Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: December tenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this
Speaker 3: the show is live and we're not doing too many
Speaker 3: live ones this week due to me trying to get
Speaker 3: back into the swing of things. But don't worry, we
Speaker 3: will return to full schedule. And while we do have
Speaker 3: this downtime, let's get to high quality. Who do I mean,
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock author? You know, author I don't even know?
Speaker 2: Extored and air would that be the right word? Every
Speaker 2: single book.
Speaker 3: That Larry has released on my shelf and now I
Speaker 3: even got the update that someone would have talked, which
Speaker 3: I didn't have in my collection for a while, but
Speaker 3: I picked that up recently. And I am looking forward
Speaker 3: to an addendum to the Oswald Puzzle coming uh sometime
Speaker 3: in January recording to Amazon, I guess.
Speaker 2: But pre orders are available now.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we may have a little bit of a
Speaker 3: sound issue where things are gonna come a little up,
Speaker 3: a little down. Hopefully I will equalize it during the discussion.
Speaker 3: But larrydashhandcock dot com is the way to go if
Speaker 3: you want to keep track of what Larry's blogging about,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera. And oh, by the way, you
Speaker 3: might think I'm gonna talk Oswald here, or maybe we'll
Speaker 3: talk Christmas and the Christmas spirit. No, we're actually gonna
Speaker 3: talk current events in a way, but also give you
Speaker 3: a little history as we do. And why well that
Speaker 3: might be because of that word context.
Speaker 2: Larry. First of all, how you doing tonight?
Speaker 4: I'm doing fine, Chuck. I'm actually we have Christmas decorations
Speaker 4: up and kind of ahead of schedule, so I feel
Speaker 4: better than usual.
Speaker 1: We're going forward with Christmas.
Speaker 3: Ah, So your Christmas was not canceled, that's for sure,
Speaker 3: and I'm.
Speaker 4: Glad to hear it.
Speaker 3: But look, there is a lot going on in the
Speaker 3: international politics currently, and usually you and I talk about
Speaker 3: historical stuff, but we need to frame some history around
Speaker 3: something that's happening now. Look, I haven't said much about
Speaker 3: the drug boats and all this other stuff because you know,
Speaker 3: I've been out of commission.
Speaker 2: For a bit.
Speaker 3: But frankly, I've got a lot to say because I
Speaker 3: see a much larger program going on here than the
Speaker 3: outrage media or the you know, raw raw cheerleader media
Speaker 3: is doing on the right or the left. It looks
Speaker 3: to me like something much larger is being implemented and
Speaker 3: activated right before our eyes, and I think people are
Speaker 3: missing some of the boats skews the pun. You know, Larry,
Speaker 3: you have an idea about some of these things because
Speaker 3: of your expertise and knowing how the national security state functions,
Speaker 3: having an understanding at least in the basic sets of
Speaker 3: how the military functions. But we are in kind of
Speaker 3: a new age, which means things might be multifaceted and
Speaker 3: universally directional when it comes to implementing these things.
Speaker 2: Right, So what are we talking about tonight?
Speaker 4: What we're talking about as an announcement that just came
Speaker 4: on the wires a couple of hours ago, which is
Speaker 4: the fact that the United States seized a very large
Speaker 4: oil tanker off Venezuela. And my first reaction of that
Speaker 4: was good, gracious, we've dropped back seventy plus years and
Speaker 4: we're back to you know, President Eisenhower ordering a baid,
Speaker 4: you know, and yeah, this sort of thing has happened before.
Speaker 4: As you say, though, check the context is it's different
Speaker 4: when when President Eisenhower did to watch regime change against
Speaker 4: the Arbens regime, you know, it was a it was
Speaker 4: a popularly elected president. Uh, the country was internally pretty stable.
Speaker 4: It was populist, it was socialist leading, and we didn't
Speaker 4: really like their politics.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: It was just part of the US against communist expansion
Speaker 4: thing and that, and that's what it was.
Speaker 1: It's real straightforward. And and Eisenhower ordered two things.
Speaker 4: He ordered military intervention to the extent of putting a
Speaker 4: block aid.
Speaker 3: Right, okay, Larry, Larry, we're having a little trouble with
Speaker 3: the teams. Hold on a second, Larry, you know, Larry, right,
Speaker 3: Oh boy.
Speaker 1: We're having a little I'm still here testing.
Speaker 3: We're having a little trouble with the team's connection. So
Speaker 3: you know what, I'm going to take a break here
Speaker 3: and bring us into another venue. I'm gonna give you
Speaker 3: a link and we'll go to another venue to talk
Speaker 3: because teams is breaking down. It sounded good before we
Speaker 3: went to air, but now it's breaking down pretty bad.
Speaker 3: So I want to make sure people get this. And
Speaker 3: we got to rewind now and go back to the
Speaker 3: context of Eisenhower and what he did and how we
Speaker 3: might judge it differently when we return, Larry, and I'll
Speaker 3: get you at link and you guys listening, if you're
Speaker 3: hearing it live or on podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna leave this intact anyway. You just hang out.
Speaker 3: I'll get you at LAK all right, I'll look for
Speaker 3: the link. There you go, and you guys listening, hold on.
Speaker 3: I'll play a couple of spots and fix this up
Speaker 3: so we can hear what Larry's saying. I hate this
Speaker 3: team's I really do.
Speaker 5: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 5: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Speaker 5: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 5: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 5: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War,
Speaker 5: Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 5: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 5: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 2: Con what do the effect.
Speaker 6: Spoken revelation through conversation on the time foot pop life
Speaker 6: So show effect revelation the fasba A devastation.
Speaker 2: Revelation through conversational effect.
Speaker 5: You are the effects.
Speaker 6: Conversation all lace demonstrator ll sell the fact revelasten conversation
Speaker 6: through season through conversion, or shall effect revelation con the
Speaker 6: fation gone had forgotten?
