11:59 AM ET, May 19th, 2015

New Docu-Series from Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman, in association with HBO and Mark Herzog, Premieres Thursday, June 11 Premiere Episode Explores TV of the ‘70s and Features Legendary Producers and Actors including Hanks, Garry Marshall, Norman Lear, Bob Newhart, Valerie Harper, LeVar Burton and More CNN will launch the new eight-part documentary series, The Seventies, […] Full Post

May 24th, 2015
04:30 PM ET

Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to Brian Stelter on CNN's Reliable Sources: "... you have ABC, CBS, and NBC not devoting one minute to the most significant trade agreement in the history of the USA"

Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), joined anchor Brian Stelter to discuss his concerns with the media’s campaign coverage and how breaking news stories should look. Reliable Sources airs Sundays, 11 a.m. to noon (ET). A transcript and text highlights from the show are available below.  Credit all usage to CNN’s “Reliable Sources”

TEXT HIGHLIGHTS:

On if he feels “going at the press” is a winning strategy or not: “Look, I don't know if it's a winning strategy or not, but this is what I do know: the middle class of this country is disappearing despite the fact that people are working longer hours and they're earning lower wages.  We have seen an explosion in technology and productivity and yet all of the increase in income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.  Do you think that that's an important issue to discuss?  ”

On his worries about the media’s campaign coverage: “But this is what I worry about.  In terms of campaign coverage... there is more coverage about the political gossip of a campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign sends out something stupid on Facebook, right?  We can expect that to be a major story. But what your job is, what the media's job is, is to say, look, these are the major issues facing the country.  We're a democracy.  People have different points of view.  Let's argue it.”

On his idea of how “Breaking News” should look: “…I think that, instead of coming up with the next news of the moment, breaking news: there was an automobile accident, a cat got run over, here is breaking news:  For 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing and the rich have been getting richer.  Why?”

On why he criticizes other candidates, namely Hillary Clinton: “I will tell you that I have never run a negative political ad in the state of Vermont in my life.  People of Vermont know that.  I just don't think that that's what politics is about.  So, will I criticize Hillary Clinton on her position of TPP, or the lack of position?  Will I criticize her on her views of Wall Street?  Will I criticize her on foreign policy? That's what democracy is about.  But taking cheap shots at people, making it personal, I don't think that's what politics should be about.”

FULL POST


Topics: Brian Stelter • CNN • Reliable Sources
May 24th, 2015
04:15 PM ET

Bob Schieffer to Brian Stelter on CNN's Reliable Sources: "...getting accurate information, Brian, is harder now than it's ever been... "

Today on CNN’s Reliable Sources, CBS anchor, Bob Schieffer, joined anchor Brian Stelter to discuss ending his legendary 45+ year journalistic career and how he’s made a practice of not discussing his competitors including George Stephanopolus and Brian Williams. Reliable Sources airs Sundays, 11 a.m. to noon (ET). A transcript and video from the show are available below.  Credit all usage to CNN’s “Reliable Sources”

TEXT HIGHLIGHTS:

On the Stephanopolus and whether he (Schieffer) made any political donations: “…I just never comment on my competitors and what they do.  I mean, that requires no comment from me.  People will make up their minds what they think about that… I - number one, I have never made a political donation to anybody.  I’ve always felt one of the great things about being a reporter is you can say, hey, I don't do that.  And the other part, I'll let people make up their minds.”

On the signing off of ‘Face the Nation’: “Well, I’m not quite sure it's really sunk in yet.  I wanted to leave while I thought I could still do the job.  I mean, I have seen too many people in Washington that have to be sort of led by the hand off the stage, as it were.  And I didn't want to be one of those guys.  I feel like I can still do it. CBS is doing very well these days.  "Face the Nation" is doing well.  And I thought this is just a good time to do it.  It had to come sometime.  So, I did.”

Schieffer on why the Internet has made getting accurate information more difficult: “...most of the information is wrong.  I mean, you know, we're just overwhelmed by news.  There's so much news that we can't get to the news.  And, you know, that's what our job is as mainstream journalists is try to cut through this great maw of information and tell them what we think is relevant, what they need to know.”

On the access to the administration: “People always ask me, ‘what's the most manipulative and the most secret administration you have covered?’  I always say the current one.  This one is always more restrictive than the guys who came before and they were - they had the screws turned down more tightly than the people who came before.  They all learned from the previous administration, and I guess it will be ever thus.”

On if he feels that the Brian Williams controversy may have made all journalists look bad: “You know, I don't know.  I don't think it did us any good, that's for sure. But Brian is a friend of mine.  I haven't talked to him in a long, long time, and I’ve kind of made a practice, Brian, of not commenting on my competitors, and I always had the feeling that it requires no comment from me.  Things like that, people come to their own conclusions about it, and I just kind of let it go at that.”

On what the public wants when they watch the news: “What people want when they turn on a news program of any kind is news.  They want to know what it is that they need to know about that's going to impact their lives.  And that's what we've tried to do, and I think that's what the success in recent years of "Face the Nation" has been.”

FULL POST


Topics: Brian Stelter • CNN • Reliable Sources
May 24th, 2015
03:53 PM ET

EXCLUSIVE: Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter: "Airstrikes are effective but neither they nor really anything we do can substitute for the Iraqi’s will to fight."

 

Today on CNN’s State of the Union, Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, joined Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to discuss ISIS, Iraqi forces and his belief that the Iraqi forces don’t have the will to fight. Text highlight and a transcript of the discussion are below

TEXT HIGHLIGHT

Carter on what he foresees as far as airstrikes, ground troops and troop air controllers:  “Airstrikes are effective but neither they nor really anything we do can substitute for the Iraqi’s will to fight.  They are the ones that have to beat ISIL and keep them beat. We can participate in the defeat of ISIL but we can't make Iraq a run as a decent place for people to live – we can’t sustain the victory, only the Iraqis can do that and in particular in this case the Sunni tribes to the West.  If there comes a time when we have to change the kinds of support we give we will make that recommendation but what happened in Ramadi was a failure of the Iraqi forces to fight and so our efforts now are devoted to providing their ground forces with the equipment, the training and encouraging their will to fight so that our campaign enabling them can be successful – both in defeating ISIL and keeping ISIL defeated in a sustained way.”

TRANSCRIPT

THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CARTER: What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered – In fact they vastly outnumbered the opposing force and yet they failed to fight and withdrew from the site. That says to me and I think to most of us that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves. Now we can give them training, we can give them equipment, we obviously can't give them the will to fight. But if we give them training, we give them equipment and give them support, and give them some time I hope they will develop the will to fight because only if they fight can ISIL remain defeated.

STARR: A lot of people in Washington that you deal with on the other side of the aisle say are saying – look put in ground troops,  put in forward troop air controllers, airstrikes are not working... what do you foresee – what is your view on this?

