James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 2:37 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS: Good afternoon. Happy Halloween. I thought for sure I'd see some costumes today. Q We're dressed as reporters. MS. SANDERS: That's not nearly as exciting as what you could have come as, but we'll let it slide for today. Today, I'm once again pleased to talk about the topic that we and, more importantly, the American people are all very excited about: tax cuts. We're approaching the release of legislation based on the tax reform framework the President supports. Unfortunately, no matter how great the plan is for the hardworking families, Democrats are expected to criticize the tax cuts as they've done in recent years, putting partisan politics ahead of their constituents' pocketbooks. While arguing over President Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, Democrats claimed it would only benefit the rich. The Democrat Speaker of the House at the time, Tip O'Neill, called them royal tax cuts, because he claimed they favored the wealthiest Americans. What really happened was more than 14 million new jobs were created over five years; incomes grew by over 22 percent for the next seven years; and the economy grew by over 3.5 percent, on average, for the rest of the decade. Some Democrats must have been paying attention to history, because as recently as last year, they publicly supported many of the principles for which the President is advocating today. That includes lowering the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among developed nations, so that our greatest businesses can be more competitive. In fact, Presidents Obama and Clinton both advocated for cutting corporate tax rates. Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer in the past called our tax system “upside down and inside out.” And last year, he actually admitted that cutting corporate taxes is “really important for American competitiveness.” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi apparently agreed, because she said, “It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate tax rate.” The only thing that seems to have changed since then is who occupies the White House. Since day one, the President has been committed to jumpstarting our economy and giving hardworking Americans the raise they deserve. Under the framework supported by the President, our economy will grow, businesses will invest back in the country, and American workers will see their wages grow. In fact, the Council for Economic Advisers estimates that a typical, hardworking American family would get a $4,000 pay raise. So to Democrats in Congress, particularly those who would like to place American jobs and middle-class tax relief ahead of partisan politics, the question is very simple: Do you believe the Americans people deserve a pay raise? We certainly do. And that's what we'll be focused on and fighting for. The choice is yours. And with that, I’ll take your questions. Steve. Q Sarah, where does the President stand on this tax deduction for state and local taxes? That seems to be in dispute up on the Hill. MS. SANDERS: Look, we've laid out our priorities for the tax cut plan. Those haven’t changed. The President is going to continue working with both the House and the Senate to push forward and make sure that the principles he laid out are achieved. And we haven’t made any adjustments to that at this time. Q But what about the mortgage interest deduction? MS. SANDERS: Again, same point here: We haven’t made any changes to the priorities that we've laid out. I'm not going to negotiate between you and I. But the President is going to be involved in ongoing conversations with members of both the House and Senate, and we've laid out what our priorities are and we're going to stick to those as we move forward. Q Has it come up in the conversation with Speaker Ryan just now? MS. SANDERS: They're still meeting now, and we'll have a readout on that meeting once it's completed. Matthew. Q Thanks, Sarah. A question on yesterday's Mueller news. President Trump's nominee to serve as chief science advisor over at the Agriculture Department is Sam Clovis, and Clovis was the campaign supervisor cited in that Papadopoulos plea. And his lawyer has since acknowledged that he was the one in that plea who encouraged Papadopoulos in August 2016 to make a trip to Russia to meet with Russia officials about the campaign. Given all that, is the President still comfortable with him, Sam Clovis, serving in the administration? MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware that any change would be necessary at this time. Q And on that note, is the administration aware of who the other three or four campaign individuals who were referenced in that Papadopoulos plea were? And are any serving in or advising the administration? MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware of the specific individuals. What I can say is that I think Papadopoulos is an example of actually somebody doing the wrong thing while the President's campaign did the right thing. All of his emails were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign, and that is what led to the process and the place that we're in right, was the campaign fully cooperating and helping with that. What Papadopoulos did was lie, and that's on him, not on the campaign. And we can't speak for that. Jon. Q The Chief of Staff, John Kelly, said that this counsel investigation has been very distracting to the President. Can you elaborate on that? Is this affecting his ability to get the job done here? MS. SANDERS: I don’t think it's at all affecting his ability to get his job done. And that wasn’t the point he was making. You guys seem completely obsessed with this, while there are a lot of other things happening around the country, and, frankly, a lot of other things that people care a lot more about. The media refuses to cover it, and I think that's the distraction, instead of the focus being constantly on tax cuts and tax reforms. My guess is, if you look at the records, the questions that I take in here day out have far more to do with an investigation that, frankly, most Americans don’t care too much about, and a whole lot less to do with policies that actually impact them. Q Why are you so confident that the investigation won't go on much longer? MS. SANDERS: Because we have confidence that it's going to come to a close in short time. Glenn, go ahead. (Phone rings.) Glenn has got a call. Maybe he needed to phone a friend to get help with his question. (Laughter.) Q Sarah -- MS. SANDERS: Glenn, I had more faith in you to be able to ask a question all by yourself, but -- Q The other thing that General Kelly said yesterday was in reference to General Lee, and he said that the Civil War was a result of a failure to compromise. Was he suggesting that there be compromise on the abolition of slavery? Can you expand on exactly what he was talking about? MS. SANDERS: Look, all of our leaders have flaws -- Washington, Jefferson, JFK, Roosevelt, Kennedy. That doesn't diminish their contributions to our country, and it certainly can't erase them from our history. And General Kelly was simply making the point that just because history isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that it's not our history. Q Let me follow up. You're a proud daughter of the South. When you see Nathan -- like a statue as they had in Memphis of somebody like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was responsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre, and other folks like that, is there a differentiation? Do you think there are certain Confederate figures who don't deserved to be honored, like Nathan Bedford Forrest? MS. SANDERS: Look, I don't think that we should sit here and debate every moment of history. I think those moments took place. There are moments that we're going to be a lot less proud of than others, but we can't erase the fact that they happened. I think you have to determine where that line is. The President has said that those are something that should be left up to state and local governments, and that's not who I'm here representing today, so I'm not going to get into the back and forth on it. Jon. Q Thanks a lot, Sarah. Just to follow up on what you said yesterday and what you have reiterated today about this investigation and your belief that it's going to be wrapping up soon. Yesterday, you said that, "Those are the indications that we have at this time." From your point of view, is what you're saying wishful thinking? Is it spin? Are you getting leaked information that gives you that indication? Why do you continue to say that you believe that it is wrapping up soon? MS. SANDERS: Again, that position has not changed, and we do think that it will wrap up soon. I didn't say it would be three or four days; I said soon. And we hope that that's the case, in large part because we know that the facts are on our side, there was no collusion. And we're looking forward to moving forward, and hoping that you guys can as well, and we can actually start talking about and focusing on some of the things that I mentioned to Jonathan that we feel the American people would rather the conversation be turned towards. Jessica. Q At the Papadopoulos hearing -- MS. SANDERS: Sorry, I'm going to keep moving. Q I just want to ask you this one thing about one of the prosecutors that is on Bob Mueller's team. At the plea hearing for Mr. Papadopoulos last month, he hinted at the possibility of more to come in the investigation. He said the Mueller probe is "a large-scale, ongoing investigation of which this case" -- the Papadopoulos case -- "is a small part." So, given what he said, as an officer of the court, are you disagreeing with anything that he said in his remarks during that plea hearing? MS. SANDERS: Maybe his reference is in looking more to come between the Democrats and the Clinton campaign, since I think if there's any evidence that we've seen to date, it's between them colluding with other foreign governments, certainly not from our side. Jessica. Q Sarah, I have one question about what the President said today, and then an Asia trip question, broadly. But the first question is: The President mentioned in the tax reform meeting there that he was going to be announcing "soon" some companies that are coming back to the United States. Can you either name them or give us the industry that we're talking about? MS. SANDERS: You know I'm not going to get ahead of an announcement that the President is going to make. If he wasn't willing to tell you today, I'm certainly not going to step in and do it. Q And then on the Asia trip, the speech that he's making at APEC is being billed as a theme for the trip as well as the Indo-Pacific. Does this administration see India as a pivotal part of your strategy when it comes to the Asia-Pacific more broadly? MS. SANDERS: It certainly plays a big role, and General McMaster will be here later this week to discuss the trip in greater depth and more detail. And he'll be happy to address more of those questions at that time. Q Sarah, the former White House strategist, Steve Bannon, is saying the administration should push back harder against Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Does the President support defunding the special counsel? MS. SANDERS: No. And I'm not sure what we'd push back against since, so far, all they've done is come up with ways and shown more and more that there was no connection between the Trump campaign and collusion with Russia. John. Q Thank you, Sarah. Two questions, please. First, the President is quoted last year as calling Mr. Papadopoulos, and I quote, "a great guy." And today it was "a liar." And I wonder, just to kind of clear the air, how well did he actually know him? And was briefed by him often? Did he have frequent meetings? How well does he know this man? MS. SANDERS: My understanding is the only interaction he ever had was the one meeting that the advisory council gathered together, where he was in a large group of other people in the room. And to my knowledge, that's the only interaction they ever had. Again, this was a campaign volunteer. He wasn't somebody that was a senior advisor, as many of you want to bill him to be. He was somebody that played a minimal roll, if one at all, and was part of a voluntary advisory board. That's it. Q And he only met the President -- candidate Trump, one time? MS. SANDERS: That's my understanding, John. That's the only incident that we're aware of. Q The other thing I wanted to ask was that a few weeks ago, when the President sent out Twitters about the media, he suggested that equal time be applied. Now, to many people, that was a euphemism for the Fairness Doctrine, something that President Ronald Reagan helped eliminate and which Democrats, such as Leader Pelosi, have tried to revive. Is he seriously in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine? And I might add that its premier opponent of revival was a young congressman named Mike Pence. MS. SANDERS: I don't know that he's into the deep weeds of the Fairness Doctrine, but I know he certainly believes in fairness. And I think that he would like to see that applied, certainly, to his administration in a way that it probably hasn't been so far. Charlie. Q The President -- sorry, Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore is on Capitol Hill today. Does the President have plans to meet with him at any point today or this week before he leaves for Asia? MS. SANDERS: No, there's no planned meetings at this time. Q Sarah, there is still a lot to be negotiated on taxes -- SALT, which was just brought up; possible phasing in of the corporation rate, just to name a couple. When the tax bill -- whatever of it -- is released tomorrow, will the President wholeheartedly endorse this as his plan? MS. SANDERS: As of right now, we see no reason to feel otherwise. But until we see the details of that, I'm not going to speculate on where we are. We've laid out what our principles are, and we expect that that piece of legislation to reflect those principle. If it does, you'll certainly see the administration come in with full-throated support. Q And lastly, on the Fed -- I know you're not going to give us a name. I'm not asking you to give us a name. MS. SANDERS: But what If I did, wouldn’t it be fun? (Laughter.) Q Then we would love the name. Q Come on -- MS. SANDERS: That's the most excitement we've ever gotten out of this room. (Laughter.) Sorry. Q If you want to give us a name, we will take it. If not, my simple question is: Has the President made his decision, or is he still debating it? MS. SANDERS: I can tell you that it's not Major Garrett. (Laughter.) But beyond that, I don't have anything to weigh in on. go ahead. Q President Trump, during the campaign, repeatedly castigated Hillary Clinton for not coming forward and coming clean when she got debate questions ahead of the debates. Why didn't anyone in the Trump campaign, including his son, come forward when there were solicitations from Russian agents to provide dirt on his opponent? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure how those two things are even remotely related, so I couldn't begin to figure out how to answer that question. Q I'm just getting to the sense of the proactive duty to come clean when there is an ethical question. And is the President upset that people in campaign did not come clean when there were ethical questions and ethical lines being broached? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe that to be an ethical question. That's a pretty standard campaign operating procedure. Q Collaborating with the Russians is? MS. SANDERS: That's not collaboration with the Russians. Sorry, Noah. I know you want it to be, but it just isn't. Go ahead, Mara. Q I have two questions. The first one is: You've been very clear that Trump didn't collude but Hillary did. What is your definition of collusion? MS. SANDERS: Well, I think the exchanging millions of dollars to create false information is a pretty big indication. I think taking millions of dollars into a foundation that benefits you while making decisions that impact people that gave that money, I think those are certainly areas of collusions that should certainly be looked at. Q And my second question is about -- MS. SANDERS: Steven. Sorry. Q Just to follow up from Glenn. Robert E. Lee aside -- and I understand your point about how all leaders have flaws -- but what Kelly said yesterday was that an inability to compromise led to the Civil War. And back in the spring, the President said that he thinks that Andrew Jackson could have made a deal to avert the war. What is the compromise that they're talking about? To leave the southern states slaves and the northern states free? What was the compromise that could have been made? MS. SANDERS: I don't know that I'm going to get into debating the Civil War, but I do know that many historians, including Shelby Foote, in Ken Burns' famous Civil War documentary, agreed that a failure to compromise was a cause of the Civil War. There are a lot of historians that think that, and there are lot of different versions of those compromises. I'm not going to get up here and re-litigate the Civil War. But there are certainly, I think, some historical documentation that many people -- and there's pretty strong consensus from people from the left, the right, the north, and the south -- that believe that if some of the individuals engaged had been willing to come to some compromises on different things, then it may not have occurred. Q Thanks, Sarah. Apropos what's going on on the Hill this afternoon, and Facebook disclosing yesterday that more than 100 million Americans were apparently exposed to what amounts to Russian propaganda, what's the White House's view of that notion, that more than 100,000 people have been reading and watching what this Russian outlet has been putting out? And what do you make of the notion that there ought to be some kind of requirement that Facebook be required to disclose -- the way that many broadcasters are required to disclose -- when political ads are made? MS. SANDERS: I think we need to see how this process works out over the next several days. And some of those questions are things that you're going to have to ask Facebook. That's not something that the federal government can weigh in on at this point, until the findings of that investigation and those hearings are completed. Hallie. Q Sarah, I'd like you to follow up on something you said earlier, but I also want to follow up on the conversation that's been happening about the slavery compromise. I'm not asking you to re-litigate the Civil War. We don't need a history lesson on the compromises that have happened. But does the White House at least acknowledge that the Chief of Staff's comments are deeply offensive to some folks, and historically inaccurate? MS. SANDERS: No. Because as I said before, I think that you can't -- because you don't like history, doesn't mean that you can erase it and pretend that it didn't happen. And I think that's the point that General Kelly was trying to make. And to try to create something and push a narrative that simply doesn’t exist is just, frankly, outrageous and absurd. I think the fact that we keep trying to drive -- the media continues to want to make this and push that this is some sort of a racially charged and divided White House -- frankly, the only people I see stoking political racism right now are the people in the groups that are running ads like the one you saw take place in Virginia earlier this week. That's the type of thing that I think really is a problem. And I think it is absurd and disgraceful to keep trying to make comments and take them out of context to mean something they simply don't. Q There's a new poll out that shows that the public seems to trust many of the mainstream media outlets that the President criticizes more than they trust the President himself. Why do you think this would be? And do you think the White House agrees with that? MS. SANDERS: I haven't seen anything to suggest that. I'd have to look into it. I certainly can't comment on some study I know nothing about and don't agree with. Q Sarah, given some of the criticism we've heard from the President's outside advisors, is the President happy with his legal team right now? Does he feel well-represented, well-defended when it comes to the Mueller probe particulars? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure how he couldn't, considering -- as I said yesterday and I've repeated several times today -- all of the revelations that have taken place over the last several days and hours have nothing to do with the President, have nothing to do with his campaign. And I think the further we get into it, the more and more we see that happening. Kevin. Q Thank you, Sarah. I just wanted to ask about taxes and then maybe just a very quick follow on the discussion about compromise. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're really saying is, he's not just suggesting a compromise on slavery, he's talking about other compromises that may have been germane to that period of history. Is that fair? MS. SANDERS: Look, I think that was part of the conversation that a lot of people have had. He didn't get into the specifics because that's something that's been discussed very widely by many historians, again, from both the left, the right, the north, the south -- however you want to look at it. And he didn't get into the details of it because it wasn't the point he was making. Q On taxes. I just want to get a sense of what the President might really be interested in as far as the child tax credit and as far as the Obamacare individual mandate. Is it your opinion that the President would be supportive of both? Meaning, that they need to be a major tenet of the tax reform that will be unveiling this week? MS. SANDERS: He certainly supports the childcare tax credit. I'm sorry, what was the other piece you were asking? Q The Obamacare individual mandate. Does that have to be a part of tax reform? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe it has to be part of tax reform, but the childcare tax credit is something he'd certainly like to see. I'll take one last question. Major. Q Sarah, you said to us a few moments ago the Papadopoulos plea agreement is an example of an individual doing the wrong thing but the campaign doing the right thing -- if I remember what you said -- correct me. Does that extend to Sam Clovis encouraging George Papadopoulos to go to Russia on behalf of the campaign to solicit information? MS. SANDERS: My understanding is there wasn't encouragement. He made multiple attempts at setting up a variety of meetings that were constantly rebuffed. He also made false statements to investigators. That's something that the campaign nor the administration would ever support. All of his emails, again, were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign, and that is how they got to the place that they're in right now. Q Are you saying that Clovis is being misinterpreted by George Papadopoulos? MS. SANDERS: I'm not getting into the detail of that. I'm talking specifically about the multiple attempts that he made in setting up a variety of meetings. There were more than one instance in which he tried to set up meetings that were rebuffed by the campaign. He lied about a lot of those activities, and that is the place that you, I think, see come through in the emails that were voluntarily turned over. Q Let me ask you about one thing you said yesterday. You were asked at one point during yesterday's briefing when the President became aware that Russia was behind hacking and possession of emails. You said, "I'm not sure of the specific date of when that took place, so I'd have to look and get back to you." MS. SANDERS: Yeah. I can respond to that now. The President was briefed in a pretty widely publicized meeting back in January. Later that very day, he said publicly that he had received the intelligence briefing and he believed Russia was behind the email hacks. Thanks so much guys. I hope you have a happy and safe Halloween. END 2:59 P.M. EDT
Американское правительство пока не готово подтвердить встречу президентов России и США Владимира Путина и Дональда Трампа в ноябре на саммитах АТЭС и АСЕАН, заявил представитель администрации США высокого ранга. «У президента состоится ряд двусторонних встреч на полях (саммитов АТЭС и АСЕАН). Но мы пока не готовы подтвердить их, за исключением тех, на которых в качестве принимающей стороны выступают сами государства - в Маниле (Филиппины) и Дананге (Вьетнам)», - передает его слова ТАСС. Он отметил, что на эту тему более подробно выскажется помощник Трампа по национальной безопасности Герберт Макмастер в ходе следующего брифинга о предстоящей поездке американского президента. 23 октября в Белом доме заявили, что в рамках саммита АТЭС возможна встреча Путина и Трампа, но деталей встреч американского президента во Вьетнаме еще нет. В Кремле также отмечали, что пока нет графика двусторонних контактов Путина в рамках АТЭС. 25-й саммит АТЭС запланирован в Дананге с 5 по 11 ноября.
Ниже перевод статьи авторства Eliana Johnson в Politico. Как и в случае самого заявления Трампа по иранской ядерной сделке, предлагаю статью без собственного комментария – все и так замечательно изложено. Как говорится, ни убавить – ни прибавить. А Никки Хейли совсем не удивила, мне уже доводилось комментировать ее, мягко говоря, неортодоксальные взгляды на международную политику. […]
Президент США Дональд Трамп заявил, что «Исламское государство» терпит поражение на Ближнем Востоке, и боевики перебираются в Африку и другие регионы. Однако ведущий американский чиновник по вопросам безопасности считает, что уход «Исламского государства» не означает конца терроризма в регионе. В интервью телеканалу «Аль-Хурра» на этой неделе советник президента по национальной безопасности Герберт Макмастер предупредил об опасном влиянии Ирана на Ближнем Востоке. далее➤
Участники восьмого раунда Женевских переговоров сосредоточатся на вопросах разработки конституции и проведения выборов в Сирии
Восьмой раунд межсирийских переговоров начнется в Женеве 28 ноября. Об этом сообщил сегодня членам Совета Безопасности ООН Специальный посланник ООН по Сирии Стаффан де Мистура. Он призвал членов Совета поддержать этот процесс, подчеркнув, что переговоры должны быть более четко «сфокусированы» с учетом сложившейся обстановки.
Remarks by Vice President Mike Pence Commemorating the 34th Anniversary of the 1983 Bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon
Marine Barracks Washington, D.C 11:22 A.M. EDT THE VICE PRESIDENT: Rabbi Resnicoff, Secretary Shulkin, Acting Secretary Duke, General McMaster, General Walters, Colonel Zagurski, Lieutenant Colonel Gerlach, Ambassador Araud, Chargé Jazzar, and to all the members of the United States Marine Corps, all of our armed forces, our honored veterans, and the family members of our beloved fallen: It is deeply humbling for me to join you today to commemorate the 34th anniversary of the Beirut Marine barracks bombing. is no more fitting place in our nation’s capital to mark this solemn day than here, at the oldest post of the United States Marine Corps, the Marine Barracks of Washington, D.C. And, Colonel, we are grateful for your leadership and for the hospitality of all these Marines. This facility is an enduring testament to the fortitude and valor of America’s Marines. It has stood here for more than two centuries, and as tradition holds, in the War of 1812, the British refrained from burning it out of respect for the “leathernecks” they faced in battle. For my part, it's deeply humbling for this father of a United States Marine to stand before so many of the few and the proud, and to thank you for your service to the United States of America and to freedom. (Applause.) Today, it's my privilege to speak to you on behalf of your Commander-in-Chief, President Donald Trump, and I bring the President’s greetings. But more than that, I bring the President’s heartfelt condolences, and those of my little family, and all of the American people to all of you who are gathered here today who lost a family member or a friend on that day in October in 1983. Thirty-four years ago today, America was thrust into war with an enemy unlike any we had ever faced. The sun rose early on that Sunday morning, climbing above the mountains of Lebanon, casting the day’s first beams of light across the city of Beirut. The soft rays of sunshine soon reached the airport to the barracks where the members of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, and many others had already begun to stir. These brave Americans were stationed in that ancient land to keep a fragile peace. As we just heard, they were there and they came in peace. They were shoulder-to-shoulder with their brothers-in-arms from the United Kingdom, Italy, and France. For more than a year, this force of freedom stood together to protect the innocent and prevent a civil war from becoming an even greater tragedy. But for that very reason, because of the principles for which they stood and the peace for which they strived, these heroes aroused the attention of great evil. And on that Sunday morning, that evil set them in its sights. The men began their day like any other -- writing letters to their loved ones, eating in the mess, and rising from their racks. But beyond the barracks’ walls, unbeknownst to them, a lone truck began its approach. It entered the airport, turned toward the building, circled in a parking lot just beyond the wire barrier. And then history records the truck rushed forward. It burst through the wires, sped between two guard posts, and through the open gate -- crashed into the lobby. Within seconds -- within just moments the driver detonated his deadly cargo, the light of the dawning sun was virtually eclipsed by what was described as the largest non-nuclear explosion in the history of the world. In that moment, 241 Americans lost their lives. They were soldiers, they were sailors, but the vast majority of them were United States Marines. It was the bloodiest day for the United States Marine Corps since the assault on Iwo Jima. The men we lost were fathers, they were brothers, they were sons, and they died in defense of peace and freedom. And for that, we will forever remember their service and their sacrifice -- of that I can assure these precious families who are here today. We also remember the 58 French paratroopers, who died only moments later when a second attacker struck their installation. Just moments after -- the Ambassadors just told me -- they had heard the explosion in the distance. And then terrorist violence would be visited upon them. The Bible tells us that “the Lord is close to the brokenhearted.” And to the families of the fallen -- even now, 34 years hence -- let me assure you that will be our prayer for you this day. In fact, let me take this moment to recognize all the members of the Beirut families here today. You honor us with your presence. (Applause.) Let me also acknowledge Rabbi Resnicoff, Colonel Gerlach, and all the members of the Beirut Veterans of America who were there, on that day, who lost so many friends and fellow Marines, and have never failed to honor the lost -- not just one day a year, but every day in your careers and in your lives. (Applause.) Of your organization, your motto rings ever true, that our “First Duty is to Remember.” And so you have. And today, President Trump and the First Lady, and my family, and all of the American people do our duty as well. We remember our fallen heroes and those they left behind. But we also have a duty to honor the memory of our fallen by continuing to stand strong to fight and defeat the enemy that so cruelly took them from us. The Beirut barracks bombing was the opening salvo in a war that we have waged ever since -- the global war on terror. It's a conflict that has taken American troops across the wider world -- from Lebanon to Libya, from Nigeria to Afghanistan, from Somalia to Iraq, and many other battlefields in between. At this very hour, around the globe, thousands of brave Americans are defending our freedom from the forces of terror. And to them, and to all of you, I say with confidence: Under this Commander-in-Chief, the Armed Forces of the United States will have the support they need to confront our enemy and win. (Applause.) President Trump has already taken decisive action to make the strongest military in the history of the world stronger still. Our President has already signed the largest increase in defense spending in nearly 10 years. And as we speak, we are working with the Congress to pass the largest investment in national defense since the days of Ronald Reagan. And under President Donald Trump, I promise you, we will rebuild our military, we will restore the arsenal of democracy, and we will once again give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources and training they need to accomplish their mission and come home safe. (Applause.) And with renewed American strength, this President has made clear that America will stand with our allies and we will stand up to our enemies. And we are taking the fight to terrorists on our terms, on their soil. Radical Islamic terrorism is a hydra with many heads, striking London, Paris, Barcelona. No matter what name they choose to go by or where they try to hide, this President and our armed