tvshow:meet the press

  • Trump Shrugs Off Khashoggi Killing by Ally Saudi Arabia - The New York Times

    But in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Trump said the episode had already been thoroughly investigated. He said the Middle East is “a vicious, hostile place” and noted that Saudi Arabia is an important trading partner with the United States.

    “I only say they spend $400 to $450 billion over a period of time, all money, all jobs, buying equipment,” the president told Chuck Todd, the show’s moderator. “I’m not like a fool that says, ‘We don’t want to do business with them.’ And by the way, if they don’t do business with us, you know what they do? They’ll do business with the Russians or with the Chinese.”

    #usa #trump #cynisme

  • Tillerson: Trump considering impact of U.S. embassy move on peace process -

    In first, the U.S. secretary of state publicly admits that the embassy move is being weighed as part of the larger effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement

    Amir Tibon and Barak Ravid May 14, 2017
    read more:

    U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Sunday that while President Donald Trump still hasn’t made a decision on whether or not he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, an important part of his deliberations is how such a move would impact the Trump administration’s efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
    Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Tillerson explained that “the president, I think rightly, has taken a very deliberative approach to understanding the issue itself, listening to input from all interested parties in the region, and understanding, in the context of a peace initiative, what impact would such a move have.”
    This is the first time that a senior figure in the Trump administration has admitted publicly that the embassy move, a promise Trump made during the election campaign, is being weighed as part of the larger effort to reach a peace agreement. Tillerson added further that Trump was “being very careful to understand how such a decision would impact a peace process.” In recent weeks, press reports in Israel indicated that the Trump administration was not planning to move the embassy.
    Tillerson also said that the president wants to understand “whether Israel views it as being helpful to a peace initiative or perhaps as a distraction,” hinting at possible disagreements on the issue within the Israeli government. The Israeli security establishment and the army have warned in the past that moving the embassy could lead to increased violence on the ground in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    #Israël #Jérusalem #Etats-Unis

  • Saudi ambassador: Conflict in Yemen is not a proxy war with Iran - The Washington Post

    Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, on Sunday denied that the growing sectarian conflict in Yemen represents a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    “This is a war to protect the people of Yemen and defend its legitimate government from a group that is allied and supported by Hezbollah, but I wouldn’t call it a proxy war,” the ambassador said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to the Lebanese Shiite militia.

    Asked whether Saudi Arabia and Iran can coexist simultaneously as regional powers, Jubeir said the Iranian government has stood in the way of peace.

    “It’s really up to the Iranians,” he said. “We have encountered many problems — aggression by Iran against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There has not been one incident of Saudi aggression against Iran. We have extended our hand in friendship to the Iranians, and it’s been rejected for the past 35 years.”

  • BBC News - Iran nuclear talks : US ’not stupid’ - John Kerry

    US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that Washington continues to be sceptical about Iran’s willingness to roll back its nuclear programme.

    “We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid,” Mr Kerry told NBC’s Meet the Press programme.

    His comments come a day after talks between Iran and six world powers on the programme ended without resolution.

    The Israeli PM said he was trying to persuade leaders of the powers not to rush into a “bad agreement”.

    Benjamin Netanyahu said he recognised that there was a “strong desire” for a deal with Iran, but that governments should wait and “seriously consider things”.

    The West has long suspected Iran of aspiring to have nuclear weapons but Tehran says it is only enriching uranium for civil purposes.

    Under the deal floated in Geneva, Iran could freeze expansion of its nuclear activity in return for limited relief from international sanctions which have been in place for years.
    Mr Kerry said the US was “absolutely determined” that the deal would be a good one.

    “Some of the most serious and capable, expert people in our government, who have spent a lifetime dealing both with Iran as well as with nuclear weapon and nuclear armament and proliferation, are engaged in our negotiation,” he said.

    “I think we have a pretty strong sense of how to measure whether or not we are acting in the interests of our country and of the globe, and particularly of our allies like Israel and Gulf states and others in the region.”

