Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Obama to Announce U.S. Troops Staying in Afghanistan; Another Republican Admits Benghazi Committee Targets Clinton; Trump Criticizes Dem Debate; Interview with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Aired 8- 8:30a ET

Aired October 15, 2015 - 08:00   ET

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

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Thursday October 15th now just before 8:00 in the East.

And we have breaking news. President Obama will announce this morning that U.S. troops are staying in Afghanistan. This will be the second delay of a promised drawdown.

[08:00:07] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: New resurgence of the Taliban forces and instability of Afghan forces motivating this move but many more questions remain this morning.

CNN's Joe Johns is live for us at the White House with details. What have you learned, Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, the administration going through the status quo in Afghanistan. The president expected to announce a plan that is essentially the old plan. CNN's Jim Acosta reporting that the administration intends to announce today that it is going to go keep current levels of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, about 9,800 people there, through 2016. And then around 2017, reducing that to about half, to about 5,500 people. Now, that is a big difference from the administration's initial goal of having about 1,000 people there, mainly for embassy protection, by the time the president leaves office in 2017.

Now, a number of reasons for that we're getting from the administration, including the stubbornness of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan as well as continuing the training and equipping of Afghan forces, friendly forces, on the ground. There's also an issue of course of emergencies in that country as we saw with the recent takeover of the city of Kunduz. And the question of course, the bottom line, what will happen when a new president comes in? This will give more options to the next president, whoever that is.

We do expect to hear from President Obama sometime today to talk about this plan and give some of his reasons. Back to you.

CAMEROTA: OK, Joe, thanks so much for all of that backround.

Joining us now is CNN military analyst Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona. Colonel, thanks s much for being with us this morning. We want to get your perspective on this new announcement out of the White House.

Let me remind everyone what the president said in 2014. Back then, he predicted that troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2016, by the end of 2016. In other words, just two months from now. Let me play for everyone whether the president said in 2014.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Starting next year, Afghans will be fully responsible for securing their country. American personnel will be in an advisory role. We will no longer patrol Afghan cities or towns, mountains or valleys. That is a task for the Afghan people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Colonel, this morning, we've learned that prediction was wrong. What went wrong?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, the training of the Afghan forces just didn't go according to what we had hoped. And every time we do this, we seem to suffer setbacks. And you can look at what happened in Iraq and almost transfer that in a wholecloth to Afghanistan. The Afghans just are not ready to take over their own security yet.

It takes time to build an army institution. We think that this is easy. You go there and you train them and they do it. But we're talking about a whole lifestyle change.

So I think this is reality setting in. I think this is a good move on the part of the administration. Leave the troop levels where they are and try and address the situation as it is, not how we want it to be.

CAMEROTA: But, Colonel Francona, whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the Afghan security forces are not up to the task and that we got the time line wrong?

FRANCONA: Well, I'm not sure it is a fault. I think it's just a different mindset. We have a -- we look at this from a western perspective. We walk in there with an American mindset and we say, OK, we should take this long to train this number of people. And if you're training Americans, we know how long that takes. But we're dealing with a different society, a different cultural norm, and I think that it's taken time to overcome a lot of those societal norms. I don't know that we have yet, but I think it is a smart idea to keep American troops there to work with the Afghans. I think the administration is very gun shy. They do not want to happen what happened in Iraq with the precipitous withdrawal of American forces.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but Colonel, bad things are happening in Afghanistan. We have 10,000 U.S. troops there on the ground right now. What makes us think that by continuing to have those 10,000 U.S. troops that the Taliban won't continue to regroup and retake cities as we're seeing happen? FRANCONA: And I think 10,000 may be too small of a number. You

remember when we initially had this discussion there, the army was asking for much more troops. 10,000 was the compromise figure. They wanted to at least double that figure. And now we're seeing the problem with that figure. It's just not enough American forces there. And the Afghans are not ready to step up. Look what happened in Kunduz. And we're going to see that again and again.

CAMEROTA: Well, then there you have it. I mean, to my first question, then that is where fault lies, that the troop numbers weren't big enough because how else do you explain what the Taliban has been able to do in terms of reconstituting?