CARTER: Airstrikes are effective but neither they nor really anything we do can substitute for the Iraqi’s will to fight.  They are the one that have to beat ISIL and keep them beat. We can participate in the defeat of ISIL but we can't make Iraq a run as a decent place for people to live – we can’t sustain the victory, only the Iraqis can do that and in particular in this case the Sunni tribes to the West.  If there comes a time when we have to change the kinds of support we give we will make that recommendation but what happened in Ramadi was a failure of the Iraqi forces to fight and so our efforts now are devoted to providing their ground forces with the equipment, the training and encouraging their will to fight so that our campaign enabling them can be successful – both in defeating ISIL and keeping ISIL defeated in a sustained way.

CROSSTALK

CARTER But these things we need – all of our tactics

STARR: Making sure I understand you.

CARTER: and our procedures need to be

STARR: You are not forward air controllers on the ground yet?

CARTER: We have not made that recommendation.

END

 


Topics: Barbara Starr • CNN • State of the Union
May 24th, 2015
02:58 PM ET

Rep. Gabbard to Jim Acosta on CNN's State of the Union: ‎"...you can't train into someone the will to fight.”

Today on CNN’s State of the Union, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and  Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), joined senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta to discuss if the United States is losing the battle against ISIS and whether the war against ISIS requires U.S. combat troops in Iraq.

Text highlights and a transcript of the discussion are below

MANDATORY CREDIT: CNN’s “State of the Union”

VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS

Rep. Adam Kinzinger tells Jim Acosta that he supports a GOP proposal to send 10,000 troops to Iraq.

http://cnn.it/1JNhUO1

Dem and GOP lawmakers agree: ISIS gaining ground

http://cnn.it/1ITbhu9

 

TEXT HIGHLIGHTS

Gabbard on whether she agrees with Obama saying that the US is not losing the battle against ISIS: “I disagree with the president on this. ISIS has gained momentum, in particular over the last week… I met with a Sunni tribal leader last week in Washington - they are begging for arms, heavy weapons, ammunition, to be able to fight against ISIS to protect their families and their tribal lands and their territories, but still to this point, both the U.S. and the central Iraqi government is failing to provide that, and, therefore, ISIS continues to be able to grow.”

Kinzinger on the proposal to send 10,000 U.S. troops into Iraq: “Yes, it's reasonable… let's think about where we have been here. And the question is, are we winning against ISIS? Eighteen months ago, I called for bombing ISIS when they moved into Fallujah…  I was accused of wanting to start Iraq three. But we saw what happened then as it went on. ISIS grew. And eventually people got engaged and wanted to destroy them. We are seeing this movement continue to grow… I think we have to do the force that is proportionate, and, frankly, the violence proportionate necessary to push back ISIS.”

Gabbard on the Iraqi lack of will to fight ISIS: “I think it's important for us to really focus on what our mission and goal and objective should be, which is defeating ISIS. Let's look back to Iraq several years ago, where we had over 100,000 U.S. troops there training these Iraqi security forces. After the United States pulled out, you saw how these Iraqi security forces lasted. They cut and run - they cut and ran and dropped their weapons when they were faced with their first real battle with ISIS. So, the issue here is not about how many U.S. troops can be sent to train these Iraqi security forces, because you can't train into someone the will to fight.”

TRANSCRIPT

THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: I am joined now by two lawmakers who have a lot of familiarity with what is going on in Iraq, Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. She served two tours of duty in the Middle East. and Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who served as an Air Force pilot in Iraq.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman, Congressman, for being here on STATE OF THE UNION this morning. Let's get right to it. President Obama said earlier this week that the U.S.-led coalition is not losing this battle against ISIS. Congresswoman, I will go to you first. Is he right about that?

REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI): I disagree with the president on this.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Well, maybe, I guess... (CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Let me go to Congresswoman Gabbard first, Congressman. And then we will get to you in just a moment.

KINZINGER: Oh. Please.

ACOSTA: Congresswoman, what do you make of that, the president saying the U.S.-led coalition is not losing?

GABBARD: You know, clearly, ISIS has gained momentum, in particular over the last week, as we have seen the ground that they have gained both in Iraq and Syria.

And I would like to just break it down to what I see as the basic problem here, especially in Iraq, where we are seeing the Sunnis continue to be persecuted by the central government in Baghdad. Their distrust for the central government, this Iranian-influenced Shia militia has really created a situation where, just as a matter of survival, they have no place else to turn to protect their families and their communities other than to ISIS.

You have this solution. You have got the Kurds, the Kurdish Peshmerga, and you have Sunni tribesmen who are literally begging - I met with a Sunni tribal leader last week in Washington - they are begging for arms, heavy weapons, ammunition, to be able to fight against ISIS to protect their families and their tribal lands and their territories, but still to this point, both the U.S. and the central Iraqi government is failing to provide that, and, therefore, ISIS continues to be able to grow.

ACOSTA: What do you make of that, Congressman, the president's assessment last week that we're not losing?

KINZINGER: Well, of course, you are not losing and you are not winning because we are not really engaged in this fight.

At some point, we're going to have to understand that the goal is the destruction of ISIS. The president, when we began this - this - this attack, I guess, on ISIS, he said, you know, we are going to do it, we are going to bomb them, we're going to hit them, but we're not going to put troops on the ground.

And, in essence, what the president did was say, look, we need to destroy ISIS, until that takes boots on the ground, in which case the existence of boots on the ground is worse than the existence of ISIS. I think the president needs to stand in front of the American people and frankly lead on this and say, look, this is a cancer that is growing in the Middle East.

This is not just a situation where, if the house catches on fire, it will burn down and then we just look at a burned-down house. This is now a house on fire in a densely packed neighborhood, where this is going to spread to other places.

So, I think we have to be very aggressive at stopping this cancer now in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, where it's existing. And I think we have to show a big, major blow to the - to ISIS, because right now you have a lot of people that are sitting in their basements looking on the Internet that want to join ISIS not because they want to be martyrs, but because they want to be part of something big.

And until we show that the chance of martyrdom increases greatly by joining ISIS, I think we are going to continue to see this problem with foreign fighters.

ACOSTA: And I want to toss out to our senior international correspondent, Arwa Damon, who is joining us from Baghdad.

And, Arwa, you have been joining this conversation here. Obviously, we will get to the congresswoman and congressman in just a moment.

But is ISIS being pushed back? Is ISIS losing ground? That is something, those are two assertions that the White House was making last week to sort of cool down all of the second-guessing that's been taking place here in Washington. What can you tell us from the ground there?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, first of all, one has to continuously keep in mind that the battle lines here are constantly shifting, and small chunks of territory do regularly go back and forth.

