[John Vause, Cnn Anchor:] You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.
[Isha Sesay, Cnn Anchor:] Ahead this hour, the back and forth between North Korea and the United States takes another sharp turn. Kim Jong- un's regime accuses Donald Trump of declaring war on their country.
[Vause:] Plus America's team takes a knee. Join the growing list of NFL players, described by the U.S. president as those sons of you- know-the-rest-rant of witches and they should all be fired.
[Sesay:] Also ahead, horrific devastation on Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, but help has been slow to arrive in the U.S. territory.
[Vause:] Hello, everybody, thank you for being with us for another hour. I'm John Vause.
[Sesay:] And I'm Isha Sesay. This is NEWSROOM L.A. Well, the fiery language between the U.S. and North Korea is reach reaching a dangerous new level.
[Vause:] And that's raising fears of some kind of miscalculation which could lead to being a military confrontation. North Korea's foreign minister says the U.S. president has declared war after a tweet claiming North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un won't be around much longer if he follows through on his threats against the U.S. or its allies.
[Ri Yong-ho, Foreign Minister, North Korea:] Since the United States declared war on our country, we will have every right to make all self-defensive countermeasures including the right to shoot down the United States strategic bombers at any time even when they are not yet inside the aerospace border of our country.
[Sesay:] Well, U.S. bombers flew in international airspace close to North Korean's coast just Saturday, but the White House insists there's been absolutely no declaration of war.
[Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House Press Secretary:] We've not declared war on North Korea, and frankly, the suggestion of that is absurd. It's never appropriate for a country to shoot down another country's aircraft when it's over international waters. Our goal is still the same: we continue to seek the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
[Sesay:] Well, U.S. Defense official says naval exercise with South Korea will go on as scheduled next month. CNN's Ben Wedeman is in Tokyo and joins us now. So, Ben, as you speak to people here in Japan, obviously, they're well accustomed to the fiery rhetoric from North Korea. Do they do they feel that this is more of the same just bluster with this talk about the U.S. declaring war, or does it feel different?
[Ben Wedeman, Cnn International Correspondent:] It's definitely different, Isha because they are accustomed to this sort of bluster going back many years. The difference is that within the last month, North Korea has fired two missiles over Japanese territory. And in addition to that, we did hear Ri Yong-ho, the Foreign Minister of North Korea, saying that North Korea might explode a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. And the assumption here is that that would mean that they would fit a missile with a nuclear warhead and fire it over Japan. So, as opposed to just talk, they're actually seeing real action taking place, and that is really kind of shifted the whole atmosphere. And that explains, for instance, why last night Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister, has called for snap elections to be held on the 22nd of October because he has seen sort of the Kim Jong-un effect, so to speak, in politics of people rallying around the leader who just a few months ago had his approval that levels around the levels that President Trump is enjoying, if you can use that word. So, definitely, there has been an effect on politics and simply the state of mind of people here in Japan in the last month, Isha.
[Sesay:] Ben, you made the point of the effect on politics and state of mind. What about defensively speaking to the extent that Japan can take steps? Does this heightened rhetoric add to, of course, the actions of flying two missiles over Japan in the recent weeks? Are we seeing a focus, a renewed focus on stepping defensive efforts in Japan, and, of course, U.S. allies of South Korea?
[Wedeman:] Well, certainly, in Japan, we've seen in the last few months they've beefed up their anti-missile capability with patriot missiles deployed in Hokkaido, the Northern island of Japan where those missiles actually flew over. And of course, there is continued pressure or rather Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister, is calling for the modification of Article 9 of the Pacifist Constitution imposed by the United States after World War II. He would like to see Japan have a proper military force. At the moment, they have what's known as the self-defense forces which are restricted by the Constitution from being deployed abroad. They have, in the past, deployed peacekeepers with the United Nations, but, as I said, their mandate is strictly limited. And that, Shinzo Abe, would like to change if, of course, he's given the mandate to do so in this election. So, definitely, the whole sort of footing of the country could change if this nuclear crisis continues to become more aggravated. Isha.
[Sesay:] Ben Wedeman joining us there from Tokyo, Japan. We appreciate it. Thank you.
[Vause:] OK. More now on the situation in North Korea. We're joined now by Maj. Gen. Mark MacCarley, Paul Carroll, Senior Adviser at N Square which aims to reduce the risk from nuclear weapons. Paul, first, to you. Here's an anecdote from a reporter with the New Yorker who was in Pyongyang, when he asked a Senior Diplomat, named Jo Chol- su, to respond to a Trump tweet about Kim Jong-un. So, "he asked me to read it out allowed and he jotted it down as I read it. When I was done, Jo looked up and said," through his translator, "'once more, please.'I read the tweet again. Jo stared at his paper." That seems to be a pretty good example of how the North Koreans are just baffled to say the least by, you know, how this U.S. president expresses himself and the sheer confusion at times among the North Koreans.
