mattis: general mattis -- sen. donnelly: general mattis. sec. mattis: i think the television had a good year last year and are trying to have a good one this year. we may be able to, by a change in some of our concepts of operations, help them with hair -- air support and fire support. right now i believe the enemy is searching right now -- surging right now. sen. donnelly: i look forward to the report. i would still like to talk to one of you or both of you or your team about raqqa and some of the that will -- some of the situation about the indiana folks. thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate your service to this committee. secretary matus, open authorization -- invitation to come anytime. the world's problems this morning, we need to fill in the gaps. you are welcome at any point. i counter isis strategy in southeast asia is something i have continued to push for, which is why i was excited to hear u.s. special operations forces were assisting the government of the philippines in taking back the isis-held town. until 2014, we used to have a

mattis: yes, sir. that would be more disruptive than anything i could see because there would be no prioritization. taking from the most sensitive programs, may be leaving money and programs that do not even need of. is that correct? sec. mattis: yes. it would be injurious and it would prevent us from making wise decisions. sen. reed: did you make that point to the president in his role as commander-in-chief? sec. mattis: i assure you president trump is keenly aware of this position. sen. reed: what is his position? sec. mattis: the bottom line is the administration believes the congress has to repeal the budget control act and the sequestration that follows. he essentialmen it that it were incorporated into the president's budget because the implications of sequestration are clearly paid out -- played out in every area of the budget. leaving a lot of people wondering, what is his real position or does he even understand what is going on. sec. mattis: senator reed, we are part of the executive branch a

and general mattis, secretary mattis is pushing it to his generals in the field.o that is why you have seen since january a real yup tick in activity, air strikes, special forces raids, that kind of thing. because generals in the field have more authority to do that. and so everybody is a lot bussier. >> when did you first meet him. >> it was-- i remember it very well, it was 2003, during the invasion, general mattis was the heads of the first marine division soo he was the head of 25,000 trip troops. >> i think he was a two star general, maybe one star and i was just, i was driving in a rental car through iraq, trying to find my way to baghdad. and i happen to be there with the marines one day when this helicopter came down and general mattis got off and i remember he had a pair of ray-bans on and a helmet. and even then all the marines were kind of whispering and looking on him with some a-we. there is general mattis. >> but he was if you remember that time the entire plan of the invasion was speed, go fast and so that's what mattis was doing, essentially going

ishink the real concern here not the much mattis, but it is mattis by himself, without a state departmentgorous or a secretary of state and is very vigorous, without diplomacy, without politics. is that how you run a foreign policy? charlie: thank you, dexter. dexter filkins from new york magazine. thank you. see you next time. ♪ setor: a renewed caps off wall street down for a third day. gold weakening as traders assess the fed more hawkish tone. anchor: mark carney holds rates. 5-3 on theirit decision. betty: the bank of japan, and eventual end to bond buying. what is that going to happen? anchor: the pressure is building on anbang

writing about james mattis? mr.tt: yes i followed him , around for a while on a couple of trips that you made to europe. he went to brussels, the headquarters in nato, lithuania to kind of reassure the people in the baltics about the american commitment. charlie: you just said he is a quote machine? [laughter] mr. filkins: it makes my job easier. charlie: let's take "on your one, young shoulders rest of the hopes of mankind. be the hunter, not the hunted. the polite, be professional, but always have a plan to kill everyone you meet." is that why he is called mad dog? mr. filkins: funny about that nickname, i do not think much cares for it. i asked everybody where it had come from and nobody knew. i think it is a misnomer. it does not really fit him, frankly. he does have this colorful reputation, and his language sometimes is extraordinary and wonderful, but he, you know, he is a marine on one hand, very, very aggressive. on the other hand, he is a very thoughtful, well read student of history. charlie: a kind of sc

mattis: i have seen it. i believe this threat is real, and none of us are ignoring this threat at all. there is a lot more going on in i canegard, sir, than discuss in a private setting. sen. blumenthal: i would appreciate the opportunity. cyber is agree that one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest threat in terms of warfare tonight? sec. mattis: it is certainly one of the top because it cuts across all of the domains -- air, surface, it impacts our nuclear command and control, but certainly are very institutions, whether they be democratic or banking, are vulnerable to this sort of attack. sen. blumenthal: would you agree that the russian hacking and cyber attack on our systems during the last election was an act of war? sec. mattis: i know it was a hostile act. whether or not it crosses the threshold for war, i am not a lawyer, but there was no doubt it was a hostile act directed against our country. sen. blumenthal: do you agree that we need a better definition or policy -- i am not sure lawyers are the

