tv Conservative Political Action Conference - Panel on National Security CSPAN February 23, 2018 4:04am-4:32am EST
>> that is a loaded question. i would like to start with the post-cold war era we are in happening. within a bipolar world. -- we were not afforded that simplistic luxury anymore. we are starting to see under the ispices of putin, russia trying to recapture the former greatness of associated with the soviet union. seeing they -- we are -- ng them try to influence mind, there is no such thing as a week russia. that is influencing his policies.
the only country with which we have nuclear parity. i also do believe that russia is in a very unique situation in had athey have never history of it hearing to individual rights. it has always been that everything is done for the sake of pressure. that has defined quite a bit of national security policy. to your question, what does this mean to the united states? we have to approach our relationship with russia carefully. she is not our primary foe. a is not that she is non-actor. we need to be very cognizant of is footprint that putin trying to expand across the globe. and be highly aware of that. in terms of the information
warfare that we saw with the papers, thatheir is par for the course for russia. we spoke about this earlier. organization which is the 2008 propaganda arm. pseudo-ngo's across the globe. andto win over the hearts minds of people in various countries to make them except russian supremacy which is very bizarre. the other thing they like to do which is to answer the last part of your question, is they like to convince people that their current government is incompetent. if we look at the state of our media right now, there is an element in which the constant criticism -- it is healthy, but at what point does it become that we are establishing these suggested that the u.s. government is incompetent? there is a point where criticism
becomes unhealthy. nationalism is engaged in the dissemination of propaganda, their hope was to subvert and create chaos. that has been the mission of this propaganda arm for the last 10 years. and decades for -- and decades before this. heem: i thought you were talking about cnn for a moment. [laughter] raheem: ambassador bolton, i want to bring you in on this. and i want to expand into russia and the middle east. ignoring me. i am just here to facilitate. if you want to jump in at any point, jump in. ambassador bold. lton: i think the
indictment is an important opportunity for the trump administration to deal with threatand its various and of the stations. i think the president was right politically that the russian information campaign was to support trump for president. and of the stations. i think the president was right trump against hillary. there was so much of it that people would come logically come if incorrectly, to the conclusion that the trump campaign must be colluding with russia. you could have that much of a campaign without knowing trump cooperation. indictment in its 100 paragraphs of explanation a lemonade's as far as we know both of those elements. there is no allegation of collusion by the trump campaign or anyone else. and it is clear from the indictment that the russian effort is an attack on the constitution.
mistrust in our institutions and it supports candidates. as a means to an end. i would hope this president, contrary to what the media is saying, and now say in a very forthcoming way about russian interference in our politics what he has already started to do about the russian presence in the middle east, what he has started to do about the russian interference in central and eastern europe. no foreign power messes with american elections. nobody around the world challenges the american constitution. and i will tell you this -- i think we ought to retaliate for the russian cyber attacks on our election process.
i think the retaliation should not the proportionate. i think it should be decidedly disproportionate. is to create structures of deterrence so neither the russians nor anyone else take about trying it again. i think that is the right policy. and here is the right politics for the president. in any debate between conservatives and liberals over who will defend the constitution best, who do you think will win that debate? [applause] raheed: dr. jasser? missed that the pot stirring all of this is radical islam.
every country that has a muslim majority population is going through this battle between two people fascism's. one is a secular dictatorship and the other is theocratic. both are not our allies. there has to be third choices. and now we have a president in the white house, we have parties controlling congress that are no longer wasting our time in figuring out the diagnosis. we acknowledge that the diagnosis is theocratic islam. on with the get business of fixing the problem and looking for a solution. i and the son of syrian immigrants who are patriotic americans because we embraced american freedom, the ability to practice our faith more freely than in any so-called islamic rejected -- toey
come and embrace american liberty. we are not taking sides in syria or iran. the greatest protection for american threats coming from iran's nuclear program would be a revolution. and yet, where is american policy in taking sides with people on the american strays. we had the president tweeting out support or the people on the streets. something president obama never did. we need to follow through with that and can be a whole government strategy where the greatest threat of the 21st century is political islam. theocratic islam. we need to convene a commission on radical islamism that would provide a whole government strategy to the pentagon, the state department, through homeland security. where we look at immigration through the lens of not letting islamist in but letting those that embrace our values. if russia is going to support
hezbollah and genocide in syria, that is not our ally but we will .ot support sunni islamists the saudi royal family may be our short-term friends. we have to be careful. if we do not come together as a nation and realize what ideas we stand for, not only what we are against including terrorism and communism but what are we for? we have to advance what we are for. we have the president in the white house that can do that if we convene a commission and shift the axis of discussion cvi.cve to everyone of you i hope goes back to your congressman or congresswomen and tell them that we need to shift from cve to cv i.
