![[11]](https://s.yimg.jp/i/jp/blog/p3/images/paging_for2.gif){kind=small}
|
This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," March 23, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And welcome to "Hannity." The road to 2016 has officially begun. Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced that he's running for the White House. He will join us exclusively for the entire hour. Here's how it all went down earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please join me in welcoming back to Liberty University Senator Ted Cruz. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TX, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is the time for truth! It is the time for liberty! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CRUZ: It is the time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CRUZ: I am honored to stand with each and every one of you courageous conservatives as we come together to reclaim the promise of America, to reclaim the mandates, the hope and opportunity for our children and our children's children! We stand together for liberty! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CRUZ: I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America! And that is why today, I am announcing that I'm running for President of the United States. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: Joining us now, the man himself, 2016 now official presidential candidate Texas senator Ted Cruz. Senator, good to see you. Welcome aboard. CRUZ: Sean, always great to join you. HANNITY: All right, those kids are adorable. CRUZ: Well, thankfully, they look just like their mother. HANNITY: What -- interesting, no teleprompter, first out of the gate. By design? CRUZ: Well, certainly, it's time to get in there. And it's time to start making the case that we got to change what we're doing. You know, I think there is an urgency to what we're facing in politics that's unlike anything you or I have ever seen before. I think it's now or never. I don't think we've reached the point of no return yet, but we are close. And I think if... HANNITY: What is the point of no return? CRUZ: Well, we've seen our national debt go from $10 trillion to $18 trillion. It's larger than the size of our whole economy. We're seeing our constitutional rights constantly under assault from the federal government. And we're seeing America recede from leadership in the world, and the world is melting down. I think if we have four or eight more years on this same path, we risk doing irreparable damage to this country. HANNITY: I'm going to get into the specifics on the economy, on foreign policy. First, a couple of questions about Ted Cruz. You went through a little bit of your family history, your family life story. Try and sum that up -- very fascinating background. I didn't know a lot of the things you said today. CRUZ: Well, it was great. My family was all there and able to join me. I shared my mom's story. You know, my mom grew up in Wilmington, Delaware. She grew up in an Irish-Italian working class family. Her mom, my grandmother, was the second youngest of 17 kids. I mentioned that my mom's uncle ran the numbers in Wilmington. I got to admit, my mother was a little horrified that I said that up there. And my grandfather, my mother's father, was a tough man. He drank too much. And he didn't have very enlightened views. He didn't really think women should get an education. And my mother is very soft-spoken, but she's strong-willed and very bright. And she stood up to her dad. She battled her father. HANNITY: Seventeen kids. CRUZ: And -- well, that was her mother. HANNITY: Her mother, right. CRUZ: And she became -- my mom became the first person in her family ever to go to college. And she went to Rice, graduated in 1956 with a degree in math and went into computer programming at Shell, I mean, was shattering glass ceilings. And it's -- my mom is 80 this year, and she was there at the event. And she is a woman of strength and fortitude but also incredible compassion. She is a wonderful mom and an incredible grandmother to our two little girls. HANNITY: And your dad fought Batista in Cuba, came here at 18. CRUZ: He did. And one of the things I tried to do with the students at Liberty is try to help put them in his shoes -- that he was 14, 15 years old. He was a kid in high school in student council when the revolution began. And the revolution in Cuba -- it started in the student councils, in the high schools, in the colleges. And you know, I sort of laughed. I was in student council growing up, but nobody would confuse our student council with revolutionaries. And my dad ended up -- when he was 17, Batista's police captured him and they threw him in prison and beat him halfway to death. And he fled Cuba. My grandfather told him, said, Look, they know who you are. They're just going to hunt you down and kill you. And so he applied to three universities, applied to University of Miami, LSU and University of Texas. And UT let him in. So my dad -- my grandfather drove my father to the ferry boat. My father lay down on the floorboards in the bottom of the car to hide because Batista's police were keeping an eye on him. And he got on the ferry boat. He had a passport. He'd gotten a legal student visa from the American consulate because he'd been admitted to UT, he could get a student visa. And then they had a family friend who ended up. He needed a stamp from the Batista government to get out, and they weren't going to give it to him, and so a family friend ended up paying a bribe to the Cuban government authorities to get the Cuban stamp to let him out. And he took a ferry boat to Key West and then got on a Greyhound bus and went all the way to Austin, and couldn't speak English, had a hundred dollars in his underwear. HANNITY: It's a very similar story for a lot of families, my family, as well. There have been issues -- you were born in Calgary, in Canada. CRUZ: Right. HANNITY: Is there a birth certificate issue? I don't mean to -- know -- I did look at social media today, and it did come up for a number of times. I wanted to give you a chance to address it. I know you mentioned at CPAC. CRUZ: Yes. Look, there's political chatter on it. The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents -- as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth. And it's been federal law for over two centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen. HANNITY: OK. CRUZ: Which is what the Constitution requires to run. And several prior candidates have had this issue. John McCain was born in Panama. George Romney, Mitt's dad, was born in Mexico when his parents were Mormon missionaries down there. And actually, Barry Goldwater -- a lot of people don't know this -- was born in Arizona before Arizona was a state. And so as a legal matter, the issue is quite straightforward, that if you or I travel aboard and we have a child that's born abroad, and we're American citizens, that child is a natural born citizen. HANNITY: Why does Ted Cruz -- why do you, Senator, want to be president? It's a big decision, a big impact on your family. and how would a Cruz presidency differ from an Obama presidency? |
時事英語
[ リスト | 詳細 ]
コメント（0）
|
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Can I finish the question? Is that a risk you're willing to take? SODERBERG: No. HANNITY: Do you really trust the mullahs in Iran with their radical Islamic views? SODERBERG: No, I don't, and neither does the administration. HANNITY: So they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. SODERBERG: They should not have a nuclear weapon, and we've been clear from day one they will never have a nuclear weapon. What we're trying to do is avoid having to have a military solution to achieve that goal. And no one has taken the military off the table. What the rational voices in this conversation are trying to do is negotiate no nuclear weapon, as opposed to having to bomb no nuclear weapon. HANNITY: All right, Tony Tata... SODERBERG: And I think it is absurd to not... HANNITY: General? SODERBERG: ... agree with that. HANNITY: General? TATA: I'm not sure what world you're living in. The military solution is happening now. Iran is in Iraq. They are fighting not as an ally to us. They are fighting to push the Arabs away from the Persian border, as they've done for thousands of years. They're fighting in Syria. They're fighting all across -- against U.S. interests. They want to destroy Israel. The military solution is on the table now. It's on the battlefield. And they're practicing destroying our aircraft carriers... SODERBERG: Wait. Just let me get you straight. You're arguing we should be at war with... HANNITY: All right... SODERBERG: You're arguing that we should... TATA: No. No. (CROSSTALK) TATA: All I'm saying is that they're already at war -- they're already at with us... BOOT: The only way... TATA: ... and we're acting like they're not. And we're negotiating with them... HANNITY: All right, final word, Max. (CROSSTALK) BOOT: The only way you can get a credible deal out of Iran is to have a credible threat... TATA: That's right. BOOT: ... of military force against them. In 2003, they interrupted their nuclear program because they were afraid of us after the invasion of Iraq. TATA: That's right. BOOT: But nobody is afraid of President Obama. Nobody imagines that President Obama... TATA: That's right. BOOT: ... would ever bomb Iran. So Iran has no reason... HANNITY: All right... BOOT: ... to reach a real accord to give up its nuclear programs... HANNITY: Guys, thank you very much... BOOT: ... which is something they have to do. (CROSSTALK) SODERBERG: Max, look at the facts. HANNITY: Thank you, guys. SODERBERG: That's just not true. Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. |
|
HANNITY: ... and being a state sponsor of terrorism. And I think the president's comments are beyond naive if he thinks that they don't want a nuclear state because they have told him so. I think it's a very dangerous precedent the president is setting.
