Watch CBS News

Face the Nation Transcripts August 17, 2014: Nixon, Brooks, Rogers

(CBS News) -- Below is a transcript from the August 17, 2014 edition of Face the Nation. Guests included Gov. Jay Nixon, Cornell William Brooks, Rep. Mike Rogers, Vladimir Duthiers, Charlie D'Agata, Michael Eric Dyson, Ruth Marcus, Peter Baker, Michael Gerson and Gerald Seib.

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: I'm Bob Schieffer. Today on FACE THE NATION: breaking news overnight, more violence and chaos in Ferguson, Missouri. One man was shot and seven arrested after a midnight curfew was imposed, all this one week after unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot to death by officer Darren Wilson. We will talk to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who declared yesterday a state of emergency.


GOV. JAY NIXON (D), MISSOURI: This is a test. The eyes of the world are watching.


SCHIEFFER: We will also hear from the head of the NAACP, Cornell William Brooks.

The air war over Northern Iraq entered a new phase. We will go to the scene get the latest from the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers. Plus, analysis of all of this from our panel.

Sixty years of news because this is FACE THE NATION.

And good morning again.

Once again, it has been a long night for the residents of Ferguson, Missouri.

We're going to start our coverage with latest there from CBS News correspondent Vladimir Duthiers -- Vlad.

VLADIMIR DUTHIERS, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Bob, just hours after Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency here in Ferguson, Missouri, state of emergency beginning at midnight and ending at 5:00 a.m., hundreds of protesters took to the streets, and there was brief flare-up of violence as they advance towards a very large column of police officers.

Now, we were in the crowd with the protesters prior to the start of the curfew. At that time, there were about 1,000 people, maybe more in the streets milling around, protesting the shooting of the unarmed teenager Mike Brown about a week ago. The crowd thinned out and by midnight there -- we were only left with about 150 or 200 people still in the streets.

We were with the column of police officers. Those police officers waited for at least 35, 40 minutes before they decided to move towards the protesters. What we saw, which was very interesting, is they were decked out in that very heavy militarized gear that many people were angry about last week. They started to fire smoke into the crowd, eventually firing tear gas.

As we walked along the streets behind them, we picked up these rounds. These are beanbag rounds. They are meant to stun the crowd. When it was all over, Bob, seven people were arrested for failure to disperse, and one person was critically wounded in a shooting by somebody other than police, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: All right, thank you very much, Vlad.

We turn now to the governor of Missouri, Democrat Jay Nixon. He joins us from Saint Louis.

Governor, thank you.

Well, I know there were some problems after midnight, when the curfew went into effect. One man was shot. I believe they have established it was not a policeman who shot him. But do you have any information on how that came about, and is there a suspect on that?

NIXON: Well, first of all, there were thousands of folks out there last night. And when the curfew approached, I think with the colonel of the Highway Patrol and Captain Johnson and others being in that community, being prepared last night, those outsiders, some of the folks that were in there last night, obviously, we thought that last night was better.

But as far as the shooting, it was not involving law enforcement last night. It was a private matter. And we will chase down what happened as the day goes on.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do have things -- do you consider them under control this morning?

NIXON: We feel much better.

Obviously, when we saw in the middle part of the week increased militarization of the police response and the response from the community, I mean, this has been a week in which Michael Brown was shot dead by a police officer in his own hometown. And that has brought out great emotions and appropriate concern.

And so when we saw that increased militarization, I made the unique action to put our Highway Patrol and then bring in Captain Johnson on the ground in that community, from that community, to help lead that.

That first night was pretty peaceful. The second night went relatively well until very late. And we saw some looting, and that's why we -- that's why I declared a curfew with the request from the local officials, and last night no property damage of any significant sort.

And the thousands of folks there -- certainly, there were seven folks that had to be detained and arrested, but most of those folks aren't directly from that area. So we're hopeful that we're making progress.

I think it's right for people to grieve. I think it's right for people toe speak. And it's important that we get justice in this matter. And the dual investigation that is being done by the local prosecutor and Justice will come to their conclusion. SCHIEFFER: Governor, you removed the local police department basically from having anything to do with this situation. How badly did they -- what -- I just don't get it. Everything -- everywhere they turn, they seem to do the wrong thing, and the last thing being releasing that video, which seemed to just really inflame people.

Do you think that made the situation worse?

NIXON: We didn't have any knowledge about that.

The Justice Department also indicated they didn't think it should be released. And I think it had an incendiary affect. When you release pictures, and you clearly are attempting to besmirch the victim of a shooting, shot down, a young man in his own street, and at the same time, you're releasing information to try to make it to tarnish him, then, properly, there was a lot of folks that were concerned about.

