Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

ISIS Terror Suspect Indicted in New York; Obama, Kerry Press Forward on ISIS Plans; Interview with Representative Ed Royce; Interview with Congressman Eliot Engel

Aired September 17, 2014 - 09:00   ET

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


CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: NEWSROOM starts now.

Good morning, I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me.

This morning the fight against ISIS turns to American oil. A New York shop owner is indicted, accused of funding ISIS and plotting to kill American soldiers.

And just days after President Obama vowed to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS the terrorist group sent a chilling warning to the United States with a new Hollywood-style propaganda video called "Flames of War." It's released just hours after the nation's top military adviser told Congress the United States has not ruled out boots on the ground.

All of this as President Obama tries to bolster support for the U.S. mission with a visit to a military nerve center, CENTCOM. He speaks this morning at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa.

But we begin with that New York shop owner accused of providing support to ISIS. A grand jury has indicted this man, Yemeni-born Mufid Elfgeeh. Federal officials say the 30-year-old tried to arrange contract for jihadist hopefuls who wanted to join the extremist fight. Even more chilling, authorities say he was planning to gun down American troops who had served in Iraq.

The FBI began tracking Elfgeeh last year after a series of suspicious tweets like this one, quote, "Al Qaeda said it loud and clear. We are fighting the American invasion and their hegemony over the earth and the people." In another tweet, he reportedly say that ISIS will one day rule the world with the will of Allah.

So let's dig deeper with CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes.

Good morning, Tom.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good morning, Carol. So what do you make of this guy? Is he a lone wolf or is he connected to the larger terror group ISIS?

FUENTES: Well, I think he's a lone wolf among many lone wolves who are possibly semi-connected or maybe a little bit more connected than we know. In this case, you know, we have someone who is bragging on social media that he has this desire to help recruit people to go join ISIS and help arrange their logistics and send money and has contacts to do it. And, you know, and appeared to do it.

Now a lot of these guys, a lot of people do this on social media or in the community or among friends and it gets reported to the FBI and to the police. But they're just talking. But once a person starts to go forward in the plot as he did and purchased weapons and luckily from informants of the FBI, but once he takes the plot forward, then it's more than talk. He's in the operational phase of supporting terrorism and intending to commit a terrorist act himself.

COSTELLO: Well, let me ask you about that, because as you say, authorities arrested Elfgeeh as they said he tried to buy guns and ammunition from them and then he tried talk them into joining ISIS. So exactly how dangerous is this guy?

FUENTES: Well, fortunately, not dangerous anymore. But guys like him that are out there are very dangerous. And you know, the thing about the lone wolf is as long as they are alone or maybe just have one partner like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston a year ago with the marathon bombing, you know, they can avoid coming up on the radar of authorities that they're planning these things.

Normally what's happened in these cases, they have reached out on social media or telephone calls or in the community to try to enlist others and when they do that, somebody invariably reports it to the FBI or the police to take a look at him. And that's happened in many cases in the U.S., the Toronto 18 case in 2006 in Canada, another example, when the person reaches out, they take the risk of being identified by the authorities.

COSTELLO: Let's turn our attention to this new video released by ISIS. It's called "Flames of War." And it appears to be one of the first responses from the terrorist group since President Obama outlined his strategy in a national address. It ends with warning, "The fighting has just begun, coming soon."

Should we worry more or is this just propaganda?

FUENTES: It's absolutely just propaganda. But we have enough people in our country and other countries around the world that watch this stuff and we think that they should just look at as being absurd, but this he don't. They look at it as a call to arms, an exciting opportunity to do their duty for their faith and go join this group and be part of a greater cause and, you know, we see this now, these commercials essentially coming out of ISIS.

Whatever happened to our commercials? Be all you can be, where we see, you know, Americans jumping out of military helicopters were joining the Navy to see the world or flying jets around the world? So we are not seeing our own military recruiting films anymore but ISIS but we're seeing ISIS put this very slickly produced material out there, which is exciting to a 16, 17, 18-year-old who thinks about joining.

COSTELLO: Well, let's hope YouTube flags it and takes it offline soon. At least I hope so.

Tom Fuentes, thank you very much.

FUENTES: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Also today -- you're welcome.

Also today, President Obama and his top diplomat, John Kerry, will press forward on the administration's strategy against ISIS in Washington and beyond. The president in Tampa, Florida, this morning, well, he'll meet with people in charge of planning the military operation against ISIS. The meantime, Kerry will be on Capitol Hill this afternoon to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, joins me now with more on this.

