Return to Transcripts main page

THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER

Syria Ready to Cooperate with the U.N. to Fight ISIS; Is Burger King Moving To Canada?; Remembering Michael Brown

Aired August 25, 2014 - 16:30   ET

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


JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to THE LEAD.

I'm Jake Tapper in St. Louis, Missouri.

More on the crisis in Ferguson coming up.

But first, our World Lead.

Last week, President Obama called the terrorist group ISIS a cancer. And now, we know the cancer is metastasizing.

Yesterday, ISIS took control of a critical air base in Northern Syria from the Assad regime.

And in what is becoming a sick signature of this monstrous al Qaeda offshoot, ISIS fighters reportedly were seen carrying the heads of Syrian regime soldiers at the site of the brutal battle. That's according to a human rights group on the ground there.

All of this comes as the White House is said to be considering launching strikes on ISIS within Syria's borders, not just in Iraq. The Syrian regime says it's ready to accept support from the United States and others working under the U.N. umbrella to fight the jihadi group.

But will the United States suddenly find itself working in concert with Bashar Al-Assad, a man whom President Obama himself has said for years must go?

CNN's senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, is here with more on this high stakes geopolitical gamble -- Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT:

Jake, today the White House said President Obama has not made any decisions regarding taking any military action against ISIS targets inside Syria. And also, top administration officials are sounding somewhat cautious about that prospect happening any time soon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA (voice-over): Still spreading terror, ISIS fighters can boast of another conquest, this time, an air base in Northern Syria. But the White House now appears to be downplaying expectations for military action in Syria right away.

JOSH EARNEST, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Chairman Dempsey himself talked about it over the weekend. And he indicated that, according to intelligence assessments, that there is no evidence of a -- of an active plot right now.

That said, we are well aware of the threat that is posed by ISIL.

ACOSTA: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pointing to a comment made by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, who said ISIS in Syria does not pose a threat against the U.S. homeland.

"I can tell you with great clarity and certainty," Dempsey said, "that if that threat existed inside of Syria, that it would certainly be my strong recommendation that we would deal with it."

That's different than what Dempsey and other administration officials said last week after the beheading of American journalist, James Foley.

CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, this is beyond anything that we've seen. So we must prepare for -- for everything.

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria?

The answer is no.

ACOSTA: Earnest acknowledged the semantics matter.

(on camera): That seems to be a different question, though, than does ISIS pose a national security threat to the United States?

EARNEST: That's correct.

ACOSTA: And the answer is what?

EARNEST: The answer to that is we are concerned about the threat that's posed by ISIL.

ACOSTA (voice-over): In the middle of the White House briefing, one of the president's chief foreign policy critics, Senator Lindsey Graham, Tweeted, "The White House is trying to minimize the threat we face in order to justify not changing a failed strategy."

But top White House aides are making one thing clear -- the president won't be seeking permission from Syria's embattled leader, Bashar Al- Assad, before any airstrikes. Tell that to Syria's foreign minister, who said this cooperation "should be done through the Syrian government, as it is a symbol of national sovereignty. Any violation of Syrian sovereignty from any party is aggression."

But that would put the president in the position of becoming strange bedfellows with a regime he nearly went to war with a year ago. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We would have preferred Assad go two years ago, last year, six months ago, two months ago. And, you know, there's been consistency on the part of my administration that Assad lost legitimacy when he started firing on his own people.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

ACOSTA: Last year, the president called on Congress to vote to authorize airstrikes against Assad's forces inside Syria. But White House aides are saying this time around, when it comes to airstrikes against Syria, they won't be going for permission to Congress this time around, Jake.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this one's different -- Jake.

TAPPER: And more than 190,000 people have died in that Syrian civil war, according to the U.N.

Jim Acosta, thank you so much.

Let's bring in retired General Wesley Clark.

He's the former NATO supreme Allied commander.

General Clark, thanks for being with us.

A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army told Josh Rogin of "The Daily Beast," quote, "Airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria will not be helpful. Air strikes will not get rid of ISIS. Are like just tickling ISIS."

Do you think that rebel is correct, these airstrikes are really not doing much?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think the airstrikes have to be coordinated with efforts on the ground. And if the Free Syrian Army is able to hold ISIS and pin it in position so that the airstrikes could impact on the ISIS forces, then certainly they could be of great value.

If the ISIS forces are moving, flowing like water through these territories and intermingled with civilians, then, no, you're not going to be able to strike.

So we do have Special Forces personnel. We are able to do some targeting through aerial reconnaissance. But as always, airstrikes need people on the ground to call them in and monitor it.

TAPPER: Do you think it was proper for President Obama to pledge no boots on the ground when it comes to the threat from ISIS?

CLARK: I think that the nations in the region have to do all the work on the ground. Now, boots on the ground means First Calvary Division, the regular infantry forces and so forth. You can put Special Forces in there and they are in there and they are doing work. And that's appropriate.