And I do think it flamed it back up and has caused us to have to deal with some of that. But those are real emotions. People need to grieve and they need to speak. But we also need to keep the rule of law and peace. And we're trying to balance all three of those.

I think last night, we made progress and we will continue over next days as these dual investigations continue to try to keep that balance of letting people speak, grieve, be heard, but keep the peace.

SCHIEFFER: If criminal charges are to be filed against this police officer, who will file them? Because I know there are some down there saying there ought to be a special prosecutor appointed here.

NIXON: And this is career prosecutor at the local level who has a real opportunity to step up.

I think it's going to be assisted by the fact that there's a dual investigation going on with the Justice Department and the FBI. I do know that after I talked to General Holder, the next day, there were 40 additional FBI agents on the ground here. I appreciate that deeply out there doing interviews in the neighborhood, a real presence and a real sense that we need to get to justice here.

I think having those dual investigations operating at the same time makes it much more likely that this case gets the attention and the justice it deserves. But this investigation must be thorough and complete in order to get justice.

SCHIEFFER: You stepped into this situation five days after it happened. If you had it to do over, Governor, would you have stepped in sooner?

NIXON: Well, you always want to make sure that -- you know, these problems have to be solved at the local level. And long after our highway patrolmen are back doing their jobs, you're going to have other police in those areas. So, we wanted to -- but when I saw the military vehicles rolling up, when I saw guns pointed at kids, when I saw the reaction that was getting, I knew there needed to be a change. And that's why I took the unprecedented action that time to call in our Highway Patrol, especially Captain Johnson, from that neighborhood to lead that.

And I thought that first night, as he joined in, even last night, when he and colonel of the Highway Patrol marched with folks and talked to them, I think we're making progress. But people need a right to grieve. They need the right to speak. But we need to get justice here.

I did take unprecedented action here. I think it will pay off here. And we're focused on doing what we can to keep the peace while giving the people the right to speak and grieve while these dual investigations get to justice.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Governor, we will let you get back to work. Thank you so much for joining us.

NIXON: Thank you, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: And joining us now is Cornell William Brooks, the new president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. We welcome him to FACE THE NATION.

Mr. Brooks, you heard the governor there say that the county prosecutor has a chance, as he said, to step up and do what's right here. Do you think -- because, as I said to the governor, some people down there talking about the need for a special prosecutor here.

CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NAACP: The county prosecutor does have an opportunity to step up.

He should in fact step up. The nation and indeed the entire world is watching as he carries out his duties. But I believe it's critically important for a prosecutor to be appointed.

I think it's critically important for the Justice Department to remain active and engaged, because this county, this municipality, both have a long history of very troubled relationships with the community. And so, as a matter of community credibility, as a matter of credibility with respect to the nation, they need to step up. They need to step up quickly and they need to be clear, transparent and accountable with respect to the community.

SCHIEFFER: How do you just basically think this case has been handled so far?

BROOKS: At the local level, it's been -- I would liken it to the Keystone Cops, but I don't want to insult the Keystone Cops.

It's been very troubled. The release of the videotape regarding Michael Brown, very, very troubling. Here we have a postmortem character assassination, very troubling. The lack of information, the lack of engagement with community very troubling. A week ago, I spent time in the church where I heard young people literally asking those on stage, tell us what to do. These local prosecutors, local law enforcement have an opportunity to fulfill their earth, to demonstrate that they're serious about protecting and serving. To do that, they need to step up, step up quickly, and do so in a very transparent fashion.

SCHIEFFER: Are you glad that the Department of Justice is there? I take it you are. And do you think that will help to see that this thing is handled correctly?

BROOKS: We are very happy that the Justice Department is there.

The attorney general has been very engaged. The president has been engaged. I have received calls from the White House late at night, early in the morning. They want to see justice served here. I think it speaks well of the president and the attorney general that the Justice Department is on the ground.

The NAACP has been working with the FBI agents to identify and bring forward witnesses. That says to me that the Justice Department is not operating from Washington, but in Ferguson, Missouri. That speaks well of the potential for this investigation to result in justice.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the fact that police showed up when this all broke out in this heavy military gear and all this armor, was that a factor?

BROOKS: Absolutely.

In the same way that many Americans across the country are asking themselves the question, how is it that you have an unarmed teenager meeting an adult with a gun and a badge that results with the teenager dead in that instance, heavy use of force?

They're asking themselves the question, how is it, in the wake of this controversy, we respond with armored vehicles, with militarization, as opposed to explanation, conversation, community engagement?

