Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
James Foley's Mother Speaks To CNN; Should America Even Go Back To War?; Report: NFL Received Ray Rice Video In April
Aired September 11, 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 ANCHOR: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
Murdered American James Foley's mother is speaking out today and for the first time, she's publicly criticizing the U.S. government's handling of her son's captivity. In an exclusive interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Diane Foley says the Obama administration should have done more and actually handled the crisis poorly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIANE FOLEY, JAMES FOLEY'S MOTHER: We were told we could not raise ransom. That it was illegal. We might be prosecuted. We were told --
ANDERSON COOPER, COOPER: You were told you would actually be prosecuted if you raise ransom?
FOLEY: Yes. That was a real possibility. Told that many times. We were told that our government would not exchange prisoners, would not do a military action. So, we were just told to trust that he would be freed somehow. Miraculously and he wasn't, was he?
And we're dealing with very difficult people when we talk about ISIS. Their hate for us is great. And yet, some of our response to them has only increased the hate. You know? So, I feel there's a need for debate, discussion.
I -- I pray that our government would be willing to learn from the mistakes that were made and to acknowledge that there are better ways for American citizens to be treated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Foley was captured in Syria two years ago and the terrorist group, ISIS, released a video of his beheading last month. Last night, President Obama called the killings of Foley and fellow journalist, Steven Sotloff, acts of barbarism.
Tune in to "AC360" tonight at 8:00 when Anderson will have his full interview with Diane Foley and he'll also have reaction to the interview from the White House.
Coming up, with all the talk in Washington and across the country focused on how to attack ISIS, is anyone asking whether military strikes or even the way to go? Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. The politics lead, last night, President Obama announced his new escalated plan to degrade and defeat ISIS, he says. Today, the president's facing criticism from both sides of the aisle.
Many pushing for a more specific plan, others calling the president's proposal too weak to work. Some of those critics join me now, editor of the "Weekly Standard," Bill Kristol, "Atlantic" national correspondent, Jeffrey Goldberg and on Capitol Hill, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California.
Thanks one and all for being here. Congresswoman Lee, I want to start with you. You were, just to give our viewers some context, you were the only vote in Congress in 2001 against the authorization of use of military force in Afghanistan.
Are you disappointed that this president who pledged to end the war in Iraq is now ready to go back to war in Iraq?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE (D), APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: First let me say that I am today, of course, on the anniversary of 9/11, 13 years later, really very reflective and honoring the memories and praying for the families and friends who lost individuals during that very horrific attack.
And I'm reminded of what the pastor at the memorial service said. Reverend Nathan Baxter, he said, as we act let us not become the evil we deplore. I think the president's speech last night was very clear.
He laid out the framework for a very strategic and methodical approach to dealing with ISIS, which is a very dangerous terrorist organization. He laid out the basis for diplomatic and political initiative he is working to develop allied support in the region and to develop partnerships that could really carry this forward.
Also he has said in the past that there's no military solution. So having said that, I want to make sure and I think that Congress needs to be involved in this debate because I believe we're seeing now an escalation of military strikes, which the president acknowledged.
But it's time now that Congress come back and debate because the blank check that was granted in 2001, the resolution that I voted against, is the legal authority by which they're moving forward and I think it's time to repeal that and to go back to the drawing board and address this in a very methodical way and thoughtful way.
So that as we act, we act in a rational way which will not create more anger and more hostility and create another ten years and maybe an ISIS number 2, which to me would be tragic.
TAPPER: So Jeff, that's obviously one scenario. That worse-case scenario the congresswoman just mentioned. In terms of the plan itself that the president laid out assuming that ISIS number two doesn't happen, there are still huge obstacles to this working. What are a couple of them?
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE ATLANTIC": I think the president presented a reasonable plan. I think there might have been an element that was overly sunny here. He's talking about using various forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS.
That have been proven to be very dysfunctional. The Iraqi army, reflecting the Iraqi government itself is dysfunctional. The Peshmerga, the Kurdish guerrillas are only intermittently successful and of course, the Free Syrian Army, so-called moderate Syrian rebels have been entirely ineffective.
The president in fact has disparaged their abilities over the years. He might not be wrong analytically, but now we are going to be relying on all of these ground forces that do not seem nearly as potent as ISIS. So I mean, it's a long slog and I'm not sure that these forces are ready for this.
TAPPER: And the broad coalition President Obama talked about forming obviously that's in the infancy, forming it right now but, Bill, why can't the United States get the Saudis, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan to kick in? They're much more directly threatened than the United States is.
WILLIAM KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Qatar may not be on the right side of that debate.
TAPPER: Right, exactly. They are funding everybody.