[08:05:06] FRANCONA: Yes, the Taliban played this very well. And we knew this was going to happen. Anytime you announce your troop level withdrawals, and you've got an insurgency like the Taliban operating there, they're just going to sit back and wait. And they're going to wait until your numbers get down to where they think they can operate effectively and then they're going to start attacking again. And they figure that 10,000 troops is not enough Americans to protect these cities. And they took Kunduz. You can see what's happening. 10,000 may not be enough, but that's the number we're stuck with and I think that's the number we're going to keep there for a while. But if you ask these army generals, you ask General Campbell, he'll want more troops.

CAMEROTA: But guess what, Colonel? We're actually announcing that we are drawing down the troops in 2017. The numbers that we have there right now are 9,800 through 2016. This is what the White House is announcing. But the next plan is that in 2017 it will be drawn down to 5,500. In other words, what I hear you saying is that we are making the very same mistake and so what makes us think that that number will work against the Taliban?

FRANCONA: And I don't think it will. And I think we're going to see another announcement years down the road.

This is -- this is this administration pushing this off to the next administration. Because the next time they have to make this decision, it will be a different president in the White House. And I think we're just kicking this can down the road and let the next administration figure out what they want to do with the troop levels. But I can tell you, I don't think you're going to see a troop withdrawal much below where we are now.

CAMEROTA: OK, so to your mind, Colonel, what is the right number for you? What should the administration do? How many people should be there to fight the Taliban?

FRANCONA: Don't pin me down here. OK, I think we're way below where we need to be. You have to look at these -- look at the capabilities of the Afghan forces and you have to do a realistic assessment. Not based on your timeline; you have to do it on their timeline.

CAMEROTA: But we're not we're supposed to be.

FRANCONA: And they're not ready -- if they're not --

CAMEROTA: But you're saying we're not where we're supposed to be.

FRANCONA: Oh, I don't think so. I think we've withdrawn too far already.

CAMEROTA: So what is the right number?

FRANCONA: Give me a number. 25,000 I think would be a useful number. But I think where we are now is we can't react fast enough with enough force to do anything. You know, Kunduz, it's taken too long to retake this city. It should never have fallen. If we'd had enough American troops there to move forces where we needed, we could have maybe prevented that.

But right now we're just too spread out, too thin, throughout a big country. And that is going to continue. But if 10,000 is all we can get, General Campbell will take that. But I think we are really foolish if we cut below that number without assurances that the Afghans can do this. And I have to tell you, I don't think they can right now.

CAMEROTA: Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona with an ominous perspective. Thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

Let's get over to Michaela.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Alisyn, we're turning now to a surprising admission. Another one from another Republican Congressman. Richard Hanna says the Benghazi committee was created to target Hillary Clinton. This revelation coming just a week before the former Secretary of State is expected to testify before that very panel.

Sunlen Serfaty joins us live from Los Angeles with the latest on all of these developments. Sunlen.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Michaela, the Clinton campaign is jumping right on this really quickly, moving to highlight these comments made by Representative Hanna in this radio interview yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD HANNA (R), NEW YORK: I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people, an individual, Hillary Clinton. And I think there is also a lot of that it that's important, that we needed to get to the bottom of this. But this has been the longest investigation, longer than Watergate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: And the Clinton campaign is really trying to hold this up as further proof in their words that the Benghazi committee has zero credibility. That is a quote from the Clinton campaign, in their words, that the Benghazi committee has zero credibility -- that's a quote from the Clinton campaign -- and is moving towards the sort of investigation because of a partisan goal.

Now keep in mind it is of course coming just a few weeks after Representative Kevin McCarthy said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have no one any of that had happened had we not --

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: I agree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: All of this certainly sets a very dramatic stage for Clinton's testimony next week on Capitol Hill, Chris. That is one week from today.

CUOMO: I mean, I don't think it's a surprise to any of us that the committee was looking specifically at Hillary Clinton. You know, the implication of targeting seems to think that was wrongfully done and that's going to be what plays out when she gets there, for sure. Sunlen, thank you very much.

So the Republicans aren't just talking about the Benghazi. They were listening to the Democratic debate. And guess what? They don't like what they were hearing. The GOP front runner Donald Trump calling out Democrats and Republicans, even referring to one as a Communist.