mattis, you said is crucial. general dunford, how can we possibly justify, we heard tonight that this budget is a holding pattern until we get to real growth. why isn't it better to begin the real growth today when we should have begun it yesterday? >> congresswoman, all i can do is say if our priorities are correct within the top line that i've been given. and when i talked about that five years, and we'll talk more in detail on wednesday night, we came up with that by analyzing our peer competitors' bifunctional areas, taking a look at where will we be in five years based on projected resources, where are our adversaries be in five years. i can't solve it, i can tell you we have the right priorities in the top line we've been given. i'll also emphasize, if we don't turn around the trend, if we don't change the trajectory we're on, that's when we'll be at a competitive disadvantage in five years. >> i appreciate that. who gave you the top line? are we talking about omb? >> that's correct. it's a growth of about

i guess it's good that we put mattis in charge. he also have the state department budget for 30% and as the gentleman before me said, it's great that he can advise on tactical things for the military, but we also need some soft tools in helping reestablish -- help women get to schools and our solar power to show that we do have american values in these people's best interests in mind, especially with the president that we should go back and take their oil. we don't need more war. also, i worry about the budget. in afghanistan, the special inspector general of reconstruction has just pointed out is a report you go online and see how the waste, fraud, and abuse by the military contractors has just been -- did a number on the american taxpayer. it's not working out. we've been here since 2003. are we going to be there another 20 years? we definitely need oversight of the military, of the generals, of the reconstruction money. in that respect, i wish people would think about it. host: thanks, diana. she talked about the state departmen

secretary mattis? do you agree that the assumption in your budget is correct in that this will save money? can you help us on this? >> senator, i have no doubt it would save money to have multi-year procurement, especially of things that take a lot of steel arc lot of equipment to build. the economies of scale allow for enormous savings. we would have to have a repeal of the bca act in order to give the confidence to industry they can buy that stuff and it won't sit in the shipyard when funding dries up the next year. so it -- again, we come right back around to the very thing the chairman, ranking member have just been discussing, about what bca does to us. it removes the chance for even the wise investment of money you give to us, sir. >> okay. at this point, the immediate issue is i need you to commit to this committee that you will intervene to make sure we get to the preliminary determination necessary to move us forward at that point. we don't need to repeal bca, to get that done. will you promis

we welcome secretary mattis for the first time before our committee. we welcome chairman dunford ba back. the question today, as it is each year for this hearing is, how well the administration's proposal meets the security needs of the nation. factoring both the external threats on the current state of our military. this committee has repeatedly heard testimony over the last two years that our country faces more serious complex pretty challenges now than we have ever faced before. the hearings and briefings we held on the current state of our military have been disturbing. the ministration budget request of $306 billion for base requirements a 6% above the 17 an active level and 3% above the last obama proposal. it's also $37 billion below what this committee assess last fall was needed and about $58 million below the fy 12 gates budget which was independently validated by the bipartisan national defense panel. the issue is not about numbers. it's about what those numbers provide for the men and women serving what security the budget provides to the n

mattis is a great general. h.r. mcmasters is also a great strategist. and these are complex issues, and as owen mentioned, there's a lot of bad stuff going on in afghanistan, even right now. right now, the taliban has taken back tora bora, that famous location in the mountains where bin laden was crossing over into the border of pakistan, when he escaped, and when we let him escape. anyway, long story short is we need to retake tora bora. we need to close down helmand province, all along the pashtoon border there, there has to be restricted -- they can't be bringing their camels akandahar back and forth like that with impunity. that's part of the strategic thing that has to happen in afghanistan. the second thing that has to happen in afghanistan is they have to wipe out all the opium locations right now. this has been totally unreported there, and that's where all the money comes from, uzbekistan and that area. host: you see a long-term presence for u.s. troops or advisors? caller: well, you know, i think you're exactly right. i think that unless you'r

you heard secretary mattis use the word continue. that seems to contradict what trump tweeted. >> he said thanks, i'm glad they tried. at least we know china tried, which seemed to imply that that was finished. hans nichols at the pentagon, thank you. >>> director and president of the woodrow wilson center, former congressman from california. jane, thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> i want you to help us interpret what we just heard. somebody asked general mattis very specifically about donald trump's tweet to say at least we know china tried on north korea, that seemed to imply that china is done with this and america is going to do something on its own. yesterday he said while i greatly appreciate the efforts of president xi and china to help with north korea, it has not worked out. at least i know china tried. jane, how do you interpret that? and how do you interpret what james mattis just said, which seems to imply they're still trying? >> doing foreign policy by tweet is problematic. less tweets and more jam

