. These folks of ISIS are tough, they're well-organized, they are gaining ground and it may well be that if we're serious about defeating them, we'll have no choice except to defeat them with American forces. That's what Chairman Dempsey was saying when he was in Iraq.

The president doesn't want to jump to that and the president's in an awkward position. He ran to get everybody out of Iraq. Now he's putting people back into Iraq. I think he finds this very difficult. SCIUTTO: Paul, Newt has a point there. I've been covering the ISIS

story virtually every day and I've watched not only the prohibition on ground troops, at least from the president's own commanders, whether it be Chuck Hagel or Martin Dempsey saying they might recommend it under circumstances, but also the definition of what a ground or a combat troop is because we've seen even the president just last week expanding the areas in Iraq well beyond Baghdad and Erbil, much closer to combat, where U.S. troops will be. Do you agree with Newt that the president is walking back that promise not to deploy ground troops?

BEGALA: Maybe just a slight bit. He's certainly opened the door a crack. Presidents very rarely entertain hypotheticals. I mean way back when I used to brief the president before press conferences, we would always remind him of that, right, presidents don't answer hypotheticals. He didn't even just answer one, he suggested one and then responded. I have to say, this -- I'll probably get struck by lightning - I think Newt's 100 percent right. I agree with everything he said. I think it was a very, very limited, very particular worse- case scenario.

But when I've talked to the folks at the White House, what they say is, they try to move away from that phrase "boots on the ground," because obviously we have boots on the ground. We do. And we're going to have to have them for targeting, for training, for special forces, for intel. What they won't have - at least what they tell - they tell the American people, they tell me, is combat forces, ground combat forces. We're not going to reinvade Iraq. We're not going to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq again like we did in the Bush presidency. That seems to be where the real line is. But there has been some movement here. I think you can't deny it. Newt's got a good point here.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you because - and I want to give you both a chance to comment on this because we're just a week away to the day from the deadline of reaching agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Some Republicans already threatening to kill the deal introducing new sanctions. I wonder if both of you could just comment quickly on what you think the prospects are of reaching an agreement with Iran, one. I suppose the second question is, one that can politically survive here in the U.S.? Newt, I might ask you first.

GINGRICH: Well, and there's zero prospect of a serious agreement. There's a pretty high prospect that in desperation the State Department will grab any fig leaf. But I think that's already being blown apart and I think you'll see enormous anger if they try to sneak some way to avoid the Senate and the House being involved. So I think the president is in a real box here.

SCIUTTO: Paul, do you agree? Do you see a potential for a meaningful deal with Iran?

BEGALA: The problem is, we have less than two weeks. And I have talked to some senior diplomats and former diplomats who are very familiar with this issue, and that's what they say, they say the time is so limited, it's very difficult to get, but the sanctions are working. Iran is suffering. Rouhani, the president of Iran, he needs a deal desperately. And so we may get a deal. I'm not sure if we'll get it within that time frame. But then we will have -- I do think it's unfair for any responsible participant in this process to already prejudge something that hasn't even happened. And I think you're getting a lot of that from some people who may perhaps have a partisan agenda here.

SCIUTTO: Well, Paul Begala, Newt Gingrich, thanks very much. We've covered everything domestic and international. Always great to have you on.

BEGALA: Thanks, Jim. Great to see you.

GINGRICH: Good to be with you.

SCIUTTO: Still to come on this show, just released audio sheds more details on the shooting death of Michael Brown and surveillance video shows Officer Darren Wilson just hours after that encounter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)