CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Benghazi and Security at the Olympics

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MICHAEL GRIMM (R), NEW YORK: Good evening.

ACOSTA: I want to get to a statement that you've issued in light of these attacks. Let's put it up on screen, because I thought it was very interesting.

It says, "Each time we fail to recognize these threats, we not only risk the lives of innocent Americans, but appear weaker and vulnerable in the eyes of the enemy. In doing so, we allow the terrorists to become emboldened and continue their reign of terror throughout the world." Congressman, are you trying to say that we should have anticipated these attacks?

What did you mean by that?

GRIMM: No, actually. I was referring to Benghazi. What we have right now is -- is much bigger than a United States problem, as evidenced by the latest bombing in Russia. This is a global problem. And to defeat terrorism, we're going to have to have cooperation and coordination throughout the world.

But if we do not -- if we are not honest with the American people and we don't -- and we put out information that is not accurate, then how are these other countries going to be able to rely on us and depend on us and cooperate with us?

So I think it's -- it's much bigger than just that statement. It really goes to the heart of how do you combat a global problem like terrorism if we can't honestly and -- and sincerely discuss the issues of our own breaches in security, such as Benghazi.

ACOSTA: But is the administration not being honest about the threat to athletes in Sochi?

Is that what you're saying, as well?

GRIMM: Oh, no. I think there's...

ACOSTA: We'll get to Benghazi in a moment, but...

GRIMM: -- no question.

ACOSTA: -- but what about what happened in Russia?

GRIMM: Well, there's no question the are vulnerabilities there. As these -- as these bombings evidence, if someone is willing to give their life, like a suicide bomber, it is extremely difficult to protect from that outside a certain perimeter. Within a certain perimeter, you can protect. You can have layers. Security works like an onion and you peel

Layers to get to the -- to the point that is most protected on the inside.

But when someone is willing to kill themselves, like a suicide bomber, it is very difficult, especially (INAUDIBLE) primers, to prevent it.

And -- and in some instances, it's impossible to prevent. We have to take it very seriously.

But again, how are we going to help Russia?

We should be -- we need to cooperate with them. We have to increase their security, mostly because of what the Olympics represent. The Olympics represent really nations putting aside differences and coming together a peaceful competition, which is something we should promote.

But again, I think for Russia to be able to rely on us and to work with us, there has to be an underlying understanding that we come to the table openly...

ACOSTA: Yes.

GRIMM: -- and honestly about security.

ACOSTA: But Congressman, as you know, U.S.-Russian relations have taken a hit in recent years.

GRIMM: Sure.

ACOSTA: And let me ask you, because you're the chair of the House Russian Caucus, should the U.S. Be concerned about the security of our athletes at these upcoming Olympic Games?

And what is being done about it?

GRIMM: Well, there's no question that Russia has stepped up its security. My understanding is there's many, many layers. This will probably be one of the most difficult Olympics to actually go as a spectator and watch the games because of the myriad of layers of security.

But do I think that the United States has cause for concern?

Absolutely. And I do think that we have to have a relationship with Russia good enough that we can have open and honest discussions about security for our athletes, as well as the athletes of those from all around the world...

ACOSTA: Should we have...

GRIMM: -- and how we can help.

ACOSTA: -- second thoughts about sending our athletes over there, do you think?

GRIMM: No, I don't think that we should. I think that's how, you know, that -- that's how terrorism or terrorists declare victory, is when we -- when we stop doing things like the Olympics, then they've won.

We can't allow that to happen. We can't live in a state of terror or panic.

But you do have to take the appropriate precautions. And I think us offering to help Russia with that is a good sign. And that's also the reason why you have to have diplomatic relations with countries like Russia. We -- they're plagued by terrorism, as we are, and we have to work together if we're going to be successful in combating it.

ACOSTA: And let me turn to Benghazi. You mentioned Benghazi. There was this "New York Times" report that came out over the weekend that basically said that it appears al Qaeda was not involved in that attack on that U.S. Mission last year and -- and I just want to ask you, because Republicans have been saying for the last year or so that not only was al Qaeda involved or related in some way to that attack, but that the administration was hiding the facts.

Do you -- who was right in this scenario?

Do you believe "The New York Times" report?