TATA: I agree with you, Sean, and I think your lead-in questions were very appropriate. This president, this administration has just eliminated Hezbollah and Iran from terror threats in the national security report. That somehow slid under the wire just this week. They're no longer in the national security report. Last year, they were at the top of the chart. And so you have to wonder if that's some kind of quid pro quo or opening gambit in these -- the negotiation that Secretary Kerry is doing. But how can they not be listed as a terror threat, when it -- the -- it's so obvious... HANNITY: Crazy, right? TATA: ... everywhere you go. And then we have the president talking to the Iranian people, reciting poetry to them, when just a few years ago, they were maiming and killing our soldiers with the most lethal form of roadside bomb. I don't know what pie in the sky world we're living in right now, but this is ridiculous. HANNITY: Yes. TATA: This is a rogue regime, oppressive regime... HANNITY: Hey, Max... TATA: ... that wants to destroy Israel and the United States! HANNITY: Hey, Max... SODERBERG: Nobody -- nobody... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Nancy, hang on. Let me bring Max in. Max, I want to -- I want you to follow up on that because I think the general's bringing up a good point here. They won't even say that this is a terror state anymore. All three of you agreed on that, even Nancy. So... SODERBERG: No, I don't believe it. They... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: You don't believe they're a state sponsor of terror? BOOT: Give me a chance to speak here, Nancy. (CROSSTALK) BOOT: The reality, Nancy, is that whatever the... SODERBERG: There is no... HANNITY: ... administration may say... SODERBERG: There's no -- let me finish! (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Nancy, let Max talk. He hasn't had a chance to talk. SODERBERG: No, I'm correcting... (CROSSTALK) SODERBERG: There is no question that Iran is supporting... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Guys, Nancy, let him talk! BOOT: ... and we are not doing anything effective to stop Iran. It goes beyond a terror report. The fact is, as General Petraeus pointed out, Iran is running a proxy war in Syria and Iraq, as well as in Yemen. It is taking over a good portion of the region. And what are we doing to oppose Iranian design? I don't see anything. Instead, I hear administration spokesmen saying things like Iranian actions are potentially helpful as long as they're not too divisive, which is a little bit like saying that, you know, applauding Al Capone for providing liquor to the thirsty masses and hoping that he's not too criminal. Well, the very nature... SODERBERG: Max, you're an expert... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Let him finish! All right, Nancy... (CROSSTALK) BOOT: The very nature -- you know, Nancy, if you could stop interrupting me and let me finish my thought? The fact is that the very nature of Iranian action is divisive and sectarian. And it sends the wrong message when President Obama is reaching out to the Iranian people not to tell them to overthrow their rulers, whom they hate and who oppress them, but to tell them about how he's about to reach a deal with their rulers that will allow them to keep a nuclear program with all restrictions off of it in 10 years. That is not the message we should be sending to the people of Iran. HANNITY: All right, let me -- let me -- let me ask Nancy this. You agree that they're a state sponsor of terror, they fight proxy wars, et cetera. So according to all the details, the ones that we have as of now -- and we may never even get to see the whole deal, we found out yesterday, which is understanding -- they don't label now Iran as a state sponsor of terror. But they're going to allow the Iranians to keep spinning their centrifuges, enriching uranium. And as Max rightly pointed out, in the sunset years of this deal, they would have the right to build a nuclear weapon with America's approval. SODERBERG: Well... HANNITY: Wait a minute. Do you think that is wise, considering their repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map? SODERBERG: I think -- first of all... HANNITY: That's a question! SODERBERG: ... I haven't seen the report... HANNITY: That's a question. SODERBERG: Let me -- you said you promised you'd let me talk. HANNITY: Yes, so answer it! SODERBERG: I haven't seen any report that the U.S. doesn't consider Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism. You can't not look at Hezbollah and all the other areas and say that they're not a state sponsor of terror. But I think it might be -- and Max is a historian, a very good one. Look at what we -- how we acted during the cold war against the "evil empire" in the Soviet Union and make the comparison of, we talked to them throughout that horrible cold war. BOOT: Nancy, it's true that... (CROSSTALK) SODERBERG: ... you have to negotiate -- now you're interrupting me, Max. BOOT: Nancy, we just talked about... SODERBERG: Max, now you're interrupting me! BOOT: The only agreements that we reached that were at all worthwhile were with Mikhail Gorbachev because he was a different kind of Soviet leader. SODERBERG: No, that's not true. BOOT: And we have not seen... SODERBERG: We had -- that is not true, Max. BOOT: We have not seen an different kind of Soviet leader... (CROSSTALK) BOOT: ... leader in Iran. SODERBERG: We had nuclear agreements on arms control from Nixon through the end of the Cold War. That's just not true. I know you know that. BOOT: The Soviets violated the SALT treaty. It was meaningless. HANNITY: Do you really believe the -- you -- I'll go back to my question -- allowing them to spin their centrifuges, enrich uranium, and in the sunset years, have a nuclear weapon, sworn to Israel's destruction... SODERBERG: No, we will not have -- we will not agree... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Can I finish the question? Is that a risk you're willing to take? SODERBERG: No. HANNITY: Do you really trust the mullahs in Iran with their radical Islamic views? SODERBERG: No, I don't, and neither does the administration. |
