Speaker 1: So let me let me just start with Tulsi Gabbert,
Speaker 1: because you served as CI director for four years. What
Speaker 1: would having her in charge or in the role of
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence mean for the intelligence apparatus of
Speaker 1: the US government.
Speaker 2: I think there's so much uncertainty about what miss Gabert
Speaker 2: would bring to the job. As you pointed out, she
Speaker 2: has been an apologist for vam putinshar Asad. So many
Speaker 2: of her substant comments as well as previous actions, have
Speaker 2: called into question whether or not she has a good
Speaker 2: understanding of global politics in the US role.
Speaker 3: There this guy, the leader of jab At al Nusra
Speaker 3: in Syria that built the Islama fascist calife for Abu
Speaker 3: Baker Aubag Daddy and caused a raq War three, the
Speaker 3: gun that framed Donald Trump for Russia Gate, has opinions
Speaker 3: on TV.
Speaker 4: He also back channeled the the what I think was
Speaker 4: the stand down orders on the Capitol police for J
Speaker 4: six Like about that. I read about it, So I
Speaker 4: don't know if it's one hundred percent accurate.
Speaker 3: But I ain't saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 4: That one sure, sure I wouldn't would have pass.
Speaker 3: Him at all to Look, he was a communist in
Speaker 3: his youth and then as as CIA director, he's guilty
Speaker 3: of high treason. And I don't mean in a sense
Speaker 3: of like Benedict Donald decided to spell out for the
Speaker 3: British like change his loyalty to them. It's not that
Speaker 3: Brennan was loyal to Al Qaeda, but he spent billions
Speaker 3: of dollars back in them in Syria for years until
Speaker 3: it blew up into the Caliphate. The fact that he
Speaker 3: was able to frame Donald Trump for treason after that
Speaker 3: ought to tell you anything and everything you need to
Speaker 3: know about how corrupt the American system is.
Speaker 4: That now who he works for?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and in almost twenty twenty five he gets to
Speaker 3: go on TV and say what's right and wrong about who?
Speaker 3: You've got to be kidding me. This guy's absolute disgrace.
Speaker 3: Him and his entire family should have been banished from
Speaker 3: America forever. He should be buried under the Supermax in Florence, Colorado,
Speaker 3: and he will sit up there.
Speaker 4: Sorry, I was just gonna say hel. He also bragged
Speaker 4: about back channeling, basically saying that he would not carry
Speaker 4: out Donald Trump's orders and he was back channeling to
Speaker 4: China in the last two months of Trump's presidency. Like
Speaker 4: I mean, granted, if this is a general or whatever
Speaker 4: that I like, that's Oh you're thinking about Milly on
Speaker 4: that one, right, Oh was that Mark Milly? Okay, my mistake,
Speaker 4: So wait, let me.
Speaker 3: Go back on Brennan because I want to talk about that.
Speaker 3: Actually that's important. But yeah, on Brennan. Brennan also, you know,
Speaker 3: was involved. I'm not saying he directed the entire thing
Speaker 3: because a lot of it was above board, and I'm
Speaker 3: not there's not solid reporting on CIA's entire role in this,
Speaker 3: although they clearly were involved, but he clearly had something
Speaker 3: to do with the Midon revolution of twenty fourteen, and
Speaker 3: most importantly, after the protesters had seized the government buildings
Speaker 3: in the east of the country and after the after
Speaker 3: the loss of Crimea in late March and into April
Speaker 3: of twenty fourteen, it was John Brennan who got on
Speaker 3: a plane and went to Kiev and told the interim
Speaker 3: government to launch the war what they call the Anti
Speaker 3: Terror Operation ATO was a massive They launched a war
Speaker 3: against There had been no active war committed by the
Speaker 3: dissenting side whatsoever right there, and it was Obama sent
Speaker 3: Brennan to do that too. So not only is he
Speaker 3: the leader of al Qaeda in Syria, he's the one who,
Speaker 3: really he's the one man most responsible outside of Kiev
Speaker 3: for Kiev's decision to launch that war against the dissenters
Speaker 3: of the don Bass in the East in April of
Speaker 3: twenty fourteen. I have it in the book all the
Speaker 3: exact dates he was in town. I'm going to say
Speaker 3: he was there and gone on the twelfth, and the
Speaker 3: war started on the fourteenth.
Speaker 4: Well, I for those that don't know, Scott has a
Speaker 4: great new book out called Provoked. I've plugged it on
Speaker 4: my show one hundred times because I read it probably
Speaker 4: a year and a half ago. But it is now available, so.
Speaker 3: Oh, you got to reread it. It's totally different now, man,
Speaker 3: it's way better.
Speaker 4: I planned to reread it for the record, but I mean,
Speaker 4: just the original draft I read was fantastic. Thanks you
Speaker 4: long things. It armed me in a way that made
Speaker 4: me a real problem for people because they they're pushing
Speaker 4: all of this bullshit narrative and I'm like, oh no,
Speaker 4: actually I don't have the recall that Dave does. But still,
Speaker 4: the just the litany of evidence, particularly from the New
Speaker 4: York Times and from State Department officials and the League
Speaker 4: cables and everything else. It's just like it's such a
Speaker 4: damning case. I really don't know how people continue to
Speaker 4: argue against this position, but they do. Anyways, I wanted
Speaker 4: to ask you about the footage that's very famous of
Speaker 4: John McCain and Lindsay Graham. I think it's twenty seventeen
Speaker 4: where they're talking about next year, we take the fight
Speaker 4: to them. Obviously, the fight had already been taken to
Speaker 4: the don Boss prior to that. So do you know
Speaker 4: what they were specifically talking about and what operations happened
Speaker 4: as a consequence of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And not to correct you, but just importantly for
Speaker 3: their timeline here, this is in December of sixteen, so
Speaker 3: this is when Obama's the lame duck and Trump has
Speaker 3: won the election and won the election on explicitly getting
Speaker 3: along with Russia, and he ostensibly should be in charge.
Speaker 3: As you think John McCain would understand, since he ran
Speaker 3: for president. I think he would think that if he
Speaker 3: was the president, he would be the one to decide,
Speaker 3: not some senator. But they go over there and they
Speaker 3: brought Klobahar with them and they I think really all
Speaker 3: they're really refering to is what they're going to attempt
Speaker 3: to influence Trump to do in as many ways as
Speaker 3: they can, and their pledge to make sure to do
Speaker 3: their part in the US Senate to appropriate money for
Speaker 3: the weapons to go to them, and just showing that,
Speaker 3: like whatever you may have heard about the electoral process
Speaker 3: happening in America and the new president's incoming president's position
Speaker 3: on this issue, we promise you we're not going to
Speaker 3: sell you out. We're still on your side. And really
Speaker 3: the new president's wishes be damned. This is the year,
Speaker 3: Graham's as the year of offense. It's time to escalate now.
Speaker 3: And which, of course all of this was kind of
Speaker 3: productive and horrible for the people of Ukraine in every way.
Speaker 4: Was was there a market increase in fighting after that meeting?
Speaker 4: Do you know?
