The Ed Show for Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014

THE ED SHOW
September 23, 2014


Guest: John Garamendi, Lawrence Wilkerson, David Swanson, Michael Brune,
Reese Halter, Lawrence Korb

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: U.S. airstrikes lit up the night sky over Raqqa.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We`re going to do what`s
necessary to take a fight to this terrorist group.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sites hit include a building in the governor`s
compound, a post office and a recruitment center.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: That last night`s strikes
were only the beginning.

JOE CIRINCIONE, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: We should call it what it is.
We`re at war with ISIS.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We face a common threat.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s a first time we`ve seen this array of Arab fire
power.

KERRY: Our response has to be all hands on deck.

SUSAN CRABTREE, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Basically the new (inaudible)
willing. I don`t that that`s a majority.

OBAMA: America`s proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is going to the last be on this president and this
prime minister...

KERRY: More ideas is far more powerful than what these terrorists seek to
destroy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
This evening, we start with breaking news. Just moments ago, President
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry met with the leaders from the Arab
coalition fighting ISIS and Syria. The President delivered these brief
remarks following the meeting at the United Nations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We also recognize that right now, we have a very severe and
significant threat. What we`ve seen from the world community is a
recognition of that threat and we are very appreciative of our partnership
with all the countries here. We`re committed to a sovereign Iraq and is
able to maintain its territory with integrity and provide for its own
security.

We are committed to a Syria that is at peace and it`s not having the sort
of spiller reflects that are burdening its neighbors. We`re committed to
making sure that millions of people can return to their homes and that they
can live in peace and security. And we are committed to making sure that
we put an end to the kind of sectarian strike which has been so prevalent
at these last several years and has harm so many people.

So again, I just want to say thank you to all of you. This is obviously
not the end of our effort but it`s rather beginning but I`m confident.
We`ve got a partnership that`s represented here that we`ll be able to be
successful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The President just moments ago. You can`t wordsmith it. One
thing is clear. America is at war.

At roughly 8:30 P.M. Eastern time last night, the United States and Arab
partners began airstrikes on ISIS in an al-Qaeda offshoot group inside
Syria. The Khorasan group was believed to have been actively planning
attacks against Europe and the United States. In the first wave of
strikes, U.S. warships launched roughly 50 tomahawk missiles in Eastern and
Northern Syria. Target areas included the Syrian cities of Aleppo and
Raqqa.

Now the second wave of strikes was executed by U.S. warplanes shortly after
9:00 P.M. Eastern time. They included F-15 Strikes Eagles, F-16, B-1
Bombers, Drones, and the F-22 Raptor. This was the first time the United
States has ever used the F-22 Raptor on a combat mission. Their targets
included ISIS headquarters, training camps barracks and combat vehicles.

The third and final wave started shortly after midnight. F-18s from the
USS George H. W. Bush and regionally based F-16s attacked targets near Deir
ez-Zor, Syria. They took out ISIS training camps and combat vehicles.
Overall, ISIS targets were attacked near five Syrian cities.

Now, earlier today, the Pentagon labeled the airstrikes successful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRBY: Our initial indication is that these strikes were very successful.
Second, while it`s not our policy to discuss future operations, I can tell
you that last night`s strikes were only the beginning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The Syrian military was not notified of the strikes but the
Syrian ambassador was informed by the United Nations. The air campaign was
coordinated with our Arab allies in the region. Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates provided support in the second
and third waves of strikes. This morning, President Obama addressed the
Syrian air campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We were joined in this action by our friends and partners, Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, and Qatar. America`s
proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations on behalf of our
common security.

The strength of this coalition makes it clear to the world that this is not
America`s fight alone. Above all, the people and governments of the Middle
East are rejecting ISIL and standing up for the peace and security that the
people, the region and the world deserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: This is a coordinated long term effort against ISIS. The
Pentagon said today it would take years but also said no U.S. combat boots
will be put on the ground in Syria or Iraq. Military official said
training the Syrian opposition is underway.

