ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Killed In U.S. Raid
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.</s>CUOMO: "Bigger than Bin Laden." That's how this President is selling his successful raid in the death of Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader. Well what does it actually mean in terms of our collective safety? Let's get some perspective from someone who knows, a Congressman, and a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Republican Congressman, Dan Crenshaw. Welcome to PRIME TIME. And you're new to this show, so I want to say thank you for your service that you did then, and now. Appreciate you.</s>REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Thanks, Chris, thanks for having me on. So, you know, to answer your question, it's - it's a great - it's - it's a great moment for America. There - there's no bad news here. He was the - he was an awful terrorist leader, and glad he's gone. It doesn't mean we can take our eye off the ball, of course. There's going to be mid-level commanders who want to take his spot. There is still an insurgency of ISIS roaming throughout the region that does wake up every single day, and think about how to kill Americans, and build their Caliphate over again. So, glad it happened. Glad the President approved it. And I want to thank my Special Operations brothers for executing that mission.</s>CUOMO: Absolutely. They're the best of us. There's no question about that. Of course, I include you in their number. The rest of us give you our thanks. The, you know, you - you touch on something that's, I'm sure, where a lot of your constituents are, which is, you know, "Bin Laden, OK, he was the big bad guy, he's gone. Well now there's Al - you know, there's Baghdadi. Now he's gone." Well this snake seems to re-grow its heads. It's more of a worm than a snake - a snake in that sense. Why are we safer now? How does this help us? How are we ahead of where we were before?</s>CRENSHAW: Well the organization is - is naturally going to be in disarray when their leader is gone, so that's - that's a benefit, of course. But the ideology still stands strong. We're going to be fighting this ideology for a long time. I like to be very honest with the American people about that fact. And - and frankly, I don't think politicians on either side have been very honest about that fact for - for, you know, for years now, which is why we find ourselves in this debate of whether we should leave or whether we should stay.</s>CUOMO: It's not a debate for you though.</s>CRENSHAW: No. No. I mean you know what side of the debate that I've fallen on this.</s>CUOMO: Right. But why is important, you know I'd - so, look, we all do our homework on you, but for the American people, and it's always tough for you guys--</s>CRENSHAW: Yes.</s>CUOMO: --who have to go, and sacrifice, and do the fighting, to hear us say, you know, "Enough with it already! Let these people fight their own fights. We don't want to have our Dan Crenshaws and all our great talent over there"--</s>CRENSHAW: Yes.</s>CUOMO: --"at risk." You didn't want to leave and you believe that the success with Baghdadi is proof to you that you need to have a mentality of staying and doing more in the region. What do you think taking out Baghdadi--</s>CRENSHAW: Right.</s>CUOMO: --indicates about what our policy should be going forward?</s>CRENSHAW: Right. It's important to note that. So, the - the - the - this good outcome that we all agree is a good outcome was a result of some kind of forward presence out in Syria and Iraq, OK? You do need an intelligence picture of - of what's going on, on the ground. You need to have your human source network. You need to have your signals intelligence. You need a place to launch your UAVs. You need a place to launch your Special Operations Forces. You need to maintain alliances. And you need to - so this - I mean, this mission came from Intelligence sharing with our allies, the SDF, in - in this case. So, I mean this is really important stuff, and it's - it's - if we - if we like this outcome, then we have to understand how it took place. And - and I'll say this - this other thing to your comments about, you know, sending us over there. We can choose to let them fight themselves, and not to - and - and hope that they won't fight us. But we can't stop that, right, like war is a two-way street, so we go there, so they don't come here. And we can choose not to fight that war. But they don't have to choose that, OK? They can still fight us. And we learned that lesson in 9/11. And I don't think we should ever learn it again.</s>CUOMO: Now look, I get that it's just politics, and I get you're going to dismiss this. But what the President says is very effective for people. "I know better than the Generals. These Intelligence people can't be trusted, whether it's military intelligence, or they're wearing suits or uniform, I don't care. I know better. And look, I just took out Al-Baghdadi, and I'm leaving. So, let me make the decisions. The Crenshaws, he's a great American, but he's got that old institutional thinking, you know, he's one of them. I'm not. I got it done. We're leaving."</s>CRENSHAW: Yes, and I think - he's responding to a lot of Americans on the Right and the Left. This isn't even a partisan issue anymore. He's responding to a lot of Americans who have this war weariness. And - and I get it, which is why I find it so important to try and explain why we think what we think. Now, if you find yourself having to - having to call the other side a warmonger or an endless war-lover, it's just, you know, that's dishonest. It's - it's not true. There - there's good reasoning behind this. The world is a very small place. It's a 12-hour flight from the Middle East. Ideology travels even faster. You know, we - they - they radicalize. They radicalize our own citizens. They've radicalized terrorists in Europe, so this - this does have consequences, and it's important to send guys like me over there to keep pressure on the enemy. And to be fair to the President he has - he has - he's now decided to keep some Special Operations troops--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>CRENSHAW: --in Syria. So, getting his--</s>CUOMO: He modified the position.</s>CRENSHAW: Right.