But following the fall of Ramadi about a week ago, ISIS did quite quickly push into various other smaller towns located to the east of Ramadi. Now, the Iraqi government has managed to recapture some of them, but not only on its own.

You had a unit that was comprised of the Iraqi army plus, and this was arguably the deciding factor in all of this, the popular mobilization units. And this is this Iranian-backed Shia paramilitary force. And it was largely due to them that they were able to accomplish these very small victories in the grander scheme of things.

They are using the Sunni tribes, we're being told, using them to hold ground, but these Sunni tribes are very underarmed when it comes to the potential threat that they might be facing by ISIS.

But, look, the government at this stage has no choice but to use these unconventional fighting forces. As has been painfully clear at this point, the Iraqi government does not have its own units directly under its own command that are capable of taking on an entity like ISIS.

ACOSTA: And so let me go back to Congresswoman Gabbard about this.

I mean, what is - it seems that we have a strategy in place in terms of providing air support to the Iraqi security forces on the ground or the Peshmerga in the Kurdish areas to the north, but it doesn't seem like any - that is a - an effective strategy at this point, that it is just not working.

You can get into semantics as to whether we are winning or losing or failing, but that strategy just doesn't seem to work. So, I mean, what do you propose, do you think, at this point?

GABBARD: Yes, Jim, I would like to point out a couple of things.

I think that there is definitely more that we can do in providing these decisive blows with airstrikes against these ISIS strongholds. But the Iraqi government actually does have a choice. They have a choice by arming directly the Sunni tribesmen. As your correspondent just pointed out, they are woefully underequipped.

They have the will to fight. They are on the ground begging, saying, please give us the heavy weapons, the arms, the ammunition that we need to be able to fight against ISIS. Instead, the Iraqi government is relying completely on this Iranian-backed Shia military. The U.S. government is now saying, well, we're going to expedite more arms, more ammunition, these anti-tank weapons, to the Iraqi government, when we see that these Iraqi security forces have cut and run and left their weapons for ISIS at a few opportunities.

And these weapons are getting into the hands of the Shia militia. And I want to point out something that happened in the Armed - during - while we were going through the Armed Services Committee hearing process for the National Defense Authorization Act, where I co- sponsored an amendment that would authorize the U.S. government directly arming the Kurds and the Shias.

We had a leader of this Shia militia, Muqtada al-Sadr, as we were going through this hearing live. Quote - he said, "If this bill is passed, we will have no choice but to unfreeze the military wing that deals with the Americans, so it can start targeting American interests both in and outside of Iraq." So, when you look at this, these are the people that the United States is aligning itself with who are essentially saying we are going to come out and attack you if you don't do what we want.

ACOSTA: And, Congressman, I want to ask you this, because you heard some fellow Republicans this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain, talk about a proposal to send in roughly 10,000 troops into Iraq, primarily to do training and provide intelligence, that sort of thing, not to go and fight house to house in combat situations.

What do you make of that proposal? Does that sound reasonable to you? What do you think?

KINZINGER: Yes. Yes, it's reasonable. I am not sure the exact number, but let's think about where we have been here. And the question is, are we winning against ISIS? Eighteen months ago, I called for bombing ISIS when they moved into Fallujah. At the time, we thought it was al Qaeda, because they had yet to go through their divorce.

I was accused of wanting to start Iraq three. But we saw what happened then as it went on. ISIS grew. And eventually people got engaged and wanted to destroy them. We are seeing this movement continue to grow. And I think, at this point, we have to understand that every day that goes by where we don't push this cancer back, where we allow them to put car bombs in areas - in alleys, we allow them to put IEDs in towns that they occupy right now, every day that goes by, the cost of liberating Iraq or the cost of defeating this cancer is only going to increase.

So, I think we have to do the force that is proportionate, and, frankly, the violence proportionate necessary to push back ISIS. The president likes to talk about the fact that we are not going to send 200,000 troops into Iraq. I agree. I have not even heard a single person ever say that we need another 200,000 troops back in Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: You think that's a straw man argument? You think that's a bogus argument?

KINZINGER: I think it's absolutely a straw - I think, absolutely.

If you see how the president argues a lot, he likes to put two false choices up and say he is the one in the middle. I think the one in the middle right now is saying, what do we need to do to be able to embolden the Iraqi territory where it exists, to arm the Peshmerga - I agree with Tulsi - arm the Peshmerga, arm the Sunnis? The problem is, the Peshmerga can't liberate all of Iraq. They have a 600-mile border with ISIS as it exists today.

ACOSTA: Yes.

KINZINGER: They are struggling to maintain their own territory. It's a very complicated battle.

ACOSTA: And, Congresswoman - it is.

But I guess, what do you make of what Congressman Kinzinger just said there? He is OK with 10,000, maybe less, maybe more troops going in there? But you know this. Deployment after deployment, it's breaking military families across this country. On this Memorial Day weekend, that may not be the news they necessarily want to hear, more and more lawmakers calling for troops to go back into Iraq one more time.

How do you prevent mission creep from occurring, Congresswoman?

GABBARD: Well, I think it's important for us to really focus on what our mission and goal and objective should be, which is defeating ISIS.

Let's look back to Iraq several years ago, where we had over 100,000 U.S. troops there training these Iraqi security forces. After the United States pulled out, you saw how these Iraqi security forces lasted. They cut and run - they cut and ran and dropped their weapons when they were faced with their first real battle with ISIS.

ACOSTA: Right.

GABBARD: So, the issue here is not about how many U.S. troops can be sent to train these Iraqi security forces, because you can't train into someone the will to fight.

They don't have the will to fight, this Iraqi security force organization. You do have people who have the will and the courage to fight, and we have seen time and again with the Kurdish Peshmerga. Now these Sunni tribes are - are asking for the equipment that they need to...

ACOSTA: Right.

GABBARD: ... be able to protect their families and their communities.

KINZINGER: Hey, Jim?

GABBARD: And yet, unfortunately, we - we are still not taking care of it and dealing with the obvious.

ACOSTA: Well...

GABBARD: We have these boots on the ground there who are ready to fight.

ACOSTA: And we're going to have to wrap it up there.

KINZINGER: Jim, can I just...

ACOSTA: Well, Congressman, we have got to go, but we appreciate your time.

Well, go ahead and jump in there, if you have got something to say.

KINZINGER: Well, let me just say real quickly, the American military - the American military wants to defeat our enemies.

And - and I think they are ready to go. They're ready to be unleashed, which is necessary. And - and that's what they are called to do.

ACOSTA: All right, very good.