|
This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," March 20, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And welcome to 'Hannity.' So is President Obama trying to make a deal with the devil? Now, U.S.-led nuclear talks with Iran are expected to continue next week. But meanwhile, last night, the president issued a statement aimed at the Iranian people -- get this! -- praising Iran's leadership for its commitment against nuclear weapons? Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My message to you, the people of Iran, is that together, we have to speak up for the future we seek. As I've said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. (END VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: Now, those are very trusting words about Iran's supreme leader, the very same man who just last year said that ISIS was created by, quote, "American Zionism and especially the veteran expert of spreading divisions, the wicked government of Britain." Now, perhaps President Obama is not familiar with the thoughts of his former CIA director, General David Petraeus, who recently told The Washington Post that, quote, "The foremost threat to Iraq's long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State. Rather, it is Shi'ite militias, many backed by and some guided by Iran." So can America really make a deal with a regime dedicated to the destruction of American interests? Joining me now with reaction, author of "Foreign and Domestic" -- retired brigadier general Tony Tata is with us. "Invisible Armies" author and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot is with us. And former deputy national security adviser Ambassador Nancy Soderberg is back with us. Let me start with a series for all three of you, yes or no questions. Is -- do you all agree this is a rogue regime in Iran and a state sponsor of terror? Do we all agree on that? MAX BOOT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SENIOR FELLOW: Yes. BRIG. GENERAL TONY TATA, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I do, Sean, yes. HANNITY: Nancy? NANCY SODERBERG, FMR. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Of course. That's not the question here. HANNITY: No, that's my question to you. Believe it or not, it's my show. I get to ask the questions. Do we also agree that Iran has been fighting proxy wars and giving weapons to groups like Hezbollah and others? Do we all agree on that? BOOT: Of course. TATA: Yes, there's no doubt. HANNITY: Nancy? SODERBERG: Sean, you know, you do this every time. Let's get to the real question... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: I'm going to give you time to... SODERBERG: The question is whether we should be talking to this horrible regime, which we all agree is horrible. And the question is, yes, we spoke to the Soviet Union... HANNITY: Well, you can answer your own questions and answer your own question (sic), But I'm asking you, do you agree that they fight proxy wars and fund terror groups like Hezbollah and others? Do you agree with that? SODERBERG: Of course we do, but I'm... HANNITY: OK. SODERBERG: ... trying to get to the real substance here, which is... HANNITY: Have they repeatedly -- the leaders of Iran, including the leaders that the president was talking about -- have you all heard these leaders talk about destroying Israel and wiping them off the map? Do we all agree that they've made that threat repeated times? TATA: Absolutely. BOOT: Absolutely. HANNITY: Nancy, you're last again. SODERBERG: I answered that question last time I was on this show. HANNITY: And the answer is? SODERBERG: Still yes. HANNITY: OK. Let's take a look through history. First, let's look at a video of American flags and Israeli flags being burned in Iran. And I'm getting to a point here. Nancy, I promise, I'm going to give you a lot of time to talk through it. Then we have, for example, all the quotes of different ayatollahs at different times and presidents at different times, you know, talking about Iran, that the cancerous tumor of Israel has to be uprooted from the region, calling Israel the rabid dog of the region, Israelis should not be called humans. We have, God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism. And the Zionist regime has reached a dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized and this germ of corruption will be wiped off. And thanks to God, the countdown to the decline of America's demonic power has begun. Here's the question. And I will start with you, Nancy, because you're so eager and have such vibrancy and a desire to talk. Why should we not -- why should we not wait until they denounce those comments, statements, and denounce and renounce their terror ties and being a state sponsor of terror before -- as a precondition to any negotiations? Wouldn't that be a wiser strategy? SODERBERG: We tried that for 10 years, and they were very close to getting a nuclear weapon. It's only because we're talking to them that they're not getting a nuclear weapon right now. Without talking to them, there's no question they would have that. And then we're in a military confrontation with them. Yes, we all agree the Iranian revolution created a terrible regime there. You missed the whole killing of the demonstrators and the students in 2009 during the elections. That's partly why I think President Obama is reaching out to the youth. Twenty-one percent -- 60 percent of that country is under the age of 21. We want them to see a different Iran. HANNITY: Yes. I'm sure they all got to see it because... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: ... such an open society... SODERBERG: And that's another problem... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: I think Nancy's point is, frankly -- it's based on an absurd premise. I would argue that for any negotiations to take place, they first must renounce terrorism, their ties to terrorism... TATA: Yes. Sure. |
|
Reality Check > RisingSun • 2 days ago