Speaker 2: What show you a fact beyond the place of that?
Speaker 2: And fears are safe?
Speaker 6: The minutes of years find that shall find me unafraid,
Speaker 6: And there's not a brain.
Speaker 7: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 7: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 7: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against. For more information the Warstate dot Com.
Speaker 3: Now continuing with Larry Hancock, as he began to explain,
Speaker 3: there is some context the history with Eisenhower and what
Speaker 3: he did versus what we're looking at today.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: I mentioned the boats and all that, and everybody's focused
Speaker 3: on the drugs and is there drugs?
Speaker 6: Is there not?
Speaker 3: Are they mules? Are they traffickers? Are they coming near
Speaker 3: the shore? But that's not what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: And yeah, you were talking about Eisenhower and his actions
Speaker 3: and the things that occurred in some of the Central
Speaker 3: and South American countries. That's as far as I got
Speaker 3: and then things broke up, So Larry please continue.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think you have to step back and say,
Speaker 4: there are two things that are being talked about in
Speaker 4: the news today. One is the president keeps talking about
Speaker 4: he wants regime change, which is is a very outspoken statement.
Speaker 4: You know, you weren't going to find that back in
Speaker 4: the fifties or sixties. The president is not going to
Speaker 4: constantly go to the media and say I want to
Speaker 4: change you know, the elected government in another country. We
Speaker 4: just didn't used to do that. Different nowadays, he's saying
Speaker 4: that almost every day. In terms of he wants to
Speaker 4: outstay president.
Speaker 1: Diplomatic.
Speaker 4: You know, you can argue whether he's elected correctly or
Speaker 4: not collected, but he's his position is the US is
Speaker 4: now has the assumed the authority of the president being
Speaker 4: literally able to say I want to change the foreign government.
Speaker 1: That's very different.
Speaker 4: Eisenhower would not have said that. Now. That doesn't mean
Speaker 4: Eisenhower would not have tried to do that, which he
Speaker 4: did do repeatedly. And Chuckie and I both know that's
Speaker 4: what shadow warfare is all about. So it's not that
Speaker 4: we didn't do regime change or attempt regime change before.
Speaker 1: We were just not kind of like in your face
Speaker 1: about regime change.
Speaker 2: Well, right, it was part of the strategy.
Speaker 3: Well, Larry, hang on a second, it was part of
Speaker 3: the strategy at one point to keep it hidden or
Speaker 3: to keep it keep the public guessing, so to speak,
Speaker 3: wall guess what the secret agenda would be implemented, regardless
Speaker 3: of what the President said, regardless of what the Congress said,
Speaker 3: regardless of what was on the surface. This is almost,
Speaker 3: I dare say a little more of an honest approach,
Speaker 3: where it's like there is no mystery about the current
Speaker 3: administration and what regimes they are supporting, and what regimes
Speaker 3: they'd like to see changed.
Speaker 2: They seem pretty upfront about it. But then again, could
Speaker 2: that be a.
Speaker 3: You know, a double reversal strategy, right where you pretend
Speaker 3: to support somebody and at some point you pull the
Speaker 3: rug out. Anyway, it's keeping everybody guessing. It's almost like,
Speaker 3: I don't know, the reboot of the Nixon madman theory,
Speaker 3: what will you do next? We're not sure regardless of
Speaker 3: what he says. And that's what it really came down to. Well,
Speaker 3: that and the terror bombing of Cambodia and et cetera.
Speaker 3: But you know, put that aside because we're back to
Speaker 3: talking about the stuff that Eisenhower was definitely involved in.
Speaker 3: So yeah, please proceed, But it's the public face versus
Speaker 3: what we would have done anyway. Yeah, it really hasn't
Speaker 3: changed in my mind, it's just a matter of what
Speaker 3: we're being told has changed.
Speaker 2: Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a style change plus I guess the other
Speaker 4: thing is it's a style change plus it. You know,
Speaker 4: basically it is riskier in a sense because you are
Speaker 4: risking the people that you're going to send out to
Speaker 4: do it, because you telegraphed your intention.
Speaker 1: Before, there was some caution. You know, it's like orational sory.
Speaker 4: I don't risk people by telling the guys what I'm
Speaker 4: going to do to them in advance, you know. And
Speaker 4: and when the President Trump says we're going to do
Speaker 4: ground strikes, you know immediately, well, you've got to understand
Speaker 4: that folks that you're going to do ground strikes against
Speaker 4: are going to watch for coming and you may lose
Speaker 4: more people because of that. So part of it, part
Speaker 4: of its style, part of it is being in your
Speaker 4: face about what you're going to do. But there's certainly
Speaker 4: there was a little more President and Ra was concerned
Speaker 4: about things like operational security. President Trump obviously doesn't understand
Speaker 4: it or is not concerned about it. So there's there's
Speaker 4: a difference in style, but there's also a difference in
Speaker 4: method The other big difference is rained. Then Trump is, well,
Speaker 4: I just blockade.
Speaker 3: Okay, hang on a second, on a second, I missed
Speaker 3: the difference in the methodology there. I know you're bringing
Speaker 3: up the blockade here, and that is a difference in
Speaker 3: methodology aside from the covert actions that took place before.
Speaker 3: But yeah, give us another run at that difference in methodology.
Speaker 1: Please, Well, I've got to get through about three steps
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 4: And the point the methodology that Eisenower used is, first,
Speaker 4: he did use military force. He set up a blockade
Speaker 4: up around Guatemala and actually stopped everybody ships, allies, adversaries,
Speaker 4: because the pretext for the blockade was to prevent Soviet
Speaker 4: block weapons going to the country. I mean, that was
Speaker 4: straightforward and actually in that sense was much more comprehensive
Speaker 4: than what President Trump is doing because he was actually
Speaker 4: seizing ship, holding them, searching them, and letting them go.
Speaker 4: But it applied to everybody. You know, he was It
Speaker 4: wasn't sinking anybody's ships. Yeah, you know, he was blockading them.
Speaker 4: Did one get sunk, that's another story. That's an accident,
Speaker 4: you know, row CIA officer, whatever. But you know, there
Speaker 4: was no over violence involved at that point in time.
Speaker 4: After that, it all became covert and it was all
Speaker 4: CIA regime change surrogates psychological war And by the way,
Speaker 4: psychological warfare implies that you're not being in your face,
Speaker 4: I would say from one of the things that you
Speaker 4: just said, you can't really you can do. Book threatening
Speaker 4: is not psychological warfare, you know, telling telling Maduro that
Speaker 4: you know, we're ousting your regime.
Speaker 1: That's not that's just, you know, just just a threat.
Speaker 4: That's not the way you do psychological warfare with the
Speaker 4: popular and actually it's one hundred and eighty degrees away
Speaker 4: from the way you do real psychological warfare. But the
Speaker 4: third step to this is that President Trump has a
Speaker 4: series of tools that he can use legally that Iceinower
Speaker 4: actually did not have. Iceinower would have required going to
Speaker 4: Congress and getting certain authorities to do what President Trump
Speaker 4: is doing right now. And this all goes back to
Speaker 4: the military authorizations that were passed by Congress after the
Speaker 4: nine to eleven attacks. And basically this set of authorizations
Speaker 4: allows the president to use military force at his command
Speaker 4: only with no authorization, no permission, against anybody he declares
Speaker 4: is supporting terrorist activities. Okay, now, now step back a step.
Speaker 4: He's been accusing the Venezuelans of narco terrorism. That's not
Speaker 4: really what that legislation was passed to address. It was
Speaker 4: addressed to, you know, it was addressed to go specifically
Speaker 4: against al Qaeda Iran, those folks that were were getting
Speaker 4: money and providing support to attacks that could go against
Speaker 4: the US physical attacks, not drugs. Okay, what was the
Speaker 4: most interesting thing I saw today was the fact that
Speaker 4: he is literally using those same authorities to seize a
Speaker 4: tanker that is owned by a Russian oligarch, part of
Speaker 4: Russia's shadow fleet. But it's not really Russia's shadow fleet.
Speaker 4: It's Russian oligarch's shadow fleets that they used to ship
Speaker 4: Russian oil Venezuelan oil and do this kind of under
Speaker 4: the table without regulation. So and the reason this ship
Speaker 4: itself is sanctioned today was because it was listed back
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty two as being used to carry oil
Speaker 4: that was sold to generate funds for Iran, and since
Speaker 4: Iran is on the terror list, the authorities allow the
Speaker 4: president to do that. It's just something that would have
Speaker 4: been impossible back in the Eesnower administration. Those authorities weren't there.
Speaker 4: And the fascinating thing is it literally has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with Venezuela except Venezuela and oil. And so the
Speaker 4: way I'm reading it at present is we're using the
Speaker 4: authorities anti terrorist authorities to sanction that oil and we're
Speaker 4: going to take it. And the President says, we're just
Speaker 4: claiming it. It's now ours we seized it on the
Speaker 4: high seas because it's sanctioned. And the fascinating thing about
Speaker 4: that is we could you could apply those He can
Speaker 4: apply those same authorities wherever he wants to. He's choosing
Speaker 4: to do it against Venezuela to put more pressure on Venezuela.
Speaker 4: But in essence, it was not Venezuela. A's all oil.
Speaker 1: It had been sold. We don't know if it was
Speaker 1: really going to Iran.
Speaker 4: We don't know if it was going to China, who's
Speaker 4: the big consumer of the oil. We don't know. I mean,
Speaker 4: they may know. The public doesn't know at this point.
Speaker 4: But it's kind of a fascinating ramp up of the
Speaker 4: authorities that and it's going back to these same authorities
Speaker 4: that are now it's twenty twenty five. These were passed
Speaker 4: fifteen years ago, more than fifteen years ago, to use
Speaker 4: them in an.
Speaker 1: Entirely different context.
Speaker 4: But one of the things we have to do is
Speaker 4: Congress has never stepped back to address any of those authorities.
Speaker 4: And this is part of the evolving a crule of
Speaker 4: military power to the presidency, where the president is the
Speaker 4: sole person to make the decision on those authorities and
Speaker 4: Congress is completely out of the picture. We ran into
Speaker 4: this situation in Vietnam alluded to that earlier check. Eventually
Speaker 4: Congress had to take it back and really revoke an
Speaker 4: authorization that had been given to Johnson, and they took
Speaker 4: it back from Nixon. But it just kind of shows
Speaker 4: you how the system can look the same but not
Speaker 4: be the same. But it's like it keeps going back
Speaker 4: to this overtime. It's constant.
Speaker 1: This cons a struggle.
Speaker 3: Well, I have a question here because based on what
Speaker 3: you're saying, right, isn't there a ninety day limits on
Speaker 3: these types of operations? Like isn't there some sort of
Speaker 3: limitation where at a certain point the president, even though
Speaker 3: he has the full authority to do XYZ, can only
Speaker 3: do it so long before having to go back to
Speaker 3: Congress and saying, either extend my authority or you have
Speaker 3: to sign off on this for me to continue with
Speaker 3: this action.
Speaker 2: Or am I reading that wrong.
Speaker 4: There was a point in time, back during the quote
Speaker 4: unquote War on Terror where that was true that he
Speaker 4: was supposed to have to go He could he could
Speaker 4: conduct a kind of emergency action today, but within a
Speaker 4: set period of time he had to go back and
Speaker 4: report to at least the oversight committees and Congress had
Speaker 4: to agree that that was the right thing to do. Okay,
Speaker 4: at least it went back to them, he had to
Speaker 4: report to them. There was some oversight, still unclear into
Speaker 4: my I mean, you can't take it back. I mean,
Speaker 4: that's the thing. If you exercise this and you wait
Speaker 4: ninety days and Congress says we don't agree with that,
Speaker 4: it's done, you know, and they can do another one
Speaker 4: whenever they want to do another one. So there was
Speaker 4: some oversight, but in terms of anything meaningful, that was
Speaker 4: more on the nature of requiring the president to explain
Speaker 4: his action right, not empowering them, you know, to do it,
Speaker 4: and they could not say, don't do this again.