Good morning, Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. That's right. President Obama is in Tampa to hear from U.S. Central Command leaders coordinating the fight against ISIS, and as he arrived in Florida last night the White House was busy clarifying some surprising statements from Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey on whether there would be U.S. combat troops fighting against ISIS in Iraq.

Dempsey told a Senate hearing yesterday as we all know that it's not the plan but at the moment, he added, if I found that circumstance evolving, I works of course, change my recommendation and when asked about that, White House officials said General Dempsey was engaging in hypotheticals and that the president's pledge of no combat boots is not changing.

As one official put it, Dempsey is free to make any recommendations he chooses but it's the president who has the final say. Now aboard Air Force One yesterday, 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 cautioned that combat situations can always change. They can always arise and the hundreds of U.S. military advisers on the ground, in Iraq, are authorized to defend themselves. But I am told, Carol, that you can't expect the president to repeat that no combat troop pledge when he speaks after his meeting at CENTCOM.

COSTELLO: Do you suppose Secretary Kerry will repeat that pledge as he testifies later today?

ACOSTA: Well, you know, after what happened yesterday, I think it's pretty certain that Secretary Kerry will be asked about the president's no boots on the ground promise. Of course the president will have a chance to clear that up in his remarks before Kerry testifies. But also, Carol, expect Secretary Kerry to get pressed on this coalition that he's been busy building over the last several days.

He was in the Middle East. He was in Paris just a few days ago. He is going to get pressed on this coalition that the administration says it will be unveiling over the coming weeks. The question, of course, Carol, is which Arab countries have signed up and exactly what are they going to be doing? That's going to be the key question, I think, at that hearing later today.

COSTELLO: All right. We'll be listening. Jim Acosta reporting live from the White House this morning.

Shifting gears now to the NFL. A major reversal overnight by the Minnesota Vikings. Star running back Adrian Peterson, who's been charged with felony child abuse, has now been banned again from participating in all team activities. The stunning reversal comes just days after the Vikings announced Peterson would be allowed to practice and play in Sunday's game against the New Orleans Saints.

Over night the Vikings released this statement, quote, "While we're trying to make a balance decision, after further reflection we have concluded that this resolution is best for the Vikings and for Adrian," end quote.

Peterson is also facing new accusations he abused another one of his children. That's according to CNN affiliate KHOU. The controversy has already triggered a backlash from sponsors. Yesterday, Peterson lost one of his biggest endorsement deems with Carol Oil. The Radisson Hotel has already suspended its partnership with the Vikings until the legal process plays out.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, a stunning new report on what happened when Joan Rivers was undergoing surgery. Investigators say the accounts are coming from those in the operating room who saw the doctor take a selfie while Joan was under anesthesia.

We'll talk about that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Checking some top stories for you at 12 minutes past the hour.

Stunning new details in the investigation into the death of Joan Rivers. Sources tell CNN her doctor actually snapped a selfie during Rivers' throat surgery just before Rivers went into cardiac arrest. Staff members at the New York clinic has reportedly told investigators about the picture.

A dire warning for the desert southwest. Weather experts say the remnants of Hurricane Odile could trigger deadly flash floods and mudslides across several states over the next few days. Weather experts are using words like devastating, catastrophic and historic. The heaviest rainfall is expected to hit Arizona and New Mexico. We are watching Congress for a second day of hearings on the Ebola

outbreak begins next hour. American Ebola survivor, Dr. Kent Brantly, is set to testify today. He is urging swift action to back up President Obama's plan to contain the virus in Western Africa. Lawmakers voice concern the United States is not doing enough to stop the spread of the virus here.

Also today, the House is expected to vote on whether to give the go- ahead for arming and training Syrian rebels. If approved, the $500 million would be a first step in funding efforts against ISIS. But how much money will we ultimately have to give to arm those Syrian rebels and how will the United States ensure that money is being used to actually fight ISIS?

Joining me now Representative Ed Royce from California. He is the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Good morning, sir.

REP. ED ROYCE (R), CALIFORNIA: Good morning.

COSTELLO: First question, will you -- will you vote to fund the rebels?

ROYCE: Yes, I think there'll be a majority vote, probably on both sides of the aisle, simply because this is training and equipping Sunnis in the region and we will be doing the same with the Kurds. I think it's very important that this fighting be done by Arabs and Kurds and not by U.S. troops.

COSTELLO: Do you trust them these Syrian rebels to do the right thing, to just fight ISIS and say not, let's say, Bashar al-Assad?