SCHIEFFER: We -- I'm going to ask you, Mr. Brooks, if you will stick around, because we want to talk about this more in the second half of this broadcast.

So, thank you for now. Thank you.


SCHIEFFER: And we will be coming back to you.

We want to go now to that other big story we're monitoring, the tense situation in Northern Iraq, where U.S. warplanes opened a new campaign against the ISIS terrorists who captured a key dam in Mosul that is a crucial asset in the region.

CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata is in Irbil this morning.

Charlie, what is the latest?

CHARLIE D'AGATA, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning to you, Bob. Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers that we spoke to today said that they are closing in on the dam and that ISIS militants have even started withdrawing from villages near the dam or at least repositioning themselves. Those forces are being backed by U.S. airstrikes.

The U.S. military has confirmed that nine airstrikes were conducted in the vicinity of the dam using both drones and fighter jets. Now, the dam itself has been under control of ISIS militants for almost two weeks now. It not only controls the power, water and electricity in Northern Iraq, but blowing it up or opening the floodgates could cause catastrophic flooding to nearby Mosul that would also reach as far as Baghdad.

Now, once again, Peshmerga fighters say that they're advancing. They are running into resistance. And they estimate between 400 and 500 ISIS militants may still be around the dam itself.

SCHIEFFER: Charlie, what more can you tell us abut this reported massacre of Yazidis in a nearby village?

D'AGATA: Well, Bob, we're getting various accounts on the death toll there. Somewhere between 80 and 350 men may have been massacred.

But it apparently took place on Friday, reportedly took place on Friday in the village of Kocho. Kurdish officials say that the men were told -- Yazidi men were told to convert to Islam or die. And when they refused, they were summarily executed.

We're also hearing a number of women and children may have been abducted. As many as 1,000 may have been abducted by ISIS militants. What is clear is, there are still Yazidi villages that are still under siege, despite tens of thousands of Yazidis that were able to flee the fighting late last week.

SCHIEFFER: All right, well, Charlie, be careful. Thank you.

And joining us now is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers.

Let's pick up right there, Mr. Chairman. The administration sent special forces in there to see about rescuing these people. They came back and reported, well, it looked like they had been rescued or most of them had. What is the situation out there? Are there still Yazidis in danger?


And so they have not only surrounded certain villages, the ISIS or ISIL, but they have also pushed them up into the mountains. And they were at least putting pressure at that time on that -- on those tribes up into the mountains. And so some escaped, some were still there.

It just shows you the breadth and depth of the problem and just how brutal ISIL is in their governing of their version of the caliphate.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Chairman, the talk also this morning, apparently, we have opened new phase of the air war there. We're attacking these ISIL people around this dam in Mosul. Explain to us what that is all about and the significance of this dam.

ROGERS: Yes, sure.

So, the Peshmerga before -- there were some reports that they had retreated from the area prematurely, and it was -- they were disappointing in their fight. And the problem was, they were outgunned. ISIL now is a terrorist organization with an army. That's what makes them so dangerous, tanks, helicopters, heavy artillery, money. All of those equate to a pretty dangerous situation.

So the Peshmerga had a strategic withdraw, were armed up a little bit. Now they have some air support both from the Iraqi air force and the U.S. Air Force and have made real progress around that dam. The fighting still continues as of this morning, but it looks like they're starting to gain the upper hand and pushing those ISIL units, the terrorist organization units, back away from the dam.

It is a strategic asset and something that would be important to take before they moved into Mosul.

SCHIEFFER: Let me quote something to you. A senior U.S. official is quoted as telling Yahoo! News that ISIL is now -- and this is the quote -- "the most potent military force of any terrorist group in the world right now."

I would like to know, do you agree with that? And how do you rate right now the threat that terrorism poses to the United States as to say where we were before 9/11?

ROGERS: And the difference here is that, before 9/11, there were single-level threat streams coming into the United States, some pretty serious. Obviously, they got in and conducted the attacks on 9/11.

Now you have multiple organizations, all al Qaeda-minded, trying to accomplish the same thing. So ISIL has said that they want to take the people who have Western passports. And, remember, they are flooding into this country. Thousands of individuals now signing up with ISIL to fight their jihad in Syria and Iraq have Western passports. That's what's so dangerous about this.

We also know that they want to conduct an attack. But so does al Qaeda. And so now you have two competing terrorist organizations. Both of them want to get their credentials to the point where they can say, we are the premier terrorist organization. Both want to conduct attacks in the West for that reason. That -- and guess what? That means we lose at the end. If either one ever those organizations is successful, we lose. And here is something interesting, Bob. We have seen some very interesting relationships between A.Q. in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, out of Yemen and al Qaeda on a very aggressive -- I think the attorney general said that it was one of the worst -- or one of the things that keeps him up at night.