KRISTOL: Yes, exactly. They can kick in some, but at the end of the day there's a war. As you pointed out Secretary of State Kerry doesn't quite like that term. We need to win the war. The president's right. We can't just degrade. We need to destroy ISIS, which requires ground troops and what the head of Cent-com said in his recommendation to the president.
We don't need a huge number. We probably don't need combat brigades much, if at all, but we do need thousands, maybe even 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 ground troops. And the president I think very foolishly rules out U.S. ground troops.
So he is sending 1,700 anyway, but he rules out enough U.S. ground troops to really give us the confidence that we can combine air and ground operations to not just stop ISIS in a few places and damage them in a few ways, but actually degrade and destroy them.
TAPPER: Congresswoman, go ahead, please.
LEE: Let me just say I am very confident that the administration is putting together the coalitions that are required to take this forward. I've talked to many officials in the administration including the vice president and I'm convinced that they're doing the work that needs to be done.
To be able to ensure that the region takes ownership of this and that they move forward in a coordinated and comprehensive way to really address the very dangerous organization ISIS, ISIL. And they I think have their hands on a very important and strategic method of doing this and I'm convinced of that.
GOLDBERG: I would have to disagree with that. I think you raise a very important question which is, where is Saudi Arabia in particular? I mean, we are there to protect our moderate Sunni allies, our friends in the region.
Saudi Arabia owns tens of thousands of dollars of shiny American war planes and all kinds of weaponry. They are seemed very, very hesitant to use them even in their own self defense and I think more and more Americans are asking the question, why won't these Arab countries step up to fight a threat that's first and foremost directed at them, moderate Arabs, moderate Muslims.
TAPPER: Bill, last word.
KRISTOL: Do we want Saudi airplanes bombing in Iraq? Do we trust the troops that might come over from these Arab states? I would prefer to have the U.S. conduct an operation in which U.S. interests are central and where U.S. lives are at stake. I would prefer the U.S. to take the lead not as the president said and support our other friends.
TAPPER: All right. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Bill Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg, thank you so much. We'll continue to discuss this in the days ahead.
Coming up, as the finger pointing continues in the Ray Rice investigation, the former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has been tasked with getting answers. But will it be enough to save the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's reputation in the court of public opinion?
Plus, just one week away from the potential end of the United Kingdom as we know it. What does that mean for the queen?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. The Sports Lead now, the drama surrounding a videotape of former Baltimore Ravens star, Ray Rice, hitting his fiancee is going into overtime.
One day after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told the media that no one in the NFL saw the video. A law enforcement source contradicted that claim telling the "Associated Press" that an NFL executive received that tape back in April and that someone from the NFL office was recorded calling it, quote, "terrible."
TMZ released the video on Monday, which showed the vicious assault. It ultimately got Rice kicked off the team and suspended indefinitely from the league. Now we've learned that the NFL facing criticism for how poorly it has botched the Ray Rice investigation.
The NFL has now launched another investigation into itself. That inquiry will be led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller whose current firm negotiated a lucrative deal for the NFL with DirecTV back in 2002.
In the meantime, the president of the National Organization for Women and a chorus of others have gone so far as to call for Commissioner Goodell's resignation.
But not everyone is jumping on the bash Goodell bandwagon. Listen to what sports commentator, Steven A. Smith had to say in response to now President Terry O'Neill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN A. SMITH, CO-HOST, ESPN'S "FIRST TAKE": I'm sorry. I think this woman is off her rock. I think she's lost her mind. That's right. I said it. Most ridiculous nonsense. Roger Goodell deserves to lose his job because -- why are you acting like he's Ray Rice? Roger Goodell did not hit her. He hasn't hit any women.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Joining me now is Steven A. Smith, host of ESPN's "First Take" and the "New Steven A. Smith Show" on Sirius XM's Mad Dog Sports Radio. Mr. Smith, as always, great to see you. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.
SMITH: Thank you.
TAPPER: Does it not bother you at all that apparently at least according to the reporting the NFL had this tape in April and Roger Goodell either did not know about it or he's not being truthful about it now?
SMITH: Well, I certainly wouldn't say it doesn't bother me. It should bother everybody. The mere notion, the mere possibility that Roger Goodell and the NFL had the second videotape of Ray Rice punching his then fiancee and now wife is incredibly alarming.
It's unacceptable and just as unacceptable if Roger Goodell indeed knew about the tape, saw the tape, sort of swept it under the rug and did absolutely nothing about it and suspend Ray Rice for two games but that's not proven.
He's on the record categorically denying that he had ever seen this video in his interview to CBS and his conversation with Christine Brennan in the "USA Today" and until we have further proof, my position has been clear.
