CNN "Wolf" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Rand Paul

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

[13:47:39] BLITZER: No new sanctions on Russia right now, that's what the White House is now saying, but it was just two days ago that Nikki Haley, U.N. ambassador to the United Nations, said there would be sanctions on Russia after that chemical attack on Syria. She expected that announcement yesterday. It did not happen.

Joining us now from Capitol Hill is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He's a Republican member on the Foreign Relations Committee, also the Homeland Security Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

Let's get to substantive issues you're dealing with right now. Your committee chairman, Bob Corker, described the walk-back by the White House as confusion. Larry Kudlow, the president's new chief economic adviser, says there was no confusion. He simply says Ambassador Haley just got ahead of herself. What was your reaction? Did the White House undercut Ambassador Haley?

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R), KENTUCKY: I think before you talk about sanctions we ought to talk about what evidence was there that Russia was complicit in this attack. In fact, for that matter, I still look at the attack and say Assad must be the dumbest dictator on the planet or maybe he didn't do it. I have yet to see evidence he did do it. The agency claims they have that evidence, but think about it, he's been winning the war for the last couple years. The only thing that would galvanize the war to Assad directly is a chemical attack. It killed relatively few people compared to what could be killed with traditional bombs, traditional machine guns, traditional tanks, so you wonder what made them use chemical weapons. So before we get to Russia, we have to determine that Syria was implicated and then we have to determine the connection between Russia and Syria.

BLITZER: As you know, it's not just the U.S., but France and the U.K. participated in the bombing of these chemical sites in Syria. Are you saying, Senator, the president had bad intelligence?

PAUL: I don't know. I haven't seen the intelligence. We have a briefing this afternoon where I may see some of this, but the difficulty is, these things are not a slam-dunk. This was back in 2013 President Obama looked at that chemical attack, and at that point in time, his general was saying, hey, it's not a slam-dunk, because you can detect there were Syrian claims, you can detect Syrians dropped bombs, but it's sometimes hard to know if they dropped an existing vehicle of weapons, and Syria has been known to use chemical weapons, or if the Syrians did it. If the Syrians did it, it comes back to the question that Assad must be the dumbest dictator on the planet to use chemical weapons when he knows from previous evidence it's the only thing that gets the world galvanized to attack him.

[13:50:18] BLITZER: Or he may have thought he could get away with it. Who knows?

Bob Corker also is expected to put forth an AUMF, and Authorization for the Use of Military Force, new legislation. Do you know what's in it? Are you like to support it? Where do you stand on that?

PAUL: It is a good idea to debate whether we should be at war or not. Unfortunately, the use of authorization force, the resolution they're putting forward actually expands the president's ability to commit war. So if it were a limitation on the president's power, I'd be for it. This actual resolution expands the president's authority. For the first time it will list six or seven groups that we're at war with. Remember after 9/11 we were at war with those who attacked us and those who aided and abetted them. This is going to codify six to seven groups, make 10 to 15 countries we could be at war with. But really, it's limitless. If we have any other groups having activity in any country, the president can go to war there. He has to submit a notice saying, hey guys, we're at war in another country. It's a huge mistake.

BLITZER: You said the president should trust his gut when it comes to Syria. Tell our viewers what you mean. I've heard him over the years many times, he wants the U.S. out of Syria, out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, thinks the U.S. has spent way too much money there and lost lives.

PAUL: The president's instinct and his campaign rhetoric have all been for less intervention. That's one of the reasons I was attracted to his candidacy. But he's surrounded himself now with advisers that give him the opposite advice. Two weeks ago, he was saying it's time to come out of Syria. There are rumblings that he still believes that. We go from one belief to the opposite reaction. In Afghanistan, he said it's a mistake to keep building their bridges and roads and people hate us and we're sending good money after bad.

To me, it can be distilled down to this, even Pompeo, candidate for secretary of state, he admitted there's no military solution in Afghanistan. Today, we had an assistant secretary of state say there's no military solution in Yemen or in Syria. It's hard for me to understand, to comprehend, they're asking our young men and women to go to war in a war that has no military solution. So are we really reliving Vietnam where we're telling our young men and women take one more village so we can have a little bit more negotiated settlement? I don't think that's what a lot of our young men and women sign up for. I'm saying enough is enough. We should declare victory and come home.

BLITZER: Is there any chance you're going to vote to confirm Mike

Pompeo as the next secretary of state?

PAUL: If he came out publicly and said it's time to declare victory and come home but he said he didn't believe that. I challenged him with the president's own word and the president saying it's time to come home and he doesn't agree with that. He will be giving advice to the president that goes against the president's good instincts that the war has run its course.

BLITZER: What about you think about the president's candidate for CIA?

PAUL: I think what she did goes against everything America represents. It's sort of like telling the rest of the world that if they capture our soldiers, it must be OK to torture them because we have appointed someone to be head of the CIA who used to run a torture camp. I think she's a terrible representative, and I will absolutely oppose her coming forward and her nomination.

BLITZER: Let's get to another issue. You held up the last spending bill before it ultimately passed. You blasted it in the past. You have a new proposal, Senator, and its implementation would cut around $7 billion in military spending alone. How are you going to get support from your fellow Republican Senators and Democratic Senators for that matter, some of the Democratic Senators, to cut military spending?

[13:54:36] PAUL: I think conservatives across the country want someone who will hold the line on spending. If Congress can't agree to cut 1 percent across the board, it would be 1 percent across the board and include military. But let's say Congress said they wanted to do it all domestic, they could. The bottom line has to equal 1 percent. A 1 percent cut each year is about $13 billion, actually balances the budget in five years. What's interesting about mu my budget proposal is it's what they want but it's a privileged motion, which means the Senate will vote on it, even if they don't present their own budget. So I'm doing their job for them. I'm presenting a budget for them. I will include instructions to allow for the expansion of health savings accounts. I think we can totally transform and make insurance more competitive and bringing prices down by expanding the marketplace where people could have health savings accounts. I will do two things, balance the budget, balances over five years with a 1 percent across the board cut, but also expand health savings accounts larger than anyone has tried in the past.

BLITZER: As you know, some estimates now projecting a trillion-dollar deficit in the not-too-distant future, annual deficit.

We'll continue this conversation, Senator Paul, down the road.

In the meantime, thank you for joining us.

PAUL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source