END

 


Topics: Arwa Damon • CNN • Jim Acosta • State of the Union
May 24th, 2015
02:42 PM ET

State of the Union EXCLUSIVE: HUD Secretary Julian Castro: "Since 2010, we have seen a 33 percent reduction in veteran homelessness…”

Today on CNN’s State of the Union, Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, Julian Castro (2014 – present), joined senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta to discuss the issue of urban development becoming a topic of discussion due to the situations in Baltimore, Ferguson and Cleveland, ending veteran homelessness, Hillary Clinton’s emails and if he would consider being Clinton’s vice presidential candidate.

Text highlights and a transcript of the discussion are below

MANDATORY CREDIT: CNN’s “State of the Union”

HIGHLIGHTS

Castro on situations in Cleveland and Baltimore becoming a topic of discussion for urban development:  “…we see out there, whether it's Baltimore, what's happened in Ferguson, what's going on in Cleveland right now, does give us I think as a nation an extra impetus to focus on these issues.  And I believe that one of the lasting legacies of the Obama administration is that, for the first time in these efforts, we figured out that it's not just about improving housing, it's not just what HUD is doing, it's also improving education in the neighborhood, improving transit options, of course improving job opportunities.”

Castro on the issue of the veteran homelessness: “There's a lot we are doing and that we're going to keep working hard.  This is actually one of the best news stories out there.  In 2010, President Obama became the first president to say we're not just going to talk about reducing veteran homelessness, we're actually going to end it.  And since 2010, we have seen a 33 percent reduction in veteran homelessness…”

Castro on being on Hillary Clinton’s campaign ticket: “I have found in life, like I bet a lot of folks watching out there, that the best thing to do in life is to do a great job with what's in front of you, and I am trying to do a great job at HUD and make sure that we benefit Americans out there, this weekend, Memorial Day weekend, when we think about our veterans, the fact that all of us together on both sides of aisle are committed to making a difference in getting the veterans a place to live, and that it's happening… That's what I'm focused on these days.”

Castro on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal:  “This thing [Benghazi] has been studied to death by Republicans and Democrats, several committees including in Congress that have all said, yes, of course what happened was tragic, but Secretary Clinton was not in any way at fault.  And what you have here, with the e-mails, is basically a witch hunt.  And Congressman Gowdy, who is leading this, is very intentionally trying to manipulate this witch hunt to play politics.  That's unfortunate, and is one of the reasons why Congress has a 19 percent approval rating.  I think that we need to focus on more substantive things.”

TRANSCRIPT

THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR:  Here now, Julian Castro, the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development.  He and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser kicked off the agency's 50th anniversary by highlighting efforts to create and maintain affordable housing, especially in revitalized urban areas where costs are soaring at an astronomical rate.

Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us this morning.  We appreciate it.

JULIAN CASTRO, SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT:  It is great to be with you.

ACOSTA:  Thank you.  And we noticed with the situation in Cleveland over the weekend, the situation in Baltimore, Ferguson, this issue of urban development is becoming more and more a critical component for you when it comes to dealing with these cities that are facing some major issues.

And I'm just curious, how - is this becoming more of a topic of conversation for you to sort of deal with urban development in cities that are facing tough times to sort of prevent the next Baltimore from happening, the next Ferguson from happening?

CASTRO:  You know, HUD this year is marking its 50th year anniversary, so I would say that the focus on these issues, which has never left in terms of the department, however you're right that what we see out there, whether it's Baltimore, what's happened in Ferguson, what's going on in Cleveland right now, does give us I think as a nation an extra impetus to focus on these issues.

And I believe that one of the lasting legacies of the Obama administration is that, for the first time in these efforts, we figured out that it's not just about improving housing, it's not just what HUD is doing, it's also improving education in the neighborhood, improving transit options, of course improving job opportunities.  And through place-based work, the Obama administration is working with local leaders in cities across the United States and rural areas as well to lift up the quality of life and provide more economic opportunity out there.

And I think you're to see the impact of this in the years to come even in some of the toughest areas in the United States.

ACOSTA:  How do you respond to this notion, and I'm sure you've heard it in recent weeks in response to what happened in Baltimore, that the Great Society was a failure?  And I know that this is a time when you and the rest of the administration would like to see more resources going into our urban areas.

CASTRO:  There are people that say that, and I would say that they're dead wrong.  In fact, what we see today in the United States is, because of these efforts, for instance, we've see a strong reduction in childhood poverty.  The challenge is that even when we find, based on evidence, initiatives that work - for instance, our housing choice voucher program was a subject of a massive longitudinal study by Raj Chetty and Larry Katz out of Harvard, that showed that educational and employment outcomes improve when young people have the benefit of a housing choice voucher so that they can move with their family to a place of low poverty and higher opportunity.  Even when we find things that work, for instance in this budget the president is requesting about 100,000 more vouchers than we have now, because we've lost nearly 70,000 to sequestration - and we're not getting the resources from the Congress to make those investments.  And so it's about resources and it's about how we coordinate better with local leaders to make a good impact on the ground.

ACOSTA:  And I want to switch gears a little bit, because it's Memorial Day weekend, to ask you about this issue of veteran homelessness, which is an issue that you have to deal with at the Housing and Urban Development Department.  And according to your department, veteran homeless has decreased 33 percent since 2010, but there are still 50,000 homeless vets in America.  We see them on the streets of Washington; people will see them on the streets of Washington as they head to Arlington National Cemetery, for example, this weekend.  What more can we do for them?

CASTRO:  There's a lot we are doing and that we're going to keep working hard.  This is actually one of the best news stories out there.  In 2010, President Obama became the first president to say we're not just going to talk about reducing veteran homelessness, we're actually going to end it.  And since 2010, we have seen a 33 percent reduction in veteran homelessness, mostly for two reasons - because the president led and worked well with the Congress to get more what are called HUD-VASH vouchers so that veterans who are homeless can actually get a voucher, go into the private market, and get a place to live.  And secondly because communities across the United States have signed up to be part of the challenge to end veteran homelessness, and have adopted policies like Housing First, getting veterans into housing instead of making them live in shelters or transitional living facilities.  Because of that, we expect that we will effectively end veteran homelessness.

ACOSTA:  And that would be quite an accomplishment that you could tout in a run in 2016 if you were to be put on Hillary Clinton's ticket.  I know you've heard this question time and again.  I can't let you go without talking about this.  What do you make of this when you see the former San Antonio mayor and former secretary at your department, Henry Cisneros, say this.  He says, "When I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that the first person on their list for vice president is Julian Castro.  They don't have a second option."

So I guess that's it.  You've got the job.  So congratulations.

CASTRO:  I doubt that.  You know, if I had a dime for every amount of speculation that happens in D.C., I think all of us would be wealthy.

ACOSTA:  Your budget would be a lot bigger, is that –?