    • How France Scuttled The Iran Deal at the Last Minute
      Posted By Colum Lynch, Yochi Dreazen Sunday, November 10, 2013

      Mark Dubowitz — the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish think-tank in Washinton — said France was uniquely positioned to spot potential flaws in the agreement because it has an array of officials who have working almost exclusively on nuclear issues for more than a decade and understand both the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program and the economic impact of the hard-hitting economic sanctions that have been imposed in response.

      “On the Iranian side, you’ve got men who have written books on these issues and forgotten nuclear tricks that many folks on our side haven’t even learned,” he said. “The only comparably level of expertise on our side is the French. The same people work the technical side and the economic side. On the U.S. side, those issues are handled by different people from different departments.”

      The French Foreign Ministry, officials say, has a particularly knowledgeable expert on Iran’s nuclear program in Martin Briens, who used to run the department that handled nuclear negotiations with Iran and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the evolution of those talks from their beginning to the present.


      Iran nuclear programme deal in danger of unravelling
      Julian Borger in Geneva and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem / The Guardian, Monday 11 November 2013

      In a bid to contain the danger, the lead US negotiator, Wendy Sherman, flew straight from the talks in Geneva to Israel to reassure Binyamin Netanyahu’s government that the intended deal would not harm his country’s national interests.

      The hastily arranged trip represented an acknowledgement of Netanyahu’s power to block a deal through his influence in the US Congress and in Europe. Egged on by the Israelis, the US Senate is poised to pass new sanctions that threaten to derail the talks before they get to their planned next round in 10 days’ time.
      More immediately, Netanyahu demonstrated over the weekend that he could sway the Geneva talks from the inside through his relationship with Paris. It has emerged that after a call from Barack Obama on Friday evening asking him not to oppose the planned Geneva deal, Netanyahu did the opposite. He called British prime minister, David Cameron, Russian president Vladimir Putin, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande, asking them to block it.

      Hollande, whose government shared some of Israel’s concerns, agreed. It was French opposition that finally sank the bid to seal a temporary nuclear accord, after three days of intense bargaining, in the early hours of Sunday morning, but Netanyahu was quick to claim credit.

      Netanyahu told cabinet colleagues: "I told them that according to the information Israel has, the impending deal is bad and dangerous – not just for us but for them too. I asked them what was the rush and I suggested that they wait and consider the matter seriously.

      “The deal at once lifts the pressure of sanctions which have taken years to put in place, and leaves Iran with its nuclear and enrichment capabilities intact. Not one centrifuge is to be dismantled. These are historic decisions. I asked that they wait and I’m pleased they have decided [to do] so.”

  • From Tom Paine to Glenn Greenwald, we need partisan journalism | Jack Shafer

    New York Times business journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin called for the arrest of Greenwald (he later apologized) and Meet the Press host David Gregory asked with a straight face if he shouldn’t “be charged with a crime.” NBC’s Chuck Todd and the Washington Post‘s Walter Pincus and Paul Farhi also asked if Greenwald hadn’t shape-shifted himself to some non-journalistic precinct with his work.

    The reactions by Sorkin, Gregory, Todd, Pincus, Farhi, and others betray — dare I say it? — a sad devotion to the corporatist ideal of what journalism can be and — I don’t have any problem saying it — a painful lack of historical understanding of American journalism. You don’t have to be a scholar or a historian to appreciate the hundreds of flavors our journalism has come in over the centuries; just fan the pages of Christopher B. Daly’s book Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation’s Journalism for yourself. American journalism began in earnest as a rebellion against the state, and just about the only people asking if its practitioners belonged in jail were those beholden to the British overlords. Or consider the pamphleteers, most notably Tom Paine, whose unsigned screed Common Sense “shook the world,” as Daly put it.


    My paean to activist and partisan journalism does not include the output of the columnists and other hacks who arrange their copy to please their Democratic or Republican Party patrons. (You know who you are.) Nor do I favor the partisan journalists who insult reader intelligence by cherry-picking the evidence, debate-club style, to win the day for their comrades. (...) ask yourself: Where would we be without our partisan journalists?