STATE OF THE UNION WITH CANDY CROWLEY
Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu; Interview with Susan Rice; Interview with Nancy Pelosi; Interview with Rudy Giuliani
Aired September 16, 2012 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Is it really about an obscure promotion on YouTube, or is there a bigger picture?
Today as anti-American protests hit the Arab world a challenge of a
different sort in the prickly relationship between president Obama and
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: What's guiding me
contrary to what I've read in the United States, it's not the American
political calendar, it's the Iranian nuclear calendar.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: And the future of the president's outreach to the Muslim
world with U.S. ambassador of the United Nations Susan Rice.
Then democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, bullish on winning back the house.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: That was the pivotal day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Plus, foreign policy and poll numbers with Romney supporter and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
I'm Candy Crowley. And this is State of the Union.
Another Middle East problem area flamed anew this week: certain
that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but pressured not to take
military action right now, the prime minister of Israel is pushing back.
Benjamin Netanyahu argues the U.S. must set specific limits for Iran.
He suggested otherwise Israel will move forward on its own.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: Those in the international community will refuse to put
red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light
before Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY:
Netanyahu's call for red lines to restrain Iran was presumably the main
topic in a private one-hour phone conversation with President Obama this
week. But Secretary of State Clinton said publicly the U.S. will not
set any deadlines after which Netanyahu told an Israeli paper, "I hear
all those people who say we should wait until the very last minute, but
what if the U.S. doesn't intervene? That is the question we have to
ask."
Joining me now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Prime Minister. There
has been all this talk about red lines put before Iran which you have
talked about. Can you tell me what you would like that red line to be in
the best of all possible worlds for you and for Israel, what would you
like the U.S. to commit to in terms of a red line?
NETANYAHU: I think the issue is how to prevent Iran from completing its
nuclear weapons program. They're moving very rapidly, completing the
enrichment of the uranium they need to produce a nuclear bomb. In six
months or so they'll be 90 percent of the way there. I think it's
important to place a red line before Iran. And I think that actually
reduces the chance of military conflict because if they know there's a
point, a stage in the enrichment or other nuclear activities that they
cannot cross because they'll face consequences, I think they'll actually
not cross it. And that's been proved time and again.
President Kennedy put a red line before the Soviets in the Cuban Missile
Crisis. He was criticized for it, but it actually pushed back the
world from conflict and maybe purchase decades of peace. There wasn't
such a red line before Saddam Hussein, before -- on the eve of the Gulf
War when he invaded Kuwait. Maybe that war could have been avoided.
And I think Iran, too, has received some clear red lines on a number of
issues, and they backed off from them.
So I think as Iran
gets closer and closer to the completion of its nuclear program, I think
it's important to place a red line before them. And that's something I
think we should discuss with the United States.
CROWLEY:
And let me read you something I know you're probably quite familiar
with. But for our viewers, something the president has said repeatedly.
This he said at the beginning of the year. "As president of the United
States I don't bluff. I think both the Iranian and the Israeli
governments recognize that when the United States says it is
unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
Do you disagree with that?
NETANYAHU: I think that when he says that implicit in that is that
he will stop them before they get to a nuclear weapon, which means
they'll draw red line somewhere. I think it's important to communicate
it to them.
I wouldn't bet -- I wouldn't bet the security
of the world and my own country's future from a country that threatens
our annihilation, murders civilians en masse in Syria and brutalizes its
own people. I wouldn't bet the future on intelligence for simple
reasons.
American intelligence and Israeli intelligence
that cooperate together had had wonderful successes in saving lives and
alerting our people, but we've also had our failures, both of us. You
know, you've just marked 9/11. That wasn't seen. None of us, neither
Israel or the United States, saw Iran building this massive nuclear
bunker under a mountain. For two years they proceed without or
knowledge. So I think the one thing we do know is what they're
doing right now. We know that they're enriching this material. We know
that in the six, seven months they'll have got to covered 90 percent of
the way for an atomic bomb material. And I think that we should count
on the things that we do know in setting the red line.
CROWLEY: And what we know is, of course, that Iran is allowed under
agreements, international agreements to go ahead and do what it's doing
because there are legitimate peaceful purposes for enriching this
uranium.
NETANYAHU: Do you think so? You think so, Candy?