forces are committed, as the President said in his own words, to “destroy terrorist organizations and the radical ideology that drives them” -- and so we will. (Applause.) The brutal act that brings us here today was planned and perpetrated by the terrorists of Hezbollah. Under President Trump’s leadership, we've redoubled our commitment to cripple Hezbollah’s terrorist network and bring its leaders to justice. Earlier this year, under President Trump’s leadership, our law enforcement arrested two Hezbollah operatives in New York and Michigan. And earlier this month, our administration announced rewards for information leading to the location, arrest, and conviction of two of Hezbollah’s senior-most leaders, including Fuad Shukr, one of the masterminds behind the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks. But as we all know, that terrorist group is merely a proxy for the leading state sponsor of terrorism. And President Donald Trump has put Iran on notice that we will no longer tolerate their destabilizing activities or their support of terrorism across the region and across the world. (Applause.) Iran’s theocratic rulers aided and abetted the Beirut bombers 34 years ago. And even now, Iran praises the attackers and remembers them as martyrs. Worse yet, the Iranian regime continues to funnel funds and weapons to its terrorist minions, with the goal of shedding blood and sowing chaos throughout the wider world. Just over a week ago, our President took decisive action to confront Iran’s aggression when he announced that the United States of America will no longer certify the Iran nuclear deal or tolerate Iran’s support of global terrorism. (Applause.) This President will not sit idly by while the ayatollahs in Tehran plot more attacks like the horrific attack that we remember today. As the President often says, he has no higher priority than the safety and security of the American people, and we will fight tirelessly to defeat the specter of radical Islamic terror no matter where it rears its ugly head. In Afghanistan, our President has made it clear that our armed forces will remain engaged in the fight against the Taliban and all the terrorist groups in the region until we eliminate that threat to our homeland, and our people, once and for all, will be safe and free. And so, too, we will continue the fight against the terrorists of ISIS. Three years ago, those barbarians celebrated in the streets of their self-declared capital in Raqqa. They perpetrated unspeakable acts of violence and drove countless people from their homes in Iraq and Syria, and they proclaimed the start of a thousand-year caliphate as they raised their black flags across the region. But today those flags no longer fly in their self-proclaimed capital of Raqqa. (Applause.) As a candidate, our President pledged, in his words, to “crush and destroy ISIS.” And today, thanks to the courage of our armed forces, and the resolve of our Commander-in-Chief, ISIS is on the run. Just last week, American and allied forces liberated Raqqa, and across Syria and Iraq, the caliphate is crumbling. And you can be assured, we will not rest, we will not relent until we hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source so it can no longer threaten our people, our allies, or our way of life. (Applause.) The war on terror began 34 years ago today. At this very hour, on frontiers of freedom, brave Americans continue the fight, continue to sacrifice as, even today, we grieve the loss of four American heroes who fell in Niger earlier this month. As we do today, we honor their service and sacrifice, and we grieve with their families and friends. Even more so, we renew our pledge that their and the sacrifice we remember today will not have been in vain. And as a nation, we resolve that under the leadership of President Donald Trump, we will drive the cancer of terrorism from the face of the Earth. (Applause.) As I close, let me say again how deeply humbling it is for me to be with all of these families and these courageous Marines today. It is an honor as your Vice President, but it is also my honor because, as our family knows, I could well be sitting in a different seat today, with the Beirut families, remembering a loved one and a hero lost 34 years ago. The General was kind to note that I'm the proud father of a United States Marine. But I'm also the proud brother of a United States Marine. My older brother enlisted in the Marines back when I was in college. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. And in 1983, that battalion was ordered to Beirut, including First Lieutenant Greg Pence. Like a lot of Marines, my brother liked to send a lot of letters home, and we waited anxiously for them. Turned out he lived in the very barracks where the attack occurred with all his fellow Marines. I remember one letter; he told us that early in the morning, sometimes late at night, he liked to go up on the roof to watch the sunrise or watch the sunset. He'd sit next to an American flag that fluttered in that autumn breeze. He sent me a picture of it that he saved just the other day. When we first heard about the Beirut bombing, all we could think about, as a family, was that our brother was there. I called my parents immediately to ask if Gregory was okay. They didn’t know. I called his new bride, Denise -- asked her if she had heard anything. She hadn't. As families gathered here remember, in those times, we waited. It was a different time; we didn't have emails and text messages and 24-hour news. All our family could do was what your families did -- wait, hope, and pray. And we did. A couple days passed before he called. It turned out he had shipped out with his battalion only days before the bombing. Gregory was able to come home to that new wife, put his arms around our folks, start his own family. But I promise all of you, just like my brother, we'll never forget. We'll never forget the 241 who never had that chance. When heroes fall, America mourns. And today, 34 years on, we still mourn with those who mourn and grieve -- with those who grieve. But we do not grieve like the rest who have no hope, because our faith gives us hope and heroes give us hope. To the families of our fallen, I say with conviction, the memory of your loved ones will live on forever, enshrined in the hearts and memory of a grateful nation. And as long as America endures, we will honor their service and sacrifice, and we will strive every day to be worthy of it. We will do our part in our time to keep lit the flame of freedom for which they gave that "last full measure,” and we will ever kindle the flame of faith. For as Rabbi Resnicoff wrote so many years ago, it is through faith that we find strength. And today and every day, we can take comfort in the knowledge that they were, as God above is and ever will be, Semper Fidelis. May God bless our beloved fallen. May God bless and comfort their families gathered here and across this nation. May God bless our veterans. May God bless all you who serve. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 11:46 A.M. EDT
Помощник президента США Герберт Макмастер сообщил, что идеи американского лидера "будут лежать в основе стратегии обеспечения национальной безопасности"
Susan Glasser: Well, fantastic. This is Susan Glasser, and welcome back to The Global POLITICO. We’re here in the Russell Senate Office Building with Senator Tom Cotton, probably one of the leading Republican voices on foreign policy and national security today, up on Capitol Hill, so it’s a real treat to talk with him, especially in the middle of what—I know he’s smiling, here—has been quite a newsy week that he also found himself in the middle of. He’s given a major speech about the Iran deal. It looks like the policy is headed in the direction he suggested it should go. He’s also spent a lot of time at the White House this week. So I’ve got to ask you about that, first of all. You went to dinner with President Trump. You were back up there, today. What did you talk about so much?Tom Cotton: Well, we had wide-ranging conversations this week, as we normally do, about what is on the Senate’s agenda and what’s on our country’s agenda. But as you say, Iran, right now, is on the president’s mind, probably more than anything. He’s our commander in chief. It’s his job to protect this country from threats like Iran, and under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, he has to decide, by October 15, whether to certify that the Iran nuclear deal is in the United States’ vital national security interest and Iran is complying with that deal. So we’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks discussing that matter, in addition to things like immigration, with which I work closely with the president and his senior team, and taxes, which is dominating the Senate agenda right now. Glasser: So yes, that small plateful of issues. But Iran was the subject of your conversation today, primarily. Cotton: We talked about Iran, at some length, yes. Glasser: And so, again, this podcast will come out next week. The news will be what it will be. But basically it looks like President Trump has until October 15 to certify or not, to Congress, once again, that Iran is complying with the terms of the deal and that it remains within the U.S. national security interests. You and others have suggested that he not certify it. President Trump himself has made it very clear, including, at his speech to the U.N., that he views the deal as an “embarrassment,” and has run out of patience with recommendations that he should certify it. Is that what’s going to happen next week?Cotton: I hope so. The president, as you say, at the U.N. General Assembly, made it clear that he believes the Iran deal is an embarrassment, worst deal in history, and, in July, the last time the 90-day certification requirement occurred, he made very clear, after that certification, that it was a reluctant decision on his part, and he wanted more policy options the next time around, which is upon us now. And it’s important to note, important for your listeners to know—I know this is The Global POLITICO podcast—that there is a difference between U.S. law and the Iran deal itself.The certification that is occurring occurs under U.S. law, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Every 90 days, the president must certify to Congress, not only that Iran is complying with the deal but also that the deal is in the vital security interests of the United States. I argued in July, I argue now that putting aside any questions of compliance—and we can argue those, if you’d like—that this deal is manifestly not in our national security interests, because it puts Iran on the path of becoming a lawful, legitimate, nuclear power in the second half of the next decade, which is barely 10 years away. Moreover, it empowers Iran, through the sanctions relief they’ve received and their legitimation in the eyes of the world on their campaign of imperial aggression throughout the Middle East. So, in my opinion, it is a straightforward case that this is not in the national security interests of the United States. The president should not certify that it is. That has no immediate impact on the nuclear deal itself. That’s another decision that will have to be made by the president and by Congress and, by extension, the so-called E.U. plus three—Great Britain, France, and Germany.Glasser: That’s actually an important point, and interestingly, it is a point that is also the point that was made to me last week by Iran’s foreign minister on this podcast, Javad Zarif, who negotiated the deal. He also made the point that, in some ways, President Trump’s speech at the U.N. was a little bit misleading to people, that it implied that he could just walk away from the deal or blow it up. And Zarif’s point was, well, this is actually a U.N. Security Council resolution, and he was staking out a position that, in an interesting way—obviously, the rhetoric is 100 percent different—but he’s also basically saying, this is an internal matter for the Congress. It’s up to Congress to adopt any decision or not adopt any decision as it did in the past. He means during the original approval of the deal. In effect, it was decided not to bring it to the floor as a treaty. Now, I know you had strong issues with that, but basically, I know your rhetoric is exactly opposite. But it seems to me that the foreign minister of Iran—Zarif—and the emerging policy that we’re hearing about is, okay, well, President Trump might decertify the deal. But that doesn’t mean that you support blowing it up right away, on October 16. It doesn’t mean that you think Congress should go ahead and pass tough, new sanctions right away, right? Am I correct in understanding that?Cotton: So Javad Zarif is correct in his description of U.S. law and its relationship to the nuclear deal. But he is incorrect in the path ahead. That certification sends a very important signal to Congress and to our E.U. plus three partners and to Iran that this president is not going to abide by a disastrous nuclear deal. Now, we don’t have to re-impose sanctions immediately. We’ve had that power all along. There’s nothing that any president can do to take that power away from Congress, under our Constitution. Likewise, the president has that power. Javad Zarif is right, that there are sanctions under U.N. Security Council resolutions and under the U.S. law.The president has the ability, though, through his power in U.S. law and his veto on the Security Council to reimpose all those sanctions at a stroke. Again, we don’t have to do that on October 16. I think we can give coercive diplomacy a matter of weeks or months to operate. It can’t be years. I know it can’t be 2025 to 2030, but we have an opportunity, in part because some of our European partners, recognizing that this president is unwilling to accept the deal as written, have started to acknowledge its flaws, something they did not do for the 18 months of the Obama administration, after the deal was struck.So the course of action I recommend after declining to certify is, step one. Step two, working with Congress, working with the E.U. plus three and Israel and all of our Arab allies, who probably would be happy if we re-imposed all sanctions immediately, and new sanctions, as well, to lay out the terms that we think are simply unacceptable. Those are the sunset clauses in the 2024-to-2030 timeline, centrifuge research and development, the inspection regime, the omission of their missile-testing program, the lack of any kind of calibrated, step-by-step penalties other than snap-back sanctions.Glasser: So basically what you’re recommending, and where it seems that the policy that they’re going to announce next week is going, is to not certify but also not immediately jump into a Congress voting on new sanctions thing but to try to use this moment, then, to come up with a new negotiating position that doesn’t create a rift with Europe, because that’s one of the things—Cotton: Given the situation we face, today, that’s, to me, the most sensible course of action. Similar to the situation that George Bush faced in late 2002 or early 2003, with the U.N. Security Council and the trouble that France and Germany was causing him. He went the extra mile because of his relationship with Tony Blair and José Maria Aznar from Spain, and to keep their countries as part of those coalitions. I think it’s worth giving coercive diplomacy a chance for a few weeks or a few months. Again, it can’t be years. It’s not an October 16 problem. It can be a 2018 problem, but it can’t be a 2025 problem.Glasser: Do you think most members of the Republican Conference here in the Senate will agree with you on that? Have you already been talking in the conference?Cotton: Well, every Republican voted against the nuclear deal. Everyone believes that it’s a bad deal, and I think, if the president takes that course of action, they’ll by and large support him.Glasser: So let me ask you. You framed it—you said it’s not in the national security interests, in your view, to certify it at this time, and you said that in your speech the other night. President Trump, as you’ve pointed out, has also said the Iran deal poses a direct national-security threat. Just the other day, Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, came to Capitol Hill. He was asked that question directly in testimony by one of your Senate colleagues, and he said the exact opposite. He said, “Yes, in my view, it is in the national security interests of the United States to keep the deal.”How do you square that circle, and it’s also been reported, of course, that Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, has been advocating for continued certification, not because