On the last of this week's podcast, we try to make sense of the weeklong battle between the incoming president and the intelligence community—and whether his view that the IC is basically working against him personally has some merit. We also talk about the vote to condemn the UN resolution on Israel and what it means for the Democratic party. Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Look into the commentary magazine podcast today, use January six, two thousand and seventeen two weeks before the inauguration, Donald Trump. On John Words, the commentary with me is always nor Rossman Ursus Mama, your high Miller, I John Debris walled our senior editor Abe
John, I know you can follow us on Twitter, a commentary you can follow me on twitter at jackpot, hordes who can follow Noah at Nosey Rossman. You can follow a bad agreement or you can like us on Facebook. You can do all of the social media things that people are always asking you to do. You can also subscribe to commentary magazine by going to a website clicking on the subscribe button, and if you enter the coupon code Two thousand and seventeen you're going to get a nice break on our subscription rate of nineteen ninety five per year for digital access drops to one thousand four hundred and ninety five and two thousand nine hundred and ninety five for all access, including our beautiful monthly drops to twenty four ninety five: that's the coupon code, twenty seventeen at
commentary magazine that calm click on subscribe. Well, gentlemen, we ve had a week of more intelligence controversy, Tuesday, down from complains that the intelligence community has rescheduled his briefing on these supposed russian to ferrets in the twenty sixteen election. Without his wishes that tells us we responded very archly that it had to supply the information to present a balance. Person that they would be doing so on Thursday, and therefore they can only briefly on Friday on Thursday night, details of the information were then leaked to NBC News and a couple of places leading from today this morning to say also they couldn't get a briefing ha well. How come they couldn't give me a briefing, but they could give
ten BC news and then calling on the House and Senate tell This committee is to investigate the least ten NBC News an hour in another giant dust. Dorm spiral about who did what? Where and what, who attacking whom, where and how, in Donald Trump saying to the New York Times today, that he believed that the focus on the russian interference was a form of witch hunt against him. I believe, although he did quite specify that, because there have been much worse, hacks in the past, meaning the most was especially the apparently the chinese hack of the Office of personal manage. Twenty thirteen that exposed eleven million employees past and present of the federal government. There.
Social security numbers, possibly their bank, account routing information if they still have active bank accounts and am and routing numbers and things like that, and that the Obama administration had not made such a huge deal about that. But this they made a huge deal out of when
I see, alleges and other people have said it wasn't. The Russians who kept Hillary Clinton from campaigning in Michigan was consumed in the last week of the election that cost her the election, the russian hack, didn't have anything to do with that. The Russians didn't change a single vote by fighting round with voting machines and that had after he was the guy task over months with, with calling into question the legitimacy of elections, because he said he would necessarily respect the result. The opposite has now been the case that those Democrats and liberals who are acting as though this russian this information about Russia's malfeasance, could have changed the result of the election or dead
so no Rossman. What do you think the President Elect is thinking when he is making an enemy out of America's intelligence community two weeks before he becomes president? I don't know If he's thinking especially further ahead them, then he believes that he's been wronged legitimately or otherwise, I think, is a very strong case to suggest that he has been personally maligned. But that does the extent of it. I would imagine seems to me that the case he's making regarding the opium hack is sort of self defeating if he's suggesting that there should have been a bigger stink about this made in a much more public response to it. Well, I agree that would
I suggest that we should be doing exactly what we are doing it with regard to the russian hack. Now Brok Obama's responds to this. These ongoing attacks was by the admission of many of us who wrote about them before the election, weak, feeble and deferential to the process which he thought he would taint by engaging in the defence of a. African sovereignty against foreign attack, because he would be seen to be waiting in on the election on the part of somebody who was enough, obviously is chosen successor. This is why and what you, what we ve seen here, these leaks from Concord, Signor intelligence officials, NBC News, which include really russian officials to intercept communications between russian officials booze cook. Between russian officials is cooks EL abrading Hiven. Each over Donald Trump victory, which obviously does not reflect especially well and Donald Trump, given Russia's antipathy towards Americans
political interests is why you don't go to war against the intelligence. Community. People have these weird Oliver Stone notions about what the intelligence community can do to a president. Like it's kind of creepy. What they do is they leak likes and they make your life miserable as an executive because they cut off options for you. They make. You have to defend yourself put importunity of crowded Zactly. We're Donald Trump is right now, so I don't know what he's thinking Having a bit of election a campaign flashback, because once again, this is a green once he takes a decent point. I mean until Communities do get politicized intelligence gets politicized, it happens. It happens. The time it's it's happened during the past two presidencies. He takes up point. He turns it into something very damaging and he articulated tickled sit in a problem. Magic way, and he and you