he is allocated to mattis, mattis will come up with a plan and a strategy.and he will be accountable because he is the commander in chief. >> martha: if you are general mattis, would you be comfortable or uncomfortable? if he commits more troops and it turns into a disaster and a large loss of life, is this president, president trump, going to say, i left it up to him? it was his deal? >> he is capable of that, isn't he? he has done things like that before. [laughs] i don't think it bothers mattis at all. i think what mattis is traveled by is that he has a war that is not winnable, we are losing to the taliban, it is largely as a result of failed obama policies because we pulled the troop out too early, we took apart the afghan national army, pulled out all of its enablers that made an effective army. its communications, intelligence, and t ied -- because we were in a much bigger effort or none at all. because you have to make up your mind. >> martha: what do you think mattis also? >> i think you will try to put in something decisive that will push the talib

and secretary mattis, do you [inaudible]. the question is, what forms of relating to [inaudible] do you seek from australia? secretary tillerson: first, in terms of those concerns, that's here.'re that's why we traveled to the region. that's why we engaged with our counterparts. two direct engagements -- iny with members of washington, d.c. we're going to be very active in the east asia conference, also in a peck. the president's -- apec. president already intends to participate. we travel to the region to meet our counterparts and to talk about all of the issues that are important to them and them concerns they may have about where the administration is positioned to whether it be security issues or economic and trade issues. and we have had very good dialogue in all of those contacts. that we aree fact here demonstrates that that is certainly not this view orration's intention to somehow put at arm length the other important allies and partners in the world secretary mattis: as far as your leadership from australia, i would

mattis: there is a little bit of an echo up here. we are working together to make sure i have the right questions, ladies and gentlemen. on the rules-based order, we have enduring interests, and i think that when you look at those enduring interests, you find the enduring motivations to reinforce and hold fast with the rules-based approach. i don't think that this is something new. i think it is as old as history, and the fight between those who want a rules-based order and those who try through coercion to find ways around it, frankly, it is simply something we have to work together on. i think that one point i would make is that we have plenty of valid reasons for many nations to work together in maintaining the rules-based order today. these are valid because we can quantitatively show the value in commerce and security where we work together. as far as on the asean centrality, i think that we need organizations that allow people to come together to discuss common problems, and i think that asean provides that forum. where asean g

we welcome secretary mattis for the first time before our committee. we welcome chairman dunford ba back. the question today, as it is each year for this hearing is, how well the administration's proposal meets the security needs of the nation. factoring both the external threats on the current state of our military. this committee has repeatedly heard testimony over the last two years that our country faces more serious complex pretty challenges now than we have ever faced before. the hearings and briefings we held on the current state of our military have been disturbing. the ministration budget request of $306 billion for base requirements a 6% above the 17 an active level and 3% above the last obama proposal. it's also $37 billion below what this committee assess last fall was needed and about $58 million below the fy 12 gates budget which was independently validated by the bipartisan national defense panel. the issue is not about numbers. it's about what those numbers provide for the men and women serving what security the budget provides to the n

. >> james mattis says the u.s. is not winning in afghanistan. he was on capitol hill today to talk about the 2018th defense budget. he told the senate armed service committee is working on a new war strategy and hopes to have the plan ready for congress by mid-july. here's some of the hearing while the senate is on break. >> well, good morning to the senate armed services committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the department of defense fiscal year 2018 budget request. we welcome secretary mattis,, chairman dunford, secretary norquist, and thank you for your many years of distinguished service and your leadership of our men and women in uniform. before we begin, with all want to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of sergeant eric howe, sergent william bates and corporate dylan baldridge. these three soldiers from the armies 100 first airborne division were killed this week in in afghanistan. the thoughts and prayers of this committee are with their loved ones. the sacrifice of these heroes is a painful reminder that america is st