either one of them love the deal—they’ve both been very publicly critical of it. But you now have a situation where the president is on the brink of overruling his two top national-security leaders. Cotton: So I respect Secretary Mattis. On that specific point, I simply disagree with him, in part because of the points I’ve been making—especially that no one has any good answer for what happens in 2025 to 2030, which is the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. However, Secretary Mattis also said that he could see the case for staying in the deal with the proper changes to the deal, which is kind of the course of action that I am recommending here. At root, though, we don’t have secretaries of state and secretaries of defense to make these decisions. We elect a president, who’s democratically accountable to the American people. And they say, in baseball, that the longest 18 inches is the difference between the assistant coach’s seat on the bench and the manager’s seat. That it’s the difference between advising and deciding. Same thing is true at the National Security Council table. Glasser: So do you feel like this is a significant moment for President Trump, then, in choosing to go a different direction than both of these top two figures are recommending?Cotton: I think it’s an important moment for the country and for trying to set right what the Iran deal made wrong, not just with Iran’s nuclear program but empowering their violence against the United States and our allies, and against our interests throughout the Middle East. I can’t speak to every decision that Donald Trump has made, in which he may have taken one side or the other, inside of his National Security Council, or disagreed with all of them. I’m not present for those. But ultimately, those are decisions that presidents make. Glasser: All right. So help us. Because you have spent a lot of time talking to the president and his team. You are a key outside advisor. You’ve been very supportive. You recommended that he consider General McMaster for the national security advisor’s job. I’m sure the listeners of this podcast, and I personally—we want your help. Please help us. We want to understand what is going on with the president’s foreign policy.It can seem, at times, very disjointed. The spectacle, yesterday, of the secretary of state giving a press conference like that, not explicitly denying that he called the president a moron. Now, we all have tempers, but still, we all recognize this is a pretty unusual situation. What’s going on, in your view? Are we still going to have this secretary of state a month from now? Cotton: Well, I’m obviously not privy to the private conversations that the president has with his cabinet members, that those cabinet members have in between themselves, so I can’t comment on those news reports, that both Rex Tillerson and President Trump have said that they’re not accurate. I simply can’t comment one way or the other. On your broader point, though, about the president’s foreign policy, I would submit that his foreign policy, over these first nine months in office, is much more in keeping with the bipartisan tradition of foreign policy, starting with Truman in 1945 and going through George Bush in 2009, than President Obama’s policy was. In almost every area, in his own way, with his own rhetoric, he has reasserted American leadership, and he’s willing to confront threats before they gather. Again, to go back to Iran, that’s my main case, why it’s not in our national security interests, is that time is on their side, as is usually the case with weaker but aggressive revisionist powers. They grow stronger, the longer we let the danger gather. Their economy grows. We have Western corporations that get entrenched in the economy, creating a pro-Iran lobby in our countries. They get more conventional military strength, especially when the arms embargo expires under the deal in 2020. And they ultimately get a nuclear weapon. President Trump realizes those things. That’s one reason why I hope that he will decline to certify and strengthen the deal. He recognizes it with North Korea. He recognizes that the North Korea present could be the Iran future. He also recognizes, in the Middle East, that we had thrown a lot of our allies under the bus over the last eight years—something that did not happen for many decades beforehand.So even though his rhetoric may sound unusual to the foreign-policy establishment in Washington and New York and Brussels, I think his foreign policy itself is much more in keeping with a long bipartisan tradition than Barack Obama’s was. Glasser: My guess is that, even in Little Rock, it’s unusual to have the president of the United States threaten “fire and fury” upon another nuclear-armed nation. But I take your point. You’re—Cotton: I mean, President Reagan once said, “The bombing will begin in five minutes,” about the Soviet Union. Glasser: Well, he was—he was going on tape joking about that. It was not a very well-received joke, that’s for sure. Cotton: Well, this is a broader political point, is that Republican presidents are rarely well received in Europe. I mean, everyone looks back on Ronald Reagan now and agrees that he was one of the two great presidents, along with FDR, in the 20th century, and it was his policies that brought the Cold War to an end.Sometimes they forget about the kind of mass hysteria that was caused in 1983 by the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces to Europe or his speech to Parliament or his speech at the Berlin Wall and so on and so forth, that the leaders of our European allies and their peoples were not very enthusiastic about a lot of those decisions at the time. George Bush faced the same thing in Europe. Now Donald Trump faces it. Glasser: Well, some people would say—and, again, this is not just the Senator Cotton theory of the case. There’s certainly plenty of people who believe that if you can somehow screen out the Twitter feed or the rhetoric, that President Trump has had a much more conventionally Republican foreign policy than he’s often given credit for. Does that mean you advise people to ignore the Twitter feed? I mean, many people feel this is his id.Cotton: I don’t think anyone in the United States or in the world can ignore anything the president of the United States says in any medium, so I think it’s important that we read everything he says. Now, sometimes it has more impact on the state of the world, or it has more impact on a farmer or waitress or a truck driver in Arkansas. You know, when he’s talking about economic matters or security matters, when he’s talking about the fake news media, he may be right about that. But it doesn’t have the immediate impact on the prosperity and security of the American people.Glasser: So just on the national security team and how you see it working—all smiling about Twitter aside. I’m actually really interested in your opinion about, it’s clearly been reported to be a challenging thing for this establishment. You can bash it all you want, but those are the people who are running it. You’re very familiar with the culture of generals and how different that is from the management style of the president. How is General McMaster doing? How would you describe the system as it’s working? Has it changed since General Kelly has come in? Cotton: I think it’s changed for the better on two occasions, when H.R. McMaster was selected in late February, and then when John Kelly moved from DHS to the White House in late July. I can see that from where I sit and the kind of interactions we have with the White House and my office, before and after both of those. So I think it’s continued to improve, as is often the case of the first year of a presidency. I mean, we often forget, because he won an election, how disastrous Bill Clinton’s first term was, not just on a policy front, but from an organizational and management standpoint.Glasser: And they would acknowledge that. Cotton: And it’s a hard job, running the White House, being president, being chief of staff are hard jobs. I think John Kelly would tell you that, if he was doing this podcast. But it’s also a critical job, and people like John Kelly and H.R. McMaster are esteemed and admired for their battlefield exploits. You know, H.R. McMaster fired one of the first shots of the first Gulf War. He was one of the very first regimental commanders to conduct a proto-counterinsurgency campaign in Tal Afar in 2005 in Iraq. However, in the military, at any point above the company level, when you’re in command, you, by definition, have been a staff officer for a commander at that level beforehand.So when we think of people like John Kelly and H. R. McMaster as commanders—that’s how they became famous—remember, they have had regular opportunities to be staff officers for a principal, as well. And I think that serves both of them very well.Second, military officers are very well trained in the chain of command, so they understand that they’re not the president. Donald Trump is the president. Their job is to advise. His job is to decide. Their job is to make sure he has the best facts, the best thinking, presented to him in an orderly fashion and ready for decision. But he decides and they move out and execute. Glasser: So, but basically, you’re saying that it’s a much better organization. Do you see a substantive change as well, or a policy outcome? Cotton: You could take the Afghanistan policymaking process and the result, and you don’t have to take my word for it. You can take President Trump’s word for it. When he gave a speech at Fort Myer last month and announced it, he said it wasn’t in his initial instincts to stay the course in Afghanistan, with some additional troops. I don’t think that surprises anyone, based on some of the public statements he has made. I think that was the right course of action. He discussed it with me, and I suggested he should do something along those lines. That’s the way the policymaking process should work. When you’re a cabinet member, when you’re a senior advisor in the White House, and the president is right, you should help him achieve his objectives and run with his thinking. When you think the president is wrong, you have a duty to try to present to him the best facts and the best thinking to help him see it in a different light. Maybe you can, but if he doesn’t, and he says, “No, I want to do it my way,” then your job is to move out and execute. And if you feel strongly enough, then you have to resign. Glasser: Do you see that happening with any of these folks? Cotton: I don’t see it being imminent. I mean, there are plenty of things in which I can imagine the president making a decision with which I would disagree but don’t rise to the level of a resignation for any of these men and women who serve him. Glasser: Right, especially already having made the decision to work in the administration. There are clearly some people who might hold similar views to your views on foreign policy who probably decided not to work with the administration, because they differ with the president’s public statements on some of those issues. Senator Corker yesterday made a comment that a lot of people are wondering what it means. And he said that Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis are the ones holding the world back from chaos. And he feels that Secretary Tillerson hasn’t always been supported.And interestingly, when I interviewed Senator Corker for this podcast very early on, he said that he was the first person to offer me, in essence, Trump can and will evolve on foreign policy case. So it’s not that Senator Corker has really said no, President Trump will never agree with us, but clearly views this as a serious challenge, when the president is not on the same page with these top advisors. Do you think that’s the consensus view in the Senate? What do you think he meant by that? Cotton: I can’t speak for consensus view in the Senate or what Senator Corker thinks. I will say that my view of what holds the world back from chaos is American military, diplomatic, financial, economic might—in particular, the military. It’s the solder/sailor/airman/marine that’s on the front lines around the world that is keeping the world safe and orderly for the American people and has done so for 70 years. The president, like all presidents, comes to office, I think he is exposed to new information, especially classified information, and may see things in a slightly different light. Again, he admitted as much on the Afghanistan question. There may be other examples. But that’s not unusual. Presidential candidates don’t get much classified information. You know, the cable news always makes a big deal when they go in—Glasser: To get the first briefing, of course.Cotton: —the briefing, that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney or what have you. But I can tell you that that information is not much more than you could read in the international pages of newspapers. It’s certainly not the level of information we see on the Intelligence Committee or that a president would begin to see in the presidential daily brief.And some of that information can be eye-opening, especially about particular threats that we face from adversarial powers around the world. I tend to think that, when presidents run for election and they get elected, they believe that the American people elected them based on the agenda on which they campaigned and they want to implement that.Glasser: You mentioned the Intelligence Committee. Obviously, their—the ongoing investigations of Russia and its intervention in the 2016 campaign and whether there was any collusion, that Intelligence Committee leaders just came out and said they agree, now, having conducted, I believe, 100 interviews, that they agree with the finding of the intelligence community of the United States that Russia was the one who did it, and on behalf of now-President Trump. Do you share that conclusion? And this is something where President Trump has not seemed to change his view, based on new information. Cotton: I have no reason to doubt the conclusions of the January intelligence-community assessment that Russia hacked into those emails and released them. And it’s now coming to light, in part as a result of our inquiry, that they may have had some accounts on social media—Twitter, Facebook, Google and so forth. I don’t think we know the extent of that or if it had any genuine influence, but we’re going to have hearings on that later this month and early November. I think there’s still one open question, in my mind, at least, about the assessment. And that’s taking the leap to say not only did Russia—Vladimir Putin, in particular—want to sow chaos and disorder in the United States. Of course he did. That’s what Russia does. They do it in Europe all the time, too. And they wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton, wanted to do it personally, because of what Vladimir Putin viewed as slights by Hillary and Bill Clinton over the years, but also wanted to undermine her, because they expected that she would be the next president. But also that they wanted to help elect Donald Trump. I think there’s at least some—an open question, there, not based on classified information, but based on the campaigns that the candidates ran. Donald Trump wanted to increase defense spending. Hillary Clinton didn’t want to, as much. Donald Trump wanted to accelerate nuclear modernization, not so with Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump wanted to expand ballistic-missile defense, not so with Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump wanted to pump more American oil and gas, Hillary Clinton did not. All those things don’t look good if you sit in the Kremlin. So I, at least, still have an open question of why Vladimir Putin would want to try to interfere in an election to elect a candidate who was going to pursue policies that is not in Russia’s objective interest. May be the case, but I think we still have—Glasser: Well, he also said that NATO was obsolete and also said that Putin was a very strong and admirable leader.Cotton: —but the result about his rhetoric about NATO was what, that NATO now has more troops stationed on a closer proximity to Russia’s borders or satellites, and NATO’s budget is going up. Again, not in Russia’s interest. Glasser: Do you think that Donald Trump has changed his mind about Putin, just on a personal level? He has been admiring of him—Cotton: I've never discussed Vladimir Putin with Donald Trump, but Vladimir Putin is not an ally of the United States. He’s an adversary of the United States. He made great gains in the Obama era, because Barack Obama, like presidents before him, consistently misunderstood Vladimir