CASTRO:  That's right.  Who wouldn't be flattered by that?  But I have found in life, like I bet a lot of folks watching out there, that the best thing to do in life is to do a great job with what's in front of you, and I am trying to do a great job at HUD and make sure that we benefit Americans out there, this weekend, Memorial Day weekend, when we think about our veterans, the fact that all of us together on both sides of aisle are committed to making a difference in getting the veterans a place to live, and that it's happening.  And we are going to have that glorious day in the not-too-distant future when we can say we have effectively ended veteran homelessness.  That's what I'm focused on these days.

ACOSTA:  Let me ask you one more question about the 2016 campaign.  These e-mails that have been released by the State Department with respect to Hillary Clinton and her time there, the private e-mails that she was using to conduct business at the department, do you believe that she has answered that question appropriately and fully?

CASTRO:  Oh, absolutely.

ACOSTA:  You're satisfied.

CASTRO:  Oh, I do.  I mean, let's take a look at this issue with Benghazi.  This thing has been studied to death by Republicans and Democrats, several committees including in Congress that have all said, yes, of course what happened was tragic, but Secretary Clinton was not in any way at fault.  And what you have here, with the e-mails, is basically a witch hunt.  And Congressman Gowdy, who is leading this, is very intentionally trying to manipulate this witch hunt to play politics.  That's unfortunate, and is one of the reasons why Congress has a 19 percent approval rating.  I think that we need to focus on more substantive things.

As one who hasn't spent my lifetime in D.C., I know that out there in America, they care about are you reducing veteran homelessness?  Are you providing the impetus for young people to be able to achieve their dreams?  Are we making sure that America in this 21st Century remains the undisputed land of opportunity?  Not whether somebody had e-mails or didn't have them.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA:  Do you use a private e-mail account?

CASTRO: I have my government e-mail account.  Of course, I have my private e-mail, but I have my government e-mail.  But that's beside the point.  I think she hasn't -

ACOSTA:  You do government business on the government e-mail account and private -

CASTRO:  That's right.

ACOSTA:  - business on the private.

CASTRO:  And she's already explained that.  People want us to focus, as policymakers, on things that matter to their lives.  They want us to make a difference in creating more opportunity out there, and that’s just a witch hunt that is a sideshow.  I think the work that we're doing to end veteran homelessness is a good example of something that matters.

ACOSTA:  All right, Secretary Castro, thank you very much for your time this morning.  We appreciate it.

CASTRO:  Thank you.

END


Topics: CNN • Jim Acosta • State of the Union
May 24th, 2015
12:20 PM ET

Charles Murray to Fareed Zakaria: "I'm not so worried about the big corporations...but the lives of people are being constantly impeded by stupid, pointless regulations."

 

Today, Fareed Zakaria held an exclusive interview with Charles Murray, Political Scientist and author of By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.  They spoke about what the American people should rebel against according to Murray which included, certain regulations that are “stupid” and “pointless”, as well as his proposal for a legal defense fund. See full story below.

MANDATORY CREDIT for reference and usage: “CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS”

FULL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: July Fourth will mark 239 years since the Declaration of Independence. And my next guest says it's time for a new declaration against the government, a declaration of resistance, he calls it.  He wants American citizens to rise up in protest of their government's ways. Why? It's not for the reasons you probably think, but I will let him explain.

Charles Murray is the author of such provocative, controversial books as "The Bell Curve" and "Coming Apart." His new book is called "By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission."

So what is the great cause that you want people to rise up in rebellion against?

CHARLES MURRAY, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Ordinary people can't live their lives as they see fit anymore. They live under a constant presumption that they need permission. So that if it's somebody trying to run a small business or a family building a deck behind the house or a community group trying to get a new playground for their kids, they constantly have the government coming out and saying, no, you can't do this, you have to do it that way, we're going to fine you $5,000 for this.

I'm not so worried about the big corporations and I certainly don't want to get rid of the regulations that are important and necessary. But the lives of people are being constantly impeded by stupid, pointless regulations. And that's what I want to do something about.

ZAKARIA: And the number of these kinds of regulations, you point out, has just grown astronomically.

MURRAY: Oh, yes. Well, if you want to talk about the total pages in the Federal Code of Regulations you're up to 175,000 pages now. And that's not as telling to me, Fareed, as what happens if you go out and just ask somebody who runs a small business, how does regulation affect your life? And the answer you're going to get is it makes my life miserable.

ZAKARIA: So since the 1940s, with this regulatory state rising, the United States has become the richest, most dynamic, most technologically advanced country in the history of the world.  And secondly, I look at our lives, and we have cleaner air, safer coal mines, cleaner water.

MURRAY: What's the big deal then?

ZAKARIA: What - right. What's the big deal?

MURRAY: Look, point number one, I'm in - I'm in favor of regulations that take smokestacks that are boiling out noxious smoke and regulating the hell out of them, OK? That's fine with me.  Coal mines safer, that's fine with me, too.

ZAKARIA:  Is there - is there a way to get - I guess what I'm trying to get at, is there a way to get the good regulations without the bad? Because you point out, for example, that, you know, OK, it makes sense that you should have some rules about stairways so that people don't fall off.  That there should be some kind of railing.

MURRAY: Yes. There should be a railing there.

ZAKARIA: But there's a law - there's a regulation that says if the railings are not 42 inches high, you will be fined as per OSHA Regulation 1910.23(e).

MURRAY: Yes.

ZAKARIA: How do you - how do you avoid that but still have safe coal mines?

MURRAY: That's where you come to my proposal, which is to say that you have a way to fight back. And I put it in terms of legal defense funds. And these are not legal defense funds that just defend the innocent. They defend people who are technically guilty of violating a pointless regulation. And again, this is a fund for ordinary people. It's not for big corporations.

So what happens is you are being harassed by a bureaucrat for silly reasons. The defense fund says to the bureaucrat, we are taking this person's case. It will not cost them a penny. We will litigate it to the max. We're just going to make as much work for you as we can. And when you finally find that he was in violation and fine him, we're going to reimburse the fine. And I want this done not with one or two cases, I want it done with hundreds. So I'm talking about a large fund.

ZAKARIA: But - and to put it in terms that I think an average person can understand, suppose you're speeding on an open stretch of highway. You're going eight miles above the limit, you point out - I'm taking this as your example.

MURRAY: Yes.

ZAKARIA: And you say the cop pulls you over. Almost certainly he’s doing it or she’s doing it because they're - they need to reach their quota or the county needs a little bit more money and they have been told, go out and write some tickets, because your argument is that actually, there is no harm done in that kind of slight irregularity. You would then fight back?

MURRAY: Well, let me give you - let me extend the analogy. The only time you get picked up if you're going five miles over the speed limit is if you are on a deserted stretch of highway.  Then they might do that. If you're on an ordinary interstate, 70 percent of the people are going six miles over the speed limit.