That's like -- well, let me interrupt -- it's not legitimate. This is
a country that talks about -- denies the holocaust, promises to wipe
out Israel, is engaged in terror throughout the world. It's like
Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying I like
to tend my garden. I would like to buy some fertilizer.
How much do you want?
Oh, I don't know, 20,000 pounds.
Come on. We know that they're working towards a weapon. They're
not -- we know that. It's not something that we surmise. We have
absolutely certainty about that. And they're advancing towards that
nuclear program.
CROWLEY: Do you mean you and the U.S.
know that, because I don't from what I read, from what I hear, I don't
get the sense that the U.S. has the certainty that you do or the urgency
that you seem to have. Is there a disconnect there?
NETANYAHU: First of all, I talked about the certainty of their
enrichment program, and I didn't talk about the other elements. And I
spoke about the difficulty of knowing other things, but we have no
difficulty as the IAEA report just tells us what they're doing in their
enrichment program. That we know for sure. That's the only thing we
know for sure that is verifiable and accessible. We know that.
As far as the U.S. and Israel, obviously we have different
capability. You're a big country. You're several thousand miles away.
You have stronger military capabilities. We're a smaller country. We
are more vulnerable. They threaten our very annihilation, so obviously
we have different capabilities and different clocks. But in terms of
what is happening as Iran is getting closer and closer to completing its
work for the first atomic bomb, the differences between us in our
capabilities are becoming less and less important because Iran is fast
approaching a point where it could disappear from our capability of
stopping and our capability means not only Israel.
CROWLEY: I get the sense that your hour-long phone conversation with
President Obama did not get you where you wanted to go insofar as U.S.
willingness to set this red line. Is that correct?
NETANYAHU: Look, we had a good conversation. I'm not going to get into
the details. I respect the president. I respect also the confidence
of our conversation. But I think that -- I think this is a matter of
urgency and people should understand it, that's what's guiding it.
What's guiding me, contrary to what I have read in the United
States, is not the American political calendar, it's the Iranian nuclear
calendar. And the Iranian centrifuges that are charging ahead simply do
not take time out for the American elections. I wish the Iranians
would shut down the centrifuges and then we won't have to talk about it,
but they don't. And in fact, they do the very opposite. That's what's
driving the urgency of this. And again, we have close consultations
with the United States on this issue.
CROWLEY: Is the
answer then, that no, you don't have the red line that you would like to
have from the U.S.? Can you tell me at least that?
NETANYAHU: I think you should have a red line communicated to Iran,
that's what I would say. And I think it's vital. I know that people
value flexibility. I think that's important. But I think at this late
stage of the game, I think Iran needs to see clarity. I'm not sure I
would have said this three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, but
as we get closer and closer and closer to the end game, I think we have
to establish that.
That's becoming important, because you
have to just think about it. You know, you see the Middle East. You
see these fanatics storming your embassies, and I want to send my
condolences to the American people for the loss of that extraordinary
ambassador and his extraordinary colleagues. We sympathize as no other
people does with the United States.
And yet, you know that
as we face the possibility of a regime that is guided by the same
fanaticism would have nuclear weapons, it's become something urgent for
all of us to make sure they don't get there, and if you want to make
sure that they don't get there. And if you want to make sure that they
don't get there, make sure that they know that there is a line they
shouldn't cross. Because otherwise, they'll cross it, and they'll get
there.
CROWLEY: There's also people in your own country
who have said that this is more aimed at President Obama and your friend
Mitt Romney than it is about any new urgency. And I know you have
heard this.
CROWLEY: And I wanted to ask you as a wrap-up
question, do you see any major differences between the U.S. position
vis-a-vis the relationship with Israel when you look at President
Obama's position and when you look at former Governor Romney's position?
Is there any difference in their policies towards Israel that you can
detect?
NETANYAHU: Look, I know that people, Candy, are
trying to draw me into the American election, and I'm not going to do
that. But I will say that we value, we cherish the bipartisan support
for Israel in the United States, and we're supported by Democrats and
Republicans alike.
You know, this is not an electoral
issue. It is not based on any electoral consideration. I think that
there's a common interest of all Americans over all political
persuasions to stop Iran.
This is a regime that is giving
vent to the worst impulses that you see right now in the Middle East.
They deny the rights of women, deny democracy, brutalize their own
people, don't give freedom of religion.
