Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Secrets of Bin Laden Treasure Trove; Bin Laden Obsessed with Killing Americans; ISIS Militants Close to Ancient Treasure; ISIS Forces Iraqi Troops Out of Ramadi; War Against ISIS. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 20, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 10:00 p.m. in Islamabad, 2:00 a.m. in Pyongyang, North Korea. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We begin with the largest release of Osama Bin Laden documents ever. The correspondence was confiscated by U.S. Navy SEALs the night Bin Laden was killed. They paint a complex picture of the former Al Qaeda leader revealing the human side of Bin Laden and reminding us of his terrorist side. Among the 103 documents just released, there is extensive cooperation with other leaders of Al Qaeda as well as Al Qaeda's communications with terrorist groups around the Muslim world.

In sharp contrast in the letters he exchanged with his extended family, there are surprisingly some heartfelt messages to his children and one of his several wives. And Bin Laden's digital library revealed, he read everything from Obama's war by Bob Woodward to Noam Chomsky's latest book as well.

Let's delve deeper into all of these documents. Joining us now, CNN's National Security Analyst Peter Bergen, he's also the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden from 911 to Abbottbad."

Also with us, CNN Counterterrorism Analyst, the former CIA counterterrorism official, Philip Mudd. And CNN Global Affairs Analyst, the former U.S. Delta Force commander, retired Lieutenant Colonel James Reese.

Peter, you walked through -- went through all these documents, a lot of documents. What struck you the most?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think the most unexpected thing that you will find in the documents is the relationship with his family. I mean, we don't -- we think of Bin Laden as a sort of master terrorist. Here he's sending these very loving messages to his wife who was then living in Iran. His sons were sending him these very heartfelt letters that they hadn't seen him for a long time, sort of painting this more human picture of him.

BLITZER: Why did the U.S. intelligence community decided to release these documents now?

BERGEN: You know, as you know, the intelligence community is a very large bureaucracy and it takes a long time for them to get something together like this. So, they told me that they have been working on this since October of last year to publicly declassify as much of this as possible. Obviously, there's stuff that's -- you know, there's still some stuff that would be of some operational use which they haven't released.

BLITZER: Because they released the initial trove of documents, what, a year after he was killed, right?

BERGEN: Yes, 17 documents a year after he was killed, 103 today.

BLITZER: Are there more out there?

BERGEN: Yes, there will -- we'll see other releases later this year.

BLITZER: So, what are they waiting for?

BERGEN: You know, I think seven intelligence agencies each have to sign off and say, look, there's nothing here that we're concerned about and the Department of Justice. So, it's not -- you know, this is -- it takes a while.

BLITZER: Phil, let me read an excerpt from one of these documents just released and this is one of his letters to jihadist militants in North Africa. You should ask them to avoid insisting on the formation of an Islamic state at the time being, but to work on breaking the power of our main enemy by attacking the American embassies in the African countries, such as Sierra Leone, Togo and mainly to attack the American oil companies. This is part of the strategy not only to go after the United States but to go after the economic power of the United States.

PHILIP MUDD, FORMER OFFICIAL, CIA COUNTERTERRORISM: That's right. You're seeing the insides of some of the debates within terrorist movements that have existed for years now and we see that with ISIS today. The revolution Bin Laden inspired was pretty simple. He would say, in countries like Egypt or Algeria or Iraq, don't focus on the local target first, the local government, go after the head of the snake. That's Washington, that's New York, that's Tel Aviv, that's London. Go after what he would call the far enemy.

In the past years, and you see this in the letters, the groups that have grown up, particularly ISIS, are saying, we don't believe the Bin Laden message. Our goal is to stage a revolution at home. And most of the fighting you see now isn't attacks against New York. It's attacks against Mosul and Ramadi.

BLITZER: And there's more, Colonel Reese, on how much he hated the United States and hated the west. I'll put up another excerpt. I wouldn't be exaggerating, he writes, if I declare that what I'm about to write is maybe the most important thing I have written in my life. These pig-eating invaders and their loyal dogs are too scared to death to fight us face to face. You have a big chance now to stop the savageness and arrogance of America and its allies. Yes, you. What do you make of that?

