Skip to main content

tv   Crossfire  CNN  September 27, 2013 6:30pm-7:00pm EDT

6:30 pm
>> my message to congress is this -- do not shut down the government. do not shut down the economy. pass a budget on time. pay our bills on time. refocus on the everyday concerns of the american people. there will be differences between democrats and republicans. we can have all kinds of conversations about how to resolve those differences. there will be areas where we can work together. there will be areas where we disagree. but do not threaten to burn the house down simply because you haven't gotten 100% of your way. that's not how our democracy is supposed to work. every day that this goes on is another day that we're not focused on doing what we need to be focused on, which is rebuilding this great country of ours so that our middle classes growing and everybody has opportunity if they're willing to work hard.
6:31 pm
that's what i'm focused on. that's what congress should be focused on as well. let's check in on what's happening on capitol hill now, the focus shifting from the senate back to the house of representatives. our chief congressional correspondent dana bash is standing by with the latest. where do we stand right now? >> it's really unclear. i want to read the responsibility to that statement from the president from the speaker through a spokesman. he said -- it will take action that reflect the americans don't want a government shutdown and don't want the training wreck that's obama care. grandstanding won't bring congress any closer to a resolution. there is no negotiation going on. there has not been any phone call from capitol hill, the speaker's office, to the oval office or vice versa. nothing at the lower level. where things stand is the speaker and his republican leaders are trying to negotiate with their own caucus.
6:32 pm
it seems pretty clear in talking to a lot of republican sources over in the house that the rank-and-file republicans say they want to fight, they're not just going to pass a what they call a clean funding bill, without trying to attach something else on it. they want to put their own mark. the problem is, wolf, the senate democrats said if you send us anything that has anything to do with obama care, we're not going to touch it, which gets us up to the deadline with no clear idea of how this is going to end. >> the deadlines being midnight monday night. >> you'll have a very busy weekend as well as monday. we're hearing a lot of name-calling over this fight. john fleming recently was quoted as saying this -- obama care is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed in congress. it is the most existential
6:33 pm
threat to our economy. president obama marked -- mocked contingenciesman fleming's remark yesterday. >> one congressman said that obama care is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed. ever in the history of america, this is the most dangerous piece of legislation. >> congressman john fleming of louisiana is joining us here in "the situation room." thanks for coming in. >> thank you. >> did you absolutely say those words? >> absolutely. >> you believe this is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever. >> yeah. >> in all the years of the united states of america? >> yes, this legislation, obama care, removes $716 billion -- >> going back to legislation that approved slavery, all of that, even more dangerous than that? >> yes. this affects millions. in fact it will affect probably every single american. it covers one-sixth of the
6:34 pm
economy. people are being laid off. 77%, wolf, of every job created today is a part-time job as a result primarily of obama care. as you know, the numbers have just been released. the exchanges on average, the cost of health care premiums are going to go up -- >> this is worse than the pro-slavery are legislation? >> i can't think of anything right now that could be more damaging for our economy in passing, and putting into affect -- >> i understand, but you said it's the most dangerous piece of legislation in the history of the united states. >> yes, i think so. >> i'm asking if you think it's even worse than pro-slavery. >> i haven't drawn any comparisons between obama care and any specific law in the past, and certainly archaic laws like that no longer in effect i can't really comment to. the point is that obama care is hurting americans, hospitals are cutting way back on --
6:35 pm
>> but you know it's not even got into effect yet. >> that is the problem. >> children can be on their parents' insurance plans until they reach of 26. that's gone into effect -- >> in exchange for increasing the premiums. >> don't you think that 30 or 40 million americans that don't have eligibility -- >> we could have raced those premiums years ago to accomplish that. if we let individual american says look at that. i don't know -- >> you're a physician. you understand medicine, you understand the needs. in massachusetts they have a very similar plan that mitt romney as governor pushed through. people over there seem to like it. it seems to be working. >> unfortunately their per capita health care costs are the highest in the united states by far. their waiting lists to get in to see a doctor have grown since that was implemented. half the people of massachusetts cannot find a primary care doctor. >> but if you ask people in massachusetts, they're satisfied
6:36 pm