Putin and underestimated his ambitions in Europe and in the world, against the United States. One of the reasons why Vladimir Putin probably thought he could hack those emails and release them, or pro-state elections systems was because, for eight years, Barack Obama had consistently looked the other way, to the point of mocking Mitt Romney’s assertion that Vladimir Putin, and Russia, was our number-one geopolitical foe.Glasser: Do you think we’ve done enough to respond to the Russian hacking? Do you feel that American voting institutions are still at risk? Cotton: Well, that’s a very important point, and I hope that your podcast is heard by governors and state legislators and secretaries of state, that this is still a live threat. You know, were just a few weeks away from elections in New Jersey and Maryland. I think primaries for the 2018 midterms begin in March of next year. These state governors, legislators, secretaries of state need to understand that if their voting systems are connected to the Internet, and they don’t have an auditable paper trail, that what didn’t happen in 2016 could happen in 2018, which is, say the actual impact on tabulated votes. No evidence that happened in 2016, but could happen. And we certainly don’t want that to happen. So I would advise every state, like I’ve advised my own state, to take very seriously this threat. Glasser: Well, it’s interesting. I’ve asked a number of people that, and they feel that there have been a lot of talking about the hacking of 2016 but not a lot of policy movement or new measures. Cotton: So most—our elections, under the Constitution, typically are governed at the state or even the local level. We now see that that is actually a pretty effective means against these kinds of attacks. If all that data was centralized at an election board in Washington, D.C. and all those elections were administered by the federal government, it would be that much easier to affect them, because you only have one system, and it’s all centralized.In a way, it’s kind of like some of our critical infrastructure—you know, electrical power plants, nuclear power plants. Very old. They’re not digital. They’re analog. Not connected in any way to the Internet. For a long time, people complained about that. Turns out, it’s actually a pretty—Glasser: It’s a virtue of necessity. Cotton: —it’s a pretty effective defense against cyberattack, to have these very old systems that are still operating perfectly well, to not be connected, not be on the so-called Internet of things. I’m not familiar with every single voting system that’s used in the United States, for instance, but I can tell you any state that uses a voting system that is connected to the Internet needs to have an auditable paper trail of that system. And you might even want to go back to the old-fashioned system of just counting up paper ballots. Glasser: Paper ballots. You know—Cotton: I think some jurisdictions are starting to consider that. Glasser: By the way, in D.C., there’s always such long lines. I think almost the only times I’ve ever voted here, I’ve just ended up with a paper ballot, because that’s the only way to get out of the line. Let’s go back to the world, for a second. You mentioned Russia. We’ve only briefly touched on North Korea, so far, only in relation to Iran. Interestingly, you made the argument., and I’ve heard other conservatives make the argument for decertifying on the basis of, if not, we could have another nuclear-armed North Korea on our hands. Of course, opponents of blowing up the deal also use North Korea as an example right now, and they also say, well, listen, we have one crisis on our hands. Why should we have a second?Is it a crisis with North Korea? How serious is it? Is there a risk of a nuclear confrontation? Cotton: So, first, the opponents are wrong, and I’m right. North Korea doesn’t need any excuse to violate its international commitments. In fact, it seems to only make international commitments for the very purpose of violating them. Second, a nuclear North Korea cannot hold a candle to a nuclear Iran. North Korea is a small and isolated country on the edge of the world. It’s poor in resources. It’s surrounded by four powers that are infinitely larger, richer, and more powerful than it. It does not have a revolutionary ideology it tries to export. Iran, by contrast, on every one of those measures. It’s in the center of civilization. It’s close to nation states of equal size and power that compete with it regularly. It has a large and growing economy that has a very central export: oil in addition to a revolutionary ideology it tries to export. So, however dangerous nuclear North Korea is, nuclear Iran is so much more dangerous. That’s why we can’t allow it. Now, North Korea. I tend to have a somewhat different view than the conventional wisdom in Washington. I don’t think that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons in response to economic pressure from the United States. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, we shouldn’t throw the kitchen sink at them, which we haven’t yet done. I think they might, in response to economic pressure from China. However, I disagree with the conventional view that China wants to de-nuclearize North Korea. I don’t believe that. I believe China wants a nuclear North Korea. China purports to worry about refugees from a second Korean war. The purport to worry about a pro-America, unified Korean peninsula. There are easy solutions for that. First, for refugees, we may not be able to build a wall on our border, but I’m pretty sure the Chinese Communist Party can. And if they can’t, they’ve got 50-cals and tanks to back them up, which is what they used in Tiananmen Square on their own people. They’ll use them on North Koreans.But second, there are numerous diplomatic agreements that we could reach with China, if they truly wanted to de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula. They’re worried about a unified, pro-American peninsula? Fine. Like we did with Germany, we can agree that there will be no forcible reunification. Worried about the positioning of American troops? Fine. We can agree in advance, no troops north of the current DMZ. Worried about refugees? Fine. We can agree to have refugee camps on Korean territory that are supported by the United States and the United Nations high commissioner on refugees.They don’t do any of those things, nor do they put true pressure on China, like banning oil exports to China. Why is that? Because I think they want a nuclear North Korea. And why do they want a nuclear North Korea? Because you just asked me about that. You didn’t ask me about the South China Sea. You didn’t ask me about their near diplomatic embargo against Taiwan. You didn’t ask me about their economic espionage against the United States. They know that as long as North Korea is nuclear, that it will tie down the attention and the resources and the effort and the time of U.S. leadership.Glasser: Well, arguably, though, we might have been playing into that argument by getting into a fight over Rocket Man or Little Rocket Man, I guess that’s his new name, isn’t it? Cotton: I think it’s important that the leadership in China understands that President Trump is not going to tolerate a nuclear North Korea, in the long run. He’s certainly not going to tolerate China continuing to support North Korea’s economy, which has grown this year at a fairly robust pace, when all these sanctions are supposedly—biding and Xi Jinping is supposedly fed up with Kim Jong Un.Glasser: No, it really is striking. I did go back and look at some of the arguments back in the George W. Bush administration, over North Korea, and you know, the argument then was, well, this is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. So I know we’re about to get the hook, but I want to finish up on the politics of foreign policy up here on Capitol Hill and, just quickly, this president—we’ve talked about what’s going on inside the administration. But clearly there’s also been a lot of questions about his ability to work, to get things done, with Republicans up here on Capitol Hill.And there has been a public war of words between Senator McConnell, your leader, and the president. How lasting a challenge or a problem is that? Most senators, many of them, came to Senator McConnell’s public defense. What is a consequence of that, now?Cotton: I don’t think that’s lasting. Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have been around the block once or twice. They’re big boys—Glasser: Big smile on the face, for the podcast audience.Cotton: They’re big boys, and they understand that the success for one depends, in no small part, on the success for the other. Look, I’m frustrated, as is Senator McConnell, with the level of obstruction that we’ve seen from the Democrats. We consistently have to have multiple procedural votes spread over multiple days to confirm relatively low-level officials or judges by votes in the 80s and 90s. The Democrats are completely dug in on things like taxes and on healthcare. So it can be frustrating around here. I understand the president’s position, and Senator McConnell does, as well. To the extent that the president has a problem with Senate Republicans, I’d say it’s more of a membership problem than a leadership problem. But ultimately, President Trump and Senator McConnell recognize that the success of one depends, in no small part, on the success of the other. And, look, the Founding Fathers gave us two-year Congresses, two-year terms in the House, six-year terms in the Senate for a reason. We’re not judged and evaluated after nine months in office, after two years in office. And we’ve got a long time left in this Congress.Glasser: Do you think that, based on your conversations with folks in the White House, that there will be more Chuck and Nancy deals? Or was that a plotline we’ve moved on from?Cotton: I can’t predict the future, but I think that will be relatively rare. That was an unusual circumstance in a debate about both the government-funding legislation and a debt ceiling, which was up against a hurricane-relief package, when you still had people who were depending on all of us, their fellow citizens, through our government, to provide them for food and shelter and water and diapers and formula for their kids. I’m not aware of any situation in which a hurricane-relief package, which was needed, would have implicated the debt ceiling. And I think the president recognized that the likely outcome, if we had waited until September 29, would have been something like the deal he ultimately reached, and therefore better just to do it on the front end and get three more weeks of time to work on the rest of our agenda—on our budget, on taxes, and so forth. Glasser: Can I just ask you? Because one thing that even regular people—regular journalists, I might say—find it a little surprising that there would be such an uproar at the mere thought of the president of the United States working with the Democratic leadership. That is actually how President Reagan got things done.It seems that things are so partisan here that this was greeted—and we’re not making this up—this was greeted as anathema by many of your colleagues here, your Republican colleagues. Is that—Cotton: I don’t see it as anathema, and I think it would be a good thing, as it always is, if we could have more bipartisan support for our legislation. But the premise of your question, of the concept in Washington of the so-called Chuck and Nancy deal is that the president is throwing the keys to the agenda to the Democratic leadership and only getting a few Republican votes. That was not factually the case on that legislation, nor do I think many—the people that voted for the president expect him to work primarily with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They expect him to work with the Republicans that they elected to Congress to control the agenda. Obviously, we need Democratic votes, as well, on lots of legislation. And lots of these nominees, and we get them. I wish we got them more often, but we get them. But traditionally that’s the kind of cooperation you get. When Ronald Reagan was passing major defense build-ups, major tax reform, he wasn’t getting the votes of the Democratic leadership in the two chambers. He was getting the votes of the rank-and-file Democrats who recognized that it was in the best interests of the country and also in their political interests back home. Glasser: We can also—we’re not in the 1980s anymore. So you’re a big reader. Final advice to our listeners: What books should we read to understand President Trump and his foreign policy?Cotton: I would read Walter Russell Mead’s foundational work, Special Providence. It came out 16 years ago. Amazingly, it came out two weeks before the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and it has withstood all that’s happened in the world since then. And the reason I say you should read that, not only is it an excellent history of American foreign policy, which has a long, noble, and amazing set of accomplishments behind it—the most successful foreign policy in the history of the world, obviously. We went from being 13 backwater colonies to being the most powerful country the world has ever known. But Walter also goes into great detail about the American political tradition, dividing it up into four schools of thought, as he says, the more globalist, internationally oriented, outward focused Hamiltonians and Wilsonians; the somewhat inward-looking, more of the brake on the car Jeffersonians; but most importantly, for our purposes, the Jacksonians, who probably make up the biggest number of voters across the country—especially the voters in the president’s coalition.Twenty years ago, when Walter started researching this question, I think he had insights that have stood the test of time, because these are deeply embedded, cultural schools in our politics and our society, so your listeners would learn a lot not just about the glorious history of American foreign policy but also the Jacksonian mindset that a lot of people who live in Washington, in New York, can all come into contact with.Glasser: Here’s a fun footnote, because that is a terrific and insightful book. When I was editor of Foreign Policy magazine, I had Walter Russell Mead write a cover story for me at the beginning of President Obama’s, maybe a year or two in, his presidency. And he compared—he said Obama is actually like Jimmy Carter in terms of foreign policy schools of thought, that they’re unusual, actually, somewhat. They’re sort of idealistic but realists, and that’s an unusual, very minority foreign policy.Well, guess who I got the angry letter to the editor from? And this was pretty inflammatory, at the time. It was a cover showing Carter and Obama. Cotton: Jimmy Carter.Glasser: That’s correct. Cotton: [LAUGHS]. Glasser: That’s correct. I got an angry letter to the editor from Jimmy Carter.Cotton: He saw what was coming over the next eight years, and he didn’t want to be compared to Barack Obama.No, if you look, for eight years, in some ways, Barack Obama’s policy—not just foreign policy but domestic policy—was essentially trying to eliminate the Jacksonian influence on American life. And the Jacksonian school of thought came back with a vengeance in 2016, and President Trump, I think, understood that when he was running for office, and he still understands it to this day. Remember, the Jacksonians are the ones who power this country. They may not sit on the Council on Foreign Relations board. They may not speak at economic clubs in New York and Chicago. But they are the ones who have worked in our factories for years, who’ve grown our food, who’ve driven it to our table, who fight the wars that people in Washington begin. The Jacksonians are the ones who have powered this country and, without them, it’s very hard to accomplish much.Glasser: Senator Tom Cotton, if there’s an opening, would you serve in President Trump’s administration?Cotton: I’m very happy to be serving in the Senate right now, and the people of Arkansas, and it gives me more time for my two little boys than I would have if I was serving in the administration. So I’m pleased that the people of Arkansas have trusted me with this position, and I hope they will again. Glasser: It is not a categorical denial for the record, there, but I thank you, Senator Cotton, very much, for spending this time with us. I think it’s a very timely conversation, and of course, we thank all of our listeners at The Global POLITICO. We hope that you’ll listen to us on iTunes or whatever is your favorite podcast platform, and, of course, you can email me any time at [email protected] Thank you, Senator.Thank you.