LT. COL. JAMES REESE (retired), CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Wolf, you know, it's -- we've been -- we've been tracking that. People have been studying Bin Laden and the whole Al Qaeda piece. That is his rhetoric from day one. Back in the mid-2000s, when we captured some of his messengers bringing in CDs for Zarqawi, same type of messaging, stop messing with, you know, the Sunnis or the Shia. Focus on the Americans. Focus on the snake. Go after them. So, it's the same rhetoric. It doesn't surprise me.

[13:05:08] BLITZER: And the reference -- the reference, Peter, to pig-eating invaders. Muslims don't eat pork -- don't eat pig like Jews don't eat pork or pig. That was the reference there, right?

BERGEN: Yes. And -- but I -- you know, I actually didn't see that quote when I was looking through it. But it -- that, you know, does -- it rings very true.

BLITZER: Yes. All right, let's -- here's a part of the personal side that you're talking about in these letters. And here's another excerpt he writes to one of the wives. My beloved wife, know that you do fill my heart with love, beautiful memories. And your long suffering of tense situations in order to appease me and be kind to me. And every time I thought of you, my eyes would tear -- would tear for being away from you.

I mean, you read that and you think about Bin Laden, what he was doing and, all of a sudden, he's a loving -- a loving husband who gets emotional with his -- one of his wives.

BERGEN: Yes. You know, he was a family man. He first got married when he was 17. He had five wives. One of them divorced him. And, you know, he tried to manage those relationships.

BLITZER: All right, we're showing pictures of that letter right now. This is all in Arabic, obviously, that's been translated.

BERGEN: Right. And interesting they were written in both English and the Arabic. So, you know, it wasn't totally surprising to me. I've studied him for a long time. But this very warm relationship with his wives and very warm relationship with his sons and daughters is one of the things that these documents are really showing.

BLITZER: What do you make of that?

MUDD: Well, one of the things as somebody who was inside at the CIA make of this is, if you want to know one of the reasons it was difficult to get to him, his willingness to separate himself out from the organization, to the point where he could not have contact with wives, indicates why we had to go through such efforts over a decade to find the courier network to take him down. He wasn't on electronic media. He wasn't on a phone. He realized that any movement, any sort of communication with his family was a vulnerability. As soon as I saw that, I said another indication of what he was tough to hunt down and kill.

BLITZER: He had a lot of books there in his digital library, Colonel Reese. The Bob Woodward book, we know that. But there are a whole bunch of conspiratorial books describing U.S. conspiracies out there. What do you make of that?

REESE: Well, you know, Wolf, the one thing I took from that is -- and think about it, there's part of it that's true. You know, there was parts written in there about, that they were very concerned about, the U.S. drones and our counterterrorism operations that went after them. And so, if you take those facts that he knows and then -- you know, think about it, if you're walking around and every time you're looking up in the air, think about a drone strike or special forces coming on top of you, you also have got to be turning around looking at you, going, who's telling them where I am? So, it just causes this conspiracy theory. And that had to be an uncomfortable number of years just being a lonely guy in a cold place always worried and looking over your back for that next strike.

BLITZER: Speaking of conspiracy theories, let me wrap up this segment with both of you and get your thoughts. He lived, Bin Laden, in that Abbottabad compound, for six years. Six years. No one knew? No one in the Pakistani government knew Bin Laden was hiding out for six years in this place?

BERGEN: You know, when I -- when I was reporting the book about the hunt for Bin Laden, I found out that he was hiding from people on the compound. Forget about Pakistani officials. There was a -- one of the wife of the couriers who was protecting him had no idea that Osama Bin Laden was there. He never left the second or third floor of the compound in a particular building. So, he was very careful, very, very careful.

BLITZER: Anything in these documents reinforce the Seymour Hersh article that just came out last week about a big major conspiracy and that the U.S., over these past several years, has been lying about what happened?