the other one is china trampling on our interests, south china sea as general mattis, secretary mattisehensive strategy to get china to reverse the militarization that they're doing, breaking international law and also trampling on our allies and our interests. and we should not use the cooperation that we want to have with them over north korea as a reason not to do that. eric: that is -- >> we should absolutely move forward on it. eric: that is a great point. they've got those manmade islands which are being, we're told, militarized. this at the same time you've got them watching over kim jong un. 45 seconds, it would take a missile to go right over the dmz toward 8,000 of our troops. it would be the prospects would be horrific. general jack keane, always good to see you. thank you. >> good talking to you, eric. eric: arthel? arthel: an emotional memorial today in our nation's capital as world war ii veterans join to mark 75 years since the battle that turned the tide in the pacific, the battle of midway. >>> plus, new developments on the president's stance on climate change followin

mattis at the pentagon in yemen, iraq, syria, and afghanistan. particularly to set troop levels in afghanistan. are there perils for the military long-term that now seems to be having to own this policy, whatever happens? again, different from mr. obama who, rightly or wrongly, owned the policy? it seems that the pentagon will own it, and i wonder what you think about the perils there. rep. thornberry: if someone is the decision maker, that person will be held accountable with a for the result of his or her decisions, but i have to say, i recently reread general mcmaster's book "dereliction of duty" about what went wrong in vietnam. you had the white house, in that case under lyndon johnson, making the military decisions which were based more on politics than on military strategy and tactics. that was a disaster. i think you have seen shades of that in the obama administration. too many decisions were made in the white house among staffers and so forth. the military ought to be given the goal. the president say, "this is what i want you to do," a

mattis: their own peace and stability. the countries represented are obviously critical to strengthening and transforming the underlying security structure that has enable tremendous regional prosperity. we do not take that piece or prosperity for granted. countries toall contribute sufficiently to their own security. at the same time, we encourage them to actively seek out opportunities and partnerships with other like-minded nations as we do the same to sustain and maintain the peace. we will continue to engage closely with our partners, building on recent progress. we are exploring new ways to address the challenges as well. from maritime security to the growing threat posed by the spread of terrorism in southeast asia. for example, we recognize india, the most populous democracy in the world, as a major defense partner. we did so in part out of respect for india's indispensable role in maintaining stability in the indian ocean region. we are also conducting the first ever transfer of a coast guard cutter to vietnam and

mattis blindsided by the president's speech. he made no mention of the u.s.gainst one member is an attack against all. applicanto said it was in the speech but president trump did not say it. that surprised mattis along with national security advisor and secretary of state tillerson. just moments ago vice president pence spoke at dinner telling the crowd that now is the time for nato to stand united and stand strong in the wake of the terror attacks. david is back with us. you worked for a lot of presidents, seen many national security team come and go. have you ever seen top advisors having to do this much damage control so soon? >> no. and this whole story about having the speech change at the last minute, the sentence dropped. it's been very disturbing on several levels. it has badly hurt u.s. relationship with nato. the administration was trying very hard, mcmaster and mattis and tillerson have been trying very, very hard to repair things to say that we do support article five and very importantly they have been seen as the real adults and a stabilizing f

that surprised mattis along with nshl security adviser h.r.cretary of state tillerson. just moments ago vice president pence spoke at dinner telling the crowd that now is the time for nato to stand united and stand strong in the wake of the terror attacks. david gergen is back with us. you worked for a lot of presidents, seen many national security team come and go. have you ever seen top advisors having to do this much damage control so soon? >> no. and this whole story about having the speech change at the last minute, the sentence dropped. it's been very disturbing on several levels. first, it has badly hurt u.s. relationships with nato. the administration was trying very hard, mcmaster and mattis and tillerson have been trying very, very hard to repair things to say that we do support article five and very importantly they have been seen as the real adults and a stabilizing force, those three men have enormous credibility and to undercut them really damages the presidency itself. it damages the credibility of the president. nobody knows --

i look to the cabinet, particularly rex tillerson, and secretary mattis and h.r.er, national security adviser, for them to blink at me in morse code, something like it's going to be okay. he's not going to get us killed. i mean, could you -- and i read everything -- >> it's not funny. >> tsh it's not funny but after the terror attack in london, after trump started live tweeting a terror attack, jim mattis was quoted saying i like to get all the facts before i comment. almost like a direct rebuttal to what donald trump is saying. rex tillerson was talking about how, you know, i hope the fact that we're here, here at nato, demonstrates this is not the administration's views. another piece in politico article, which is stunning, susan glassman who was on our show friday writes "it was a moment of significant rupture inside the trump administration with the president withholding usual information from his top national security officials and embarrassing them by forcing them to go out in public with awkward unconvincing after the fact claims." what is going on? >> yeah

