and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. welcome to "inside politics." i'm dana bash, john king is off. are we barreling toward the brink? donald trump is warning north korea of fire and fury after a u.s. intelligence assessment that kim jong-un can put a nuclear war head on top of his missiles. >> north korea best not make anymore threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury.

like the world has never seen. >> pyongyang, which knows a thing or two about saber rattling, claims it is now examining strike plans to hit guam, a u.s. territory. the president's refuse to back down is meant to end what they call extortion that happened under the watch of three administrations that preceded him. but while trump is promising to respond with never seen before power, his rhetoric sounds very familiar to other ominous speeches, the likes of which we have seen before. like this address from president harry s. truman announcing the first time that the u.s. will use nuclear weapons. >> if they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. behind this air attack, will follow sea and land forces in

such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they have already well aware. >> here to share their reporting and their insights, michael sheerer of the "new york times," abbey phillips of the "washington post," and cnn's ryan lizza. and jim sciuto is here to talk about what's going on, the latest information you're getting from your sources with the situation, you spent a lot of time, you lived in asia, so you understand the complexities of this and the kind of nature of this very difficult diplomacy. what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, it seems to be a very public and very deliberate walk back or clarification you might say of the president's comments yesterday. military officials telling us that there are no plans for additional military steps or deployment of resources, for

instance, to guam, which is what north korea threatened to strike with medium range ballistic missiles following the president's tough talk yesterday. we did hear from the commander of u.s. missile defense forces today saying that he's confident that u.s. missile defenses could handle a north korean icbm, but also the top u.s. diplomat, secretary tillerson during his trip said the following to reporters on his plane, again a very different message that what you were hearing from the president yesterday. >> i think the president, what the president is doing is sending a strong message to north korea in language that kim jong-un would understand because he didn't seem to understand diplomatic language, we're hopeful that this pressure campaign which the entire world has joined us in, and with the engagement of china and russia, two of north korea's closest neighbors, that they can begin to persuade the regime that they

need to reconsider the current pathway they're on. >> reporter: even as administration officials are saying today that the president's words yesterday were not planned, fire and fury, that it was not surprising, but not an expected formulation or an intentional new american threat with some meaning behind it. just to be clear, when you look at the military options here, and we have said this many times on the air before. they are not only horrific, in that you have the chance of enormous collateral damage, civilians in south korea, u.s. troops stationed there as well. but there's also a handicap here in that u.s. intelligence inside north korea is not great. they don't know for sure where all the nuclear forces are buried as it were, where they are hidden. that's by design, north korea has mobile launchers, they move them around, they're buried under ground, so that hampers the effectiveness of any military option going forward.

>> thank you very much for that reporting and the president's message of fire and fury came with no distinction of what would push him to act. but president trump has drawn a red line. >> president trump has drawn a red line, that north korea will never have a ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on top, he's not going to let that happen. >> michael, look, this is something that was a little bit jarring because we're not used to hearing presidents speak like this, vis-a-vis north korea. is it your sense that the president had this in his prepared remarks, that he very carefully calculated this, as one, maybe should do, or historically does with something this delicate or was he being donald trump and just kind of going with his gut? >> my sense is that the administration has been frustrated broadly with what they would consider maybe the

passivity of previous administrations and the way they have been handling north korea. i don't get the sense and we don't have reporting that these specific remarks were kind of a well thought out, you know, kind of thing that went through a national security process that ended up in those particular words. look, i think part of the issue here is, when you bluff, when you're playing poker and you bluff, one of the worst times to bluff is when your opponent is not a rational player and is not going to back down. >> kim jong-un is anything but. >> and i think you need to whether this is the right moment to talk about fire and fury. >> senator john mccain, who is the head of armed services committee, listen to what he said about the president's statements. >> i take exception to the president's comments because you