Or are -- do you still believe, as many other Republicans believe, that this was an al Qaeda-related attack?

GRIMM: Well, I don't think it's a matter of belief, I think it's a matter of fact. "The New York Times" is wrong period. Both Democrats...

ACOSTA: Period. You're saying that the entire story is wrong?

GRIMM: Yes. And I would not -- and I would not say that it's a Republican point of view. For me, this has -- this is apolitical, first of all, as a United States Marine, as a former FBI agent, I can tell you that security is not something that should have any political undertones whatsoever.

The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats that have been briefed on the Intelligence Committee have tangible evidence, empirical data that has shown through -- through

Sources that all -- they could be somewhat tenuous, but there was definitely ties to al Qaeda, whether it was Ansar al-Sharia, whether it was Al-Shabab, it still -- there were still ties...

ACOSTA: Ties...

GRIMM: -- to some al Qaeda.

ACOSTA: But -- but let's -- let's get into this, because ties to al Qaeda and al Qaeda are two

Things, as you know, Congressman. And I know that you can't reveal...

GRIMM: But not...

ACOSTA: -- everything that...

GRIMM: -- but not completely.

ACOSTA: -- you've been shown by the intelligence community. You were going to say not completely, but where does the distinction lie?

GRIMM: Well, again, I would disagree with you. You know, if al Qaeda is funding an offshoot, an affiliate, to carry out a terrorist act, then there are terror proxy for al Qaeda and they may call themselves something differently. Look, al Qaeda has morphed. And that's the thing. There's no more traditional al Qaeda back from 9/11. They have changed and they have morphed. They've splintered off into many different groups. They still fund and train --

ACOSTA: But let's say --

GRIMM: -- different terror groups --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: -- that the attack was carried out by al Qaeda related elements.

GRIMM: Right.

ACOSTA: And you're saying al Qaeda can fund those al Qaeda related elements. Do you have proof that al Qaeda was funding this, providing support, providing aid in any way? How does al Qaeda come into this?

GRIMM: My understanding is that there is intelligence reports that ties this in ways to al Qaeda. I'm not at liberty to speak specifically about what those documents say and what that data shows, but there is definitely ties to al Qaeda. It's my understanding from briefings that I've been in. In addition to that, I also want to just say there's a little bit of common sense here.

When you look at the attack itself, this was a methodical, military attack. This was not some group of individuals that was upset and had -- these are trained individuals that went through this -- this was a military op. There's no question about that. Anyone that has any military training could look at this and say these were people that were very well trained.

They had all the right weapons. So, they were weaponized, they were trained, and they were methodical. They've obviously worked together and trained together before. So, the idea that this was a group that was upset because of whatever was happening in the region, internet, different --

ACOSTA: "New York Times" said that this video may in the end have provoked this attack or may have had a role in provoking this attack. You're saying that that's nonsense. You don't believe it.

GRIMM: I think it's outlandish just based on the attack itself. Again, if it was something that a YouTube video would have gotten ordinary people, citizens in that area upset, then they would have maybe done Molotov cocktails, thrown rocks, maybe someone would have had a firearm, maybe even an AK-47. This was a methodical well thought-out, well planned military style attack.

ACOSTA: And congressman --

GRIMM: This is not something that average citizens could do.

ACOSTA: -- in light of this report? Does this report at least create a question in your mind, in the minds of others, that you've spoken with, that perhaps new hearings are necessary to get to the bottom of this?

GRIMM: Well, I think we've been saying that all along. I think Chairman Darrell Issa has been doing a very good job of trying to elicit the truth here. And again, why is the truth so important? Well, it's important for several reasons. Number one, it's important for our own security to know exactly how many different factions and affiliates have splintered off from al Qaeda and how tenuous is the relationship, how strong is the relationship.

But then again, also, as far as our credibility with countries like Russia when we have new incidents, we have to be able to coordinate and we have to cooperate with them. If we're not honest with ourselves and with our own security breaches, how are they going to respect us to help them with theirs? That's why I think this is very relevant in the conversation of the Sochi Olympics.

ACOSTA: OK. Congressman Michael Grimm, we appreciate your time very much. And Happy New Year to you, sir. Thank you.

GRIMM: Happy New Year.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source