ROYCE: Well, part of the process will be vetting these Syrian troops and frankly, they have been holding on in Aleppo for quite some time now, fighting ISIL. What they have asked for is the kind of equipment that will allow them to hold on, maybe turn the tide of battle. If we are giving some air support to them, I think it could be very consequential in turning back the tide that, you know, ISIL has been able to grab a lot of territory.

COSTELLO: Well, Congressman -- Congressman, I ask you these questions because you heard John McCain in the hearing yesterday.

ROYCE: Yes.

COSTELLO: Even a pro-war guy like John McCain is concerned those Syrian rebels will turn on the United States. So why take the chance?

ROYCE: Well, actually, Senator McCain had been in favor of vetting them and training them, but the bottom line, the bottom line is this -- look, we have -- we have got a situation here where ISIL is expanding on the ground. You've got troops that are Kurdish, you have got Sunni troops. You have got these Syrian forces that want to fight them.

We've got airpower that can really degrade them from the air, I don't think want you the 82nd Airborne on the ground down there. I don't.

COSTELLO: No Americans do.

ROYCE: Right.

COSTELLO: But here it's thing, you said these rebels will be vetted. Who's doing the vetting?

ROYCE: The U.S. -- the U.S. army's doing the vetting. What they do is they take them offsite, they take them into Saudi Arabia, the Saudis supposed to pay for this whole operation. Our U.S. troops are there. Our -- you know, Central Intelligence Agency works with them in order to give them the types of weapons they need to fight ISIS or ISIL.

COSTELLO: Well, I think that many Americans don't quite believe that arming these Syrian rebels will actually help win the war against ISIS. You heard what General Dempsey say, there may come a time when we have to put American boots on the ground and can you actually promise the American people there won't be boots on the ground in Syria or in Iraq?

ROYCE: Here's what strikes me as unusual here. During the first Gulf War, when we saw, what, 42 divisions invade Kuwait, you had a situation where the fifth largest army in the world attacked and U.S. air power was used, over 100,000 flights over that area, knocking out 3,700 tanks, 85 percent of their armored personnel carriers and trucks, and degraded and made inoperable 42 divisions.

Now, that was done in very short order. That was a six-week air campaign.

Do you want to have troops on the ground? Yes, but I would argue with you again, if you've got Kurds that want to do the fighting, why not arm the Kurds? If you've got Arab troops that want to do it and the Saudis want to pay for it, as long as we get to vet who does the fighting, I am not an enthusiast for sending U.S. troops into that kind of a situation.

I don't see why we should. We can have sufficient air power to really degrade these 30,000, you know, ISIL soldiers. Why would we want to reintroduce U.S. forces into that field of operation? I'm just telling you --

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: I'm just telling you what General Dempsey said in that hearing yesterday.

ROYCE: I listen to Dempsey's testimony and Dempsey said if -- if, if -- he was asked hypothetical after hypothetical. They said, well, let's say a U.S. fighter is shot down, as I recall, you know, the question is are you going to go in and get that airman? Well, of course you are. Of course you are.

But the question of using U.S. combat troops on an ongoing basis is one that when put as a hypothetical, I think the answer should be we -- our responsibility is to figure out a strategy that will work in which we do not do that. Because that's the last thing that we should want to see happen.

What we should be driving for is a strategy that makes the Saudis pay for it and the Kuwaitis, because in on the line here. And it brings divisions or at least brigades out of the Gulf states in order to do fighting on the ground, that trains the Kurds that were here yesterday, their foreign minister met with me and members of my committee.

He said we've got a force larger than the ISIL forces, all we want are the anti-tank weapons, the artillery to match them on the battlefield. We are turning them back now, expedite the arms to us. We have had the same request you know, from some of the Free Syrian Army.

It seems to me that that's what we want to do right now, Carol, in order to make certain that we turn the tide battle and the fighting is actually done by Arab and by Kurdish forces who want to do that fighting. That's my thought on this.

COSTELLO: Congressman Ed Royce, thanks so much for being with me. I appreciate it.

ROYCE: Thank you, Carol.

COSTELLO: And stick around. A congressman from the other side of the aisle, Democrat Eliot Engel gives me his thoughts on arming those Syrian rebels, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: As I told you before the break, lawmakers will vote today on whether to art Syrian rebels using $500 million of your tax dollars. General Dempsey said he is confident a U.S.-led coalition would defeat ISIS with the help of those Syrian rebels, yet Speaker John Boehner said training Syrian rebels as an interim step that may not be enough to wipe out ISIS.