Speaker 3: And you know, I don't know about that, Like i'd
Speaker 3: have to go and correlate like ossee reports about you
Speaker 3: know exactly this, and you know correlation there. I don't
Speaker 3: know about that.
Speaker 4: But I just want to point out real quick Trump did.
Speaker 3: Go along though, I mean, they busted his balls, so
Speaker 3: you know, they framed him for treason we could talk
Speaker 3: about that, but they they they essentially cornered Trump into
Speaker 3: escalating arm sales to Ukraine to prove what a trader
Speaker 3: he wasn't And so Obama had sold them some weapons
Speaker 3: that Trump sold them much more and really helped to
Speaker 3: cause the problem that broke out under Biden. Not that
Speaker 3: Biden did the right thing for his first year in power,
Speaker 3: he absolutely did not, but Trump's government And believe me,
Speaker 3: I have a whole section of Russia Gate in the book,
Speaker 3: so I'm the first one to say it was the
Speaker 3: US government versus their elected president on the issue of
Speaker 3: Russia for four years there still he was the man
Speaker 3: in the chair, and if he'd been strong enough in
Speaker 3: his decision making, he could have had his way, and
Speaker 3: he gave in.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, I totally agree, and a lot of people are
Speaker 4: theorizing that the current increase in I guess provocations over
Speaker 4: the past ten days are about essentially cornering Trump in
Speaker 4: so that he can't exit, because if you get putin
Speaker 4: to do some sort of crazy escalation as a response
Speaker 4: before Trump even takes power, well he comes into power,
Speaker 4: he can't immediately negotiate peace. He's going to have to
Speaker 4: be the tough guy, right, I've always viewed what well,
Speaker 4: I mean maybe, I mean that could be the thesis,
Speaker 4: right for the reason behind some of these escalations. I've
Speaker 4: always theorized that the entire Russian collusion hoax, as we've detailed.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to go through all the evidence, but
Speaker 4: was about basically realizing that Donald Trump is probably going
Speaker 4: to look at this conflict, or look at the relationship
Speaker 4: that we have with Russia and not want to escalate things,
Speaker 4: not want to give Ukraine munitions, and probably not want
Speaker 4: to inch ever closer towards war with Russia. Do you
Speaker 4: think that's what Russia collusion was all about. I mean, yes,
Speaker 4: it's about getting Hillary Clinton into the White House, but
Speaker 4: I think they pivot and then they use it immediately
Speaker 4: to try and continue the plan that would have been
Speaker 4: pushed by Hillary Clinton. Anyways, Is is that your read
Speaker 4: of it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's interesting because they should have framed
Speaker 3: him for something else, right, If Russia was their problem,
Speaker 3: they should have fraightened him for treason with Turkey or something.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but they kind of gave away the
Speaker 3: whole game of what their problem was and what they
Speaker 3: were trying to do they hurt him, And he should
Speaker 3: have played mister businessman knowing well, first of all, he
Speaker 3: should have known what he was up against, and then
Speaker 3: second of all, he therefore then should have played his
Speaker 3: cards much closer to his chest, and he could have said, listen,
Speaker 3: I think that we can have a reasonable relationship with
Speaker 3: Russia in the same kind of way that Barack Obama
Speaker 3: had said it. We're going to try to do this
Speaker 3: reset and we're going to try to figure out if
Speaker 3: we can get along. But he's not like that. He's
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. So everything he says is such hyperbally that
Speaker 3: it drove them nuts because you know, first of all,
Speaker 3: he's just saying that everything they ever did was wrong,
Speaker 3: because that's his argument for election, is that the Bush
Speaker 3: Clinton consensus cannot be allowed to continue because everything they've
Speaker 3: touched has turned to dirt. Well, that's everything both parties
Speaker 3: leadership have done for the last twenty thirty years. He's
Speaker 3: talking about there and all their staffers too, and they
Speaker 3: all took it real personal. He was really insulting them.
Speaker 3: And on top of that, he would say, I don't
Speaker 3: know why we need NATO anyway. If Germany doesn't want
Speaker 3: to increase the amount of money they're going to spend
Speaker 3: on weapons, Why should we have to pay for it all?
Speaker 3: Which he's just playing hardball. Did he see his tweet today?
Speaker 3: He goes, until you stop ventanil from coming to the
Speaker 3: United States, I hereby announce a new ten percent tariff
Speaker 3: on everything from China. See you soon. Guys like, hey,
Speaker 3: this guy plays hardball. Okay, that's how he does it. Germany,
Speaker 3: why should I subsidize you? Spend more money on your
Speaker 3: plans and your tanks, or I'm not spending another done?
Speaker 3: Because what would Biden or McCain or whatever say. They
Speaker 3: would say, Germany, please spend more money.
Speaker 4: But don't worry.
Speaker 3: We're gonna pick up your slack no matter what. Donald
Speaker 3: Trump doesn't see it that way. We're not picking up
Speaker 3: your slack. We demand that you live up to your agreement,
Speaker 3: which is suspend at least two percent of your GDP
Speaker 3: on your military force so that if there's a war
Speaker 3: you could participate in it. Otherwise, what good are you
Speaker 3: in our military alliance? Right? But all they heard was
Speaker 3: he denigrated NATO. Went right like he's spitting in church.
Speaker 3: He's being from Queens. When they want a guy from Manhattan,
Speaker 3: and he's just not that. You know, he was rude
Speaker 3: to them, and he would say, ah, I think Putin's great,
Speaker 3: Oh we can get along with him. I don't know why,
Speaker 3: So you know what I mean. In other words, instead
Speaker 3: of saying like Obama would have been more cautious. Listen,
Speaker 3: we're gonna be very business like and try to figure
Speaker 3: out if we can do a reset and emotives for
Speaker 3: Indian We have certain congruent interests that we could pursue.
Speaker 3: And the thing, Donald Trump just doesn't talk that way.
Speaker 3: So the way that he did talk about it, you
Speaker 3: hear the way they go. He loves dictators just because
Speaker 3: they're dictators. He loves them so much, even as you
Speaker 3: heard Brennan say about Tulsi there and honestly like he's
Speaker 3: a lying piece of crap, but also like I don't know,
Speaker 3: these people do say what they mean a lot, and
Speaker 3: you hear he says it. She's what she's an apologist
Speaker 3: for Putin and Asad, But I mean, what does that
Speaker 3: even mean? Dude? Has she ever disagreed with you about
Speaker 3: that stuff at all? Has she ever told the other
Speaker 3: side of the story about why these people are doing
Speaker 3: the things that they're doing.
Speaker 4: Not that I've heard.
Speaker 3: This guy's not just an apologist. This guy is guilty
Speaker 3: of direct treasonous material support for al Qaeda terrorists in Syria.
Speaker 3: He did it. It wasn't his opinion. He was the
Speaker 3: director of the CIA. He was the man doing it
Speaker 3: for Obama. And she was saying no, she.
Speaker 4: Had a saw firsthand how crazy it was right now.
Speaker 3: Look, I was explaining this to a lady on the
Speaker 3: show early this afternoon, and she was just like, boo.
