Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Witness Saw Gunman Shooting Into Paris Cafe; Should U.S. Shift Strategy To Fight ISIS?; ISIS Threatens Attack On Washington. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired November 16, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:32:33] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: CNN does have more breaking news stemming from the situation here in Paris. ISIS issuing new threats in a just released video vowing to attack not just France but the United States.

The video says any country that takes part in the effort to fight in Syria will be targeted by them. This comes as Special Forces and police are all over Belgium, looking for who is believed to be an eighth attacker.

Remember, seven took their own lives here or were killed during the attacks in Paris. Now they are looking for an eighth. He remains at large.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Chris, joining us via Skype now is Mark Colclough, he was walking with a friend towards the Cafe Bonne Biere on Friday when he witnessed the terror beginning. Mark, thank you for being with us. Can you tell us what you were doing on Friday, where we you going and what you saw?

MARK COLCLOUGH, PARIS ATTACK WITNESS: Hello. We were talking home from a restaurant. We were vacationing in Paris. We were there for a conference and had taken the day off. And were just being tourists in Paris. And we had gone out for a dinner around 9:00 p.m. We decided to call it a day. We were making our way through Paris simply using Google Maps as our navigator to get home. At that point we --

CAMEROTA: Tell us what --

COLCLOUGH: Excuse me?

CAMEROTA: Yes, just tell us when you realized something horrible was unfolding.

COLCLOUGH: Yes, we came close to Cafe Bonne Biere and we heard an initial crack bang which we thought was fire crackers, a big one. I directly looked ahead of me. About 20 meters ahead of me, just off to the right I could very clearly see a gunman who had taking position in a tripod shooting position, was lean into his semiautomatic rifle.

[07:35:05] He swiveled to the right and he took three shots, instantly killing the three people, at least shooting the three people at the cafe. I could clearly see, to the right of him.

CAMEROTA: Mark, what was the gunman saying? How were they behaving?

COLCLOUGH: We weren't close enough to hear if they were saying anything at all. Because he was back lit, it was very hard for us to see any facial details clearly. We could see what he was doing. We couldn't hear if he was saying anything.

What we could see was that he intentionally shot at -- he took four shots at the three individuals. Then he took a step forward, swiveled it a little bit and put two rounds through a car, which was ten meters directly in front of him. I saw he shot the driver of the car.

CAMEROTA: And, Mark, what was happening? What was everyone doing while this was unfolding?

COLCLOUGH: Well, listen, I didn't see what was happening around. I was just watching the shooter and the carnage he was creating with his weapon. When I think back through my recollection, speaking with you now, what I recall most clearly are the sounds of his rifle.

I heard he was shooting, shoot, look, shoot, look, shoot, look, pause, as one does when one has military training. I assumed for a moment I was looking at perhaps a SWAT team or specialist team that were doing something in connection with a police investigation.

So even for the first second or two I had doubts about whether we had stumbled upon a police sting of some kind. It wasn't until he moved forward, stepping into the cafe. I saw him pan over the cafe with his rifle and I heard him open fire inside the cafe.

At that split second, I knew this was an attack against civilians. And I shouted to my travel friend that we should seek cover immediately.

CAMEROTA: Mark, it's so frightening and the idea that so many people witnessed these just unspeakable aftermath of these attacks, you know, it's of note that you are a psychotherapist. What do you do moving forward? How do you erase the psychic impact of everything that you saw Friday night?

COLCLOUGH: I think that's a very good point, Alisyn. It's not a question about erasing. It's a question about embracing it. Denial is a very powerful defense mechanism for any person alive. And it's through -- working through my feelings and working through especially what I see when I close my eyes, when I fall asleep, it's working through that process that I will be able to allow it to not become a traumatic episode for myself.

CAMEROTA: Mark, it's a challenge for you and everyone here in Paris. Thank you for sharing the story and we wish you all the best moving forward. Thank you for being here.

COLCLOUGH: Thank you very much, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: The French Air Force -- thank you. The french Air Force hitting ISIS targets in Syria following Friday's terror attack, as you know. So should the U.S. somehow be more involved, be more aggressive in the fight again the terror group? Martin O'Malley, Democratic presidential hopeful talks about the strategy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:41:28]

CAMEROTA: Well, no shortage of opinions when it comes to fighting ISIS. What is the best plan forward? The Democratic presidential candidates are in a tough position, trying to stand by the president in the face of growing frustration with ISIS' advances.

Joining us now is Democratic candidate and former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley. Governor, thanks so much for being here. Can you tell us where you were Friday night when you heard this news?

MARTIN O'MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, on Friday night I was in Iowa, I do believe, getting ready for the Democratic debate that was to follow the next day. This is -- ever since September 11th our world has changed.

We're in a new era of warfare. This is the reality we need to figure out how to deal with that's going to require new thinking. It's going to require fresh approaches. We have to be more adaptable and willing to adapt in the face of these new threats.

CAMEROTA: So let's talk about that, Governor. If you were president Friday night and you got word in the White House that there had been a terror attack in France and that ISIS was taking responsibility, what would you do?