All the things that
you see now in these mobs storming the American embassies is what you
will see with a regime that would have atomic bombs. You can't have
such people have atomic bombs. And I believe that's as important for
Republicans as it is for Democrats, important for Democrats as it is for
Republicans. It's as important for President Obama as it is for Mitt
Romney. It's important for the future of our world.
CROWLEY: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that's a good place for us to end it. I appreciate your time this morning.
NETANYAHU: Thank you.
CROWLEY: The Arab Spring's unintended consequences, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: In his second inaugural address, President Bush said the
U.S. would seek out and promote democracy around the globe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The survival
of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in
other lands. (APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: In Cairo, four years later, President Obama reached out the Muslim world with a new version of the same idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know there has
been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And
much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be
clear, no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation,
by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: And then early last year uprisings on the Arab streets
toppled longstanding autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya
with the explicit yet sometimes delayed support of the West.
This week in at least 23 countries around the world the people
returned to the streets to protest, sometimes violently, sometimes not,
outside U.S. embassies. How, why, and what turned the Arab Spring into
this autumn rage against the West. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan
Rice is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Joining me is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.
Madam Ambassador, thank you for joining us.
RICE: Good to be with you, Candy.
CROWLEY: One of the things when I spoke with the Israeli prime
minister that struck me was the conviction that he has that for certain
Iran is building -- on its way to building a nuclear weapon, and his
sense of urgency that at this moment the U.S. needs to set what he calls
a "red line" for the U.S.
Does the U.S. share the
conviction that Iran is, indeed, building a nuclear weapon? And, B,
what about the concept of a red line?
RICE: Well, Candy,
the United States is in constant communication with Israel and Israeli
intelligence, Israeli policy makers, the military. We're sharing our
assessments every day. And our assessments, our intelligence
assessments are very similar. Obviously, we share a grave concern about
Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. We are determined to prevent that from
happening. President Obama has been absolutely clear, and on this
there's absolutely no daylight between the United States and Israel that
we will do what it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon.
We are not at that stage yet. They do not have a
nuclear weapon. Our shared intelligence assessments is that there is
still a considerable time and space before they will have a nuclear
weapon should they make the decision to go for that. But we've been
very clear. The United States is not interested and is not pursuing a
policy of containment. President Obama has been very plain. We will
keep all option on the table, including the military option, as
necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
But, Candy, the fact is we have just seen the imposition of another
layer of the toughest sanctions that have ever been impose odd a
country. In this case, Iran. Their economy is beginning to buckle.
Their oil production is down 40 percent. Their currency has plummeted
40 percent in the last year. Their economy is now shrinking. And this
is only going to intensify.
So we think that there's still
considerable time for this pressure to work. But this is not an
infinite window. And we've made very clear that the president's bottom
line is Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
CROWLEY: Let
me move you to what's gone on in the Middle East in Arab countries and
elsewhere. There is a "New York Times" story this morning that suggests
that the administration thinks this is a foreshadowing of a fall that
will see sustained instability. Does the administration expect to see
these sorts of protests outside U.S. embassies and elsewhere throughout
the fall?
RICE: Well, Candy, first of all, let's recall
what has happened in the last several days. There was a hateful video
that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the
United States government and it's one that we find disgusting and
reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the
world.
That sparked violence in various parts of the world,
including violence directed against western facilities including our
embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it's
not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video.
And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with
the governments in the region and around the world to secure our
personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this
video.
And, frankly, we've seen these sorts of incidents in
the past. We've seen violent responses to "Satanic Verses." We've seen
violent responses to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an
evil way. So this is something we've seen in the past, and we expect
that it's possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the
future. What we're focused on is securing our personnel, securing
our facilities.
CROWLEY: Do you at this moment feel that U.S. embassies abroad are secure?
RICE: We are doing our utmost to secure our facilities and our
personnel and in various vulnerable places. We have demanded and we are
receiving the cooperation of host governments. Host governments have
also put out very strong messages in Libya, in Egypt, in Yemen and
Tunisia condemning violence, saying that it's a completely unacceptable
response to such a video. And we feel that we are now in a position
doing the maximum that we can to protect our people.
CROWLEY: Why would one not look at what is going on in the Middle East
now and say that the president's outreach to Muslims, which began at the
beginning of his administration in Cairo and elsewhere has not worked
because, yes, this video sparked it, but there is an underlying
anti-Americanism that is very evident on the streets. So Why not look
at it and think that this is this outreach has failed?