Speaker 3: So I assume that people know too much about stuff.
Speaker 3: Let me slow down and explain this real quick here. Okay,
Speaker 3: for you, everybody, pull up the brilliantly perfectly detailed map
Speaker 3: of the Middle East you have in your head. There's
Speaker 3: Iran and there's Iraq, and there's Syria. Iraq is stuck
Speaker 3: between the two. Iraq is super majority she and so
Speaker 3: is Iran. Okay, and is and Iran is ruled by
Speaker 3: Saite clerics. Okay. George Bush invades in two thousand and
Speaker 3: three and he fights an eight year war. Clint, and
Speaker 3: what does he do. He puts the Ayah Tola's men
Speaker 3: in power in Baghdad. Baghdad was ruled by Sunni secular
Speaker 3: Saddam Bush killed him and replaced him with the Ayah
Speaker 3: Tolas Sistani and his guys. Okay, that's who's ruled Iraq
Speaker 3: ever since. Oops, well western, I mean a part of me,
Speaker 3: eastern Iraq. The west, the predominantly sunny West, is more
Speaker 3: kind of wild west, no man's land. After that, the
Speaker 3: shits didn't exercise that much control over it. But then
Speaker 3: Obama comes and that whole Sunni based insurgency that our
Speaker 3: guys fought in Iraq War II. That Tulsi Gabbard witnessed
Speaker 3: that fight, and yes, America did fight. She Heites on
Speaker 3: limited occasions during that war, but almost entirely that war
Speaker 3: was fought for the Sites and against what was called
Speaker 3: the Sunni based insurgency, which included Al Keada in Iraq.
Speaker 3: And she was at a medical unit at Ballad Air
Speaker 3: Base north of Baghdad, which means Clint that she saw
Speaker 3: young boys dying, screaming for their mama with their guts
Speaker 3: in their hand. Okay, after getting blown apart by roadside bombs,
Speaker 3: she went through there's a reason she's got that gray
Speaker 3: in her hair like Nancy. On Friday the thirteenth, man
Speaker 3: Is she went through some real shit over there. Okay.
Speaker 3: Then two years later Barack Obama and his government say, no,
Speaker 3: the Sunni based insurgency led by al Qaeda in Iraq,
Speaker 3: that are our enemies in Iraq War two for the
Speaker 3: last eight years. Now there are friends now in Syria.
Speaker 3: They're the moderate rebels and instead of Al Qaeda, we
Speaker 3: call them Al Nusra. And yet they're still head shopping
Speaker 3: bin lodennit suicide bomber lunatics. They literally are Al Qaeda
Speaker 3: in Iraq, in Syria. Now, Tulsi Gabbard, unlike every other
Speaker 3: idiot in Washington who's just going off of the email
Speaker 3: in the morning or the Washington Post consensus, she understands
Speaker 3: what they don't understand. Who's the shirts and who's the skins.
Speaker 3: To them, they go, oh, well, we're not talking about Iraq.
Speaker 3: We're talking about Syria. We're not talking about the terrorists.
Speaker 3: We're talking about the moderate rebels. Whatever they think they're
Speaker 3: talking about. They don't know what they're talking about. She
Speaker 3: does know what they're talking about that they don't. They're
Speaker 3: saying al Qaeda in Iraq, in Syria are the good
Speaker 3: guys now, and she's saying no. She sat there and
Speaker 3: watched Jimmy die of their roadside bombs, and so she's
Speaker 3: not going along with that, and she took a stand
Speaker 3: on that. And in other words, Clinton, Obama's policy, Obama
Speaker 3: and Brennan's in Syria was insane, dude, it was madness. Look,
Speaker 3: George Bush gave Western Iraq to al Qaeda on accident, right,
Speaker 3: because he's stupid. Obama deliberately gave them ten billion dollars
Speaker 3: and fought a war four of them in Syria, dude, Okay,
Speaker 3: with Israel and Turkey and Cutter and Saudi all working
Speaker 3: together to back these kooks. Why, mostly because Israel and
Speaker 3: also the Saudis hate Iran and hate the shea Heites.
Speaker 3: And if w Bush put the sites up two pegs
Speaker 3: in Baghdad, then Barack Obama would take them down a
Speaker 3: peg in Damascus. And Tulsi Gabbard knew better than that,
Speaker 3: because she knew that meant the Saudis don't have an army.
Speaker 3: The Saudi's army are Bin Laden Nite suicide bombers, shock troops.
Speaker 3: And she said, no, I don't care how much we
Speaker 3: all hate the she Heites. I don't hate them that much.
Speaker 3: Just like Mike Lynn. Mike Flynn is like, bomb Tehran,
Speaker 3: but don't back o Sama in Syria just because you
Speaker 3: hate Tehran. Just bomb Tehran then, but why are you
Speaker 3: going to back Osama? Man Am I making sense here?
Speaker 3: Tulci Gabbard was making sense. She was making sense that
Speaker 3: John Brennan was guilty of treason. And so now that's
Speaker 3: what John Brennan calls her an Assaud apologist, because yeah,
Speaker 3: Assad was the secular dictator who saved that country from
Speaker 3: the Pinlad Knights, as she thought he should. She didn't
Speaker 3: say we should arm a SOD. She didn't say America
Speaker 3: should a lie with ASD. She said America should not
Speaker 3: back terrorists against ASAD. She's one hundred percent right about.
Speaker 4: Them, a very reasonable moderate perspective.
Speaker 3: To be absolutely right. And by the way she is,
Speaker 3: she is. And I should say I should preface this
Speaker 3: with and I'll make all the truthers mad and whatever.
Speaker 3: I don't care, like I truly am terrified about CADO terrorism.
Speaker 3: These people say that al Qaeda is nothing but sock
Speaker 3: puppets as the CIA. I don't think that's true. Yes,
Speaker 3: Reagan and Bush and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, even
Speaker 3: George Bush Junior a little bit, especially Barack Obama back
Speaker 3: these guys, but that doesn't mean they control every single
Speaker 3: thing that they do. Remember they suicide bomb seven CIA
Speaker 3: officers in Afghanistan. That guy, right, like these you create
Speaker 3: a Frankenstein monster, doesn't mean he's remote control.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: These are human men who know how to kill people,
Speaker 3: and it's they're only job skill, right, And the world
Speaker 3: is lousy with them. And they're heavily religious and ideological.
Speaker 3: Not all of them are religious, but they're heavily politically
Speaker 3: radical on the principle of killing Westerners until we leave
Speaker 3: them the hell alone.
Speaker 4: And who would have thought that arming, funding, and training
Speaker 4: a bunch of radical dudes that are ready to off
Speaker 4: themselves to take out their political enemies would be a
Speaker 4: bit perilous if they get out of here.
Speaker 3: I know, and look, people think, well, you know, Reagan
Speaker 3: backed them in the eighties and Rambo three days in Afghanistan,
Speaker 3: and then you know a little bit of this. No,
Speaker 3: it's it's really much worse. As I show in the
Speaker 3: new book Bill, Clinton backed them in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya,
Speaker 3: far more in Chechnia than I even had previously known.