But, no, I wouldn't want to see us put the 10th Mountain Division in there and have a bunch of young American soldiers up again in combat, because we don't speak the language, it's not our culture. We cannot easily identify friend from foe in that battlefield. And the people who can are the people who are there and most directly affected.

They should be taking the first step.

And I want include in this the Saudis -- I want to include, Jake, the Saudis, because the Saudis have for years funded extremism. Their money is all over the region. They bought billions of dollars worth of U.S. weapons. I think the Saudi monarchy needs to be stand up and counted. It can't be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it.

This ISIS threat is going to eventually be pointed like a dagger right at the heart of the Saudi regime.

TAPPER: I think it's so obvious what you just said. And yet, we don't see the kind of action from Arab countries in that region. We don't see Jordan. We don't see Qatar. We don't see Saudi Arabia, all the other countries that you would think would -- would want to end the ISIS threat, because sooner or later, it's coming for them before it probably comes for the United States.

Explain for our viewers, what is the difficulty in getting the Arab League to do actions like this, which are clearly in their own self- interest?

CLARK: Well, the Arab League really isn't a unified body. It's a -- it's a group of countries which -- who fight among themselves in many respects.

For example, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both Wahabis, but they don't agree. They have separate views on their roles in region. Both have been providing weapons to the Syrian -- Free Syrian Army. But maybe some of these weapons have also gone to groups like the al-Nusra Front, which is an extremist jihadi group, and maybe some of them have even gone to ISIS, maybe before people understood what ISIS was.

So Qatar and Saudi Arabia are rivals for Sunni leadership. They need to come together. They need to put their forces to work against ISIS. They're the ones that are most threatened in this. And -- and we can provide the combat multipliers, but we don't want our American soldiers in there carrying the burden for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They should do that themselves. They created this problem, along with Bashar Assad.

TAPPER: I want to -- I want to get your reaction to the Tweet from Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, that Jim Acosta mentioned in his piece. Quote, "The White House is trying to minimize the threat we face from ISIS in order to justify not changing a failed strategy," unquote.

What's your reaction to that? CLARK: I have a lot of respect for Senator Graham. He's an old friend of mine. But in this case, I think the White House is wisely marking time while it sorts out the situation on the ground.

It wants to go in an effective way, not simply stir the pot with a bunch of ineffective airstrikes somewhere.

So this will come together. And I'm convinced that under General Dempsey and Senator -- or Secretary Hagel and President Obama, we will have the most effective response against ISIL.

But it has to be led by the Sunni Arab countries in the region, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

TAPPER: Let's say that the White House decides to go ahead and carry out an airstrike within Syria's borders.

Do you think it should seek Congressional approval or do you think just notifying Congress is enough?

CLARK: Well, that's a legal question. But, no, I don't think they need Congressional approval for this. I think they're obviously under -- they're going to have to provide some notification for this. But -- and I hope that they'll do consultation with Congress. That's the appropriate action in this case.

TAPPER: General Wesley Clark, thank you so much.

We always enjoy having you on the show.

Appreciate it.

CLARK: Thank you very much.

TAPPER: Let's not forget the ongoing conflict in Gaza, of course. The Israeli Defense Forces are accuse accusing Palestinian militants of concealing weapons in an area used to shelter Gaza refugees, with schools and a hospital close by. Israeli officials say their military destroyed the weapons cache, but that some of the rockets in the arsenal started exploding after they were hit, causing even more damage. There is no word about casualties, but the IDF says it warned civilians yesterday to get out.

Meanwhile, Palestinian officials say nine people were killed today by IDF strikes. A news report from Hamas-run media claims one person died in an airstrike on a vehicle in Gaza City.

Coming up in the Money Lead, it's not just about the doughnuts and the double doubles. It could be about taking a bite out of their taxes. We'll take a look at a potential bid by Burger King to buy out Canada's favorite doughnut chain, Tim Horton's, and why they're doing it. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper in St. Louis, Missouri, with more to come on the situation here in Ferguson, Missouri about, which is about 6 miles away. But first let's talk about the money lead today.

This meal deal does not come with French fries, but it could come with a massive tax incentive for Burger King because BK is now reportedly in talks to buy Tim Horton's, that Canadian doughnut and coffee chain, if you call that coffee.

If the deal goes through, it would create the world's third largest fast food chain, generating $22 billion in sales at more than $18,000 restaurants in 100 countries.

But it would also mean Burger King could take a big bite out of its taxes by moving its base from Miami to the great white north and merging with a foreign company, a move economists call inversion.

Dan Primack, senior editor for "Fortune" magazine joins me now. Dan, so explain to me how does this work? What kind of tax advantages would a move like this give Burger King? How much of a, quote/unquote, "inversion" would there be?

DAN PRIMACK, SENIOR EDITOR, "FORTUNE": A company like Burger King or any U.S. company has a 35 percent corporate tax rate here in the U.S. In the Canada, that's 26.5 percent. Burger King argues that their effective tax rate right now is actually closer to 27 percent.