"Unit 731 is an unproven myth" The evidence is strong and undeniable. PRC demanded Japan collect and destroy the remaining chemical artillery shells left in China by Japan. This process is so long, that it won't finish until 2022. NHK has reported it. RisingSun > Reality Check • a day ago Like I said, so-called “Unit 731” was to prevent and cure the contaminations of water in Manchuria from various diseases, as well as to prepare and research about chemical warfare, in case of Russia decided to do so. Of course, the chemical weapons like riot gas were frequently used by the Japanese Army during the war in China and was legal by the international law, and should be tons of those under the provision of the Japanese army. Reality Check > RisingSun • 14 hours ago You meant tear gas canisters? That is used by police in riots. What Japan used were artillery shells, rather than small canisters. Shut up and stop lying to us. RisingSun > Reality Check • 3 hours ago Yep. Every Japanese soldier in China had a teat gas, to break up the communists and KMT skarmishes. Those artillery shells you are talking about are simply stored in various northern locations for the preparation for the retaliation in case of Soviet attacks, and never been used. Both the use of tear gas, and the storage of other chemical weapons were not illegalized by the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Reality Check > RisingSun • 2 days ago Lots of crap. "The US an european imperialists were forced to give up its territories after the WW2." Japan did change anything that was colonialism based. It was just more barbaric, it was an over stretched form of colonialism, full of blood and greed. The US allowed the independence of the Philippines. It was not because of Japan, because the Imperial Japan lost the war. Are you saying the loser dictated the downfall of the colonialism? Chris > RisingSun • 2 days ago keep lying you idiot. not gonna work on me. you're the exact kind of historic revisionist the article talks about. You are so going to jail if you were in Germany. history is not anecdotes but a comprehensive compilation of facts. All you have been using in your arguments are anecdotes and side notes in the huge mass of contexts surrounding those events. you are tactically avoiding the majority of the facts in order to justify your interpretation of the events. I have work to do and I am not going to argue with you over those issues. learn some history and learn from Germany. I am sorry for Japan that people like you actually exist. You are the shame of Japan. RisingSun > Chris • a day ago I might be a revisionist but you are “historic denier”. The widely known history can be wrong, and the task of us the new generation is to seek if the history as we know is really true, by looking into the documents that are available today. There is nothing wrong with revisioning the already revisioned history, particularly things like the “comfort women” issue, which has no "hard evidence" but a bunch of testimonies that cannot be proven. > history is not anecdotes but a comprehensive compilation of facts. Then argue with me with facts not with your emotion. > I have work to do and I am not going to argue with you over those issues. Alright. I guess that’s a good ending to your “historical fact” debates… > learn some history and learn from Germany. There is nothing for Japan to learn from Germany. You want to debate with me about this? > I am sorry for Japan that people like you actually exist. I’m also feel shameful that you cannot even cope with facts and run away. Chris > RisingSun • 19 hours ago How ironic. Calling me a denier when you are obviously the douchebag who's trying to deny existing facts. You're intentionally ignoring facts of history that you don't like and focus on the few that serve your use. classic ultra right wing strategy, it's not going to work. You're an idiot. Sie dumm fuhrt. You have been ruining my appetite for sushi for a while. Nobody dislikes Japan for what it's done in the past. It is people like you who's acting nuts in the present that bring the image of the country down. again i have work to do and don't have time to deal with knuckleheads like you. shut up and get a job, and move out of your parents' basement. seriously. RisingSun > Chris • 3 hours ago So I write again. DOn't deny the facts. Joseon Koreans prime-ministers and other political leaders had requested Japan to annexed Korea in 1909, and the annexation was recognized by League of Nations. During the Japanese administration, Korean population had doubled from 13 mil to 25 million, Japan had abolished slavery and freed Korea’s slave class called “Baekchon” which was thought to be 65~85% of the total population, giving them names and basic human rights, like freedom of occupations, lives, religions, movement, or marriage. Japan had also introduced the compulsory education system in the very first time in the Korean history, by building 1 elementary school for every 3 villages/municipal districts, 1 high school for 6 villages/municipal districts. Japan had also built 600 public hospitals and clinics in the first 10 years, built the basic infrastructures like inter city roads and highways, electricity and phone lines, drinking water and sewage water pipelines in the cities, as well as public transportation that Koreans and Japanese could share to move or to commerce, and introduced the modern banking, agriculture, judicial systems, and leisure like zoo and skate-links. Korea didn’t have none of that before, and in fact, Japan had to supplement the Korean government with 10% of Japan’s National Budget every year. Here is another fun fact. In 1910, the Japanese administration in Korea had installed the modern police force. For 13 million population, there were only 7,712 police officers, with 4,440 of them being chosen from the Korean population. Then how you come to conclude the Korea under Japan was brutal? What were Korean police officers and other men were doing, whicle "allegedly" Japan was kidnapping 200,000 women? From all these "facts", can we conclude that Korea under Japan was the most enlightened and peaceful time Korea had ever experienced with its 2,000 years of history? You said you are smart enough, and then answer. |
