tv Piers Morgan Live CNN August 30, 2013 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
>> still hurts. now look, some may cringe but i say look deeper. look beyond the gowns and crowns and grab a fork and pick through the word salad and you will always find the croutons of wisdom on "the ridiculist." tune in an hour from now at 10:00 p.m. "piers morgan live" starts "piers morgan live" starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com this is piers morgan live, i'm wolf blitzer in for piers tonight. we want to well ccome our cnn viewers tonight in the u.s. and around the world there is breaking news in the show down with syria. president obama making a case for a military strike possibly. he says there is clear proof the regime was behind the use of deadly chemical weapons. the president also says he has not yet made a final decision on his military options, but he certainly appears to be moving closer and closer to using force. >> in no event are we
considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only syria but others around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban. >> we'll have the very latest developments this hour including graphic video of a new chemical attack. and is the president doing the right thing if he goes at it alone? will it mean for america if he does? i'll talk to the former chief of the united nations weapons inspector. plus, the nfl's landmark concussion settlement. what it means for the sport and safety of players.
i'll talk to jim mcman who is suffering from dementia. he's only 54 years old and has a lot to say on the game, the risks and his life right now. we begin with breaking news on syria. tonight, president obama is considering a limited attack in response to syria's use of chemical weapons. the white house released today this photo of the president meeting with his top national security team. a lot to get to tonight on this huge story with enormous ramifications. let's begin with our pentagon correspondent, barbara starr. the russian foreign ministry just put out a statement reacting to secretary of state kerry and other things, the russians saying washington statements threatening to apply force to syria are unacceptable, even u.s. allies have called for taking a break to wait for the u.n. expects to complete the work in order to get an obje objective picture what happened there. what's the latest you're hearing about a u.s. military strike? >> well, look, wolf from the
u.s. point of view, their contention at the white house is they have the information in hand that could lead the president to make that decision. what we are waiting for at the pentagon is ed essentially an execute order from the president. in other words, he signs the papers and says go ahead and do it. that would then come here to the pentagon, be sent out to the fleet and the next steps that you would then most likely see would be tomahawk missiles being launched from five navy warships in the eastern mediterranean. this awaits the president's decision, of course. but they are making the case that they feel at least that they have the intelligence already in hand to back this up. today, of course, they laid out that case of intercepts, human intelligence, satellite imagery from overhead. many people will -- around the world will say there are gaps in that intelligence, mainly that they do not have the issue samples, the actual medical
forensic evidence from the victims. so, there is a difference of opinion on that front, wolf. >> we'll see if the u.n. weapons inspectors have that. but by the time they make their report that would be a week, two weeks and the u.s. clearly doesn't want to wait that long once the execute order goes from the commander in chief to the troops in the eastern mediterrane mediterranean, is it hours before the tomahawk missiles are launched, days? do we have any indication? >> certainly i wouldn't think days, wolf. i think within hours or less, perhaps. tomahawk missiles are programmed with gps satellite coordinates, so they are very specifically programmed to go to a particular target. some of those targets may be updated in the final hours and minutes before an attack might be launched if it's ordered. so all of this depends on how fast they can get all of the missiles programmed exactly to go where they want them to go. it will happen, we are told,
very quickly after the president signs that order. >> once he signs that order and gives the command then all systems go. barbara starr at the pentagon. thanks very much. joining me now, the former u.n. chief weapons inspector that led the team searching for cl chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction in iraq. thanks for joining us. i want to get your honest assessment about what is going on right now. the president and the secretary of state here in the united states, they made it clear that they are poised to launch a military strike against the regime of president bashar al-assad in damascus because they say he deliberately ordered the u.s. of chemical weapons against civilians killing more than 1400, for than 400 of whom were children. you think this would be a mistake for the u.s. to act
military? w why? >> i think so and i think in 2003 they listened to our reports, and they ignored them. this time they do not even seem to have time to look at the reports of the u.n. inspectors, which i think they should do having urged the u.n. to send inspectors. i think the assurance that the attacks would be limited is not very encouraging. it is like saying to the world that you -- syrians can go on fighting war but do not use gas. i think what the world wants to hear is a ban on the use gas, chemical means and a drive for a seize fire and for peace. >> i assume, though, dock tomorr doctor, you're as outraged. the president is making it clear, the secretary of state
