CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript - Syria

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Let's talk about what's going on with Republican senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is strongly opposed to any U.S. military action against targets in Syria.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Sure. Glad to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the context of this Russian proposal. From your perspective, would it now be appropriate to vote yes for some sort of Senate resolution authorizing the use of force, if that could be a credible threat to use over the Syrians to come up with that kind of diplomatic solution the Russians are now proposing?

PAUL: I'm happy that we are headed hopefully towards a diplomatic solution. I hope this will come to fruition. I've said all along that my concern about attacking Assad is that we could so destabilize him that the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of al Qaeda.

I still worry about that, but if we are able to get the weapons out of Syria and into international control, I think that would be a huge step forward. And I think part of the reason we're here -- maybe the threat of force -- but part of the reason we're here is also because people like me prevented force from being used about three weeks ago when they wanted to bomb.

BLITZER: So you acknowledge part of the reason the Syrians are now acknowledging really almost for the first time that they do have these chemical weapon stockpiles, their foreign minister said today that he's ready to see them even destroyed under certain circumstances.

Listen to Secretary Kerry as he testified today before the House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So I'll repeat the question. Are you ready, since you now acknowledge that maybe the threat of force played a significant role in moving this situation towards some sort of peaceful resolution, would you be ready to vote for some sort of resolution authorizing at least the threat of force to hover over these negotiations?

PAUL: No, and I'm not convinced that we wouldn't have gotten to these negotiations otherwise. I also think that part of the reason we are here and we are getting to negotiate is because of an off-hand comment that Secretary Kerry frankly, I don't believe, ever thought that the Russians would respond to.

So I think the Russians have played an excellent gambit or a game of geopolitical chess with us. But it may be to our benefit to see if we can get a negotiated settlement. I think that does have to include Russia.

BLITZER: The president in the interview he granted me yesterday, he suggested this was by no means some sort of offhand comment. He said they had been talking about it for awhile, including last week when he was at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Listen to the president, what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think has prompted some interesting conversations, and these are conversations that I've had directly with Mr. Putin. When I was at the G-20, we had some time to discuss this, and I believe that Mr. Putin does not see the use of chemical weapons as a good thing inside of Syria or anyplace else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, so does the president deserve at least some credit for moving the situation potentially towards this diplomatic breakthrough?

PAUL: Yes, I don't see this in partisan way where I've got to say oh, the president doesn't get credit. Give credit where credit is due, and if we get a diplomatic solution, absolutely. I still don't think it's a good idea to bomb Assad or destabilize the Middle East or to embolden al Qaeda or the Islamic rebels. However, I have no problem with saying yes, the president would get credit if we got a diplomatic solution.

I will say, though, that many people have been advocating a bombing for weeks and weeks now, and those of us who have tried to slow this down, including the American public, may have inadvertently gotten to this diplomatic solution if it comes to fruition by slowing down the process.

BLITZER: Do you believe that they are trustworthy -- let's put it this way, the Syrians, even though their foreign minister now says they're ready to do what the Russians are suggesting: identify all their chemical weapon stockpiles, let international inspectors go in and control them, and eventually dismantle and destroy them? Do you think they're trustworthy, the Syrian regime, of President Bashar al Assad, to do what they are indicating now they might do under certain circumstances?

PAUL: You know, I think any diplomatic solution with people who have used chemical weapons has to be taken with a certain amount of dubiousness. But I would say that any time you have diplomacy with other nations, there is trust, there is distrust, there's watchfulness, and there's what Ronald Reagan said, trust but verify.

So really, a lot of details have to be worked out here, and I'm not convinced that it will happen. I think it may be 50/50, but I think there is a potential that this would actually do some good, whereas the bombing campaign doesn't get rid of any chemical weapons and may well allow the chemical weapons to get into the hands of terrorists, which could actually even be worse than Assad.

BLITZER: Your Republican colleague, Senator John McCain, he says he's now ready to go for some sort of Senate resolution that would give the United Nations Security Council a date certain to come up with a plan during which the Syrians would have to begin this process of destroying their chemical weapons. He wants a date certain in that authorizing legislation in the Senate. Would you be ready to go along with Senator McCain on that?

PAUL: It may not surprise people, but I am sometimes on the opposite side of things from Senator McCain. I think he is a big believer that the use of force in Syria will have a positive outcome. I'm a big believer that the use of force has no compelling American interest in Syria and could lead to an adverse outcome such as an attack on Israel, more refugees flowing into Jordan, more instability and possibly, worst case scenario, that the chemical weapons, control of them, could be lost by Assad and gained by terrorists.

So I don't see a good outcome to -- I still don't see a good outcome to us becoming involved in a war -- in the Syrian civil war.

BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Senator, thanks for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source