tv Around the World CNN October 1, 2013 9:00am-10:01am PDT
and better is so easy withrning you cabenefiber.o something better for yourself. fiber that's taste-free, grit-free and dissolves completely. so you can feel free to add it to anything. and feel better about doing it. better it with benefiber. we're watching three big stories right now. it's day one of the federal government shutdown. hundreds of thousands of workers going home without a paycheck for who knows how long. also, the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu only minutes away from speaking at the united
nations general assembly. what will he say about the u.s. attempts to try to forge a new, more positive relationship with iran? we're going to carry his speech live. and president obama getting ready to speak to the nation from the rose garden in the white house in about 20 minutes or so. you'll hear him live here, as well. welcome to "cnn newsroom." i'm wolf blitzer reporting today from washington. happening right now at the united nations, the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu about to deliver a major speech before the general assembly. he's the final world leader to address the group during this year's annual meeting. in last year's speech, the prime minister drew a red line literally on a cartoon drawing to illustrate his deep concerns of iran's nuclear program. what will he do this year? we'll bring you his speech live as soon as it starts. that should be in a few minutes. let's get to another huge story we're following right now. we're 12 hours into the government shutdown. no end in sight.
deadlocked mibs of congress will keep drawing paychecks while hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go without their paychecks all because republicans and democrats failed to agree on a bill to fund the federal government. millions of people who depend on food assistance are being directly impacted. we're talking seniors and those on the program for women, infants and children known as wic. plus, those of you applying for federal loans to buy a new home have to wait. national parks and museums are shutting down, affecting vacanciers and those whose livelihoods depend on tourism. but the shutdown will not affect some important critical services, social security, medicare and unemployment benefits will keep being paid. air traffic control and military salaries are also being funded. you'll still get your mail. we're seeing the shutdown blame game intensify right now here in washington. the impasse is centered on funding for obama care. neither side appears ready to
budge. >> mr. president, no matter how many times they try to extort the american people and the democrats here in the senate, we're not going to relitigate the health care issue. we're not going to do that. if they have problems with that bill, we will be happy to sit down and talk to them about a reasonable approach to do it, but we're not going to do with a gun to the heads of the american people. >> they refuse to pass anything. these reports suggest the majority leader was working behind the scenes to block any bipartisan negotiations fromming place. then after doing essentially nothing all weekend but obstruct with just hours left to go, democrats voted again and again to reject reasonable legislation. >> that's bring in dana bash, chief congressional correspondence. what's happening if anything
significant right now? >> what's happening is unfortunately nothing. i mean, that's the truth. house republicans are having a press conference where they're showing their -- what's known as negotiations that they insist are ready to go and sit down with senate democrats. as we saw this morning, senate democrats are saying no way, we're not going to do that. we are not negotiating on anything. we want a clean bill and that's the end of it. house republicans will meet at the top of the hour at 1:00. i'm told by republican sources not to expect them to come out and say, you know, white flag. ureka, uncle, whatever it is. they're not going to pass a clean bill as the democrats want. but there are some more cracks. i want to read you a tweet. >> cracks among the republicans. >> a tweet from scott ridgell from virginia. i interviewed him yesterday saying he wants to fight, fight, fight. today he's saying the opposite. we fought the good fight. time for a clean cr, being washington lingo for fund the government without strings. >> a continuing resolution.