Meanwhile, not everyone is onboard with this military action. As President
Obama gave his speech on the White House lawn today, protesters were not
far away. Demonstrators shutdown at checkpoint and play dead along
Pennsylvania Avenue. More than a dozen secret service agents removed the
protesters who did not resist to rest. Last night`s military action was
not put up for a vote to Congress. President Obama acted alone and that
has some American lawmakers upset and we will discuss this tonight. Both
sides of the aisle will be heard from.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, is America doing the right thing by going to war? Text A for Yes
and text B for No to 67622. You can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com
and leave comment there. We`ll bring you the results later.

The question is I guess very subjective, going to war. Is America doing
the right thing by going to war? If they were bombing your home, if they
were bombing your backyard, would you consider that an active war? What do
the Congressional members think? Is this an active war?

Do the President have the legal constitutional authority to make this call?
Is this what the Congress voted on last week?

For more and all of that, let`s go to Congressman John Garamendi of
California who sits on the Arm Services Committee in the House.
Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Always good to be with you, Ed and a
profoundly important question you just raised and the answer...

SCHULTZ: Well, I`ll post it to you.

GARAMENDI: ... Sure.

SCHULTZ: Was the -- Is the President and is the United States on solid
constitutional ground to take this action?

GARAMENDI: Well, we`re clearly at war and the lawyers can play with this
any way they want to and frankly the administration lawyer say they don`t
need Congress but if you`re going to have a successful event, if you`re
going to have a successful conclusion to this, you have to have the
American public with you and you really need to have all of us standing
together. That requires Congress. The constitution I believe requires
Congress to declare war.

You can call it an authorization. You use military force which is the same
as declaration of war, different words, same result. We must do that
because we are in fact constitutionally mandated to do that and it is how
you rally the American people. We need the hearings. We need to know how
much this is going to cost.

How long it`s likely to last. Who will be the boots on the ground? If
they`re not going to be America, who will they be? All of these questions
need to be thoroughly discussed.

Last week, we took up the issue of arming Syrian rebels. The debate was
only on that. It didn`t include the other four issues but the other three
issues that the President raised.

SCHULTZ: So Congressman, it seems now that we are in the mode of act
first, explain later. Are you upset this wasn`t put up for a vote? And we
have talked with you on the past about hitting Syrian targets and how that
plays into the mix. Your thoughts tonight?

GARAMENDI: Well, I`ve always said that we had to take the airstrikes to
the ISIL leadership, to the rebels wherever may they may be, degrade them,
give the Iraqi army the courage, the others in the area the opportunity to
reform, to get back on their feet so that they can then conduct the ground
war. That`s been done but I`ve always said all along, this is something
Congress has to take up. This is in fact a new war. This is not an
extension of the Afghanistan war. This is not an extension of the Iraq war
which the President actually declared was over.

And so, come to the Congress, make the case, tell us how it`s going to
cost, how we`re going to pay for it. What kind of opportunities there are
to stop the flow of money and men and material into the ISIS arms? Those
are all issues that are critically important and they`re the kind of issues
that should be debated and should come to a conclusion. I will support the
President on these airstrikes but I want it limited and that can only be
done through the authorization to use military force which would limit and
define how we`re going to conduct this war.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, does the information that`s coming out about the
Khorasan group change the equation at all? It`s been ISIS who has gotten
all the attention as of late and now the reports on the Khorasan group,
they`re may be even worst.

GARAMENDI: Well, I think it doesn`t really change the underlying question
that this is an issue for the Congress to take up, for the Arm Services
Committee to hold detail hearings to hear it out and to come to a
conclusion that "Yes, we support what the President is doing. We`re
willing to pay for it and we`re willing to endure whatever may come of it."
That`s what we must do.

The Khorasan group is said to be a direct offshoot of al-Qaeda. And in
that context, the 2001 authorization to use military force in Afghanistan
does extend worldwide. That authorization is used in Yemen. It`s used in
Somalia. It`s used throughout the Sahel of Africa.

It is the unending worldwide authorization to conduct military campaigns
and it is now being applied to the Khorasan. But that doesn`t negate the
fact that this is really quite different, this issue of...

SCHULTZ: OK.

GARAMENDI: ... ISIL and so we need to go after it with an authorization to
use force.