</s>CUOMO: And that is good. You know, I know politically, it places a "Gotcha" in his weakness. I don't believe in that. I believe that if you're just coursed to do something that's better than you were doing before that's leadership. Let me ask you something. For those who don't know you, they should Google, and take the time, you're a smart guy. You think about things really critically. You make a lot of videos about it, and I appreciate many of them. Here's what I don't understand about the ongoing impeachment debate. I don't have a problem with process. I'm a journalist. I'm happy for it to be as open as possible. I think there's obviously going to be a new phase of this process for the Democrats. There'll be different rules, different assessments. We'll see where that takes us, and the American people will get to see a lot. What is wrong with this position? "What the President did here is wrong. He shouldn't have asked this foreign leader to do what he asked the person to do. It could have been terrible. But it wasn't. They didn't give him the dirt. He didn't hold up the aid. Our relationship is OK and Russia didn't get any advantage. What the President did was wrong, but it didn't ruin us. It didn't ruin them. I don't think he should be removed." What's wrong with that position for a Republican?</s>CRENSHAW: It's a little unclear what the position is you - you laid out.</s>CUOMO: What he did was wrong but he shouldn't be removed.</s>CRENSHAW: OK. What he did was wrong but he shouldn't be removed.</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>CRENSHAW: I mean, yes, it's - there's - nuance is important here. Well I'm not sure I agree with the premise that he's done something wrong. I understand that there's a theory about wrongdoing. But there's - the facts do not back that up. We can talk--</s>CUOMO: You don't think he asked a foreign power to help him with a political opponent?</s>CRENSHAW: No. See - see there's - there's - there's a part to that question that - that - that departs from the facts that we have, which is the political side of it, OK? So, did he ask about Joe Biden? Yes. We have the transcript. So, you know, we - we can pretend that this - the - the military officer coming to testify tomorrow is a big bombshell but the reality is we already have the transcript.</s>OK-- CUOMO: I agree.</s>CRENSHAW: So, we have the transcript. We know he - we know he mentioned Biden. Now, why would that be? The - the question we have to ask ourselves, is - is the President mentioning it because there's some kind of public interest? Well I would argue in this case there might be because our former Vice President had a clear conflict of interest with his son being on the - being on the - on the - being a Board Member of a company that was being prosecuted by somebody that the Vice President was trying to get fired. So, there's a clear conflict of interest. Whether it's illegal or not is - is - is up for a different debate. It might not be. But it's an obvious conflict of interest. It also was coming out in the news around the time of that phone call. So, it's not that crazy that along with the many other issues of corruption regarding the 2016 election that the President was asking about--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>CRENSHAW: --that this is outside the public interest.</s>CUOMO: Right. But you are making an assumption.</s>CRENSHAW: And - and that's an important point.</s>CUOMO: It is. However, the premise of your situation there misses something also. You're assuming the President learned about it when everybody else did, and he didn't. He'd been coached about this largely by Rudy Giuliani for many months. And--</s>CRENSHAW: Yes.</s>CUOMO: --he went after Biden because he thought it would be good for him.</s>CRENSHAW: Well but - but you just - but you just made an assumption there.</s>CUOMO: And if he wanted to do an invest--</s>CRENSHAW: You just - you just read his mind, right?</s>CUOMO: Well the - but no, no, no, listen, look, that's a little bit of a game people play in politics. You don't need to play that kind of game because you have reason on your side here, which is I think he had a legitimate public interest. Maybe, but it doesn't have to be his only interest. And there's no question--</s>CRENSHAW: Yes.</s>CUOMO: --on the facts that Rudy Giuliani was telling people in the State Department what the President wanted him to say, which was, because he would tell people that, "I want to go after Biden. Biden's a bad guy. He is an enemy of the President." Volker, Taylor, Sondland, many others--</s>CRENSHAW: Yes, well here's the question I have for you.</s>CUOMO: --all had that message communicated.</s>CRENSHAW: Here's the question I have for you on that, Chris. So--</s>CUOMO: Yes, Sir.</s>CRENSHAW: So, if - if something - if something turns out good for the President, I guess, as you would put it, politically, but it's also in the public interest, then what's - then what's the right answer?</s>CUOMO: Well under the law--</s>CRENSHAW: Because - because, in this case, it really is in the public interest.</s>CUOMO: Under the law, there can be - literally, under the law, you can go look at the FC - FEC guidelines about this, if you have multiple points of interest in something, and one of them helps you in the election, you've got trouble.</s>CRENSHAW: Yes. Well now you're - now you're trying to press the campaign finance law--</s>CUOMO: But I think, and this is for people like you and others.</s>CRENSHAW: --thing and that's--</s>CUOMO: Well I think it would be.</s>CRENSHAW: --that's a stretch.</s>CUOMO: Well I mean--</s>CRENSHAW: I mean that's a - that's an enormous. It's really difficult to - to make that.</s>CUOMO: Well those cases do stink. And I think the enforcement of them is even worse. But this is a conversation the country is going to have to have. And men and women like you of goodwill are going to have to vote on it. And that's why I wanted your head on it. Thank you very much for helping us understand the national security issue. You can be a lot of help to my audience, Dan Crenshaw. I hope you come back on this show soon.</s>CRENSHAW: Will come on more. Sorry it's taken so long. Thanks, Chris.</s>CUOMO: Hey, Congressman, you're busy. The work of the people comes first. You're always welcome here. God bless and thank you for your service.</s>CRENSHAW: Thank you.</s>CUOMO: All right, telling you, he's a smart guy. He's going to loom large in that party for a long time if he chooses to. It's good to hear where his head is. This is a big conversation. Al-Baghdadi, dead on this President's watch. Yes. Should he get credit? Hell, yes, he should get credit. But why is a win never good enough for this President? I have an argument for why I think that is, next.</s>TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.