At that point, the state troopers do not pull you over five miles over the speed limit. They only pull over the people that are going crazy fast or driving erratically. They wait until there is an actual harm done. And Fareed, that is my whole goal, not to wipe regulations off the books, but to drag the bureaucrats kicking and screaming into a common-sense enforcement where they have to marshal their resources against cases where real harm has been done and when no real harm has been done, ignore it.

ZAKARIA: Charles Murray, always a pleasure to have you on.

MURRAY: Thank you.

END INTERVIEW


Topics: CNN • Fareed Zakaria • Fareed Zakaria GPS
May 24th, 2015
11:59 AM ET

David Miliband to Fareed Zakaria on UK election: "[Labour] bet that this was an economic change election...in fact it was an economic security election"

Today on Fareed Zakaria GPS, Zakaria held an exclusive interview with David Miliband, CEO of the International Rescue Committee, Gideon Rose, Foreign Affairs editor, Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute Senior VP, and Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group president.  They spoke about ISIS and whether America should try and “fix” the world’s problems. See the full transcript below.

MANDATORY CREDIT for reference and usage: “CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA GPS”

FULL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: We have a lot to talk about with a terrific panel, so let's get right to it. Ian Bremmer is the president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultant. He's the author of the brand new book, "Superpower:  Three Choices for America's Role in the World." Danielle Pletka is the senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. David Miliband was Britain's last Labour Foreign Minister. He is now the president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. And Gideon Rose is the editor of Foreign Affairs and once worked in the Clinton National Security Council.

David, you have been to Iraq and to Lebanon recently, in the last few months. When you hear these stories about ISIS now being able to take over another town in Syria, take over Ramadi, what do you think?

DAVID MILIBAND, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE CEO: Two things really come to mind. The first was said to me across all sections of Iraqi society - I was in the Kurdish region at the time - and they said very clearly, at the moment, the choice for Sunnis communities is between ex-Baathists and ISIS.

And the absence of a legitimate Sunni representation that really commands confidence in Sunni communities is debilitating in the fight against ISIS. The second thing, obviously, is that as the Syria war goes on, the choices get worse and the dangers of inaction become clearer and clearer.

ZAKARIA: But when - the third aspect of it of course is that the Sunni community does not trust at all what they regard as the Shiite government in Baghdad.

GIDEON ROSE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITOR: Well, I think what you're seeing here is that ISIS's success is not just a tribute to its own abilities but to the fact that it's an opportunistic infection on a body politic, both in Syria and Iraq, with severely compromised immune systems.  The real problem in Iraq and Syria is not ISIS; it's the lack of any kind of political order in which a competent, aggressive radical group like ISIS can make such headway.

And until we fix that larger political problem, we're not going to be able to stop ISIS. And the real question is do we want to and are we able to really address the larger problem of political order in Iraq and Syria.

ZAKARIA: Danielle, this is a great sectarian struggle. We tried in Iraq. We spent ten years. We picked, hand-picked, the government, and the sectarianism bubbled through and is essentially destroying the country. Should we really try again in Syria?

DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE SENIOR VP: It seems to me so dreadfully unfair to suggest, first of all, that we failed terribly in Iraq. When we left Iraq in 2011, we were not failing. There was comity, not perfect, but between the Shia and Sunni. And in fact the Shia and the Sunni have lived in the Middle East for a long time.

This narrative, this Sunni versus Shiite narrative, the Persian Empire versus the Ottoman Empire, is enormously detrimental to our interests. And the more that the Saudis and others dig in on the Sunni side, and the more that the Iranians dig in on the Shia side, the more likely we are to see conflict.

Now, Gideon says, you know, that, well, we can't fix it, and of course the answer is, well, no, we can't fix it. But we have a stake in the solution and that's the challenge for us. When people say to me, oh, they've been fighting for millennia, well, A, they haven't been fighting for millennia; B, we care - even if we don't care about the hundreds of thousands of people who are dying around the region and being tortured and being raped and being kidnapped and being sold, even if we don't care at all about that as Americans - we still care about the fact that groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is benefitting in Syria and has sworn bayat to al Qaeda, is rising up. Ultimately, they come for us.

ZAKARIA: Do we care? Ian Bremmer, you have a new book but also a TIME international cover story in which you actually poll Americans as to whether they want to go around fixing the world's problems. And what are the results?

IAN BREMMER, EURASIA GROUP PRESIDENT: Well, the good news is that there really is space for a debate here, that Americans are all over the map in terms of whether they believe that we need to really live up to our values, be more of a global policeman, lead if otherwise there'd be a vacuum, and those that want to pull out.

But there's a problem here, and that is there’s a huge generational divide. And the younger you get, the more you have Americans saying we do not want to touch these things. And the problem you have is that the candidates, while they are at least starting to really debate some of the foreign policy issues in a way that, in 2012, the election really didn't, the willingness to actually stand up and talk about the cost, talk about what would be required to truly take a leadership role in helping to build a coalition, fix the Iraqi army, defeat ISIS - the same people who are saying we must defeat ISIS are saying absolutely no boots on the ground, and that just does not stand.

MILIBAND: But that's why - the problem with the "independent America," quote, unquote, thesis that Ian, in the end, supports is that you may not want to have anything to do with them but they'll end up having something to do with you.

And in an interdependent world - remember, it's more than 50 years since JFK declared inter-dependence - the idea that America can have the blessings of globalization but none of the burdens does not add up. And I think that's the real choice that America faces, because it cannot enjoy all the fruits of being a leader of the global economy...

ZAKARIA: But does that mean it has to…

MILIBAND:  - including economic, but not only that, without bearing those burdens. Unless there is leadership from America for a rules-based international system, then you will have a vacuum. And when you have a vacuum, you have danger. That’s the simple instrumental argument -

BREMMER: But let’s talk about -

MILIBAND: Now I do admit, I feel passionately about this because seven beneficiaries of our services lost their lives outside Idlib, and so the consequences of inaction, the consequences of a vacuum, are that people we’re serving are having their funerals today, and that really speaks to very, very deep American values as well as interests.

BREMMER: Let's just talk about where that vacuum hits, though. I mean, there's no question that it's a much worse world order if no one is providing that leadership, and the Americans are best situated to do so. But the fact of the matter is that ISIS is a much greater threat in the region, a much greater threat to Europe, than it is to the United States.

The Americans are the ones with the energy production now. They're less interested in these things. The Americans are not being affected by the refugee crisis in a way that the Turks, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Europeans are. And frankly the willingness of the Saudis and others in the community to not only send their boys to war, but also to be willing to say, "We've got a problem with radical Islam within our countries and we have to actually deal with that. We have to cut off these clerics."

If they're not prepared to do it, I'm just saying you have a much harder argument to make. I agree with you, but if you don't have a credible decision by an American leader that's really going to give you that kind of outcome, then the least you can do is not lie about it.