RICE: For the same reason, Candy, when you look back at history and we
had the horrible experience of our facilities and our personnel being
attacked Beirut in 1981, we had the attack on Khobar Towers in the
1990s. We had an attack on our embassy in Yemen in 2008. There have
been such attacks. There have been expressions of hostility towards the
west.
CROWLEY: But this was sort of a reset, was it not? It was supposed to be a reset of U.S.-Muslim relations?
RICE: And indeed, in fact, there had been substantial
improvements. I have been to Libya and walked the streets of Benghazi
myself. And despite what we saw in that horrific incident where some
mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists, the United
States is extremely popular in Libya and the outpouring of sympathy and
support for Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues from the government,
from people is evidence of that.
The fact is, Candy, that
this is a turbulent time. It's a time of dramatic change. It's a
change that the United States has backed because we understand that when
democracy takes root, when human rights and people's freedom of
expression can be manifested, it may lead to turbulence in the
short-term, but over the long-term, that is in the interest of the
United States.
The mobs we've seen on the outside of these
embassies are small minority. They're the ones who have largely lost in
these emerging democratic processes, and just as the people of these
countries are not going to allow their lives to be hijacked by a
dictator, they're not going to allow an extremist mob to hijack their
future and their freedom,. And we're going to continue to stand with
the vast majority of the populations in these countries.
They want freedom. They want a better future. And understand that we're with them in that long-term endeavor.
CROWLEY: All right. U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice. I got to let you go here.
RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CROWLEY: We'll switch gears next and talk to Democratic Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi about her road map to retake control of the House.
And later, a batch of fresh polls show Mitt Romney may be losing
steam in his bid for the White House. Supporter and former New York
City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is here to discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: No matter what they promise as a candidate, presidents
can't do much of what they want without a cooperative congress, which
brings us to the U.S. House currently run by Republicans who hold 240
seats compared to 190 held by Democrats. To take control next January,
Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats in November.
At the
Democratic Convention earlier this month, House Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi told reporters she's looking for a 27 seat pick- up, that would
put her in line to regain the speakership.
She is expecting
victories in Texas, California, Illinois, New York, Washington State,
and Arizona. Democrats are also eying power changing winds in the
presidential battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada.
And there is even talk about Montana where the House seat has been
Republican for 15 years.
We should stress that most polls
point to, and most political forecasters predict that Democrats will
gain seats, but not enough to win the majority.
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and the reason for her optimism is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Earlier I visited with House Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi. We began with the Democrats' chances for winning back the
majority in November.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: I read something in "Roll Call" that described the prospects
for Democrats retaking the House as theoretically possible but unlikely.
Would you agree with that?
PELOSI: No. I think that,
first of all, I don't know what that is, but I do know that the source
of our confidence is, and that's the quality of our candidates. They're
just great. The fact that they are strong in terms of their grass
roots mobilization and their resource raising and the rest. And that
the issues are with us.
For one year and a half since the
Republicans passed their budget, which the Romney-Ryan now, Republican
budget, which severs the Medicare guarantee, we have been saying three
important issues of the campaign, and in alphabetical order they are
Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.
On August 11th when Governor Romney chose Ryan, that was the pivotal day.
ROMNEY: Paul Ryan has become an intellectual leader of the Republican Party.
PELOSI: That is a day things really changed.
We were on a path. I would have said to you then we were dead
even. Well, momentum is very much with us. The Medicare issue in this
campaign.
So we have a message. We have the messengers.
We have the money. We have the mobilization. We have an excellent
chance to take back the House.
CROWLEY: Just quickly, the
Romney campaign says that Medicare will always be a choice, but that
they want to open it up so that they're not cutting off the Medicare
option.
PELOSI: Well, you know, that is completely upside
down. It's a contradiction of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee. To
make it a voucher is to put the decision in the hands of the insurance
companies. Seniors know that. I'm a senior. I know that.
The whole pillar that Medicare is about economic and health security
for our seniors and those who depend on Medicare. There are families
who need their parents and grandparents to be provided for under
Medicare. Everybody understands that.
If you don't believe in Medicare, you will say what the Republicans are saying.
CROWLEY: Let me ask you, if it should turn out that you gain seats
in the House, but you don't take over the majority spot, would you
still run for leader of Democrats?
PELOSI: Well, I don't
ever predicate anything when losing. I feel very confident about our
ability to win. Who will lead the party after that is up to my members.