В США главным событием наступающей недели называют обращение президента к Конгрессу с изложением позиции его администрации по ядерному соглашению шестёрки международных посредников с Ираном. Трамп должен это сделать до 15 октября. Пока всё указывает на то, что глава Белого дома оспорит ядерную сделку как не отвечающую интересам безопасности США. После этого у законодателей появится возможность в течение 60 дней принять...
После встречи с руководством Пентагона президент США заговорил о «затишье перед бурей» Ни для кого не секрет, что эксцентричный Дональд Трамп любит шокировать и вводить в ступор публику — такая у этого человека своеобразная манера общения. Однако последним заявлением американский лидер США поставил в тупик не только бывалых журналистов своего пресс-пула, но и все мировое сообщество.
PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY SARAH SANDERS James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 2:59 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS: Good afternoon. Q Good afternoon. MS. SANDERS: Today's jobs report shows the extraordinary impact recent weather events have had on our economy. Calculations from Moody's Analytics estimate the recent storms could cause between $195 billion and $245 billion in economic losses. But those numbers, as large as they are, are not the best way to understand the impact these storms have had on the people of our nation. President Trump has now personally visited storm-ravaged areas in numerous states and territories. He's seen the devastation, and he's looked into the eyes of Americans struggling to find hope in the midst of heartache. The President has committed to these people that we will walk with them every step of the way as they rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives. And he has committed to all Americans that we are going to build an economy that works for everyone. We are encouraged to see that the unemployment rate has once again dropped, and workforce participation vaulted to a 3.5-year high. This report underscores the need for Congress to work with us to grow the economy and create jobs. The importance of passing tax relief for American workers and business cannot be overstated. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a tax code that is simple, fair, and easy to understand. That means getting rid of the loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans and special interests. It also means lowering taxes for middle-income Americans so that they can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks and buy the great American products made by American manufacturers. Today, the President signed a proclamation declaring October 6th National Manufacturing Day. This honors the men and women who create the products that power our communities, improve our lives, and defend our nation; the people who, as the President says, "believe in those beautiful words: Made in the USA." In addition to the 14 workers the President hosted in the Oval Office during today's proclamation signing, more than half-a-million people around the country are participating in thousands of events related to Manufacturing Day. Among them will be numerous members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials. Our tax plan would lead to a great American manufacturing boom. We will cut taxes on American manufacturers and businesses of all sizes, and restore their competitive edge so they can create more jobs and higher wages for our workers. Our plan will also encourage them to bring back trillions of dollars currently parked overseas. The President will be back out on the road next week building support for this plan, which is really a jobs bill. He will be visiting Hamburg, Pennsylvania on Wednesday, and we'll have more details on that trip coming soon. And with that, we'll kick off Friday with questions, and we'll start now. (Laughter.) This is kind of fun. We should do this more often, not just save it for Fridays. Jon Decker. Q Thank you, Sarah. The body of another U.S. soldier has just been discovered by local forces in Niger, which brings to four the total number of Green Berets that were killed on Wednesday in Niger. So far there’s been no response to this by the President. No tweet from the President, no statement from the President. Can we expect some sort of reprisal by the U.S. military in Niger as it relates to what happened on Wednesday? MS. SANDERS: I made a statement on behalf of the administration yesterday in the opening. Obviously, anytime one of the members of our great military are injured, wounded, or killed in action, that is certainly something that we take very seriously. Our thoughts and prayers are with those individuals. We're continuing to review and look into this. And as we have more details, we’ll certainly let you guys know. Cecilia. Q Thanks, Sarah. Can you clarify the President’s comments? Was he referring to military action when he said “calm before the storm”? MS. SANDERS: As we've said many times before -- I know the President has; as I have from this podium on quite a few occasions -- we're never going to say in advance what the President is going to do. And as he said last night, in addition to those comments, you’ll have to wait and see. Q But how seriously should the American public or American adversaries, for that matter, take these comments? Was it a joke? Was it serious? MS. SANDERS: I think you can take the President protecting the American people always extremely serious. He’s been very clear that that's his number-one priority. And if he feels that action is necessary, he’ll take it. Steve. Q Sarah, when the President said that he wants his military leaders to give him military options faster, does he feel like they are intentionally slow-walking these options to him? MS. SANDERS: No, not at all. But this is -- as you know, he’s a person who likes to take action and take it quickly. And I don't think you should read into anything beyond that as he wants options on the table so that he can make quick decisions. Q And was that just a general comment? Or did he mean a specific country? MS. SANDERS: I believe it was just a general comment. I’m not aware of anything specific that that was in reference to. Q Sarah, I have two questions. One on the soldier who was killed in Niger and the other on DACA. On the soldier, when was the President made aware that there was a fourth soldier that was missing in action? And when did he become aware that unfortunately that soldier had been killed and discovered by local forces? MS. SANDERS: I believe that the notification was yesterday, but I’d have to get clarification on the specific timing of when that took place. Q When was the President made aware that that soldier’s body was found? MS. SANDERS: Again, I know that it was pretty soon after that had been discovered. But as far as like an exact time, I couldn’t give you that. But I know Chief Kelly kept him updated constantly on that situation as it evolved. Q And to a question on DACA, today the President welcomed Hispanic American leaders to the White House. He did not mention his decision to end DACA during his remarks there. He did not call -- renew his call for Congress to protect those who are going to be vulnerable for deportation starting in March. Why did he not bring that up? MS. SANDERS: Look, I think he’s been clear there’s no reason to continue to reiterate the same position that he’s held. He’s called on Congress to act on it. You can expect in the coming days that he’ll lay out his responsible immigration reform. I think you can count on that to happen very soon. And that's all part of the process moving forward. But he hasn’t been unclear about what his position is on that front. April. Q Sarah, going back to “calm before the storm,” when presidents deal with world matters like this, all options are on the table. Have you -- has this White House exhausted diplomacy? Because for him to say the “calm before the storm” and listening to what you just had to say -- MS. SANDERS: We're continuing to put maximum economic and diplomatic pressure on countries like North Korea. We're going to continue to do that. But at the same time, the President is going to keep all of his options on the table. Our position has not changed. It’s been very consistent. Q So is it North Korea -- that's the storm? MS. SANDERS: I’m just using that as an example. I think we've got a lot of bad actors in the world -- North Korea, Iran. There are several examples there. Blake. Q Sarah, let me ask you about the HHS decision today to expand the contraception waiver. The ACLU has already filed a lawsuit or at least announced its intention to, and this was their response. They said, and I quote: “The Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their boss’s religious beliefs.” They go on to say, “We're filing this lawsuit because the federal government cannot authorize discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise.” Your response to that would be what? MS. SANDERS: I don't think it’s been a secret that I would probably never use the ACLU to get any of my talking points. The President believes that the freedom to practice one’s faith is a fundamental right in this country, and I think all of us do. And that's all that today was about -- our federal government should always protect that right. And as long as Donald Trump is President, he will. Q So then in not responding to the ACLU, what would you say maybe to the women out there or to the families out there who now have to pay more out of their pocket to get contraception coverage that they choose and that they desire? MS. SANDERS: This is a President who supports the First Amendment, supports the freedom of religion. I don't think I understand why that should be an issue. The Supreme Court has validated this decision certainly many times over. And the President is somebody who believes in the Constitution. If people don't like what the Constitution says, they should talk to Congress about changing it. Hallie. Q I want to follow up on that, but I have a few. Given the lawsuits that the ACLU has already filed, said it would plan to file, is the administration prepared to defend this contraceptive mandate rollback all the way to the Supreme Court if need be? MS. SANDERS: The Supreme Court has already made clear what their position is, and it supports what this administration has done. Q You don’t believe it will be a legal fight that escalates to the Supreme Court at all? MS. SANDERS: I think if it does, it will show that this administration is on the right side of the law. Matt. Q And then my question, Sarah, was just on the “calm before the storm” issue again. If the President wants to -- MS. SANDERS: Why would we ask the same question? Q Well, it’s a different question, actually. MS. SANDERS: It is Friday so I thought maybe we’d change it up. Q It’s actually a follow-up -- because you said the President wants to preserve an element of surprise. So if he wants to preserve an element of surprise, why would he dangle hints about his actions in the first place? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe he did. Q He said, “You’ll find out” and brought up a “calm before the storm.” So he -- MS. SANDERS: He didn't talk about any specific actions at all. Matthew. Q If I could ask two questions. First, following up on the HHS change, does the White House have any estimate of how many people could lose access to birth control under this change? MS. SANDERS: I’m not aware. I’d refer you to HHS for specifics on that data. Q Just a quick follow-up on a different topic. The President repeated earlier today that the U.S. is the highest-taxed nation in the world. That's not true. So why does he keep making that statement? Why does he stick to that talking point? MS. SANDERS: I believe there are specific sectors within the country that are among the highest-taxed in the world, and we’ll be happy to provide that data to you. John. Q Thank you, Sarah. I have two questions. First, there's been rumors that Prime Minister Tsipras of Greece will come here on the 17th, meet with the President, and then meet with the Vice President on the 18th, and we've had no confirmation. Is the Prime Minister invited? And is he coming to meet the President and Vice President? MS. SANDERS: He is. And I believe that date is correct -- the 17th I believe that he’ll be here on that date. Q The other thing is that the administration has had a vacancy without a permanent Secretary of Homeland Security for two months, which is a record for that position not operating with a permanent Secretary. Are we going to have an announcement on a choice for permanent Secretary within days -- next week, perhaps? And rumors are consistent he will make Elaine Duke the permanent Secretary and send her appointment up. True or false? MS. SANDERS: I'm not going to get ahead of any announcement that the President may make about a permanent person. But I will say that Acting Secretary Duke is very competent and has managed the Department of Homeland Security very well in a very tough and trying time, given the hurricane season that we've had, and certainly have not wanted to make big shifts in leadership during this time and while there's so much going on there. In terms of a timetable, we'll keep you posted when we have an announcement on that front. Q It's the President's opinion too, right? MS. SANDERS: I'm sorry? Q What you just said about Secretary Duke, the testimony you gave is the President's opinion of her as well. MS. SANDERS: Yes, he's happy with the job that she's done as the Acting Secretary. Jordan. Q Thanks, Sarah. Senator Cornyn said that the immigration principles that are being floated out there would be harmful to the DACA negotiations. He believes that DACA should be kept separate from any discussion about legal immigration. What is the White House response to that? I mean, are you guys committed to attaching legal immigration to the DACA