Speaker 1: It was oversight, It wasn't control.
Speaker 3: So oversight after the fact as opposed to the ability
Speaker 3: to see because I've seen some other people analyzing this saying,
Speaker 3: at some point he's going to have to go to Congress,
Speaker 3: but it is unclear to me what he has to
Speaker 3: do there.
Speaker 2: And what you're saying is.
Speaker 3: What it effectively is is Okay, here's the oversight, and
Speaker 3: they can criticize it afterwards, but what's done is done,
Speaker 3: and there is nothing stopping him from saying, Okay, I
Speaker 3: got another emergency, and therefore I have to take another action,
Speaker 3: and the process begins again, and within ninety days Congress
Speaker 3: has to deal with it with the oversight committees again.
Speaker 3: And I saw this set and I said to myself,
Speaker 3: you know, something doesn't make sense here, But okay, the
Speaker 3: way you're explaining it also doesn't make practical sense in
Speaker 3: my mind. But at the same time, this is the
Speaker 3: way things are. I get it, Okay, I wanted to Yeah,
Speaker 3: thank you for clearing that up.
Speaker 4: This is the Trump approach. It's it's pragmatic in a way.
Speaker 4: I think there are two statements there that are both
Speaker 4: equally true. Trump has literally declared war against Venezuela, right,
Speaker 4: and it's threatened to send troops into Venezuela, you know,
Speaker 4: threatened military action. I think what what people are saying
Speaker 4: is if that really you know, no, he doesn't have
Speaker 4: the authority to declare war on his own, and he
Speaker 4: would have to go to Congress and and he would
Speaker 4: have to sell this, oh, it's really war because they're
Speaker 4: drug running is causing tens of thousands.
Speaker 1: Of casual he'd have to sell it.
Speaker 4: So I think that's what those folks are saying, because
Speaker 4: he's been talking that way, you know, like we want
Speaker 4: regime change, and if we don't have regime change, you're
Speaker 4: a threat and we're going to war, We're gonna military action.
Speaker 4: What happened today is totally different, and that's the fascinating
Speaker 4: thing about it. It is very cunning in a way
Speaker 4: because this has nothing to this wasn't military action against Venezuela.
Speaker 4: Involves Venezuela and oil, right And in a sense, it's
Speaker 4: doing what the the Ukraine is doing to the Russian
Speaker 4: uh you know black oil fleet uh by by sinking
Speaker 4: their ships. You know, they're shaking these these ghost ships. Basically,
Speaker 4: nobody's gonna want to risk one of those vocal oil characters.
Speaker 4: They're not going to get insurance. So this is a
Speaker 4: way of reverse pressure on a Venezuela by doing the
Speaker 4: same thing to venezuel Wala, who's really going to want
Speaker 4: to carry Venezuelan oil if we're going to play this
Speaker 4: sanction card on all the shipments that go out. On
Speaker 4: the other hand, what if China, who is probably the
Speaker 4: biggest the US and China are the biggest consumers of
Speaker 4: venezuzuel and crude. So what if China starts sailing Chinese
Speaker 4: flags vessels into Venezuela? Going to do that to China?
Speaker 1: I doubt it.
Speaker 4: What about the US companies that are buying Venezuelan and oil?
Speaker 4: What are they going to It's it's so, it's it's
Speaker 4: two different ones. We're talking about oversight in terms of
Speaker 4: declaring war and military action.
Speaker 1: The other this is an anti terrorist action.
Speaker 4: Because I was I was somewhat confused by who released
Speaker 4: the footage, and it's sort of like, oh no, it's
Speaker 4: not a Department of Defense, it's a Department of war.
Speaker 4: Whatever this is I mean out of the the part
Speaker 4: of the government that enforces sanctions.
Speaker 3: So it's different game, right, Okay, So it's difficult to
Speaker 3: sort out because the public outcry does not match the facts,
Speaker 3: to be honest with you, And that's what keeps going
Speaker 3: on here regarding all of this, and this is all intermingled,
Speaker 3: but quite frankly, it's actually separate things going on. And
Speaker 3: this idea with the oil, I mean, one does wonder though,
Speaker 3: what do you think the benefit is here in the strategy?
Speaker 2: I mean free oil?
Speaker 3: What you know, are we going to just be able
Speaker 3: to do this it will you know, how long is
Speaker 3: the Russian flag ship's going to put up with it
Speaker 3: before something is done?
Speaker 2: You know, I got a lot of questions, what about you?
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: One of the fascinating things here is again and that's
Speaker 4: why I was confused at the very beginning, because I
Speaker 4: saw this news story. It says Attorney General Pam post
Speaker 4: a forty five second video of the operation on the freighter.
Speaker 4: Point why in the heck is the United States Attorney
Speaker 4: General posting footage of a military helicopter line dropping troops
Speaker 4: and you know what, right, But that's because it's being
Speaker 4: approached as a as a legal it's seizure of assets.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: It's just you know, a little more dramatic than having
Speaker 4: you know, the FBI walk into an office and sees
Speaker 4: company records or whatever. This is the Attorney general. W
Speaker 4: it's a little scary using armed forces to enforce legal sanctions.
Speaker 3: That's the confusing part. Yeah, that's the confusing part about
Speaker 3: the headlines though, Larry, because look, you have drug interdiction
Speaker 3: okay being run through the same type of offices here, right,
Speaker 3: and it's about homeland security now, so that's another issue,
Speaker 3: and you know they're not just seating, but they're not
Speaker 3: seizing the boats.