with what's going on. it's pretty popular right now. >> well, again massachusetts loves big government. i can tell you in my state of louisiana, louisiana does not love big government. we love a growing private sector that allows people freedom of choice, to choose their health plain, their doctor, their hospital. >> you know where the whole concept of the mandates that people who can afford to buy health insurance, they should buy health insurance instead of just being freeloaders, getting free medical treatment. you know where the idea originated? >> i think you're referring to the heritage? >> right, a conservative think tank. >> in response to a law that requires hospitals and doctors to treat people for free who are showing up. what they were trying to do is float an idea, how do we get responsibility back to the american public. but there are many problems -- >> shouldn't people be responsible -- if you can afford
6:37 pm
to buy health insurance, shouldn't you buy it? >> satellitely, but i think the problem is that it makes it unaffordable. >> but for a lot of healthy young people it's -- >> we're hearing again as companies approach this, more and more people are finding themselves taken out of the company plan, thrown into the exchanges, full-time employees are being moved to part-time. they're losing their full-time job. that to me -- i think that's a tragedy. >> you're a physician. if somebody can afford to buy health insurance, they don't buy it, this el get into a car accident and critically ill, they need to be treated, obviously, who should pay for that? >> well, what happens under obama care -- >> well, right now. >> they would -- and as soon as they get well, that from causes adverse selection. hiismts there's a tax they have to pay. >> very small. >> not that small. >> collecting it will be very difficult, because i.r.s. doesn't have the power to do
6:38 pm
anything except withhold a credit. >> buzz you're orb with me and others who pay a lot of taxes giving the freeloaders a free ride when they get sick. >> there's a massive transfer of wealth and income in obama care. any way you look at it. people who do better are going to be exchanging and giving things, but the prop with obama care is that people who decide not to take care good care of themselves will get the preferential treatment and people who are healthy, will actually be paying the cost of that. >> you read another quote. "new york times" today, quoting you -- economists, what they have been -- what have they been doing? they make all sorts of predictions. many times they were wrong. i don't think we should run government based on economists' predictions. explain what you meant. >> first of all, economists disagree, so you have to decide which economist you want.
6:39 pm
number two, remember all of the hysteria that happens with sequester. oh, the stock market was going to crash. interest rates were going to skyrocket. well, the stock market is actually up 3,000 points since sequester, and the annual -- >> just to be precise, if the senate language which passed today comes to the house and the speaker of the how allows an up or down vote on the so-called clean bill that will allow the government to remain in business, not doing anything with obama care. >> yes. >> you will vote -- iflgts i will vote no, and i don't think the speaker has the votes to pass it. >> but if all the democrats vote yes, will there be a bunch of republicans who will support 9 democrats? >> i don't think so, wolf. i think that he won't bring it to the floor that way, because it won't pass. >> if he does, what would happen? >> i think it wouldn't pass. you might get a few republicans, but not enough to get it passed. >> congressman, thank you for coming in. >> thank you, wolf.
6:40 pm
when we come back, not everyone is happy president obama made that historic phone call to iran's president. could it end up backfiring in more analysis is next. male ann] this store knows how to handle a saturday crowd. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy.
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
at the time, he was criticized for his stances on russia and syria, but what difference a year makes. some of mitt romney's positions as the republican presidential nominee seem to be insightful to a whole lot of people. jake tapper, the anchor of "the lead" is here in "the situation room." you had a chance for an exclusive with him. what did he say? >> we talked about fiscal policy
6:44 pm
and the showdown, obviously, but then we talked about foreign policy. as you know, wolf, he was attacked many times by the obama campaign for his views. he said he felt pretty good about his positions back then and today. your name has been mentioned a lot in recent weeks and months. a lot by your supporters, who say remember when governor romney was mocked for saying russia was our number one geopolitical foe? remember when vice president biden went after him for wanting to start a war in syria? and i think there's a feeling among some supporters that you have been vindicated to a large degree. how have you looked at the events regarding syria and russia in the last few weeks? >> i don't spend time looking back, and i'm vin indicated in my own mind from the beginning, so obviously i wouldn't have said what i said if i didn't believe it was right. i think we recognize increasingly that russia is not
6:45 pm
an enemy, certainly not a military combatant foe, but it is a political foe. the world's worst actors, whether it's north korea, cuba, venezue venezuela, syria, iran, are all supported and protected to some degree by russia. >> are you skeptical of this u.n. security council resolution? or do you think there's potential there that it could work? >> oh, i think there's real potential that syria will eliminate their chemical weapons, catalog them. that i think is a positive outcome from this -- you know, this whole effort in syria. but would i place ply life on it without verifying it? of course not. this is something that will have to be thoroughly vetted and evaluated, and assured that neither syria nor russia does anything to allow these weapons to escape, for instance, to iran, to ultimately be brought back or to be used there.
