tv CNN Newsroom CNN August 29, 2013 6:00am-8:01am PDT
"new day" is done but the good news is cnn's "newsroom" with carol costello is only beginning. >> i love that. thank you very much. you made my day. have a great day. "newsroom" starts now. happening now in "newsroom" crisis in syria. president obama steadfast. >> the syrian government, in fact, carried these out. there needs to be international consequences. >> as the drums of war grow louder meeting criticism. >> i don't want to see boots on the ground or us mired in a conflict. >> ahead a former weapons inspector joins us. also, fast food fiasco.
>> my name is pamela powell i make $9 an hour. >> pay in priorities. a nationwide strike happening now. plus, made in america -- >> this car is amazing. >> the best story of the day. the ford fusion now completely made in detroit. >> out with the old, in with the ford. you're live in the cnn "newsroom." and we're happy for detroit. we'll talk about that in a minute. good morning, i'm carol costello. we begin in syria, washington and its allies are facing growing concerns at home and abroad. so, today, the focus shifts to building a consensus. here's the latest. president obama is reportedly bending to the demands of lawmakers and will consult with congress.
senator john cornyn will hold a conference call today to brief them. we'll hear from the president in just a minute. in the meantime, britain deployed a half dozen warplanes to cypress just off syria's coast and russia moves ships into the mediterranean. the region goes on alert and the uk goes on record sharing intel on last week's chemical weapons attacks. u.n. inspections team try to gather new evidence. u.s. intelligence sources as saying the case against the assad regime is no slam dunk. those inspectors, we learned, will leave syria by saturday. president obama says he has not yet made a final decision on using military action against syria. but he is convinced the assad regime gassed its own people and now must pay. here's some of his interview on pbs' "news hour." >> i have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break
international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us that they are held accountable. >> but mr. president, with all due respect, what does it accomplish? the signals the american people are getting, this would be a limited strike, limited duration. if it's not going to do that much harm to the assad regime, what have you accomplished? what's changed? >> again, i have not made a decision, but i think it's important that if, in fact, we make a choice to have reprecussirepr repercussions for the use of chemical weapons will have received a pretty strong signal that, in fact, better not do it again. that does not solve all the problems inside of syria. you know, it doesn't, obviously, end the death of innocent civilians inside of syria. and we hope that, in fact,
ultimately, a political transition can take place inside of syria and we're prepared to work with anybody. the russians and others to try to bring the parties together to resolve the conflict. but we want the assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people, against women, against infants, against children, that you are not only breaking international norms and standards of decency, but you're also creating a situation where u.s. national interests are effective. and that needs to stop. >> a growing mix of lawmakers, both republicans and democrats say this is not a decision for the president to make alone. they say given the painful lesson of prolonged wars in iraq and afghanistan, congress should have to authorize any use of military force. >> i do think we'd be so much better off if the administration would come to congress, call
everybody back and let congress authorize this activity. i really do think that this is one of those cases where time allows for congress to come back to give an authorization that i do think they've met the test. i'm talking about the administration from the standpoint of what the war powers resolution says and that is that they must consult with congress. i believe that they are doing that, but i think we'd be on so much stronger footing with this if they would call us back in and ask for a real authorization from congress. >> jill dougherty is our foreign affairs correspondent. she's at the white house this morning. so, is it possible that the president might call congress back from vacation? >> well, he could. in the meantime, he is consulting, there is a flurry of phone calls. there will be one, we understand this evening at 6:00 p.m. with the top members of congress and the top members of the committees to brief them on what the administration says it has in terms of intelligence and,
also, to, as they have been, talking about the rationale and what should be done about it. that is really the question, carol. what do you do about it? you heard the president talking about these limited objectives. so, that's, that is a very important subject and it came up, also, from the united kingdom today. great britain talking about its rationale possibly for military action, as well. >> let's talk a little bit about the end game here because you heard judy woodruff ask the president, so, you bombed syria, but your goal is not to take out assad, right? so what then? >> well, number one and you hear them repeating this over and over again. it is really important. what they're saying is if you use chemical weapons which they allege the regime has, you have crossed, you have carried out an act that is very, very serious, according to international law. and, according to just the
humanitarian nature of what happened. so, you have to send a message that that is not acceptable. it cannot be condoned. and it can even affect, not only syria. u.s. national interests. because chemical weapons are very serious. number two, you prevent future attacks. and what they would try to do piecing together what we heard from administration officials is hit the people who carried out the attack. these would be forces that are able to use chemical weapons, not all forces can necessarily safely. and prevent further attacks by taking out most of the hardware that will deliver them. then, you get into, no, it's not regime change. they're not trying to get assad and they're not trying to solve the entire deal in syria. that is very important because it's far more complicated. but, carol, just briefly, the results could be there are some dangerous side effects to this. what if they hit chemical weapons? they're not totally sure where
they are right now at any given moment, they are being moved around. could they possibly hit chemical weapons and make things worse? and then, also, what about retaliation? what does assad do? does he take this as a lesson from the united states, you shouldn't do it or does he strike back even stronger more strongly and what happens to iran? does iran want to take some type of action? so, gets very complicated, very fast. >> i'm sure the president is thinking about all of that. behind closed doors in the white house today. jill dougherty reporting live for us this morning. fast food workers plan to go on strike today. it could be their biggest walk out yet. workers at mcdonald's, burger king, wendy's and other fast food outlets have hit the picket line and their protests appear to be gaining steam. they are demanding the federal minimum wage be raised to $15 per hour. that's almost double the current rate of $7.25. and they want the right to form
unions without retaliation. alison kosik is live at a wendy's now and she joins me now. good morning, alison. >> good morning, carol. some of those protests here in new york started this morning and other protests started across the country, as you said, thousands of these fast food workers are expected to walk off the job today as a protest for higher wages. they are looking to get paid double. more than double the federal minimum wage. the federal minimum wage sitting at 7:25 right now. as you are about to see in this piece, some of these fast food workers say they're barely making ends meet. >> i work at kfc in brooklyn and i make $8 an hour. >> my name is pamela powell, i make $9 an hour. >> reporter: tale of two people, but one story. they're just 2 of the 3 million workers living on a fast food
wage. >> should i pay my light bill or my gas? i can never pay it all at once. >> reporter: she says she has to prioritize. >> right now the gas is off. i had lights to be cut off, too. but, you know, it's kind of hard to live without lights. >> reporter: how do you make ends meet? >> we have to sacrifice. my husband eat today and i eat tomorrow or, you know, just make sure my kids eat. >> reporter: they both work less than 40 hours a week, neither of them get benefits. >> kind of hard to build a future if you don't know what it's going to bring you next week. you don't quo what's going on this week. it's kind of hard. so, this is like a struggle for me. >> reporter: because of that struggle, fast food workers across the country are taking to the streets. in july there were strikes in seven cities, including chicago, new york and st. louis.
and they're spreading. >> we don't want handouts. we don't want pity. we just want everyone to understand our reality. >> reporter: the average fast food worker makes just under $19,000 a year. the government's poverty threshold for a family of four, $23,000. the national restaurant association these jobs teach invaluable skills and a strong work ethic that are useful for workers throughout their professional careers. we welcome a debate on fair w e wages that the majority of workers who earn the minimum wage in the united states are not employed in the restaurant industry. as for -- >> fast food business. i love food. i like dealing with people, too. >> i'm not ever going to stop dreaming for my children. they want to be ballerinas and we can't pay for it right now, but we're going to give it to them one day.