recognizes it for his own ends and he making be his his? His is opposition. Look, look, I think, better than the otherwise should. Will you know one of the interesting phases of Barack Obama by his own admission in a press conference after the election said that he had taken this issue up with bloody murder Putin. They knew about in July that when he saw a prudent in October, he said to him cut it out. In other words, this was so serious, so severe such a violation, american sovereignty, that, as I say said to the leader, cut it out. That was it cut it out. So for now told there is very little that you could say negative about Putin in Russia that I I wouldn't you know, except almost undying on face value, but if you're tellin me now seven, we know about eight nine weeks later that he can say com
without October and then the entire intelligence we, the reports to him, can act as though a major event of geopolitical importance happened here that, to blame. Why didn't he stop it beforehand? Why didn't he take countermeasures in October, cut it off into a sort of silence, Wiki League, so that it wouldn't leak Emmy whatever they didn't. Do it we don't know why? We think it's? Because you know there too, well he's one of which is he thought Hillary Clinton would win anyway, so it didn't matter which is by the way, still startling cause. Why would it matter if didn't win or she one if they were violating american sovereignty is no said The other is that they didn't actually think it was that serious They have now decided that it was that serious because they are, they are unhappy with the result and that
not legitimate that is not a legitimate way to sort of analyze and reflect on the findings of the intelligence community that it all the intelligence who was due is COLA, gather and report on the information it receives. It is not. The position of the part is not the place of the intelligence committee, which is not a policy making part of the government to then not only offer an urban enter? rotation, but then to sort of offer. You know a centrally. What is domestic guidance on you know the meaning of it, and in a hearing this week before the Senate, which DM I'd rector of National Intelligence Clapper spoke, it was pretty clear that his intimate She was that our political system had been injured. Well, he would The present hides states
done something about the political system being injured, whilst it was being injured. So now you know, so you know if, if, if Trump express the little incredulity about this much to my amazement, I find I can't just instantly dismiss it. I think it's awfully. What happened, was awful to John protested awful and is very distracting to a campaign to not know what's gonna come out next, though your entire email, you know, file for six years has been expose it. You know, what's gonna be said, it's embarrassing and someone said something nasty about Hilary and then had to stand and watch and cries Nina didn't get up with you. People are all distracted, it's terrible! It's a violation. It's a you know what to serve active. You notes daft and of the most horrible kind, but you know it's not again. That's not! Lead Hillary Clinton, not a campaign in the right places and try to win the election away from Trump. Yet you know
I think image. This last humbler mean Obama almost said as much in that press conference before he won a vacation. He said: there's been no grand conspiracy to to change the results of the election. He said you know this, isn't the sisters of its you ve been a result of of how it's been reported or something along those lines. We unite also think someone gets lost in this, which is that The reason that the Obama administration has downplayed these hacks peace. They lived, they ve downplayed or not not robustly responded to cyber attacks by the Russians by the Chinese. By the Iranian is for markedly similar and bad reasons for this for similar reasons at Trump is wants to apparently and play the b b cyber attacks from russia- and this is an interesting points. Let's go through this, the ideas that- and this is reflected in an article in aims, written for the preparation of commentary which will be available at some point at the end of next week
that Trump and a bomb. I have a similar approach in some ways on foreign policy, meaning Obama decided that what he wanted to do was Jake nice with certain bad actors in the world were not engage in active activity right right. What does he do? Women? has intelligence. Information is like he downplays it because he doesn't want to be obligated to have to take aggressive action. He was working towards reconciliation. With America's antagonist I made. The point you made was that, in the aftermath of the Iranian Nuclear Deal signed in twenty fifteen, we have had repeated instances of its violation, and the present axis These incidents of its violation are not serious, significant or may not even be happening right. They d
Press conference after press conference, the State Department officials will say that this that that reported, an iranian violations, dont rise the level of actual violations. This is assessed. Chile covering four a nation. That means us harm that wishes us ill and in in the most grievous grieve that's any and be administration. Doing it to pursue their hopes of peace with with IRAN, and russian recent period and intelligence about IRAN before we saw the nuclear deal russian reset period and intelligence about IRAN. Before we saw them, your deal and then, of course, having most strikingly way. We handled intelligence relating to the rise of ISIS Right, which which led to the President calling ISIS a J B team, even as it was starting to control them.