eve got to be sure that you can do what you say you're going to do. in other words, the old walk softly but carry a big stick. >> he loves to quote t.r. >> what's interesting about what trump said yesterday was that the red line that he drew, was actually at the point of threats, which is one of the things that surprised people. he basically said to north korea, if you make threats toward us, we will respond. the problem is north korea makes threats virtually every day. so if you're going to draw a red line, a lot of people say that's not the place to draw it. or the president is going to do what he doesn't want to do is say there's going to be consequences for actions and then not followthrough on it. >> there's no way this was a well thought nsa developed policy. that's the absurdity of what he said. he said basically we're going to

nuke you if you threaten us verbally. and north korea has been doing this for decades, and then he threatened guam. if other countries are looking at that and saying, well, his threat is meaningless. >> do you know what fire and fury actually is? that we're actually going to fire off a nuclear war head, because that's something none of his administration would approve of. would retry to just use the int interceptors we have in guam. it could mean so many different things. >> does he need to define it? this could be one of those cases like he said a million times in the campaign, why would we tell our enemies exactly what we're go to do, keep them guessing.

i was at the president at the dmz. they were saying diplomacy isn't working we have got to fix it. this is the way he framed it then. >> it was the policy of the united states of america to practice what they called strategic patience and that was to hope to marshall international support to bring an end to the nuclear ambitions and the ballistic missile program of north korea. that clearly has failed. and the advent of nuclear weapons testing, the development of a nuclear program, even this weekend, to see another attempt at a ballistic missile launch, all confirms the fact that strategic patience has failed. >> those were north korean tropics troops behind him so he didn't

talk about fire and fury. but he does have a point, and i thought so at the time, that i went to the region with the last republican vice president, dick cheney in 2006 and he was talking about the six-party talks. didn't work. the obama administration tried diplomatic policy, didn't work. the clinton administration before them. they do have a point that changing it up, i mean, why not? >> look, they're right, to say to your point that nothing has worked in the past, that is true. we are at this point because nothing has worked. the question is, are we proceeding forward with a clear strategy? perhaps there is a clear strategy among trump's national security advisors, but the president going off the cuff and doing something that may or may not be part of that strategy is really alarming in a situation when you're talking about nuclear warfare here. >> the other theory is that maybe this is a theoryascribed

to ipso facto, that the president was trying to send a signal to china, that you've got to step up here, if you don't, this is your backyard, this is your region, if this gets out of hand, it's going to be your problem. >> escalating tensions, the chinese saying this is getting out of hand, we should do x, y and z, if that would have been the strategy, the statement would have been a little bit more thought out. th all of this focus on white house chaos and whether the administration is strong or not, and all the dysfunction that we in the press get attacked for soap opera, but the president with a good process produces statements that are clear with a strategy behind him. when you don't have any of that, you have the president going out there and seeming to wing it. >> we have a lot more to discuss, don't go anywhere.

we are -- okay, we are going to go to break, and we're going to talk up next by the fight inside the walls of the white house spilling on to editorial pages of prominent conservative media. and it all has to do with something we have been talking about, a critically important issue, the president's approach to foreign policy. we'll tell you what it's about after a break.

as tensions heat up with north korea, there's a tug of war inside the west wing that has big implications for how the president will approach that rogue regime and many other global threats. the president's chief strategist steve bannon who has a nationalist point of view, is at odds with national security advisor h.r. mcmaster who has a more conservative approach. this morning, "the wall street

journal's" conservative editorial board is ripping bannon, along with his allies like breitbart.com for going after mcmaster with attacks like these. the former breitbart publisher has been a white house survivor, but his warring habits have also been responsible for much of the white house dysfunction. the key issue for mr. kelly, is what to do when disagreement inside the white house turns into vilify indication of the staff from the outside? ouch. this is the first time that i have seen a prominent conservative outlet, the editorial page of "the wall street journal" kind of beat back against the skewering that h.r. mcmaster is getting from breitbart and conservative radio. it's day after day after day of going after mcmaster.