Speaker 3: Although I knew a little bit about it.
Speaker 4: That was that was revelatory for me too, because I
Speaker 4: really didn't understand how they had used basically these these
Speaker 4: Muslim extremists, you know in scare quotes, to basically fight Russia. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Oh, but now wait back to my crazy because here's
Speaker 3: the thing, man, Look, the primary motivation for September eleventh
Speaker 3: was America bombing a rock from bases in Saudi and
Speaker 3: supporting Israel in their ruthless violence against the Palestinians and
Speaker 3: the Lebanese.
Speaker 4: And you're an Osama bin Laden apologist. This is straight
Speaker 4: from his letter? How could you do this?
Speaker 3: Exactly? So what it is is this? And I really
Speaker 3: mean this right, Like I don't know I because I
Speaker 3: understand I guess how people are. I mean, I can't
Speaker 3: quite pretend to be this dumb myself, but I do
Speaker 3: hear it a lot. So I'll just say, like, look,
Speaker 3: maybe there's some guy sitting on a military base right
Speaker 3: now I really would like to win over, right who
Speaker 3: just can't help but think I just hate America or
Speaker 3: some kind of thing. But that's not what this is.
Speaker 3: I mean, how could anyone love Osama bin Laden the
Speaker 3: guy butchered thousands of Americans, And no, I don't think
Speaker 3: George Bush did that. I think Ben Lauden did that,
Speaker 3: and I hold him guilty for that. And I and
Speaker 3: that's the reason that I hate and fear Al Qaeda.
Speaker 3: Now I'm terrified, man, that they could do another September
Speaker 3: type attack, a September eleventh type attack, or something even
Speaker 3: much less that could still be so horrific. And like
Speaker 3: any man in this country, you know, at least heterosexual man,
Speaker 3: I don't know about the but like any of us,
Speaker 3: can come up with day dreams of random violence against
Speaker 3: soft targets that are so easy. Grab a rifle, hit
Speaker 3: a school, grab a gasoline truck, crash it into a ballgame,
Speaker 3: go into a church with a bulldozer, do something horrible
Speaker 3: to somebody. It's easy, but to do something.
Speaker 4: Add to that the fact that the border has been
Speaker 4: wide open and we've had ten million plus people that
Speaker 4: are totally unvetted that have come in over the past
Speaker 4: four years. Do you think there's nobody that's dangerous in that?
Speaker 3: I have to say, man, for people who's skeptical about that,
Speaker 3: like there are times in previous eras where look, man,
Speaker 3: only people coming across the border are Mexican migrant laborers.
Speaker 3: Who cares. But that's not the case.
Speaker 4: Now. What we're doing people from all over the world.
Speaker 3: Pouring across that border. And you know, there's a guy
Speaker 3: named Ali Sufon who is a former FBI agent, been
Speaker 3: loaden night hunter guy, good guy, not he's great on everything,
Speaker 3: but he's a good guy. And he recently put out
Speaker 3: a thing called isis K determined to attack inside the
Speaker 3: United States, right, which is a takeoff on the CIA
Speaker 3: warning to Bush from August sixth, two thousand and one,
Speaker 3: bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States. And
Speaker 3: he goes, look, man, they just rounded up like these
Speaker 3: five weird random Tajiks around the country who should not
Speaker 3: have been here and are directly tied to these dangerous groups.
Speaker 3: And we don't know exactly what they were doing. Maybe
Speaker 3: they were here coordinated on a thing, maybe they weren't.
Speaker 3: We were not really sure. But this is a huge problem,
Speaker 3: what you're saying about the wide open border. Nobody's checking
Speaker 3: IDs and you got people coming from all over Central
Speaker 3: Asia up through there. And of course isis K comes
Speaker 3: from a CIA slash Afghan intelligence operation to recruit refugees
Speaker 3: from the Pakistani Taliban to fight against Pakistan for them
Speaker 3: and to fight against the Afghan Taliban for them, And
Speaker 3: of course that blew up in their face and they
Speaker 3: ended up hoisting the black flag and declaring their loyalty
Speaker 3: to the Islamic State. And these are the guys who
Speaker 3: keep attacking Russia, by the way, and they're ruthless killers.
Speaker 4: One quick note that, yeah, no longer a majority. It's
Speaker 4: not even fifty plus percent of Mexicans that are coming
Speaker 4: across the southern border.
Speaker 3: Wow is the.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, because you have I mean people like historically
Speaker 4: that was what it was. I just want to emphasize
Speaker 4: the people this paradigm is different. The average illegal immigration
Speaker 4: rate was three to five hundred thousand annually. We're now
Speaker 4: talking three to five million annually. Potentially. This is ten
Speaker 4: x of what the historical norm was throughout most of
Speaker 4: the two thousands. This is not organic. It is very,
Speaker 4: very dangerous. And I think that, I mean, we found
Speaker 4: out during the election that the public was not going
Speaker 4: to put up with this either. And I think that
Speaker 4: the you know, Trump, despite the fact that I thought
Speaker 4: his build the Wall rhetoric was kind of unnecessary back then,
Speaker 4: I do understand why people find that very appealing today.
Speaker 4: Not to say that I necessarily support the wall, but
Speaker 4: you know what I'm saying. I want to I want
Speaker 4: to ask you real quick about the the escalations, because
Speaker 4: this is really important. I've been I've actually I've comforted
Speaker 4: by you, which is rare, during your interviews of late
Speaker 4: that you seem to be much more optimistic that this
Speaker 4: thing will not get out of hand in the next
Speaker 4: few months than I am. Just to lay out what
Speaker 4: I've what I've seen, We've we've seen basically red lines
Speaker 4: drawn by the Biden administration and and the Russian side
Speaker 4: for the past two years that that promises, you know,
Speaker 4: we're not going to send troops, We're not going to
Speaker 4: train with limited money. That's it. Uh. And then it
Speaker 4: then it becomes F sixteen's, and it becomes high Mars,
Speaker 4: and it becomes uh, what's the next attack? Ems? And
Speaker 4: now it's it's potential. I mean, these are this According
Speaker 4: to the New York Times, they're they're considering giving them
Speaker 4: nuclear weapons. I doubt that that'll happen, but this is
Speaker 4: so obviously dangerous, and with them in a lame duck period,
Speaker 4: with Donald Trump and many in his orbit promising to
Speaker 4: de escalate as soon as he gets into power. I
Speaker 4: fear terribly. Especially there was reports just yesterday that the
Speaker 4: French and the English We're gonna send troops into fucking Ukraine.
Speaker 4: I mean, is that not like if if that happens
Speaker 4: and they get shot at and killed? Is that? Is
Speaker 4: that an Article five? I don't even know how it works. No,
Speaker 4: it's not.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no it's not. And even Article five is
Speaker 3: not automatic. Article five says that the countries do what
Speaker 3: they determine as best.
Speaker 4: But you know that they're gonna use it as if
Speaker 4: like this.
Speaker 3: Is a media it's a huge risk. And I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: just to wrap up that other pointer I'm gonna be weird,
Speaker 3: is I'm afraid about Cado attacking us over what Israel's
Speaker 3: doing right now, and I think Americans really should be.