this is what mattis told lawmakers on capitol hill recently. ed, quote, the president gave him the authority to turn number up and down as necessary when it comes to u.s. troops in the region. some, though, have criticized this move saying that the president shouldn't be giving mattis all of this discretion here, that this should be something that the president should be responsible for. what are your thoughts on this? >> as long as the president exercises oversight on what general mattis does, i don't have a problem with that. we have been calling for the decentralization of some of these authorities for a long time rather than everything being controlled right at the white house. you give the pentagon, give the secretary of defense, and give some of the generals in the theater some control over what the troop levels are. they are there. they know what the troop levels are required. >> lieutenant cnn rick francona, thank you so much for joining us today. >> good to be with you. >>> we have got the latest now on a raging wildfire in portugal an

>> secretary and mattis had an opportunity to appear before mccain. when he raised that question, secretary mattis said we agreed afghanistan is not where we want it tob. we spent last couple of months discussing where it might go in the future. he indicated to chairman mccain, some final in the middle -- time in middle of july we'll have that strategic review complete. when the secretary makes a decision about resourcing to the military dimension, realizing that broader issue nas have to be addressed in a diplomatic and economic areas. >> which raises the question of the authorization of use of military force again. how much lobbying, if you will, has happened between you and the congress? how is the dialogue unfolding in term of -- >> i've been asked several times in testimony what my thoughts were on the authorization use of military force. we rely now on the 2001 authorization of use of military force that was after 9/11. it was modified in 2002. what i have said is that, we have all of the legal authority that we need right now to prosecute al qa

>> mattis has not weighed in on north korea.eluctant to say anything other than as a military man he is not going to preview or telegraph any strategy. what we know is that what they do at the pentagon is constantly str strategize, constantly plan. mcmaster said publicly they want to have military options at the ready gives you an indication that this administration wants to put pressure both on the chinese as well as the south koreans. remember, this new south korean government is a little bit more friendly to the north. they want to have a little bit more engagement. that's going to complicate things for president trump. in a lot of ways, trump faces the same challenge that president bush had nine, ten years ago. that is, you have a regime in south korea that's looking towards making overtur overtur north. not a hard line position. >> hans nichols from brussels for us, thank you very much. i want to bring in ann from "the washington post" along with carol and vivian still here with me. so crucial to that effort. theren this ad

secretary mattis said "it appears they took the warning seriously. they did not do it." that the u.s. will continue to monitor syria's activity and would not rule out assad launching another chemical attack in the future, saying, "i am not paid to have confidence in this sort of thing. i am paid to be one of the sentinels. one of the watchers." officials have said that intelligence indicates syrian chemical weapons personnel have recently been visiting known production facilities and that an aircraft was parked at a hangar at the airfield. a known chemical weapons facility. >> let's get a check on your weather now with nbc meteorologist bill karins. you are tracking some storms in the midwest. >> those storms continue this morning. it wasn't expected to be this bad. we thought they would have a few tornadoes, but iowa had 24 to 26 tornadoes. sh some were weak. this is called a rope tornado. those are usually on the weaker scale. an ef-0, if-1. still do damage significantly, but they're not like the big huge wedge tornadoes or even stove pipe tornados. we didn't have any

whether at the trump level or mcmaster, killey, and mattis? great former soldiers in the cabinet. i don't see actually the effect, yet, of a very firm, stable management style. i'm hopeful that the administration, over time, will develop those techniques and relations, but i think there's a ways to go. >> and chris, let me ask you, also. you talk about the need, in the book, about the need to have information coming from the tip of the spear, as it were, where the rubber meets the road. do you think that that leadership style works everywhere? >> i think it's critical, now. i don't think it's a choice anymore. and what we saw inside the counterterrorism task force, under general mccrystal and other senior leadership was an ability to connect from the ground and a willingness from our senior leadership part to listen to those voices. because they acknowledged and realized this problem is changing too quickly. if we try to go through the bureaucratic wick ets we've put in place, we'll be too slow all the time. there is a necessity at the leaders