[08:10:03] Let's bring in CNN's Athena Jones live from Washington. I wonder who that was.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You'll find out. Good morning, Chris. Well, while Trump was targeting his rivals last night, protesters targeted him. We've seen demonstrations outside of his events at almost -- since the moment he launched his campaign. Last week, there was an event in Iowa where a climate change protester briefly interrupted his speech. But this latest protest went further.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CROWD: We want Trump! We want Trump!

JONES (voice-over): What started out as the standard chanting and fanfare for Donald Trump --

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's OK.

JONES: -- quickly turned heated Wednesday night with nearly 20 protesters shouted, "Dump Trump."

TRUMP: That's why we have freedom of speech, folks. You know.

JONES: One protester getting into an altercation with a Trump supporter while being escorted out before a crowd of nearly 5,000. The protesters against his "a wall will fix it" stance on illegal immigration. A stance he reiterated while lambasting the Democratic debate.

TRUMP: Hillary and Bernie Sanders, they just couldn't give things away fast enough. And they're giving them to illegal immigrants.

JONES: Trump suggesting Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are far too easy on undocumented immigrants.

TRUMP: They want healthcare for illegal immigrants. They want driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

JONES: The billionaire even calling Sanders a maniac and a Communist.

TRUMP: I call him a Socialist/Communist, OK? Because that is what he is.

JONES: This as new polls show Trump still out front but with a possible challenge looming. He leads Ben Carson by double digits in South Carolina and Nevada in the new CNN/ORC poll. But he and his chief rival are neck in neck in this Fox News poll, at least the third national poll in as many weeks to show Carson inching closer.

BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I kept falling asleep.

JONES: Carson on Fox News Wednesday night making his own snide remarks a about Tuesday's debate.

CARSON: When people come around start talking about free college, and free phones, and free this and that, it is not free. And unless you're not very bright, you will be able to see what's going on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JONES (on camera): So Carson there getting his digs in. Meanwhile, today, Jeb Bush plans to release his third quarter fundraising numbers, his 2014 tax return, and his health records. So we'll be watching out for that. Michaela:

PEREIRA: I'm sure the comedians will have fun with Ben Carson saying that he kept falling asleep during the debate. We'll leave that to them. We'll stick to the news, Athena.

All right, a rare move from Iran, unveiling a cloak of secrecy around one of its underground missile facilities. The country's semi-official news agency says these newly released images show the weapons in a tunnel dug more than 1,600 feet under a mountain. This comes just days after Iran test-fired new long-range ballistic missiles, a move the U.S. says likely violated a U.N. Resolution.

CAMEROTA: The family of a crew member on that doomed El Faro cargo ship now suing the company that owns the ship, as well as its missing captain, for $100 million. El Faro is presumed to have a sunk during the Hurricane Joaquin near the Bahamas. An attorney for Lonnie Jordan Stanley (ph) says the company put profits ahead of safety, claiming El Faro was not seaworthy and that another ship was available. The company has yet to respond.

CUOMO: One of New York's most prominent restaurant operators is getting rid of tips. Here's why. His name is Danny Meyer and he says he's trying to even out the pay for all of his employees. Because the front house employees, like waiters, well, they get tips. The back of the house employees, like cooks and cleaners, they don't. Meyer says menu prices will rise to cover the difference.

PEREIRA: Some restaurants get around that by they pool the tips and then divide them because the fact is it may be the server that is giving a great service, but the kitchen staff is giving you great food and great service as well.

CAMEROTA: I mean, I was a waitress for a long time, and you divide your tips wit hthe bartender but never with the dishwashers.

PEREIRA: Oh really? In some places, they do that.

CAMEROTA: That's interesting. So I mean, I think that that -- I think -- I find it sort of disorienting, to go into a restaurant --

PEREIRA: And not be able to tip.

CAMEROTA: -- and it said no tip, it would be so confusing.

PEREIRA: I guess the argument is, is that we the public shouldn't be covering the wage. Because, right? These guys are only making minimum wage. We shouldn't be covering the wage that they should be earning.

CUOMO: Yes, they'll say the flipside is, on the tips, it's up to them what they put in to be taxed, so you might be cutting into their take.

PEREIRA: It's a complicated situation. Not an easy answer.

