Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Interview with Rep. Wil hurd; GOP Candidates Pan Obama's Terror Address; Did Obama's Terror Speech Go Far Enough?; Who Were San Bernardino Terrorists?. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 07, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:11] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: So President Obama using a rare oval office address trying to reassure Americans about the war on ISIS. Is he headed the right way? If not, what is the right way?

Let's discuss this with Texas Congressman Will Hurd, freshman member of the House. He's on the Homeland Security Committee, but maybe more importantly for this discussion. He is a former CIA undercover officer serving ten years in the Middle East and South Asia.

Congressman, welcome to the show. Thank you for being with us. Based on what you heard last night does the president have it right? If not, how so?

REP. WILL HURD (R), TEXAS: If his goal was to reassure the American people that we're going in the right direction, I don't think he accomplished that. One of the things THAT I wish I would have -- he would have said last night is that I just got off the phone with the director of the CIA and I told the CIA to double the amount of human intelligence that's coming out of Syria and Iraq in the next 45 days.

Why is that important? The more human intelligence we get, the more information we can send to our air force to continue bombing locations in that country. If you don't have the intelligence, you're not able to do that. Another area I wish I would --

CAMEROTA: Keep going. What's the other area?

HURD: I think the other area he would have said is I just got off the phone with Vladimir Putin and told him to stop his shenanigans in Syria. The Russians are bombing locations in Syria and Iraq. Yes, they have hit some locations of ISIS but they're also hitting locations of rebels that we're supporting.

Why does this matter? The only way we're going to really root out ISIS in Syria and Iraq is doing it with local partners. If we're allowing the Russians to bomb the locations of some of these groups that we're trying to support to fight ISIS, they're not going to work with us.

The other issue, you know, some of our Sunni -- moderate Sunni Arab partners in the region that want to help with the fight are concerned that this administration is pivoting towards Iran, based on the Iran deal from earlier in the year. These are all the factors that complicate a difficult task in that region.

[07:35:01]CUOMO: It seems there's a growing call, certainly from your party for more troops on the ground, that that will be the answer. Do you agree?

HURD: Well, we already have troops on the ground and more are going. What the actual numbers should be I think we should leave that up to our combatant commanders. We have a model on what can be successful.

If you look to Afghanistan in 2001, in December of 2001 when the city of Kandahar fell, Kandahar is in Southern Afghanistan. It was the capital of the Taliban. We killed two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership, had pushed the Taliban out of the country.

There were 400 Americans on the ground, 300 Special Forces, 100 CIA. We were able to do this because the greatest air force the world had ever seen was involved and we were working with local groups like the Northern Alliance and Pashtun tribal groups. That exists in Syria and we need to be taking advantage of them.

CUOMO: I have to tell you, Congressman, it doesn't sound like there's that much space between what you're saying the current strategy. You want human intelligence. You know the administration is working that way. You talk about local partners, which is a point that the administration has been pressing for a long time.

That it has to be about the partners there, they have to leave not us. The GOP makes it sound like the president is in the opposite direction of where he should be. Doesn't sound like that from you?

HURD: Well, you know, words and action are two very different things and we need to see this happening on the ground. And over the last year and a half, we haven't seen that. So I'm glad that the president is saying these things.

Now it needs to be translated into action on the ground. One area where he spoke about last night where I think you'll see cooperation, he intimated about the changes to the visa waiver program. This is something the House will be working on this week.

We'll get a bid, I hope that signals his support of the legislation. Why is this important? I was on a task force looking at the threat of ISIS to the homeland. And one of the things that we found out is that our European partners are not sharing nearly as much information as they could and should amongst our other European allies and with us.

And these changes to the visa waiver program is going in for us and make sure European allies are doing everything they can to take information that we give them and check it against travelers.

CUOMO: Good. Come back on the show when we have more meat on the bones of that visa bill so we can test it and get people understanding it.

Last question for you, Congressman, the idea of what we're doing right now, and what the strategy is, and how it's articulated, do you believe you should turn to your brothers and sisters in Congress. You're a freshman. You're new to the game.

And say, if we're at war with ISIS, why don't we meet and debate as our constitutional responsibility requires whether or not to declare war.

If we care about the strategy so much, why don't we debate about the use of force instead of just capitulating to the president? What about calling for them to do that?

HURD: I don't think -- the president has all the cools that he needs in order to take this fight to ISIS.

CUOMO: He says he needs more. He asked for broader use of force. You won't even debate it.

HURD: I think part of it. His advisers were saying that this was a political move to show that the country is behind them. I don't think anybody thinks that is not against ISIS. I'm a freshman. I've been up here in Washington, D.C. for 11 months and I still haven't figured out why people are calling for something that's not going to change the situation on the ground.

CUOMO: Like what?

HURD: Calling for this debate and an additional -- when you have the tools already that you can use for this fight, use those tools that you already have.