SCHULTZ: Congressman John Garamendi, appreciate your time tonight here on
the Ed Show. Thanks so much for joining us. Joining me now is Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Chief of Staff, Secretary of State Colin Powell,
adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary. Colonel, good to have
you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

I want your thoughts on this airstrikes. We`re in the strike mode now. I
don`t know how often we`re going to hit them but in your opinion, are these
airstrikes the right move?

LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF: Ed, first, let me say I agree
with Congressman Garamendi. As James Madison said, "The shortest way to
tyranny is to give a president an unfettered war power." And in the last
decade or so we seemed to be willing to do that with great liberality. As
far as the airstrikes themselves go, I don`t see this as a technique, as a
way to make our point with respect to the Islamic State and its forces
other than the kinetic reality of making the rebel bounce and maybe killing
a few of them.

What it`s going to take to achieve the objectives that you show the
President Obama outlining in bold at the United Nations is not bombs. It`s
going to take forces on the ground, hopefully Arab forces, maybe even
Persian forces, Muslim forces that are oppose to this more radical
manifestation of their religion eliminating these people. We can grab all
the Raytheon created cruise missiles at $2 million a piece against these
people, all the bombs we want to drop.

And ultimately, it`s not going to meet the objectives Obama outlined,
objectives which I haven`t agreed with. Whether it`s getting the refugees
home or stabilizing the region, this use of Arab power is not going to
accomplish these objectives so my question is strategic. What next, Mr.
President? What next to United States?

SCHULTZ: The U.N. vision these airstrikes being daily, round the clock,
several times a week, what`s your anticipation there colonel?

WILKERSON: I do. From the way it`s been expressed by the Pentagon, I do.
Not quite in the overwhelming nature of it`s first attack but I do see this
as a continued mowing of the lawn if you will. And look at the
complexities here, Ed, we`ve got the Saudis on our side and the Saudis
funding via Islamic State forces. We`ve got other Arab states on our sides
and they`re supporting Islamic State forces.

Look at the other complexity with regard to Assad. A year or two ago, we
said he was unacceptable in power, now, we`re fighting and killing his
principle and most formidable opposition. We say Iran is not needed for
solutions here and yet, Iran is critical and we know that to establishing a
politically inclusive government in Baghdad. These are complexities that
don`t get solved by dropping bombs.

SCHULTZ: What do you think the reaction of ISIS is going to be as far as
their tactics are concerned and their response to these strikes?

WILKERSON: We know what they`ll do, Ed. We`ve seen it before. They will
spread out. They will not mess. They will communicate by other means then
the arrays which we supposedly destroyed and by the way, I`d like to see
the intelligence that we went on. I`ve seen a lot of intelligence in my 40
years in the government and a lot of it I didn`t trust. I would suspect
that we threw Khorasan and their immediate plans for an attack against our
homeland and there so that we could appease the Congress more so than the
intelligence actually shows that.

That disturbs me. When I see people doing what we did in my administration
with regards to Iraq`s WMD, that disturbs me. Position guide of initial...

SCHULTZ: So...

WILKERSON: ... and just that, they`re positioned but they`re no better
than the intelligence on which they`re based. These people were going to
spread out. They`re not going to mess. They`re going to get rid of some
of the things that bombs destroy easily like buildings and armored vehicles
and so forth and they`ll still be there. The only way you will ever route
them out is with ground forces.

SCHULTZ: What`s your response to the five Arab countries that were
involved in this operation last night and they`re involved at moving
forward?

WILKERSON: Let me say that so far I`ve not seen a single strip of video
with a decal of Saudi Arabia, the UAEE, Bahrain of any of the other
supposedly supporting forces on it. So I`d like to see a jet. I`d like to
see something that actually had an Arab decal on it. And I knew it was an
Arab plane dropping a bomb somewhere before I believe that they really are
supporting and as I said before, the Saudis in particular but a number of
these states are actually supporting and funding the Islamic States forces.

So this is a truly complex thing we`ve gotten ourselves in with allies that
aren`t necessarily the most dependable in the world.

SCHULTZ: And from your experience, Colonel Wilkerson, this intelligence
that our officials are saying that we had, that the Khorasan was planning
attacks on Europe and the United States, would the Senate Intelligence
Committee have access to that kind of intelligence? Would they be briefed
on that before this operation? How much do you think our Congressional
members actually know?