So it wouldn't be as big a savings, but there's a very good reason why this deal, they would move the headquarters to Canada as opposed to making Tim Horton's come to Miami.

TAPPER: Democrats are rallying around this issue of inversion ahead of the midterms. Could there be a political blow back for Burger King for such a move?

PRIMACK: I think there could be. If you look at the inversions that have happened to date, both the ones that have actually closed and the one that have just been announced, most of them have been in the health care sector and particularly in pharma.

If a doctor says use this drug or that drug, chances are you're going to use it this drug. Chances are you're going to use it. You're not going to say, I don't like the maker of that drug. I don't like Pfizer so I'm not going to use the drug.

Here though, people do have a legitimate choice. Burger King is not a required use for consumers. I think if enough advertising comes out or enough talk comes out, the Burger King is trying to skirt its taxes.

There could be some consumer blowback. And there could be some voter blowback that says to politicians, look, you've got to stop this.

TAPPER: Do you think McDonald's or any of the other fastfood chains might take out ads talking about how they stay in this country, they pay American taxes and Burger King doesn't, assuming this deal does happen? PRIMACK: Yes, McDonald's at least, which is obviously is the big gorilla here, McDonald's doesn't usually talk about Burger King publicly. It's usually the other way around. McDonald's feels it's punching down.

But that's it, I wouldn't be surprised if McDonald's came out with some ads that had a couple extra American flags in the background to subtly make the point.

TAPPER: And the likes of you and me would make the point for them likely. Would a corporate buyout do you think of a company like Tim Horton's that has marketed itself so strongly as a Canadian brand, would it have consequences for that coffee chain up north with consumers?

PRIMACK: It's a good question. Look, maybe that's the reason we haven't seen announcement yet. You know, I kind of thought there might be something at market close and we didn't see that.

A couple of things about Tim Horton's, though, they do have over 800 stores in the U.S. They also used to be owned by Wendy's years ago before being spun out into an independent company.

So I guess folks in Canada who still love going to Tim Horton's and getting their coffee and their donuts in the morning. Even when it was owned by Wendy's were still willing to go.

So I guess, they'll just view, this is another acquisition. The two companies will continue to have separate branding, separate stores, et cetera.

TAPPER: What other companies besides pharmaceutical ones have tried this move in the past?

PRIMACK: You know, the one that the most notable is that Walgreen's tried it. The pharmacy retail chain, they were going to merge with a U.K. company called the Lion's Boots. They were going to move their headquarters overseas to Europe.

They ultimately decided not to do that, in part it seems because of some of the political blowback. President Obama made comments. They canned that. They're still doing the merger, but not moving headquarters out of Illinois.

TAPPER: Have you ever had Tim Horton's coffee? It tastes like a milkshake.

PRIMACK: I've had Tim Horton's coffee, but I take it black, Jake. I haven't gotten to have it with milk so I can't speak for the milk shake. Look, folks in Canada love it. I'm in Boston. I love Dunkin' Donuts. I'm told by everybody the Dunkin Donuts coffee is terrible but I live on it. So what can I say?

TAPPER: Fair enough. And the Canadians obviously love their Tim Horton's. Dan Primack, thank you so much. Still to come, more from St. Louis, where Michael Brown has been laid to rest. His death has struck a painful and a controversial nerve across the country. Certainly, it will be felt for a long time and likely will be struck again. But where do we go from here? That when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper live in St. Louis. It's a community in mourning, and beyond that, it's a community that in some ways is angry. Angry about what it sees as yet another unnecessary death of yet another young African-American man.

Throughout these past 16 days, many outside St. Louis commenting on all the attention given to Michael Brown's death have asked why we in the media are not covering others' deaths with the same intensity.

Why are we not covering black on black crime like the eruption of violence in Chicago again over the weekend? Why are we not covering the death of Dylan Taylor, a 20-year-old white man who was killed by an African-American police officer in Salt Lake City?

Let me try to answer because it's true. We in the media do not cover inner city violence enough. We don't cover a lot of things enough. And no one would argue that Michael Brown's life means more than Dylan Taylor's in a strict sense of life or for that matter the life of journalist James Foley who is savagely beheaded by ISIS.

I think what these questions miss is the fact that the media attention is less really about Brown's death than about the reactions to Brown's death, the reactions of the community in Ferguson, the protests, the anger, the view of his death in the context of other young black men.

The reaction of the local police force and others in law enforcement, the reaction of the local prosecutor who has brought evidence about the shooting before a grand jury. The reaction of the friends of Officer Darren Wilson, who are concerned he's not getting a fair shake.

What critics sometimes fail to see often because of media flaws is that we're trying to cover a people including your reactions and your greater contexts. And that is why Brown and all that he meant, all that he means has merited so much of our attention.

That's it for me from St. Louis. I'll see you tomorrow. Make sure to follow me on Twitter @jaketapper and also at theleadcnn. That's it for THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. I now turn you over to Wolf Blitzer. He is in "THE SITUATION ROOM" -- Wolf?