I feel that I...
CROWLEY: Oh, sure, but would you still run, whether it was for speaker or Democratic leader?
PELOSI: Well, I actually, didn't choose to run last time. My members chose that I would run last time.
But this isn't about me, this is about Medicare. It's about Social
Security. It's about women's rights. It's about the American dream.
It's about our democracy. All of that is on the ballot.
CROWLEY: If we look at the polls rather than the possibilities, it
looks as though there is an even chance that the senate Republicans
could take over and that the probability is that Democrats will not take
over in the House.
So let's say everything stays as is and
the president is re- elected. What's different about the dynamic that
has been so toxic between Capitol Hill and the White House if we have
what currently the polls show is -- you know, if the election were held
today?
PELOSI: Well, with that theoretical, the -- you'll
see more of the same because it's really important for the public to
know that the Republican obstruction of President Obama's jobs bills
and whatever he was advancing, their obstruction is their agenda. They
really don't believe in...
CROWLEY: Does that change? If nothing changes in the dynamic...
PELOSI: It's what they believe in. Now I have always said in
my Republicans take back your party, because this wing of the party or
this over the edge crowd that is in charge -- taking charge of wagging
the dog in congress is never going to cooperate, because they do not
believe in a public roll. Clean air, clean water, public safety, public
education, public transportation, public health, Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, they don't believe in it, and that's what their budget
is about. And that's what wee we vote on the floor almost every day.
CROWLEY: Do you see that changing.
PELOSI: No, I don't see it, that's why it's important for us to
win the election so that we can go forward because bipartisan
collaboration is on the ballot too.
When President Bush,
George W. Bush, was president and we were in the majority and I was the
speaker, we had our differences, we fought, but we also found common
ground.
GEORGE W. BUSH, 43rd PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I thank the leadership of the congress for joining us here.
PELOSI: There are so many places where we came together.
CROWLEY: So you could work with Mitt Romney basically, if it came to that?
PELOSI: Oh, Mitt Romney is not going to be president of the United States.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: Let me ask you...
PELOSI: I think everybody knows that.
CROWLEY: The president has put out his -- by law he had to put out
a response to detail what its cut and what doesn't get cut under what
we call sequestration, which are just mandated across the board cuts in
both sides of the ledger. It says it will be horrible if it happens, et
cetera, et cetera. The Republicans have complained repeatedly that
there is no presidential leadership on this.
What is the
president's involvement been so far in trying to get Republicans and
Democrats together to avoid this fiscal cliff?
PELOSI:
Well, the president as recently as yesterday I received a call from him
saying we really do have to have an agreement, which I fully agree with,
and the must have as much -- do everything we can to find common
ground. That's what we did one year ago, more than a year ago in
July/August of last year and the president worked very hard with the
speaker to come out with a bipartisan agreement that was a big design
which had $4 trillion over 10 years in deficit reduction and the House
and Senate Democrats said Mr. President, we're with you on this. He
agreed to it. The Republicans walked away. CROWLEY: Is he a
work-the-phoner, though? I mean, compare him, say, to Bill Clinton who
you also worked with. I mean, the image that we have is a president
that does not do that as much as a Bill Clinton did in terms of offering
guidance, trying to get people together in the same room, reaching out
to Republicans, reaching out to you. The level of leadership from the
president when it comes to legislative things compared to former
President Clinton.
PELOSI: Well, I would say that they
both score very high in terms of leadership. If you measure leadership
in the number of phone calls, well, that might be a little bit of a
different story because they're different personalities.
CROWLEY: Yes, more contact with Bill Clinton over the years.
PELOSI: Well, I wasn't leader or speaker when Bill Clinton was --
President Clinton was president, but we all -- but I saw how he worked
with Congress and our leadership at the time.
Make no
mistake, President Obama is, of course, a great leader. He has great
vision for our country. He knows the issues. He has a plan. He is
eloquent and can draw people to what he has to say, and that's all
great.
He also is such a respectful person. And I have
never seen -- I worked with presidents to a great or lesser degree,
certainly to a greater degree to President Bush and President Obama, and
this president has listened, spent time, respects the opinions of the
Republicans to an extent that I think -- I wish one of them would come
up with a new idea because he has more patience listening to them than I
do.
But so, really, leadership should not be measured in
the number of calls. But they were both great. They are both great
leaders.