ZAKARIA: Danielle, isn't that fair that this is, first and foremost, an Arab problem? The Arabs should be taking care of it?

PLETKA: As I said before, we can posit "We don't care about these Arabs," "We don't care about your guys in Idlib." OK, fair enough, you know. I'm sure seven people were killed somewhere in New York state as well.

That is - that is the challenge here, is to understand that even if you want to profess indifference, callous indifference to what's happening, and say ISIS is an Arab problem, even the Sunni-Shia is a Muslim problem, the issue is that each time it comes back to bite us.

ZAKARIA: All right, we are going to have to switch gears when we come back, because another big issue that people have been talking about has been the British elections. There's an argument that the Labour Party moved too far left, which is one of the reasons why it lost. It did that under one Ed Miliband. I'm going to ask his brother, David Miliband, whether he will take over the reins of the Labour Party, when we come back.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Ian Bremmer, Danielle Pletka, David Miliband, and Gideon Rose. So, right after the British elections, J.K.  Rowling tweeted, I wonder what David Miliband is thinking of these elections? So, tell J.K.  Rowling. Did the Labour Party under your brother, who won a narrowly contested - won narrowly in a contested Labour Party race for leadership against you, did he take the party too far left?

MILIBAND: I think that he bet, and the party bet, that this was an economic change election.  And in fact it was an economic security election. And at some level it's relatively straightforward what happened. There's many layers to it, because in Scotland, obviously, you can see political fragmentation of a very serious kind, the rise of the Scottish National Party. But essentially economic security was the key argument, and economic risk was the danger that Labour failed to mitigate.

ZAKARIA: Is that good news or bad news for Hillary Clinton? At the end, she presumably will be the candidate of economic security and a degree of continuity.

PLETKA: This is a lesson for Hillary Clinton, if you want. She's tacking very far to the left.  She's nervous about her left flank in the country. She recognizes who exactly is going to turn out, who's going to be energized. And so she's taking a series of positions that are rather different from the Hillary of, I don't know, last year? And I think that's very fraught with risk for her, actually, because at the end of the day people do value security, and I think they also value a genuineness in a candidate who isn't sort of John Kerry-style flip-flopping around based on what they think is going to win them the next primary.

ZAKARIA: You were just in Asia. What are you hearing in terms of concerns about China? It does seem as though China is flexing its muscle in the South China Seas, but at the same time, aggressively courting India, trying to present itself as the kind of inevitable economic superpower of the region.

BREMMER: Well, one interesting point, tied to the Hillary question, is when you go around the world and you ask who they want to be the next leader, you know, elites everywhere are saying we're happy with Hillary - not Chinese leadership. They didn't like the pivot to Asia. They didn't like Hillary's containment concepts, which that's the way they perceived it. That’s going to be interesting when we start talking about foreign policy for 2016.

But there's no question that China is the one country in the world that actually today has a global strategy, not the United States. The fact that they are creating all of these institutions like the BRICS Bank, like the Asian Infrastructure Bank, they're planning on spending over a trillion dollars to - both on infrastructure and also on equities - to align other countries economically toward the Chinese long-term.

The Americans have not had a response to that, neither an assertive nor a defensive one. And I think that unnerves a lot of American allies in the region, who, unlike a lot of other countries, like Britain, really want to see a lot more America in their part of the world. And they're not getting it, right? I mean, the British election was not about let's talk about European leadership.  It wasn't about the world. In Asia, Modi's India, Abe's Japan, Joko's Indonesia - they're really quite concerned that the United States is not consistent and is not ultimately committed to them. And I think that's an interesting challenge.

ZAKARIA: And presumably...

ROSE: - which is why the United States simply has to - has to pass not just Trade Promotion Authority, but the Transpacific Partnership, to show that it is not a wall, that it actually cares about maintaining and reviving the liberal international order and sustaining it, that it has created and benefited from.

ZAKARIA: But presumably, this is also the reason it can't get overly involved in the Middle East again.

ROSE: Absolutely. The problem with the pivot was we didn't do enough of it, and that we didn't back it up and that we managed to get trapped into a backward-looking, olive-tree conflicts rather than forward-looking, Lexus concepts, to use Tom Friedman's old terms.

ZAKARIA: What - in your dealings as foreign minister, what was your sense of the Chinese? Do you think they are trying to kind of upend the international order?

MILIBAND: No, I think they've studied very carefully the history of how hegemonic part - powers have declined and have - how rising powers have gained. They worry, actually, about what American, quote, unquote, “decline” is going to mean. And my – I’ actually a strong supporter of the Asian pivot, one of the last ones. And I think it should have been done with Europe.

PLETKA: You can't pivot if the Middle East is on fire. Europe certainly can't pivot if, in fact, thousands and thousands of refugees are arriving, streaming through Italy, which is taking more than 40 percent of these boat people. You can't - you can't ignore it.

At the same time, you've got to have the bandwidth. And we in the United States don't have the military resources. The real tragedy behind the pivot is even if we wanted to, even if we had the will, even if the Middle East wasn't on fire, we don't any longer have the necessary resources to put towards a fully resourced pivot in Asia.

ZAKARIA: Well, we're spending 70 percent of NATO - I mean, if we don't have the resources, nobody has the resources.

PLETKA: That's exactly right.

ZAKARIA: Do...

ROSE: I don't - I don't buy that. I think the problem is one less of resources and actually capabilities than of will and attention and the fact that sort of, in effect, we take for granted not just the benignness of the American order - then everybody recognition of that - but also the persistence of it. And Americans have a sort of imperial privilege that they need to check. And they need to make clear to the rest of the world that this order is good, it benefits the United States and the world, and it's going to be going forward for generations to come, not just generations in the past.

BREMMER: I think we're capable. Thirty-seven percent of the world's defense budget is spent by the United States. But the problem is the pivot to Asia was run by Hillary Clinton, by Tim Geithner, by a series of folks in the first term in Obama that actually did Asia.

ROSE: Tom Donilon.

BREMMER: They had Tom Donilon. Others - Kurt Campbell. They're all gone. There's no one left. I mean John Kerry is not an Asia guy. What was his focus on? Israel-Palestine for 18 months. That's a fireable offense, from my perspective. But I mean for - the point is, that's not - they don't want consistency. And if you don't have leaders that are going to engage in consistency, with a president that really cares as a top priority, that strategy matters, then the result you're going to get is people that are saying you can't do this stuff.

ZAKARIA: All right...

PLETKA: Just - may I have at you both for one second on the defense budget?

You know, you need to understand that we are spending a smaller and smaller part of a smaller and smaller pie. So the notion that we're spending any particular percentage needs to understand the pie is much smaller. We spend 50 percent of our defense budget on personnel. We don't have the carriers. We don't have the attack ships. We don't have the refueling capabilities. We don't have the new technology that we need to actually be in Asia in the way that we need to, to contend in the Middle East, as well.