>> reporter: and, raising their pay -- >> okay, problems with alison's shot. she'll join us later in the show. 27 schools in minneapolis are closed until tuesday. teachers and students simply could not take the intense heat. leading to concerns about their health and safety. >> what looked like was an okay situation on monday and tuesday, we have more people that are feeling tired and sluggish today and we feel like we need for our teachers and our students to have a couple days break. >> wouldn't that be nice to have a couple days break, indra petersons? >> imagine, carol. we worry about heat and record breaking heat by the temperature alone, but also how long you have to deal with these high temperatures. in fact, dealing with this heat since sunday.
let's talk about what they're dealing with. states in the midwest dealing with heat advisories. temperatures already 15, 20 degrees above normal. been dealing with this all week long. in des moines, 98 degrees. expect it to be even hotter than today. so, we're expected to break that record at 101 tomorrow in des moines. looking about almost 20 degrees above normal, thursday, friday, saturday, we're still sticking with this heat wave. what we want to know is when we'll see that relief. finally a hint of that relief seeing a system make its way through the area. minnesota and wisconsin today and even more importantly behind that. we'll start to see relief. minneapolis 92, des moines 97 on saturday. by sunday, finally, we're going to see those 70s and even some 80s come back in the forecast. so, perfect timing for that labor day weekend, carol. >> i like that. indra petersons, thanks so much. time to think about what really matters now.
college football. hey, it is exciting and gives everybody a chance to tailgate. that's what fans will be doing here the chic-fil-a kickoff game has been sold out since july 16th. that means the georgia dome at full capacity, 71,000 people. if you want a ticket, stub hub is offering 878 tickets ranging from 91 bucks to $1,199 apiece. which explains in part why critics say the ncaa dulled out such a lame punishment for johnny football. he'll be on the sidelines, but only for the first half of the texas a&m football game on saturday. the ncaa and university have announced a half-game suspension for heisman trophy winner johnny manziel because apparently the signing of those autographs was accidental. >> that's right, carol.
that's why they can't get him for a major suspension. no evidence he got paid to sign these autographs. no money trail saying he got paid thousands of dollars to do so. so, that's why we're getting this mini half-game suspension. the half-game suspension is only because the ncaa says he should have known not to sign all these autographs for free because he was ncaa players are not permitted to profit or let other people profit off their likeness. >> so he could never sign his name to anything. that's stupid. >> there's a rule. they're going to reevaluate this rule and say, hey, you shouldn't be signing thousands of autographs, maybe limiting to one or two per person. if additional evidence comes to light in this case, they will review it and then there could be further punishment. >> a lot of things in this stratus sphere making fun of johnny football this morning.
>> funny commercial coming out of norman, oklahoma. sooner fans still having nightmares of what he did it them in the cotton bowl, beating them by 30 points. they came up with this funny commercial, take look. >> i love making money, partner. but i also like saving money. >> you just got to live life to the fullest, johnny savings. >> who was that? hold this. >> they're making fun of some of johnny football's sayings. that's a great, great commercial. >> i think johnny is going to be just fine and there's got to be some change happening soon. because that's just dumb. i'm sorry to be so blunt. but, andy schols, thank you. still to come in "newsroom" -- fire storm.
yosemite on edge and now using predator drones to battle the flames. also, hacked and still down. >> hacked against security awareness. >> "new york times" website shuttered and suffering. and why won't this story go away? miley cyrus now the beebs wants in on the twerking action. this is getting ridiculous. "newsroom" back after a break. [ female announcer ] a classic macaroni & cheese from stouffer's
if you tries to logon to "new york times" website this morning, you were out of luck. you would see a message like that one. i just tried to get on the website and i got the message just like that. this after two days after, this is two days after the site was hacked. a syrian group that supports president bashar al assad is claiming responsibility for this cyberattack. cnn's deborah feyerick is following the story. so, it's been two days now. >> it really has. some people are getting it and some people aren't. what this suggests is that the internet is the new digital
theater of war and everyone is vulnerable. it doesn't matter how far away the conflict may seem. the attacks are happening more and more often. by all accounts, the attack on "new york times" was simple and sophisticated. >> this is essentially a very human attack. an attack against security awareness. >> reporter: sophisticated because instead of directly compromised the initial website, it went after the supply change tackling the domain name registrar. in a statement to the media melbourn i.t. said somebody using a valid user name and password changed several accounts including twitter.com and new yoyorktimes.com a breac that occurred when someone opened an e-mail or a trick to providing the credentials. anyone who wanted to access "new york times" was blocked.
security expert ira winkler. >> if you're saying that they had valid logging credentials, the question becomes, how did they get valid logging credentials. >> reporter: the group identifying itself known to support syrian president bashar al assad claimed responsibility. the fbi is looking into the website disruption. earlier this month, the same group targeted a search engine that directs traffic to "washington post" and cnn. cnn.com and cnni.com were never directly penetrated nor were the sites security compromised. the original attack happened tuesday afternoon at 3:00. we reached out to "new york times" and not commenting on the amount of time it takes to get it back up. the reason why some people can get newyorktimes.com, i just got it on my iphone, it takes 48 hours for changes to reach all internet users. >> hopefully maybe by this afternoon everyone can logon to
new york times website. >> perhaps. >> perhaps. deborah feyerick, thanks so much. still to come in "newsroom" on the heels of her twerking fiasco, a new miley cyrus song leaked online. guess what the name of the new song is, it's called "twerked." she's performing it with justin bieber. renewal notice. by about $110 a month. roll the dice. care act was passed, company to go down by about $60 a month. little guy rebecca: the law works.
it's just too easy. >> i know, i know. >> but if you're calling this a coincidence, you're probably wrong. it's probably not. everything about miley's performance was aimed at selling her name and selling her image. making twerking her thing. a lot of parents are dealing with the fallout of this. last night on "piers morgan live" he had a guest talking about just that thing. she called the letter "let miley cyrus be a lesson to you." she calls miley desperate for attention in this letter and she also explains why so many parents had a problem with miley's performance. listen to her. >> you know, it was fun for adults. if it's an all-adult venue with all adults watching, then, hey, bonus. you know, it's fun. but this was an event, my children, my 13-year-old daughter was waiting to see one direction and harry styles and taylor swift and selena gomezand
it happened in a venue where children were going to see it. that's the thing that got to me. as a parent watching this, i know that kids mimic and i don't want to chaperon any junior high dances in the next month or so because there will be kids twerking. >> now, you know, this kind of generational thing has been going on before, you know, elvis even shook his hips. i had to ask my mom about this. i asked her, any songs like that when you were young that your parents said, absolutely not or performances. remember the song "bend over let me see you shake a tail feather." that had my grandmother so incensed but my mother loved it. these types of things have been going on for a very long time. >> perhaps because tina turner could actually dance. >> oh, shots fired, carol. >> but i did it with a smile.
thank you, nischelle turner. >> sure. >> we'll be right back. aaah! aaaaah! theres a guy on the window! do something, dad! aaaah! aaaah! what is happening? they're rate suckers. their bad driving makes car insurance more expensive for the rest of us. good thing there's snapshot from progressive. snap it in and get a discount based on your good driving. stop paying for rate suckers. try snapshot free at progressive.com. and choose from one of five lexus hybrids that's right for you, including the lexus es and ct hybrids.