O'MALLEY: Well, the very first thing that the commander-in-chief must do is protect the homeland. My thoughts would immediately go to our first responders and our own cities in the United States, in the event this is a coordinated attack or precursor to attacks here on our homeland.

Ever since the attacks of September 11th, I lived every day as a big city mayor and as a governor with the reality that attacks like this can happen here. They very much -- they very likely will happen here.

That is why we have to be more engaged in this world rather than less. This is not a matter of applying hard power or applying soft power. It's a matter of applying both.

But doing it in concert with and in coordination with other nations, especially those that are on the front lines of this new safe haven which has obviously been created by ISIS that allows them to perform the sort of training and the exercises and provide the financing for strikes against civilian targets, whether it's the airliner or there in Paris.

CAMEROTA: But Governor, when you say more engagement, does that mean boots on the ground in Syria to fight ISIS? O'MALLEY: Well, what it means is the president -- I've supported the president in calling for and indeed deploying more special operations advisers. I believe what you will -- I believe what you will see coming out of the talks that are upcoming is a much more coordinated international effort.

I think we need to have a political solution to the stability short term anyway about the questions of regime change in Syria that will allow the Russians and other partners to focus all of our attention on ISIS, if there is to be greater American involvement.

It's not going to be a matter of sending in the third marine division. It would be special operations, possibly in conjunction and possibly under NATO with close air support. That's the why these battles are actually fought in this new age of warfare.

May I also add something else, we need to ramp up what we're doing here in our own homeland. We forget the fact that when we cut our federal government year in and year out with the sequester cuts when we shut down the federal government, we're harming the ability of our own cities to prepare.

The ability of our state fusion centers to connect dots and share intelligence. This is not a matter of -- this is not just a matter of protecting and hitting ISIS in Syria or Iraq.

[07:45:11] It's a matter of protecting our homeland in smarter and more connected ways.

CAMEROTA: Governor, I want to ask you about something that came up Saturday night at the Democratic debate. Hillary Clinton was asked about her support for Wall Street. I want to play you her response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I represented New York and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown manhunt where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Governor, you heard there she got a lot of applause for that response, but you bristle at how she responded. What was the problem with it?

O'MALLEY: Well, she had a lot of friends in the hall, shall we say, Secretary Clinton has a lot of friends on Wall Street and those friends on Wall Street at the biggest banks have paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees and are the ones that will be guiding our country's economic policy should Secretary Clinton be elected president.

It's one of the big differences in this race. I thought that moment, frankly, was pretty shameful. I don't believe that the people watching were applauding the notion that Secretary Clinton was pumping up the smoke screen and wrapping herself in the tragedy of 9/11.

I don't think they saw that as something appropriate to do to mask her coziness and her closeness to Wall Street and all of the architects of the crash of 2008. One of the big differences in this race is economic theory between myself and Secretary Clinton.

Secretary Clinton subscribes to a sort of crony capitalism. Of the few, by the few and for the few, an economy that doesn't work very well for most of us, but works very well for the big banks of Wall Street.

I instead subscribe to traditional fair market American capitalism. I believe we should not be on the hook as taxpayers for the bad bets that are made by banks that have grown too big to manage on Wall Street.

That's a fundamental difference in this race. In that shameful moment I think Secretary Clinton was trying to pump out a smoke screen to cover her tracks on this one.

CAMEROTA: Governor Martin O'Malley, we appreciate you being on NEW DAY this morning. Thank you.

O'MALLEY: Thank you. Thanks very much.

CAMEROTA: Well, other candidates in both parties have been weighing in, of course, on the Paris attacks. Talking about how the U.S. should respond and the threat of terrorists disguising themselves as refugees. More on the impact of the attacks on the race for the White House, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:51:48]

CUOMO: You're watching a special edition of NEW DAY from Paris. The fears is what's going on in the hearts and heads of these people could be reflected anywhere in any major city in the world, certainly back in the United States.

That's why the question of what to do about ISIS is front and center once again in the U.S. presidential campaign. Let's bring in "Time" political reporter, Zeke Miller, and CNN political commentator, Peter Beinart, also a contributing editor at "The Atlantic."

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us. New word from Reuters of a threat from ISIS specifically on the United States, what do you think, Zeke, in terms of the political calculus changing because of what happened in Paris?

ZEKE MILLER, POLITICS REPORTER, "TIME": Certainly, what happened on Friday injected a new tone of seriousness in the race which has been dominated by personality and overarching focus on domestic issues, immigration, taxes. Now we'll see the role of commander-in-chief front and center once again, and seeing all of these candidates address what they'd do to this real threat.

CUOMO: Peter Beinart, as we just saw reflected in Senators McCain and Graham, quick and intense scrutiny of the President Obama, as having failed thus far. No plan in Syria and Syria is the root cause of what happened in Paris and the threat we face today.

However, let's go back two years. When President Obama was confronted about the red line, he wanted to, in response, bomb in Syria. He was pushed back by Congress. What about that and how did that set the stage for where we are now?

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, and you notice since then, Congress has been unwilling to vote on an authorization for war and significant measures because Republicans don't want to give the president more power.