making it clear if the world does nothing, they will simply continue to slaughter their fellow citizens with these kinds of chemical weapons. >> yes, i am as outraged as they are, and i think the whole world is. i think this is the shortcoming of a u.s. present inclination that the u.s. would go ahead alone as the world policeman, when in fact, i think it ought to be possible to get the whole security counsel condemning the use of chemical weapons. they may not be able to point to assad or rebels but russians, irania iranians, everybody would condemn the use of chemical weapons that would be something. only to have the u.s. and a few allies and a lot of security counsel will not be very impressive affair. >> listen to the secretary of state, john kerry. he spoke out about all of this. listen to this. >> with our own eyes, we have
seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the damascus suburbs, all of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heart beats, foaming at the mouth. unconsciousness and death. >> the secretary of state, other u.s. officials say the u.n. secretary general made it clear the weapons inspectors who are now returning to new york from syria, their only mission was to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used. they did not have a mandate to determine who used those chemical weapons as a result the u.s. says they don't need this report, they already know the chemical weapons were used. >> it's a different thing to have a condemnation on behalf of the whole world by the world's highest counsel security counsel rather than having it simply come out of washington.
i think it's the secondary matter to point out who used it. accountability can come lapter. but now we'll have corals if the u.s. goes ahead rather than the united security counsel. i think the ruggens might take the initiative to the u.s. and say come, let's go together and do the condemnation and go on, not just condemnation but seek to press the fighting part to seize fire. after all, the war could not continue unless the fighting part got support from around the region, russia and iran. this would be the aim. i don't think a fight in an isolated attack by the u.s. will accomplish any of that. >> there is more video that emerged today showing children badly burned, very, very graphic video and i want to alert viewers here in the united states and around the world, it's painful to see it. i want to show the viewers the video. it happened in northern syria. the syrian regime of president
bashar al-assad using some sort of additional chemical weapons, burns, maybe napom and the u.s. continues to say the president and secretary of state, if they don't get the message, these kinds of attacks will simply continue. >> i agree that it may well be the regime has used it and may also be the rebels used it. i think the world is the right one to accuse the -- those who have used the weapons, and the sense of it, i think, has to do with the credibility of the president. that's the root of the problem. he did say if they used chemical weapons, it will change my calculations. all right. but i think when they are planning or gearing towards an attack, it has much to do with the credibility but perhaps the credibility to attack iran, if iran does not heed the request
to stop developing a new clear weapon. >> i think there is no doubt that the president of the united states and the secretary of state, they are very concerned about u.s. credibility, not only as you point out with the syrian government, but also with the iranians because if the u.s. were to back down now, it would send what they fear would be a message to syria and especially to iran, the u.s. really doesn't mean it when they say there is a red line, if you cross that red line, you will pay a price. this is a major, a major source of concern for the u.s. right now. let me get back to the suggest that i think you were suggesting that maybe the opposition the rebels have been using chemical weapons, is there any evidence you've seen that they have? >> i hear allegations of that, and i say i don't exclude that taking place. it may well be the u.s. has better evidence this time than 2003. i don't doubt that. i think the proper place to present the evidence would be in the world court, the security
counsel. >> so when they present this evidence publicly today, to the american people, to the international community as far as the -- as far as you're concerned, that's not good enough? >> i'm not sure the american people want to be world police. judging by the opinion polls i seen about 9% of the u.s. population would support an attack and i'm sure the world in general would not want the u.s. or nato or individual states to be the world police. >> well, some of the polls show much greater support, maybe 40 to 50% of the american people would support some sort of limited military strike in the aftermath of chemical weapons attacks. there is new poll numbers coming in all the time a. very small percentage want to get involve in a long range afghanistan style war that would go on for 10 or 15 years. there is no appetite for that in the united states. good to hear from you once
again. thanks very much for joining us. so you just heard him say the united states should not go at it alone in syria. what about the u.s. congress? what's the fallout if president obama orders military strikes? i'll talk to a key member of the house foreign affairs committee when we come back. dad. how did you get here? i don't know. [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really?
jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorist who might use them against us. >> president obama convinced the syrian president bashar al-assad is directly responsible for the chemical attack and president obama said he's consulting with congress. elliott participate in a white house call last night he's a ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. thanks for coming in. i know you heard dr. hans blix, he went into the iraq war in 2003 and as you remember he was skeptical about the bush administration's assessment intelligence. he was right. they were wrong. do you think it's possible he is right again this time? >> i don't. i agree with secretary kerry and the president. i believe that if he would be right, then the syrians would have welcomed the international
inspectors immediately to prove that they were being set up or that they really didn't do these horrendous things. they kept international inspectors out for five full days before they allowed them to come in. i think that is clear. we got word the president said there were communications intercepted, clearly showing that the -- that the syrians were the ones who did this. >> did they play those -- did they play those communications, congressman, for you? did you hear the actual voice of syrian commanders speaking about ordering chemical weapons to be used? >> no, we did not, but i think if the president of the united states and the secretary of state say that they have them, that's good enough for me. >> was it good enough for you when president bush and the then secretary of state colin powell said they had the evidence there were wmd in iraq? that good enough for you then? >> i think to compare what is going on now with iraq is
comparing apples with oranges. there are children and civilians who have been brutally murdered by their own government using chemical weapons. president obama in my opinion rightfully said that if chemical weapons were used, that would be crossing a red line. i think the syrians crossed the red line, and i think it's time for the united states to say that we will not tolerate these war crimes where by people are murdering their own people, and i think the president is absolute lie right to draw a line in the sand. the world is watching. i have a lot of respect for mr. blix. he knows he can't come to the security counsel. the russians blocked every move -- >> let me interrupt for a second. it not just hans blix but democratic colleagues in congress, as well, including the chairman of the armed services committee.
he issued a statement today. i'll put it up on the screen. i again express my view the united states should not under take a kin net tick strike before the u.n. inspectors complete their work and the impact of such a strike would be weakened if it does not have participation and support of a large number of nations including arab nations. he sounds to be closer to hans blix than to you. >> i know him and i have respect for him and he says he thinks the united states should be aiding the well-vetted rebels in syria. i happen to agree with him on that, as well. everybody has their opinion. when they lay it out and say there is ample evidence, again, why would the syrians keep international inspectors out for five days before they can come in and really find out what was happening? it's clear that to me it wfwas assad. it's clear the syrians, unfortunately, murdered their own people with gas. the children foaming at the
mouth and dying. i don't think we want to send a message that's acceptable. >> one final question, if the president were to order a strike, let's say, tomorrow or the next day without u.n. authority, without a vote from the nato allies, without even great britain involved, certainly no vote from the arab league, the u.s. basically going at it alone, all beit rhetorical support, that would be okay with you? >> the president made it very clear it would be a game changer for us if chemical weapons were used against the syrians by their own people and they did it. the president will move accordingly and tell every spot in the world they cannot murder their own people with war crimes with weapons of mass destruction. >> i'll take that as a yes. congressman, thanks for joining us. >> thank you, wolf. any possible military action certainly comes with great risk and administration today made a point of saying this situation will not be like the situation was in iraq ten years ago.
with us now is ambassador paul. he obviously knows a lot about these kinds of subjects. are you in favor of the president launching a strike within the next few days? >> well, i don't commit on the timing. i think he has to do something. he set out fairly clearly a red line that has now been crossed at least a couple times, and i can understand what secretary kerry said today about the american people being fatigued by the last decade war. my concern frankly, wolf, is what will be the impact on the broader region. >> so if the u.s. launches tomahawk missiles, takes out targets in syria, what would be the fallout? would happen? because you have to think about the ramifications. what would the syrians do, the lebanese allies of the syrian regime do?