happening now in "newsroom." the crisis in syria and the way for proof. is there a rush for "slam dunk evidence"? plus -- pay and promise. minimum wage workers hitting the streets in 58 american cities. millions of stories, but one cause. a paycheck they can live on. our interview with walmart senior vice president got you going. my facebook page was on fire. christine romans stops by to talks truths and paychecks. "newsroom" continues now. good morning, thank you so much for joining me. i'm carol costello. after delays, sniper fire and security concerns, u.n. weapon inspectors are set to leave
syria on saturday, one day early. but before then, the team will try to finish up inspections outside of damascus and confirm that, indeed, a chemical weapons attack was launched last week. the associated press reports that there are doubts about the link between the attack and the assad regime. multiple u.s. officials, though, saying the intelligence gathered so far is "not a slam dunk." i'm joined now by a man who knows all too well what the u.n. team is facing. he worked as a weapons inspector in iraq. good morning, sir. >> good morning. >> thank you so much for joining us. from what you've seen, is it a slam dunk that the assad regime carried out this attack? >> i think the weapons mandate was essentially to define whether it was used chemical weapons or not. and so far, that's what their goal and auditing objective. i wouldn't say anything in that regard. i would just say, i would see
the evidence that chemical weapons has been used and from there on we have to infer to other sources. >> so, the u.n., critics say that the u.n. inspection team can't possibly gather evidence because evidence has been either destroyed or deliberately moved because it took them so long to get into that suburb of damascus. >> well, that's a hard call. i would say, you know, we have direct and indirect evidence. but bottom line is that by doing multiple evidence and forensic proof testing, you will find direct and indirect data that will lead you to both, whether weapons have been used and what kind of sources that might have been behind. but, it's -- one thing which is fairly clear is that you can prove pretty easily if you don't have too much of a delay whether the weapons have been used. but there's a very big and different story to go from there
to infer what are the sources. >> in a pbs interview, president obama offered this reason for the administration's belief that the assad regime is behind this attack. let's listen. >> we do not believe that given the delivery systems using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. we have concluded that the syrian government, in fact, carried these out. if that's so, then there need to be international consequences. >> so, the president saying that the evidence that rockets were used to deliver these chemical weapons. i mean, is that enough evidence to pin this on the assad regime? >> i think we are back to something that is pretty much in parallel with iraq in 2003. well, you have substances. you have indicators but to go from, let's say, the knife to the perpetrator of the violence or the evil act is a different story. we are looking for the knife
here and when you have to find the knife, you have a different investigation to go from there and beyond. >> is it possible that president assad wasn't directly responsible, but supporters of his were and had access to these chemical weapons? >> can you repeat the question, please. >> let's say that supporters of president assad had access to these chemical weapons and assad didn't really order the attack, is that possible? >> well, it is possible. as long as the weaponry is around, then the question is, well, you find the weapons, you find, let's say, the consequence of the weapon, but still back to who are the perpetrators. as far as the mandates were from the u.n. is that they're looking for what other weapons have been used and it is a hard call to go from there to the source of use. it's possible. but that's an inference which is a different story.
>> should the united states wait for u.n. inspectors to finish their investigation and to file a final report? >> well, that's politics. that's not really the mandate of the weapons inspectors. but building a parallel to iraq, what we wanted in that case was to pretty much finish up the inspections before, well, in march, particularly, when war was pending. and, well, there was some results from there on which we saw was basically conclusive in the sense that there were no robust weapons program in iraq. i would not go from there and then back to this and say it is a clear parallel. but you have to be very careful about going from the weapon inself to the users or were behind the use. >> thank you so much for joining me this morning, i appreciate it. checking our top stories at 37 minutes past the hour. some encouraging news on the
wildfire in yosemite national park. officials say they will be able to contain it in less than two weeks. the blaze has burned 301 square miles and cost california almost $40 million. lower temperatures, higher humidity and lighter winds are helping firefighters make progress. it is still too hot in parts of the midwest. 27 schools in minneapolis are closed until tuesday. those schools have no air conditioning. officials became concerned about the health of the students and teachers. many of them had to, you know, take class outside to cool off. and our interview on wednesday with a walmart senior executive lit up my facebook page. we got hundreds of comments from supporters of the company's pledge to stock more goods made in the usa and we also got hundreds of comments from critics of the plan. a quick sample of what we saw one man wrote. i've believe it when i see it. another chimed in with the, uh-huh.
here's me holding my breath. one woman was a little more hopeful writing, it's about time. some of that discussion also struck a cord with christine romans, our business guru. she joins us live from new york. thanks, christine, for coming on the show. >> good morning, carol. i mean what really struck a cord with me with me is you have walmart, low cost, low price and that was its mission and you saw it put pressure on its suppliers to have the lowest price possible for walmart consumers and that caused a lot of suppliers to turn around and choose overseas manufactur manufacturers or move production overseas so they could meet the demands. walmart saying we believe there is a turn here and that manufacturing could be done cheaper in the united states and we are encouraging that trend. for some critics, it is kind of rich, that walmart helped move that production and
manufacturing overseas and now saying they're pledging $50 billion over ten years to increase sources for u.s.-made goods. let's listen to a little bit of what that executive vice president said and then talk a little bit on the other side. >> two-thirds of what we receive in goods are already made here in america. so, this $50 billion commitment is over and above what we are already selling here in the u.s. which means we're going to have to collaborate with our manufacturers and suppliers to actually make some changes. and the time is right for that because the economics are changing with rising wages, rising fuel prices, very dependable energy here in the u.s. >> now, walmart should be a real leader in this, carol. it has a position to be a real leader and to make it happen. one of those facebook comments that i won't hold my breath. i think in 1992, in the early '90s they had a buy america push it at walmart that kind of fizzled. you want to see them follow
through this time. make a good business for themselves and start to see more money in the pockets of american customers, right, who shop at walmart and then it could be good for everyone. walmart does need to be a leader on this and follow through. >> i want to ask you about this. what specific, what products made in the usa will be sold in walmart stores? she mentioned food in addition to other items. i was very intrigued by other it food because you have to make food in america, right? >> that helps push those numbers. the supermarket leader in the united states, anything domestically produced help their domestic numbers, right? but they have pledged to do this over a lot of different categories and they need to do that. all the categories, quite frankly. apparel, foot wear, these kind of things over the years have been moved to low-cost labor markets. there's also sort of high-oend goods. you know, you have motorola, google and motorola now making this moto-x.
it's going to add $4 to the cost of making it. will customers pay more for stuff, carol? will customers pay more? some of those people on your facebook page said we want cheap. if it's not cheap enough, we're not going to buy it. america chases cheap and walmart provides cheap goods. how do you break that cycle so you have good-paying jobs where people have money in their pocket and pay more for something so that you're racing up and not racing down? >> little bit more money in your pocket not to buy cheap. >> everybody does. >> christine romans, thanks so much. still to come in "newsroom" today we could see the biggest nationwide walkout of fast food workers yet. they're demanding, guess what? 15 bucks an hour. about as much as many skilled workers make.