6:46 pm
>> do you think president obama did the right thing by threatening to use force against syria? >> i think it was very clear that once he had indicated that there was a red line that we would not go beyond without some kind of retaliation or some kind of effort, that there had to be in effect a follow-through on that commitment. so the president needed to do something, but gosh, helping the group that's associated in some way with al qaeda didn't look right. helping assad certainly wasn't right, so we had no good choices. that's what comes of not being involved at the critical moment, and not being able to see what the critical moment, and i'm afraid we missed that opportunity. >> the president was criticized a lot by democrats, independents and analysts for zigzagging a few weeks ago. what was your reaction watching him that saturday, when he came out and said it was his desire to strike, but he wanted to go to congress first? >> it was not the president's
6:47 pm
finest hour. dealing with the syria development, and the use of chemical weapons there, he looked like he hadn't thought it through, and hadn't considered the right course in advance. i think we lost some respect in the region, and certainly lost respect with friends and allies around the world. when you have great britain, for instance, say, look, we're not going to get behind this. >> do you think these a manifestation of leadership, or a war-weary public, in the same way we have a war-weary american public here. >> i think the president of the united states, as he plans what action he thinks is appropriate, needs to think through all the options, settle on the one he considers to be the most effect inch and communicate that aggressively with whatever audience he thinks needs to hear it, and that was not done. >> let's talk about iran, also a situation that's going on right now. do you think that rowhani, the new president of iran, could be
6:48 pm
legitimately ushering in a new era. he said we only want nuclear power, and that's all we've ever wanted? i want first of all, you have to be skeptical when people say we're just looking for nuclear power, when their nation is on a lake of oil. that's part one. part two, he really doesn't set the nuclear policy of his nation. that's done by ayatollah ko maini. is he a moderate voice? programs, but let's pursue this as aggressively as we can, but realize again there's a great deal of skepticism, in part because of their energy wealth and the likelihood what they're trying to do is become the superpower in the middle east with dire consequences for other nations in the region. even before the syria crisis people were questioning russia and the relationship with the united states because they granted -- because russia
6:49 pm
granted asylum to edward snowden, the whist 8 blower or leaker, whatever your view. if you were president, is the nsa surveyian a program that you think is worth while? >> well, there have clearly been errors made in the way the surveillance was carried out and policies that were not followed. i read this morning a story about individuals having followed their love life and -- >> love interests and -- >> yeah, and so these kinds of things are unacceptable and there has to be punishment associated with that and you have to follow the rules and procedures of an organization. that being said, do you want an organization, which is -- has computers looking at millions of e-mails and tweets and phone calls looking for patterns in words that suggest there may be terrorist activity going on? >> answer is, in my view, yes. you want that information.