Speaker 3: And quite frankly, Clint, I'm I don't want to get
Speaker 3: you in trouble with your people and whatever, man, but
Speaker 3: in a very real and important way. Nine to eleven,
Speaker 3: Truther or bullshit is the limited hangout? You know they
Speaker 3: say that blowback theory is the limited hangout? Really, Dick
Speaker 3: Cheney and Israel did it or whatever, But no, that's
Speaker 3: the limited hangout, because if it was just the West
Speaker 3: that did it to themselves, then you're protected from the
Speaker 3: important knowledge that no, they did it because of what
Speaker 3: Israel doing to innocent men, women and children in Palestine
Speaker 3: and Lebanon. That was what bin Laden used to recruit
Speaker 3: those guys to turn against the United States. I mentioned
Speaker 3: Ali Sufon. Ali Sufon wrote that the Chechen terrorists asked
Speaker 3: bin Laden, why are you mad at America. They've been
Speaker 3: so nice to us, They helped us in Afghanistan and
Speaker 3: Bosnia and Chechnya. You want to attack them? And Ossam
Speaker 3: ban La says, yeah, you just don't understand, dude. He's
Speaker 3: got a broader vision. He's upset about what's going on
Speaker 3: in Mesopotamia and on the Holy Arabian Peninsula and in
Speaker 3: Jerusalem and in southern Lebanon. And so Bill Clinton bribing
Speaker 3: them in one place doesn't buy his loyalty over something else.
Speaker 3: And so when al Qaeda or nothing but automatons of
Speaker 3: the West, then you're not really in danger, Clint, unless
Speaker 3: Dick Cheney sends them against you. Right, But if they
Speaker 3: are free agents and they can kill you if they
Speaker 3: want to, then you are being put at risk right now. Okay,
Speaker 3: like the nine eleven plant originally was gonna be ten
Speaker 3: planes in ten targets. They're gonna hit the Sears tower.
Speaker 3: They're gonna hit the library tower in LA. They could
Speaker 3: have hit nuclear power plans. Imagine somebody crash a seven
Speaker 3: fifty seven into a nuclear power plant. You could cause
Speaker 3: a super molten core that nobody can get to that
Speaker 3: just sinks down into the earth and spews out radioactive
Speaker 3: whatever forever. You could have a problem, man. And we
Speaker 3: should not be allowing our government to pick this fight.
Speaker 3: And this is the point I was gonna make about
Speaker 3: Tulsa Gabbert. She's gonna be the head of intelligence, uh
Speaker 3: director of National Intelligence. She better be an absolute hawk
Speaker 3: on defending this country from beIN loadenites. And I think
Speaker 3: it's so important and lucky and good. It's the best thing,
Speaker 3: honestly is the best thing Obama ever did was kill
Speaker 3: Osama because his successors have just never had the stature
Speaker 3: to command, the respect to command, because he's not really
Speaker 3: in charge of a government, right. Everybody who does what
Speaker 3: he says, it's only because they want to and they
Speaker 3: just didn't want to do it as Zawahari said, and
Speaker 3: they didn't want to do with whatever Hamsei, whatever that
Speaker 3: crep said, the way that they would obey the Sheikh.
Speaker 3: So thank god he's not here to direct them. But
Speaker 3: there's a real danger that. But see, here's the problem
Speaker 3: with Tulsea Gabbard is she's the double edged sword on
Speaker 3: that is because she thinks that the Sunnis are completely nuts.
Speaker 3: She was saying the other day, I think this is
Speaker 3: a new quote. Hamas wants to take over the world. Hammas,
Speaker 3: come on, man, like they're the strongest gang and an
Speaker 3: Israeli prison. They're not a state, and they certainly are
Speaker 3: not a threat to take over Israel, much less Egypt
Speaker 3: and Jordan and Saudi and et cetera. The Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 3: was created and suckered by the British and the Americans,
Speaker 3: and the Saudi Arabians are loyalist allies over there since
Speaker 3: World War Two. The Muslim Brotherhood. I'm not saying America
Speaker 3: outright controls it, but I'm just saying the idea that
Speaker 3: somehow that they're going to take over the whole Middle
Speaker 3: East in some califate only if Bush and Obama build
Speaker 3: it for them. Is the Middle East in danger of
Speaker 3: having a calipe. As long as Tulsea Gabbert is there
Speaker 3: to keep them from siding with the suicide bombers, there's
Speaker 3: no reason that we have to go out there and
Speaker 3: hunt them and kill them all and make matters worse
Speaker 3: and launch another w Bushy in war on terrorism, which
Speaker 3: is what I'm afraid that she and Sebastian Gorka and
Speaker 3: some of these others are going to do. I think
Speaker 3: if I wherever there's a Sunni with a rifle, they
Speaker 3: can say they're all been lot Knights and they're all
Speaker 3: coming for us, even when a lot of times they
Speaker 3: have more parochial concerns, and what we should really be
Speaker 3: doing is backing the hell off and not picking that
Speaker 3: particular fight. But I certainly hope that she is as
Speaker 3: crazy paranoid about them hitting targets in this country as
Speaker 3: I think she is, because I think that that nothing
Speaker 3: less than that is going to keep us safe from them, dude.
Speaker 3: And look not that you or me or your audience
Speaker 3: members are probably likely to get hurt in anything. It's
Speaker 3: a big country, but is America likely to get hit
Speaker 3: by ben lod Knights? And I don't mean like an
Speaker 3: FBI and trap but like real aspen lot nights killing people. Yes,
Speaker 3: and and if not, fine, but I'm terrified of it.
Speaker 3: I think everybody should be. These guys are incredibly dangerous
Speaker 3: and there's got to be tens of thousands of them
Speaker 3: with a vendetta if only they can have an opportunity
Speaker 3: to express it. And I'm sorry, what was your question
Speaker 3: about Ukraine?
Speaker 4: No, this is a hard this is a hard pivot.
Speaker 4: But this is the the experimental or brand new weapon
Speaker 4: that was deployed by Russia. Yes, just earlier last week.
Speaker 4: I mean, this thing is unbelievable. It's called the intermediate
Speaker 4: range ballistic missile. I've never seen anything like it. It
Speaker 4: is essentially an ICBM, but it's just a little bit
Speaker 4: shorter range. Is that? Is that a fair read of it?
Speaker 4: But they they didn't obviously they didn't apply a nuclear
Speaker 4: warhead to it. What are your what are your thoughts
Speaker 4: about this? Was this just a flex?
Speaker 3: I'm well, it's certainly a flex. I don't know about
Speaker 3: just one or not. I think you know, it's certainly
Speaker 3: an answer to the attack. IMS right, and people are
Speaker 3: afraid he's going to start labing nukes. He's going to
Speaker 3: attack London and he's going to do all this stuff.