david cameron is now speaking to parliament about syria and what action it might take on the subject of chemical war fare in syria. the interesting part of this is that britain's parliament was actually called back from vacation to have this conversation. let's listen to a bit of it. >> why he has refused to publish the full attorney general adve e advice. a summary of it especially at a time when legal experts say security council reinforcement there simply is not legal and international law. >> a long-standing convention backed by attorney generals of all parties and of all governments not to publish any legal advice at all. this government has changed that and with the libya conflict, which we published a summary of the legal advice and with this issue we published a very clear summary of the legal advice and i would urge all honorable and right honorable members to read it. now, mr. speaker, i am, of
course, deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts. i'm going to make some progress and then i'll take a huge number of interventions. i'm deeply minded of conflicts and the the deep concerns in the country caused by what went wrong with the iraq conflict in 2003. but this is not like iraq. what we are seeing in syria is fundamentally different. we are not invading a country. we're not searching for chemical or biological weapons. the case for ultimately, i say ultimately because there would have to be another vote in this house. the case for supporting action is not based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence. the fact the syrian government has and has used chemical weapons is beyond doubt. the fact that the most recent attack took place is not seriously doubted. the syrian government has said it took place, even the iranian president said that it took place. and the evidence that the syrian regime has used these weapons in the early hours of the 21st of
august is right in front of our eyes. we have multiple eye witness accounts of chemical-filled rockets being used against opposition controlled areas. we have thousands of social media reports and at least 95 different videos, terrific videos documenting the evidence. but the difference is we're 2003 and the situation with iraq go wider. then europe was divided over what should be done. now europe is united in the view that we should not let this chemical weapons use stand. then nato was divided. today nato has made a very clear statement that those who are responsible should be held accountable. back in 2003, the arab league was opposed to action, now they are calling for it. they've issued a statement holding the syrian regime fully responsible and asking the international community to overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime. i give way to my right honorable friend. >> all right, we see david cameron, the prime minister of britain making his case to maybe take military action against
syria, making his case before the british parliament. the british parliament called back from vacation to have this kind of debate, unlike here in the united states because congress has not been called back from its summer break to discuss this. although some lawmakers actually want that to happen. president obama, instead, is in the white house this morning and he's making a series of phone calls to members of congress to discuss the situation in syria to decide what the united states is to do. coming up in the next hour of "newsroom," we're going to be talking to dana bash our chief congressional correspondent who knows everything about congress. we'll ask her about all of this and it possible that congress may be called back from vacation? is it worth it? we'll pose those questions to dana bash. also coming up at 10:00 a.m. eastern, michael crowley from "time" magazine will talk about president obama and his changing stance on waging war or taking military action. should be very interesting. 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. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. ( bell rings ) they remwish i saw mine of my granmore often, but they live so far away. i've been thinking about moving in with my daughter and her family. it's been pretty tough since jack passed away. it's a good thing you had life insurance through the colonial penn program. you're right. it was affordable, and we were guaranteed acceptance. guaranteed acceptance? it means you can't be turned down because of your health.
you don't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. they don't care about your aches and pains. well, how do you know? did you speak to alex trebek? because i have a policy myself. it costs just $9.95 a month per unit. it's perfect for my budget. my rate will never go up. and my coverage will never go down because of my age. affordable coverage and guaranteed acceptance? we should give them a call. do you want to help protect your loved ones from the burden of final expenses? if you're between 50 and 85, you can get quality insurance that does not require any health questions or a medical exam. your rate of $9.95 a month per unit will never increase, and your coverage will never decrease -- that's guaranteed. so join the six million people who have already called about this insurance. whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing what you already have, call now and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs.
so, what are you waiting for? go call now! we'll finish up here. today factory workers in more than 50 cities are walking off the -- fast food workers in more than 50 cities are walking off the job. [ chanting ] >> today's strikes could be the biggest yet. all year the protests have been gaining steam. workers want the federal wage to be raised to $15 to put them on
par with some more skilled workers such as health technicians make $15 an hour, sales reps, receptionists, and department managers at retail stores, they also make $15 an hour. joining us is average low amador from the national restaurant association, vice president of labor and work force policy. good morning, angelo. >> good morning. >> right off the bat, should these workers make more money? >> we have to look at the economy. i'm glad you invited me to talk about an industry that is creating jobs at a faster rate than the economy as a whole. as wear coming out -- as we're coming out of the recession we should be looking at ways of increasing jobs and growing the economy, not adding more burdens to small businesses. >> well, if you put it this way, though, you know, if you pay so many workers such low wage, those workers aren't going to be able to afford to buy anything. certainly they're not going to be able to afford to eat dinner,
right? so why not pay them a little more and grow the economy that way? >> first of all, the percentage of workers in the restaurant industry making minimum wage is about 5%. we're not talking about a great deal of works. again, it's an industry of opportunity. those jobs that do pay minimum wage aren tree level. i don't think you can be 60 years old and walk with no high school diploma and get a job a department manager at retail. you got to start and make your way up. i was talking to somebody who started as a driver making minimum wage, and now owns 25 stores. >> now, i do understand that. but you know, times are changing. there are not many manufacturing jobs available anymore. the fact is that more and more people are making such jobs a lifetime career. they are because they have to. there are no other jobs available. >> and i understand. i cannot talk about one individual's particular circumstances. again, you know, we got to look
at the job itself and the requirements for the job. the point is that you can make a career out of -- in the industry. most people come out of minimum wage in a short amount of time. there's an entry-level -- >> do you think most people come out of those jobs quickly and find something -- you really think so? because they say they -- they say they're not. they say they're trying to raise families on $9 an hour and can't do it. are they not trying? >> no. if it wasn't the case, it wouldn't be 5%. again, the number of workers making minimum wage in the restaurant industry is 5%. again, you know, the point is that we're creating opportunity, we're creating opportunity for everybody. and i think that you cannot just pay wages based on a person's needs. you got to pay wages based on what the economy's wanting to bear and the basis model. again, we are very high worker intensive with low profit margins. you know, it's -- those are the jobs. again, nine out of ten managers
are -- >> i think, angelo, i think that some might disagree. if you look at a company like mcdonald's, they have high profit margins. so why not share? >> you know, if you look at the restaurant industry, they look at the big brand names, they're going after big brand names. but when you look at it, nine out of ten restaurants are either independent or franchisees. so while the name might be well recognized at the door, who is behind it might be just a small business. >> understand. angelo amador from the national restaurant association. thank you very much for being with us this morning. >> thanks for the invitation. all new, a woman bosh born in ending -- a woman born in england adsl2 voekt for rights.
