|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:Here comes the next thing for liberals to be outraged about: Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.
The excerpt of the call did not detail who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," nor did it make clear the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response.
Still, the excerpt offers a rare and striking look at how the new president is conducting diplomacy behind closed doors. Trump's remarks suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.
A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. The Mexican government said the account was not accurate.
The phone call between the leaders was intended to patch things up between the new president and his ally. The two have had a series of public spats over Trump's determination to have Mexico pay for the planned border wall, something Mexico steadfastly refuses to agree to.
"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt given to AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."
A person with access to the official transcript of the phone call provided only that portion of the conversation to The Associated Press. The person gave it on condition of anonymity because the administration did not make the details of the call public.
The Mexican website, Aristegui Noticias, on Tuesday published a similar account of phone call, based on the reporting of journalist Dolia Estevez. The report described Trump as humiliating Pena Nieto in a confrontational conversation.
Mexico's foreign relations department denied that account, saying it "is based on absolute falsehoods," and later said the statement also applied to the excerpt provided to AP.
"The assertions that you make about said conversation do not correspond to the reality of it," the statement said. "The tone was constructive and it was agreed by the presidents to continue working and that the teams will continue to meet frequently to construct an agreement that is positive for Mexico and for the United States."
Trump has used the phrase "bad hombres" before. In an October presidential debate, he vowed to get rid the U.S. of "drug lords" and "bad people."
"We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," he said. The phrase ricocheted on social media with Trump opponents saying he was denigrating immigrants.
Trump's comment was in line with the new administration's bullish stance on foreign policy matters in general, and the president's willingness to break long-standing norms around the globe.
Before his inauguration, Trump spoke to the president of Taiwan, breaking long-standing U.S. policy and irritating China. His temporary ban on refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, aimed at reviewing screening procedures to lessen the threat of extremist attacks, has caused consternation around the world.
But nothing has created the level of bickering as the border wall, a centerpiece of his campaign. Mexico has consistently said it would not pay for the wall and opposes it. Before the phone call, Pena Nieto canceled a planned visit to the United States.
The fresh fight with Mexico last week arose over trade as the White House proposed a 20 percent tax on imports from the key U.S. ally to finance the wall after Pena Nieto abruptly scrapped his Jan. 31 trip to Washington.
The U.S. and Mexico conduct some $1.6 billion a day in cross-border trade, and cooperate on everything from migration to anti-drug enforcement to major environmental issues.
Trump tasked his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner — a real estate executive with no foreign policy experience — with managing the ongoing dispute, according to an administration official with knowledge of the call.
At a press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May last week, Trump described his call with Pena Nieto as "friendly."
In a statement, the White House said the two leaders acknowledged their "clear and very public differences" and agreed to work through the immigration disagreement as part of broader discussions on the relationship between their countries. Source.
Also trump is threatening Iran for testing icbms which they've been doing for a while. How will he follow up tho? Iran isn't going to give a shit.
|
On February 02 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:Here comes the next thing for liberals to be outraged about: Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.
The excerpt of the call did not detail who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," nor did it make clear the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response.
Still, the excerpt offers a rare and striking look at how the new president is conducting diplomacy behind closed doors. Trump's remarks suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.
A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. The Mexican government said the account was not accurate.
The phone call between the leaders was intended to patch things up between the new president and his ally. The two have had a series of public spats over Trump's determination to have Mexico pay for the planned border wall, something Mexico steadfastly refuses to agree to.
"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt given to AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."
A person with access to the official transcript of the phone call provided only that portion of the conversation to The Associated Press. The person gave it on condition of anonymity because the administration did not make the details of the call public.
The Mexican website, Aristegui Noticias, on Tuesday published a similar account of phone call, based on the reporting of journalist Dolia Estevez. The report described Trump as humiliating Pena Nieto in a confrontational conversation.
Mexico's foreign relations department denied that account, saying it "is based on absolute falsehoods," and later said the statement also applied to the excerpt provided to AP.
"The assertions that you make about said conversation do not correspond to the reality of it," the statement said. "The tone was constructive and it was agreed by the presidents to continue working and that the teams will continue to meet frequently to construct an agreement that is positive for Mexico and for the United States."
Trump has used the phrase "bad hombres" before. In an October presidential debate, he vowed to get rid the U.S. of "drug lords" and "bad people."
"We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," he said. The phrase ricocheted on social media with Trump opponents saying he was denigrating immigrants.
Trump's comment was in line with the new administration's bullish stance on foreign policy matters in general, and the president's willingness to break long-standing norms around the globe.
Before his inauguration, Trump spoke to the president of Taiwan, breaking long-standing U.S. policy and irritating China. His temporary ban on refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, aimed at reviewing screening procedures to lessen the threat of extremist attacks, has caused consternation around the world.
But nothing has created the level of bickering as the border wall, a centerpiece of his campaign. Mexico has consistently said it would not pay for the wall and opposes it. Before the phone call, Pena Nieto canceled a planned visit to the United States.
The fresh fight with Mexico last week arose over trade as the White House proposed a 20 percent tax on imports from the key U.S. ally to finance the wall after Pena Nieto abruptly scrapped his Jan. 31 trip to Washington.
The U.S. and Mexico conduct some $1.6 billion a day in cross-border trade, and cooperate on everything from migration to anti-drug enforcement to major environmental issues.
Trump tasked his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner — a real estate executive with no foreign policy experience — with managing the ongoing dispute, according to an administration official with knowledge of the call.
At a press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May last week, Trump described his call with Pena Nieto as "friendly."
In a statement, the White House said the two leaders acknowledged their "clear and very public differences" and agreed to work through the immigration disagreement as part of broader discussions on the relationship between their countries. Source.
Why would we be outraged? The US attacking a UN nation? That's going to be fun...
Edit: Also wasn't it Hillary that would be dragging the US into wars? Not Trump starting one with Mexico?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh neoliberals have long recommended more attention to mexico as a way to alleviate many problems, but this is not what we had in mind
bill clinton bailing out mex, for example, was partly driven by understanding of its importance. hillary has also talked about security aid to fight cartels as sec of state
|
lol Trump threatening to send troops to Mexico on his own has got to be one of the dumbest bluffs I've heard.
Humiliating foreign leaders just because you're powerful is not a smart move but I guess Republican voters are big on tough talk.
|
On February 02 2017 09:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you liberals and democrats fault the message (ie the platform and ideology) and not just the messenger (Hillary)? Considering that facts apparently no longer matter and that the US elected someone with no policies to speak off. I don't see why I would blame the message. Does that mean Hillary is to blame? If you want to win then yes. They should obviously have nominated *Insert famous charismatic American who knows nothing of politics*. But if you care about doing what you think is best for the country and actually try to govern? I think Hillary was fine. I don't blame her for a significant portion of America being stupid enough to vote for Trump.
I praise you for your honesty. Facts don't matter and America is stupid enough to vote for Trump is exactly the mentality that will give him further influence now and success in '18 elections. But, it's not like Democrats have accepted any other explanation in the roughly three months after his election.
|
On February 02 2017 09:53 LegalLord wrote:SourceAll I can say for sure is that Schumer clearly wants to be the Democratic McConnell. He just might be worse than Reid.
looks like a dumb article as far as I read.
since first, it incorrectly uses the term "myth" instead of sound and correct point.
and it brings up things that have already been debunked/addressed repeatedly. so it only takes advantage of the fact that some people are unaware of that to try to convince people who haven't looked closely.
a contemptible article and a thoughtless waste of space.
|
I heard Trump went to visit the family of the Navy SEAL that died in the operation he ordered. I hope it opens his eyes to the very real people that can die and how it affects their families so that he takes missions like the one he ordered with the utmost seriousness. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson personally writing letters to the families of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War, even though he still kept it up until Nixon became president
|
On February 02 2017 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you liberals and democrats fault the message (ie the platform and ideology) and not just the messenger (Hillary)?
depends which part of the message is being talked about. there are some bad parts, and a lot of great parts.
there's a lot of different versions of the message, so it's hard to say definitively; and it's hard to disentangle hillary's version of the message from hillary herself.
as a guess, I'll say 40/60 split.
|
On February 02 2017 10:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I heard Trump went to visit the family of the Navy SEAL that died in the operation he ordered. I hope it opens his eyes to the very real people that can die and how it affects their families so that he takes missions like the one he ordered with the utmost seriousness. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson personally writing letters to the families of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War, even though he still kept it up until Nixon became president
If anything is going to change Trump, it is going to be this. Never in his life before has he had to order someone to do something and then having them die because of it. He's done all the managing and ordering and shouting, but this will change him hopefully for the better, just like it affects all presidents. Except maybe Obama who was pretty liberal with his drone strikes.
|
On February 02 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 09:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you liberals and democrats fault the message (ie the platform and ideology) and not just the messenger (Hillary)? Considering that facts apparently no longer matter and that the US elected someone with no policies to speak off. I don't see why I would blame the message. Does that mean Hillary is to blame? If you want to win then yes. They should obviously have nominated *Insert famous charismatic American who knows nothing of politics*. But if you care about doing what you think is best for the country and actually try to govern? I think Hillary was fine. I don't blame her for a significant portion of America being stupid enough to vote for Trump. I praise you for your honesty. Facts don't matter and America is stupid enough to vote for Trump is exactly the mentality that will give him further influence now and success in '18 elections. But, it's not like Democrats have accepted any other explanation in the roughly three months after his election.
it is a tricky question what to do with unpleasant facts.
do we announce them, knowing that people will be unhappy with them? and may go against those who speak the truth?
or do we conceal them?
finding the right balance of those is always tricky, even moreso in a democracy where there's more of an expectation of speaking the truth to the people.
what do you want done with unpleasant facts?
nothing wrong with accepting a correct explanation as correct of course. though reality is far more complicated, and it is one of many factors that must also be considered.
|
On February 02 2017 10:32 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I heard Trump went to visit the family of the Navy SEAL that died in the operation he ordered. I hope it opens his eyes to the very real people that can die and how it affects their families so that he takes missions like the one he ordered with the utmost seriousness. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson personally writing letters to the families of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War, even though he still kept it up until Nixon became president If anything is going to change Trump, it is going to be this. Never in his life before has he had to order someone to do something and then having them die because of it. He's done all the managing and ordering and shouting, but this will change him hopefully for the better, just like it affects all presidents. Except maybe Obama who was pretty liberal with his drone strikes.
Given the "industries" and people he involved himself with in the past, I would be very surprised if people haven't died as a direct result of his decisions before.
Hoping this guy -- or any of the people he has chosen -- are going to change is ridiculous, IMO.
|
On February 02 2017 10:37 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:32 biology]major wrote:On February 02 2017 10:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I heard Trump went to visit the family of the Navy SEAL that died in the operation he ordered. I hope it opens his eyes to the very real people that can die and how it affects their families so that he takes missions like the one he ordered with the utmost seriousness. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson personally writing letters to the families of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War, even though he still kept it up until Nixon became president If anything is going to change Trump, it is going to be this. Never in his life before has he had to order someone to do something and then having them die because of it. He's done all the managing and ordering and shouting, but this will change him hopefully for the better, just like it affects all presidents. Except maybe Obama who was pretty liberal with his drone strikes. Given the "industries" and people he involved himself with in the past, I would be very surprised if people haven't died as a direct result of his decisions before. Hoping this guy -- or any of the people he has chosen -- are going to change is ridiculous, IMO.
that or might not be the case; but here it is far more direct and apparent, and far harder for someone to fool themselves about the impact of their decision. so this case certainly has a chance of doing so.
|
On February 02 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 09:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you liberals and democrats fault the message (ie the platform and ideology) and not just the messenger (Hillary)? Considering that facts apparently no longer matter and that the US elected someone with no policies to speak off. I don't see why I would blame the message. Does that mean Hillary is to blame? If you want to win then yes. They should obviously have nominated *Insert famous charismatic American who knows nothing of politics*. But if you care about doing what you think is best for the country and actually try to govern? I think Hillary was fine. I don't blame her for a significant portion of America being stupid enough to vote for Trump. I praise you for your honesty. Facts don't matter and America is stupid enough to vote for Trump is exactly the mentality that will give him further influence now and success in '18 elections. But, it's not like Democrats have accepted any other explanation in the roughly three months after his election. it is a tricky question what to do with unpleasant facts. do we announce them, knowing that people will be unhappy with them? and may go against those who speak the truth? or do we conceal them? finding the right balance of those is always tricky, even moreso in a democracy where there's more of an expectation of speaking the truth to the people. what do you want done with unpleasant facts? nothing wrong with accepting a correct explanation as correct of course. though reality is far more complicated, and it is one of many factors that must also be considered.
I know Hillary both tried concealment and that the facts didn't matter. She'll die having failed on both plans.
I mean, can you really say "more so in a democracy where there's more of an expectation of speaking the truth to the people" with a straight face? Trump is the apex of a society where Obamaland crowned narrative above facts. We could spend all day on liking your doctor and keeping him, saving $2500 on health insurance, how smart foreign policy is setting the middle east on fire, healing racial division involves announcing your son would look just like Trayvon Martin, and "At least I'll go down as a president." Yeah, it's politics, and both sides say the facts support them.
Trump happens to have come at the time when the political left has all but abandoned facts for a narrative, the facts being little more than a nuisance on the way to larger points (But wait! Let's pound the fact that 'fake news' never had half truths to begin with! har har). The plummeting mainstream media credibility is the most prominent result of fact free society. We've heard the easy way out: Trump's dumb, America's dumb, "you are an idiot" (zlefin addition) to see the elites were right all along and Trump + voters were wrong. Reality is much more complicated, but not in a way you understand yet.
So back to basics with why Democrats have lost 1030 seats in state and fed since Obama took office, and why this pussy-grabbing hero somehow won 55% white college-educated women in a certain key swing state. This may take some time, so I'll give you until the barren Democrat bench pushes forward some new leader that isn't in their 60s and 70s.
|
|
|
On February 02 2017 12:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:On February 02 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 09:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2017 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you liberals and democrats fault the message (ie the platform and ideology) and not just the messenger (Hillary)? Considering that facts apparently no longer matter and that the US elected someone with no policies to speak off. I don't see why I would blame the message. Does that mean Hillary is to blame? If you want to win then yes. They should obviously have nominated *Insert famous charismatic American who knows nothing of politics*. But if you care about doing what you think is best for the country and actually try to govern? I think Hillary was fine. I don't blame her for a significant portion of America being stupid enough to vote for Trump. I praise you for your honesty. Facts don't matter and America is stupid enough to vote for Trump is exactly the mentality that will give him further influence now and success in '18 elections. But, it's not like Democrats have accepted any other explanation in the roughly three months after his election. it is a tricky question what to do with unpleasant facts. do we announce them, knowing that people will be unhappy with them? and may go against those who speak the truth? or do we conceal them? finding the right balance of those is always tricky, even moreso in a democracy where there's more of an expectation of speaking the truth to the people. what do you want done with unpleasant facts? nothing wrong with accepting a correct explanation as correct of course. though reality is far more complicated, and it is one of many factors that must also be considered. I know Hillary both tried concealment and that the facts didn't matter. She'll die having failed on both plans. I mean, can you really say "more so in a democracy where there's more of an expectation of speaking the truth to the people" with a straight face? Trump is the apex of a society where Obamaland crowned narrative above facts. We could spend all day on liking your doctor and keeping him, saving $2500 on health insurance, how smart foreign policy is setting the middle east on fire, healing racial division involves announcing your son would look just like Trayvon Martin, and "At least I'll go down as a president." Yeah, it's politics, and both sides say the facts support them. Trump happens to have come at the time when the political left has all but abandoned facts for a narrative, the facts being little more than a nuisance on the way to larger points (But wait! Let's pound the fact that 'fake news' never had half truths to begin with! har har). The plummeting mainstream media credibility is the most prominent result of fact free society. We've heard the easy way out: Trump's dumb, America's dumb, "you are an idiot" (zlefin addition) to see the elites were right all along and Trump + voters were wrong. Reality is much more complicated, but not in a way you understand yet. So back to basics with why Democrats have lost 1030 seats in state and fed since Obama took office, and why this pussy-grabbing hero somehow won 55% white college-educated women in a certain key swing state. This may take some time, so I'll give you until the barren Democrat bench pushes forward some new leader that isn't in their 60s and 70s.
of course I can say it with a straight face. do you claim that the expectation of being told the truth in a democracy is not higher than in other forms of government?
aside from that mostly you're just making unsound points. the left still does a better job at facts thant he rgiht, even if it also screws up a lot. i'd gladly toss all of them to bring in some actual honest people, but sadly most people are unable to vote/detect actual honesty, or maybe they chose not to vote for it.
Mostly I just see you harping on the same half-true nonsense as usual.
go read the book in my sig, it establishes things well in terms of stupidity. as have numerous other sources.
|
Trump saying "bad hombres" verbatim to a foreign leader just sounds too goofy to be real.
|
So does a lot of what he says. The Australian phone call was also disgraceful. He bullies his allies and outright threatens neighbours. It just seems like he's using diplomatic relations to play to his base (the 'bad hombres' line 'bad deal' and 'Australia exporting boston bombers') instead of worrying about America's international reputation, which is rapidly disintegrating outside of Russia.
|
I have no doubt that Trump is swinging dick on some of these calls. Business as usual ended last month. Now we get to see how his style plays.
|
On February 02 2017 12:36 Danglars wrote:
Trump happens to have come at the time when the political left has all but abandoned facts for a narrative, the facts being little more than a nuisance on the way to larger points
Actually the political right have all but abandoned facts for narrative, the left's attachment to sound reasoning is what's made them so weak in the soundbite era
...
See how easily I contradicted what you said, it's almost as if neither you nor I have said anything substantive or remotely worth considering
|
On February 02 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:I have no doubt that Trump is swinging dick on some of these calls. Business as usual ended last month. Now we get to see how his style plays.
No ‘G’day, mate’: On call with Australian prime minister, Trump badgers and brags
It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.
Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.
At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladimir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”
Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter.
“This is the worst deal ever,” Trump fumed as Turnbull attempted to confirm that the United States would honor its pledge to take in 1,250 refugees from an Australian detention center.
Trump, who one day earlier had signed an executive order temporarily barring the admissions of refugees, complained that he was “going to get killed” politically and accused Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers.”
U.S. officials said that Trump has behaved similarly in conversations with leaders of other countries, including Mexico. But his treatment of Turnbull was particularly striking because of the tight bond between the United States and Australia — countries that share intelligence, support one another diplomatically and have fought together in wars including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The characterizations provide insight into Trump’s temperament and approach to the diplomatic requirements of his job as the nation’s chief executive, a role in which he continues to employ both the uncompromising negotiating tactics he honed as a real estate developer and the bombastic style he exhibited as a reality television personality.
The depictions of Trump’s calls are also at odds with sanitized White House accounts. The official readout of his conversation with Turnbull, for example, said that the two had “emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the U.S.-Australia relationship that is critical for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and globally.”
A White House spokesman declined to comment. A senior administration official acknowledged that the conversation with Turnbull had been hostile and charged, but emphasized that most of Trump’s calls with foreign leaders — including the heads of Japan, Germany, France and Russia — have been both productive and pleasant.
Trump also vented anger and touted his political accomplishments in a tense conversation with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, officials said. The two have sparred for months over Trump’s vow to force Mexico to pay for construction of a border wall between the two countries, a conflict that prompted Peña Nieto to cancel a planned meeting with Trump.
Even in conversations marred by hostile exchanges, Trump manages to work in references to his election accomplishments. U.S. officials said that he used his calls with both Turnbull and Peña Nieto to mention his election win or the size of the crowd at his inauguration.
One official said that it may be Trump’s way of “speaking about the mandate he has and why he has the backing for decisions he makes.” But Trump is also notoriously thin-skinned and has used platforms including social-media accounts, meetings with lawmakers and even a speech at CIA headquarters to depict his victory as an achievement of historic proportions, rather than a narrow outcome in which his opponent, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.
The friction with Turnbull reflected Trump’s anger over being bound by an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept refugees from Australian detention sites even while Trump was issuing an executive order suspending such arrivals from elsewhere in the world.
The issue centers on a population of roughly 2,500 people who sought asylum in Australia but were diverted to facilities off that country’s coast at Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. Deplorable conditions at those sites prompted intervention from the United Nations and a pledge from the United States to accept about half of those refugees, provided they passed U.S. security screening.
Many of the refugees came from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia, countries now listed in Trump’s order temporarily barring their citizens entry to the United States. A special provision in the Trump order allows for exceptions to honor “a preexisting international agreement,” a line that was inserted to cover the Australia deal.
But U.S. officials said that Trump continued to fume about the arrangement even after signing the order in a ceremony at the Pentagon.
“I don’t want these people,” Trump said. He repeatedly misstated the number of refugees called for in the agreement as 2,000 rather than 1,250, and told Turnbull that it was “my intention” to honor the agreement, a phrase designed to leave the U.S. president wiggle room to back out of the deal in the future, according to a senior U.S. official.
Turnbull told Trump that to honor the agreement, the United States would not have to accept all of the refugees but only to allow them each through the normal vetting procedures. At that, Trump vowed to subject each refugee to “extreme vetting,” the senior U.S. official said.
Trump was also skeptical because he did not see a specific advantage the United States would gain by honoring the deal, officials said.
Trump’s position appears to reflect the transactional view he takes of relationships, even when it comes to diplomatic ties with long-standing allies. Australia troops have fought alongside U.S. forces for decades, and the country maintains close cooperation with Washington on trade and economic issues.
Australia is seen as such a trusted ally that it is one of only four countries that the United States includes in the “Five Eyes” arrangement for cooperation on espionage matters. Members share extensively what their intelligence services gather and generally refrain from spying on one another.
There also is a significant amount of tourism between the two countries.
Trump made the call to Turnbull about 5 p.m. Saturday from his desk in the Oval Office, where he was joined by chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, national security adviser Michael Flynn and White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
At one point, Turnbull suggested that the two leaders move on from their impasse over refugees to discuss the conflict in Syria and other pressing foreign issues. But Trump demurred and ended the call, making it far shorter than his conversations with Shinzo Abe of Japan, Angela Merkel of Germany, François Hollande of France or Putin.
“These conversations are conducted candidly, frankly, privately,” Turnbull said at a news conference Thursday in Australia. “If you see reports of them, I’m not going to add to them.”
Editor’s note: This article has been updated and a reference to an AP report on the details of a phone conversation between President Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto removed because it could not be independently confirmed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.1c99df63c227
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
