CNN "Newsroom" - Transcript: Syria

Interview

BLITZER: The Indiana Republican senator, Dan Coats, was on the fence, at least until yesterday. Shortly after meeting with the president on Capitol Hill, he came out against any authorization of U.S. military strikes in Syria. Senator Coats is joining us right now.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. DAN COATS (R), INDIANA: Thank you.

BLITZER: You're a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do you have any doubt that the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad did in fact use chemical weapons to kill more than 1,000 people outside Damascus on August 21st?

COATS: No, I don't. I think the evidence strongly points to the fact that Assad did use these weapons against his own people.

BLITZER: So what, if anything, do you want the United States to do about that?

COATS: My certain is that the president has not announced, and I've been in many, many briefings, including direct discussions with the vice president, and, of course, the president's presentation to us yesterday, plan b isn't there. We don't know what's going to happen if this so-called limited attack shot across the bow, unbelievably small, doesn't work, and what it will bring us in -- how will it engage the United States in potentially a fourth effort in the Middle East to resolve some internal problems.

We all - our hearts go out to those who have suffered, not just the 1,400 in the gas attacks, but the 100,000 that have lost their lives. And so we need, I think, very carefully to understand what our future is going to be in the Middle East in terms of how we can effectively engage and how we can't. Our people are war weary, but they're also war wise. We have learned lessons that what is laid out on paper in terms of our engagement, whether it's just an attack or boots on the ground, has not given us the results that we had all hoped for.

BLITZER: So if the Russian initiative were to fail, and we don't know if it succeeds or fails but let's say it fails, if it were to fail, you would still oppose any U.S. military retaliatory action against the Syrian regime. Is that right?

COATS: Well, listen, I don't think it's an all for one, one for all, forever draw the line. Clearly circumstances can change that I think would put this maybe more in the strategic interests, long-term strategic interests of the United States. An attack on Israel, a retaliation, using those weapons across the border, there -- you never want to totally draw the line and say no. But we need more -- different circumstances and more information than we have right now, I think, in order to engage.

BLITZER: So the - I guess the question is this, and I know that a lot of members are struggling and I'm sure you're struggling, as well. If a country uses chemical gas, sarin gas, to poison its own people, we just say, the United States just says, the world, the international community just says, that's too bad, go ahead and do whatever you want? Because that's the alternative if you listen to administration officials, they say the president drew a red line deliberately because that is so outrageous to do something like that, the world must stand up and do something. And if the world doesn't, at least the United States should for moral considerations. You understand that argument they've been making.

COATS: I do. Well, Wolf, I'm not sure that line was drawn decidedly or planned. It might have been more accidental. And the president found himself in a situation where he felt he had to respond. But, no, we take each situation as it arises and we evaluate it on its merits in terms of what we can do effectively and what we can't do. Again, because we have not gotten a solid answer in terms of what do we do if this doesn't work and how do we engage and do we yet get into another -- a fourth effort in the Middle East, which doesn't bring us desired results. I think all this has to be put in context of what we're dealing with now and what different circumstances we might be dealing with in in the future.

BLITZER: We heard several of your colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, say they hope this Russian diplomatic initiative works. Do you?

COATS: Well, I think we all hope it works, but I think we all have -- or most of us, at least I do, have severe reservations about trusting the Russians. What is their motive here? They've been supplying Syria with weapons from the beginning. It is their surrogate country in the Middle East. They've bought time perhaps -- who knows for what reason. So I think we need to be skeptical there and I think the president has indicated that.

But, you know, we sort of stumbled into this through accidental diplomacy. It did buy the president some time. I don't think the votes are there for -- either from Democrats or Republicans to pass this in the Senate and give him that authorization. So perhaps he wants to pursue this partly for the purpose of better explaining to the American people what our interests are and how we should go ahead. We'll see how all this develops, but we have to be skeptical about the ability of the United Nations even to technically carry this out in the midst of a war. So it's hard to see just how this will be implemented effectively and perhaps resolve the problem. But if it can be resolved in a constructive way, of course we would all support that.

BLITZER: Senator Coats, thanks very much for joining us.

COATS: Thank you.

BLITZER: The other side of the issue will be heard, as well. We're going to be speaking live with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz about her decision to support the president. What a loss could mean to the rest of the president's agenda. She's standing by live. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We just heard from the no side of the Syria discussion up on Capitol Hill. Let's get the other side right now. The Florida democratic congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is joining us.