And I would concur with him. That is an attack that many believe is going operational. And that is what we should be worried about.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that we're in greater danger now than perhaps we were before 9/11?

ROGERS: I do, again, only because the threat matrix is so wide.

And it's so deep. We just didn't have that before 9/11. So, when you get terrorist organization that holds land the size of Indiana, has tanks, helicopters, they think it has as much as billion dollars in both precious metals, currency, and, by the way, selling oil on the black market to the tune of about a million dollars a day, according to some analytical product, that means you have got a severely dangerous organization that is beheading people.

And here is the thing. This is exactly the kind of thing, beheading people, convert or die, burning religious relics from the past, just the sheer brutality of it is exactly what AQAP pitches. It's what Boko Haram pitches. When they took those 300 girls, that's what that was all about.

That's what they're practicing and putting into practice. That's why this policy of not dealing with it as an ecosystem, I think, is wrong and has caused the spread and danger of these organizations.

SCHIEFFER: Do we need -- should the United States go after these people that are in Syria right now? Some of them are opposing Assad, of course, but...

ROGERS: Well, you're not going to solve the ISIL problem in Iraq without dealing with the Syria problem.

And some notion -- I think the president said they're not related. They are absolutely related. As a matter of fact, their caliphate -- they believe their capital is going to be in Syria. And to say they're not related, I think just diminishes our opportunity for a strategic victory.

And you have got to show people of Mosul, people of these towns that have been captured that they have -- there's some hope here that folks are going to come and get them out of this mess. So, you have a lot of political dynamics in the Sunni vs. Shia. But all of the countries in the region, including Iran, all understand the threat that they pose to both their own regimes.

And this is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. SCHIEFFER: Well, we know of Hillary Clinton's famously argument -- famously arguing that we should have been aiding these rebels in Syria.

Should we now begin to aid them? Should the United States start to play a role there that we're not playing?

ROGERS: We should absolutely play a role there.

It gets dicier. The options we had two-and-a-half years ago aren't the options of a year ago, certainly aren't the options that we have available today.

One thing we're watching ISIL do is attack those same rebel groups who are fighting Assad for control. They want control of certain areas, certain resources. They have a long-term plan about where they're going that would establish their caliphate from Beirut through Syria through Iraq. So, they have a different attitude about when Assad goes down than these rebel groups.

Does it mean that we can find and facilitate some of these groups that would be at least more friendly to the United States? Absolutely. And it means that our Arab League partners who have been asking for help for about two-and-a-half years on this problem, we can re-rally their cause against this growing threat, ISIL, to again not only their regimes, but a clear and present danger to the United States.


SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about this situation in Ferguson.

We're seeing questions raised now. Perhaps this program that the Pentagon has had to sell or to give military equipment, surplus equipment to these police departments around the country, while it was a good idea, it seemed like good idea at the time, some people are saying maybe this militarization, this look that it gives local police forces may do more harm than good.

ROGERS: Well, every instance should be I think gone through very closely and tried to make sure that the equipment that they have is used in the right circumstance.

There are circumstances where police officers have been outgunned in the past, which got us to this SWAT teams, these tactical teams with heavier weapons, because they were outgunned. And it's all about that force continuum.

As a former FBI agent and a law enforcement officer, you're taught about that force continuum. And when do you escalate force? Obviously, your first goal is to de-escalate the problem. It appears that they may have reacted a little quickly with that -- on that force continuum when they decided to deal with the -- certainly the protesters.

Hard to say sitting 1,000 miles away. But I will tell you that you have to have at least police officers with the ability to have something to meet those particular challenges.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, Congressman.

ROGERS: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: Back in a minute.


SCHIEFFER: Call this a minority report, but I disagree with most of the pundits who thought Hillary Clinton stumbled last week when she criticized the president's foreign policy and then said she wasn't really criticizing it.

Of course she was. But I thought her point was valid. Around the White House, they have been saying the crux of the president's policy is, don't do stupid stuff. Her words: "Great nations need organizing principles. Don't do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle."

That really irked the president's people, but far more significant to me was what she said deeper in the interview, when she said: "What is needed is an overarching strategy to contain, deter, and defeat jihadist terrorism, a strategy much like strategy we employed to eventually defeat the Soviet Union during the Cold War."

I think she's got that right. And I think the president benefits from hearing it from someone in his own party. I don't care how many times you say Osama bin Laden is dead. Terror remains alive and a threat to the United States. What we need to be talking about is how to combat and defeat it.

Back in a minute.