would iran do? >> i think the real question is what are we trying to achieve with whatever strikes the president may authorize. the emphasis administration put on very narrowly defined actions, it could actually make the situation worse because it may make us look weak rather than strong. you know, for those of us who are around and you were also, wolf, for the vietnam war, the idea the johnson administration had was the gradual escalation and stopping would somehow show the north voee vietnamese we we tough. it had the opposite effect. i'm worried the military action may in fact give a message of weakness, not strength. both in syria and in iran. more particularly in iran. >> after the president of the united states draws that red line, after we heard very strong
comments from the secretary of state today and later from the president today, if the u.s. were to do nothing military what kind of message would that send? >> he has to do something because he basically publicly said sometime ago before the first chemical attacks this year said this would be a red line. and presidents should never bluff publicly in foreign affairs. it's a very dangerous thing. he's drawn a red line also in iran. he said, i think, correctly that it's unacceptable for iran to have nuclear weapons. so he's got to act in syria. i hope, frankly, he acts in a much more vigorous and robust sense than we are getting the impression. we'll see. >> what does that mean much more -- instead of a few tomahawk cruise missiles, what else would you want him to do? >> i'm not an expert on the target set, but it seems to me there ought to be a no-fly,
no-move zone along the borders. we should target the air force which is a way saddam has done a lot of killing of his own citizens is with the air force. there is a lot of talk about how fancy the air defenses are. the israelis have been in and out on at least four attacks they admitted to in the last year without apparently losing any aircraft. so i think a lot more can be done to suppress sasaddasaddam t ability to attack his people. the u.n. inspection team came and reported there are 15,000 working on iran's nuclear program. that's five times as many as four times ago. so the irans are busy working toward a nuclear weapon we say is unacceptable. >> the u.s. invasion of iraq ten
years ago, you were on the scene working for president bush and the first administrator, based on flawed intelligence, do you think it's possible u.s. intelligence now is flawed again? >> doesn't sound like it. of course, i wasn't on the phone call. i haven't seen anything but the public document that was released. it's a different situation. i mean, we know that chemical weapons were used this week in syria. there is no dispute about that. >> paul bremer, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. u.s. warships moving in the eastern mediterranean closer and closer to the syrian coast right now. what would a strike look like? i'll ask experts coming up. the humble back seat.
the intelligently designed, responsibly built, completely restyled subaru forester. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for her, she's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with her all day to see how it goes. [ claira ] after the deliveries, i was okay. now the ciabatta is done and the pain is starting again. more pills? seriously? seriously. [ groans ] all these stops to take more pills can be a pain. can i get my aleve back? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.
it matters because we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like bashar al-assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity even after the quite and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it. there will be no end to the test of our resolve. >> very strong words from the secretary of state john kerry today saying there is overwhelming evidence bashar al-assad's regime is behind the deadly chemical attack on august 21st. it appears the u.s. strike right now may be imminent but what are the risks for the united states? with us retired u.s. general james spider marks, the former commending general of the army.
fran townsend. she's a member of the department of homeland security and the cia external advisory boards. the harvard university law professor, authors of trials of zian and former cia oftive robert bear. if the president signs the order, general marks, how quickly could it be implemented to target various locations in syria? >> wolf, all the target haves been identified. the software has been uploaded so the latest targeting information is available. so the cruise missiles will strike where they are intended to go. it isn't a matter of rushing to an execution. when the x -- or execution order comes out, the time has already been set by the secretary of defense, the combat and commander general lloyd austin,
they and general marty dempsey, they determined when they want to launch. it's not a matter of rushing when to pull the trigger. they know when they will execute but it could take minutes, if that's really what we're looking at. >> with all this discuss that's been going on, bob, about it, imminent u.s. attack, the syrians obviously, they are taking precautions and taking steps to deal with this. no one will be surprised that it's going to happen eventually will happen. how much of this is potentially detrimental to the overall u.s. objective, in other words, all this publicity? >> we're trying to build a case against syria and i think a good case so far. they have used chemical weapons. and it's a question of what targets we pick. are we going to go after the fourth division, republican guards, commanded by the brother? are we going to go after fixed sites? are we going to go after the airport?