>> so he is somebody who night not be that representative of his republican caucus because he represents a very heavy military district in virginia. they're clearly going to feel the effects big-time. but if there are people liking that sprinkled across the house republican conference who are feeling it for different reasons and enough of them, if you sort of count them up, maybe 17, 18 of them is all you need if all the democrats go with them, then they could pass this clean bill. the open question now is the same it has been for a week, two weeks, be is not whether the votes are there, bipartisan votes. it's will john boehner bring the vote to the floor. so far i'm told he's still not ready to do it. >> is it true? in the past, he's waffled on this a little bit. only if a majority of the republicans are in favor of something, the so-called hastert rule will he allow it to come to the floor. is he still holding firmly on that? >> he has never subscribed to that as a rule. he's let lots of things come to the floor with bipartisan
support, violence against women act and -- >> go ahead. >> sorry, violence against women act and he's let other things like that come to the floor. the payroll tax extension, but this particular issue is sody visive and so -- has so much passion among the base, and therefore, among many in his conference that he's simply not been willing to allow this to come up for a bipartisan vote. >> if he were to allow it to come up for a vote, you say scott ridgell would be on board for a clean piece of legislation without any attachments to obama care. and if all the democrats were to support it it, you'd need 17, 1, 20 republicans to support it and you got peter king, you've interviewed him, charlie dent. there are at least a dozen, but are there 20? >> you know, what those members told me is if they actually had the bill presented to them and they were actually able to vote on it, there would be a lot more
than 20, that they would be -- >> it would pass overwhelmingly. >> that's what they're hearing privately from colleagues. the question is whether or not john boehner and his republican house leaders are going to be willing to do that. i'm told at least in the near future, the answer is no. >> we'll get back. we have a lot more to watch including the president of the united states. let's go the united nations right now. the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is about to speak. >> and minister of public affairs and the diaspora, his excellent sit benjamin netanyahu of the state of israel. i invite him to address the general assembly. >> thank you, mr. president. i feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of israel.
we are an ancient people. we date back nearly 4,000 years to abraham, isaac and jacob. we have journeyed through time. we've overcome the greatest of adversities. and we re-established our sovereign state and our ancestral homeland, the land of israel. now, the jewish people's odyssey through time has taught us two things. never give up hope, always remain vigilant. hope charts the future. vigilance protects it. today, our hope for the future
is challenged by a nuclear armed iran that seeks our destruction. but i want you to know that wasn't always the case. some 2500 years ago, the great persian king cyrus ended the babylonian exile of the jewish people. he issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the jews to return to the land of israel and rebuild the jewish temple in jerusalem. that's a persian decree. and thus began a historic friendship between the jews and the persians that lasted until modern times.
but in 1979, a radical regime in tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. as it was busy crushing the iranian people's hope for democracy, it also led wild chants of death to the jews. now, since that time, presidents of iran have come and gone. some presidents were considered moderates. others hard liners. but they've all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime. that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader. first ayatollah khomeini and now
ayatollah ali ha menny. the president like the presidents who came before him is a loyal servant of the regime. he was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. nearly 700 other candidates were rejected. so what made him acceptable? well, he headed iran's supreme national security council from 1989 through 2003. during that time, iran's hinchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a berlin restaurant. they murdered 85 people at the jewish community center in buenos aires. they killed 19 american soldiers
by blowing up the towers in saudi arabia. are we to believe that the national security advisor of iran at the time knew nothing about these attacks? of course, he did. just as 30 years ago, iran's security chiefs knew about the bombings in beirut that killed 241 american marines and 58 french paratroopers. he was also iran's chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. he masterminded the strategy which enabled iran to advance its nuclear weapons program. behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.
now, i know, mo hanney doesn't sound like ahmadinejad, but when it comes to iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this. ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing. muhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community. well, like everyone else, i wish we could believe miss words, but we must focus on iran's actions and it's the brazen contrast, the extraordinary contradiction between khamenei words and iran's actions that is so startling. khamenei stood at this very
podium last week and praised iranian democracy. iranian democracies. but the regime that he represents executes political dissents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands. rouhani spoke of "the human tragedy in syria. yet, iran directly participates in assad's murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in syria. and that regime is propping up a syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people. rouhani condemned the "violence scourge of terrorism." yet, in the last three years alone, iran has ordered planned, or perpetrated terrorist attacks
in 25 cities in five continents. rouhani denounces "attempts to change the regional balance through prox is." yet, iran is actively destabilizing lebanon, and many other countries. rouhani promises constructive engagement with other countries. yet two years ago is, iranian agents tried to an sass nat saudi arabia's ambassador in washington, d.c. and just three weeks ago, an iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the american embassy in tel aviv. some constructive engagement. i wish i could be moved by rouhani's invitation to join his
wave, a world against violence and extremism. yet, the only waves iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed in the region and across the world. ladies and gentlemen, i wish i could believe rouhani, but i don't. because facts are stubborn things. and the facts are that iran's savage record flatly contradicts rouhani's soothing rhetoric. last friday, rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, iran, this is a quote, iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy.