WILKERSON: Ed, if it happen the way it happened in the three presidencies
I`ve observed, the know very little and were tell very little. I hope it`s
different with this administration but I would not guess it is. And you
just touched on a point and a point that Congressman Garamendi made boldly
and that is that it should`ve been done. This kind of information should
be shared at least with key members of the Congress including the select
committees.

It just is not the right thing to do, it`s a violation of the constitution.
To do this without consulting the Congress, at least key members of the
Congress, and getting their blessing.

SCHULTZ: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, great to have you with us on the Ed
Show tonight, sir. I appreciate your time so much. Thank you.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter@edshow and on Facebook. We want to
know what you think about this story and so much more. We want to hear all
sides in the case of this military conflict, war, whatever you want to call
it.

Coming up, there are antiwar protest going on outside the White House.
We`ll talk with one of the organizers who says there is a diplomatic
solution the United States is ignoring.

Plus, world leaders convene in New York for the U.N. Climate Summit.
Today, President Obama issues a new executive order to curve carbon
pollution worldwide.

Stay with us. We`re coming right back on the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. With
the United States carrying out airstrikes on Syria to combat ISIS, we are
at war once again but many war weary Americans are speaking out against the
President`s plan.

As the President spoke on the south lawn of the White House about the
latest military action, the national campaign for nonviolent resistance
staged a dying outside the White House in protest. The crowd took issue
with President`s escalated action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY FIRST: I think what we`re doing is escalating the war over there again
in that area of the world and a lot of innocent people are going to be
killed.

DAVID SWANSON, WORLDBEYONDWAR.ORG DIRECTOR: There is no rational and
there`s absolutely no legal basis for what he is proposing and we need more
people in the streets protesting it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Their voice of descant is being echoed by some members of the
Congress. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia says the President should have
sought out congressional approval before carrying out strikes in Syria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE, (D) VIRGINIA: The constitution is pretty clear. The
President always has the ability to defend the United States against any
kind of an imminent attack but as soon as the President decides as the
President described it, to check out a few weeks ago to on offense against
ISIL. If it`s not just a defensive mission but in offensive one, that`s
when the Congress is needed, that`s what the constitution says.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: During the run up to the war in Iraq in 2003, I believe the
mainstream media neglected to listen to the antiwar voices and covered
them. We should not let this happen again. You`ll get both sides of the
story on the show as we cover what`s unfolding in the Middle East.

I`m joined tonight by David Swanson. He`s the Director of
worldbeyondwar.org who spoke in today`s protest. David, good to have you
with us tonight.

I want to say that I have read your material with quite interest and I
would go so far as to say you`re probably one of the most antiwar,
antimilitary action activist in this country and I want to tell to our
audience that and I don`t take you take exemption to that but I want to
know -- go ahead. Your response to that?

SWANSON: I don`t know. I am completely (inaudible). I agree 100 percent
to that but I`m not war weary. I`m war aware.

SCHULTZ: OK.

SWANSON: I`ve come to recognize it makes us less safe. It doesn`t do us
any good. So it`s not so much weariness as awareness of what it is.

SCHULTZ: Is the President overstepped to his constitutional authority in
your opinion?

SWANSON: Oh, there`s no question. I agree with Congressman Garamendi and
my own Senator Kaine that this is the blatant violation of Article I,
Section VIII of the constitution but even if Congress comes back and votes
for it, it`s a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter. I mean this is
illegal to go into another country and bomb it but more importantly it`s
counter productive.

It`s almost knowingly counter productive. There is no military solution.
They keep saying that and by the way candidate Barrack Obama strongly
agreed with everything I`ve just said. It`s President Obama who`s changed
his mind and we have to bring him back to that desire to end the mindset.
They gets us into war because there are numerous useful nonmilitary actions
here that don`t involve doing what ISIS openly explicitly wants the U.S.
military to do. And it`s almost guaranteed to be counter productive.

Look at the disaster in Libya. Look at the past quarter century and the
past several years, and the past six weeks in Iraq. It makes things worst
to go in and bomb a bad situation.