That he is the commissioner of the National Football League with an impeccable reputation and not seen as somebody as being dishonest. Until we have proof that he's absolutely lying about having not seen the video or anything like that, I don't know if we can engage in a level of condemnation that calls for his job.
TAPPER: Now you know so much more about the NFL than I do, but -- and part of that is you know the NFL has a very -- I don't know if impressive is the right word for it, but extensive history when it comes to conducting private investigations into players or potential recruits. So, what do you think happened here? Did they not do it? Did they do it poorly or are they not being honest?
SMITH: Well, first of all, there's no question that they performed poorly at their job in terms of making sure that they got their hands on the necessary material. If you are to believe their position on this matter.
There is no question that at the very least there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the National Football League whether it's with Roger Goodell's office, the security department or whatever the case may be.
We're not sure. But that is at least what you can say about them. But again, we are talking about different layers. Do we surmise or believe that, yes, the NFL had to have had this tape?
Roger Goodell is the commissioner. It's pretty difficult to believe according to the AP. They talked to the law enforcement official and said it was mailed to the NFL Office, a 12-second voicemail from or a voice message from a lady saying that it had been received and it was disturbing.
To believe that that didn't end up in the commissioner's office and somehow, some way he didn't see that, of course, it's hard to believe. Hard to believe is not factual evidence to say that the commissioner lied and therefore he should be dismissed.
That's not factual information. That's conjecture. All we can go by is surmising right now, but the investigation is ongoing, an independent legislation led by the former FBI director, Mr. Mueller. And we'll see what he comes up with and we'll go from there.
TAPPER: Now, the National Organization of Women's President Terry O'Neill said that Goodell should be fired. You had some choice words for her saying she was off her rocker. There are a lot of people that called for Goodell to lose his job.
Keith Olbermann and Terry O'Neill earlier today said the reason that she thought he should be fired is because after looking into the NFL, they found dozens of domestic violence incidents. Is everyone calling for Goodell to lose his job? Are they all off their rockers?
SMITH: Not everyone's calling for him to lose his job, number one. Number two, more importantly, I apologized to Terry O'Neill on television earlier this morning. Because I was alluding to her taking that position strictly off the premise complaining about how Roger Goodell did his job in this particular situation.
My argument against the position was simply that for this one incident where all you have is that he didn't handle it to your liking, that's no reason for him to be dismissed as commissioner of the National Football League.
It was in the aftermath of that that we learned that her position was about 50-some odd cases that Roger Goodell has had to oversee since 2006 where players have been involved in this level of lawlessness and not enough has been done to her liking. She is talking about a history involving the NFL and it was far more extensive and expansive that what she let on when her original quote and statement came out yesterday.
TAPPER: All right. Steven A. Smith, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.
SMITH: Thank you.
TAPPER: Coming up next, please don't leave. We're nothing without you. Well, he didn't use those words exactly. That's the sentiment from Britain's prime minister as Scotland gets ready to vote for independence. Will this plea work?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. Time now for the Buried Lead. Sometimes when on the verge of a break-up, you'll do just about anything to keep hold of the one you love. You'll beg and you'll bargain. You'll write sappy letters promising to make things better and offering up reminders of how good things once were.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has done all of this stopping short of holding up a boom box playing Peter Gabriel songs in an effort to keep Scotland from essentially breaking up with the United Kingdom.
The Scots will cast a historic vote next week on whether to secede from the United Kingdom putting an end to a 300-year union. CNN's Isa Soares shows us what's at stake if the United Kingdom is united no more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If Scotland decides to break up the marriage with the U.K., it could spark a bitter divorce battle with dramatic change ahead. Let's begin with the physical side of the country and that is the land itself.
Now, if Scotland goes it alone, the U.K. would lose 32 percent of its land and that would be comparable to the size of Serbia and Czech Republic. Now, despite the land loss, the U.K. would only lose 8 percent of its population.
Queen Elizabeth would be head of state, but a formal title likely change and might be queen of what might be called the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, many separatists favor a republic and puts the future of the monarchy in doubt.
Even "God Save the Queen" may be scrapped as Scotland's official national anthem. The union flag may also get a history-making new look with some suggesting that the government could ditch the blue and white cross of St. Andrews for something that looks like this.
Now, in terms of travel, eligible citizens would be able to apply for a Scottish passport with some saying the U.K. border agency may establish passport checks on all roads, crossing the border. So after more than 300 years together, this could be one of the most costly divorces yet. Issa Suarez, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Parting is such sweet sorrow. That's it for THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. I now turn you over to Wolf Blitzer, next door, in "THE SITUATION ROOM" -- Wolf.