>> and not just on policy, it's personal, it's just -- it's almost like an opposition research campaign from certain segments that are associated with bannon going after this white house rival. and it seems to have come after mcmaster made some moves, personnel and policy. >> to ryan's point, earlier about there's ways in which these stories all connect together. and when you see the kind of really important and really scary north korea situation involving the potential for nuclear conflagration, and at the same time, you have a real, you know, tension erupting over the very person inside the white house who's supposed to be coordinating the response to issues like that, that's where concern about, you know, division within the people that are sitting around that stable in the situation room.

really has the potential to undermine the potential of this president. >> and keeping in mind, this president didn't come into office with a specific foreign policy. >> that's why this dispute is so important internally and perhaps to bannon because one of the complaints about h.r. mcmaster from the conservative wing is that essentially he is disloyal, he is like a representative of the deep state within the white house itself. that's a really significant charge against someone who is currently the national security advisor. but it reflects the seriousness of the dispute. they believe that mcmaster does not have the president's sort of ideological frame work in mind, which is why this is such a pitched battle. it's not just about whether h.r. mcmaster is firing people or not. it's about whether h.r. mcmaster represents a sort of normalization of trump that goes

against everything that bannon has been pitching to the conservative base for a year and a half now. >> the problem is that there's collateral damage as this dispute keeps going, because not everything, not every foreign policy matter can fit into the national ideology in laying it down. it's like personnel is coming before policy and policy is being lost in the shuffle. going back to immigration, and other matters that really are at the core of that ideology. and no one is thinking about the bigger picture and the bigger picture is pretty darn exstenl now. >> this is a fundamental question of which direction this administration, this president is going to go on foreign policy. i want you to stand by, we're going to talk about new details that we have coming in on the russia investigation. fbi agents raised the home of the president's former campaign

chairman paul manafort. the raid came late last month, a day after he met with the senate intelligence committee. our cnn justice reporter is with me, and shimon, you have been talking to your sources about this. what are your hearing? >> reporter: it certainly came as a surprise to many, the search warrant was executed last month and it certainly appears to be a ratcheting up of this investigation. they were there to search and look for documents and as we all know, the special counsel's office is investigating the trump campaign, including the one-time chairman of the campaign paul manafort. but, dana, this appears, this raid appears to be sort of beyond the campaign investigation and has to do with, you know, this red line we have been talking about. this sort of mueller's office

crossing this red line, looking at finances of people around the campaign, and even some of trump's family members, we're told, fbi agents removed financial and tax documents and some of this, manafort has already given to the senate intelligence committee, we're told this was quite an unusual tactic for a white collar investigation, especially one that has been ongoing for quite some time and with a subject of the investigation who has been willing to cooperate and by all accounts, dana, this appears to be a tactical move by the special counsel's office. >> it sure does, thank you so much for that reporting, shimon. and we're all rightly focused on what the president said about north korea. robert mueller has a singular job to do and his not getting away from that focus, despite much, much, much to the chagrin of the president of the united states and this raid makes that very clear.

>> i was just going to say, he's doing one of two things, i really don't trust that manafort is going to be complying to the full extent of all of these subpoenas to get these documents needed by the investigation. or mueller is sending a message that if you do not comply, i'm prepared to take dramatic measures and a predawn raid is as dramatic as you can get. >> if you're confused as to what red line applies to which story, in this particular issue and this particular context, it is the president saying if the special counsel starts looking into my finances, that's a red line. >> one of the questions that's hung over this investigation is has mueller gotten anyone to sort of split, has mueller gotten anyone to say, found other crimes related to the russia investigation, and saying, hey, we'll go soft on that if you tell us about the

clinton administration. and michael flynn who was very close to trump during the campaign or manafort who ran the campaign. i don't know why you use a raid to squeeze someone or not, but maybe it suggests that manafort hasn't taken that step yet, that he's not been as cooperative as we thought. >> i know manafort was briefly in the campaign, but it's -- how much do they say, are they coming to my house next? >> one of the things my colleagues reported earlier this morning on the story, is that manafort believes and some in that camp believe that what mueller is trying to do is build a completely separate case against manafort that would basically put the squeeze on him to flip in the case of the russia investigation. which if that were the case, that would be really extraordinary and really