never chosen deceit and secrecy. while in 2002, iran was caught red handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility. and then in 2009, iran was again caught red handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain. rouhani tells us not to worry. he assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. any of you believe that? if you believe that, here's a few questions you might want to
ask. why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities? why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple security council resolutions and inoccur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy? and why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear war heads?
you don't build icbms to carry tnt thousands of miles away. you build them for one purpose -- to carry nuclear warheads. and iran is building now icbms that the united states says could reach this city in three or four years. why would they do all this? the answer is simple. iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program. iran is developing nuclear weapons. last year alone, iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3.5%, doubled its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium and added thousands of new sentry futures. it also continued work on the heavy water reactor in iraq. that's in order to have another
root to the bomb. plutonium path. and since rouhani's election, and i stress this, this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated. ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, icbms, see, it's not that it's hard to find evidence that iran has a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. it's hard to find evidence that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. last year when i spoke here at the u.n., i drew a red line. now, iran has been very careful not to cross that line. but iran is positioning itself
to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it. yet, iran faces one big problem. and that problem can be summed up in one word -- sanctions. i've argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. and that policy today is bearing fruit. thanks to the efforts of many
countries, many represented here and under the leadership of the united states, tough sanctions have taken a big bite off the iranian economy. oil revenues have fallen. the currency has plummeted. banks are hard-pressed to transfer money. so as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the iranian people to get the sanctions relieved or removed. that's why rouhani got elected in the first place. that's why he launched his charm offensive. he definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted. i guarantee you that. but he doesn't want to give up iran's nuclear weapons program in return. now, here's a strategy to achieve this. first smile a lot. smiling never hurts.
second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. and fourth, and the most important, insure that iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time that it chooses to do so. you know why rouhani thinks he can get away with this? i mean, this is a ruse. it's a ploy. why does rouhani think he can get away with it? because he's gotten away with it before. because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past. he even brags about this.
here's what he said in his 2011 book about his time as iran's chief nuclear negotiator. and i quote, "while we were talking to the europeans in tehran, we were installing equipment in isfahan. now, for those of you who don't know, the isfahan facility is an indispensable part of iran's nuclear weapons program. that's where you're rainiam ore called yellow cake is converted into an enrichable form. rouhani boasted, and i quote, "by creating a calm environment, a calm environment, we were able to be complete the work in isfahan." he fooled the world once. now he thinks he can fool it again. you see, rouhani thinks he can
have his had yellow cake and eat it, too. and he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this. and that reason is called north korea. like iran, north korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. like iran, north korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief. in 2005, north korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. here's what the "new york times" editorial had to say about it. "for years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to north korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive
nuclear weapons program. very few could envision a successful outcome. and yet, north korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the npt, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors." and finally, diplomacy it seems does work after all. ladies and gentlemen, a year later, north korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device. yet, as dangerous as a nuclear armed north korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear armed iran, a nuclear armed iran would have a chokehold on the world's main energy supplies.
it would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinder box. and for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger. a nuclear armed iran in the middle east wouldn't be another north korea. it would be another 50 north koreas. now, i know that some in the international community think i'm exaggerating this threat. sure. they know that iran's regime leads these chants, "death to america, death to israel," that it pledges to wipe israel off the map. but they think that this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption.