>> think about when you put your children to bed and you expect to see them in the morning. >> who is she and will she stand biher man? also, george zimmerman's wife. not so happy with her man right now. she opens up about the trial and the threats and the damage george zimmerman did to her own self-esteem. plus -- ♪ >> the new way ford's trying to win over customers. specialized racing stripes, hood wraps, and wheel rims. all made to look like bacon. it's all new in the next hour of the cnn "newsroom." ♪ ♪
the beach on your tv is much closer than it appears. dive into labor day with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity. happening in the "newsroom," president obama talking about u.s. military action in syria. >> limited, tailored approach, not getting drawn in. not a repetition of iraq. >> very clear on what the united states will not do, less clear on what the united states will do. plus -- [ chanting ] what do we want? >> fast food fiascfiasco. george zimmerman's wife living like a jipsy in the woods so she and her husband could
stay safe. doctors give her months to live, but valerie harper is ignoring them, joining the cast of "dancing with the stars." the second hour of "newsroom" starts now. good morning, thank you very much for being with economy. i'm carol costello. we begin in syria as the march toward military strikes now slows to a crawl. washington and its allies facing growing concerns at home and abroad so today the focus shifts to building a consensus. president obama reportedly bending to the demands of lawmakers. he will consult with congress. senator john cornyn says obama will hold a conference call today to brief them. we'll hear from the president in just a minute. in the meantime, britain deploys a half dozen warplanes to cypress off syria's coast. russia moves ships into the mediterranean. the region goes on alert, and the u.k. goes on record sharing some of its intelligence on last
week's apparent chemical weapon attack. in syria today, u.n. inspections teams try to gather more evidence, and that could be crucial. the associated press cites u.s. intelligence sources as saying the case against the assad regime is no slam-dunk. those inspectors, we've learned, will leave syria by saturday. in london, the british prime minister is facing lawmakers in the house of commons. he's making the case for possible military strikes in syria, and then those members of parliament will hold their own debate. let's listen for a bit. >> to destroy stockpiles will be undone. the global consensus against the use of chemical weapons will be fatally unraveled. 100-year taboo will be breached. people ask about the british national interest. is it not in the british national interest that rules about chemical weapons are upheld? in my view, of course it is. that's dha is why i believe she -- that is why i believe we shouldn't stand idly by. >> not notwithstanding the issues i have with the gentleman
on the issue of timing and his approach to conflict, can i bring up the issue of consequences? does he agree that whoever is responsible for chemical weapons attacks should know that they will face a court whether that is the international criminal court or a specially convened war-crimes tribunal in the future? whether there is military intervention or not, somebody is responsible for a heinous crime. they should face the law. >> for the record, i certainly agree. i certainly agree that people should be subject to international criminal court. of course, possession and use of chemical weapons is a crime and can be prosecuted. but we have to recognize the slowness of those wheels and the fact that syria is not even a signatory to that treaty. let me make more progress, and then i will give way. as i've said, i've consulted the attorney general. he's confirmed the use of chemical weapons in syria, constitutes both a war crime and a crime again humanity. i want to be clear about the process that we follow. the motion is clear. the weapons investigators in dam cass cuss must complete --
damascus must complete their work. a genuine attempt should be made at a chapter 7 resolution backing all necessary measures. then and only then can we have another vote in this house and british involvement on direct military action. i explained again before the legal position. and i don't need to repeat that again. but i would urge colleagues to read this legal advice which i put in the library of the house of commons. let me repeat one more time -- we have not reached that point. we've not made the decision to act. but were there to be a decision to act, this advice proves that it would be legal. now i'll take your comments. >> mr. prime minister, would he agree that our constituent across the house are concerned about britain becoming involved in another middle eastern conflict, whereas he's telling the house that spees focusing specifically on the war crimes use of chemical weapons which is a different matter from britain being involved in a protracted middle eastern war. >> i completely agree with my
honorable friend. i'm fully aware of the deep public skepticism there is. the war weariness there is in our country. linked to the fact that people have had difficult economic times to deal with, as well, and they're asking questions about why britain has to do so much in the world. i totally understand that. and i think we should reassure our constituents by saying this is about chemical weapons. this is not about intervention. this is not about getting involved in another middle eastern war. former home secretary? >> thank you very much. mr. speaker -- [ all talking at once ] >> mr. speaker? member blackburn -- mr. speaker, the prime minister said a moment ago that in the health care reform of the house that while the purpose of any action would be the degrading -- his words -- of the chemical weapons capability of the assad regime, in a letter which general martin
dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, sent to carl levin in the united states congress a couple of months ago, he spoke out that fully to do that would involve hundreds of ships and aircraft and thousands of ground troops at the cost of $1 billion a month. could the prime minister since he's not proposing that say what his objective would be in terms of degrading the chemical weapons capability. >> i think of course there are many jobs, home secretary, foreign secretary, perhaps i should refer to him as my constituent. perhaps a safer way, he makes a good point. he makes a very good point which is what i think the dempsey letter was addressing was that if you wanted entirely to dismantle or attempt to dismantle syria's weapons arsenal, that would be an enormous undertaking that would involve grand troops, involve all sorts -- that is not what is being proposed. what is being proposed were we it take part is an attempt to deter and to degrade the future
use. that is very different. and you would do that. i don't want to set out at the dispatch box at the house of common a list of targets. but it's perfectly simple and straightforward to think of actions you could take to do with command and control of the use of chemical weapons and the people and buildings involved in that which would indeed deter and degrade. honorable members, when i think ask this point a number of ways, how can we be certain any action will work? how can we be certain any action wouldn't have to be repeated? and frankly, those are judgment issues. the only really firm judgment i think we can all come to is if nothing is done, we're more likely to see more chemical weapons used. i give way to my honorable friend. >> i thanks for the prime minister giving way. although the joint intelligence committee say their baffled as it the motivation for assad using chemical weapons, they do say they have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment that the regime was responsible.
i appreciate that the prime minister cannot share such intelligence with the house as a whole, but members of the all party intelligence and security committee have top-secret clearance to look at precisely this sort of material. and as members of that committee, both some support and some oppose military intervention, would he be willing for members of the committee to see that material? >> well, i'm very happy to consider that request because the intelligence and security committee plays a very important role. let me say this -- i don't want to raise, as perhaps was raised in the iraq debate, the status of individual or even groups of intelligence into some sort of quasi-religious cult. that wouldn't be appropriate. what i've said to the house of commons, there is an enormous amount of open source reporting. there's enormous amount of videos we can see. there's the fact we know that the regime has an enormous arsenal. the fact they've used it before. the fact they were attacking that area. with the opposition, there's the fact they to have weapons, delivery systems, and the attack
took place in an area which they were holding. yes, of course, intelligence is part of this picture. but let's not pretend there is one smoking piece of intelligence that can solve the whole problem. this is a judgment issue and one which honorable members will have to make a judgment. i give way to my honorable friend. >> i thank the prime minister. he's being very, very generous. the reason many of us in parliament oppose the arming of the rebels, it's not only that there is atrocities committed by both sides in this civil war, but the real risk of escalating the violence and, therefore, the suffering. no matter how clinical the strikes, there is a real risk, i suggest, that the violence is escalated. it can only result in that. what assurances can he give them that the -- this won't escalate the violence both within the country and beyond syria's borders? >> the honorable -- my honorable friend and i haven't agreed about every aspect of syria policy. that is will known -- is well known.
if we were to take action, it would be purely and simply about degrading and deterring chemical weapons use. when we worry about escalation, the greatest form of escalation that we have in front of us is the danger of additional chemical weapons use because nothing has been done. as i say, this debate, this motion, this issue is not about arming the rebels. it's not about intervening in the conflict. it's not about invasion. it's not about changing our approach on syria. it's about chemical weapons and something i think everyone in this house has an interest in. i give way it my honorable friend. >> i thank the prime minister. the use of chemical weapons has made syria our business. does the prime minister agree that to miss the opportunity to send a strong message to assad and others, that this house condemns this war crime, the use of chemical weapons, and we will stand by our obligations to deter them would be to undermine our own national security? >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point. one of the questions our constituents ask most is where
is the british national interest. i would argue a stable middle east is a national interest. i think there's a specific national interest relating to the chemical weapons use that we've seen and preventing its escalation. i've tried in this section of my speech -- i'll give way a bit more in a minute. i want to give time for speeches. i've been trying to address questions that people . have let me take the next question of whether we would be in danger. undermining our ambitions for a political solution in syria. there's not some choice between on the one hand acting to prevent chemical weapons being used again the syrian people and on the other continuing to push for a long-term political solution. we need to do both. we remain absolutely committed to using diplomacy to end this war with a political solution. but let me make this point -- for as long as assad is able to defy international will and get away with chemical attacks on his people, i believe he will feel little if any pressure to come to the negotiating table. he is happy going on killing, maiming his own people, as part of his strategy for winning that
brutal civil war. so far from undermining the political process -- >> we're going to step away. this has been fascinating, right? don't you wish we would do it the same way in the united states? that would be amazing. and quite educational. a growing mix of lawmakers, both republicans and democrats, here in the united states say congress should have to authorize any use of military force. chief congressional correspondent dana bash is in washington, and also michael crowely from "time" magazine joins us because he wrote a very interesting article in "time" magazine talking about the president's war stance or how the president's stance on military action has changed since 2008. so welcome to you both. so dana, i want to start with you. we've been watching what's taking place in the british parliament. by the way, the british parliament was called back from break so that the british prime minister could have this debate with elected officials. why isn't that happening in the united states? >> for a lot of reasons.