debate? MS. SANDERS: We want to make sure that whatever we put forward is a responsible immigration reform, and it's not one piece of this process dealt with separately. We need to make sure that we're addressing all the problems so that we're not dealing with this again in two, four, five, six years, but that we're putting forward a very thorough and full plan. And that's what you're going to see coming from the administration in very short order. Fred. Q Thanks, Sarah. Two questions. First, does the White House have any view on the CFPB rule on payday lending? MS. SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of. I'd have to check on that and circle back with you. Q And just to follow up on that topic, there have been some House Republicans who believe that there's already cause for firing Richard Cordray, going back to his handling of the Wells Fargo case. Why hasn't the President taken action? I mean, does he approve of the job that Cordray has done so far? MS. SANDERS: When we have any personnel announcements on that front, we'll certainly keep you guys posted. Q Just one more. MS. SANDERS: That's two already. I'm going to have to move on. Margaret. Sorry. Q Sarah, two quick questions for you. One, there have been some rumors about the future of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson today. Can you continue to say the President remains confident in him as Secretary of State? MS. SANDERS: He does. As he said yesterday, or two days ago, as I said yesterday, nothing has changed despite what you may read in the media or watch on TV. I would certainly trust the President and my comments far above those of other reporters. Q And I want to ask you, the President -- words matter. The President can move markets. He can cause miscalculation when it comes to adversaries. In the context of the questions asked of you today when you've been asked what he meant by "calm before the storm," you've put them -- you've mentioned North Korea, you've mentioned Iran -- there's implication that there is some kind of military action. There is some sort of forecasting there. Can you clarify if we are interpreting things correctly? MS. SANDERS: I haven't been specific about anything. I've also talked about the fact that we're continuing to put maximum economic and diplomatic pressure on countries like North Korea. I'm simply saying that all options are on the table, as they have been. And we're not going to announce what actions we'll be taking until that moment comes. Q Sarah, can you be more specific about the President's position on bump stocks? Would he be open to legislation clearly banning them? MS. SANDERS: As I said yesterday, we want to be part of that conversation. We want to gather more information. We're going to continue to do that over the coming days, and that's the current position. It hasn't changed since yesterday. Toluse. Q Thank you, Sarah. Two questions, if I can. MS. SANDERS: Why not? Q I asked you about Senator Corker a few weeks back -- MS. SANDERS: Just not three. Two is the limit. Q Just two. I asked you about Senator Corker and some of the comments he made a few weeks back. Earlier this week, he said that Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Mattis, and General Kelly are basically what's keeping the country separated from chaos. And he said there are other people in the White House that aren't putting forth policies in a coherent fashion. Do you have any response to Senator Corker's statement? MS. SANDERS: Look, I think that the President is the one that's keeping the world from chaos. He has an incredible team around him that's helping him lead that effort, and he's had tremendous accomplishments on the international stage by working with allies and confronting enemies. We're going to continue doing that, and we're going to continue doing that as a team with the President leading that effort. Q Is General Kelly helping him lead that effort? Is General Kelly -- MS. SANDERS: I'll come back to you. Q Sarah, getting back to these "calm before the storm" comments, I wanted to ask you about that in a different way. There's a theory in Washington -- and forgive me if you've been asked about it before -- that the President subscribes to this "Madman Theory" that if he makes a lot of unsettling, off-putting comments that sort of throw people off, that he likes to keep his adversaries guessing; that that's sort of the point of making comments like "calm before the storm" and so forth. What is your sense of that? Is there anything to that? Is there -- MS. SANDERS: I think the President has addressed this himself. He certainly doesn't want to lay out his game plan for our enemies. So if you're asking, is the President trying to do that -- absolutely. I mean, I don't think that's -- Q He's trying to throw people off? MS. SANDERS: I don't think that that's a secret. I wouldn't say necessarily that he's trying to throw people off, but he's not trying to broadcast or telegraph his exact actions. I think we've seen what a failure it is when an administration does that, and this is a President who's going to do it differently and do it better. Q And just a quick follow-up on that. When people are -- when they sort of catch their breath in this town, when they sort of hold their breath in this town when he says something like that -- you have a smile on your face -- is that somewhat satisfying that -- MS. SANDERS: No, I just picture people in this town actually holding their breath. That might be a welcome surprise for most of America. Go ahead. Q Sarah, just one more thing. I want to pick up on what Margaret was trying to get at, I think, is can you -- let me put it to you this way: Can you exclude the possibility that the President was actually just being mischievous -- that he was messing with the press a little bit when he made that comment? MS. SANDERS: I wouldn't say that he's messing with the press. I think we have some serious world issues here. I think that North Korea, Iran both continue to be bad actors, and the President is somebody who's going to always look for ways to protect Americans. And he's not going to dictate what those actions may look like. I don't think there's anything beyond that that I can add on that front. Q A second question on Iran. A couple days ago, Senator Tom Cotton gave a speech in which he said he believes the best outcome for the Iranian nuclear deal would have to be referred to Congress. But rather than have Congress reimpose sanctions, which he called a backward looking step, we would use this period of 120, 90 days to renegotiate several terms of the deal. Does the White House think that that sounds like a plausible -- like a good way to deal with the Iran nuclear deal? MS. SANDERS: I'm not going to get ahead of the President's announcement on the decision that he has. What I can tell you is the President isn't looking at one piece of this. He's looking at all of the bad behavior of Iran, not just the nuclear deal as bad behavior, but the ballistic missile testing, destabilizing of the region, number-one state sponsor of terrorism, cyberattacks, illicit nuclear program. He wants to look for a broad strategy that addresses all of those problems, not just one-offing those. That's what his team is focused on, and that's what he'll be rolling out to address that as a whole in the coming days. Steve. Q To follow up on that, is it the President's wish that Congress reimpose sanctions on Iran for those bad acts you're talking about? MS. SANDERS: Again, I'm not going to get into the details of what the President's decision is until he makes that later in the week. Q One other question about Cuba, Sarah. Sarah, about Cuba. Our CBS News reporting today has taken this story to a new level. There are now Americans who do not work for the government who are saying that they're subject to these health attacks. The State Department is telling us that there are a handful of Americans who have reported these symptoms. What's going on here? How is the White House viewing this? How are we going to get to the bottom of it? MS. SANDERS: Something we take extremely seriously. We're continuing to investigate. The State Department is taking the lead on this effort, and we're going to continue looking into this until we get some real answers. Brian. Q You called on me, Sarah. MS. SANDERS: I'll come back. Q Just to drill down a little bit on what you said yesterday about the press, saying that we owe it -- I don't think anybody disagrees that we should be as accurate and fact-finding as possible. But to flip it, do you and the President believe the President has a responsibility to be as truthful and honest with us as possible? Has he done it? And for those surrogates who have used -- your term is "alternative facts" -- would they then not do that? MS. SANDERS: Absolutely. I think we all come here every day and do our very best to give you the best and most accurate information that we possibly can. April. Q Have you been successful? MS. SANDERS: I think so. Q Okay, going back to the answer about leadership -- the President's leading -- is General Kelly part of that leadership team with the President as he's leading in this White House? MS. SANDERS: Absolutely. Q Does the President have confidence in General Kelly? MS. SANDERS: Absolutely. Q And today is Friday. Could we expect a resignation today from anyone? (Laughter.) MS. SANDERS: I don't think so, April. David. Q Thank you, Sarah. Since we last heard from you, the film producer, Harvey Weinstein, has become the subject of some very serious sexual harassment allegations, and there's building pressure around Democrats who received campaign donations from him to send the money back. And I know that this particular producer was very critical of the President during the campaign and suggested that Latinos in Hollywood would be deported if he were elected. Does the President support the idea that Democrats who got donations from this person should send the money back? MS. SANDERS: I think that's a decision for those individuals to make. Whether or not that's money that they want to take, that's up to them. That's certainly not a decision for us to make. Q And one more, I'm sorry. Why hasn't the President fired John Koskinen from the IRS, given all the scandal over the -- the conservative targeting scandal that he commented about so much during the campaign? Why does John Koskinen still have his job? MS. SANDERS: I'll have to ask him, David, and get back to you. Deb. Q Las Vegas question. The President lavished praise on Las Vegas police for their amazing handling and their response after Sunday night's shooting. Nevadans credit federal programs that train police to deal with terrorist attacks. MS. SANDERS: I’m sorry, can you speak up a little bit? Q Nevadans credit federal money programs that train them to deal with terrorist attacks for their great response. You all have cuts in those programs, in your budget plan. Are you rethinking that? MS. SANDERS: I think at this point we're continuing to move forward. If there is a moment where we feel like the safety and security of American citizens may be at risk because of cuts, I think we'd have to revisit it at that time. Jim. Q Sarah, the nation lost 33,000 jobs in September, and I was just curious how the President feels about that. And is he stepping up his efforts to convince Congress to pass major tax reform because of this surprising job loss in September? MS. SANDERS: I think that today's report shows, certainly, the devastating impact of the hurricane season. But while many displaced weren't able to work, the economy still remains extremely strong. Those people continue to have jobs, which is why the unemployment rate actually fell. I think one thing to really note and something this administration wants to focus on, certainly moving into the future -- I think tax reform plays a big role in this -- but that one of the big identifiers that I think we should look at is the drop in the unemployment rate, including new lows for African Americans, teens, and women, which is certainly a great step forward in this process. Q Sarah, a question on the Affordable Care Act. President Trump has repeatedly said that we should just let Obamacare implode. But there's a new report in the Washington Post that says that President Trump personally directed administration officials to deny requests from the Republican governor of Iowa to fix the Obamacare market in that state. Is that true? MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware of that specific directive, so I'd have to check into that and get back to you. Q But if it is true -- MS. SANDERS: I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals where I don’t have the information in front of me. Q Thanks, Sarah. I wanted to ask you a question about the Iran recertification process. Regardless of what the President decides when he makes this decision next week, would you rather not have to do this every 90 days after that? MS. SANDERS: Again, as I said earlier, we're looking at something that is a broad strategy -- doesn't just address one part of Iran's bad behavior, but that addresses a wide range of issues. So that would certainly be our focus. Hopefully, they would begin to not be a bad actor and we wouldn't have to do this at all. But our goal, again, would be to address a number of factors, not just one or two things. Q A second question. MS. SANDERS: It is two-question Friday. Q It’s been six weeks since the President indicated that he wanted Pakistan to move against agents of chaos within Pakistani territory or areas under Pakistani control. The Prime Minister was here at the White House this week to meet General McMaster. Have you seen any change in Pakistani behavior in those six weeks? MS. SANDERS: Nothing specific that I can weigh into at this time, but we'll certainly keep you posted. Peter. Q Sarah, will the President campaign for the candidate for governor in Virginia, Ed Gillespie? MS. SANDERS: As I've said many times before from the podium, I'm not going to weigh into specific races and the actions that we may or may not take. And I think that's a great place to end this for Friday, and I hope everybody has a great rest of your Friday and a good weekend. Thanks, guys. END 3:24 P.M. EDT