are we going to go after the presidential palace? that will be the key. and that's going to be the key in determining how this syrian react. i've been talking to the syrians today in damascus and they said if there is any indication that there is going to be some attempt for regime change, or to really loosen up the defenses of damascus, they will respond with strategic weapons. they were very clear about that. incidentally, wolf, they didn't deny that was a government attack on the suburbs, they just avoided talking about it all together. they are taking this very seriously and they are waiting to see what will get hit before they decide what to do. >> bob, what does that mean they would respond with strategic weapons? do you mean by that? >> they will use more chemicals. they will -- the question is -- and i asked them, would it be brought into this? they wouldn't answer. they said it would be a serious response if they think that we're trying to bring down the
regime. because this is a -- you know, minority who believes that their lives are at stake and they will turnover the table if they think they have to. >> if he feels he's in danger, fran, who knows what he and his supporters in damascus will do. that's a huge potential problem there. >> that's right, wolf. it's one of those things, it's why i've always been concerned about this notion of the president signaling this is going to be a very narrow strike. i mean, what you want to do is reserve your options to be able to anticipate and to respond to some sort of atrocity that assad may hold his own people hostage in the international committee as a shield against any military attack that he could suffer. so this is -- but this is all part as general marks will tell you, part of the military planning process. there is a planning process for what your enemy's reaction may be to the initial strike.
>> alan, you know, there is a statement that was put out today by the jimmy carter center on behalf of the former president of the united states and i'll put it on the screen. it say as punitive military response without a u.n. security councilman date or broad support from nato and the arab league would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. you're a law professor. is the president of the united states, who himself once taught law at the university of chicago, a graduate of the harvard law school, is he potentially going to violate international law if you believe jimmy carter? >> no, i don't think so. international law is very self-contradictory in this regard. on one hand we have -- we have the emerge rg duty to intervene to prevent humanitarian create
s -- crisis. it would be preventing the murder of millions and millions of people under germany o's control. there has to be room for humanitarian intervention. if this is one of those cases of usually could be a close question, but i do not believe that the president of the united states would engage in any illegal action if he went in in an effort to prevent humanitarian disaster. whether it's a good policy or not is a good question. it's not against international law and certainly clearly not against international law like president charter suggested. >> i'll ask the panel to stand by. if the united states does strike in the coming hours or days, what will the effects be on the region? stay with us. [ male announcer ] these days, a small business can save by sharing.
like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ at&t mobile share for business. nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.
if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important, especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication,
in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. >> promise by the president. no u.s. troops will be on the ground in syria. the president saying a military response in his words will be limit thee limited. back with our panel.
spider, i know the president's intention is not to go in for anything more than a limited, very precise operation, but can he be 100% sure the u.s. won't be dragged into something much more substantial depending on the syrian response? >> i would suggest he should be 100% convinced the united states will be dragged into something they chose not to be. you can start an engagement but you give to your opponent the decision in terms of when it's going to stop. if you don't defeat and you have to define what defeat means, if you don't defeat the opponent, then the struggle continues. the construct is action, reaction and counter action. so we're going to strike a blow. the syrians will do something, as fran suggested, and it's not predictable what that will look like. then what will we do? is the counter action? that's when we get into an extreme entanglement and that's
a very, very plausible scenario. >> let me play a clip. this is the former president george w. bush. he was on fox earlier today and was asked about an imminent u.s. strike. listen to this. >> i can comment about this. the president has a tough choice to make and if he decides to use the military, he'll have the greatest military ever backing him up. i was not a fan of mr. assad. he's an ally of iran and he's made mischief. >> you worked for president bush and he's clearly trying to stay out of the debate now. he doesn't want to step on the current president as he makes these very, very tough decisions. what kind of marks, fran, will you give the current national security team surrounding the president on this sensitive subject? >> you know, wolf, because it seems clear to me that we are on