first of all, what you just saw is absolutely fascinating, but it is sort of a staple of the british political system is for the prime minister to stand there, frankly, and take it. and have this what's called question time with members of parliament. you know, certainly you said that you would like to see it here. you're not the president of the united states. highway has -- he doesn't have to go and do that. that's one thing that he probably is breathing a sigh of relief on. you know, instead, what he is doing is he is receiving letters from the house speaker, the opposition leader if you will here in the united states, like the one i held up. and it is something that the speaker said yesterday with a series of 14 very pointed, very specific questions, not unlike exactly what david cameron is getting now in the house of commons. asking the president to answer publicly and tell the american people the scope of any kind of mission, what the goal would be, what the parameters would be, and to make that clear before the president authorizes any kind of military action.
but it was also interesting about the letter that the speaker sent, carol, that it did not say that he is going to seek congressional authorization, meaning a vote, before any military action. he wants the president to answer to things publicly. >> of course some lawmakers do want congressional approval before any military action is taken. i find it interesting, michael crowley, that president obama, when he was running for office in 2008, saided this -- "the president does not have the power 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." so what's changed? >> well, what's change sudden that he's now in office, and you have a lot more leeway to make sweeping comments when you're a candidate than when you're responsible for the national security of the country. the threats look different. the language that jay carney used in the white house press briefing on that question was interesting. i think if i recall correctly he
was saying that enforcing the sort of international taboo against the use of chemical weapons is a national security interest of the united states, so important that it rises to the level of a threat if you don't enforce it. i think that's how they're trying to justify it. i think the short answer is he was a candidate, everyone was angry at george bush for taking what they call unilateral actions. it was an easy thing to say. now looks different on the other side. >> dana, i think that the american people are concerned that again america doesn't have an -- doesn't have an end game. so let's say you, you know, perform some sort of military strike on syria, you're not taking out assad. well, then what? like do you just -- i don't know, teach syria a lesson and move on? because there could be larger consequences. >> absolutely, that is one of the major concerns that you're hearing from members of congress and even the speaker who wants
the president to be more specific to answer those questions. it's, i think, another major reason why you're not seeing the house speaker, for example, call the house back to session. they're not in session, not going to be back for about two weeks. because this is one area where republicans don't want to embarrass the president. they want the united states broadly to succeed on the world stage against some regimes, regime like -- like assad's in syria. and there is concern, there's no question, that if they called congress back, had a vote in the house, even the senate maybe which is democratic led, that it -- it might not pass. it might fail any kind of bid to authorize military action because of the concern that you talked about. this is a war-weary country. members of congress hear from constituents all the time that kind of enough is enough. and until and unless the president make a case, whether it's limited or not, it's going to be very difficult for congress to hold a vote on
something that actually could pass. >> that's really sad actually. thank you, dana bash and michael crowley with "time" magazine. be sure to tune in today at noon eastern for cnn's special live coverage on the crisis in syria. for the entire hour we'll break down the evidence, u.s. military options, and how the crisis impacts the markets and your money. today noon eastern.
humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one.
call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?
we want to go back to the british parliament. the prime minister and members are debating the issue surrounding syria in the same way the united states is just behind closed doors. this is edward miliband, the british opposition leader. he is opposed to any action being taken in syria because he's afraid that it will pull britain into a larger war in that region. let's listen.
>> which is upholding national law and legitimacy. how can we make the lives of the syrian people better? and we should remember on this occasion the duty we owe to the exceptional men and women of the armed forces and families who will face a direct consequence of any decision that we -- that we make. mr. speaker, the basis on which we make this decision is of fundamental importance because the basis of making the decision determines legitimacy and moral authority of any action that we undertake. that's why our amendment asks the house to support a clear and legitimate roadmap to decision on this issue. a set of steps which enable us to judge any recommended international action. and i want to develop the argument about why this sequential roadmap is, i believe, the rye thing for the house to -- the right thing for the house to support today. most of all, if we follow this roadmap, it can assure the
country and the international community that if we take action we will follow the right, legitimate, and legal course, not an artificial timetable or political timetable set elsewhere. i think that is very, very important to any decision that we make. mr. speaker, this is fundamental to the principles of britain. a belief in the rule of law, a belief that any military action we take must be justified in terms of the cause and also potential consequences. and that we strain every since tuesday make the international institutions we have work to dole with the outrages in syria. let me turn to the conditions in our motion. first, and this is where the prime minister and i now agree, we must let the u.n. weapons inspectors do their work and let them report to the security council. ban ki-moon, u.n. secretary general, said yesterday about the weapons inspectors and i quote, "let them conclude their work for four days, and then we will analyze scientifically with expert, and then we will report to the security council for
action." so the weapons inspectors are in the midst of their work and will be reporting in the coming days. that is why today could not have been the day when the house was asked to decide on military action. for this house -- for this house -- for this house it is surely a basic point. evidence should proceed decision, not decision proceed evidence. and i am -- i'm glad on reflection the prime minister accepted this yesterday. now, it is true because some people will raise this issue, the weapons inspectors cannot reach a judgment on the attrition of blame. that is beyond their mandate. some might think that that makes their work essentially irrelevant. i disagree. if the u.n. weapons inspectors conclude that chemical weapons have been used, in the eyes of this country and the world, that confers legitimacy on the finding beyond the view of any individual country or any intelligence agency. what is more, it is possible that what the weapons inspectors
discover could give the world greater confidence in identifying the perpetrators of this horrific attack. the second step, mr. speaker, in our roadmap makes clear that there needs to be compelling evidence that the syrian regime is responsible for the attacks. i welcome the letter from the head of the joint conference on president assad's culpability. as far as as the prime minister said, there is always reason for doubt. the greater the weight of evidence the better on. tuesday we were promised there will be the release of american intelligence that there was proof of the regime culpability. we await the publication of that evidence which i gather will be later today, but that evidence, too, will be important in building up the body of evidence that president assad was responsible -- i will. >> i'm grateful to the leader of the opposition. he's said he might be able to support military action of the kind the government is contemplating. he has put in his amendment a list of requirements, virtually all of which as far as i can tell appear in the government's own motion.
why can he not, therefore, support the government's motion in order that this house could speak with a united voice to the world -- >> i'll explain why i don't think that's the case. i will point to the fact that the government's amendment does not mention compelling evidence against president assad. and i'll develop in my remarks on the fifth point in our amendment which is very, very important. the basis on which we judge whether action can be justified in terms of consequences. i will come to that later in my remarks. the third step, mr. speaker, is that in light of the weapons inspectors' findings and the other evidence and as the secretary general said, the u.n. security council will debate what actions should be taken and indeed should vote on action. mr. speaker, i've heard it suggested that we should have a united nations moment. that's certainly not my words. they're words which now ddo no
seriousness. the u.n. is not some inconvenient side show and we don't want to engineer a moment. instead we want to adhere to the principles of international law. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> we'll step away from the lively debate in the british parliament. you heard the opposition leader say can't let the united states dictate what britain does. so that's all part of the debate raging around the world right now. we'll be right back. hey love. [off screen] there you are. [speaking german] hi, grandpa! [off screen] give me a kiss! [speaking mandarin] what do you think? do you like it? [off screen] happy birthday!
can you see that? [speaking polish] [off screen] did he apologize? [off screen] thanks, micah! [off screen] bye, guys. bye. see ya. oh my god! every day, more people connect face to face on the iphone than any other phone. i miss you. we believe it can be the most valuable real estate on earth. ♪ that's why we designed the subaru forester from the back seat forward. the intelligently designed, responsibly built, completely restyled subaru forester. love.