Speaker 2: They're just blowing them up.
Speaker 3: So I'm going, well, it looks like a military you know,
Speaker 3: it looks like a duck walks like a duck. It
Speaker 3: seems like a military action, but it is a military
Speaker 3: action in you know, operation, but it's not being run
Speaker 3: by the military. Is basically like in other words, this
Speaker 3: old thing with Pete Hegseth.
Speaker 2: You know, cheering it on and all.
Speaker 3: He's not the one who's making the decision then, because
Speaker 3: if it's about interdiction, right and the legal process for
Speaker 3: putting a stop to something that's damaging, then that's not
Speaker 3: his venue, right, I mean, that's not under his control.
Speaker 4: Sorry, it is, Chuck, because they're doing both at the
Speaker 4: same time. As far as those boats are concerned. That's
Speaker 4: that didn't you know, the Attorney General didn't declare war
Speaker 4: on drugs. You know that basically, we're we're taking there,
Speaker 4: we're doing interduction out of the Department of Defense. And
Speaker 4: I'm still gonna call it that because that's what it is.
Speaker 4: We're doing military action as if those were I mean,
Speaker 4: the line that's being given is each one of those.
Speaker 4: And I think the President said this, you know, each
Speaker 4: one of those boats carries enough drugs to kill twenty
Speaker 4: five thousand Americans. So it's the same as if we
Speaker 4: if we saw, you know, a guided missile coming to
Speaker 4: the United States. It's the same as if we saw, uh,
Speaker 4: you know, a hijacked aircraft coming to the United States.
Speaker 4: We have the military authority and homeland you know, Homeland
Speaker 4: Defense to shoot it down, to kill it, to eliminate
Speaker 4: that threat. So the boats are being covered as a
Speaker 4: Department of Defense action. We're defending the homeland those little boats.
Speaker 4: This is a totally different type of operation and they're
Speaker 4: happening at the same time, which is going to confuse everybody.
Speaker 1: And of course the President is not going to describe
Speaker 1: it that way.
Speaker 4: No, that way the people who.
Speaker 2: For him do. No, he can't describe it that way.
Speaker 2: And here's why, Larry.
Speaker 3: Look, there is if you were talking about a guided missile,
Speaker 3: you could say, based on its trajectory it was on
Speaker 3: its way here, you could say that we have a
Speaker 3: sufficient amount of confidence that it was going to be
Speaker 3: used against us.
Speaker 2: The fact is that even if.
Speaker 3: There are drugs on these boats, which by the way,
Speaker 3: I haven't seen proven publicly. But let's just say there
Speaker 3: were drugs on those boats, how.
Speaker 2: Do you even know that was going to be delivered
Speaker 2: to the United States?
Speaker 3: Because as far as I know, we don't have a
Speaker 3: grand history of this coming from that country, Venezuela.
Speaker 2: So where is your you know what I'm saying, where's
Speaker 2: your proof on that?
Speaker 4: Not you?
Speaker 3: But what I'm saying is, if you wanted to treat
Speaker 3: it as a weapon being deployed against us, how do
Speaker 3: we know it's being deployed against us and not some
Speaker 3: other nation, in which case it's not our problem.
Speaker 2: You know, That's all I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, got Historically, historically there's president for this.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: Historically what would have done was the president would have
Speaker 4: had done a briefing or Congress. Now it might just
Speaker 4: have been the committees. It might have just been done
Speaker 4: in a skiff. But it's the same thing that we
Speaker 4: did on a rank. Okay, And I had to offer
Speaker 4: that up, the same thing we did on a RAQ.
Speaker 1: You know, a RAQ.
Speaker 4: We have a briefing and somebody goes in and does
Speaker 4: a very nice briefing that says, okay, a Saddam Hustin
Speaker 4: is building these chemical factories weapons of mass destructions. Here's
Speaker 4: the proof of it.
Speaker 1: Not later we learned none of that was true.
Speaker 4: But okay, but you go in and you do a
Speaker 4: briefing and you offer your evidence, and the Congress of
Speaker 4: the United States supports you or doesn't, and generally it would.
Speaker 4: But it shows that at least that you have an
Speaker 4: obligation to the people's representatives to engage them and involve them.
Speaker 4: That's not being done at all. That could have been done,
Speaker 4: and actually it could have been. What boggles my mind
Speaker 4: is considering the majorities in play and everything, it would
Speaker 4: have been easy to do. You can do it forty
Speaker 4: five minutes, you can get Congress to authorize it, and
Speaker 4: you're good. And it's it's fascinating to me that the
Speaker 4: President doesn't even feel the need to go through the
Speaker 4: I won't say, you know, go through the process, involve Congress.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't blame him at this point, because when
Speaker 3: has the Republican controlled Congress fought him on anything?
Speaker 4: So you know, he's got a reasonable and that would yeah, afternoon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just saying it's a reasonable assumption on his
Speaker 3: part that I don't need their approval because they're going
Speaker 3: to give it to me anyway.
Speaker 1: So you know, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2: Okay, you know, so I at you know, here here.
Speaker 3: Is me not even thinking that Trump is doing something wrong.
Speaker 3: He's doing something practical and cutting out a middleman of anything.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know. But it's just it's a little confusing
Speaker 2: to me.
Speaker 3: Because again I would say that, you know, you'd have
Speaker 3: to show before you do something like this, but I
Speaker 3: have I have these things a little backwards apparently.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing that that history keeps teaching me
Speaker 3: is that, you know, the the good government in the
Speaker 3: textbook approach is not necessarily what it is we're looking
Speaker 3: at here, because this is pretty this is pretty rough,
Speaker 3: and this can get even darker and more twisted as
Speaker 3: we go on. And also, you know what about angering
Speaker 3: those Russian oligarchs, you know, and getting that whole thing
Speaker 3: started up again? Are we looking at a problem with
Speaker 3: Russia in the near future or whoever that oil was
Speaker 3: intended for?