Speaker 3: This seems to be the answer to that is check
Speaker 3: out my new hypersonic. Now, I have to tell you
Speaker 3: I've not done the research. I don't know what we
Speaker 3: all know about this. I know that the Ukrainians originally
Speaker 3: said they were ICBMs, which is stupid, and I know
Speaker 3: a lot of people parroted that because they're stupid. But
Speaker 3: we are you going to fire a three stage intercontinental
Speaker 3: ballistic missile for three hundred miles. That's not gonna work.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess it's conceivably possible you can fire it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean there's there's a certain parabolo that'll do it.
Speaker 3: But I don't think they're wasting their long range.
Speaker 4: Miss It would have been for a for a test purpose,
Speaker 4: to demonstrate your capacity.
Speaker 3: Maybe, and that is some of the Americans I'd talked
Speaker 3: about in the Obama years. Maybe we'll put conventional warheads
Speaker 3: on three stage rockets. The problem is that looks like
Speaker 3: an incoming nuke. You don't want to do that exactly.
Speaker 4: Well, just because I did do some research on this,
Speaker 4: what I read, I mean keeping in mind this is
Speaker 4: all It's like with the Russian black ops. So we
Speaker 4: don't really know the details. But what I read is
Speaker 4: that someone estimated that it was probably going ten x
Speaker 4: the speed of sound, which would be over six thousand
Speaker 4: miles per hour. Is that I assume there is no
Speaker 4: there is no air defense they can stop that. Am
Speaker 4: I wrong? Do you? Do you think that it's stoppable?
Speaker 3: I need to know more about it. I look, I mean,
Speaker 3: I seebms come in from outer space going like mock eight, right,
Speaker 3: I don't know exactly how many they alleged.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, they alleged mock ten, which is.
Speaker 3: Like, okay, yeah, insane, so yes and now and so
Speaker 3: I don't I also don't know. You can't tell from
Speaker 3: that footage. I don't know if these are these new
Speaker 3: so called hypersonic glide vehicles. Again, a rocket coming in
Speaker 3: from space is literally hypersonic. It's a ballistic missile and
Speaker 3: biballistic that means free fall, right, It's not rocket powered anymore.
Speaker 4: It's it's falling.
Speaker 3: But it's coming in from space at ultra high speed
Speaker 3: and so well that I think they already.
Speaker 4: I think it's a merve just like or like a
Speaker 4: multi targeting because that's what you saw with.
Speaker 3: Right, So MERV. MERV means multiple independently targetable re entry
Speaker 3: vehicles right now. Usually that would mean like essentially just
Speaker 3: a simple warhead floating down right, falling down until it
Speaker 3: hits its correct altitude. It could be the case that
Speaker 3: you have hypersonic glide vehicles that are merved that are
Speaker 3: you know, so you have one rocket, one ICVM then
Speaker 3: delivers five of these hypersonic gliders that can make me,
Speaker 3: uh yeah, hit things in further directions. I really don't
Speaker 3: know about that, but I guess I'm trying to say
Speaker 3: is I did see some hype where people saying, oh,
Speaker 3: these are total game changers. Certainly, it would depend on
Speaker 3: how many of them they have.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how many they have? Can it really carry a nuke?
Speaker 4: If it can and it's unstoppable, well that's a game changer. Well.
Speaker 3: The thing the game changer that I read and which
Speaker 3: I think this is probable overstated. I really don't know,
Speaker 3: but I'm skeptical of this, was that they're they're fast
Speaker 3: enough and powerful enough that they can destroy hardened silos
Speaker 3: with conventional warheads. So in other words, we could we
Speaker 3: could be in a war. They could obliterate our nuclear
Speaker 3: force without using nuclear weapons, and so then that would
Speaker 3: make us the bad guys for using nukes first against them,
Speaker 3: and hopefully we would be uh, you know, politically restrained
Speaker 3: from doing that. But they would still be able to
Speaker 3: sink all our carriers and whatever. But the things they
Speaker 3: could sink all our carriers anyway, carriers have been obsolete
Speaker 3: for a very long time. It's pretty easy to take
Speaker 3: out that black top and on top, if not sink them,
Speaker 3: to at least put them out of commission.
Speaker 4: But I think everyone recognizes that that Ukraine is losing
Speaker 4: this war. It's impossibility that they win this war barring
Speaker 4: NATO troops actually coming in full bar and if NATO
Speaker 4: troops come in full boar were likely in World War Three.
Speaker 4: It seems as if this gambit has no paid off.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's paid off for the military industrial complex.
Speaker 4: They've made a fortune, but in terms of like actually
Speaker 4: making progress, there has been none. Russia, in my opinion,
Speaker 4: has not demonstrated a real desire to take over the
Speaker 4: rest of Ukraine. It seems as if they want that
Speaker 4: land bridge to Crimea, they're done after that. They want
Speaker 4: to have a fucking bearrier between them and NATO. Basically
Speaker 4: all of their stated goals from opening salvo to today
Speaker 4: seem to have stayed static, which makes me think that
Speaker 4: they're probably telling the truth. Have I gotten anything wrong
Speaker 4: so far? Anything you disagree with?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean they're the only quibble is not on
Speaker 3: your larger theme at always just say they seem to
Speaker 3: have been willing to settle for just the down Bass,
Speaker 3: that is, Donyaska and Luhansk, and instead, after the offensive
Speaker 3: of September twenty twenty two, Putin announced that he was
Speaker 3: annexing two more Zaprosia. All of Zaprosia and all of
Speaker 3: Kursans are claimed now by Russia, although they're not all
Speaker 3: occupied by Russia, not all of the territory. These are
Speaker 3: blasts or essentially large counties or large you know, provinces
Speaker 3: within Ukraine.
Speaker 4: And do you think do you think it's true that
Speaker 4: he wants Kiev.
Speaker 3: No, I think he might want Odessa. People had asked
Speaker 3: him about Odessa and he's like, yeah, it's nice there,
Speaker 3: he got nice weather and things and whatever. It's certainly
Speaker 3: a threat and the same for harkiev Y. Look I've
Speaker 3: been saying, and not just me, everyone who knows better,
Speaker 3: including you and many other people have been saying, all along,
Speaker 3: quit while you're only this far behind. Yeah, right, And
Speaker 3: there was you know, they did push the Russians back
Speaker 3: in September. It was the weekend of September eleventh, twenty
Speaker 3: twenty two, the first year of the war. They pushed
Speaker 3: the Russians out of Harkiev Province Oblast and into Luhansk
Speaker 3: and they took back about half of Kurson. That was
Speaker 3: the high water mark for Ukraine. It's been all bad
Speaker 3: for them since then. They have done nothing to lose
Speaker 3: men and lose territory. Since then. The only thing that
Speaker 3: they can say is, well, we killed a lot of
Speaker 3: Russians too, What does that have to do? They got more.
Speaker 4: You hear some of the American politicians and they say, well,
Speaker 4: that's exactly what why this is good because they want
Speaker 4: to see Russian you know, quote unquote weekend. But at
Speaker 4: the same time, the war machine has been turned on
Speaker 4: full speed and they've got to test out a whole
Speaker 4: bunch of new munitions and blah blah blah. It's not
Speaker 4: necessarily obvious that they're weakening Russia broadly speaking. That right,
Speaker 4: But but here's here's the real question, then, because at
Speaker 4: this junction. It seems as if this is a fool's
Speaker 4: errand to pairrot one of your prior phenomenal books, what
Speaker 4: is the fucking game plan, Scott? Like, what are they doing?