[Paul Carroll, Senior Adviser, N Square:] Yes, it's the proverbial, you know, palm to the forehead, so to speak. And I think that is the difference today in what we are seeing in the rhetorical exchanges between Pyongyang and Washington. A couple of things have changed. I mean, the North Koreans have demonstrated a greater capability and more consistency in both their rocket and their nuclear tests. You add to that a president, a U.S. president who, while surrounded by some very seasoned and measured advisers, goes off script. And the question is: will he literally will go off script with the United States military? Will he respond to a North Korean provocation with as they say kinetic response? That is the type of thing that can easily snowball into a war, and in this case, a nuclear war.
[Vause:] And, General MacCarley, on the flip side of all of this, is it fair to say that the U.S. president doesn't really understand how the North Koreans talk a well? They've been making the top threats against the United States, South Korea, or Japan for years, and most of the time, it's purely for domestic consumption.
[Maj. Gen. Mark Maccarley, Deputy Commanding General, United States Army:] John, if this were merely a, you know, war of words as North Korea and the U.S. engaged in that type of conversation for and since the Korean War, then, I don't think we have the level of concern that we are addressing tonight. But as other speakers have discussed, you have the confirmation of the ability of North Korea, really, for the first time to deliver nuclear weapons. It went forward with the nuclear test of significance on September 4th. It established, quite clearly, that it could successfully miniaturize deliverable nuclear systems that could be emplaced on intermediate-range missiles and intercontinental missile. So, you add this all together, and all the sudden, what was once a somewhat humorous, a matter of concern to some extent exchange between world leaders. Whether it was Kim Jong-un's father, his grandfather, and the then current president or that young president at that particular point in time have significantly escalated. And now, the question is: whether in this war of words, both sides understand that those words have significance. And in some senses, they are fighting words and potential is the misinterpretation and miscommunication which could be a precedent to war.
[Vause:] OK. So, to Paul, over the weekend, there was this very big anti-U.S. rally in Pyongyang. So, with that as the background here, explain, you know, the sacred position, the ruling family in North Korea has in politics you know, like Asian Emperors. So, is it possible given that President Trump could be goading the North Korea into some kind of response by insulting Kim Jong-un?
[Carroll:] I think that's precisely what he's doing. And as the general said, this is exactly what a U.S. president should not be doing. It's one thing to show that you have a determined U.S. military and allies in the region and that you've got their back. It's another to taunt a leader whose entire existence is one in the same with his state it's like Napoleon in France. And to insult Kim Jong-un personally, as reprehensible as a leader and a dictator as he may be, you're driving him into exactly the corner you don't want to drive him into. Now, I do want to offer one small beam of hope and that is this: Kim Jong-un's sole priority is survival. His own survival and the survival of his family dynasty. And so, if we think about that as a way getting out of this mess without stumbling into war, what are things that the U.S. and the allies can do to send signals to Kim Jong-un that, look, you can get out of this, but there are things that you need to do to get out of this. And if you begin to take those steps, we will take some steps. That is what is absent from this rhetoric.
[Vause:] The other thing, too, which we have at present though, is this risk of miscalculation. So, general, you know, in World War I,
[Daniel Ellsberg, Former U.s. Military Analyst:] Well, I'm glad a career came running in with a flash cable saying that American warships were under attack in the Tonkin Gulf off the coast of North Vietnam. And I was getting these because my boss was already down the hall with McNamara picking targets to retaliate against, against North Vietnam. Minute after minute, more cables came in three torpedoes have been fired. We are taking ease of action. In about 1:30, our time, comes new cable from the Commodore of the two ships hold everything in effect. All previous reports of torpedoes are in question.
[Vause:] So, general, you know, there's always this dangerous starting of war, and it often is not how people thought it could start. But it's underway, there's just no turning back.
[Maccarley:] Right. It's irreversible and you don't really know what the outcome is regardless of the enthusiasm or the interest of a nation, the nation's leader, and starting a war that should never have taken place. Look, I think that historical references have great value and there are multiple instances in history in which statements have been made with the intent my view is, with the intent to find justification for war. And since we're looking at the Gulf of Tonkin, and we have Dan Ellsberg who's made that wonderful commentary which was incorporated in the documentary we saw a couple of nights ago. You know, that was an issue. That was an instance in which we had a president of the United States who, for a lot of reasons, was committed to moving forward to, from his perspective, restoring democracy and stability in Vietnam. And whether it was this alleged attack on the USS Mattox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, or it could have been any incident whatsoever. He needed a justification for going to Congress to secure that Tonkin Golf Resolution which justified going to war. Frankly, we went from 28,000 advisers in early '64, and by a year later we were up to almost 200,000. And we can look at any number of incidents, historically, in which there has been a misinterpretation, words have been used, words have been used to initiate action which culminates in war and horrific loss of life.
[Vause:] In Vietnam's case, it was 54,000 dead Americans when it was all said and done. General MacCarley and Paul Carroll, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.
[Sesay:] Well, with us now, Democratic Strategist Matthew Littman and CNN Political Commentator and Republican Consultant John Thomas. Guys, thanks for sticking around. John, to you. I mean, the president has consistently, in recent weeks and months, really, drawn these red lines which Kim Jong-un continues to leap over. I mean, he's like high-jumping over them at this stage. At some point, doesn't this just become an issue of credibility for the president which kind of pushes him into taking some action?
[John Thomas, Cnn Political Commentator And Republican Strategist:] I mean, it does. But I think the president, initially, his strategy was to re-define America as a powerful entity something like Barack Obama drew a literal red line that other people would step over. So, he's trying to reposition him, but, obviously, Kim Jong is as full of bluster as the president is. So, he is putting our back up against a wall. But let's not forget, there is a diplomatic component. Things are sanctions are being talked about. I thought Trump's speech at the U.N., did strike the right tone. But, look, at the end of the day
[Sesay:] Not many people in the room, judging by the commentary afterward.
[Thomas:] That may be true, but as an American, I felt it was the right tone. But I think I think the key thing here to remember is, what you were talking about earlier is North Korea is concerned about self- preservation. So, that's really the only chit we have in this process.
[Vause:] Matt.
[Matthew Littman, Democratic Strategist:] Donald Trump's staff asked him to not personally attack the leader North Korea at the U.N. Donald Trump couldn't help himself, that's what he does. So far, what is the good of what Donald Trump is doing, he keeps saying over and over again: North Korea shouldn't do this, can't-do this, we're going to destroy them if they do this, and they keep acting. Every other week there's some new test, a missile flies over Japan. The other thing is from the North Korean perspective: Saddam Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons he's dead. Gaddafi didn't have nuclear weapons he's dead. Kim Jong-un wants to stay in power, and the way that he sees himself being able to stay in power is by having nuclear weapons. So, that's what he's doing.
[Sesay:] But to add to that. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you, but just to follow his line of thought, then you add to that the Iran deal that this administration wants to rip off. I mean, if you're North Korea
[Vause:] Why make a deal?
[Littman:] Let me just say that I don't think that a lot some people in the administration wants to rip this up. Donald Trump clearly wants to rip it up. I think there are a lot of people don't think that would be a bad idea because we're preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for ten years. Now, getting Iran all this money, I think, is terrible. But we are preventing the situation with Iran that we're having with North Korea.
[Thomas:] Or delaying the imaginable. We'll have another North Korea on our hands.
[Littman:] Could you imagine. It's actually not necessarily inevitable, but, yes, could you imagine if we were doing right now, North Korea and Iran at the same time, which is what Donald Trump is talking about doing.
[Vause:] So, John, when the president says North Korea is developing an ICBM that will reach the United States, will not happen, and then it happens. And then, he says, if they threaten or carry out, you know, other tests, you know, there'll be fire and fury and we're locked and loaded to respond, and he doesn't follow through. How does that strengthen the U.S. position in the world, when, essentially, it's bluster with nothing to back it up?
[Thomas:] Well, it's funny. On the one hand, you're advocating that we shouldn't go in and go to war, and Trump is using restraint
[Vause:] I'm saying he shouldn't say it in the first place because it's nonsense with all the excuses.
[Littman:] You said that Obama has literally drawn a red line, which he certainly did not literally stand there and draw a red line.
[Thomas:] He did. He
[Littman:] But Barack Obama said that they talk about Syria, you're right. Donald Trump has now said 15 different things that North Korea shouldn't do, and they just keep doing it.
[Vause:] So, how does that strengthen the U.S. position, though?
[Thomas:] Well, I think just in general, the U.S. needs to project more strength.
[Vause:] Is that projecting strength, though? Listen to
[Thomas:] It is. And in a way, I like the idea that Kim Jong might think Trump is crazy enough that he might actually
[Littman:] So far, nothing has happened that we'd wanted to happen with North Korea since Trump became president. None of this has worked out so far. When Barack Obama was president, we didn't have the exact same problem. We always have problem three.
[Thomas:] They didn't have the missiles that they're testing.
[Littman:] But they're testing every week.
[Thomas:] You're right. Because Obama put us in this situation.
[Littman:] He certainly didn't put us in the situation. The situation has gone on for a long time and they're doing it more under Donald Trump. Donald Trump keeps saying we're going to
[Thomas:] You're right because it wasn't stopped earlier. So now, we're stuck in this rotten situation.
[Littman:] He hasn't acted. So, what's going to happen? How is that to the best of the world?
[Thomas:] Well, General Mattis says that we have military options that do protect Seoul and can neutralize their military
[Sesay:] OK. So
[Thomas:] isolation.
[Vause:] I can't wait to see that turn to pixie dust.
[Sesay:] Yes.
[Thomas:] I mean, I can just listen to what the general said.
[Vause:] Well, OK.
[Sesay:] All right.
[Vause:] I hope so.
[Sesay:] For everyone's sake. There are millions of people's lives at stake, so we all hope so. Gentlemen
[Vause:] Gentlemen, thanks, guys.
[Sesay:] Thank you.
[Vause:] OK. Short break. President Trump taking new shots at pro athletes who kneeled during the national anthem. How the White House is now playing defense, more on that in a moment.
[Sesay:] Plus, if you thought German politics were boring, think again. Historic breakthrough for the far-right followed by leadership walk out and a party, in total disarray. Stay with us.