alarming to the white house. because there is the real possibility that mueller is driving at, whatever means necessary, to get witnesses in the russia investigation to provide evidence and information. and i think that manafort has a key moment in the campaign, which is that meeting with the russians during the campaign with don jr., apparently he had notes of those meetings. that's all being looked at by the special investigator. >> paul manafort, historically, way pretrump is the one who had the most business ties to russia. >> and the reaction inside the white house, that morning of the raid several hours later, is that when president trump started tweeting about mccabe and beyond. and that was the morning of the transgender tweet. which may well have been a desire to change the subject. >> coming up, president trump

faces fallout from lawmakers over his fiery warning to north korea. we'll tell you how the donald trump team is responding. lor tr. this little tube is magic. rich, radiant color and it cares for my hair. no color protects better or covers grays better. excellence crème from l'oréal paris.

the dinosaurs' extinction... you outnumbered. don't listen to them. not appropriate. now i'm mashing these potatoes with my stick of butter... why don't you sit over here. find your awesome with the xfinity stream app. included with xfinity tv. more to stream to every screen.

president trump certainly has the world's attention, thanks to his fiery warning to north korea. here's a reminder of what he said after it was reported that the regime is now believed to have the technology to put a nuclear bomb inside a missile. >> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury. like the world has never seen. >> that very last line makes it sound almost a ppocalyptiapocal

dig through trump's past statement statements. >> a grass roots movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. we're all part of this very historic movement, a movement which actually the world has never seen before. >> unemployment is the lowest it's been in 17 years. business enthusiasm is about as high as they have ever seen. we're being very, very strong on our southern border, i would say the likes of which this country has never seen. >> cnn's sarah murray, like the world has never seen before, is with us from bedminster, new jersey. some are saying the president's statement is way too strong. john mccain described it as classic trump, dianne feinstein saying bombastic. what is the concern here?

>> reporter: there's certainly concern from members of congress because we're not used to presidents speaking like this, and i think we're all still adjusting to this is the way president trump behaves in the white house. and the president was sending a clear and strong message do not test the united states. here's what one of his advisors had to say about that today. >> he's saying don't the u.s. america and don't test donald j. donald trump. we're not just a superpower, we were a superpower, now we're a hyper power, nobody in the world, especially north korea comes close to matching our military capabilities. so the message is clear, don't test this white house, pyongyang. >> reporter: now dana, the president's statements may have shocked some in washington, but it didn't shock people who are friends of the president. they say this is basically how he operates, he may take a more

bombastic tone, a more fierily tone but there are also diplomatic efforts going on behind that. rex tillerson said that america is still safe, there's diplomatic channels open with our allies and with china and russia. and he said, look, it's up to the president to send a strong message and that's what he's doing and we're dealing with diplomacy inside the white house. >> i have told you in the last 24 hours that this has all exploded, maybe the wrong choice of words here, i thought back to the 2008 campaign when senator mccain was asked a question, when running for president, asked a question about iran and said bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran. and i remember the reaction to that was quite strong.

but even then, that kind of rhetoric is seen around the world and around the country as, you know, as important. >> you were talking and we were all talking about sort of the now versus then and the past several administrations, it has been a very different mo, in terms of trying to keep things cool diplomatically and with the rhetoric. i want to play some examples of what we heard in the past. >> north korea is one of the most repressive societies on earth. it does not prosper. it arms. >> multilateral diplomacy is the best way to peacefully solve the nuclear issue with north korea. >> rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something, the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons, now is the time for a strong international response. >> but did the words mean anything? >> no, i mean we have been

dealing this problem for decades now and it's bedeviled every president, haven't been able to solve it and trump has inherited a problem where we have run out of good options, we only have a series of bad options. john mccain joking around about a beach boys song, also reagan, when he was caught on a mike joking about bombing the soviet union, it fed into this narrative that reagan was a warmonger and couldn't be trusted with the nuclear codes and then trump, i don't think it was shocking what he said and then tweet about it. >> the president's statement was very strong, but we do have an example of a democratic president, bill clinton, actually at the dmz with a pretty strong statement back in his time. let's listen.