MUDD: I think what we're seeing here is quite the opposite. There's no indication that the senior Pakistani leadership was involved in hiding him. There's no indication, for example, that the Saudi government was doing something to enable him to stay hidden. I think what it does is to explain that the narrative the White House has released is pretty close to the truth.

BLITZER: Do you agree, Peter?

BERGEN: Completely.

BLITZER: I'll leave it on that note. Don't go too far away. We have much more to discuss about ISIS. It's on the move, clearly, right now in Syria and Iraq. Caught in the crossfire, lots of civilians. Tens of thousands of them fleeing the bloodshed. We're taking a closer look at the terror group's battle plans and America's evolving strategy in the region.

Also today, another bombshell claim from North Korea alleging it now knows how to miniaturize nuclear warheads. Why some in the U.S. remain deeply skeptical.

[13:10:41] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: To Syria where ISIS militants have taken control over parts of a city on the doorstep of Palmira. They -- the fear is that ISIS forces will destroy the ancient archeological treasures in Palmira as they have done in other areas.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, some ISIS forces have moved east from Ramadi as they try to capture other areas protected by Iraqi troops.

Also, there is more fallout from the loss of Ramadi by those Iraqi troops. The Obama administration says weapons stored in the city are now most likely in the hands of ISIS forces. The fall of Ramadi in Iraq is being called a, quote, "setback" by U.S. officials. But the loss of the capital of the Anbar Province could have a major ripple effect on the fight against ISIS.

Let's bring Phil Mudd, our CNN Counterterrorism Analyst, and retired Lieutenant Colonel James Reese, our CNN Global Affairs Analyst. All right, Phil, so the U.S. and the Iraqi governments, they both claim that this can be restored. They can arm some of the Sunni groups, if you will, in Anbar and eventually retake Ramadi. Your analysis?

REESE: I think they can. There's two parts to this story. Let's look at ISIS first. There's a setback, for themselves, as they take more territory. And that is at some point in time, this year, next year, they're going to have to govern this territory. They keep taking territory without the ability to maintain control over the population, provide schools for example. So, the military is lost in the short term. Will ISIS be able to govern in the long term? I think not.

On the flip side, though, I think the government has a huge vulnerability here. They're talking about working with Sunni tribes. What's the story we have out of Ramadi? The government military doesn't have the ability to fight so they bring in Shia militia? If you're a Sunni tribesman in Ramadi watching a Shia militia coming in, what are you saying? I think you're saying the government is still not a solution for a unified Iraq. I think that's a huge problem for Baghdad.

BLITZER: And U.S. officials now are saying, Colonel Reese, that these ISIS forces who took Ramadi, they also wound up capturing lots of U.S. equipment. Some of it pretty sophisticated, very lethal and they know how to use it because a lot of these ISIS forces are former Baathist Iraqi military officers who worked for Saddam Hussein. How big of a problem is this?

LT COL. JAMES REESE (RET.), FORMER U.S. DELTA FORCE COMMANDER: Wolf, it is a problem, but I do not see it like some of - you know, some others that we're talking with daily see it that way. I'm spending a lot of time on the ground. Yes, it is a setback. Yes, the weapons they - they were able to grab can be used back against them.

But here's what's not being told. When that - when that assault on - on the city - on Ramadi took out, ISIS also went after seven other targets around that area. Six of those seven targets were defended by the Iraqi security forces. They did a real good job of doing that. But we concentrate on the one piece here.

The other piece I'm very concerned about, though, is, is when you've got Ramadi, it also breaks up your lines of communication and your supply lines back out to the west where you have other Iraqi forces and Haditha and hits (ph) and then the U.S. forces that are training Sunnis out there at al Anbar. So it's a - it's a give and take right now.