have these people learned nothing from history? the last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later, its appetite for aggression knows no bounds. that's the central lesson of the 20th century. and we cannot forget it. the world may have dpothen this lesson, the jewish people have not. iran's fanaticism is not bluster. it's real. this fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons. i know that the world is weary of war. we in israel, we know all too well the cost of war. but history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.
this raises the question, can diplomacy stop this threat? while the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future. president obama rightly said that iran's conciliatory words bhu must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. and to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require iran to do four things -- first, cease all uranium enrichment. this is called for by several security council resolutions. second, remove from iran's territory the stockpiles of
enriched uranium. third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability including the underground facility and the advanced centrifuges in natanz. and four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. these steps would put an end to iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability. there are those who would readily agree to leave iran with the residual capability to enrich much uranium. i advise them to pay close attention to what rouhani said in a speech to iran's supreme cultural revolution, supreme culture revolutionary council. this was published in 2005. i quote, "here's what he said, a
country that could enrich uranium to about 3.5% will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90%. having fuel fuel cycle capability, virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons." precisely. this is why iran's nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. and this is why the pressure on iran must continue. so here's what the international community must do. first, keep up the sanctions. if iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions. second, don't agree to a partial deal. a partial deal would lift
international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for iran to reverse. third, lift the sanctions only when iran fully dismantles its its nuclear weapons program. my friends, the international community has iran on the ropes. if you want to knock out iran's nuclear weapons program peacefully, don't let up the pressure. keep it up. we all want to give diplomacy with iran a chance to succeed. but when it comes to iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance. three decades ago, be president
ronald reagan famously advised, trust but verify. when it comes to iran's nuclear weapons program,ers here's my advice. distrust, dismantle, and verify. ladies and gentlemen, israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. against such a threat, israel will have no choice but to defend itself. i want there to be no confusion on this point. israel will not allow iran to get nuclear weapons. if israel is forced to stand alone, israel will stand alone. that in standing alone, israel
will know that we will be defending many, many others. the dangers of a nuclear armed iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that israel is not their enemy. and this affords us the opportunity to overcome historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes. israel welcomes engagement with a wider arab world. we hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future. and israel continues to seek a historic compromise with our palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. we want peace based on security
and mutual recognition in which a demillerrized palestinian state recognizes the jewish state of israel. i remain committed to achieving historical conciliation and building a better future for israelis and palestinians alike. now, i have no alabama lugss about how difficult this will be to achieve. 20 years ago, the peace process between israel and the palestinians began. six israeli prime ministers, myself included, have not succeeded at achieving peace with the palestinians. my predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions, so am i. but so far, palestinian leaders haven't been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make in order to end the conflict. for peace to be achieved, the palestinians must finally
recognize the jewish state and israel's security needs enough of be met. i am prepared to make a historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace. but i will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only jewish state. ladies and gentlemen, one cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather nathan and his younger brother judah, were standing in a railway station in the heart of europe. they were seen by a group of anti-semitic hoodlums who ran towards them, waving clubs,
screaming, "death to the jews." my grabbed father shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself. and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. they beat him senseless. they left him for dead. and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself, what a disgrace, what a disgrace. the descendants of the maccabis lie in the mud, powerless to defend themselves. he promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the jewish homeland and help build a future for the jewish people.
i stand here today as israel's prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise. and so many other israelis have a similar story, a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression and came to israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland. together, we've transformed a bludgeoned jewish people left for dead into a vibrant thriving nation, defending itself with the courage of modern maccabis, developing limitless possibilities for the future. in our time, the biblical prophecies are being realized as the prophet amos said, they shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them.