Speaker 3: Just said it? Send Russians home in coffins, body bags,
Speaker 3: body bags, coffins and body bags. That's that they all say,
Speaker 3: over and over and over again. And kill Russians, make
Speaker 3: the war costly for Russia. You know, David Ignatius was ignacious. No,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm I forget which quote it was. Ignatius
Speaker 3: put the Ukrainians in parentheses. The war has been great
Speaker 3: for and he's like considered the CIA spokesman at the
Speaker 3: Washington Post. So the war has been great for the US,
Speaker 3: for you, for NATO, it's uh geez, we didn't know
Speaker 3: if NATO is gonna have a purpose anymore, and now
Speaker 3: he got a whole new thing for it to do.
Speaker 3: And it's really been fantastic for that, and for convincing
Speaker 3: the Allies to armah. It's just been great for everyone.
Speaker 3: And then he literally in the Washington Post you can
Speaker 3: find it. He literally puts in parentheses except for the Ukrainians.
Speaker 3: And there's another one where the guy. It was a senator,
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure. And the quotes in the book where
Speaker 3: he lists all of the things that stake Oh, was
Speaker 3: it Graham? It may have been Graham. No, no, no,
Speaker 3: it wasn't Graham. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I forget who
Speaker 3: it was. He's a senator and he's saying, essentially, he
Speaker 3: describes Russian lives as having value to degrade and take away,
Speaker 3: and American troops this is all happening with no cost
Speaker 3: to American troops. American troops lives have value to preserve.
Speaker 3: He doesn't mention the Ukrainians at all. He doesn't even
Speaker 3: say their name.
Speaker 4: That might have been Dan Crenshaw. I can't remember who.
Speaker 3: Their job Crenshaw's not in the book. But their job
Speaker 3: is just to die. They're just cannon fodder to die.
Speaker 3: They're sacrificial animals on this thing.
Speaker 4: It's talking about a million people. From what I've read
Speaker 4: recently that they think it's I don't know about that
Speaker 4: seven hundred two to three hundred thousand Russians.
Speaker 3: It's certainly in the at least low hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of Ukrainians killed, maybe more than that, certainly high hundreds
Speaker 3: of thousands wounded. When people say a million dead, I
Speaker 3: don't buy that, But I usually like conservative estimates and
Speaker 3: casualties on things because the the more elaborate ones usually
Speaker 3: end up getting. But it's still a horror show either way.
Speaker 4: I just think it's fascinating because the world has really
Speaker 4: seemed to focus on the plight of the Palestinians to
Speaker 4: a far outsized degree. Given the I mean, yes, in
Speaker 4: terms of population size, it is much more grievous what
Speaker 4: they're dealing with, I suppose, But in terms of actual
Speaker 4: just total numbers, what's happening in Ukraine is far more bloody.
Speaker 3: Although it's see the civilians have been allowed to flee,
Speaker 3: so it's combatants fighting combatants. And now to me, that's right, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's they're just a hair away from civilians to me,
Speaker 3: their conscript slaves on both sides. So it's totally unfair.
Speaker 4: You're dropped off the street into a fucking blacked out
Speaker 4: windows van against your will. You're a civilian to me,
Speaker 4: pretty close.
Speaker 3: Man, So like, yeah, I could sit here and say, oh,
Speaker 3: you cannot fight them. I mean they're under arms in
Speaker 3: the face their fair game under the laws of war.
Speaker 3: As far as that goes, but it's just as tragic
Speaker 3: as killing a civilian basically, like, well, just because someone
Speaker 3: is a fighting aged male and make them automatically like
Speaker 3: their life doesn't have value the way women and children
Speaker 3: and elderly do, Like well, I happen to be one,
Speaker 3: just barely still maybe, but like I don't want to die.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's that's how they quantify uh, civilian casualties
Speaker 4: with drones. They say, oh, well, he was a sixteen
Speaker 4: year old man, so that's a that's a fighting age male.
Speaker 4: So we're just gonna put him as a capacity.
Speaker 3: Guilty unless you prove him innocent, and we're not going
Speaker 3: to investigate and find out if he was.
Speaker 4: In a not guilty. So so here's here's the reason
Speaker 4: I'm I'm asking these questions. Well, one because it's the
Speaker 4: biggest I think it's the biggest thing happening on the
Speaker 4: planet right now. But two it Yes, I agree with
Speaker 4: you on the thesis that like, yes, they just want
Speaker 4: to they want to damage Russia as much as possible.
Speaker 4: That's like that's the general theme behind this. However, what
Speaker 4: they are doing in terms of escalating this, like you know,
Speaker 4: Usha's protocol has been escalated to de escalate. It appears
Speaker 4: that NATO's protocol is the same, escalate to de escalate.
Speaker 4: You have two sides that are escalating to de escalate,
Speaker 4: you're not gonna fucking escalate, right, or you're not gonna
Speaker 4: de escalate. So it seems to me that once they
Speaker 4: they knew, I mean, they were so adamant we're not
Speaker 4: gonna give them fucking long range missiles to fire into
Speaker 4: Russia proper. That is suicide. They're going to respond in
Speaker 4: a dramatic fashion. We can't possibly cross that line. They
Speaker 4: cross that line after they lose the election. It's so
Speaker 4: it's so egregious what they're doing. What the fuck do
Speaker 4: they expect Russia to do? Like, you can't expect them
Speaker 4: not to respond in a serious way. And I don't
Speaker 4: think that it's necessarily going to end just with the
Speaker 4: show of force, with that hand of God device that
Speaker 4: they demonstrated last week. I don't know what they're gonna do,
Speaker 4: but it like if you continue to allow them to
Speaker 4: fire into Russia proper, they're gonna fucking do something really
Speaker 4: wild at some point. Uh makes me nervous. What do
Speaker 4: you think? What do you think they're gonna do?
Speaker 3: It's not even Thanksgiving yet, right, Like, we still have
Speaker 3: two on most two full months before Trump is sworn in. Here,
Speaker 3: it is still only November as we're recording this. That
Speaker 3: that's the worst part of it. He's like, this is
Speaker 3: a little bit more of just parting shots or something.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I think you were kind of
Speaker 3: referring to this earlier. I was kind of reassuring people
Speaker 3: don't panic. I don't think there's going to be a
Speaker 3: nuclear war. Is it's going to break out into general
Speaker 3: war between the US and NATO right now. If I
Speaker 3: really think that's going to happen, I'll tell you and whatever,
Speaker 3: you know, I don't know. I don't usually make predictions.
Speaker 3: I mean, my job mostly is just like here's what happened.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, like I there are times
Speaker 3: where like I'm taking things into account, maybe in ways
Speaker 3: that other people hadn't thought of or whatever that Like,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: I'm just making this up, Clint, So just bear with me,
Speaker 3: Like this is just speculation, but this is I think reasonable.
