Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Vikings Ban Adrian Peterson; Ray Rice Appeals Indefinite NFL Suspension; U.S. Combat Troops in Iraq

Aired September 17, 2014 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NISCHELLE TURNER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Now, Ray Rice's appeal didn't surprise us. We expected him to do that by midnight last night, but Adrian Peterson being re-deactivated, well, that one was a bit of a shock.

However, on Monday, the Vikings GM, Rick Spielman did parse his words during his press conference when he repeatedly said, quote, "Based on the facts we currently have, we are making this decision to reinstate him." Now, not sure what facts have changed today, but once again, their decision to bring Adrian Peterson back has.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TURNER (voice-over): It's a stunning reversal, star running back Adrian Peterson benched again. The Minnesota Vikings announcing just hours ago that Peterson will be required to remain away from all team activities until his legal proceedings are resolved.

The team had previously announced that Peterson, who is facing a felony child abuse charge, would be allowed to practice this week and play on Sunday's game against the New Orleans Saints.

In a statement, the Vikings ownership now says, "After further reflection, we have concluded that this resolution is the best for the Vikings and for Adrian. We want to be clear. We have a strong stance regarding the protection and welfare of children and we want to be sure we get this right."

ADRIAN PETERSON, NFL PLAYER: The first thing that comes to my mind is we need to get this process started immediately.

TURNER: This news coming shortly after Peterson was dropped by one of his most significant sponsors -- Castrol Motor Oil. The hotel chain Radisson also suspending its sponsorship of the Vikings, and advertising giant Anheuser-Busch weighing in saying it is, quote, "disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents involving players."

Also breaking this morning, the NFL Players Association formally filing its appeal of embattled running back Ray Rice's indefinite suspension. Rice was initially suspended for two games, but his penalty was increased once NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saw a video of Rice knocking out his then-fiancee. The union arguing that Rice cannot be punished twice for the same action when all the facts were available. The union also asking NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to recuse himself from the case.

ERIC WINSTON, NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT: Obviously, there's an issue with player conduct like you've been referring to. And maybe it's time to take that out of the commissioner's hands and put it into a neutral arbitration process where there can be a fair process for everybody involved.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TURNER: Now, we should say in the Peterson case, the Vikings said on Monday that they were aware of the other set of child abuse allegations that were leveled more than a year ago and about the current accusations Peterson's attorney says, quote, "Adrian never intended to harm his son and deeply regret the unintentional injury." Adrian has also defended himself saying he is, quote, "not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser."

So, there is still a lot to be sorted out here. And the courts are going to do a lot of it in his case.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: When talking about court, the court of public opinion, that needs to be a lot sorted out there as well.

TURNER: That is where everybody might have a problem that is affiliated with the NFL right now.

BOLDUAN: That's exactly right. Nischelle, thank you so much.

And reminder to all the viewers, coming up in just a few moments, we're going to be speaking with famed wide receiver, Keyshawn Johnson, to get his take on all of this.

Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Now, also breaking this morning, ISIS has released a new video in direct response to President Obama's plan to, quote, "degrade and ultimately destroy the terror group." The video seems to dare American troops to come after ISIS in Iraq. Take a look.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

CUOMO: Be careful what they asked for because this comes a day after a top general raised new concerns about the president's pledge not to send U.S. combat troops into Iraq.

General Martin Dempsey is the Joint Chiefs chairman. He is not a politician and is thus telling a different truth. He is not ruling out U.S. troops on the ground.

The White House insisting the general was only speaking hypothetically. This as the president prepares for a military briefing in Tampa on the campaign to fight is.

Let's get to Jim Acosta. He is joining us live from the White House this morning. You got the politics and you've got the practicality, my friend, and

the message lies somewhere betwixt it. It seems.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Always tough in this town, Chris. That's right. White House officials say General Dempsey's prepared testimony was vetted but that he was engaging, as you said, hypotheticals when he said he could recommend that U.S. ground troops be directed into combat roles against ISIS.

But the White House insists the president's pledge of no combat troops is not changing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA (voice-over): As President Obama landed in Tampa to hear from U.S. Central Command leaders orchestrating the fight against ISIS, the White House was busy clarifying some surprising statements from the Pentagon's top brass, on the role of U.S. military advisers in Iraq.

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: They are not participating in direct combat. There's no intention for them to do so. I've mentioned, though, that if I found that circumstance evolving, that I would of course change my recommendation.

ACOSTA: That comment, at a Senate hearing from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, put him at odds with President Obama.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These American forces will not have a combat mission. We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.

ACOSTA: Asked about that presidential pledge, Dempsey suggested there was wiggle room.

SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: Has the president ruled it out?

DEMPSEY: Well, at this point he's, his stated policy is that we will not have U.S. ground forces in direct combat. But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.