BLITZER: You know Washington, Phil. Here's a press release that the office of the press secretary of the White House put out. "Reid (ph) out of President Obama's meeting with the National Security Council on ISIL or ISIS and the situation in Iraq." They give a statement how the president convened his top national security advisers. Twenty-five - twenty-five top national security advisers from the intelligence community, the director of National Intelligence, the CIA - you used to work at the CIA - from the Pentagon, John Kerry, secretary of state, the vice president, Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, all of the top national security advisors to the president, including the head of the U.S. military's Central Command. They bring him in via a secure satellite capability, the ambassador in Iraq. I see a document like this and I say to myself, these guys are in trouble that the president has to convene an emergency meeting like this in his White House situation room to discuss what's going on with ISIL and Iraq after the fall of Ramadi?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I tell you, it - from - as having been on the inside, here's the problem as I see it. We're talking about whether the White House strategy works. People on different sides of the aisle have different perspectives. If you take - if you step back and take a 30,000 foot view, we have decided that we are not going to put major forces back on the ground to fight on the front lines. Beyond that step, everything else is on the fringes. If you want to change strategy, you want to provide a few more weapons, you want to forward deploy some spotters for the Iraqi military, you want to provide weapons directly to the Kurds. The problem if you're in a decision-making position is pretty simple, the egg is broken. There is one group that can put the egg back together. That's the Iraqi government. And counterinsurgency theory, if the government can't do it, the away team, that's the United States, can't substitute for them and you can't get around that fact.

BLITZER: Colonel Reese, if you had been in this meeting in the White House situation room with the president and he asked you, give me some advice, Colonel Reese, you're the head of the Delta Force, give me some advice, what is the United States need to do now to defeat ISIS in Iraq, you would say?

REESE: I would say that we have to be able to put a limited amount of special forces teams integrated with the Iraqi forces that we train, get them into the field and allow them to continue to coach, teach, and mentor those forces to be a combat enabler in the battlefield.

BLITZER: And if he said to you then, colonel, how many Americans will come home in body bags, you would say? REESE: I couldn't tell him that. But I would tell him that there's a

high possibility it's going to happen. But if you want to stop ISIS here, to stop them and their spread transnationally across the Middle East and even to come into - into the homeland, this is something we have to commit to do.

BLITZER: Colonel Reese, thanks very much for joining us. Phil Mudd, thanks to you as well.

MUDD: Thank you.

BLITZER: Up next, there are renewed calls for U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. I'll speak live with Republican Congressman Peter King of New York. We'll get his anti-ISIS strategy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:22:48] BLITZER: There have been some mixed messages coming in from the Obama administration on the fall of the key Iraqi city of Ramadi in the Anbar province. Secretary of State John Kerry basically said he expected a relatively quick retaking of the city in the days ahead, his words, while a statement from the Pentagon said ISIS appears to have the upper hand, at least for now. Joining us from Capitol Hill is New York Republican Congressman Peter King, chairman of the House subcommittee on counter terrorism and intelligence.

Representative King, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Earlier this week, Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, and a likely presidential candidate, by the way, told me that the U.S. has to increase the number of ground troops in Iraq right now. Right now there are about 3,000. He would like to see 10,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq to deal with ISIS. And earlier this morning on CNN's "New Day," the former New York governor, George Pataki, said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PATAKI (R), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: I would not be adverse to putting American boots on the ground to destroy their training centers and planning centers.

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN'S "NEW DAY: That's scary territory, though, with the American people, governor.

PATAKI: It's very -

CUOMO: I know you have your two -

PATAKI: Yes.

CUOMO: Sons who serve -

PATAKI: Yes. CUOMO: But Americans are very shy about being on the ground in a war that they believe is not theirs.

PATAKI: Absolutely. And rightly so. But it is our war. Let's send in troops, destroy their training centers, destroy their recruitment centers, destroy the area where they are looking to plan to attack us here and then get out and leave a little note behind, you come back, so will we.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Your reaction, congressman?

KING: I think Lindsey Graham is generally on target, Wolf. You know, the exact amount we can discuss. But the fact is, we do have to avoid troops there, one to be spotters on the ground so that the air attacks will be more effective than they are now. Secondly, I do believe we need trainers, special operations, working, embedded with the Iraqi forces for training purposes and also to guide them as they go along and also to help coordinate the Iraqi army with the Kurds. So, no, there's definitely a need for ground troops.