we've been listening to a fascinating debate going on in the british parliament now between members of the british parliament and the british prime minister. they're talking about whether britain should strike some sort of military action against syria because of course of the chemical weapons attack there. we just heard from an opposition leader who takes the opposite stance from the british prime minister saying that britain should not act before clear evidence is presented. let's listen. >> to this house it is surely a
basic point. evidence should proceed, not decision proceed evidence. and i am glad on reflection the prime minister accepted this yesterday. >> republican congressman joseph pitts from pennsylvania joins me now live on the phone. good morning. >> good morning. >> thanks for talking with us. so you heard the opposition leader speaking in british parliament. is he right? should the united states, too, wait for clear evidence that the assad regime was responsible for this chemical weapons attack? >> i agree. the president needs to consult with congress, needs it let the congress fully be briefed and debate this in an open and transparent manner. the constitution is very clear on the -- on the declaration of war or reacting to international crimes. crimes against nations.
it is the role against congress to debate and authorize this before the president acts precipitously. so i would ask the president to call congress back in session, have a full and public debate. let the congress vote on this before any action is taken. >> the president is -- is doing a big conference call later today, 6:00 p.m. eastern. he's calling member of congress to inform them of the evidence that his administration has about the assad regime. is that enough? >> no, that is not enough. he should call all the members of congress in the session, let them see the evidence fully. just talking to the intelligence committee our few leaders is not the whole congress. >> what is your biggest fear if the united states does decide to take military action? >> the question is what do i think what? >> what's your biggest fear? what could happen?
what are you worried about? >> well, first of all, sending missiles into another country is an act of war. trying to pars this as something different just doesn't meet the laugh test. we could get involved in another land war in the middle east and cause -- in the civil war cause disruption to the whole region, yet, you know, other country involved could impact israel, jordan, iran, lebanon. you know, the whole area. so it is a serious matter. use of chemical weapons is a serious matter. this deserves full and transparent debate before the american people before congress acts. >> if the united states does present members of congress with concrete evidence that the assad
regime did indeed gas its own people, what should the united states do? >> well, that is something that we're going to have to explore. rather than just precipitously send missiles in, first of all we don't even know who they would be targeting. we don't know the impact on innocent people. going war is a serious matter. and it should be done very carefully and deliberately with clear national interests at stake before the united states or our commander in chief acts. >> congressman pitts, thank you very much for being with us this morning. we'll talk our viewers back to london to the british parliament to hear more from the opposition leader speaking before the british parliament and the prime minister. of course he opposes any military action right now against syria. let's listen.
>> as it also says, as it also says in point five, such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region. to any proposed action to deter the use of chemical weapons must be judged against the -- what takes place. i think there's further need to set out what the consequences must be. i give way to the gentleman. >> i'm listening carefully to what the leader of the opposition is saying. he's making a strong case against military action. as a military actionvisage, the objectives are soft in terms of degrading and deterring. the link between military effect and the actual effect on the ground. then he's linked it to the consequences for the geneva two process which can only be negative. >> i'm saying to the honorable gentleman and the house that we have to assess in a calm and measured way, not in a kneejerk
way, and not on a political timetable whether the advantages of potential action, whether it can be done on the basis of legitimacy and international law and what the consequences would be. >> listening to the speech, any reasonable human being would assume that the gentleman is looking to divide the house for political advantage. what has happened to -- what has happened -- what has happened to the national interest? >> i have to say intervention is not worthy of the honorable gentleman. i -- i am marily trying to set out a framework for decision for this house. my interest all along has been to ensure that the house of commons can make this decision when the said available. there will be some people in this house, there will be -- i'll give way in a moment. there will be some people in this house, mr. speaker, who think this decision is simple. they clearly are on some of the
government benches. there will be some who think we can make a decision now, that we should engage in military conflict. equally, those will think we should rule out military conflict now. i happen to think we've got to assess the evidence over the coming period. i think that is the right thing to dampt and our roadmap, our roadmap sets out how to do it. >> let's step away from this lively debate. we'll have more including a fast food worker strike taking place in 50 cities across the country. we'll be right back. la's known definitely for its traffic,
over 20 million drivers are insured with geico. so get a free rate quote today. i love it! how much do you love it? animation is hot...and i think it makes geico's 20 million drivers message very compelling, very compelling. this is some really strong stuff! so you turned me into a cartoon...lovely. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
fast food workers in more than 50 cities across the country plan to strike today. it could be their biggest walkout yet. >> not okay? >> what do we want? >> a living wage! >> workers at mcdonald's, burger king, wendy's, and other fast food outlets already have hit the picket lines this year. their protest appear to be gaining steam. they're demanding the federal minimum wage be raised to $15 per hour. that's more than double the current rate of $7.25. and they want the right to form unions without retaliation. joining us now from st. louis is tho enthusiasm as mcginnis. he's been working for domino's pizazz a deliveryplan for almost
24 years. welcome. >> thank you. good morning. >> good morning. i can't help but notice your t-shirt. what does it say? >> it says we can't survive on $7.35. that seems to be the mantra right now. >> are you going to hit the picket lines yourself later today? >> i was already at mcdonald's, hardy's, a bread company, and a jimmy john's this morning. it's already underway. those were all downtown st. louis. >> we interviewed you once before, the last time fast food workers, you know, walked off the job. did anything change? >> apparently there are some changes. i overheard of some nba players buying a large wendy's franchise and bumping everybody's salaries up to $10 an hour. sounds like somebody's listening. >> what are your bosses saying about this work action? >> our bosses? >> uh-huh. >> i'm fortunate enough to have my boss as a friend. bosses above them, the franchisees, they're not saying
too much. but i know they're not happy about it. i'm sure the corporation is unhappy about it. >> do you think your action aol -- will really affect change, a widespread change? >> i certainly hope so because, you know, the -- where we are now is a kind of economic slavery compared to -- you know -- yeah. >> i talked with someone from the restaurant association who said that the types of jobs that you have, for example, are meant to be temporary jobs, not meant to be lifetime jobs. how do you respond to that? >> well, i mean, i can see how someone saying that, you know, it could be used as a stepping stone. i happen to like my job. i feel like if anyone works 40 hours a week, you know, doing the sweaty labor, you would think they should be able it make a decent living. so i don't think it's out of the question. a lot of families depend on that income, you know. i know a lot of people that went
to school and graduated and still can't seem to get good jobs. >> i was going to ask that. some might say, well, if you're not satisfied with what you're paid, why not find another job. >> yeah. and i was at the point where i was prepared to move on. i also work a day job in the morning just to barely make ends meet. and so it's clear that the -- the inequality of income in this country is too far gone, too long. that's why $15 an hour seems so high. because it's -- it's gone unchecked. and you know, a lot of corporations are allowed to self-regulate. this is what happens. >> thomas mr. speaker begin -o thank you very much. still to come, shelley zimmerman speaks out. hear what she has to say about life with her husband, george zimmerman before and after the trial. man, this helmet is just torture on my hair.
check it. ♪ [ male announcer ] head & shoulders for men. with seven benefits for a flake-free scalp and great looking hair. even if you wear a helmet for a living. i know. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders for men. 100% flake free. but for all these symptoms, you also take kaopectate. kaopectate gives you soothing relief for all those symptoms. kaopectate. one and done. i've been doing a few things for playing this and trading.ove-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 kaopectate gives you soothing relief for all those symptoms.