>> it's pointless when you try to develop nuclear weapons because if they ever use them, it would be the end of their country. >> if they every ne use them, i would be the end of their country. it's important, about you mentioned ronald reagan, and another republican president having some pretty strong statements that they got a lot of backlash for. >> there's an old poster out west, as i recall, that said wanted, dead or alive. >> i urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blightly declaring yourself above it all. to ignore the aggressive impulses of an evil empire. >> when he called the soviet union an evil empire. people said it was completely

irresponsible. he was going to start world war 3 and nuclear war and at the end of the day, the evil empire crumbled. if you look at donald trump, and he says that's what i'm trying to do here. >> they're such different situations, we had been in a cold war with russia for how many years? they were dealing with an economic meltdown. when you're talking about powers that were more equally balancing, and not as equally balanced at the time. you're talking about a regime that nobody knows quite how to predict the reactions of. the clinton statement, if they do launch nuclear weapons, which is different than if they threaten to. because north korea has been threatening nonstop. but the ultimate question is normally, having nukes meant not using them. you build up your arsenal to back up your threats, but nobody

wants to destroy. >> the number one reason for being in existence, is to build a nuclear arsenal. they made a decision a quarter century ago, even longer, to more aggressively, basic, starve their people to use as much money as they can to build up their nuclear power. >> honestly, i think where we are now, if the problem could be solved with just a tougher rhetoric, don't you think someone would have tried it by now and it would be solved by now? >> we actually have some breaking news on this topic. defense secretary james mattis has just released what can be described as an extremely strong message on north korea. >> reporter: we're just getting this statement from defense secretary james mattis.

i want to read it in part to everyone and i think this is the headline. he refers to the dprk, the democratic people's republic of korea. he says that the dprk must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. he then goes on to say, listen to this, the dprk should cease any actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. worth repeating, dana. the u.s. secretary of defense calling on north korea to cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. the defense secretary goes on to say that president trump was first informed of the growing threat from north korea back in december. of course that would be before he took office. and secretary mattis goes on to say, that some of the first orders he got from president

trump were to emphasize the readiness of u.s. missile defense and u.s. nuclear deterrence. the secretary concludes the statement by saying that north korea's action will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and they would lose any arms race or conflict that they initiate. but going back, i don't think you can underestimate the precision with which james mattis says the dprk, north korea, should cease any actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. until this statement, jim mattis was a voice for a diplomatic sl solution to the crisis, he had continued to warn repeatedly before congress that any military action with north korea would be catastrophic, that there would be massive casualties, it would be unlike

people had ever seen, even world war ii. there's no reason to think he's changed that view, but he clearly has the backing, the authority and perhaps the orders from the white house to come out with this statement now today. again, calling on -- warning north korea about the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. this kind of statement from a u.s. defense secretary would not be coming out if it wasn't coordinated from the white house and it hadn't been coordinated through secretary of state rex tillerson as well. you're seeing in the last 24 hours a bit of the so-called good cop/bad cop regime. and tillerson with the state department, very heavy on diplomacy, telling everybody who take a breath. and mattis saying in no uncertain terms, to stand down

or face destruction. >> something you said was very important there, and that was the context of who general kelly -- excuse me, general mattis is, in that he has been much more of a diplomatic and a softer tone. given the fact that this is anything but a soft tone, what is your read on this, that he's just trying to beef up and amplify what we're hearing from the president of the united states, or is he really trying to get the united states on more of a war footing? >> reporter: in terms of a war footing, as secretary of defense, we know for a fact that he is very focused on insuring that u.s. forces are always ready for any option they would have to present to president trump and there are all of those options if it ever came to conflict with north korea. as defense secretary, number one

in his portfolio, to ensure that the u.s. nuclear arsenal is newly ready, ensure there's a conventional deterrent. and that troops are ready. but it comes to the next sort of circumstances, once all of that is ready, and you can tell the world credibly that it is ready, what about the diplomatic solution? you know, i think it's potentially possible that what we are seeing here is the administration looking for two voices, one the international diplomatic voice of the secretary of state, and the other voice of the secretary of defense, reminding the world, reminding kim jong-un. i think secretary tillerson had said earlier, you know, that you should take president trump's words, trying to match the rhetoric of kim jong-un because he doesn't listen to anything else. perhaps there's a bit of that here. but -- and we know, we know that