SCHULTZ: What are you view the U.N.? How the U.N. plays out here? I
found it interesting that the U.N. informed the Syrian Ambassador that
these air strikes were taking place and the U.N. has not formidably said
for this coalition to back off. What do you make of that?

SWANSON: I think the U.N. ought to. I think it is absolutely obliged to
but one of its permanent Security Council members with permanent veto
status is involved in this. The U.N. needs to be reformed. It`s needs to
be democratized. It needs to be strengthened but the fact is that this is
an operation going around the U.N. And the fact that you`d get five kings
and dictators to say they`re on your side shows that you have a great deal
of influence over them.

Why not get them on your side for an arms embargo. 79 percent of the
weapons shipped into the Middle East according to the United States
Congress are from the United States not counting the U.S. military`s
weapons.

An arms embargo would be three quarters of the way just with the United
States initiating this. If it can get these Sunni governments to bomb
Sunnis, it can get them to them to join an Arms embargo, join discussions
then include Iran and Russia and Syria and Iraq which the U.S. government
is willing to talk to about war but not about peace and send in the actual
aid. A marshal plan scale of restitution to that region which would be far
cheaper than these $2 million missiles.

SCHULTZ: Descanting voices such as yourself, what are your expectations as
all of this military action unfolds?

SWANSON: I think the public support for it is exaggerated and it`s likely
to be short lived. I think it`s driven by irrational fear based on sleek
beheading videos and reports on beheading videos. I think people are going
to realize that bombing the opposite side of the side they were told they
had to bomb a year ago and arming the other side at the same time is
madness, that this is benefiting ISIS, it`s benefiting the weapons
companies, it`s not benefiting the people of Iraq or Syria or the world and
it`s tearing down the rule of love which we would like to uphold for this
nation and every other nation going forward.

And they are unwilling to say how many years and what costs in any
measurement of the costs. People are not going to stand for this very long
and the Congress members have given themselves a little bit too lengthy of
a vacation I think. They`re going to start hearing pressure from people
who want this ended.

SCHULTZ: All right, David Swanson, good to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your voice and your opinion. And if you`re watching tonight,
you can follow us on Twitter@edshow and at wegoted to comment on this
interview. In this point of view, we`d like to hear from our viewers
tonight.

Coming up, beyond ISIS, our coverage continues with a deeper look into the
second terrorist group and the cross hairs of the U.S. military.

Plus President Obama takes new executive action today to cut carbon
pollution. We`ll dissect his plan ahead in the Rapid Response Panel.

But next, your questions. Ask Ed Live coming up here on the Ed Show on
MSNBC.

We`re right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate your questions. In
our Ask Ed Live Segment tonight, we got time for one. Our question is from
Jimmy.

He says, "What is a bigger threat to America? ISIS or climate change?"

I think they are both a huge threat to America. One might just hit us a
little bit faster than the other but I think they`re both coming.
Certainly, climate change. We got to do something about it. If we don`t
do something about climate change, do you know what will happen? We`ll
examine that next.

Stick around. Rapid Response Panel is next.

HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

GEO political worries same stocks. The Dow suffers its second triple digit
decline this week. The S&P falls by 11. The NASDAQ sheds 19 points.

Shares of Bed Bath and Beyond are up more than 6 percent after hours. The
company`s revenue and earnings came in ahead investments. Meanwhile a
bright report on the manufacturing sector failed to inspire investors. It
shows factory activity in a four and a half year hot with hiring in the
industry rising for a second straight month.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The first item on the long list of
issues to be address at the United Nation`s General Assembly in New York is
climate change.

Earlier today, President Obama shifted the conversation away from the
threat posed by ISIS and other national security matters to focus on the
planet. The President addressed a group of world leaders attending the
one-day meeting hosted by U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