Now, President Obama will somehow talk about 100,000 troops or 30,000 troops. We're not talking about America being involved or leading a land war. What we're talking about is American troops on the ground for the purpose of training, carrying out special operations missions, the way they did in Syria, and also to provide targets so that the air attacks can be much more effective than they have been up until now.

[13:25:08] BLITZER: Do you agree with your former governor, George Pataki, who's, by the way, likely to announce that he's going to be a Republican presidential candidate?

KING: George was an outstanding governor and I certainly, you know, would wish him well if he runs for president. I don't know if we - if our troops can take out training centers per se because I think ISIS is more dispersed than that. I don't think - this isn't like with - in Vietnam where you had these big targets which could have been attacked or even, you know, large elements like the Iraqi army. I think ISIS is more dispersed. So, obviously, if there are targets we have available, then we should certainly try to take them out. But I think probably the more important use of ground troops would be to embed them with the Iraqi army and also, you know, for training purposes, and also to coordinate their activities and also to be spotters for air attacks.

BLITZER: The U.S., as you know, spent a decade arming and training, financing the Iraqi military. They built up a huge force, several hundred thousand Iraqi military personnel. The U.S. then pulls out, President Bush said the U.S. should pull out, President Obama implemented that withdraw. The U.S. basically left Iraq. But as soon as the U.S. did, the Iraqi military, for all practical purposes, collapsed in Mosul, now collapsed in Ramadi, collapsing elsewhere. If the U.S. were to respend another decade training them, why do you think the outcome would be any different the next time the U.S. pulled out? KING: Yes, there's several answers to that. One, even though President

Bush did have that timeline in there, it was clear that he expected and wanted our troops to stay there longer. That was something that had to be done as a political reality for Maliki at the time. President Obama should have fought much harder with the Iraqis to have a permanent ground force of - between 10,000 and 20,000 because once we left, I hate to use this term, but the Iraqis lost their adult supervision and that's when Maliki was inserting his favorites in there, knocking out the more qualified commanders on the ground. He totally politicized the army.

I would say, if you go back to 2008/2009, the Iraqi army was a reasonably good force. But after that, once the U.S. was gone and Maliki took over total control of the army, at that stage the army just began to fall apart. So when the crunch time came with ISIS, most of them just disbanded, you know, threw down their weapons, ran, morale was lost. So I don't think we could ever fill them up to the extent that we did during that period up to 2008 but I think that we can certainly make them a better fighting force and, again, by using our best trainers, our best special operations forces, to be in there with them, it can serve a real purpose. Other than that, listen, this is our war, to the extent that this is going to definitely involve the United States. ISIS is going to use Iraq as a base of operations to destabilize the Middle East, to destabilize our allies and also ultimately as a launching pad for attacks upon the United States.

BLITZER: Congressman, when are you going to announce whether or not you're running for the Republican presidential nomination?

KING: Wolf, I am, again, looking at it. I've been to New Hampshire, I don't know, nine or 10 times. I've lost count. I'm in contact with the people in New Hampshire and around the country. But, listen, I'm going to have to decide within the next four to six weeks and, you know, there's several candidates out there I think are qualified. I think I'd be the best qualified, but I have to, again, see if the financing is going to be there, see what openings there's going to be, but I'm certainly not ruling it out.

BLITZER: The fact that your governor, George Pataki, is going to run, that would not deter you?

KING: No, that wouldn't deter me. I mean George and I are good friends, but if I decided to run, I would run anyway. But I think George - George will be a very effective candidate.

BLITZER: Which way are you leaning?

KING: Right now I - you know, my heart says I want to run, but I have to maybe listen to my mind. So right now I'm sort of 50/50. But, Wolf, how about this, you'll be the first to know.

BLITZER: All right. Well, that's good to know. All right, thanks very much, congressman. Good luck to you.

KING: Wolf, thank you.

BLITZER: I appreciate it. Always good have you here on CNN.

KING: I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

BLITZER: Still ahead, the new threat from North Korea. The country making a stunning new claim about arming missiles with nuclear warheads. How real is that threat and is the U.S. really within striking distance? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)