Speaker 2: If we're seizing it, you know what do you think there?
Speaker 4: Certainly one of the things that's going to happen is
Speaker 4: and it's of course, the price of oil has been
Speaker 4: going down this afternoon after this was hit the news.
Speaker 4: It's starting to go back up because obviously, you know,
Speaker 4: nobody knows what is there's no stability, nobody knows what's
Speaker 4: going to happen next. I would say Putin, regardless of
Speaker 4: the oligarchs, will be quite happy.
Speaker 1: But about this, this is, this is.
Speaker 4: Entirely in line with Putin's agenda because it will increase
Speaker 4: the sensitivities and the nervousness about oil supplies and it'll
Speaker 4: boost prices again.
Speaker 1: Which he desperately needs.
Speaker 4: So if anybody's happy about this afternoon, it's probably mister Putin.
Speaker 5: There you go.
Speaker 2: So what else do we need to understand about this?
Speaker 3: Because, like I said, these headlines are coming fast and furious.
Speaker 2: But I'm telling you that the regular media is.
Speaker 3: Doing a bad job explaining this because I mean I've
Speaker 3: tried to sample it across the spectrum, so to speak,
Speaker 3: and it's just you know, they're off on their own
Speaker 3: tangency or not putting it all together, so you know,
Speaker 3: they're not understanding. And this is always the problem, by
Speaker 3: the way, with reporting on you know, political actions in
Speaker 3: real time. They get this very narrow point of view
Speaker 3: going about what's happening, and then they don't explain, well,
Speaker 3: you know, that's going to actually cause these connected things
Speaker 3: to start to occur or to become activated, or to
Speaker 3: become an issue.
Speaker 2: They never do that.
Speaker 3: It's always this where laser focused on this one problem
Speaker 3: and they oversimplify it. They don't understand that, you know,
Speaker 3: this is going to affect other things. Ever, you know,
Speaker 3: with their outrage or their support, it doesn't matter. It's
Speaker 3: always this very narrow vision, very much a tunnel vision
Speaker 3: media that we're dealing with when they're reporting.
Speaker 2: On these things, even Larry, So, I mean, what do
Speaker 2: we do about that here?
Speaker 3: Because obviously you're looking at this from a much broader
Speaker 3: perspective than your average you know, media analyst or talking
Speaker 3: head they're bringing on. I mean, I haven't looked at
Speaker 3: CNN lately, but I'm sure Spider's up there already. You know,
Speaker 3: if he's still alive, I don't even know. But you know,
Speaker 3: the different generals former this guy, former that guy. What
Speaker 3: do you see, sir? And then you know, and they're
Speaker 3: doing their narrow, narrow minded approach. So you know, what,
Speaker 3: what are we to learn about this and to put
Speaker 3: together for ourselves if we want to be you know,
Speaker 3: ahead of the curve, so to speak, and understand the
Speaker 3: actual implications of this to fall out the intended consequences
Speaker 3: and unintended consequences, Cause these things do not happen in
Speaker 3: a vacuum, none of them do.
Speaker 2: So you know, I don't know. I probably sound like
Speaker 2: I'm rambling, Larry, I'm sorry, but I mean.
Speaker 3: That's where it's at though, because I'm frustrated. It's like, Okay,
Speaker 3: you gave me your narrow point of view, I get it.
Speaker 3: What about the fact that you just mentioned, you know,
Speaker 3: four nations and one shot that all have different agendas
Speaker 3: that might be interlocked on this one point.
Speaker 2: But this is going to affect more then.
Speaker 3: You know, somebody's not going to get paid with this
Speaker 3: oil seizure, right, somebody's missing money now who laid out
Speaker 3: money in order to Okay, So just that alone, somebody's
Speaker 3: going to want some of their money back, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean. And some nation is going to suffer
Speaker 3: for this, So they're going to have a change in
Speaker 3: attitude or trade or whatever with us. Things are going
Speaker 3: to start to happen here that aren't going to seem
Speaker 3: connected because they're not showing us any of the connections
Speaker 3: in their analysis. So what do you say to that,
Speaker 3: I mean, do you see where this is going.
Speaker 4: Yes, what would what would help is if they did
Speaker 4: something very simple like made up a list of you know,
Speaker 4: six parties that are going to be who's impacted by this,
Speaker 4: and that's not unusual news. It's sort of like, what
Speaker 4: is what is the impact of this action? You know,
Speaker 4: how is China going to react? How's Russia going to react?
Speaker 4: And literally kind of bulleted out and show that there
Speaker 4: will be different impacts on different people. What they're the
Speaker 4: media is talking about. And I think Trump is happy
Speaker 4: about this is he's putting it all in the context
Speaker 4: of Maduro in Venezuela, right and basically presenting the fact
Speaker 4: that I'm putting all these pieces to pressure him into
Speaker 4: leaving Venezuela and regime change. So and and I'm even
Speaker 4: there was a story Yesterday's saying and by the way,
Speaker 4: here's the plan for how essentially the US is going
Speaker 4: to take over and control of Venezuela, which isn't healthy,
Speaker 4: and he telegraphed it. You know, maybe you even have
Speaker 4: a plan. But it's sort of like, oh, lord, how
Speaker 4: are we going to cope with the refusees? How are
Speaker 4: we going to do this? And that it is all
Speaker 4: of these things are coming out as if it's an
Speaker 4: organized strategy, where it's anything but an organized strategy. It's
Speaker 4: and he loves chaos, and sometimes chaos.
Speaker 1: Does work for you.
Speaker 4: So, but what is not coming out? And I've seen
Speaker 4: only a couple of places. How does this really play
Speaker 4: in Venezuela? You know?
Speaker 1: Was there an opposition party to Maduro in Venezuela? Yes?
Speaker 4: Should there be?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 4: Is he a dictator?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 1: You know, but how is this going to play inside Venezuela?
