that. i think your choice of the word obsessed. we re not obsessing about it. this is the president of the united states threatening a nuclear armed country. whether you want to accept it or not and a country that is armed with nuclear weapons. i ll let the president s statements stand for itself. it s not obsessing to want to know more. you know, i see a packed room of journalists here, normally, there aren t half as many as there are here today. the state department scolding from a specs person who understandably had a tough assignment, batting cleanup after president trump sounding as though he were considering a nuclear first strike. joining me now is david ignacious, and the former senior director of the national security counsel during the obama administration the senior adviser to global zero. john, let me ask you about the process, this which the team
in china, but that kind of pressure needs to be brought to bear around the world, just as was done with iran, it s succeeded in iran. now, i was interviewing the former deputy national secure adviser ben rhodes from the obama white house about his response to the language that is being used t. way the president ad-libbed, improvised his comments about the nuclear threat, obviously, an alarming nuclear threat. but the way he spoke in comparison to the way previous presidents, republicans and democrats have addressed this kind of issue? let s play it. we re talking about nuclear weapons, we re talking about a conventional war that could put tens of thousands of americans at risk. so millions of south koreans and japanese, we re not talking fake news and dig blumenthal s service record. we re talking about the most serious security issue in the world. ben rhodes was alluding the president attacked you
president to get the attention not only of beijing, arguably, but also in pyongyang, to say we are serious, we have this deterrence, we can come after you? there is certainly a benefit in the president making clear liss judgment that it is in his national security adviser mcmasters words intolerable for north korea to obtain a nuclear weapon that can threaten the u.s. the question is whether the rhetoric he is using is counterproductive? yes, it puts beijing and pyongyang on notice that this is real, but it frightens the allies that the u.s. would have to depend on and fight with in south korea and japan, who were absolutely critical in this process, so it s a very delicate balance, an awful lot of people think the president s tone was useful for the united states.
personally on twitter. what do you think, what do your colleagues, democratic and republican on armed services think about the way the administration is handling this in terms of their strategy, their game plan for addressing the north korea threat? the hyperbole and overheated rhetoric raises questions about credibility. so mr. of us question whether it shows the kind of judgment and temperament that are appropriate in this situation. as you observed and mr. rhodes, not since harry truman, in fact, has this kind of reign of ruin, i think those were harry truman s words, after the hiroshima attack, to pressure the japanese into surrendering, in effect, a threat of another nuclear attack, has any president used this kind of rhetoric and the fact that it was used and improvised without
would response d to the assessm we have been reporting on and we understand a consaysment of the different agencies. for the president to respond, the wording that he would use t. tone, the affect, how would that be worked on in most ways? republican and democratic? traditionally the national security adviser general mcmasters would work a process that included both the cabinet officer, secretary of state, secretary of defense the chairman of the joint chiefs and build up with the deputies and assistant secretaries. none of those positions have been filled. there are some gaps there, they would coordinate that position and try to determine who should be saying what. in past administrations, generally the defense department would make the strong deterrent based statements and the secretary of state would reassure our allies. the president can be relieved of that responsibility to act senuate when needed. we seem to have flipped that in this case. is there a value, though, david ig