have what you need to do that job, and i think that is what secretary mattis is looking at. that is the right thing to do, and i don't know what that number is, but it ought to be the right number for the mission, not some sort of political number that actually makes it harder for our folks to accomplish their mission and may well increase the danger to their lives. quick follow-up to that and another question if i may, but is there a limit in terms of the number of troops, which is really the metric we all kind of use to establish footprint for any of these policies? i don't knowry: was that is. we certainly are not going to have another 100,000 troops and afghan and. help the afghans do better on their own. there is a limit to how many people you need, but you need enough to do that, and we have not had that in recent years. of to follow-up on that, clearly, the obama administration was criticized for micromanagement of all these things, as you mentioned, the pendulum is clearly swinging the other way with the authorities given to mr. matus at the pentagon in yemen, iraq,

all i can say is general mattis, secretary mattis, has it right. iran would be appreciative of us not selling those weapons to saudi arabia. we are going to sanction iran this week i hope for what they've done outside the nuclear agreement. since nuclear agreement was pa passed, they have humiliated our soldiers, our sailors. they captured them on the high seas and humiliated them. i don't member saudi arabia doing that. they are just like missiles in violation of u.n. resolutions that could destroy israel and one day reach us or our allies throughout the mideast and europe. they are spreading their form of radical shiism all through the world, all through the mideast. the money they received from the iranian nuclear deal is not going to build roads and bridges and hospitals. its increasing the lithology ofe the irg and other iranian combat units. what we're trying to do, president trump is trying to do is give our allies the ability to contain the threat, which is in our interest. so sanction iran and denying saudi arabia the weapons they need to

general mattis, secretary mattis, has it right. to iran would be appreciative of our not selling those weapons to saudi arabia. we will sanction iran this week, i hope, for what they've done outside the nuclear agreement. since the nuclear agreement wash they soldiers, our sailors, they captured them on the high seas and humiliated them and i don't remember saudi arabia doing that. they are test firing missiles and violation of un resolutions that could destroy israel and one day reach us or our allies throughout the middle east in europe. they are spreading their form of radical shiite is him all through the world, all through the middle east, the money they have received from the iranian nuclear deal is not going to build roads and bridges and hospitals, is increasing theidem lethality of the lusardi and other combatant units and whatch we are trying to do, what president trump is trying to do, is give our allies the ability to contain the threat which is in our interest. ne so, sanction iran and denying saudi arabia the weapons

secretary mattis has indicated that he will not revisit decisions of the previous administration absent concrete evidence. we know of no such evidence. i urge you to refrain from relying on open to figures and assumptions to change a policy that was designed to open service to all who could meaningfully contribute to the military and their country. particularly given the rigorous process used to write it. i respectfully oppose this amendment. >> i think the gentle lady for missouri from bringing this amendment. mr. chairman, i know that you wrote secretary carter in july 17 of 2015 and november 29 of 2016, raising serious questions about what happened to transgendered individuals coming into the military and issues such as housing, medical costs, limitations on the validity to be deployed, and my understanding is that you are the committee never got satisfactory answers back. i think it's uncommon on secretary mattis to inform this committee with straight answers on the serious questions that many of us have on the committee. we should not go forward with the previous administration's p

nothing james mattis says five days later can unring that bell.ery clear message to our allies and our adversaries that our commitment to our nato allies is in doubt. that is dangerous, because if it could lead to more instability in europe, and if it could lead to possible conflict there, it's ultimately going to be the united states at the end of the day who is going to have to come in and help sort it out. you are implying he didn't want to make that express commitment i'm not saying anything about his motives, although i do think there have been a lot of questions about the degree to which he has basically followed the wish list of vladimir putin in the policies he has pursued. i'm just saying that regardless of his motive in doing that in brussels, vladimir putin was watching, and that's what he will have taken from it. you brought up the russians, and of course, whether the russians were involved one way or another, in hacking the e—mails of hillary clinton during the presidential campaign was something that was of course a major issue at th

why defense secretary james mattis is now saying north korea is a threat to us all.g the stage for the u.s. to intervene? the kitchen. i need my blood sugar to stay in control. i need to shave my a1c i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble bre