u.s. military policy if you will is if kim was to launch or give any indication of launching an attack, u.s. military policy is to wipe him out, and he knows that. and that's what i think all of this is coming down to. credible deterrent. kim is going after nuclear weapons because he believes it's a deterrent against what he thinks is going to be a u.s. invasion, no evidence of that. the u.s. is going for heavy, heavy military deterrence to try and convince kim not to proceed, that he would be wiped out if he tries anything. this rhetoric is at a level i don't think, and this equation of deterrence is something i don't think we have seen in many years. >> you have covered the nuclear crisis for several administrations and you have seen the ebb and flow. put this into context

based on what you saw from the clinton defense department, from the bush defense department, from the obama defense department until now? >> president trump has made the point, i think, that he feels that this should have been dealt with years ago. and there is a case to be made for that by people much smarter than me. the north koreans in the last several years, there's simply no question about it. they have accelerated their nuclear weapons program, which includes both their missiles and their actual nuclear bombs. in an extraordinary way that the u.s. has been really unable to find a way to counter, if you will. diplomacy has not worked. all of the administrations in the past have tried to sit down with the north koreans and get a diplomatic solution, even as they continue with the program. and i think that's why you saw the trump administration through secretary tillerson, very early

on say the era of strategic patience is over, but what do you replace that with? are you really going to go to war? and that is a dire solution because there is no limited war option that is credible with north korea. all of the analysis shows they would instantly launch artillery strikes against the south, tens of thousands of people might be killed within hours if not days. so this has been the constant problem and this is why i think it's coming back to this battle for two's got credible deterrence and who's willing to use ill. the u.s. is trying to convince kim he can't use it--i mean secretary mattis saying it here, end of regime and destruction of people. you use that option, kim, you are going to be destroyed. so all of these years of sitting down and talking to them hasn't worked. the question now on the table

may be will all of this rhetoric work? what will have to happen to calm it down? what will have to happen to get north korea to talk to some kind of diplomatic negotiating table? and would anything make them give up their weapons? a very difficult way to see ahead on that because kim believes his weapons are his ticket to survival. he could never explain to his people how he is giving that all up. he has told them for years they must become a nuclear power to deter the potential of a u.s. invasion. >> thank you for that excellent reporting and insight. john kirby, you have been

involved in the state department during previous conflicts. what does this mean to you? >> reporter: this is very mattis like, there's three paragraphs. each one has a purpose. the first is to make clear that the united states is prepared, ready, and willing to defend our country and it's allies. and the last sentence gets right to what kim jong-un considers his -- he threatens exactly what they don't want to lose, which is their power in pyongyang. >> i'm not sure if we have it to put on the screen, but the statement, the dprk's regime's actions continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any conflict it initiates.

>> the second paragraph, we fully support diplomatic efforts, he's making it clear that war is not what he wants to do, it's not his first option, but it takes a futuristic tone that we are ready and we are going to be ready and he should make no mistake that the united states is capable of defending the country and our allies. so very strong language. i have to wonder how much of this was prompted by, obviously what the president said yesterday and whether the defense department was pushed to say this, when you have tillerson on the plane saying, hey, look, everything's fine, sleep well, . given what i know about how the interagency works, the president caused such a stir yesterday that they had to figure out how to wiggle their way through it.