CUOMO: Congressman, appreciate you being on the show. Look forward talking to you more about the visa waiver bill. Appreciate it -- Mich.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: War-wary Americans have been against boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq. That tide appears to be changing. Is President Obama open to a shift in his ISIS strategy? We'll ask a former top adviser to the president, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:43:07]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient, and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: In a rare prime time address from the oval office, President Obama reiterating his strategy to take down ISIS. Did he go far enough? Joining us is CNN's senior political commentator and former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod. Good morning, David.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning, you guys.

CAMEROTA: A prime time Sunday night address from the oval office suggests a momentous announcement of some kind. The president's critics say that it was more of the same. Did he go far enough?

AXELROD: Look, I thought it was a solid, well written explication of where we are and where we're going. You're right. The test of the state of the union -- I'm sorry, the test of an oval office speech is generally an event so momentous that the country is anticipating it or one where you're announcing a major change of policy.

That's not what it was. It's met with mixed commentary as a as a result. I thought he offered a very coherent argument for what we are doing and why and some reassurance to a country that needed reassurance. But whether it met that test, you know, is an open question.

CUOMO: So let me ask you this, help us make sense of this. It seems like the president's move responsibly and politically should be if you think we should do something more, go debate it. Debate the use of military force instead of throwing it in my lap. Debate whether or not to declare war. Why is he not going that? Because I'm not getting the significance of it or he doesn't want to turn offer the power.

AXELROD: Chris, I think he did it last night. That was one thing he clearly did last night. I know you were asking your last guest about that. What's peculiar to me is that the Congress is often complaining about the president overreaching with his power or use of power.

[07:45:06]Here's an opportunity to really delineate what the powers are of the president relative to this particular conflict. It would set a precedent for future conflicts and yet they don't want to do anything. You'd have to direct your, you know, further -- direct your questions to them as to why they're not acting on it. He certainly used the platform he had last night to make that case.

CAMEROTA: Yes, he also used the platform last night to talk about gun control. You know, his critics say that this San Bernardino case is not a good illustration of the need for gun control. This one is about terror. This isn't Charleston, South Carolina. This isn't Newtown, Connecticut.

This is about people who had a pipe bomb factory in their house. If you, David, were his senior adviser, still, would you have told him to use this San Bernardino case about gun control?

AXELROD: It feels like a leading question, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Well --

AXELROD: I'll answer it anyway.

CAMEROTA: Thank you. I'm serious about the advice that he's getting since so many people say -- AXELROD: You're right. They had a pipe bomb factory but they used

guns, including assault weapons they were able to purchase in order to commit the crime that -- the act of terror that they did.

It's commonsensical, he's right about this, if people are on a terror watch list and no-fly list and they can't get on an airplane because they're suspect, why would we sell them these weapons of war to go into civilian areas and wreak havoc as we saw here?

I don't think that's unreasonable. Honestly, the Republican Party on this one is really in a bad position. The roles are reversed here. It feels like they're trying to protect the rights of suspected or potential terrorists more than they are in this case the safety of the American people. And really, it feels like they're more frightened of the NRA than they are of ISIS.

CUOMO: Yet, there's something about it that makes it sound like you're off base, when you just get attacked by terrorists and you do everything you can to deny it's a terror attack, you slow off that part of it. It seems like you're off base.

When you think it's about guns you could proscribe the use of assault rifles. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. But when you talk about the no-fly list when this guy wasn't on a no-fly list, it seems like you're off base. Get the point, Ax?

AXELROD: No, because the speech was not just about this incident, it was about an overall strategy to deal with terror, this speech. I think most Americans are surprised to learn that you're on a list and can't get on an airplane because of suspected leanings or ties and yet you can buy an assault weapon.

I don't think any sensible person would say that makes sense. I think to have it as part of a larger strategy, which it was last night, doesn't strike me as off base.

CUOMO: Right, except that the guy wasn't on the list. That's what we're hearing as push back.

AXELROD: In this particular case, Chris. The speech last night wasn't just about this particular incident. It was about how do you prevent future incidents. Certainly keeping people who have potential terrorist ties from buying assault weapons is one way, given, in this day and age, that home grown terrorism is such a great threat. That certainly is something that we should do.

CAMEROTA: David Axelrod, great to get your perspective. Thank you for being here.

AXELROD: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: What's your take? You can tweet us using #newdaycnn or post your thoughts on facebook.com/newday -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: The question no one seems to be able to answer is how did a Muslim husband and wife go from innocent couple to terrorist murderers? Next, we'll get some perspective from two people who knew the San Bernardino attackers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:52:53]

CUOMO: All right, we have new information for you from the San Bernardino investigation, suggesting the killers were radicals and they were driven to extremes, in this case, the man being driven by the wife. What do friends of the couple say?

It's nothing like what the reserved parents they knew to be were about. We have a different picture emerging. Let's get some sense of who these people were.