I think that the truth is, it's easy to call for getting Syria in a strategy get against ISIS, but the reality is very difficult, if you mean more and more bombing for a strategy, that's not a strategy.

The conversation we need to have is what will it take to end the Syrian civil war? It's the Syrian civil war which is creating the climate in which ISIS is thriving. So bombing alone is not enough. There has to be a diplomatic strategy.

And I think it has got to do with America coming to some understanding with Iran and Russia, which are big players in Syria, about how we get the diplomatic solution there.

CUOMO: Zeke, Senator Graham said two things I want you to vet for me. The first was, he gave me pushback when I said the American political will among the citizenry to have boots in Syria or somewhere is low and has been.

He said, that's not what I'm hearing. Americans are willing to fight. He says the military believes 8,000 to 10,000 would be enough. I and others have reported and heard that they believe they need a much bigger force there to make a sustainable change. What's your take on those two?

MILLER: Certainly on the first point, whether the American public supports boots on the ground there, even when we saw 50 special operators go there, some of the polling that came out was mixed.

It comes down to how you ask the question. Certainly, President Obama was elected twice on a platform of ending war. There is a general appetite in the country of bringing the troops home. That's why you've seen, particularly in the Republican contest, the rise of candidates like Donald Trump.

[07:55:05] Even some support still for Rand Paul. Focus back at home rather than abroad. You know, if you were to poll this generally, maybe it depends on how you ask the question. Paris may change that, and we'll see in the next couple weeks.

On the issue of the troop levels, Senator Graham's number is roughly 10,000 American troops as part of an international coalition of 100,000. Certainly, is 100,000 enough? And are 10,000 American troops enough to lead a coalition of 100,000 regional troops?

Those are all things the military say it's an OK number. It's not clear he can get 90,000 other troops from the region, as he's been saying for a few weeks.

CUOMO: That's a huge concern that you outline there. Right now, you're basically zero, in terms of coalition troops on the ground actively fighting that fight. This controversial, short-term fix of arming the rebels and training them has had mixed results, to put it gently.

That takes us back to what the solution is in Syria. With the Taliban, al Qaeda, we saw a big ground force goes in, smashes the opposition, dot, dot, dot, then what? How big is that consideration in whatever happening in Syria?

BEINART: It's a tremendously big consideration. Syria is divided between multiple rebel groups. Putting the U.S. troops in the middle of that would be, I think, could make the situation our troops faced in Iraq in 2004/2005 look simple by comparison.

I think that the focus has to be on what it takes to end the Syrian civil war and moving towards a diplomatic solution. The good news is, all the major powers, whether they be the Saudis, the Russians, the Iranians, all have an interest in opposing is.

What they're divided about is who is going to run Syria. The more you can move toward some kind of negotiated compromise on Syria, the more you're able to turn people's attention in a more united way to fighting ISIS.

CUOMO: Zeke, how do you deal with that politically? We see what happens in a power vacuum. You saw it with the Taliban, an excellent example. Not exactly like ISIS, but they too were about ruling on the ground and creating their own quasi-governmental infrastructure.

We saw what happened, once they were removed and there was a vacuum, it was equal and maybe some would argue intensified. Syria is a similar model. Is there the political resolve, you think, to create the kind of change in strategy you need to make a different outcome in Syria?

MILLER: Certainly, that's the big open question, both for the White House and for the people who hope to occupy the White House in a year and a quarter. The White House is taking on the strategy, is strategic patience.

Having the administration set things up to keep as many doors to a possible diplomatic outcome or stable outcome available, and doing as few things now to close the doors.

The question is, looking at the Republican candidates, particularly in the field, they're divided, more bombs, fewer bombs, troops on the ground, no troops on the ground, no fly zone, yes, fly zone. At the end of the day, none of them have a vision for what that post -- what Syria looks like after ISIS is defeated or what it takes to get there. That's going to be the big test as we get beyond talking points and into substance in the coming weeks.

CUOMO: Zeke Miller, Peter, thank you very much. All of this set against the context of President Obama speaking later this morning, 10:30 Eastern Time in the U.S. how is he going to address what happened here in Paris, in light of what people see as his own failures up to this point in fighting against ISIS?

That's a big headline. We have new developments for you, as well, in the investigation surrounding the Paris attacks. Let's get to it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: France has been pierced at its heart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this is an assault on their lifestyle.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: When I went on the streets, I see 20 to 25 bodies lying on the floor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: French war planes attack the stronghold on Raqqah.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The U.S. was assisting with those French airstrikes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were raids that were carried out in Belgium.

CAMEROTA: This as the European manhunt intensifies for a Brussels born national.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it possible that groups like ISIS would use this flood of migrants to sneak more people in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The refugee of today may be the terrorist of tomorrow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This fight is getting closer and closer to the homeland.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a moment of silence here and being reflected around the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to keep going. We have to be strong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Hello. Thank you for joining us again this hour. You're watching a special edition of NEW DAY. Welcome to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world. Michaela Pereira is in New York monitoring headlines there. Chris and I are here in Paris with the breaking developments in the aftermath of Friday's terror attack.