raheem: there was once upon a time a whiteboard in the white house that had a lot of points on it and one was the prescription of the muslim brotherhood as a terrorist organization. members of the administration will be watching this and reflecting a pot -- upon what is being said i hope, what do we have to say about -- as a panel that there is no prescription of the muslim brotherhood yet? i think that is a pretty simple thing to get done. islam, ita of radical was a core campaign process. bolton: i would have put list ofherhood on the terrorist organizations in january 20 17. i don't think there is any question about this. too often our diplomats fall whether it is the irish republican army or any terrorist organization, a humanitarian
wing of his ball up for example zballah for example. to understand as you obama administration did not but president trump does, what we are fighting here is not a concept of violence. we are fighting a radical ideology that grows out of islam, political islam. that ideology did tests western civilization and america in particular. we did not create the ideology. we may not like having to deal with it. if we do not a knowledge what we will never prevail. there is a nuance that might have a counterpoint in that area. it jasser: i would nuance and say if you globally declare the muslim brotherhood a terror
organization, you will find what about al jazeera which is staffed with muslim brotherhood. the bottom line is that you have got the egyptian brotherhood which i think the egyptian muslim brotherhood which i think is the home base, the center nuclear cancer cell. that should be labeled a terrorist organization. hamas already is. offshoots should be labeled as such. ideologues in london, the muslim brotherhood never put an office down here but there are a lot of believers in islamism. the muslim brotherhood is an ideology. in the middle east, they do not carry cards. just like we were fighting the cold war. we understood the communist
party was not our ally. we did not shut them down. we allowed them the freedom to speak out. there werethat significant threats but we did not shut them down. muslim brotherhood organizations it is easier to monitor them when they are above ground. middle east dictatorships are classic examples of this. whenever they push the muslim brotherhood underground, they come back and recap it. touched onhave not china yet. -- when thent chinese president gets up and speaks, he is not giving a speech on how they are going to dominate the world, he is declaring that they have already done that.
when we talk about the greatest threat to america, the chinese think they have already won. : i think that our for right now is radical islamic ideology as opposed to a nationstate. primarily because an ideology can go through several iterations. when you think it may have been stomped down in one region of the world, it can regrow cells, it can spread, it transcends borders and it does not require a lot of funding. you can use all sorts of platforms that do not require any sort of real monetary backing. it makes messages accessible. for instance, one of the greatest issues they are having -- the connection between isis and europe for quite a bit of time was russia.
videos,e a bit of isis propaganda and recruitment videos were being done in russia. and it is aarming way that ideology does not need to belong to a nationstate. it can attract followers from around the globe. that is what makes a tremendously dangerous. china, it is in an interesting position right now relative to the u.s. and russia. a better relationship with both countries than russia and the u.s. have with each other. we are starting to see a greater eurasian alliance as opposed to russia trying to join itself to europe. china is trying its best to walk a fine line between maintaining
its status as an economic while facing a demographic crisis in the coming decades. in abelieve that china is unique position. i am curious to see where it goes from here. it is the largest country population wise in the world. raheem: the chinese are declaring victory in what they perceive as a long war but the north korean stuff -- i don't think the media has recognized that president trump in a lot of managed to shut down little rocket man or italy's bring him to the table. have the chinese won? what is lacking? amb. bolton: on the china question, we have suffered as a country for several decades by operating under the assumption
that prevails in the business community and the u.s. government and in academia that china is engaged in a peaceful one buzz phrase. and that it simply seeks to take its rightful place one buzz phr. in thet it community of nations and that we simply have to accept this. that is one possible scenario for china. but it is not the only scenario and the in the community of nations idea that o become a responsible stakeholder, another buzz phrase, in the international system is only one possible outcome. i think the real pattern of chinese behavior is incredibly aggressive and assertive. in thee building bases south china sea that are on a good day only three inches above water. they are today mapping the seabed of the indian ocean. and they are not doing it to find fish.
they want to know where they can put their submarines when they develop an undersea fleet. this is an aggressive development. there is a panel on china tomorrow. what we require is a comprehensive american strategy. the president has raised the ofues of chinese violations their obligations under international trade agreement, their piracy of intellectual property, their discrimination against foreign business people in china, but we need a political military strategy as well. linkage. that all of these issues are together. trumphink that president now has convinced both north korea and china that barack obama is no longer president which is the single most important thing that he could do. mistake,] but make no
cia director mike pompeo said recently, north korea is within a handful of months, his phrase to having the capability of thermonuclear weapons on any american city they want. the trump administration has some very hard decisions to make in the future. if china really believed what they said for 25 years which was that they did not want north korea to have nuclear weapons, now is the time for them to act. and if they don't, it will tell us a lot about china. : we have about a minute and a half left. dr. jasser: a lot of these responses come on the heels of how these countries perceive us. secretary mattis, president trump. they realize that america has got to be reckoned with. means -- howoning many of you think that with the
isis almost gone, that islamic radical islamic's will go away? nobody. you have the saudi's still pushing wahhabism. in pakistan. egypt's and -- we have egyptian islamism. thated to start realizing we are not going to win this militarily. until we take liberty and freedom on the offense in an information war just like the russians come we have take the ideas of liberty in arabic and farsi to begin to have an offense for countering violent islamism not just extremism. raheem: i wish we had more time.
and north korea we could've touched on so many things. i want to thank our panelists for laying out the core national security threats for the united states. and thanks to all of you for supporting. my thanks to ambassador bolton, ser.lle davidson and dr. jas >> the conservative political action conference continues at secretaryeastern with perry, secretary zinke he. and here on c-span, we will join president trump when he
addresses the conference along with kellyanne conway. can join our live coverage starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> texas senator ted cruz addressed the conference. he addresses legislation he cosponsored that he says would reduce gun violence. he also offered advice for expanding free speech on college campuses. this is 20 minutes.