SCHIEFFER: We will have a lot more on the state of race in America in light of the Michael Brown shooting. That's coming up, so stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now.

But, for most of you, we will be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION, so stay with us.


SCHIEFFER: Welcome back to Face the Nation.

And we have breaking news, CBS News Justice Department correspondent Bob Orr reports that the federal government will order its own independent autopsy. We'll have more on that as more details become available. We're here again with NAACP President Cornell William Brooks. He's joined by Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown University. Ruth Marcus and Michael Gerson are both columnists to the Washington Post.

Michael Eric Dyson, where are we on race relations in America in light of what's just happened?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, it's obviously a very tense time.

Look, what's happening there is not simply about St. Louis but it's about the nation. And St. Louis is emblematic, or at least Ferguson is at least Ferguson is emblematic of those larger shifts. You have got white flight of a formerly predominately white suburb, it's now, what, 65 percent black. You have got 22 percent poverty. You've got the overpolicing of an entire community who feel racially harassed by the police.

Every 28 hours across America a black person is killed by a security guard, a police officer, or some other executive of the state or police force.

So, this is an extraordinarily incendiary situation.

And look what has been done -- the militarization to which you referred has revealed itself to be something that is not effective when applied to American citizens. On top of that, the tone deaf police chief, the tone deaf mayor and the tone deaf governor have not added anything to the situation.

We understand they are in very difficult situations. He did, that is the governor, bring Ron Johnson in. "I'm from the community, I understand your plight and predicament, let me keep the peace while also understanding what you have to say is legitimate."

And finally I yearn for more response from the White House. This president knows better than most what happens in poor communities that have been antagonized historically by the hostile relationship between black people and the police department.

It is not enough for him to come on national television and pretend there is a false moral equivalency between police people who are armed and black people who are vulnerable constantly to this. He needs to use his bully pulpit to step up and articulate this as a vision, not necessarily in terms of public policy alone, because Eric Holder is doing a tremendous job in filling in those gaps, but we need presidential leadership. He needs to step up to the plate and be responsible.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Brooks, what is your response here to this action just announced by the Justice Department.

MICHAEL BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NAACP: I think it's incredibly encouraging. At this point in our nation's racial history, and particularly in Ferguson, Missouri, we have people on the ground who want to know that there are people in the White House who are listening to them, because they don't trust local authorities. So, I think this is a very encouraging development.

I would also note that the people that I met with are looking for a president and an attorney general who are responsive to what is happening on the ground. And the fact that you have army of FBI agents, the fact that there's been ordering of this second autopsy, all of this will be met with appreciation by folks who are looking for accountability.

SCHIEFFER: Michael Gerson, you know, the thing that's come up here that -- I am going to say never occurred to me, but I understand what they're talking about here, this idea of our police departments becoming overmilitarized as it were.

This seemed like a very good idea when the Pentagon started doing this. This is surplus equipment and so forth, there's no question that our police were being outgunned by some of these narco gangs and other things, terrorists and all of that, but it gives a different look to police departments, doesn't it?

MICHAEL GERSON, WASHINGTON POST: Oh, I agree with that. I'm from St. Louis. Ferguson is 20 minutes away from where I grew up. And you look at the images, and this is not home. You see the rubber bullets, and this is not the America that we know.

So there is an immediate reaction. I mean, there may be circumstances police require that in a major emergency, but as a first response it does have some problems.

I would say, though, it points out a couple of deeper things. One of them is, it takes years for police to develop trust with a community. You can't summon it at the last minute during an emergency. This is something that has to be consciously constructed. And this is a tough situation where you have massive demographic change and institutional lags. So the institutions don't look like the community. That is a serious challenge.

I would just throw in there that it also highlights a serious problem here with communities that are isolated from the broader progress of American society and prosperity of American society. And those problems are really concentrated with young African American males, where our main response to their challenges, their problems in America is either a squad car or a demand for child support. We have very little outreach to their concerns, their needs.

So I think it's a wake up call in this area, too, that's a context it's not an explanation or an excuse, it's just the context of what we face.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Ruth, I mean, it's almost like this police department, they had been living in some sort of time capsule and all of a sudden they open the door they came out and discovered, hey, it's not like it used to be.

RUTH MARCUS, WASHINGTON POST: And I think Michael is exactly right that you can't create this trust at the last minute, but you can make the situation way worse at the last minute, and that is exactly what we saw here. Cornell Brooks talked about the Keystone Cops and not being rude to the Keystone Cops, the difference is that Keystone Cops did not have rubber bullets and SWAT gear and armored vehicle. And that is a very, very dangerous thing.