CROWLEY: So I'll just extrapolate from that that
perhaps Bill Clinton was more hands-on than President Obama, but they
both -- you think they both showed leadership?
PELOSI:
Well, I think they're both hands-on. It's just a question of how they
spent their time. And the challenges are very great today that the
president -- as they were under President Clinton, but I think he uses
his time well. I have no complaint with that.
CROWLEY: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, thank you for joining us today.
PELOSI: Thank you, Candy. My pleasure.
CROWLEY: I appreciate it.
PELOSI: Thank you.
CROWLEY: Battleground polls show trouble for Governor Mitt Romney.
Supporter and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: I'm joined by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Mr. Mayor, thanks for being here. It occurs...
RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Nice to be with you.
CROWLEY: ... to me that you, as well as anybody, understands that
when there is a crisis, Americans tend to rally around their leaders.
So with that in mind, tell me who had the better week this week,
President Obama or Mitt Romney?
GIULIANI: Well, I think
clearly Mitt Romney. Largely because what we see is the president's
policies in the Middle East falling apart. I mean, the reality is the
president got elected to reset our relationship in the Middle East. We
might as well not have had the reset.
I mean, look at the
American flag being burned, unrest in 20 countries, a front page
article in The New York Times today saying they anticipate numerous
additional demonstrations over the next four or five months.
America is no more popular in the Middle East than it was four years
ago. And now in addition to that, we've shown this kind of provocative
weakness to the Middle East. And we were for Mubarak before we were
against Mubarak. We were more or less neutral on Gadhafi until we
wanted to overthrow him.
Hillary Clinton announced that
Assad was a reformer. Now we want to overthrow him. And we don't seem
to be willing to set a red line for Iran when that's exactly what Jack
Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And you do that
any time you are dealing with a provocative enemy that needs to know,
well, how far can you go so we have no confusion? The president refuses
to do it. Prime Minister Netanyahu is absolutely correct in pushing him
to do it.
CROWLEY: There are plenty of people who would
argue that the president as commander-in-chief had a better week, but I
want to move you on to some things that I think are possibly troubling
inside the Romney campaign.
This is the latest look at
some battleground states from the NBC News/Marist poll with The Wall
Street Journal. Ohio, it has President Obama up 7 points. And in
Florida and Virginia, the same poll has President Obama up 5 points.
What is wrong there?
GIULIANI: Nothing is wrong. It's a close election. Those are polls...
CROWLEY: Well, that's -- some of these -- I mean, those are pretty good leads compared to what we have seen before.
GIULIANI: I don't know. Those are the kinds of leads John Kerry
had on Election Day, and George Bush became the president. You know? So
those are -- those are margins that are well within striking distance
for either candidate. To be overconfident about who is going to win
this election, in fact, whoever is overconfident about whoever is going
to win this election is probably going to lose it.
This
is a darn close election. Whoever expected what happened in the last
week, week-and-a-half with -- in this election. This was going to be an
election about the economy. It's now becoming an election that's
looking an awful lot like 1980 with Jimmy Carter-style president in the
White House.
CROWLEY: But sure -- even you would agree,
surely, that having American hostages held for 444 days is a little
different from having a protest outside American embassies, yes, there
-- and we had the deaths of these -- the tragic deaths of these four
Americans in Libya, which a lot of folks are arguing is a different
thing from saying everything here has failed.
So the question is, do you actually believe that this no longer is about the economy?
GIULIANI: No, no, I do. I believe it's about the economy, but I
think the situation in the Middle East is becoming more and more
important. And, Candy, I would argue that the situation in Iran is
equally as dangerous as it was with the hostages there except this time
they want to become nuclear.
And the president is fiddling
while Iran is just moving ahead. I mean, he had to be forced -- he had
to be forced to use these crippling sanctions, which he has used late,
and I don't know how crippling they are since he has exempted 20
countries from them.
CROWLEY: And yet at...
GIULIANI: I mean, these sanctions...
CROWLEY: ... this point, Mr. Mayor...
GIULIANI: Even the U.N. is saying his sanctions aren't working.
They are not working. The president doesn't want to deal with it.
CROWLEY: And yet at this point can you tell me something different
in Mitt Romney's proposed policies toward Iran than President Obama's
policies? They both said Iran should not be allowed to acquire a
nuclear weapon, period. What's different?
GIULIANI: Well, I believe that Mitt Romney would set a red line. He'd make it clear exactly the point beyond which...
