ABC "This Week" - Transcript: Terrorism

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Pierre.

Thanks very much.

Let's get more on this now from Republican Congressman Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee, Democrat Adam Smith from the Armed Services Committee.

And Congressman King, let me begin with you.

Do you pretty much agree with Pierre's assessment there of the current threat?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Yes, George. I'm not aware of any particular threat right now. Having said that, especially at this time of the year and considering we have ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Core Al Qaeda, all of whom have the ability and the goal of attacking the United States, we clearly have to be more -- more vigilant than ever.

And I would especially say with Core Al Qaeda. ISIS has been on the front pages. They're getting the headlines. And I can see al Qaeda wanting to get back into the game, if you will, to show that they are top in the Islamic terrorist world.

So I think we -- we can't just focus on ISIS. It has to be ISIS, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Core Al Qaeda, and, of course, there are the homegrown threats.

But, again, the intelligence community is focused. The homeland security community is focused. But we cannot let our guard down for a second...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Congressman...

KING: -- especially with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Smith, there is some debate over the scope of the threat posed by ISIS. I was struck this week by the comments...

REP. ADAM SMITH (D), WASHINGTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- from the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen. He said any homeland threat from ISIS is, quote, "Likely to be limited in scope and scale."

SMITH: Yes, I think that's correct. I mean al Qaeda, particularly al Qaeda in -- al Qaeda's senior leadership in Pakistan, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen, they are the ones that have been actively plotting attacks against Western targets, attacks that we have managed to disrupt.

ISIS, at this point, is primarily focused on Iraq and Syria. I think the real threat from ISIS is the foreign fighters from the United States and other western countries that have gone to Syria to fight with them who then may come back. But they pose a threat more as lone wolves than as sort of any sort of organized plot. There's no evidence at this point that ISIS is plotting and planning in the way that bin Laden was doing for 9/11.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman King we're going to hear the president's new strategy on Wednesday. He's also seeming to suggest this morning that he has all the authority he needs now to take action even against Syria.

Do you agree with that? Or do you think he should come to congress?

KING: As a Republican, I do believe the president has the constitutional authority to take action now in Iraq and in Syria against ISIS. I believe as a matter of course, it's probably better for him to get congressional approval, but I -- which I would certainly vote for. But I don't believe he needs it. And if that's going to delay what he wants to do, he should go ahead and just take action without waiting for congress. This is too important to get this bogged down in a congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there.

If it is there, ideally he should get it. But I believe as commander-in-chief he is the absolute power to carry out these attacks.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the support there, Congressman Smith? And should the president come to congress?

SMITH: Well, it's hard to tell at this point whether or not the support is there. But I agree with Peter. I think under Article II the president definitely has the authority to confront a national security threat. I do think it would be better if congress would authorize it.

The devil there is in the details. What does the language look like? What would congress actually authorize. I think you would have a deep divide between people who were worried that it would be too much of a blank check, too broad of authority, and others who might worry that it would constrain the president. So I think getting the exact language through congress would be extraordinarily difficult, even though I agree with Peter that's what we ought to do, we ought to set the policy that we think the president ought to follow.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, for both of you, how much more is it going to take to meet the president's goal actually defeating ISIS? Congressman King, you first.

KING: I believe it's going to take a sustained national effort from the president, which he's doing more and more, making it clear this is not going to be a short-term operation. I believe full air attacks, special operations forces and getting as many allies as we can, ideally Arab allies on the ground, to -- and of course the Iraqi army has to be back in the field doing what it has to do, plus training and arming the Kurds.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Smith.

SMITH: Actually, what it's going to take, really, is Sunni allies, that's what's so important about this. I mean, all the emphasis is on, well, the U.S. should act. Well, if the U.S. acts without Sunni support in the region it could strengthen ISIS, that's why the patience in Iraq, until the Iraqi government replaced Maliki and showed the Sunnis that there would be some evidence of power sharing made our efforts more effective. If it's just the U.S. going to war with ISIS we run the risk of strengthening them. We need to find partners in the region like the Kurds, like the Iraqis, like the Free Syrian Movement who will lead the fight and then we, and the international coalition, support them.

We will not be successful against ISIS unless Sunnis in the region are willing to rise up against them and we work with them to be an effective partnership.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source