Now, he announced a new executive order requiring federal agencies to
factor climate resilient in to the design of their international
development programs and investments. The President went on to lay out the
risks for the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: No nation is immune. In America, the past decade has been our
hottest on record. Along our Eastern Coast, the city of Miami now floods
at high tide. In our west, wildfire season now stretches most of the year.
In our heartland, farms have been parched by the worst drought in
generations, and drenched by the wettest spring in our history. A
hurricane left parts of this great city dark and underwater. And some
nations already live with far worse. Worldwide, this summer was the
hottest ever recorded with global carbon emissions still on the rise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Today`s meeting was designed to lay the ground work for a new
global treaty to tackle climate change due at the end of next year. That
plan would go into effect in the year 2020. During the summer of 2013,
President Obama set goals for United States to address pollution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time. But when the
doom sayers trod out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow
hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produce more oil than
we have in 15 years. What is true is that we can`t just drill our way out
of the energy and climate challenge that we face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: This June, the Environmental Protection Aide said he proposed a
new plan designed to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by the year 2030.
The plan is a hot campaign issue especially in West Virginia and Kentucky
and those races.
Certainly, there needs to be change not just politics. The United States
has been one of the biggest culprits of fossil fuel emissions. This chart
shows the United States is responsible for 26 percent of cumulative
emissions from fossil fuels and cement between 1870 and 2013.
Politicians have pledged to take action for many years but have done little
or nothing. They are ignoring what many Americans want. Most recent poll
on this, the Gallup poll from June found 65 percent of those surveyed
support the government tightening pollution regulations on businesses.
Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel, Michael Brune, Executive
Director of the Sierra Club. Also with us tonight, Dr. Reese Halter,
Conservation Biologist with the MUSE School. Great to have both of you
with us.
Michael, you first. What do you make of the President`s comments today in
his executive order which he announced?
MICHAEL BRUNE, SIERRA CLUB EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Well, we thought his speech
was pretty strong. Certainly when it`s coming on the hills of the largest
march in U.S. history on climate change, the President is under some
pressure to make sure that he actually holds the leadership position on
climate change in the U.S. But what we really need is not just the good
speech from the President. We need continued action from the President.
Certainly on Keystone XL Pipeline, certainly the follow-through to switch
from coal to clean energy, we need some leadership on fracking as well.
Today`s speech was a good start but he has some significant test over the
next couple of months.
SCHULTZ: Dr. Halter, what happens over the next 20 years if we as a
country do nothing?
REESE HALTER, CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST: Good evening, Ed and Michael. It is
an imaginable scenario. At spending over 36 billion tons of greenhouse
gases this past year, if we continue at these rates, some time soon after
2030 we will have spent the entire carbon budget for this century. We will
then be in the realm of eclipsing seven degrees Fahrenheit and it will be
an uninhabitable planet for our children.
The oceans will shutdown, the forest globally will shutdown. Ed, this is -
- that is a scenario that we are not going near.

SCHULTZ: And you have fellow scientist and there are studies that say in
the next 20 years, the temperature of the earth could go up seven degrees?

HALTER: Soon there after, absolutely right. Soon there after because
here`s the thing, the carbon storage capacity of our forest around the
world begins to shutdown with another degree and a half from where we are
now. So, if you ramp it up that much more, it`s an untenable situation.
But let us not dwell on doom. Let us look to the future as the biggest
challenge for entrepreneurs of the United States of America to innovate, to
provide solutions for green energies.

Look, we just passed a moment last month with supercritical steam from
Solar Thermo in Australia which is a game changer. This is analogous to
the late 1940s in Mark 1 when we broke the sound barrier.

There`s a lot to be exited and at the same time we need to protect all the
standing ancient forest now.

SCHULTZ: Michael Brune, the Sierra Club is taking a position that the jobs
are going to be in clean energy.

BRUNE: Yup.

SCHULTZ: Does giving a 250 deadline for a plan to start in 2020 guarantee
real change? That seems a little molasses movement like I think.

BRUNE: It seems like a delay, yeah. So, there are some good news and some
bad news. What we know that should encourage us is that if we get a strong
treaty in this. The negotiations started today, they will go all the way
until December of next year without concluding Paris.

If we get a great global treaty on climate in Paris next year, it will be
enormously helpful. But we should not think that climate change will be
solved with a single global treaty or even a single piece of legislation in
the United States. We`re going to need action from all of us as voters, as
consumers...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BRUNE: ... as investors to move away from dirty energy and towards clean
energy as quick as possible.

SCHULTZ: I mean, Dr. Halter it seems hard to believe that one day meeting
at the U.N. is going to set the table for real change globally. What are
your expectations out of this U.N. meeting?