Congresswoman, thanks very much for coming in.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: Thank you, Wolf. It's great to be here.

BLITZER: As far as a vote is concerned, authorizing the use of military force both before the speech last night, after the speech last night, it still looks like a huge uphill struggle, if not impossible, in the House of Representatives, given the long-standing opposition, the strong opposition, not only from many conservative Republicans, but many members of the liberal democratic base. Is that a fair political assessment?

SCHULTZ: Well, I think actually, what's the most important development is, beyond the president laid out a very convincing case both in terms of the evidence that he presented to the American people, that Assad actually committed this attack and murdered, you know, almost 1,500 of his own people in cold blood, but also the moral case. And I think what's clear here, and I think this is the discussions I've had with my colleagues over the last 36 hours is, that many of us, if not most of us, believe and understand that the president won't have this political and diplomatic potential solution to securing these chemical weapons internationally and preventing Assad from using them again without their belief that we would strike. And that threat was important and it remains important so that they understand that they need to proceed with their proposal to have these chemical weapons secured.

BLITZER: But I think it's still an uphill struggle. Look, I spoke with Congressman Elijah Cummings last night. You know him well.

SCHULTZ: Yes, he's a good friend.

BLITZER: I don't think there's a member of the House of Representatives who admires and even loves the president more than Elijah Cummings.

SCHULTZ: (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: But even he told me - even he told me last night that he has not yet been convinced that he would vote yes in favor of a U.S. military strike, as much as he supports the president. And he speaks for a lot of liberal Democrats out there. So I'll repeat the question. It's still a huge uphill struggle to get those 217 votes that you will need in the House.

SCHULTZ: It's important that the president and the administration continue to educate members to make sure they understand that the evidence is there, that as the world's only remaining superpower that we have the moral necessity to make sure that a leader like Assad can never again commit the murder of almost 1,500 people that he did, including the children.

And then one thing the president said last night really has stuck in my mind, and I think this is going to help members to get to where they think they would support authorization, is that, you know, as one of the -- as really the only world superpower, when we have the ability to make a difference and engage in moral leadership and block abhorrent conduct like this, and it is not, you know, majorly impactful on the United States of America, it's essential that we do that. We have to -- we have to make sure that leaders like Assad, and subsequently Iran and others and terrorist organizations understand that there will be a certain and severe response when you engage in conduct that the entire world virtually decided over almost 100 years ago was abhorrent and unacceptable and should never be utilized.

BLITZER: Listen to the former president, Jimmy Carter, how he spoke out on this issue last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Congress has not yet decided what to do. United States public is heavily oriented against any military strike. I share that belief. But I'm also concerned about what President Obama can do now to bring back his stature and to make sure we have a successful conclusion of rapidly changing events in Washington, in the United Nations, in New York and Syria and obviously in Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Not often you hear a former Democratic president speak of a current Democratic president that his international stature has been diminished. So what would you -- how would you respond to that criticism from jimmy Carter?

SCHULTZ: Well, I mean, I think President Carter speaks from experience about diminished stature in an international crisis. But - so, obviously, his input is valuable. But I think President Obama is in the strongest position -- has put America in one of the strongest positions we've been in, in over a decade.

You know, President George W. Bush had significantly degraded our international influence around the world. We stood alone in the war in Iraq. We were roundly criticized, and rightfully so. And today, we have 35 nations that have -- that signed the statement in support of the U.S.'s commitment to strike, and who have underscored the importance of degrading and deterring Assad from ever being able to commit these horrific acts against his own people, particularly children, again. So we -- President Obama's leadership has rebuilt our credibility around the world with leaders that was decimated in the previous administration.

BLITZER: A lot of people, I'm sure, will disagree with that assessment, especially given the fact the British parliament, our closest ally, wouldn't even support a potential U.S. military strike in Syria.

SCHULTZ: Wolf, the reality is, is that we have leaders standing with President Obama, standing behind President Obama, that simply weren't there in the previous conflict that turned out to be one that was based on trumped up intelligence.

Here, the intelligence is clear. There's no disputing it. It's essential that we not allow any leader in the world and certainly no terrorist organization to think that the United States will shrink from action when people are murdered in cold blood by their own leaders with chemical weapons.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, also the chair of the Democratic National Committee, thanks for joining us, as usual.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Thank you.

Source