And you have this paradox of the federal government simultaneously providing -- and I think this is a very useful time to reconsider the provision of this military equipment to jurisdictions around the country and making sure if they have it they know when it's appropriate to use and when it's not appropriate to use.

And then the important role of the administration and Justice Department in coming in. I think this news about the autopsy is very welcome, the FBI agents on the ground are very welcome.

I would say the only way, the only point on which I disagree slightly with what has been said before is I think the president is actually struck a very good balanced tone here, because he is at the head of a criminal investigation and he doesn't want to go too far in overstepping the bounds there while he wants to make sure that he calms the waters.

I think that the distinction between the tone that the administration has set here and the tone from state and local authorities with the exception of Captain Johnson in Missouri has center very, very striking.

DYSON: Let me say this. Right, I'm not talking about the tone alone, although that is critical. The president is always cool under fire, usually by bigoted racists who are assaulting him from various places along the ideological spectrum. What I'm talking about is leadership that is not simply a matter of tone, because the reality is there is no functional equivalence between police people who are armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry, trained at vulnerable black communities who are inflamed now as a result of decades of negligence.

The president has a responsibility to say, look, this is one of the key points we expect of him because of his unique experience. "As an African-American male I know what it means to not have an autopsy report released. I know what it means to have a young man besmirched posthumously with no relationship that we can tell between what that was about on that camera and how he died.

And I'm saying to you that if he could inform American society that, look, yes, we must keep them law, yes we must keep the peace, people must calm their passion, but let me explain to you why people might be hurt, why they might be angry and why they might be upset. That is his responsibility to tell that truth regardless of what those political fallouts will be.

MARCUS: I guess the facts of what they're doing to me, the FBI agents, the investigation, the second autopsy speak even more loudly than anything the president might be able to say.

DYSON: No, no, no. It's not either or. The president can -- look at LBJ, look at for god's sake look at even what Nixon vis-a-vis affirmative action. But look at what John F. Kennedy, look at what Bill Clinton did.

No, there is not an either or, you can deploy political strategies and public policies that. At the same time we need his leadership, his vision, his unique style. He's an oratorical genius. Deploy that in defense of the people from whom he learned that oratorical genius and to defend those vulnerable populations, especially white people whose white privilege in one sense obscures from them what it means what it means that their children can walk home every day and be safe. They are not fearful of the fact that somebody will kill their child who goes to get some iced-tea and some candy from a store. Until that quality is brought the president bears a unique responsibility and burden to tell that truth.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask Michael Gerson, you are seeing people on both sides, Republicans, Democrats taking different views. I was a little surprised, I don't know why, but I was a little bit that Rand Paul has stepped up and he says there should be a difference between a police response and a military response. He says it's one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime, it is quite another for them to subsidize it.

He seems to be making an appeal here, no question I think that he's trying to run for president. Were you surprised to see him step out?

GERSON: Not necessarily. This is a very consistent with his libertarianology -- distrust of authority in this case. And that oversteps its bounds.

So, I think that's fine.

I think he's very strange carrier of the message of outreach. This is a man who employed as a key staffer someone who called himself the southern avenger who was -- believed that you know said nice things about John Wilkes Booth. This is a guy who, when he ran for office, opposed the centerpiece of the Civil Rights Act.



In a real election, where Rand Paul faced Hillary Clinton, she'd eat him for lunch on these issues, because he is a deeply flawed representative of these ideas.

But the Republican Party does need to be engaged in outreach.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Brooks, let me ask you, you know, we're 50 years past the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. We've done broadcasts on it here. CBS has given extensive coverage to it.

Where do you think we are now? BROOKS: When you look at the criminal justice system and the Ferguson Police Department, it is a back to the past time machine. The criminal justice system reminds us as a nation just how deeply flawed we are with respect to race.

We see this pattern over and over and over again in terms of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, where you have an underwhelming minor offense met with overwhelming, major, often lethal use of force being played out around the country.

And the point being here is when we look at the ways in which black and brown teenagers are treated relative to white teenagers, there's something profoundly wrong here.

And so the point being here is this situation forces us, as a country, to basically say to ourselves, is Michael Brown my son, my grandson?

Does he have the same moral value?

And if the answer to that is yes, then we have to change the way we police, we have to change the way we run the criminal justice system.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you very much, all of you.

It's very illuminating.

And when we come back, Peter Baker of "The New York Times" and Gerald Seib of "The Wall Street Journal" will join the discussion, as we talk about the other big stories of the week, next.


SCHIEFFER: Well, we're back now to talk a little politics and policy.

Gerry Seib, the Washington bureau chief of "The Wall Street Journal" and Peter Baker, White House correspondent of "The New York Times," are with us, in addition to Michael Gerson and Ruth Marcus.