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. they shall till gardens and eat their fruit. and i will plant them upon their har soil, never to be up rooted again. [ speaking foreign language ] ladies and gentlemen, the people of israel have come home, never to be uprooted again. [ applause ] >> and there's the prime minister of israel, benjamin
netanyahu, delivered his address before the united nations general assembly, a very, very tough statement saying he doesn't believe anything that this new iranian leader has suggested so far, hassan rouhani. a very direct reply also saying iran is building a nuclear -- trying to build a nuclear bomb and israel will simply not allow that to happen even if israel needs to act alone. he's urging the international community not to accept this new more moderate tone coming from the new iran ran president. christiane amanpour was listening to the speech with all of us. you spent time with rouhani. you've got a good sense of what's going on right now. i was surprised how tough netanyahu was in rejecting basically all this new more moderate tone coming from the iranian leader. >> i wasn't. the speech had basically been previewed ever since rouhani made his speech and everybody knew this tuesday at the u.n.
podium would be the israeli very, very tough response to what they view as in the prime minister's words, a wolf in wolf's clothing. they feel i guess somewhat isolated right now because obviously, the west is not just the united states but it's the rest of the -- most of the countries who are willing to give diplomacy a chance and who want to re-establish some kind of negotiations, especially amongst the p-5 plus 1, the u.n. formula for negotiations on iran's nuclear program. of course, things have taken many, many leaps forward this week. not least the historic conversation between president obama and rouhani, the first in 35 years. so this shows that diplomacy is moving in a way that israel is worried about, and of course, the israeli prime minister has been to see president obama. and the truth of the matter is that actions, of course, are going to be what is the proving ground.
and if there's no, you know, substance to either what the u.s. says or what iran says, then sure, this is not going to work. so the proof will be in the substance of what comes out of any negotiations. whether iranen agrees to certain restrictions and you know, much more transparency and whether the united states and the west agrees to lift meaningful sanctions and they have some kind you have reciprocal arrangement going forward. if that doesn't work and there are plenty of hard liners and all sides who don't want it to work not least in iran, in the united states, in israel, many people are suspicious of this whole process. it may not work but the substance is what's going to be the proof of the pudding, not smiles or words or other such things. >> here's the key statement i think that the prime minister of israel made saying that israel will never allow the iranians to go ahead and build a nuclear bomb. listen to this, christiane. >> israel will not allow iranern to get nuclear weapons.
if israel is forced to stand alone, israel will stand alone. that in standing alone, israel will know that we will be defending many, many others. >> christiane, is there sort of a good cop, bad cop element here that the prime minister of israel, the bad cop saying i don't believe anything you're saying so far, prove it, you got to the take these four steps that he outlined in this speech and maybe president obama who did make that phone call late last week to the departing iranian president hassan rouhani, maybe the good cop in this effort right now? do you see an element of coordinated strategy here between the u.s. and israel? >> you know, this is is not a changing what prime minister netanyahu said is exactly what he's been saying all the time, including as he mentioned last year from the podium. their position is, and to be honest, it's the position of the
international community, the united states, the western nations and others, they will not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. that is what president obama also said from that same podium last year. that's a basis. that's what they say. now, the difference is that president obama does not want to go to war and does not want to resolve this militarily. he might. he hasn't taken it off the table but he doesn't want to do that. he wants to give diplomacy a chance. and likely he probably said to the prime minister, let us let diplomacy try to work. let's see where it goes, but obviously as i say, it's the substance that's going to matter. it's the actions that will matter and not just the words. so i think everybody's on the same page except that israel does have a much more, you know, certainly the prime minister has a much more forward leaning view towards military action. and he then said there today that he would do it alone if he had to. there's all sorts of debates we can have about that, but clearly
they are very, very concerned about this outreach from iran. they're worried it's not as he said there, that it's not going to actually translate into the anything meaningful and that it's just a stalling tactic. he's been saying that ever since the president was elected, president rouhani. so he came to the u.n. and delivered exactly the speech that we all expected. >> the state-run english language television service in iran, what's called press tv, took the prime minister, the israeli prime minister's speech live and broadcast it. this is the english language version of the state-run tv in iran. i don't know about the farsi language version. i suspect they didn't take him live. but what do you make of the fact ta at least the english version of iranian run tv took the prime minister's speech live? >> look, i think it's really important and i think that it's interesting. i'm not sure, i can't tell you right now whether it's theers time they've done that, but obviously it's really important.