the eve of decision to engage in military operations, i'm not going -- i'm not about grading the current team. there are things that i might have suggested we do differently, timing differently, tactics differently, strategy differently, perhaps. but tonight is not really the night. when the war -- when there is a military action about too take place, our thoughts, our prayers are with the men and women in uniform that will get that execute order and have to deal with it, and deal with the potential retaliation and reaction of our opponent. so tonight is really not the night. i think president bush is absolutely right. assad is a rep prehenceble ra sheep that deserves to be dealt with but tonight that decision rests with the president of the united states and administration. >> here is what the united states senator said back in 2007. listen to this. let me read it to you. this is what the president said to the boston globe. the president -- he said as a
senator. the president does not have powder under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. alan, what do you think? >> well, if that were the case, then every lawful act that has been taken by every president since 1941 would be unlawful. the contusion changes with practice and the practice since 1941 has been not to declare wars, but rather, to give the president and administration the authority to engage in combat. sometimes it worked well. sometimes it worked poorly. the physical target, of course, is syria. remember, the real targets are iran and israel. this is the possibility that either iran will learn a lesson from this and stop it development of nuclear weapons, or israel will have to make a
decision as to whether to trust the united states. so, this has implications well beyond -- >> all right. >> syria and the united states for the region. i think it's always better to get congressional authorization -- >> clearly, that's not going to happen. i got to cut you off because we're out of time. that's not going to happen obviously in the next few days. congress isn't even here in session right now. thanks to all of you. up next, very different subject. my exclusive interview with the football great jim mcmahon. injuries almost drove him to suicide. he's speaking out on the multimillion dollar concussion settlement. only $15.99, offer ends soon. so come in and sea food differently. now, try seven lunch choices for $7.99. sandwiches, salads and more.
license and registration please. what's this? uhh, it's my geico insurance id card, sir. it's digital, uh, pretty cool right? maybe. you know why i pulled you over today? because i'm a pig driving a convertible? tail light's out.. fix it. digital insurance id cards. just a click away with the geico mobile app.
individualization that your body needs. this labor day, don't invest in a mattress until you visit a sleep number store. when we actually lower the sleep number setting to get the sleep number bed to conform to them, it's amazing the transition that you see with people. oh, that feels really good.it's hugging my body. they just look at you like you cured all the problems they've ever had. we hear it all the time: "i didn't know a bed could feel like this." oh yeah. at our biggest sale of the year, multimillion dollar concussion s on sale. queen mattresses now start at just $599.
and for one week only, save an incredible 50% on the sleep number limited edition memory foam mattress sets-but only through labor day! the sleep number bed is more than just a mattress. you sleep on it, you'll understand. don't miss the biggest sale of the year on the bed that can change your life. the sleep number bed. special offer ends labor day. only at a sleep number store. sleep number. comfort individualized. jim mcmahon was one of the best nfl quarterbacks. he also took some big hits out there on the field, include thing body slam in 1986 that ended the season for him. he's among several players who brought a lawsuit against the nfl over concussion related brain injuries. this week, both sides reached a $765 million settlement.
he says the head injuries he suffered on the field caused his dementia. jim is joining us now for a primetime exclusive, with his attorney. guys, thank you very much for coming in. what do you make of this settlement, jim? do you think it's fair what the nfl agreed to? >> well, i think it's finally, you know, put to rest some of these guys that are hurting so bad that they're finally going to get some help. once your brain starts meting with you, you don't know where to turn, who to trust. we finally got some funds now to take care of these guys. >> if you knew then what you know now, would you have played football, jim? >> probably. i loved baseball as a kid. but i loved the game of football. i only know one way to play it, and that's the way i did it. unfortunately now it's coming back to haunt me a little. >> when you played, you suffered
your concussions out there. do you believe knowing what you know now the nfl team doctors were looking out for the best interest of the players? >> i don't think in all cases they were, no. >> give me an example, without mentioning any names. >> well, there was a lot of times i know i shouldn't have been allowed to go back on the football field. i saw it throughout my 15-year career. but guys are proud. they want to get out there and play hurt and they'll do whatever they can, and sometimes they'll lie to a coach. >> one of your fellow plaintiffs in this lawsuit is the family of the great line backer junior seau who committed suicide last year. jim, i know you contemplated suicide. first of all, physically, how are you doing today? >> physically, i'm much better. i was having extreme headaches,