and the better i am at them, the more i enjoy them. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so i'm always looking to take them up a notch or two. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and schwab really helps me step up my trading. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 they've now put their most powerful platform, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 streetsmart edge, in the cloud. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so i can use it on the web, where i trade from tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 most of the time. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which means i get schwab's most advanced tools tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 on whatever computer i'm on. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it's really taken my trading to the next level. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i've also got a dedicated team of schwab trading specialists. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 they helped me set up my platform the way i wanted, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 from the comfort of my home. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and we talked about ideas and strategies, one on one! tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 really gave my trading a boost. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all this with no trade minimums. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 after all, i'm in this to win, right? tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open a schwab account and learn how you can earn up to 300 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free online trades for 6 months tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with qualifying net deposits. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-888-283-2407 today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550
all right. we're getting breaking news in from reuters now about what the president has been doing this morning from the white house. as we told you before, he's been making a number of calls to various congress persons, informing them about the reasons that the united states should take military action against syria. and according to reuters, mr. obama's security adviser, susan rice, intelligence director clapper, defense secretary chuck hagel, and secretary of state john kerry have all briefed members of congress on syria this morning. some in person, some by phone. we understand there will be a larger conference call that takes place at 6:00 p.m. eastern. dana bash is on the story, as well as our other white house correspondents. hopefully we'll have more information to pass along to you later. less than seven weeks after her husband was acquitted in the shooting death of trayvon martin, shelley zimmerman is speaking out. shelley just pleaded guilty to
perjury charge, admitting she lied to a judge about her family's financial status. she said they were broke, but prosecutors say the zimmermans had more than $100,000. now in a new interview, shelley zimmerman had this to say about those lies and her marriage -- >> i can rationalize a lot of reasons for why i was misle misleading, but the truth is that i -- i knew that i was lying. >> did you want him to be clear, to support you? >> i always want my husband's support. >> are you together? >> i'm not going to answer that. of course i want to have children and stay married. >> with george? >> that's something i'm going to have to think about. >> interesting. martin savidge joins me now. interesting interview. >> it is, of course because of her proximity to george zimmerman. she has a window on his world
both before, during the tragedy of the trayvon martin shooting, and of course in the aftermath now of the not guilty verdict. what she says is powerful. she was also, you know, part of that case, perjury, which now she has entered a plea of guilty to. so that's what makes this interesting. she gives us some insights as to what was happening during the time they were in hiding, that they were apparently living in a trailer in the middle of the woods. i have to tell you that is not a scenario i had thought about when considering where they were living and how. that really gives a sense of the isolation. the other thing she points out and i think that comes across starkly is there's a strain in that relationship and would you really be surprised by that? i mean, i -- i don't think so. given the fact that this is a couple that has been under tremendous pressure, you know. of course the martin family, too, with the tragedy they had to deal with. but as this couple that now has at one point was accused, now cleared, they are really strained. what we learned, though, is that
they apparently were under a strain even before this tragedy began. it's only made it worse. >> did she say anything in the interview that would -- that would, you know, that would hint that what strained their marriage, exactly what? >> well, i think like many things that strain marriages, there were issues of money. problems with money in the household. this is, again, before the shooting took place. questions of who was making the money, when was not. those things that in any relationship build up resentment and sometimes build up hatred. but after that you just have the pressure of fear for your life after this trial began. the scrutiny of the media. everybody accusing her husband. i think a lot of that and then you're confined into this relatively small space in the middle of a forest. apparently with one bodyguard. that would drive anybody around the bend. i think the thing that really is not brought out so much but having talked to kristi o'connor, investigative journalist who gave that to the
other network, she points out the question of what was george zimmerman's temper like. this is something that the prosecution was trying to get at. the that george zimmerman, the man you see, calm, cool, reserved in court, is not the same george. she hints at that in this interview. and that's something kristi says is a definite feeling she got from shellie zimmerman. george zimmerman is a man who has a volatile nature. >> interesting. thank you very much. still to come in the "newsroom," for this family in california, the yosemite fire is hitting too close to home. we'll bring you their nerve-racking story. a mom and six kids living on the edge. with so much competition, finding the right job is never easy. but with the nation's largest alumni network,
including those in key hiring positions, university of phoenix can help connect you to a world of opportunity. when i first felt the diabetic nerve pain, of course i had no idea what it was. i felt like my feet were going to sleep. it progressed from there to burning like i was walking on hot coals... to like 1,000 bees that were just stinging my feet. i have a great relationship with my doctor... he found lyrica for me. [ female announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness,
weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. having less pain -- it's a wonderful feeling. [ female announcer ] ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. to hear more of phyllis's story, visit lyrica.com. sabra hummus is really delicious so you might be tempted to dip more than once. ♪ ahh...don't be afraid, flip it around, go back in. yup. oooo, this is a dilemma. oh, go ahead, we're family. ♪ oh, really? come on! you're lucky you're so cute. sabra hummus. dip life to the fullest.
we've been talking all morning about syria and what action the united states might take because of chemical weapons being used there. we've been showing you what's going on this afternoon or this morning, rather, in the british parliament. it is afternoon there. you see members standing up and arguing. the british prime minister is present for all of this. this is the british foreign secretary, by the way, jack straw -- i'm sorry, that wasn't him. i apologize. it was a member of parliament. they're arguing for and against action being taken in syria. of course the united states is interested in listening to this argument because the united states very much wants britain to be part of this united front in dealing with syria and the assad regime and the use of chemical weapons within syria.
in the past few minutes, reuter reported that president obama in the confines of the white house has met with his national security adviser, susan rice, intelligence guide, james clapper, secretary of state john kerry. they've been briefing members of congress this morning about the evidence that the united states has gathered about who exactly is responsible for the them what's going on, what f there's an end game. that's probably the most important question the president will have to answer if lawmakers' minds and in the minds of the american people. we'll continue to cover this story all day long. in fact, at noon, we're going to have an entire hour just on
syria. noon eastern. so be sure to tune in to cnn then. let's talk about the yosemite wildfire. it's measured in numbers. 192,000 acres burned. 4,500 structures threatened. one of the most poignant numbers is three. that's the number of times careen matter has packed up her home as the fire threatens her family. she's already evacuated herself and
>> you just gave me shivers. that's awesome. so you're just staying with friends because you have six children. that's a good friend. >> yeah. let me correct that. i do have six children. four of them are grown. and they're out of my home now. two actually live in mewak village which is in tuolumne county, which is also going through the same thing we are hear in groveland. i have a 5-year-old and 7-year-old home with me all the time. those are the ones i was responsible to pack up and take and get with me and calm down and -- yes. >> do you know the level of danger? >> on sunday the 18th, he said,
there's a fire, the rim. do you want to go on a quest and see if we can fight it? i said, "okay." we drove to the rim of the world, six miles from home. we could see the flames, you know, liking over the hill. but at that point on sunday, we didn't think that it was going to be near us. we thought they're going to put this out, it's not going to be a big deal. wasn't until the next day, monday afternoon, that my husband called me. and he was working in murphys, an hour away, and said, look, he said, the fire has gotten to the edge of the forestry, and the forestry is just a mile from us. we can see the smith peak tower from our house where they had evacuated all of the rangers. and he said, "you need to pack up, and you need to leave." and at that point, you just -- your mind leaves ump you're like, what? so that's when i had to pack us up for the first time. i was so blessed because i had
invited a friend and her four kids for dinner. they were already here. and she helped me. she was the one who pulled the pictures off the walls for me. i'm a photographer. i have hand colorings that i've done of my children. they're irreplaceable. you just -- you can't do them anymore. you know, you don't know -- nobody does -- i thought, my goodness, they're all over my house. what am i going to do? she pulled them off. >> we'll add our prayers to the mix and hope everything turns out okay for you. karine, matter, i've got to go. thank you very much for talking with us this morning. bye-bye. "legal view" after a break.