CROWLEY: Why doesn't he do that now?
GIULIANI: Well, he might over the course of these debates. He
might very well do it. Although then you'd all criticize him for
engaging and interfering in foreign policy. I mean, Mitt Romney can't
win no matter what he does.
He spoke out as a leader
about a really, really ridiculous statement by the State Department, for
16 hours they had a statement out there apologizing. All of a sudden
he gets criticized.
I mean, the administration was
clearly wrong about the level of security needed for that ambassador in
that consulate. And you had Nancy Pelosi just on saying there was
enough security.
If they are as wrong in their security
estimate of Iran as they were about the consulate in Benghazi, we are in
serious trouble.
CROWLEY: Let me turn you back to the
economy, since it remains issue number one. When you look at our -- I'm
sorry, at a New York Times/CBS poll, this was about the probable
electorate, and the question was, which candidate would do a better job
of handling the economy and unemployment? President Obama, 47, Mitt
Romney, 46 percent.
Your candidate has lost the edge when
it comes to the economy. If the economy is as bad as Republicans have
told us it is, what is holding Mitt Romney back here because from your
description of the economy, others' description of the economy, this
really should be a president that doesn't have a chance and yet he's
beating Mitt Romney.
GIULIANI: There's no such thing as
an incumbent president doesn't have a chance. Having the presidency is
an enormous advantage. The president has used it well. They have done a
good job, I think an unfair one, they've done a good job of raising all
kinds of irrelevant questions about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and the
Romney/Ryan campaign has to overcome that.
But if you
just look at the fundamentals, you know, 43 months of 8.1 or plus
percent unemployment, no American president has ever been elected with
these kinds of job loss numbers and permanent unemployment.
We haven't had something like this since the Great Depression.
CROWLEY: Which I think...
GIULIANI: I think that's going to...
CROWLEY: ... argues for why he isn't doing better. But let me, in
our final moments, ask you whether you believe that the Romney
campaign, that Mitt Romney needs to come out and say specifically, here
is what I would do to reform the tax code, here are the loopholes I
would close.
Does he need to be more specific? Does he
need to give a foreign policy speech? Because the rap now from a lot of
Republicans is, we don't -- there is no real alternative out there.
Does he need to do that?
GIULIANI: Well, these are a
bunch of Republicans who are, you know, running scared, because the
polls aren't -- I mean, Romney is not ahead by 10 points or 15 points
which, of course, would be totally unrealistic. I think he's running a
perfectly fine campaign. This is the level of specificity that American
candidates usually give in a campaign.
My goodness,
President Obama wasn't terribly specific four years ago when he told us
he was -- he ran on hope and change. Hope and change. Look what a
strategy that has been for the Middle East. Hope and change and now we
have demonstrations in 20 countries.
CROWLEY: OK. All right. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for joining us...
GIULIANI: Thank you.
CROWLEY: ... this morning. Come see us in the new studio.
GIULIANI: Always a pleasure, Candy.
CROWLEY: Thanks.
A tribute to five American heroes, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CROWLEY: And finally we leave you with
images from this week's tributes to five American heroes. Friday the
bodies of the four Americans murdered in Libya, Christopher Stevens,
Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods (ph), returned home to the
U.S.
And just the day before, a memorial service was held
here honoring Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. He
died at the age of 82. Armstrong never saw himself as a hero, but his
extraordinary accomplishments didn't just leave his mark on the moon but
here on Earth too.
Thanks for watching STATE OF THE UNION.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Neil will always be remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No one, no one, but no one could have accepted
the responsibility of his remarkable accomplishment with more dignity
and more grace than Neil Armstrong. He embodied all that is good and
all that is great about America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE:
Gracious God, on behalf of a grateful nation, and in the presence of
grieving family members, friends, and colleagues, we welcome home for
the final time Ambassador Chris Stevens, Mr. Sean Smith, Mr. Glen
Doherty, and Mr. Tyrone Woods.
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY
OF STATE: If the last few days teach us anything, let it be this, that
this work and the men and women who risked their lives to do it, are at
the heart of what makes America great and good. OBAMA: Four
Americans, four patriots, they loved this country. And they chose to
serve it and served it well. They had a mission, and they believed in
it. They knew the danger, and they accepted it. They didn't simply
embrace the American ideal. They lived it. They embodied it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