ACOSTA: White House officials tell CNN Dempsey is free to make any recommendations he chooses. But it's the president who has the final say.

Aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, "I'm confident that if you asked General Dempsey if he's on the same page as the commander-in-chief, that he would say that he is."

Still, administration officials acknowledge combat situations could always arise and that the hundreds of U.S. military advisers already on the ground in Iraq are authorized to defend themselves, which is why the president's critics say he's engaged in word games.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, first of all, the president is flat not telling the truth. We already have boots on the ground there. He knows we're going to have boots on the ground. Let's just go ahead and face it and admit -- we're in a war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: (AUDIO GAP) remarks after his meeting with CentCom officials but a White House official says the president is likely to repeat his pledge that U.S. troops are not returning to combat in Iraq. Also expected later today, the House is set to vote to authorize the Pentagon to train Syrian rebels to battle ISIS but, of course, up on Capitol Hill, nothing is a sure thing, Chris.

CUOMO: That's for sure. They have to figure out who's going to be doing the fighting because the ground will become relevant. That is for sure.

Jim Acosta, thank you very much.

Kate?

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about all of this. Let's bring in the former speaker of the House, host of CNN's "CROSSFIRE," Newt Gingrich.

Newt, it's great to see you.

NEWT GINGRICH, CNN HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Good to be with you.

BOLDUAN: What do you make of General Dempsey's comments? I mean, they clearly lit a fire in Washington yesterday. Are they -- is he -- is he being realistic or is he different from the president?

GINGRICH: Look, General Dempsey has a professional obligation under our Constitution. If he is asked a question about his professional judgment by the Senate or the House, he has an absolute duty to tell them what he professionally believes.

Now, he is clearly going to obey the commander and chief, he should, that's the constitutional system. But any time a House or Senate member can phrase a question cleverly enough, any honest professional is going to have to give them an answer, even if it makes the president uncomfortable.

And look at Dempsey's position. His job as the leading soldier, leading military figure in the United States is to think about the military requirements of the task he's been given. And he is not going to rule out circumstances where he has to recommend that we send ground troops and you can imagine circumstances of an ISIS offensive genuinely threatening to overrun some place and the only solution being a specific landing of American forces capable of defeating him.

So, Dempsey is trying to tell the truth within the framework of being loyal to the commander-in-chief. The commander-in-chief I believe is following a policy that verges on utterly irrational and was illustrated --

BOLDUAN: Why?

GINGRICH: Well, it's illustrated by Secretary Kerry the other day, who got on in this very convoluted conversation about whether or not we are at war, and explaining we're really not at war because we are doing this.

Look, either ISIS is so terrible because they behead people, because they represent a threat of terrorism that we have to defeat them, or what are we doing there? Now this idea, look, only going to engage to the point we get allies and not going to do this if they don't do that. This is nonsense.

Either this is a direct mortal threat and we have to defeat them or this is not a direct threat and what -- why are we wasting time and energy?

BOLDUAN: Well, it seems Secretary Hagel seemed to clear that up yesterday, though you make a valid point about what Secretary Kerry said previously. I mean, he said very clearly, we are at war with ISIL as we are with al Qaeda.

But when it comes down to it you talk about do you -- do you think Dempsey's forecasting the inevitable?

GINGRICH: No.

BOLDUAN: Do you think that U.S. combat troops are going to be needed to defeat ISIS?

GINGRICH: Well, I wish this morning that the president of CentCom was asking the question you just asked. Look, we can -- we can basically pay for, train and equip 30 or 40 local soldiers for every American. I mean, American forces are very expensive and they respect a real risk to our young men and women.

If we don't want to send ground troops, then we better design a plan to be training pretty substantial number of local people and not just in Syria and Iraq.

BOLDUAN: You don't think $500 million is substantial -- will train and arm a substantial enough force in Syria?

GINGRICH: No. I think this is the beginning and again, the president ought to be honest. We are going to be in this campaign and I think Hagel's trying to be honest about this, we are going to be in this campaign as long as it takes. It is a real war.

And remember, the first time you use air power effectively, all of the forces of the Islamic State are going to hide in cities. We're going to be right back in the same mess and the first time that we hate mosque or we hit a hospital or we hit a school, you're going to have all sorts of public relations problems.

These people aren't stupid. And they are going to react in a modulated way to what we do and you've got to plan this campaign to last, I think, a long time, well beyond Barack Obama's presidency.

BOLDUAN: Newt, put your former speaker hat on on this one because this is an important vote that could be happening, likely going to be happening later today in the House. This, of course is to authorize -- authorize to arm and train the moderate rebel -- rebel forces in Syria.

Do you -- what do you make of this vote, because there is clearly a lot of politics at play when they are trying to tack it on to a must- pass bill to keep the government funded.

GINGRICH: Sure. I suspect Speaker John Boehner is going to do everything he can to make sure the bill passes. I think he is also going to say to the White House, you had better deliver a pretty good number of Democrats on this bill because there will going to be some Republicans who vote no.