Well, just when we thought nothing else could happen, the governor of Texas finds himself indicted by a grand jury.

What's this about, Ruth?

MARCUS: Well, it's about a very complicated scenario involving a -- a local prosecutor looking at his effort to oust -- actually, a special prosecutor looking at his effort to oust a local prosecutor that was investigating his use of a cancer research facility and institute that might have been giving fine -- special contracts to supporters of his.

In other words, politics as usual.

The part that's not usual or that's becoming uncomfortably usual is the criminalization of politics. We've seen this before in Texas and elsewhere with the indictments of Tom DeLay. I'm not a fan of Tom DeLay, but his indictment was wrong. I said it at the time. His conviction has since been overturned. The indictment of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, which was rejected. And now the indictment of Rick Perry.

I kind of think -- and you would know better than me, Bob, what is Lyndon Johnson saying from the grave?

I think he is laughing about the notion that trying to get rid of political opponents or intimidating them is a criminal offense.

SCHIEFFER: Gerry, where do you think this goes?

Do you think it goes beyond just being political payback or?

GERRY SEIB, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I think it's complicated, because I suspect, first of all, I doubt it hurts Rick Perry a lot within the Republican Party to be in trouble for having gone after a -- what the Republicans see as a Democratic prosecutor who is trying to put Republicans in jail. I don't think that's a problem within the Republican Party.

And if Rick Perry wants to run for president, I don't think that's his problem.

I think the problem is it does create a huge distraction and it does get in the way of the process of getting out of the governor's office and moving onto a wide, smooth path toward the Republican nomination. And I don't think anybody doubts that's what Rick Perry has been setting out to do over the last few months.

SCHIEFFER: Peter, what's your take?

PETER BAKER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think what Ruth said and Gerry said is right. I mean it is interesting, because it does feel like a political dispute, right, a political dispute between actors in a political system. And that usually there are ways for the political system to respond to this, right?

And hate speech...

MARCUS: And we call them elections.

BAKER: Well, elections, impeachment, you know, hearings, overturning a veto, what have you. And it's a little surprising.

I think Gerry is right in the sense that Republicans will look at this as a partisan thing and they won't necessarily penalize him for that. But if the word indictment hangs over him, it's not a good thing. If you're running for office, you don't want the word indictment there. And it will cause time with lawyers and time in court and -- and time explaining yourself. And -- and that's a hard thing for new candidates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not a serious prosecution, but it's not a serious candidacy.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No one in the party, none of the donors are waiting, what will Rick Perry do, right now, because he had a very poor showing in the last -- last round. It makes sense for him to try to renovate his brand within the party, but I don't see much momentum there or prospect.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in Iraq right now. It looks like the air campaign entered a new phase, Peter. They're now going after these ISIL or ISIS people that have taken this dam, which apparently is -- is a very strategic dam, as it were.

BAKER: Right.

SCHIEFFER: I mean if it breaks, it floods all of Iraq, including Baghdad. It's a power source and all of that.

BAKER: Oh, it's hugely consequential. I mean the -- we've seen reports that as much as a 60 foot wall of water would be released if -- if the dam were suddenly burst. And that's obviously a strategic threat to -- to the -- to the Iraqi government and to, in fact, our own people in Baghdad, which is -- which would be one of the reasons why the Obama administration would justify attacks.

But what you see this week in -- in -- is really significant is that -- is the departure of Maliki, the prime minister. He's finally agreed to step down after eight years of -- of often very sectarian rule, alienating the Sunni population. The hope the Obama administration has is that his successor, his anointed successor, who's also a Shiite from the same party, but will be a more responsive and more inclusive figure, they're much more willing to get in bed with him to empower him against ISIS or ISIL than they were with Maliki.

So now there's a freedom now to be a little bit more engaged than they had felt before.

SCHIEFFER: Michael, that -- that -- that leads me, of course, to Hillary Clinton and her sort of split with the president this week. As you heard me earlier, I think she had a point when -- most of the attention was about the little zinger when she said, you know, don't do stupid stuff is -- is not what she called an organizing principle, but as you read that interview in "The Atlantic," she really kind of outlined her views, her overall views on foreign policy, including we must have a strategy to deal with these jihadist terrorists.

GERSON: Yes, with -- with a very serious interlocutor, Jeff Goldberg, who's very good at this. She was making an argument, not just that what we saw, you know, reported. This was that America has not been sufficiently engaged, particularly in Syria, as ISIS rose in Eastern Syria, then after the fall of Fallujah, then now with Mosul, that the United States needs an overall strategy, not just a series of reactions to events.