Was the territory in the land right right, so yeah I mean you know. People should realize that They still sitting president, is very much, not above down playing intelligent intelligence about about what our enemies have haven't, store and have an have been doing right so in and where, where this gibes with Trump. Behavior is the Trump has clearly got in his head. The idea that he can make Putin a partner of some sort, and so he was the constantly be Emma position of semi friendship with the guy and that is his. That is his approach, so he believes that there are clearly believes are elements within the: U S: government that have decided to get all hawkish on him try to interfere with that now. This is a fool's errand. In my view, Putin
an antagonist, Williamites taste. You can't make deals with them he's only make deals or the thoughts with you, but now. What is it that you think the intelligence community is doing by doing something as provocative as leaking stuffed it NBC when it knows that you know? Trump has made a whole big deal out of waiting to get this report. Why why? Why would somebody do that? Well, look. We were you mentioned. The me regulation of basis, intelligence in according to an Armed Services Committee House arm services can any investigation chairman can we see a director might come pale alleged that in twenty forty late. Twenty fourteen early, twenty fifteen intelligence related to the threat was me emulated by sent come with the aim,
comporting with the views of the White House, the this was criticised intelligence, you get the intelligence you really want, and this is not dissimilar from what we understand was some of the objectives of the Bush administration. You get the intelligence you want, and the going intelligence community right now. Many them political point is It probably grew rightly worried about the nature of the intelligence of the Trump Administration is going to seek and receive, particularly given what we now understand to be according to, coming press secretary Sean's by sorry, one hundred percent false report from the Wall Street Journal that was nevertheless accurately cited in the source and had quite a lot of detail and regarding the reorganization of the office of the Director of national intelligence and the sea, a particularly with regard to the truncating of the mission at Langley and the outsourcing of a lot of agents into field operations very much comporting with what
incoming an essay MIKE Flynn wanted to do with the eight when he was over at the idea and this national security, adviser, DA's defence intelligence agency right. So in that way, The big a deal in fact a lot of people. Welcome that suggesting it there's. You know we ve had a lot of problems with the bureaucracy before it's kind of sprawling in bloated and its mission has crept in. It would be welcome to have it scaled back a little bit, but the only logic justification for this move wasn't the threat environment. Wasn't bureaucracy wasn't costs anything like that The only justification we heard was that these agencies are politicized using the term politicized, and that is actually similar to what you said. Diana recycling tromp in the New York Times. This is a word which HUN Sen politicized a witch hunt All of this is out. We need to get me and that concerns me deeply.
The objective of these reorganization efforts isn't gonna be effective until it isn't going to be restructuring in order to really get get down to the nub of the threat to the national security. I am. Rather it's going to be too insulate Donald Trump to protect Donald Trump, to make sure that Donald Trump is secure and his position as president, whether you think that legitimate or not, that is in the best interests of the United States, while we don't know that because the simple fact of the matter is that it is not the best interests, the United States for the intelligence community to be openly hostile and working against the interests of the President, who, after all, is the head of the executive branch and their boss and is the person who is supposed to be making policy not day. No one like them, know their hired civil servants, their career bureaucrats, and they are not supposed to be in a position to make decisions that are not somehow. You know, sir, with approval by public by them by the vote if the public that,
The president is the president and we don't have a permanent bureaucracy that has power independent from him. Congress has oversight, because it's the also an elected body that can therefore have the has the public know, It has. The validation of the public on ever was supposed to watch what the president is doing also, I mean no one really knows but self. The idea is that what the with the intelligence committee should be doing is less in our sitting. Random Langley doings analysis and more fieldwork yields, certainly told him nodded dismissal idea about how yours was to go about, pursuing and and and and handling had the intelligence. I just think you one cannot dismiss the notion that a present and who feels as though pop if his government is. You is gonna work again. His interests and his you know his effort to do will pursue the policies that he believes and was alive.
Believes he was elected to pursue and that it is his once ability to pursue that he can just let that happen without you know, without don't think about it or not. The other way to handle it, which is the way other presents handling, is to embrace the intelligence commute to bring it into its inability to wrap his loving arms around. It say I exit says interested, except in our work, its telling human and and and go from there. Presence are often very sceptical of the intelligence, can you for they come in and then overtime The intelligence briefings go and is in a particularly at moments of crisis, what he can do after nine eleven, the Bush, illustration, embraced. The intelligence because I didn't know what the hell is going on and it needed eyes on the ground on the world of it. You know there has clearly been bitten. Is of information that could have helped forestall nine eleven if they had been if it had been possible to collate them and handle them in
things need to be done to prevent a second nine eleven intelligence was gonna play a huge role. Not indeed did such a huge role that the entire Bush doctrine of you know dealing with threats for they fully. Develop, relied almost exclusively on intelligence, with, obviously some potentially very deleterious consequences and due to the pursuit of american interests in american history, because you know we acted preemptively to prevent you now Iraq from me now threatening with chemical and nuclear weapons, and it turned out. They would really with them so pre emptive strike is entirely based on intelligence. Raymond, in fact, in the Brok Obama's embraced it in the same way drones the use of drones as our major anti Terrorism act, is entirely driven by intelligence. We have intelligence and where people are, we have entailed
officers, mostly manning, the drones running, the drones planning the doing this finding where they are says, saint them and then and then hitting individual people. We warn policy by intelligence agency here very powerful intelligence agency turns on the president. The present either has to turn on it orbits or seduce it on his side by the way is also something that most of the left has hated up until this very moment, which believe giving the bee intelligence on on our foreign average. Christ had taken taking intelligence agencies at their words and a lot of left still. Does that mean you know? I don't think that Bernie Sanders this or of the sort of them nexus that would bring Sir Bernie Sanders. Voters together with Rand Paul IRAN. Paul voters certainly has this high degree of sketches. Distaste for every aspect of intelligence gathering
from wiretapping to you now, the pursuit of individual pieces of information to to the notion, for example, that you have to do something about Julian Assange and Edward Snowden when violate your protocol and steal your secrets, because you need to make sure that every intelligence agency, an agent in America understands you're gonna come down on them. You know what the ass, a god if they even think about doing this nonsense idea that you know Obama, who knows better than we do what the deaths that nature, of the Snowden theft was is gonna. Maybe pardon him part Edward Snowden EM. And Bradley Manning? Who you know who Should we stole the entirety of our intelligence gathering in a rock as a result of really stupid? Handline have the intelligence in a rock that could all be put on one zip drive, pardon him and so
now that that's where you get the weirdness of the of the left here, that Obama is really really in the lab moving very, very very far to the right for leftist on these intelligence matters is all this. That is what we're describing here is the doctrine No one is illogical on you had presidents or who are you the President's who have frustration with the intelligence community as a result of this event that went wrong or this intelligence report that change the course of history that was poorly at source, did Cetera soforth. This hasn't this current dispute between the present I've been intelligence, community is very personal and has everything it was done from self conception of him being personally undermine legitimacy, undermine there's a lot of people who group believe that this is it's dangerous, the legitimate president like this, I don't disagree that I think everybody who wrote all steel agenda of a violent pieces in two thousand. Nine would have to concede that this is an issue that they should be fearful about, but it's not about doctrine really. I mean
They say that WMD thing just the sort of a cover it's about. Don't trump personally is personal sell conception about his relationship with. Let him put an end his legitimacy as an elected president will look. You know Richard Nixon had similar doubts and suspicions of the intelligence services when he was president and, as is as in patient, gathers as been gathered over the forty years plus then said. Since he resigned from office, there is clearly there were. Clearly grounds for him to be nervous that they were working across. This is from him and that efforts are being made to build cases and stem, and maybe even to oust him like that's, not an unserious matter. There we published a very long he's by James Rosen, a Fox news last year about mark about them, Zander Butterfield hi aid in the Nixon White House, who was one of the key sources of Bob Woodward who wrote a book about Butterfield and
rose and goes through the evidence and suggests that the idea that maybe there was a naval intelligence aspect to Watergate to the release of information against the President to the Washington Post cannot be dismissed. So it's not like pray I haven't been through this before and I can say: ok good Nixon deserve, maybe, but you know it's very discomfitting. That's where you start getting into this whole question of these. He now are these. If you have unelected bureaucrats, I think that a president needs to be ousted like that is coup that served that's near coup behaviour of its not cool, because its lab general necessarily, but you know that They do not have the legitimate right to do at their means and processes by which presents need to be removed from office or even challenged or whatever, and this is not one of them to be to be, to put it mildly,
I suggested before nor Rossman yeah just before Abe, getting here we're going to the absolute utmost extremely your horse, let of what they intend to do extent that you can identify a motive or an outcome, and I, the of how this is going to play out to the intelligence communities benefit. It would be to box any humiliate Donald Trump and his wrists Ophelia to appoint. Where he can no longer pursue these objectives without looking feeble and then that, in that sense, undermining him to an extent is. The best interests of those to define american geostrategic objectives as countering Russia's will this. This comes down than to this question at that always comes Is it patriotic her or or unpatriotic to want to president not to succeed? And what does that mean? You know? Do you do
How can you not want him to succeed? Is your present? Well, if you think I'd, I don't want him to succeed in harming the country, then I'm patriotic, and do you not want him to succeed because you think his policies will work or because you think they won't work? Well, this is so here's the key, so so when descent stopping patriotic in two thousand and nine when descent was patriotic when it was against Bush and then when people like us Mitch, Mcconnell and not and not movies, not like us, but you know said that they would a wanted Obama to be a one term president and they wished his policies to fail. There was an idea behind that that was not just over pub good women Democrat could lose. It was that Obama's goal was a fundamental reorientate him of the amounts economy and american foreign policy, in a way that we believed this deleterious to both M M M M, a nightmare
the future of the country and therefore we wished him to fail, because we believe that the successful implementation of its policies will have horrendous consequences, some which I think has played out pretty clearly, including like Obama, care and the IRAN deal and various other things, and when liberal if they admitted honestly say that what they want is returned to fail. What they are saying is that they believe the Trumps personal pro to the presidency, which is be a wash and potential conflicts of interest, and you know and then his what appears to be his for a tearing personality as they put it, nor that will we give our democratic polity and will you know exacerbate some of the difficulties between rich and poor, and will power a leader, the way. The leader should not be empowered. That's a serious, they it's perfectly okay to root for people who you think have ideas that are noxious and dangerous to hell. You know you
wanting to succeed because their success will lead to a world or in America that you don't wish your children to live in about that. Not acceptable. I believe it was considered more acceptable. To said about, Obama is apparently will be acceptable to say that about drugs settle say about Islamic, as if you said you'd, like Obama cause he was left us. Everybody said now, you don't like him, because these black well, I can tell you this. I didn't like him, because he was a leftist. I thought he was going to do something like the IRAN deal and he did it. I thought it was a lose something like Obamacare any did it. I thought you would do something like the stimulus and he did it didn't do any good, and you know so. Suspicions of him, and my fears of him were well founded and in fact of fears and suspicions of people who like trump and who were attempting to deal legitimize him now may well also come come to be so. That's all
the parties and you have a partisan fight, which is a party, is supposed to wanted to feed the other party. That's the nature of a two party system: Democrats, That's supposed to try to help trump succeed. They may not I'll, be in their interests to pretend that their time to act like they're, making him fail, but if he succeeds, they fail. So that's the dynamic. I think if liberals and even some conservatives being, as you say, honest, they would also be a free that he would be successful because his kids, option of sort of a populist progressive ism with you know a lot of comic nationalism to it, sort of reminds their own political legitimacy if they were successful there Certainly it would serve to bury their programme as his neck is doubly firm. Small government conservative right will but here's the key to understanding the conservative concerns about Trump, which is its not that there is any logical commitment to free
trade as a thing in itself. It is that, One believes that the record over two hundred and forty years suggests that when that of their work, shorter of the twentieth century. Whatever suggests that all things being equal, even though the free trading system has is, has many flaws in its implementation and a lot of Vienna distortions, and all of that then it will. It's better than the other and I do not believe that a protectionist system that put into place by Trump and economic mash of it will work I leave it will fail. Therefore, to the extent that I hope it is not implemented because I believe it will be in that failure for the country that has nothing to do with him now, maybe the walls of change like these are not. It seems like these are surviving rules, but maybe the roles of shame- maybe the twenty first century is different- may be instant. Communications have changed the nature of these things. I have no hanging out work
Apparently, we will have a real world test of this, but it's not like this is like I want, Free trade, because it beat I would make My heart saying and it's it's my vision of a beautiful green, our future, there is nothing to do with it, but you know what I fear most. It the illusory success of policies that I oppose, because they actually succeed then you go well. That's that's great. I was wrong. This war change right word: the rules of the other things are different, but have to understand that their different than if you have something like IRAN deodorant goes look at this look at this world historic thing of needs, said it couldn't be done enough, and I gotta know that's that's not that's not an actual success that, but now I have to live with the gloating and the eventual bad ramifications of right. But the other thing aim is that you then have the short term success that covers the long term failure pouches like the carrier deal, you know, we're
individual efforts to impose trumps efforts to impose its will on individual companies by tweeting at them were threatening them or something like that you can have short term consequences that will be popular with people, and we know this from there. This is what populism can do. We know it from country after country where stuff like this happens, but that but that in the long term it creates a you know, a system of serve corporate of dealing with the government. That is that that that has horrendous has had. Vigorously horrendous consequences everywhere, something hasn't been remarked upon recently, a sort of a shift in in trumps, agitating tone towards two in companies that want to manufacture Mexico he's had first been going companies that we're talking about outsourcing from the United States to Mexico, and he read recently tweeted at Toyota that many their affirmed that they were gonna open. Completely independent of the United States in Mexico was going to phases
Stanfield tariff if they were going to bring cars in the United States, manufacture from Mexico having nothing to do with taking jobs away from the United States just entirely foreign direct investment in Mexico being a problem. That is, that is uniquely dangerous. We are right now seeing riots, they Mexico say not entirely related. Also, let us also a direct violation of american law. By saying we could say right now it may we have a. We literally signed a treaty threats of Mercosur. Trade agreements a treaty. We have treaty obligations that are that have the force of law. He cannot punish Mexico. You cannot what he is taught short out, but by virtue of him talking this is your obligates having its own effect and, as I said, we have some. Some civil unrest in Mexico City not entirely unrelated to Donald war on foreign direct investment in Mexico and is making Mexico and stable, which is directly dean as to Americans sovereignty stability. I'm sure that's not what Donald Trump wants, but it's the effect
and we're gonna see more of it, and this kind of why you have again in old logical commitment to free trade, not because it makes remedy richer, but it does, but it also makes everything more stable right. Well, I mean I think, in the end, if you look at all this- and you look treaty. Put you know he as yet to untie has yet to understand entirely the nature of the power that he exerts out will be exerting as president at me. He has these getting a taste of it now then. I read, for example, this now notorious tweed. He did too we put out this morning, attacking making fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger forgetting bad ratings. On the apprentice and GINO, worse than his ratings fourteen years ago, when it was its foresee or even worse than his last season, which was fourteen years in and blah blah blah as a kind of odd were too beat like he's in the middle of these big fight over intelligence and this is worth doing cabinet and that he's right,
creating two more comfortable ground. This is actually what he enjoys doing with the tweet is going Arnold. You voted. Do you know you ve got four cases, Hilary your raining suck you now and that like it's, it's a kind of effort food for him, because he is now stepping way out of his comfort zone into you now enter into real, really complicated, issues that has been doing all this fantasy football star Female doing is kept which is a fun for your name, people picking people naming people seeing how they look and whether you like the way they feel and they come in an interview you down the airy rhythm and talk to them and you make little competitions and everything well, you ve got to, weeks left and which is not president but he's like almost president and then he's gonna. Be president, then he's not gonna be almost president, and you know It will be interesting to see how many times he retreats into this. You know
I'm the guy from twenty fourteen tweeting, not the guy. In twenty seventeen. It was the most powerful persons world tweeting Bernard's words lingers ravings. Leave have time to know about our Schwarzenegger's ratings the governor on. He can have that in part of the GDP, their clear their own in them that's right. Well, one last thing to talk about, which is that yesterday. The house and sell it took a bay both took up burst statements to of denunciation, essentially of the votes cast, fuel to about the abstention at nations on the resolution to better declare any jewish position in Jerusalem is EAST Jerusalem illegal in the making the settlement,
so violation of international law and all that overwhelming vote right of than it was before it wasn't the Sab three hundred sixty votes in the house, which means that more then half the democratic caucus, the entirety of the republican caucus in more than half an hour at cop is voted. For this resolution, but among those who did not vote for the resolution was representative Keith Allison in Minnesota, who has making this very it's a bid to become head of the Democratic National Committee with the backing of him coming or new, newly minted Senate minority leader, Chuck, Schumer and others else. Of course, the african American Convert to Islam disciple of Louis Fair, can and somebody who was very consistently negative
Ouch Israel ups and serve since coming into them, It was ten years ago. And this pretence that he doesn't have it and then he said actually friend to the Jews and his, and he believed he supports is really really puts sport, two state solution and so he's not going to vote on it now to condemn a resolution that affirms the necessity of a two state solution, blah blah blah blah blah well so, What does the Ellison refusal to vote even now and he wants this job, and remember to fund raising job. And many of the largest donors to the Democratic Party are our jewish, supporters of Israel,.
What does it say about either about him and his judgment of what he needs through to get a job or about the democratic party ape known? It says there perfectly comfortable being overtly hostile towards Israel. If you win right, Grech, bread have somebody who, who is the head of the Democrats, many replacing Debbie washroom shots a you know rather vapid. An interesting person, but certainly somebody who could art She was a Europe supported. The only Denmark seeing the Middle EAST and the America's greatest friend and most important intelligence ally in many ways, aside from being a Jew spoil, the jewish state only be going so that Democrats would be picking and african American Muslim, whose hostile to turn to Israel. But what, if you lose
the losers is most likely person is gonna, lose to his comrades, former leopard. Currently labour secretary, it's got a pretty well find progressive record on domestic fares. We don't really know much about his foreign policy is, but he is has been act light of this administration, which has very publicly and in Israel and the United Nations, has not like we're having a big contrast here when well, it's a big contrast only in the sense that Ellison comes from an explicitly anti semitic background. He was a member the nation of Islam. He was a disciple and act light of Louis fairer. Can lose fair can was the nations foremost and most dangerous anti semite for ten or fifteen years before he faded. You now happily faded away into nothing, almost nothing and and we hope that as an end, he, his repudiation of fair, can is not really clear and he may
you have all sorts of combine our hands across the waters, meetings with rabbis and interfaith meetings and all of that but the the pudding is in the eating, and he is somebody who is happy to not support a resolution saying that the United States should support Israel dealing and yet that has to be taken in concert with with a bomb, now final and outgoing stance on the issue and the role will be playing in this post presidency on the issue as well, I mean he's, tease, declare so by saying that the alternative here is between pirates and Earth Perez? Ok! Yes, Paris and well. I will say this, which is that, although we I give Ellison sort of apparently perfectly comfortable with the view that Israel needs to be pushed in direction. That is the Democrats liking for its own good. I find these two positions, not you know us surely distinct too? To find a difference
Well, I will say this, which is that, although we give Ellison sort of said that more need to die in twenty fourteen in order to get people to the table as justification for voting against the iron funding saying it is unfair that there was no reciprocity growth with Gaza. Everybody needs in order to get peace across, so that's very radical position. I dont think that the labour, Secretary shares, but that's again A distinction were drawing a very fine line. Well, we find ourselves in? Is that we're going to have in the Trump administration, at least from you know, early indications, a really kind of radical break on these matters with somebody who not only will do a drawer the kind of distance daylight that Obama wanted to put between Israel and the United States, but were actually way in an ambassador. Who, who is an active? of policies. The United States, including its most
pro Israel administrations has never have never supported you now, when policy, one state solution, you know no state for the Palestinians, all that and how that is good That is an interesting way. Enough will create problems that if the Democrat Party believes that it Molly, that its supporters are now much more likely or more far, more likely to be US dollar, unfriendly Israel than they used to be that the the standard dynamics of american politics may push them further into this view. The more that the Trump Administration
races, Israel. You really will have the situation in which the Democratic Party will find itself facing a crisis about whether or not it becomes a kind of anti Israel Party over the course of the next decade. Also supporter these the the and it will continue, presumably to back the iranian deal less. It goes away a fight to not let it be be overthrown, and its also would be significant crisis for the country. To have one of the two major parties being overly anti Israel Party by the way it makes no, it makes no despite these poles and which you save see, Democrats having worrying numbers of forty eight forty eight they like is really don't like Israel, the FAO. Does that in the United States, three ff three fifths, two thirds of the of people view, is real favourably. Jaime Jaime Number between five and fourteen percent view, the Palestinians favourably,
as a simple matter of crass politics? It makes absolutely no sense, were Democrats too, to embrace the other side. It could be one thing: knotted, Nazi define themselves would buy a pro. Israel policy is one of the by way way. One of the great missed various developments of Twentyth century twenty first century politics, I mean in nineteen eighty the report in party was fifty fifty split on being pro Israel anti Israel. I mean it farewell. Old, the older Republican was the more likely was to think that Israel Its existence was deleterious to american interests that it was your cream, still it is between us and arab states that we relied upon for oil and were friendly to us and the EU. Serve our interest than the least than that Israel was a kind of interloper, a socialist country, big pain and over the course of the next fifteen to twenty years, the entire republican Party on mass. We know
section of the Paul Van. As far as we can tell you now, is this a mad supported outside so unambiguous supporter of his. The only thing I would say that remains a totally unitary factor in american foreign policy. That's the interesting thing about tromp is that he's represents a radical, too function in all realms of republican foreign policy, What kind of isolationist he wants to go to war with China is now he wants to make friends with Russia. Doesn't like NATO block? but you know I'm Israel there. He is thrown his hand in you know like totally? Let's not forget about, I wanna be new. What that's right. That's what he said in twenty four. That's the other is instinct nobody, the weird and then here's what I learned. That was a bad instinct, but why Well, how did you learn it? That's what's interesting, so everything that he said in toys
fifteen. He has his backed off of none of it right, so it during the course of the republican debates he said and no one say who I support. I'd love, to make a real estate the real estate deal between Israel. So I'm not going to say I want to be even handed. I wanted neutral, because that's how you have to be if you're going to broker real estate deal, he said it over and over again and Cruz tried to attack him, and we will try to attack coming on this summer. He would not back down, and I Matthew that every realm of foreign policy on the matters that he has discussed the one place there? you fly, he flipped two hundred. Maybe degrees was this. This is the only one rushing talks, at the same weight, NATO we talked about the same way: the Iraq, where talks about the same way, China, he talks about the same way. What is he talking about foreign policy, different Israel, very interesting interesting. I don't necessarily want to look.
Were too deeply into it, but there it is so that's where he's thro his hand them and, of course I think the behaviour of the Obama assertion that last two months, just out of doubles, that down or triple sent down And we have come to an end of our first week of January podcasting, I'm John POT words or not Roslin in a green. While please gotta, come true magazine that calm hit subscribe, put in when called twenty seventeen we'll get our. One thousand nine hundred and ninety five digital subscription for one thousand four hundred and ninety five and are all access 2990s, two thousand nine hundred and ninety five subscription for two thousand four hundred and ninety I have so until next week keep the Campbell burning.
Transcript generated on 2020-02-26.