But I think Boehner understands fully -- I mean, he has been much tougher and much more direct than the president. And if I were -- if I were speaker, I'd be pretty close to where John Boehner is

BOLDUAN: Yes, but he's also been really tough on the fact he thinks the president has overstepped his constitutional bound in what the president has kind of gone it alone on doing and now, you see the exact opposite.

Gloria Borger pointed this out in her column, makes an absolute valid point, the exact opposite situation here, which we are not going to hold a stand-alone vote because we are waiting for the president to ask for it. It seems absolutely counter to what Boehner believes.

GINGRICH: First of all, today, there is a stand-alone vote and it's going to be a vote on whether or not to send the $500 million and authorize the development --

BOLDUAN: What about the future use of authorization? Future enforcement?

GINGRICH: I think there should be one. But here's part of the challenge you have and I went through this with the Bush administration in 2001 because their lawyers did not want a declaration of war against the Taliban and against al Qaeda. And I thought at the time we should have a declaration of war for a lot of reasons.

You got to get the executive branch, the president, and the secretary of state, to tell you what they want. Do they want a declaration of war against ISIS? Do they want an authorization of force? I mean, what's the thing that they believe they need?

And this is where you're not going to get to solve before the election because Congress are going to go home.

BOLDUAN: So, you don't think Boehner's being too cute on this one and hiding behind?

GINGRICH: Well, look, I think this is historic. A lot of thing goes in the city are politics. This issue of how we go about defeating radical Islamism is about history, it's about our civilization. It's a big, big serious thing. I would hope when they come back after the election that the president

and the congressional leadership will have found a formula and I would hope that they would vote this fall on an explicit authorization that commits the Congress, not just the president, but the Congress to winning this war.

BOLDUAN: Newt, it's great to see you. It's great to have you on.

GINGRICH: Great to be with you.

BOLDUAN: All right. Talk to you soon.

We also have new details on a New York man accused of recruiting fighters for ISIS and plotting to kill U.S. service members.

And also this ahead, Adrian Peterson benched once again while Ray Rice is fighting. He is appealing his suspension.

Advertisers are responding to the turmoil in the NFL. We are going to speak with NFL veteran, Keyshawn Johnson, about what this all means for the players and the league.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Charges this morning against an American citizen accused of providing material support to ISIS. A grand jury in Upstate New York brought a seven-count indictment against this young man, 30-year-old Mufid Elfgeeh, pardon me. He is accused of trying to help three men traveled to Syria to join ISIS. He's also accused of plotting to kill U.S. service members.

I want to discuss it all with CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director, Tom Fuentes.

Tom, thanks so much for joining me to talk about this.

This is a shocking and upsetting development to a lot of people. Feds say he was plotting and supporting this 30-year-old Yemeni-born shop owner. Seven counts. This is a bad dude.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, Michaela, exactly what the authorities have been worried about and this has been happening, actually, for more than a decade, where people are trying to recruit others to go join jihad in some country or other. We have had this already happening in the Somali communities, going to Somalia, going to other countries and seen it with al Qaeda in the past, seeing it with ISIS now.

And, you know, the problem is you cannot contain the ideology. So, as long as these guys can use the Internet, and now add social media on top of that, it makes it quite easy for them to use these techniques for recruiting.

PEREIRA: But it also makes it easy, that tweet footprint, the guy was sending out tweets, as you mentioned, makes it easier for law enforcement to follow, monitor, et cetera. I want to talk about something I found particularly interesting. This

indictment alleges that, you know, he paid for passport costs, coordinated travel, connected his recruits with ISIS contacts there. This guy kind of had some juice. This is a big get.

FUENTES: Well, it s and you know, this is the fear, that guys like this in our country are able to not just get people to decide to join ISIS but actually assist in helping them get there.

PEREIRA: Correct.

FUENTES: And the problem with trying to track who goes and when they come back is that if he can get them into a country in this case, that was going to fly them to Dubai, but if he gets them into, let's say Eastern Europe --

PEREIRA: Yes.

FUENTES: Greece even, it's not just across the land border of Turkey into Syria, but they can arrange for boat travel to sneak them into Syria across the water and their passports will never show anything other than maybe they flew to Paris or Frankfurt or somewhere in Europe and then flew back from that location.

And it won't show if they went by boat or land into Syria, joined the cause, fought, became trained terrorist and then returned to the U.S. or Western Europe. That's the biggest fear.

PEREIRA: You know, it's interesting you talk about borders, as we have been watching Congress debate this ISIS strategy that the president's laying out, some lawmakers have sort of said we have to look at our own borders, Canada and Mexico, and sort of let's say, look, they could get over the border here, those ISIS fighters.

But this story, this case points to the fact that there could be a threat here or could grow here.