So, the question is, how far will $500 million go and will the United States ultimately need to put boots on the ground?

With me now, House member, Congressman Eliot Engel. He is from New York.

Good morning, sir.

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: Good morning, Carol.

COSTELLO: If lawmakers pass a measure that includes $500 million to arm the Syrian rebels, could that be considered a war vote?

ENGEL: Well, I don't think it's a war vote, per se. It's a vote to combat a terrorist organization named ISIS whom I believe, if we did no would eventually strike our home land the way al Qaeda did on September 11th, 2001. So I think this is something that Congress needs to do.

It's not something we like, but we are elected to have responsibilities and this is the day of reckoning.

COSTELLO: Well, you know what a lot of Americans think, don't even call this a war vote, but a lot of people think that Congress or lawmakers should pony up and say, yes, we are going to war with ISIS and we are for it and we're going to vote for it.

ENGEL: Well, I think that's what this is, if we are arming and training the Syrian rebels, ISIS is now obliterating the border between Syria and Iraq and so you can't fight ISIS in Iraq and not do it in Syria as well. The president needs the authority of Congress to do this. The president takes the position that he doesn't need any more authority to go into Iraq because he already has that. That's debate.

But I think the president is right in doing this. I think the Free Syria Army are the people who want to see democracy come to Syria and if we don't want American boots on the ground, we have got to train others to have boots on the ground, we have the Iraqis, we have the Kurds, and if we train the moderate Syrians, they can be our allies on the ground.

COSTELLO: Do you trust the moderate Syrians? Do you trust them completely, 100 percent?

ENGEL: Well, I don't trust them completely. I don't trust anybody completely when it comes to that region of the world. And it comes to --

COSTELLO: So, we are giving $500 million to people you don't quite trust? I assume you're going to vote yes on the bill.

ENGEL: Yes, I am voting yes. There are only bad choices left in Syria and Iraq, but for me, the worst choice of all would be to do nothing. When we allowed the Taliban to have -- give al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan, we got September 11th in return. If we allow Iraq and Syria to turn to a safe haven for these IS terrorists, these ISIS terrorists, we'll have more attacks on the U.S. homeland.

That's why I believe it's in the U.S. national interest to get at these guys. They are bad guys, they are terrorists. It's the same to me whether it's ISIS or ISIL or IS or Hamas or Hezbollah or al Qaeda, they're all terrorist that want to use terror to achieve political ends and that's a direct threat to the U.S. homeland.

COSTELLO: And think everyone would agree with you on that point, but when you hear things from lawmakers like we got to do something, it's unsettling. It's like better than doing nothing, we will vote force $500 million and arm these Syrian rebels that no one quite trusts.

ENGEL: No, no. I have been talking about arming the Syrian rebels for two years, I put in a bill a year and a half ago to do that. I think we should have been doing it quite frankly for the past couple of years. This was a plan that Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta and General Petraeus and Gates came up with, and we should have been doing this.

But, you know what, better late than never. We didn't do it and so, ISIS moved into the void. And now, it's a chance to route ISIS. I don't think we have a choice. Nobody likes to do this, but I really believe the responsible vote and the right vote is to vote yes.

COSTELLO: Another question for about this $500 million. This most assuredly is just an initial payment because if you consider this since June, you know, less than a three-month period, the United States spent $560 million on U.S. military operations in Iraq alone. So, I would say many Americans are wondering how much this coming conflict is going to cost us.

ENGEL: Well, let me just say. This cannot be a conflict that's fought by the United States alone. This has to be a coalition and the president has assured us that he is assembling a coalition. The Arab states have to participate in this. This cannot be simply another, you know, Western attempt for regime change in another Middle East country.

So, I think it's very, very important that we do that. I think this is not going to be like an occupation of Iraq that we saw that many of us were disillusioned with. Look, the American people are war-weary and so am I, but we saw those horrific beheadings of two Americans and one Brit. These are very bad guys, and it's not simply a matter of, well, it's over there and put our head in the sand and kind of pretend they won't come here.

They will come here. And that's why we've got to stop them now. But it has to be a coalition.

Again, this is not easy, but the worst thing I think would be to do nothing. We need to do something. The president is right.

COSTELLO: All right. Congressman Engel, thank you so much for being with me this morning. I appreciate it.

ENGEL: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Still to come in THE NEWSROOM: suspended again. The Minnesota Vikings now say all pro running back Adrian Peterson will be kept off the field indefinitely.

Plus, more sponsors are not so happy with the entire National Football League. Oh. And it's Anheuser-Busch. That could hurt. We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)