ZAKARIA: Well, the military budget is becoming like the budget of all American institutions…

PLETKA: Well said.

ZAKARIA: - which is largely devoted to pensions and health care...

PLETKA: Exactly. Well said.

ZAKARIA:  - with very - with a small appendage at the end. Anyway, we’ve got to stop. Thank you all very much. Wonderful conversation. We'll do it again.

END INTERVIEW


Topics: CNN • Fareed Zakaria • Fareed Zakaria GPS
CNN MARKS 35 YEARS WITH A SPECIAL REPORT ON ICONIC NEWS STORIES
May 21st, 2015
06:00 PM ET

CNN MARKS 35 YEARS WITH A SPECIAL REPORT ON ICONIC NEWS STORIES

BREAKING NEWS: 35 Years of CNN airs May 26th at 9pmET and re-airs on June 1st at 9pmET

Since its first broadcast on June 1, 1980, the Cable News Network has covered wars, natural disasters, acts of terror, politics and pop culture, both in America and abroad. To mark 35 years of CNN’s worldwide news coverage, the first 24-hour news channel will air a one-hour special report, looking back at the some of the biggest stories with personal accounts by the people who covered them, behind-the-scenes footage and a treasure trove of archived video.

From the day Ronald Reagan was shot and the crumbling of the Berlin Wall to Anita Hill’s fight on Capitol Hill and the Arab Spring, Breaking News: 35 Years of CNN will showcase more than 35 of the most iconic, defining and pivotal moments in recent history. The special report will delve deeper into six of the biggest news stories over the past three-and-a-half decades, including Baby Jessica, the first Gulf War, the O.J. Simpson trial, September 11th, Hurricane Katrina and the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Past and present CNN anchors and correspondents will walk viewers through these events, reflecting on the stories and history they witnessed unfold first-hand, including:

 

  • Former CNN national correspondent Tony Clark and former CNN executive vice president Bob Furnad recall the marathon rescue effort to save “Baby Jessica” McClure who was trapped in a well for 58 hours. The dramatic rescue played out live on CNN, capturing the attention of a nation. It also, according to Furnad, helped CNN “solidify our presence to the public that, when there’s a major news event, you know that CNN’s gonna stay with it.”
  • Wolf Blitzer, who has been with CNN since 1990, and Bernard Shaw, one of CNN’s first anchors who was with the network for over two decades, recount their award-winning reporting during the Gulf War. This unprecedented coverage of a war by CNN made television history, with Shaw, John Holliman and Peter Arnett reporting live from Baghdad during the first, intense hours of battle.
  • Larry King, who has interviewed nearly every prominent public figure during the 25-plus years his show was on CNN, and former CNN anchor Jim Moret recollect the infamous O.J. Simpson car chase and criminal trial that dominated the air waves for nine months in 1995. “It was the first reality show,” says Moret. King, who interviewed Simpson by phone the day after his acquittal, notes “if we had God booked for that day, we would’ve bumped God.”
  • September 11, 2001. Former CNN anchors Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn discuss reporting from a Manhattan rooftop 30 blocks from Ground Zero, and the shock and sadness they shared with viewers on a day unlike any another in American history.
  • Hurricane Katrina left more than 1,800 dead and caused utter devastation along the Gulf Coast. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta remember their dismay, grief and eventual anger while reporting on the ground during the powerful storm and the devastating aftermath.
  • CNN national correspondent Deborah Feyerick, CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin and Cooper, who were all on the ground in Boston after two bombs went off on Marathon Monday, recall covering the unfolding tragedy and desperate manhunt that had the city on edge.

Breaking News: 35 Years of CNN, hosted by Wolf Blitzer, will premiere on CNN this Tuesday, May 26th at 9pm/ET, will re-air on the anniversary, Monday, June 1st at 9pm/ET, and will be simulcast via CNNgo by logging in with a TV provider username and password on CNN’s iPad app or by visiting www.cnn.com/go.

CNN will also mark its 35th anniversary on-line with additional, exclusive content, which will roll out beginning May 21st through June 1st. CNN bloopers from over the years, an interactive quiz on CNN’s defining moments and an extensive photo gallery can be found by visiting www.cnn.com/cnn35.

###

About CNN Worldwide

A division of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner Company, is the most trusted source for news and information. Its reach extends to nine cable and satellite television networks; one private place-based network; two radio networks; wireless devices around the world; CNN Digital Network, the No. 1 network of news Web sites in the United States; CNN Newsource, the world’s most extensively syndicated news service; and strategic international partnerships within both television and the digital media.

For more information, visit www.CNNPressroom.com

Press Contact: Megan Rivers, 212-275-7985, megan.rivers@turner.com


Topics: CNN
May 21st, 2015
05:02 AM ET

DHL increases global visibility with multi-platform campaign on CNN

  • DHL sponsors new programming strand about global import/export markets
  • Renews multi-year association with CNN’s flagship F1 show

Following its successful sponsorship of CNN’s The Circuit, DHL is extending its brand campaign with the network spanning multiple platforms and new CNN feature strand Traders.

CNN is DHL’s exclusive international media partner as the leading logistics company positions its solutions to a wide range of global businesses – from large enterprises to SMEs. The campaign includes sponsorship of The Circuit and Traders linear TV content and all online components on CNN.com and CNN Money, as well as spot advertising across the network.

DHL is expanding its relationship with CNN due to the results delivered through its existing campaign focused around The Circuit. This successful relationship is built on CNN’s commitment to delivering a wide range of brand, advertising and content solutions that meet DHL’s marketing objectives, and the unrivalled nature of CNN’s reach amongst the global business community.

FULL POST


Topics: CNN
May 20th, 2015
07:26 PM ET

CNN & Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library announce groundbreaking format for Republican presidential primary debate

CNN and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library announced today a groundbreaking debate format that will provide voters an opportunity to hear from all of the leading candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination. The debate, sanctioned by the Republican National Committee, will provide qualified GOP presidential candidates ample time to respond to questions about how they would govern as the next commander-in-chief.

The September 16, 2015 primetime event will be divided into two parts featuring two groups of candidates debating the pressing issues facing the nation. One grouping will feature the top 10 candidates*, according to public polling. The other grouping will include candidates who meet the minimum threshold of one percent in public polling, but are not ranked in the top 10. All of the candidates will be required to meet additional criteria to receive an invitation to this debate. Full criteria may be found here.

The debate will take place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California and air live on CNN, CNN International, and CNN Español. The Salem Radio Network will serve as the exclusive radio broadcaster of the debate.

FULL POST


Topics: CNN
tmpl
« older posts