Cabinet Room 6:04 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And thank you all for being here tonight. And welcome back to the White House. In particular, I want to thank Secretary Mattis and General Dunford for their incredible leadership and service. I also want to thank General Kelly and General McMaster for joining us this evening, and for their dedication to this administration. They have been really spectacular and done a great job. It's wonderful to be with all of you again. As I said during our last meeting, my number-one priority as Commander-in-Chief is to keep our people safe and to empower you, our senior military leaders, to do what you do best. Nobody does it better than the people in this room, believe me. We have many pressing national security issues facing our country. In addition to devastating national disasters, we have had some big natural disasters, and some of you know exactly because your people have done an incredible job, and I appreciate it. But, recently, we have had challenges that we really should have taken care of a long time ago, like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, ISIS, and the revisionist powers that threaten our interests all around the world. Tremendous progress has been made with respect to ISIS, and I guess the media is going to be finding out about that over the next short period of time. It falls on the people in this room to defend the American people from these threats. I know we share a belief in putting the safety and the wellbeing of the American people first, and I look forward to hearing from you and your ideas. We'll be going to dinner right after this, and we'll be discussing it further. But I look very much forward to discussing certain things right now, and we have certain very critical areas that we will be discussing. In North Korea, our goal is denuclearization. We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening. And it will be done, if necessary -- believe me. In addition, we must not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed, and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran's continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement. And we will be discussing that tonight. In Afghanistan, I've lifted restrictions and expanded authorities for commanders in the field. You know that very well, and everyone in this room is very happy that it's been done finally. We've made more progress in our campaign to defeat ISIS in the last eight months than in many, many previous years, all combined. I put my trust in you to execute our mission aggressively and effectively, and you are delivering. We're ridding our world of terrorism and terrorists as much as it can be done. In all areas, I want to ensure that our armed forces have the funding, the readiness, and the force capacity to be successful. Our budget this year -- as you know, well over $700 billion -- is getting us back to the position we have to be. Almost never have we needed a great, powerful, strong, and brilliant military -- and that's where we are and that's where we're going, and going very rapidly. Moving forward, I also expect you to provide me with a broad range of military options, when needed, at a much faster pace. I know that government bureaucracy is slow, but I am depending on you to overcome the obstacles of bureaucracy. Finally, I want to thank each and every one of you for the immense personal sacrifices you and your family make on behalf of our great country. Your patriotism, selflessness, and courage are an inspiration to me and an inspiration to our entire nation. I look forward to our discussion today, and I look especially forward to being with you and your spouses a little bit later, where we will have dinner but I know we'll still be talking about what we all enjoy talking about. And perhaps our spouses have some better ideas than even we do -- (laughter) -- but I hope not. But I think that could be possible. So again, thank you all for being here. We appreciate it very much. And thank you all very much. Q Should bump stocks be banned? THE PRESIDENT: We'll be looking into that over the next short period of time. We'll be looking into that over the next short period of time. Q A decision on Iran, sir? THE PRESIDENT: You'll be hearing about Iran very shortly. Thank you. END 6:10 P.M. EDT
Национальный космический совет США до конца осени представит президенту Дональду Трампу новую космическую стратегию страны в сфере национальной обороны и мирного исследования космоса, сообщил председатель Совета вице-президент Майк Пенс. «Члены совета будут работать над стратегией в течение предстоящих 45 дней, чтобы затем представить ее президенту Трампу», - сказал Пенс, передает РИА «Новости». В свою очередь советник президента США по национальной безопасности Герберт Макмастер сообщил, заявил, что основными целями стратегии станут усиление стабильности и безопасности космической деятельности, возможность предотвращать и отражать угрозы и враждебные интересам США действия противников в космосе. Кроме того, продолжится работа с частным сектором для обеспечения их лидерства в освоении космоса на международной арене. Также, по распоряжению Трампа, при национальном космическом совете будет воссоздан консультативный совет из числа обычных граждан, заинтересованных в развитии космической программы США. «Америка будет снова лидировать в космосе!», - добавил Пенс. Отметим, что в сентябре глава Роскосмоса объявил о крупнейшем за последние годы совместном космическом проекте России и США. Речь идет об освоении Луны и строительстве станции на ее орбите. Одновременно Роскосмос пытается противодействовать сразу двум государствам, желающим прибрать к рукам гигантские космические богатства - металлы и минералы, которые можно добывать на пролетающих мимо Земли астероидах.
Президент США должен вывести американские вооружённые силы из Йемена. Такое требование содержится в резолюции конгресса Соединённых Штатов, с которой ознакомился RT. Как отмечается в документе, Вашингтон "был вовлечён в военные действия", когда поддержал коалицию во главе с Саудовской Аравией, однако конгресс не давал соответствующего разрешения. Примечательно, что согласно резолюции часть американских войск всё же должна будет остаться в Йемене для борьбы с давним врагом США - "Аль-Каидой"*.Военнослужащие США "Конгресс постановляет, что президент должен вывести вооружённые силы США из боевых действий в Йеменской Республике", - говорится в резолюции.Инициаторы ссылаются на статью Конституции США, согласно которой именно конгресс имеет право объявлять войну (ст. I, разд. 8). Однако такого разрешения от конгресса получено не было."Не было выдано никакого разрешения на использование Вооружённых сил США применительно к конфликту между силами во главе с Саудовской Аравией и альянсом хуситов и сторонников Салеха в Йемене, и никакое положение законодательства не санкционирует операции дозаправки в воздухе военных самолётов Саудовской Аравии или Объединённых Арабских Эмиратов, участвующих в таком конфликте", - отмечается в документе.По мнению конгрессменов, военные действия между хуситами и коалицией арабских стран только мешают главной цели Вооружённых сил США - борьбе с "Аль-Каидой".База Гуантанамо, где содержатся подозреваемые в террористической деятельности Если резолюцию одобрят, то в течение 30 дней Дональд Трамп должен будет вывести американские войска из Йемена. Однако, как подчёркивается в документе, это не коснётся подразделений, задействованных в борьбе с "Аль-Каидой".Военная кампания в ЙеменеИстория конфликта в Йемене восходит к 2004 году, когда в стране разгорелось антиправительственное восстание, поднятое Хусейном аль-Хуси, в честь которого и было названо движение хуситов. В том же году повстанцы выступили против альянса властей Йемена с США.В 2015 году коалиция при участии ряда арабских стран во главе с Саудовской Аравией начала военную кампанию в Йемене после того, как хуситы свергли поддерживаемое Вашингтоном и Эр-Риядом правительство и взяли под контроль столицу.В операции "Буря решимости" приняли участие ВВС и ВМС аравийской коалиции - Бахрейна, ОАЭ, Катара, Кувейта, Марокко, Судана и Египта, а Соединённые Штаты оказывали логистическую и разведывательную поддержку, производили дозаправку военных самолётов в воздухе.В июне 2016 года иранское агентство Fars News проинформировало, что США отправили спецназ и представителей разведки в Южный Йемен. Также отмечается, что месяцем ранее Штаты разместили около 200 морпехов в порту города Эль-Мукалла.Как сообщается в материале агентства, размещение американских военных было связано с просьбой Саудовской Аравии защитить стратегически важный Баб-эль-Мандебский пролив, на долю которого приходится почти 15% мирового транзита нефти.По данным ООН, в результате военных действий на территории Йемена пострадали более 13 тыс. мирных жителей, а треть населения провинций страны сейчас находится на грани голода.Безграничная поддержкаУвеличение военного присутствия Америки в Йемене оказалось на повестке дня после вступления в должность президента США Дональда Трампа. Так, в феврале нынешнего года Соединённые Штаты направили эскадренный миноносец USS Cole к берегам Йемена для защиты морских путей от хуситов.А в марте министр обороны США Джеймс Мэттис обратился к правительству с просьбой снять ограничения на военную поддержку стран коалиции, введённые предшественником Трампа Бараком Обамой. При Обаме американские военные могли оказывать коалиции поддержку только после одобрения администрации.Мэттис также представил советнику президента по национальной безопасности Герберту Макмастеру документ, где отмечается, что "ограниченная поддержка", оказываемая американскими военными в этом регионе, поможет справиться с "общей угрозой".По мнению начальника Центра исламских исследований Института инновационного развития Кирилла Семёнова, подобные резолюции конгресса направлены на то, чтобы не допустить участия США в войне в Йемене. Однако он подчеркнул, что определённая группа американцев может находиться в зоне ответственности ОАЭ в районе Адена."Тем не менее американцы могут там как-то находиться. Об этом не было прямых заявлений, но они могут временно использовать какие-то объекты", - предположил эксперт.Ранее сайт WikiLeaks обнародовал более 500 документов посольства США в Йемене, из которых следует, что Вашингтон поставлял оружие Сане в течение нескольких лет до начала в стране вооружённого конфликта между хуситами и правительством."Йеменское досье" включает в себя документальные доказательства того, что США вооружали, обучали и финансировали йеменские силы в годы, когда шла подготовка к войне. Документы, в частности, свидетельствуют о поставках различных вооружений, таких как самолёты, корабли, транспортные средства, а также о предложениях по осуществлению контроля за морской границей и о поставках в Йемен из США систем биометрической идентификации", - сообщает WikiLeaks.Запрет на наземные операции Несмотря на стремление правительства Соединённых Штатов продолжить борьбу с "Аль-Каидой", власти Йемена недовольны подобной активностью. Они запретили США проводить на территории своего государства антитеррористические наземные спецоперации.Такое решение было принято после того, как в результате рейда американского спецназа погибли не менее десяти мирных жителей.Люди собираются вокруг грузовика-цистерны с питьевой водой в ЙеменеПо мнению президента США Дональда Трампа, этот рейд позволил военным добыть важные разведывательные данные. Соответствующее письменное заявление главы государства распространила пресс-служба Белого дома.* "Аль-Каида" - террористическая группировка, запрещённая на территории России.(https://russian.rt.com/wo...)
Состоявшийся в иракском Курдистане референдум о независимости может привести к созданию новогоь государства. Либо - к новой жесточайшей войне на Ближнем Востоке. Какой из двух сценариев воплотится в жизнь?
26 сентября Высшая независимая комиссия Иракского Курдистана обнародовала предварительные итоги состоявшегося накануне голосования. Подсчёт голосов ещё продолжается, но совершенно очевидно, что абсолютное большинство участников плебисцита поддержали независимость региона. Референдум стал действительно историческим событием для курдов, существенно приблизив реализацию их давней мечты о создании собственного государства. Руководство Иракского Курдистана, опираясь на широкую поддержку населения, показало решимость отстаивать интересы региона и продемонстрировало твёрдость. Это оказалось особенно важным, поскольку в нервозной обстановке, сложившейся вокруг референдума, некоторые заинтересованные стороны стали терять самообладание.
Как-то так получается, что в последнее время приходится все чаще заниматься самоцитированием. Но, видимо, по-другому в стране, где у власти собралась когорта самоуверенных долбоебов, невозможно.
26 сентября Высшая независимая комиссия Иракского Курдистана обнародовала предварительные итоги состоявшегося накануне голосования. Подсчёт голосов ещё продолжается, но совершенно очевидно, что абсолютное большинство участников плебисцита поддержали независимость региона. Референдум стал действительно историческим событием для курдов, существенно приблизив реализацию их давней мечты о создании собственного государства....
Власти КНДР должны позволить провести инспекцию своих ядерных объектов и признать готовность отказаться от ядерного оружия, прежде чем Вашингтон начнет вести переговоры с Пхеньяном. Об этом заявил помощник президента США по национальной безопасности Герберт Макмастер, передает CNN. "Северная Корея должна позволить проведение инспекций своих ядерных объектов и заявить о своей готовности отказаться от ядерного оружия до того, как США начнут вести переговоры с ее правительством", - отметил он...