Mike Pence Insists He and Trump Totally Agree on Syria

They don’t.

Rick Bowmer/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

 

On Sunday night, Donald Trump made headlines by saying he disagreed with Mike Pence on Syria. By Monday morning, the Trump campaign was desperately insisting there was no disagreement at all.

At last week’s vice presidential debate, Pence stunned viewers by saying that Russia is helping the Syrian government kill civilians in Aleppo—and that the United States should be ready to use force against the Syrian regime. It was a sharp turn away from Trump’s previous comments, in which the real estate mogul has praised Syria and Russia for allegedly attacking ISIS.

“He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.”

At Sunday’s presidential debate, it was Trump’s turn to contradict Pence. “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree,” Trump replied icily when asked about Pence’s comments. “I think you have to knock out ISIS.”

The contrast was obvious, but now Pence and Trump are pretending it never happened.

Pence appeared on all the major cable news networks Monday morning and claimed that ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who co-moderated Sunday’s debate, had “mischaracterized” his position on Syria. Pence said last week that “if Russia chooses to be involved…in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo.” On Monday, he claimed his statement had been narrowly focused on Aleppo and that Raddatz had wrongly implied he wanted take on Syria and Russia in general. “The way Martha presented that question last night was to suggest that Russian provocation broadly and that of the Assad regime should be met with military force,” he said on MSNBC.

In fact, during Sunday’s debate, Raddatz asked both Clinton and Trump specifically about the crisis in Aleppo. “If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?” Raddatz asked Trump. Immediately after saying that, Raddatz described Pence’s comments nearly verbatim: “And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in airstrikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.”

Trump then said twice that he and Pence disagreed. Trump went on to falsely suggest that Aleppo “basically has fallen.” He also praised the Syrian government’s alleged actions against ISIS. “Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS,” he said. That claim is also false: The Syrian government and its allies, including Russia, have overwhelmingly attacked rebel groups and civilians rather than ISIS. In fact, the Syrian regime abetted the rise of ISIS and has even struck oil deals with the terrorist group.

Pence isn’t the only member of the Trump campaign struggling to answer questions about the GOP candidate’s disagreement on Aleppo. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a national security adviser to the Trump campaign, was asked on CNN Monday what the campaign’s policy on Syria actually is. Woolsey refused to even answer the question.

“But, wait, Mr. Director,” said Kate Bolduan, a CNN anchor who was visibly baffled by Woolsey’s attempts to dodge the issue. “You’re the former CIA director. You’re a national security adviser to the Donald Trump campaign. When it comes to a key policy position that you would assume would be a unified position of the campaign, I would also assume you would know what it is and be able to voice it.”

“I’m not telling you one way or the other,” Woolsey replied. “The candidates are the ones who are going to communicate the policy decisions to the public, not me.”

 

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate