on that? how does he engage iran? you can t just threaten and bludgeon them. that s not going to work. andrea, perhaps a cold comfort i may be getting from this speech is that we re actually setting up normal lines once again of division, conservatives cheering him on about what he s saying about iran and cuba. true. internationalists not doing that, instead of him saying i m wrecking the entire world order. i m going off obama s iran deal, which i said from the beginning i thought was a horrific deem him going after cuba. again, in two instances at least conservatives a lot of americans thought we gave a lot more than we got from these two regimes and their behavior over the past year suggests i take your point. there is a meeting tonight. for the first time rex tillerson will sit down at the table with everyone that negotiated the iran deal, including the foreign minister of eastern. that will be the fairs face-to-face meet work he said
that goes on inside washington, d.c. do you draw any thesis in a west wing that we described again as a circular firing squad. do you think it is better armor than most? i think it is better armor but it is not fool proof. i mean, we ve already seen a lot of us wonder when h.r. mcmaster was named national security adviser how long it would take him to butt heads with steve bannon and sort of the nationalist wing and that faction that s very strong in the white house. all of these generals have world vee p views that are internationalists. it s very much different from the nationalist world view of the steve bannons of the world. you ve seen this war now between h.r. mcmaster and the bannon bastion. so now that kelly is going to give him some cover, i think mcmaster wants to clear out a lot of the hardliners from the national security. he s fired four in the last month or so. we re going to see this play out but it s not going to be pretty.
do you draw any conclusions on whether being apolitical in a west vang that we already in this hour described as a circular firing squad, do you think it is better armor than most? i think it is better armor but it is not fool proof. i mean, we ve already seen a lot of us wonder when h.r. mcmaster was named national security adviser how long it would take him to butt heads with steve bannon and sort of the nationalist wing and that faction that s very strong in the white house. all of these generals have world views that are internationalists. they ve served overseas many times, they ve dealt with alliances. it s very much different from the nationalist world view of the steve bannons of the world. you ve seen this war now between h.r. mcmaster and the bannon faction with breitbart basically running 11 stories basically headlining saying mcmaster must go.
secretaries of defense we ever had, yates and panetta. so it s not as if he s unaware of the ground and the alchemy that goes on inside washington, d.c. do you draw any thesis in a west wing that we described again as a circular firing squad. do you think it is better armor than most? i think it is better armor but it is not fool proof. i mean, we ve already seen a lot of us wonder when h.r. mcmaster was named national security adviser how long it would take him to butt heads with steve bannon and sort of the national iist wing and that faction that s very strong in the white house. all of these generals have world vee p views that are internationalists. it s very much different from the nationalist world view of the steve bannons of the world.
vindicated the russian view that they were right to think that trump would be a better president from russia s point of view than the alternative? i don t think that there was real support for mr. trump, and i don t think this is a deep support for mr. trump even now because we all know he is handicapped by this kinky inside struggle that you have with your country, which undermines your position in the world and your prestige. so what we were assured of is the accommodation of neocons and liberal internationalists who would have come with mrs. clinton, would have been the worst possible scenario. they would have had to vindicate their defeats they have incurred on their country and the destabilization that has occurred around the world. so mrs. clinton was the worst