. >> james mattis at dod, the leadership he provides. he comes out and says things and the military backs him up. there is nobody who counters what james mattis says. up and down the chain of command. that is leadership. you don't have that behind ryan, behind mitch mcconnell. >> is a lifelong republican, i hate to say this. i think they are okay secretly with the status quo. before we work ourselves into too much negativity, i do believe it's going to get done. through trump's leadership, it's ugly to watch the process day by day. it's ugly and inefficient. it is supposed to be to some degree in a democracy. we are going to get there. we are going to get health care and tax cuts. >> kat: house set to vote on two bills to crackdown on illegal immigration. will kate's law and defunding sanctuary cities come to pass? we will be back with that. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your busines

one decision that was made by the president was to delegate that decision to secretary mattis. but also, this is what's important and probably has been under reported, secretary mattis's decision about additional forces in afghanistan will be made in the context of a broader strategy review for south asia. that is ongoing and expected to report back sometime in the middle of july. when secretary mattis makes a decision about force levels, which he will clearly communicate with the president, the secretary of state and actually, the guidance direction that he received is to do that in conjunction with the secretary of state -- when secretary mattis makes that decision about force levels you can you can expect he'll communicate that in a broader context. specifically context with that strategy review. it won't be just about afghanistan. there are a number of interdependent variables. that bear on the problem inside of afghanistan across the region. and will be prepared to talk about those when we talk about force management levels. the reason why the number of 4000 has been raise

he was going after trade between the two countries and audience laughed and right now james mattis is in brus sels for an important meeting of nato defense ministers who he has taken to task for. our pentagon correspondent joins us live from brussels. tell us about the meeting there, hans nichols. james mattis has been an ally to rex tillerson so far, i'm guessing rex is at least calling him, look what i got myself into. >> reporter: what we know right now, there's a meeting taking place between sretary mattis and nato defense ministers and they are hungry for information, r details on how many troops the u.s. will a demand get sent to afghanistan and b contribute themselves because early this morning we heard from the secretary general of nato he said there would be a few thousand more troops for the nato mission in afghanistan but no one here knows what that is going to be. what we've heard from other defense ministers, he's not telegraphing and giving specifics and indicating to them, they won't get hard numbers on how many additional american troops will be sent to afghanistan unt

defense secretary james mattis reportedly rejected that idea. joining us now is ambassador john bolton, former u.s. ambassador to the united nations and fox news contributor. iran is believed to have thousands of militia in southern syria propping up the regime of bashar al-assad. and they have been firing on u.s. forces. so why not go on the offensive as the staffers urged secretary mattis to do. >> if that report is accurate they have assessed the situation correctly. but what our response is need a little bit more study. the fact is we have been following a policy under barack obama now in the current administration of supporting the government of iraq's evident to push isis out of western iraq into syria. i think that is not consistent with american interest because as we increase the space controlled by the baghdad government where increasing the influence of iran. what the iranians are trying to do with shiia militia from iraq and hezbollah coming out of lebanon and syria and with the assad regime itself is get a continuous space controlle

mcmaster to oversee the whole process. >> we have said mattis and nicholson believe more u.s.ops to afghanistan is a good idea. do you share that belief? >> well, i think a few more-- a few thousand or even 10,000 more u.s. troops-- >> 10,000 more. >> i'm saying that i think that hypothetically, an increase on that scale. let's say, for example, a doubling of u.s. troops. there are some 8500 there now-- can help sustain the current security stalemate. but i don't believe that troops alone will actually be decisive in the end. troops alone can't win this war. troops alone will not remove the stalemate. the stalemate fundamentally rests on the political side of the equation. so alongside any military surge, the addition of any number of u.s. troops, i'll be very interested to hear the administration's ambitions in terms of how they're going to deal with the politics. >> well, explain what the challenges are there for the politics in afghanistan. >> well, i look at this as a three-part equation on the political side. so first of all, inside the afghan government itself, here you

james mattis was asked on his thoughts on the situation. >> we have two day, dozens wounded. what would you say about that? >> i need to confirm everything. i like learning about something before i talk. let me look into it. >> reporter: is this why the united states needs a travel

many would be marines. >> mattis talked about u.s.s in afghanistan, that will be in a broader strategist review. >> john mccain has expressed frustration in the delay. after 16 years of war. >> we are losing in afghanistan. we just had three americans killed in the last couple of days. this is not an academic exercise. >> secretary mattis, the rising number of insider attacks by afghan troops turning on their american partners is alarming. mattis said he will present a strategy in mid-july. john. >> john: thank you. some republicans are urging trump to spend a lot more on national defense. one of those people is liz indicating. she and her father, the former vice president are going public with their case. bret baier talks with liz cheney tonight. >> she is dean of the wyoming delegation. there is only one representative. >> is an honor to be here. my first national interview. >> you wrote an op-ed with vice president dick cheney in which he warned about defense spending. you write... america today faces an array of threats, more seri