CAMEROTA: All right, meanwhile, back to our top story, is the Benghazi Special Committee a Hillary Clinton witch hunt, as some have suggested? Another Republican saying the committee was designed to target Clinton. We will ask a top Republican Senator what he thinks. Next.

[08:14:40]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. There is increased political intrigue this morning of the Benghazi variety. Why? Well, a second congressman, Republican, has come forward saying that the committee was designed specifically to go after Hillary Clinton and compromise her chances.

Joining us now to discuss, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. He is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He's also on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And to be sure we have Afghanistan and Syria to talk about.

But what is your immediate reaction to the latest fold in the political play that is Benghazi?

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R), WISCONSIN: Well, good morning.

All I can really do is speak for my own actions and I'm the chairman of the Senate Committee in Homeland Security and Government Affairs. And there are some very serious national security implications for this. I've got a responsibility over national security procedures and federal records.

And the fact that, you know, the Benghazi did reveal the fact that Secretary Clinton had this private server. We found out that he had back up firm. It was supposed to be on site backup but then they sent those e-mails over the air waves into the cloud, another server. Put on a thumb drive.

So, you know, the concern is what national security secrets might be in hands of our enemies. Our enemies are pretty good at hacking into the systems. And so, this has serious national security implication and, you know, that's been my involvement. That's been my concern.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, what the Democrats say and what Hillary Clinton's campaign says is that this investigation morphed from an investigation into what went wrong in Benghazi to why Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server. And in so doing, it focused on Hillary Clinton at the exclusion of looking back at the problems with Benghazi, that people weren't called, say, from the CIA or to find out if it was -- because of cuts in funding of what went wrong with security in Benghazi.

So, yes, you are focused on the e-mail.

[08:20:00] But did that answer any of the questions about what went wrong in Benghazi?

JOHNSON: We haven't seen the committees work yet. We haven't held the hearings. You know, it sounds to me that Trey Gowdy and his committee have been doing very thoughtful work, interviewing all kinds of witnesses to get to the bottom. But in that investigation, we found out about the e-mails and then I've got the responsibility myself of finding out what kind of national security secrets are put at risk, who might have been put -- who is lives might have been put at risk.

CUOMO: But they are different issues.

JOHNSON: Think about the secretary of state. She creates classified information, discussions with world leaders that if the Russians or Chinese have that will effect their behavior. I don't know maybe in regard to Ukraine or Syria --

CAMEROTA: And have you found the answers? Have you found out if any of the national security was compromised?

JOHNSON: We don't have access to the server. The FBI --

(CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: Again, you know, what I've been asking. We had a director call me in intercommittee last week and I wanted his assurance he was focusing on getting access to the e-mails to find out what classified information was on those emails so we could mitigate the potential harm.

CUOMO: Right, but they are doing it.

JOHNSON: Again, that's what I'm concerned about. Yes, they are. Let them do their work.

You haven't seen me call hearings on this. I'm doing my job of careful oversight.

CUOMO: It's happening. No, you're not here to be accused, Senator. What you're here to is to help us you said the situation, because with Benghazi, it seems like there's been a lot of attention and money given to it, right, which is a corollary. And it seems well what else are you going to learn about the situation that you haven't been able to learn so far. Why is this treated as a nefarious mystery?

JOHNSON: Because there are some potentially serious things going on. The potential loss of national security secrets is pretty, that's serious business, Chris.

CUOMO: You're talking about the e-mail. I'm talking about Benghazi.

JOHNSON: But also Benghazi too. Look, we lost four Americans.

You take a look at, and let's -- I'm the guy in the first Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that just asked Secretary Clinton a good question, why didn't you get on the phone and call the survivors? We wouldn't -- the public wouldn't have been misled for two weeks and that's when exclaimed what difference does it make? Well, it makes a great deal when the American public does not have confidence that the administration is telling the truth --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: But why is asking the question, why didn't you call the survivors? How is that in anyway illustrative of what went wrong in Benghazi? You understand what I'm saying?

JOHNSON: Again, this administration is not exactly transparent. So, it's been very difficult I'm sure for the committee to get to the bottom of these things.