and the option was, let's get tillerson out first, lead with diplomacy, get him out there and calm the waters. and then mattis with a one-two punch, while we want to solve this peacefully, the president's not kidding. to bolster some of his rhetoric. >> is this the tail wagging the dog situation? >> reporter: i think so. i don't think anybody was prepared for what he said yesterday. let me put it this way, if the president had stayed on point yesterday and talked about opiods and not north korea. you wouldn't have seen tillerson come on camera last night. and mattis has been pretty reticent, pretty quiet, that's his style, he likes to lead quietly. this is not the kind of thing he really enjoyed ee eed having toi

think this is all playing cleanup after yesterday. >> he was mentioning the last sentence, i read the second paragraph, what he was referring to was the dprk should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. >> to me, that was a really smart thing for them to do, to have mattis do two things, one, put trump's statements more in line with what you just played from bill clinton, in the demilitarized zone, saying basically, if they do something, it will lead to the end of their regime. that's a different line here. it's actions versus threats. the problem with trump's statement yesterday, was that it was a little bit vague and it wasn't what we want to say to north korea, that their consequences will be for their actions, not just their words. >> trump started off kind of speaking off the cuff in a way

that kind of scared everybody, the fact that mattis has come out and said this, almost a political legal justification for it, they had to take a pre-emptive strike. who takes mattis seriously? beijing, they will hear this and take a step back when they hear mattis rather than president trump. if you think about taking more actions to wield its influence over north korea, because they have to deal with the mess if it actually got to that point, and there's other things they can do in the interim. >> if you take a step back and just look at the last week of events, we had this u.n. diplomatic success, 15-0 vote, and we got russia and china to join with us and sanction north korea. that's a bit of a diplomatic break through and then you have

this statement from the president, nobody understood what she was saying, maybe cleaned up a little bit by the secretary of state and then a little bit more dramatic approach of telling north korea what would happen if they do something. north korea has just emerged as this issue and there's all this war like rhetoric and the president hasn't come before the american people and explain what the issue is and what the strategy is. >> i agree, there's probably room for more clarity, but there is a kind of arc that goes through all of this, which is a ramping up of the aggressiveness, more aggressive rhetoric, more aggressive rhetoric, they're clearly dissatisfied where the previous administrations were on this. and reporting suggests that one of the main things that

president obama told president trump right before president obama left office was that this was the biggest problem on his plate. and so this is not a topic, i mean say what you will, but this is not a topic that this administration hasn't thought about since day one. >> and maybe that arc is there, i'm not saying that -- >> what concerns me a little bit is that the state department is gutted, the people who deal with asia are not in place because trump hasn't nominated them. you have rex tillerson who was the ceo of exxonmobil has not had a diplomatic portfolio, and the other diplomats who are in charge of the policy are generals, at the pentagon, at the nsc, the general's chief of staff, they're not experienced in diplomacy. >> i would push back on that only in the case of north korea, it's the military that has to be the -- kind of out front on the

diplomacy. >> that's the most wary, because they are the ones really historically that have understood better than anybody else. >> you have to keep in mind, also, when you're talking about totalitarian regime, actually makes people rally around the flag more. what happens with north korea, this actually bolsters the regime there to have this sort of thing. >> propaganda machine. >> it's already very strong, but the more you feel attacked, they're against us. so it has to be tempered by diplomacy. >> when i was at the dmz, the vice president was still looking for a diplomatic strategy. >> there isn't always continuity here. if there were a plan, it would be executed.

this is a critical time for them to execute a plan, they had a big win over the weekend at the u.n. and it doesn't seem to have been followed through seamlessly in a way that would show that they, you know, after thinking about it and working on it for eight months, that they have something on the table that they think they want to go with. >> and in fairness, this is an issue that has vexed even the most experienced of diplomats and there are no good options. thank you very much for that great discussion, thanks for joining me on "inside politics" wolf blitzer is up right after the break. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

fothere's a seriousy boomers virus out there that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. because it can hide in your body for years without symptoms, and it's not tested for in routine blood work. the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us it's time to get tested. ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. it's the only way to know for sure. it's about moving forward, not back.t. it's looking up, not down. it's being in motion. in body, in spirit, in the now. boost® high protein it's intelligent nutrition with 15 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for when you need a little extra. boost® the number one high protein complete nutritional drink. be up for it

hello, i'm wolf blitzer, it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. it's 3:00 a.m. in guam, whatever you're watching around the world. we begin with the dramatic war of words and the heightened tensions between the united states and north korea. we're just getting a statement from defense