Joining us now is Mustafa Kuko, the director of the Islamic Center of Riverside and coordinated a wedding reception for the pair. And we also have, Nizaam Ali, who often prayed with the husband around lunchtime at a mosque in San Bernardino.

Gentlemen, thank you for coming out and helping to further our understanding. When you hear about what happened here, when you heard, were you surprised, or did you have concerns about which way this man may have been headed?

NIZAAM ALI, KNEW AND PRAYED WITH SYED RIZWAN FAROOK: Absolutely. It was devastating. It was shocking to know that this person who was well-mannered, respectable, had good manners, transformed into this monster. We're trying to understand, as well, how could a regular, ordinary human being with such good qualities, how could he become the person responsible for this tragedy?

CUOMO: That's the concern, is how hidden was this transition. Mustafa, you did the wedding ceremony. We're confused on how the marriage worked. Were they married before you met them? Were they married in Saudi Arabia or overseas or did they actually get married here? What was your observation of this man and woman?

MUSTAFA KUKO, DIRECTOR, ISLAMIC CENTER AND MOSQUE OF RIVERSIDE: Yes, they get married in Saudi Arabia. They came over here and, shortly after they arrived, they did their reception in our center. Actually, he came over and asked for my permission. I gave him the permission, that he can use our premises for that kind of party.

We helped him to do it, and it was a very nice evening. He was very much happy. It was attended by around, I believe, if I remember, 300 people. It went fine, you know, nothing wrong with it that evening.

[07:55:10]But I did not do the rituals for them because they did it in Saudi Arabia.

CUOMO: Did you have any observation of him or her that gave you concerns about where their heads were?

ALI: Not at all, actually. To tell you the truth, first of all, I don't know her. I'd never met her. I know him very well. He was a well-mannered person, decent man, quiet, and peaceful, very much kept to himself.

Probably, he doesn't get mixed up with people that easily but still, he's a very good man, overall, you know. We never expected him to do something like this, you know, which is a horrendous crime. Myself, I never expected it to happen but it did happen.

CUOMO: Right. But Nizaam, that's the point. He may have seemed one way, but he wasn't that way. This guy became a very cold and calculated murderer, as did his wife. It's hard to understand how in the intimate settings of prayer and knowing him, conversing with him, there is no indication of where his head was.

When you think back on it, did you see him trending a certain way? Did it seem his wife was influencing him or he was influencing himself to be different than the man you first met? Something had to happen, right?

ALI: Right, absolutely. There has to be something that happened. I agree. As the doctor mentioned, we had no idea. We didn't see any change and stuff like that. Now thinking about it, I mean, I see that, you know -- how the Muslim community was unaware of this.

It makes perfect sense to me. We Muslims don't -- we don't know what a person does behind closed doors, in his private life. We don't see his web history. We don't know what people he was listening to, if he was being indoctrinated by someone in foreign country, teaching him some type of radicalism or something along those lines.

Had we, ourselves, known such a thing, we would have reached out to the officials and warn them that this person here is threatening to do something. Until today, and I'm sure the doctor agrees, if we see someone who is a potential threat in our community, we will take it seriously and report it to the officials.

CUOMO: I am not trying to put you on the defensive. This is about understanding how this went so wrong.

ALI: Right.

CUOMO: We hear -- I'm wondering, was there discussion about politics that you saw a change over time? His father now says, reportedly, that this guy was embracing of Al Baghdadi, the reporting is that the wife pledge allegiance to Al Baghdadi, obviously the ISIS head. Did anything come up in terms of politics, anger?

ALI: No, absolutely not. We would see him frequently, two to four times a week. However, our visits and talks with him, our conversations, were very limited, maybe 5 minutes or so. He was on lunch break. Hi and bye. How is family? How's everything?

There were no signs of him ever expressing a situation in which he was emotionally having some break through or something like that, or feeling that there's some policy, as far as American foreign policy or something, in question. I don't remember him making such comments.

CUOMO: Doctor, last question, there is a discussion about what to call this type of terror. There is criticism of the president. He won't call it Islamic extremism. He won't talk about Islamist extreme terror. How do you feel about what to call this?

KUKO: Well --

CUOMO: Of all times to lose them, I'll try find out what the doctor's answer was -- it's back. Good. Thank goodness for this. What's your answer, Doctor?

KUKO: I said this has nothing to do with Islam. Islam calls for peace and peaceful coexistence among all people. It cares about the human dignity and protects the life of the people, cares about the neighbors. A Muslim should care about neighbors to his left and right and in front of him and behind him.

So this is something that is very, very, you know, alien to Islam. That's why we feel bad it happened, and we feel sorry that so many people who have been lost their lives during this tragedy, which we extend our condolences to their families.

And we pray for them and pray for all souls who have injured, you know. So you know, it's kind of very messy situation. We are trying to find answers to it and we are trying also in our mosque also to get back to our communities and also to get back to our communities and, also, try and focus on the strategies that we have followed after 9/11.