Speaker 4: Who are who are the powers in Venezuela?
Speaker 1: Are they going to be able to leverage this?
Speaker 4: Not leverage this? One of the interesting things is when
Speaker 4: you compare this with regime change in UH, the earlier
Speaker 4: programs that I was talking about with the events over
Speaker 4: show in Guatemala. Compare Venezuela with Guatemala, and it would
Speaker 4: be fascinating to see the major differences. The Guatemalan regime
Speaker 4: was democratically elected, it was popularly supported. The only people
Speaker 4: that objected to it were a few rebellious army officers
Speaker 4: and the United States, And from that context it was
Speaker 4: somewhat easy to ast him. It was you know, really
Speaker 4: the leverage was on our side, As I understand it.
Speaker 4: In Venezuela, Maduro has a very much stronger position.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like Putin in Russia.
Speaker 4: You know, he has authoritarian control over the media, he
Speaker 4: has his own military forces. The military is not going
Speaker 4: to defect from him.
Speaker 1: He's if I.
Speaker 4: Believe the story, he's heavily support worded by the drug
Speaker 4: lords who have their own forces. And if I object
Speaker 4: to this, you know, he may They'll probably take me
Speaker 4: out first. So he has a much stronger internal base. Plus, literally,
Speaker 4: he has the biggest crude oil supply of heavy crude
Speaker 4: in the world. Now, unless he is intrinsically stupid, somebody
Speaker 4: is going to want to do a deal for that oil,
Speaker 4: and somebody is going to get it. And you know what,
Speaker 4: if China wants it, China is going to get it.
Speaker 4: And Trump is not going to stop chying. So this
Speaker 4: this all sounds good on a short term and when
Speaker 4: you put it through, it all against the wall. Right now, boy,
Speaker 4: we're really implying a tense of pressure against Venezuela. The
Speaker 4: question I'd like to see the media address is is
Speaker 4: that really true. That's the way it looks from out here,
Speaker 4: What does it look like from inside Venezuela. And I
Speaker 4: got to tell you that, you know, seizing Venezuela and
Speaker 4: oil if Maduro was claiming that we were looking like
Speaker 4: a bunch of colonial colonials. Again, you know, the US
Speaker 4: wants to just seize Latin American resources. Uh, we're certainly
Speaker 4: feeding that agenda.
Speaker 2: Yeah, point taking you know. Okay, So yes, we did
Speaker 2: sees it.
Speaker 1: There's no denying it. See it's sees the boat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean we.
Speaker 1: Sees the oil wells.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean what comes next?
Speaker 3: There you go?
Speaker 2: And is the threat of what what is next? Really
Speaker 2: the strategy?
Speaker 3: So this is kind of a new way of doing something,
Speaker 3: but using a lot of old tools seems like to me.
Speaker 3: And look, I I hate to do this, but I
Speaker 3: know it's not Trump who came up with this, but
Speaker 3: his people did. And this is a multifaceted approach to
Speaker 3: dealing with a few different issues in one shot. And uh,
Speaker 3: and in one program that's difficult to suss out what's happening,
Speaker 3: which kind of makes sense. It's almost it's another form
Speaker 3: of the plausible deniability from before, right where you know, yeah,
Speaker 3: try and sort this out. And they can't because again,
Speaker 3: like I said, I think media everywhere does a very
Speaker 3: narrow sort of you know, they have to narrow things
Speaker 3: down in order to explain this, so they don't have
Speaker 3: time to explain it all. They don't have the wherewithal
Speaker 3: to explain the the you know, consequences of it, whether
Speaker 3: intended or unintended. So therefore these things are going to
Speaker 3: be said and done before anybody actually explains what happened.
Speaker 3: That's the way I'm seeing it.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you gressed.
Speaker 4: I think you grabbed one part of that right. This
Speaker 4: just raw gass on my part. Okay, My raw guess
Speaker 4: is that he went out to all his major you know,
Speaker 4: department heads and just literally said, talk to your people,
Speaker 4: and what can your organization, what can justice, what can
Speaker 4: homeland or what can do in you guys? Tell me
Speaker 4: what each one of you can do to make life
Speaker 4: hard for the Venezuelans and maybe to the CIA, although
Speaker 4: at this point in time, Lord, the last people that
Speaker 4: would be able to operate inside you know, Venezuela would
Speaker 4: be the CIA. But I suspect he just went out
Speaker 4: and did a shopping list and he's doing it all
Speaker 4: and that's you know, maybe there is something to be
Speaker 4: said for Kathos theory, but it depends on Maduro. See,
Speaker 4: the interesting thing was when you compare the two. In Guatemala,
Speaker 4: our Bentz literally was not a fighter. He was a progressive, populist,
Speaker 4: democratic elected. You know, he didn't get there because he
Speaker 4: led a military force and he had a private military force.
Speaker 1: Maduro's a different guy.
Speaker 4: He's tough, so I don't certainly you're not going to
Speaker 4: break him the way they did our bents. You know,
Speaker 4: is there something in this that may break him or
Speaker 4: does it just make him? Does it make him more dictatorial?
Speaker 4: Does it make him you know, I don't know, but.
Speaker 9: Certainly their opportunities I'll be faceted.
Speaker 1: Right now, he's literally gone and claimed that the US
Speaker 1: is pirates.
Speaker 9: So I think one of the things that he will
Speaker 9: be doing is up to now, he has actually.
Speaker 4: Been rejected by most of the Latin American leaders because
Speaker 4: he is a bad guy, no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: But it's going to be hard for them, harder and
Speaker 1: harder the more.
Speaker 4: We do things like this to totally reject his You know,
Speaker 4: they're playing the old colonial game again, guys that first
Speaker 4: they're coming after me, next they'll come after you, right
Speaker 4: and for.
Speaker 9: That matter, Trump's new are the New US New US.