next we'll see the commentary that goes on around it. as i say, i'm sure they were not surprised by that speech. it is a very similar speech to last year. and it's the speech that this prime minister and his aides and his government said that he would make. he would warn the world in their words, not to trust the new iranian president. now, the united states has decided not to the trust but to try to go ahead with -- to see whether diplomat sit is possible and also to verify, verify, verify. so that i think pretty much most people are on the same page on this. the arab countries, the sunni arab countries, america's allies such as saudi arabia, the gulf allies are also just as worried as the israeli prime minister for different reasons because they feel that a rising iran and an iran that is maybe potentially in the future has better relations with the united states and be the west is a direct threat to their power.
so that is also a problem with those countries. they don't want to see that at all. so there are a lot of special interests, a lot of interests at play in this whole thing. interestingly from here, there was all sorts of commentary in the british press and in the european press, all those problems that prime minister netanyahu laid out, people say that if there is a reproachment between the us the and iran, that could be the most significant positive political development precisely because of those problems that the prime minister just laid out since the end of the cold war. so it's viewed very differently in in very many different quarters of the world, wolf. >> christiane amanpour, thanks very much. the other big story we're following here in washington, the government shutdown. president obama getting ready to spook from the white house rose garden momentarily. he'll be walking out of the oval office down those stairs to the
podium. we're going live to the white house to hear the president. across america people are taking charge of their type 2 diabetes with non-insulin victoza®. for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar, but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza®. he said victoza® is different than pills. victoza® is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once-a-day, any time, and comes in a pen. and the needle is thin. victoza® is not for weight loss, but it may help you
lose some weight. victoza® is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza® has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza® is not insulin. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction may include: swelling of face, lips, tongue, or throat, fainting or dizziness, very rapid heartbeat, problems breathing or swallowing, severe rash or itching. tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. serious side effects may happen in people who take victoza®, including inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis), which may be fatal. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis,
such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen or from your abdomen to your back, with or without vomiting. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, and headache. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. if your pill isn't giving you the control you need ask your doctor about non-insulin victoza®. it's covered by most health plans. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] build anything with the new toyota tundra. toyota. let's go places.
>> you're looking at live pictures of the white house. the president is still in the oval office right now getting ready to come out of the oval office. that's "the west wing." he's walking down those stairs, fairly soon in a few minutes addressing the nation on this first day of a government shutdown. we're anxious to hear what he has to say. obviously he is not very happy about what's going on. gloria borger is here, chief political analyst is, newt gingrich is here, the new host of crossfire", as well. gloria, set the scene for us. there's a real deadlock now all these hours into this first day of the government shutdown. doesn't look like there's any significant movement. i haven't seen any significant movement between the republican-led house and the democratic-led senate. >> you know, wolf, and you were there with us late last night, there was an offer to -- by the
republicans to start negotiations, and the democrats said, are you kidding me? we've been trying to negotiate with you on the budget for months. and suddenly, in the 11th hour now, an hour before the shutdown, you want to negotiate? so the answer to that is absolutely no. i think we are where we were days ago. leading up to this. as dana bash has been reporting, there seems to be some willingness on the part of some more republicans to kind of get this over with, and i -- and they're trying to figure out a way to wave a flag without making it look like they're waving a white flag but i believe that's what they would be doing. >> you worked out a lot of deals when you were the speaker with then press bill clinton, newt. how do they make sure this government shutdown ends and 00,000 people can get back 0 work? >> i don't think they do. >> they got to do it. >> no, they don't have -- that's the whole point. >> you want this government shutdown to go on?