6:50 pm
you want to protect this country. >> as a major party nominee, you received security and national security briefings. have you also learned things that reaffirmed your belief in these nsa programs? or was it just always what you thought? >> no, you're right, jake, which is that after i became the nominee of the republican party, the intelligence community provided me with the kinds in the event i became elected, i would be prepared to move forward with whatever decisions had to be taken. i came away with the recognition that we faced very substantial security threats from terrorist organizations. >> worse than you thought before? >> of course. a great deal worse than i thought. in that i was given more specifics as to the types of technology and the times of organizations that could pose a potential threat. either here or to our friends and to our citizens living abroad. and that continues to be the
6:51 pm
case. we only have to look around us in the world to see that there are very dangerous things during. the idea that somehow we can stop them with a magnetometer at the entrance to a mall or the entrance to a stadium or the entrance to an olympics is not real. the only, and by far the most effective way of preventing terrorist attack is intelligence. >> speaking of the olympics, wolf, i asked him as somebody who ran the 2002 olympics, what did he think about the calls to boycott the olympics in russia because of the anti-gay legislation. he said he did not think the olympics were a police for politics. he disagreed with jimmy carter boycotting the 1980 olympics. it was about the athletes and the pursuit on the field. >> coming up, we'll have more insight into the historic phone call between president obama and
6:52 pm
the rannian president. dad! dad! katy perry is coming to town. can we get tickets, pleeeeease??? tickets? hmm, sure. how many? well, there's hannah, maddie, jen, sara m., sara b., sa -- whoa, whoa. hold on. (under his breath) here it comes... we can't forget about your older sister! thank you, thank you, thank you! seriously? what? i get 2x the thankyou points on each ticket. can i come? yep. the citi thankyou preferred card. now earn 2x the points on entertainment and dining out, with no annual fee. to apply, go to
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
more now on the history that was made between the phone calls of the presidents of the united states and iran. joining us from the school of international studies at johns hopkins university, my alma mater. thank you for coming in. it is very dramatic. when you think about it, 1979. americans held hostage the diplomats for 444 days. no contact at this level. after three decades, a phone call. >> it means a lot for iran.
6:56 pm
in iran, the idea was that they rejected the legislature of the united states. they believe by not engaging the u.s. at any level in a sense, it gives them domestic legitimacy. so this is a major shift within iran. it is very symbolic to the iranian leadership and population. >> it is interesting that president obama was toward meet with rouhani tuesday but it was rouhani decided he needed more time. that it wasn't going to hax as he was getting ready to leave the united states, according to susan rice, the president's security adviser, he send word that he would like to speak on the been to the president and the president of course responded positively to that. what's going on here? he didn't want to meet directly but now they wanted to have a phone call. >> i think they wanth to meet. they were afraid that the meeting had no agenda and they were afraid of going into the meeting and then it is interpreted in the press as, in
6:57 pm
the wrong way. then rouhani would lose face at home and it would fizzle away. they back away from the meeting. and then i think they thought they needed something concrete to take back home. he has gone out on a limb on this trip. he has launched his charm offensive. he has said things that would be controversial including his statement on the holocaust. he has to show the supreme leader that he is getting something from this trip that ahmadinejad never got. and i think it is important that president obama did give him something. it was a cordial call. and i think rouhani was very quick to tweet immediately. i think there was a sense that maybe the white house might spin this in a way that might affect hill negatively so he got the story of the -- >> he broke the news. >> on his own terms. he basically said what happened on the call before the white house had a chance to say what that on the call. so he's going to go home telling the iranian people, i got, i was flexible with the americans.
6:58 pm
i got flexibility in return. >> what he said about the holocaust, why is that so controversial? i understand ahmadinejad was a holocaust denier. don't you think most people in iran understand what happened during world war ii in. >> they do. he is in a way undermining his predecessor. this was an official line of the iranian government so he is basically saying, i disagree with my predecessor. i'm acknowledging something that he had denied. and this is basically a very open and public break among the leadership in iran. and he is doing it not inside iran. he is doing it in the united states. and for that reason, the hard liners were very shocked by this. and they also did not want to show to the west that there is this break and there is this breach between the hard liners and rouhani. >> and earlier he had send out a twet wishing a happy new area to the jews. not only in iran but around the
6:59 pm
world. what does that say? when you saw the sweet this. >> he is trying to change the conversation. he is strike to change the context in which it happens. he wants to move away from, we want to annihilate israel and not only that, we want to deny something that is very sacred and important to the jews around the world. we want the american people not to think the worst about iran. we want to create a situation in which he would have political latitude to engage iran. so they are trying to help president obama engage with them by lessening resistance in the united states. >> it's an important event. we'll see what happens. we'll see if this is serious or it's not. we should know fairly soon, rye in. >> absolutely. >> from the school of advanced studies at johns hopkins


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on