Again, they have been very careful. There have been, you know, many leaks out of that committee. They have been doing a thoughtful job. Again I'm not on the committee but what from I see they are doing a very thoughtful job. Other people are making comments that are not helpful.

CUOMO: Congressman Hanna, what do you think about Congressman Hanna's comment? Is he right they had a laser-like focus on Hillary Clinton at the exclusion of other people? JOHNSON: That's his opinion. I don't share that opinion. Certain,

again, from my standpoint, I'm looking at the national security implications of the e-mail system. That's my job. That's my responsibility. And it's a very serious potential problem here and we need to find out what classified information we have to assume could be in the hands of our enemies so we can mitigate the harm.

CUOMO: Afghanistan, we're supposed to do drawdowns, many people felt it was impractical. Now, -- the reality is coming to bear fruit that the Taliban is in play once again. They are going to have to stay there.

Do you believe it is the right move? Do you believe that we're going see more U.S. men and women on the grounds in Afghanistan and Syria? Very similar situation.

JOHNSON: I think it shows that President Obama learned that his historic blunder of not leaving a stabilizing behind in Iraq has really led to just deterioration in the situation, not only in Iraq but also Syria. So, I guess he's learned that lesson. It would have been nice if he learned the lesson from Germany and Japan and South Korea.

CUOMO: So, answer the question.

JOHNSON: What I want to do is I want -- what is the goal in Afghanistan? What is our goal in this point in time? We didn't want to see a failed state. We didn't want a base of operations for al Qaeda. We want to disseminate al Qaeda.

At this point this time, it is probably the right thing to do. But it's a mess. It's a quagmire.

CAMEROTA: If the goal is to beat back the Taliban and keep it from seizing other cities, do we have -- are 10,000 U.S. troops enough?

JOHNSON: I'm not a military expert. I was listening to an earlier guest says we don't have enough (ph). So, again, it is very important that the president lays out the goal with clarity, and then the military can -- and he actually accepts the military's advice in how to achieve the goal.

Same problem right now with ISIS. President Obama lead out the goal to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS. We're not even close, because he's laid out the goal but he's hamstrung the military in terms of actually achieving that goal.

So, again, I'm a business guy. It's all about, what's the reality? Start with that. Then set achievable goals then you start laying out strategies. I'm afraid this president immediately laid out a strategy. No boots on the ground. So, we're not going to be able to achieve the goal that he stated.

CAMEROTA: If military experts said that if we need 25,000 troops on if ground as we heard from General Francona. Would you be comfortable with that? JOHNSON: First thing I would do is I would assemble the Coalition of the Willing lite.

And here is the model, the First Gulf War. When Georgia H.W. Bush assembled a coalition that was pretty impressive. We provided two thirds of troop strength, about 500,000 troops. Our coalition partners provided 250,000 and paid for 85 percent of the effort. That's a true coalition.

[08:25:03] But it is only going to be put together and effective if America leads and the problem with this president, his strategy has been peace through withdrawal and unfortunately it's been a miserable failure.

CUOMO: And you also have to have to allies willing to put boots on the ground. But that has been in short supply also.

JOHNSON: Understand. But they won't put boots on the ground unless we lead. And the guess the opportunity, I hate to call it that but this refugee crisis into Europe, I think the world is starting to reel the events in Syria are not going to remain contained in Syria. They're going to spill over.

By the way, the more refugees that the West accepts the more refugees will flow. And that will start destabilizing the nation too. So, our goal ought to be stabilize the situation in Syria, you create safe zones. But again, the process of withdrawal, now that Vladimir Putin is in there, now that Iran is in there propping up the Assad regime.

You know, they might provide stability, but you've seen probably a strategic realignment in the Middle East with Russia and Iran on the ascendency. They are a tenth of our economy in terms of the West. We are more than $30 trillion large economic strength. Putin, Russia and Iran are less than 3 trillion a tenth. And look who's pushing who around. There is something wrong with that equation.

CAMEROTA: Senator Ron Johnson, thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

JOHNSON: Have a good morning.

CAMEROTA: You too.

Michaela?

PEREIRA: All right. Bernie Sanders is picking up some campaign cash following the first debate. He's also picking up his second congressional endorsement. That's man is Congressman Keith Ellison. We're going to ask him why he's backing Bernie, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)