CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Islamic State Strategy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has proposed a bill authorizing the president to go ahead and use force against ISIS, but only for a year and sharply limiting any use of ground troops.

Senator Kaine is a member of the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, he's a very busy guy. He's joining us now from Capitol Hill.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

You bet.

BLITZER: You say -- your legislation would not allow any ground troops, would repeal the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force. It would be only for one year, give the president authority to do what he wants to do against ISIS for a year. The president says he's got the authority to do it. He doesn't need any addition legislation.

Here's the question. Do you not trust this commander-in-chief?

KAINE: Well, you know, it's not a question of trust, Wolf. It's really a question of the constitutional requirement. I do not believe, and there are many colleagues in both parties and both houses who share my view, that the president does have the legal authority to do the full mission as he described to the American public last week. And the White House and everyone agrees getting Congress on board is at least advisable, if not mandatory. So that's why I introduced this resolution today. The resolution supports each of the four pillars the president laid out last week. But with four limitations. Some drawn from the president's speech, but some drawn from some painful lessons. No ground troops, that's what the president committed to.

And General Dempsey yesterday testified that we cannot be using ground troops because the whole -- the whole sort of origin of this mission is to have ISIL delegitimized by the region willing to stand up against it itself with us as supporters, rather than being a campaign of the West against ISIL.

Second limitation, a sunset. You know, the 2001 AUMF and the '02 AUMF were open ended forever. No geographic limitation. A sunset to allow the continuous dialogue about going forward is important.

Third, as you pointed out, the repeal of the '02 Iraqi AUMF so we don't have dueling AUMFs out on the field. And finally, a very narrow definition of what is an associated force. If we're going after ISIL, we shouldn't say we're going to go after ISIL, and then a whole lot of other groups, too. We need to be narrow in our focus.

Those four limitations, I think, will be consistent with the president's speech and will enable the mission to gain bipartisan support.

BLITZER: I've spoken with the lawyers for the administration. They make the case that ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call it, is really al Qaeda. It started off as al Qaeda, later changed its name but it's basically al Qaeda and there still is authority that from 2001, 2003 in the authorization of the use of military force, which the president believes gives him the authority to go after and destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He doesn't need any addition legislation.

What do you make of that argument?

KAINE: Wolf, I don't accept it and I'll tell you why. Could you be a creative lawyer and really stretch the language of the '01 authorization to cover ISIL? Yes, if that's what you want to do, but I don't think we should be doing that. The wording of the authorization says it's to go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. ISIL did not form until years after 9/11.

The administrations, both the Bush and Obama administration, have said well, it can extend to associated forces. But ISIL is not an associate of al Qaeda now, they're at -- they're at odds with each other. They've disclaimed in each other. And in some parts of Syria, ISIL and al Qaeda affiliates are at war with each other.

You have to stretch this language to the breaking point. And we shouldn't do it because the president, in May of 2013, gave a speech at the National Defense University, and he said, we should be taking that authorization and narrowing it, and refining it, and ultimately repealing it. Not taking it and stretching it even further. That's why I think it's so important to get Congress.

And I think Congress is supposed to do it. I just came from the hearing with Secretary Kerry. There's some differences of opinion, but on the core mission as described by the president, especially with respect to activities in Iraq, I think he's going to have bipartisan support.

BLITZER: For your legislation, even -- so why does he say he doesn't want legislation? The argument, the legal argument, as I pointed out, they say ISIS started off as al Qaeda in Iraq but eventually they changed their name because they wanted to go ahead and create this caliphate not only in Iraq and in Syria, presumably in Lebanon and Jordan when they talked about Sham or Levant.

KAINE: Right.

BLITZER: That's what they mean. And they say so it's the authority is already there.

KAINE: Well, we had a hearing in May of 2013 about this question of the authority. And administration witnesses looked us in the eye on the Armed Services Commission -- Armed Services Committee and said they thought the '01 authorization allowed war that would probably go on for another 25 to 30 years. This is not what Congress contemplated when they acted in the days right after 9/11.

Again, put a creative lawyer, try to make an argument, sure. But it's contrary to what Congress proposed.

And, Wolf, remember this. The president, President Bush came to Congress with a draft of the AUMF that said this, give me the president, the ability to go after groups to stop them from engaging in terrorist attacks on the United States. Congress rejected that wording because they didn't want to hand to the president a blank check.

Even against legitimate bad guys to just decide who they were and go after them themselves. This system works better when we work together for this reason. If Congress and the president work together and bless a mission as important, we are much more able to ask our servicemen and women to risk their lives on a mission than if we do it on a presidential say-so without the approval of Congress.

BLITZER: Senator, thanks very much for joining us. We'll see how far your legislation goes. We'll see if the president were to sign it into law. We'll see what happens. There's a lot of steps that have to go forward.

KAINE: Many chapters left here. Many chapters.

BLITZER: Yes. A lot of chapters left.

Tim Kaine of Virginia, thanks very much.

Coming up, a competition between al Qaeda and ISIS. So what does that mean for the security of the U.S. homeland? We're taking a closer look at the threat.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source