But how do you get on the offensive and start to build alliances and -- and well, contain and then destroy this -- this safe haven?

She was making that case. She was raising, again, the issue -- remember the 3:00 a.m. call the last time, when she ran about -- against Barack Obama, who do you trust at 3:00 a.m.?

I think she was kind of asserting, well, you should trust her. And maybe that was superior to the president she served. And it's true.

SCHIEFFER: You know...


SCHIEFFER: -- yes, Gerry...


SCHIEFFER: -- as Michael was pointing out to me, Barack Obama got the nomination and she lost it because he ran at her from the left.

SEIB: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: And now, some of her supporters are saying she'd better be careful, because people on her left within the Democratic Party might rose -- rise up and pose a threat...

SEIB: Right. Sure.

SCHIEFFER: -- if she does run for president.

SEIB: But on the other hand, I think the fact that she gave that interview and that she was so tough in it maybe says that she doesn't think there's a -- a plausible threat on the left coming in 2016 the way there was in 2008. And it's safe to move out now.

I just was going to add, though, I think there's an important point of context for what she said about Syria, which I thought I think we're at an inflection point on ISIS or ISIL, depending on what you want to call it, which is I think this is the time in which people are realizing, this is not just a passing threat, this is not just another terrorist organization, this is an organization that is both terrorist in nature, but has a military that's capable of taking and holding territory and that has much broader aims and it's not going to go away any time soon.


SEIB: And I think she was speaking into that context.


MARCUS: And... SCHIEFFER: We just heard Mike Rogers say that he thinks the -- there is a greater threat, terrorists pose a greater threat to America right now than they did before 9/11.

MARCUS: Exactly. And it's -- his message is the one you hear from others in the intelligence community and elsewhere, which is be very afraid. In fact, be more afraid than you should have been before 9/11, because of the competition between various terrorist groups to show their force and their capacity to inflict damage on the infidels, also known as us.

And the -- which I think is a reason why, just to bring back the politics for a moment, that Hillary Clinton is in a different situation in a potential 2016 run than she was in 2008, because there is not the revulsion now of -- against being involved in -- overseas, what -- where people look at this threat and begin to understand this threat.

I think this was a good week for the in -- what passes for a good week for the administration in Iraq, for the reasons that Peter says. We dealt with the -- hopefully, dealt with the humanitarian crisis of the Yazidis and finally, finally, finally got rid of Maliki. Whether the successor is capable of rising to the occasion remains to be seen.

But a fundamental question that Hillary Clinton raised but didn't answer, which is how we are going to deal with this looming, continuing, expanding threat from ISIS is going to be the central question, I think, that's going to dominate the rest of President Clinton's term and should be the central question...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. And that's...

MARCUS: -- of the 2016 campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The biggest tension and division in our politics right now is between the scale of the threat and the scale of the response, which doesn't seem anywhere near the scale of the threat described by the secretary of Defense, described by the attorney general.

MARCUS: The attorney general.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The real question is whether Barack Obama can make the mental transition from the ender of wars, which is the way he ran and won for president of the United States, to be the sworn enemy of ISIS, building a complex regional alliance to contain and destroy this. We've got two and-a-half of this administration.

Is that his intention?

We don't really know.

SCHIEFFER: We have to end it there.

To be continued, obviously.

And we'll be back in a minute.


SCHIEFFER: We lost a good friend last week. Dotty Lynch, who served as CBS News senior political editor for 20 years, died after a year long battle with melanoma.

Before CBS, Dotty was the first woman to be the chief pollster for a presidential campaign. She was hired by Democrat Gary Hart. She was among the first to understand the gender gap and the importance of the women's vote.

Here she is in an interview with CBS when she worked for Walter Mondale in 1984.


DOTTY LYNCH: Yes, I think it's unquestionable that women will elect the next president because women will make up 53 or 54 percent of the -- of the total electorate. So therefore they have the power to elect the next president.


SCHIEFFER: Dotty was right, but the majority of women voters didn't vote for her candidate that year. They voted for Ronald Reagan.

Dotty lived and breathed politics. She loved digging through the polling data and loved political gossip and chasing down political stories, skills that made her invaluable to our news organization.

But perhaps her greatest strength was her eye for young talent. Among the many at CBS News that Dotty hired as young researchers are Rob Hendin, the senior producer at FACE THE NATION, and Mary Hager, FACE THE NATION'S executive producer.

Dotty Lynch was 69 years old.


SCHIEFFER: That's all the time we have for today.

Thank you for watching FACE THE NATION.

We'll see you.

View CBS News In
CBS News App Open
Chrome Safari Continue
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.