HALTER: Well, the expectations of course are the China and Australia and
Canada pull it together and get away from this oil, gas and coal scenario
which by the way is lethal because of methylmercury.

In the last 50 years, the amount of mercury in our oceans has tripled.
There`s now over 80,000 tons in the ocean. Mercury is a neurotoxin, it`s
lethal and by the way everybody on planet Earth has mercury in their
bodies. That`s a given, but we`ve got -- so, yes we`ve started this and as
Michael said, there isn`t any one initiative here but it`s the movement and
we all are left with active hope which means each of us have to lend a
helping hand now...

SCHULTZ: All right.

HALTER: ... and begin to consume less, conserve more and become water
smart.

Look, we`re missing an a much...

SCHULTZ: Right.

HALTER: ... amount of water in the last year from the Colorado River
Basin, the equivalent of 53 million football fields, one foot deep enough
to fill Lake Mead, the largest reservoir, two times. This is real.

SCHULTZ: All right. We will continue to cover this subject to this very
real. And the drop that`s taking place in California is also devastating
in leading to those fires. We`ll get to all of it.

Michael Brune of Sierra Club and Dr. Reese Halter, great to have you with
us tonight on this vital topic.

Still ahead, we continue our special coverage of the ongoing U.S. attacks
in Syria. We`ll bring you new information on the second terrorist group in
Syria that was plotting what they say an imminent attack against America.

Keep it here and watching in the Ed Show. We`re right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, Comedy of Errors, Rick Perry the
Governor from Texas. The Governor used a comedian`s death to defend his
anti-abortion law. Rick Perry signed over restrictive standards for
women`s health clinics in the law and forced several of them to close..

Now Perry says, these standards could have saved Joan Rivers during the
cardiac arrest she suffered during vocal cord surgery?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RICK PERRY, (R) TEXAS: It is a state`s right to put particular types
of considerations into place, to put rules and regulations into place, to
make a clinic be as safe as a hospital. And, you know, it was interesting
that when Joan Rivers and the procedure that she had done where she died,
that was a clinic. And I`m just, you know, it`s a curious thought that if
they had had that type of regulations in place, whether or not that
individual would be still alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Misusing the comedian`s death makes the Governor look like a damn
fool.

The clinic Joan Rivers used had the standards Perry`s bill required.
Perry`s law isn`t about safety, it`s about shutting down access to care.
If Rick Perry thinks he can exploit Joan Rivers` tragedy to disenfranchise
women, he can keep on pretending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Last night, we also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the
United States and our allies by seasoned al-Qaeda operatives in Syria who
are known as the Khorasan group.

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WILLIAM MAYVILLE, U.S. ARMY JOINT STAFF DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS: We`ve been watching this group closely for some time. And we
believe the Khorasan group was nearing the execution phase of an attack
either in Europe or the homeland.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are very battle-hardened al-Qaeda terrorists who
found safe haven in Syria taking advantage of the war, taking advantage of
the chaos. This is a much smaller group but these are very experienced
folks unfortunately who`ve been in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in North
Africa, Chechnya. And because the plotting was getting advanced, we
thought it was very critical to take advantage of this opportunity to go
after them as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. For many Americans, today was the
first time hearing about the extremist Khorasan group.

ISIS has been getting most of the attention these days but U.S.
Intelligence officials have warned the Khorasan group pose as just as much
of a threat to the homeland. But the exact numbers of fighters is unknown.
Official say the Syrian based terrorist group have been working with bomb-
makers from al-Qaeda`s Yemen affiliate and testing new ways to slip
explosives past airport security.

The source tells NBC News that the United States had information on
specific concrete plotting against aviation targets by Khorasan. Although
they said that there was no imminent danger against any specific flight,
individual or target. It sounds like a contradiction to me.

Overnight, U.S. Central Command conducted eight strikes against Khorasan
groups West of Aleppo. These include the training camps and explosives and
munitions production facility, a communication building and a command and
control center facilities.

The group`s leaders -- the leader of this group is reported to have been in
Osama Bin Laden`s inner circle. According to the State Department, he
maybe one of the few trusted al-Qaeda operatives who knew about the
September 11th attacks before they were launched.