>> i'm not saying i want anything. under our constitution, if this president comes out in a few minutes and makes another partisan hostile attack, he pushes the shutdown further down the road. when harry reid says no, i won't negotiate, he pushes it further down the road. there's no incentive right now for the house republicans to do anything. they've already crossed the rubicon. we're in a shutdown. why would they go to this much trouble and say we'll give you a clean continuing resolution. we surrender. we bow to the president in charge of everything. >> but would they can be really bowing to the president. >> sure. >> they would be bowing to public opinion which is 2-1 against this. >> it doesn't matter. >> why doesn't it matter? >> this is a great shock to reporters. the election is in november of 2014. >> but there was one in 2012. >> and the republicans won the house and the president won the white house. >> but the president won the white house and the president's health care reform bill passed. >> now you have a deadlock because you have a president who won the white house who doesn't want to negotiate.
house republicans have a very tough position and nobody's talking. >> what can he give the republicans? >> he could give them a lot of things. he could agree to repeal the tax on medical devices. >> separately. why does that have to come in this context? >> because in this setting, they're now set up psychologically if he's not prepared to give the house republicans some victory, i mean -- >> why does he have to good-bye them a victory? >> because that's how the process, would between two equal branchs. this is not the president and all these little people down here. this is the executive branch and the legislative branch. and the republican side of the legislative branch is saying we want to get something out of you. they could have given them the repeal on the tax at anytime in the last six months. >> but boehner could bring it up on the house floor, get a vote and on a clean continuing resolution and it would pass if he would be willing to -- >> he could also bring up the
repeal. >> to make those republicans unhappy into if the president wanted to do a dance, coagree that if boehner passed the repeal of the tax on medical devices, that reid would bring it up in the senate and pass it, not as part of the continuing resolution. >> separately. >> and given that commitment, you might we'll be able to move a clean continuing resolution. but you'd have to have a real public commitment. here are the two or three things, keystone pipeline, clear that a majority of the country wants it. clear given what's happening in the middle east it would be good for us to do it. >> if you were the speaker of the house right now, what would you do, not with the bill clinton but with barack obama as president of the united states? how would you behave on this first day of a government shutdown? >> i probably would go down to the world war ii memorial and say it's a total disgrace that the president of the united states is deliberately taking on veterans to cause maximum pain. some of the stuff this administration is doing is insultingly had cynical. >> so you wouldn't call up the president and say,
mr. president, we have to get together, we have to meet. let's not do so much partisan jabbing at each other. it's have a serious -- let's have dinner and let's resolve this. there's too much at stake to get into i an food fight politically. >> well, look, be. >> that's what you did with bill clinton. >> it's very hard to compare the two because the last call as i understand it that barack obama had with john boehner he opened by saying i will not negotiate. now, what are you going to say to him? as clinton has said publicly on piers morgan's show, we fought, we were able to compartmentalize. we fought here and negotiated here. it wasn't either or. we understood we have to have talking to get a deal. >> isn't this a fight? you're familiar with these. isn't this a fight within the republican party. >> not much? >> well, sure it is. >> you had two no votes. >> how can he help him resolve the problems within his own
caucus? >> only two republicans. >> on one vote last night they had 12 republicans who voted against the speaker. they need 17, 18, 19 if there was a real open vote on the house of representatives. >> a number were to the right. >> hold on. don't go away. the president of the united states momentarily will be in the rose garden there. you see live pictures of the president. he'll be speaking. we're going to also hear not only from the president but in the next hour from kathleen sebelius. this is day one of obama care, the affordable care act. people are signing up for it, but there are some glitches. our special coverage continues our special coverage continues right after this. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com
for a store near you go to benjaminmoore.com/bayarea. hello, i'm wolf blitzer in washington. the president of the united states momentarily will be coming out of the oval office and addressing the nation, today being the first day of the affordable care act. obama care as it's called. people can go online and start signing up. he's invited some guests to the rose garden. you see them right there. they'll be standing behind the president. these are president who will be able to take advantage of some of the benefits of obama care. the president will mention them, single them out, explain some of the positive elements of this new national health care reform law. today is the first day people can sign up f