smart pains in my head. i found out my brain was filling up with spinal fluid. i found a doctor that could relieve those symptoms. but i still forget a lot of things, daily routine is pretty much what my girlfriend tells me i'm supposed to do. >> you're 54 years old. you've been diagnosed with dementia, at least some form of dementia. talk about that. >> early onset. once all that fluid was in my brain, that's what was causing all the problems. it was pooling in the front of my brain, pushing my brain to the back of my skull. it was extremely painful. i travel a lot, and it was excruciati excruciating. that's why a lot of times i was thinking about it would be better off just ending it. >> is that why you're wearing the glasses right now, the sunglasses? >> no, i've been wearing
sunglasses since i was 6 years old. i stuck a fork in my eye and these lights a little bright for me. >> larry, is this settlement fair, the amount of money the players will receive? >> i think it's a great result for a great group of people. we struggled with how to get this huge class action lawsuit finalized. and our goal from the beginning was to get as much financial benefit that we could as quickly as we could for people that are really hurting. we could have gone on forever, and it probably would have given all the legal hurdles. but we were able to come to terms with a financial settlement that's going to provide tremendous financial support for players and their families that are hurting desperately now, and for many that will, in the future, suffer
the kind of neuro cognitive disorders that are just devastating to people's lives. >> is there a dollar figure, larry, how much money you think jim is going to receive as part of this settlement? >> no, there really isn't. that still has to go before the judge, and the judge has to make approval on different benefits for different types of injuries. but the goal is to try to get to the most seriously injured former players as much money as possible to deal with their medical bills, to deal with the fact that they can't work, they're no longer able to care for their families. that's the goal. and that's accomplished by this settlement. >> jim, what advice do you have for parents out there who may have little boys thinking about playing high school football, then going on to college football, is this sport safe? >> i think they're finally realizing what this -- the damage that can be done to the brain.
i think they're addressing it. and i think going forward from here, the care is going to be so much better. people will not be allowed to go back in if they've suffered a concussion, and stuff like this. so i think it's going in the right direction, and i think the kids will be safer in the future for it. >> jim mcmahon, good luck to you. larry, thank you, as well. >> thank you, wolf. >> we'll be right back. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals: help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do.
if you're like me, you've been working you've been working like a dog all year. but you don't need to camp out 'til labor day to reward yourself! mattress discounters' labor day sale ends monday! rest those tired bones on a queen size sealy gel memory foam mattress for just $497! get 48 months interest-free financing on the entire tempur-pedic cloud collection. not to labor the point... but this sale ends monday! ♪ mattress discounters! britta olsen is my patient. i spend long hours with her checking her heart rate,
administering her medication, and just making her comfortable. one night britta told me about a tradition in denmark, "when a person dies," she said, "someone must open the window so the soul can depart." i smiled and squeezed her hand. "not tonight, britta. not tonight." [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, thank you, from johnson & johnson. [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, ♪ (woman) this place has got really good chocolate shakes. (growls) (man) that's a good look for you. (woman) that was fun. (man) yeah. (man) let me help you out with the.. (woman)...oh no, i got it. (man) you sure? (woman) just pop the trunk. (man vo) i may not know where the road will lead, but... i'm sure my subaru will get me there. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.
i used to get into trouble selling drugs. >> there was domestic violence in my home. i didn't see a future myself. >> once i had a record, i knew i couldn't get a job. >> you guys are the ones that know better than anybody, you have to change. >> i work as a juvenile corrections officer. we put them back in the exact same environment and they would come back to jail. witnessing that over and over, i had to do something about it. i started the old school cafe, a supper club run by at-risk youth that gives them the skill and the opportunity to change their lives. everybody needs to pay attention.
our program provides four months of hands-on training. our model here is jump in and learn. if they complete that successfully, they get a chance to apply for an employee position. we're excited to have you on the team and proud of you. >> you do the hiring, the firing, we do reviews. you know what it means to have a sense of urgency. >> i want them to keep rising up in leadership and management. >> i see my role as being support staff. >> i am making everything on the menu now. >> it's a lot of opportunity. this will help me stay out of trouble. >> the core of it is giving them hope. >> i'm going to be my own boss. >> i'm going to be successful. >> whatever they do,