Speaker 4: Strategic Policy that was published this week literally says that
Speaker 4: we don't care about the rest of the world, but
Speaker 4: we're really interested in all of the Americas.
Speaker 3: Right, So I guess that's a good way to sort
Speaker 3: of almost tie a bow around this whole thing as
Speaker 3: we go forward. Hopefully you'll send me a couple of
Speaker 3: links though I can accrue with the show notes because
Speaker 3: you referenced a couple of articles and reports here. But
Speaker 3: even if you don't, I mean, it's it's one way
Speaker 3: to observe it, even if you're digging into this. I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't even know that this is at the top
Speaker 3: of the headlines at this point, but probably not because
Speaker 3: the latest epsteam email gets it, you know, all the
Speaker 3: time and whatnot.
Speaker 4: But yeah, check for real time. Don't look at CNN.
Speaker 4: They're doing a terrible job right at the moment.
Speaker 9: CBS really is doing the best news real time and
Speaker 9: death reporting what I was saying, And I'll send you
Speaker 9: the links.
Speaker 3: Okay, great, look, I'll look at it and definitely include
Speaker 3: it with the show notes. But I mean, is there
Speaker 3: anything else we need to understand about this before I
Speaker 3: close out with you for this very interesting way discussion,
Speaker 3: which I'm really grateful that you went into it with me,
Speaker 3: because I'm telling you, I'm having trouble with clarity on
Speaker 3: this mess, you know, because it's just I do see
Speaker 3: the narrow points and I'm having trouble stitching them together.
Speaker 2: Still, even with what you explained, I still have a
Speaker 2: little trouble understanding how it is that.
Speaker 3: You know, it almost looks like they're they're not worried
Speaker 3: about what come, you know, like we'll deal with tomorrow
Speaker 3: when tomorrow comes, and we're going to deal with this
Speaker 3: this way today. It seems like a very short sighted
Speaker 3: kind of strategy to me, But maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm willing to.
Speaker 3: Admit that, you know, something new would be something new,
Speaker 3: and maybe this is something new, but I'm seeing a
Speaker 3: lot of the old toys and tools being implemented here. So,
Speaker 3: you know, makes me worry a little bit about our
Speaker 3: actual security in case we do actually anger some other
Speaker 3: nation in this process who might get serious about it
Speaker 3: real quick.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: I think a couple of things to watch, just this
Speaker 4: last reminder, look at who's Trump announces everything on true
Speaker 4: social so it's not like you had any organized mechanism
Speaker 4: at the White House anymore to consolidate the news and
Speaker 4: put it together.
Speaker 1: And you know that just doesn't exist.
Speaker 4: So you're gonna hear things from him directly from whatever
Speaker 4: his view. I think point is to look, now he's
Speaker 4: got two senior leaders, you know, Secretary of Defense and Justice,
Speaker 4: right who are have tools that they can you know,
Speaker 4: Justice has nolitary force at its disposal now like.
Speaker 9: It's never had before.
Speaker 4: And so you have Bondie Hexpeth both look at who's
Speaker 4: what announcement. One of the questions you have to ask
Speaker 4: are they in competition with each other? Are they coordinating?
Speaker 4: Or are they just running a game? And the end
Speaker 4: interesting player that's not in any of this. We have
Speaker 4: like a Secretary of State, you know, Rubio, who's not
Speaker 4: even this game.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do we even have a statemow.
Speaker 4: But keep your eyes on, you know, between Bondi and
Speaker 4: Hasbeth because they're running things specification and look.
Speaker 9: At the way they're describing what they're doing to try
Speaker 9: to separate it right.
Speaker 3: Fair enough, So look go over to Larry dash Hancock
Speaker 3: dot com, which is where and I'll give you a
Speaker 3: link in the show notes where you can keep track.
Speaker 3: I'm sure you'll you'll be blogging on this somewhat in
Speaker 3: the next few days, right.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely right, So keep track of it over there, guys.
Speaker 3: But I'm telling you it to me, it's very confusing still,
Speaker 3: and I you know, with whole judgment on some things,
Speaker 3: but man, oh man, you know, when it looks it's
Speaker 3: like a certain thing, maybe it is a certain thing.
Speaker 3: But keep track of what Larry's got to say, because
Speaker 3: it's giving me a different idea about it, and hopefully
Speaker 3: it's given you guys something else to think about outside
Speaker 3: of the very narrow minded stuff we're seeing out of
Speaker 3: most reporting. Although Larry says CBS is doing a good job,
Speaker 3: so I got to go check that out too, and
Speaker 3: see I'm a little surprised. But then again, you know,
Speaker 3: they've also changed up their management all over there, so
Speaker 3: who knows. Maybe Ellison's good for CBS, huh or whatever
Speaker 3: mega corporation that's going to become when they merge all
Speaker 3: together with Netflix and everything.
Speaker 2: But stay tuned for that too. You never know.
Speaker 3: Anyway, the Ocelli effect has done Larry Hancock the author,
Speaker 3: and next time we'll probably talk about something slightly more
Speaker 3: conventional unless the news dictates otherwise, and if not, hey,
Speaker 3: you get definitely got something different here tonight, and hopefully
Speaker 3: we all learn something together.
Speaker 2: I'm ocelly, you are the effect going to Chuck o'celly.
Speaker 8: You're shark Orchelle, you know it's Shark Shelley.
Speaker 1: You are about to embark upon the great crusades.
Speaker 7: The eyes of the world are upon you, the hopes
Speaker 7: and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with him,
Speaker 7: in company with our brave allies and brothers in arms
Speaker 7: on other front.
Speaker 2: Your task will not see an easy one.
Speaker 7: Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle heartened.
Speaker 7: He will fight savage man demand the tide has turned.
Speaker 2: The free men of the world.
Speaker 7: Are marching together to victory. Good luck, and let us
Speaker 7: all be seeking the blessing of Almighty God upon this
Speaker 7: great and noble undertaking.