FUENTES: That's exactly what everybody's worried about. And is somebody in Rochester, New York, it's not in the heart of New York City, where we think that you know, recruiting could go on in one of the mosques there. You know this is in a different part of the country, it can happen in the Midwest, it can happen in the West Coast.

So, that's the problem with it. You know, we have this effort to contain Ebola and try and quarantine people who have the disease and quarantine the doctors who treat it, but you can't quarantine an ideology and that's what we are fighting.

This whole debate about ISIS is two things, one is ISIS has a war machine, much like a conventional army, an occupying territory around that can have a military outcome, a military effort to defeat that but the ideology that these people are being recruited to go all over the world to join one group or another, whether it's -- whether it's al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen or Nigeria or Somalia or in this case, in the Middle East. PEREIRA: So, Tom, here, speaking to your point of ideology and

another tool they have in their arsenal, I want to show you this video that has surfaced overnight, put out by ISIS, take look and I want to talk to and you get your gut reaction on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: This is a slickly produced, almost like Hollywood-type trailer. Obviously, propaganda. You see more to come at the end of it.

What is your reaction when you see this? It's far cry from those grainy al Qaeda videos that we saw years ago, getting a little more sophisticated in their propaganda.

FUENTES: Oh, absolutely. And we as adults are shocked and outrage and oh this is terrible. Kids see this every day, the war game video, if you have seen any of these videos, there's nothing more graphic or violent or slickly produced that, you know -- so they are completely desensitized to this.

And to many young men that looks like an exciting way to go, join the cause go over there, be a war fighter, be a hero. You know, they look at this as a great opportunity.

PEREIRA: Thus the concern. Tom Fuentes, always great to have you on our air. Thanks for joining us.

FUENTES: Thank you.

PEREIRA: Adrian Peterson banned by the Vikings, advertisers responding to all the turmoil gripping the NFL this season. We're going to speak with Super Bowl champ, Keyshawn Johnson, about what it all means for the league, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: We are following breaking news for you this morning about the Minnesota Vikings reversing course on star player, Adrian Peterson. They have now banned him indefinitely, calling it exempting him from team activities, but it's the same thing and it's going to be pending the outcome of his child abuse case.

The team, remember, had just reinstated Peterson for this Sunday's game. Meanwhile, former Baltimore Raven, Ray Rice, filed an appeal with the NFL over his suspension, hoping to get back in the game. He has probably got a good case for that as well.

Joining us is 11-year NFL veteran and Super Bowl champion, Keyshawn Johnson. Keyshawn currently an analyst on ESPN's NFL countdown, most notably, former Jet, that's what matters most, Keyshawn.

So, let's put the game aside there are bigger issues. Adrian Peterson, did the team make the right move?

KEYSHAWN JOHNSON, ANALYST, ESPN NFL COUNTDOWN: Morning, Chris. I think the team definitely maid the right move. When you look at this situation, when it first started, doesn't know the seriousness of it until you actually got a visual of those pictures. So, the team definitely responded in a manner think will make people -- most people very happy.

CUOMO: Now, what about the usual pushback from the players association and lawyers who say he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, why are you depriving him of his ability to take care of his family, pending due process?

JOHNSON: You know what, Chris, due process -- I'm a firm believer in due process but how much evidence do you need when there's pictures sitting right in front of your face?

And when you're talking about a 4-year-old child here, I mean, you know, I understand to a degree, what Adrian Peterson was trying to do, but yet sometime, it's a beating, there's lacerations, there's bleeding.

You know, as a child myself, I got the switch. I got the lesson. But I did not bleed. My parents, my grandmother, nor my aunt went that far with it.

So, when you look at this I think when you speak to most American people or in particular males that I've spoken to, they've all pretty much gotten some sort of discipline less, but not to this degree.

I think this is a little bit overboard for Adrian. I think the Minnesota Vikings did the right thing. And when you look at it as a whole, you have to -- the National Football League as well as the Minnesota Vikings, they have to get ahold of this.

They cannot allow this thing to continue to operate this way, get out of in front of it, and that's exactly what they did.

CUOMO: Now, what's your means to players like Reggie Bush who say, hey, I got a 1-year-old and I hit my 1-year-old if I have to discipline them. What do you want players to start doing? Should they be supporting this type of behave or, should they be shutting up? What do you think they should do?

JOHNSON: I don't think you support this type of behavior. You think about it I'm 42 years old. At 35 years ago, yes, discipline your children by getting a switch or a belt, that may have been the way.

We are in a totally different society now. And society's not going to put up with that.

I have kids. I have four. I have a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old. Whenever I want to get their attention, I raise my voice. Stern. I give them a look. And they understand.

I don't need to yank them, grab them, spank them, do anything like that. Every now and then, you may pop them on their hand and get their attention if they go to touch a hot stove or something along those lines.