Joining me tonight, Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress and
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb. Also Former
Congressman Patrick Murphy, MSNBC Contributor who was the first veteran of
the Iraq War to serve in Congress. Gentlemen, good to you with us tonight.

The key question here, gentlemen, is in intelligence. How good is it? All
of a sudden, the American people are hearing about Khorasan.

Mr. Korb, what do you make to that?

LAWRENCE KORB, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it`s been
known for a while but they were trying to keep it secret I think because
they didn`t want to let them know that we knew about it and what it was UP
to.

It`s a group of about 100 people that kind of the foreign policy affiliate
about Nasser. They don`t want to control territory or overthrow Assad,
they just want to use this situation in Syria to plan attacks around the
world.

SCHULTZ: Patrick Murphy, what is the difference between operationally of
these two groups? This one just an absolute attack group and not maybe
driven as the other Islamic group is driven ISIS?

PATRICK MURPHY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Sure. So Ed, the Khorasan group as
Lawrence Korb just mentioned, they are affrighted with al-Qaeda. And
because of their relationship with the bomb-makers in Yemen, very dangerous
and a very threatening imminent threats to American interest and Western
interest.

Ed, we`re talking -- well, we`re talking about these sophisticated bombs
that they were able to generate, we`re talking about toothpaste tubes,
we`re talking about cloth dipped in liquid explosives. I mean, you put
that on in an airplane or a civilian aircraft and its 9/11 all over again
or at least for that airplane.

So, absolutely an imminent threat, absolutely authority under the
(inaudible) from 2001 but the difference though between the Khorasan group
that is affrighted with al-Qaeda in Syria and ISIS in Syria is that the
ISIS and Syria they want to control land. They want to get rid of Assad.
They want to control Iraq. So they have two different missions but they
are both, especially with the al-Qaeda terrorist group, an imminent threat
to American interest.

SCHULTZ: So Mr. Korb, what does the Khorasan group want? What is their
mission here?

KORB: Well, basically they want to carry out one of Osama Bin Laden had
started.

As you mentioned, the head of this group seemed to be one of the people who
knew about 9/11, those kind of interesting. He would have been about 20
years old at that time but basically, they want to carry out this mission
of wrecking harm on the United States and its allies in the Western world
with the long range goal of getting us to leave the Middle East alone.
They don`t want us, you know, they don`t want us there so that they can,
you know, pursue their own agenda.

But, you know, I think Patrick -- yeah, I don`t know about an imminent
threat. I think they`re more of a threat to the homeland than ISIL is but
we`re got very intelligence on. I mean, that`s why we`re, you know if we
get on the planes now you -- they check your laptops and things like that
much more to make sure that this does not happen.

And don`t forget we did stop the underwear bomb over what`s kind of with
one of the guys that they`re following on and with our Department of
Homeland Security now, I think we`re much better prepared to deal with
people like that because we`ve share intelligences within the country and
with other countries.

MURPHY: Ed, can I mention some...

SCHULTZ: So, it would -- Absolutely, go ahead. Go ahead.

MURPHY: Real quick. What I think was interesting, we had a coalition of
Arab countries, five countries, Bahrain, Qatar, Emirates. They were with
us attacking ISIS in Syria. They peeled off those fighters just did peel
off for fighting this al-Qaeda group in Syria.

So, there was two different missions there. At the end of the day, there`s
a lot of Americans that will say, well why don`t we get an authorization
for using military force from the Congress. Congress as you know has been
MIA. They, you know, they had taught the hearings on Benghazi but, you
know, they were appoint all the responsibility to President Obama and
they`re on vacation again this week.

So, we`ll see how that turns out when it come back in this session next
week if they would finally do their job...

SCHULTZ: So, Patrick -- Yeah, what I`m hearing here is that the Khorasan
group has much greater sophistication ahead America than anybody else on
the planet. Is that yes or no?

MURPHY: That`s a yes for me -- yes.

KORB: Yeah, I think it is much more than ISIL which is more concern about
what`s happening in Syria and in Iraq. And the idea (inaudible)...

SCHULTZ: Patrick Murphy and Lawrence Korb here tonight. OK, great to have
both of you gentlemen with us tonight. We will continue this coverage
again tomorrow.

That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.

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

Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>