Speaker 3: This is what it sounds like is going on to
Speaker 3: me that I think you were referring to. Hearing me
Speaker 3: say this on other shows before that, that Biden government.
Speaker 3: They know that they just lost the election to Trump
Speaker 3: on the basis of this policy. Like he said he's
Speaker 3: going to end this war, and they said, are you sure.
Speaker 3: You don't mean you're gonna help Ukraine win it? And
Speaker 3: he end the debate and he goes, no, I'm gonna
Speaker 3: end it. It's too dangerous to continue. Forget it. So
Speaker 3: they know they just lost the election on that basis,
Speaker 3: and they know that Putin knows that. So I believe
Speaker 3: that they are betting that Putin is actually much more
Speaker 3: patient than they portray him as this absolutely unchinged, unhinged,
Speaker 3: you know, stall and his type psychopath or whatever. I
Speaker 3: think that they're betting that, based on his psychological profile
Speaker 3: or whatever, he's just gonna take it on the cheek
Speaker 3: and turn the other cheek, take it on a chin,
Speaker 3: and maybe maybe not do nothing. But we saw what
Speaker 3: he's done. He hit Ukraine with some new kind of missiles.
Speaker 3: He didn't hit Warsaw, he didn't hit London. He didn't
Speaker 3: and he hasn't threatened. I mean, he's sort of implied that,
Speaker 3: like maybe he would hit London, but I don't think
Speaker 3: he really meant that, And I think he really was
Speaker 3: going to hit London. I think he would tell them, listen, dude,
Speaker 3: I'm about to bomb your goddamn capital city, back off
Speaker 3: right now. Before he would do that, I think, I
Speaker 3: don't know, because again, they can't shoot down rockets coming
Speaker 3: in this fast anyway. Glad vehicle's coming in this fast anyway.
Speaker 3: So he'd be wise, certainly to give them a chance
Speaker 3: to understand how serious he is before he did something
Speaker 3: like that. But just put yourself in his position, Trumps. Yeah, no,
Speaker 3: well look so yeah, so in your position, here's your incentives.
Speaker 3: First of all, you're not in danger, right these attack thems.
Speaker 3: They do not threaten Russia's position in the war. They're
Speaker 3: not a game changer in the war at all in
Speaker 3: terms of battlefield success. What they are a game changer
Speaker 3: of is they can now hit civilian targets further inside
Speaker 3: Russia and military ones too. So in other words, they
Speaker 3: can enrage the Russians. Yes, that's what they can do. Right.
Speaker 3: They can't threaten them, They can't truly make putin afraid.
Speaker 3: They can make.
Speaker 4: This is why I'm nervous, though, is because the public
Speaker 4: out and the public pressure, that's rights pressure Putin is
Speaker 4: doing something dramatic, and it seems as if that's what
Speaker 4: they want, and that just seems so dangerous.
Speaker 3: Right, And then you got to hope he's a strong
Speaker 3: enough leader that he can say, actually, no, we're not
Speaker 3: doing that. I'll let you know who we're killing and
Speaker 3: win and you guys can wait, which is I think
Speaker 3: his m quite frankly, and I think that's what they're
Speaker 3: betting on, that he's going to be tast though. Yeah.
Speaker 3: But see, that's the thing is, Look, if we were
Speaker 3: having this conversation in the middle of December, I would
Speaker 3: feel a lot better about it.
Speaker 4: Clint.
Speaker 3: Honestly, it's not even Thanksgiving yet, and he's already hitting
Speaker 3: back new missiles we've never seen before. Okay, so could
Speaker 3: he hit Warsaw? Could he hit London? Uh? Yeah, I
Speaker 3: mean he could launch a nuke or a conventional bomb
Speaker 3: in Washington, d C. The other one doing it, and
Speaker 3: so yes, like could this thing escalate? But now, so
Speaker 3: that's his position is he has all this public pressure
Speaker 3: to do something to respond. But then on the other side,
Speaker 3: he's got Donald J. Trump coming in, and what he
Speaker 3: doesn't want to do is take the bait as you
Speaker 3: described it from Biden and escalate to a degree that
Speaker 3: now Trump won't be able to negotiate. Trump will now
Speaker 3: also have to do something crazy when he gets in
Speaker 3: there to prove because now Putin has gone too far
Speaker 3: blah blah blah. So Putin would live extremely wise to
Speaker 3: simply hold I mean, he's making steady progress on the
Speaker 3: ground every day anyway, but just keep doing that. Don't
Speaker 3: do any game real game changers, because you're going to
Speaker 3: ruin the chance for a real negotiation. And Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: Ron Paul, Donald Trump could change his mind really quick,
Speaker 3: you know, and turn right back into Rudy Giuliani on him.
Speaker 4: Completely agree, And I think I think your assessment of
Speaker 4: this is accurate, and I think that Putin shares your assessment,
Speaker 4: and I think Putin wants to wait for that moment.
Speaker 4: My concern is that if the British, the French, Poland
Speaker 4: moves troops into Ukraine, that is such a that is
Speaker 4: such an enormous provocation.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, the balls man, what are they gonna do?
Speaker 3: You know, No, I don't think so.
Speaker 4: I mean, I wouldn't have thought they had the balls
Speaker 4: to give them all Russia. We have fucking given the
Speaker 4: neighbor of the largest nuclear power on Earth long range
Speaker 4: missiles to fire into their country, Like, did you ever
Speaker 4: think that the fucking Americans would do that. That's pretty dramatic.
Speaker 3: That's been the yeah, and including apparently by all reporting,
Speaker 3: they need Americans to help them fire the damn things.
Speaker 4: They are using our tech, our surveillance, are training. They
Speaker 4: don't know what the fuck they're doing with these things.
Speaker 4: It's I mean, it's crazy, like we're basically bombing Russia.
Speaker 5: A certain extent, the moment of truth is coming. The
Speaker 5: previous world order is irreversibly becoming a thing of the past,
Speaker 5: one could say, has become a thing of the past,
Speaker 5: and the shaping of the new world order is become
Speaker 5: the scene of uncompromising fight. Uncompromising first and foremost for
Speaker 5: the reason that it's not even the battle for power
Speaker 5: or geopolitical influence. It's a clash of the very principles
Speaker 5: that would be the foundation between the relation, you know,
Speaker 5: for the relation of the countries at the next historical stage,
Speaker 5: and its outcome will define whether all of us jointly
Speaker 5: can build a world that would allow everyone to develop.
Speaker 4: What do you think about that?
Speaker 3: The phrase is overused and misunderstood and misused a lot
Speaker 3: of times and has different meanings to different people. There
Speaker 3: are you know, there's.
Speaker 4: A lot of records I wasn't I wasn't going tenfoil
Speaker 4: hat with this with any No, it's.
Speaker 3: Okay, no, it's no, no, no. It's important to talk about
Speaker 3: because it does mean something right and like so, just
Speaker 3: so for some people to to avoid misunderstanding, he's not
Speaker 3: referring to now we're going to have a world government.
Speaker 3: And there are you know, people on the right wing
Speaker 3: especially who have always well, there are people who meant
Speaker 3: it that way. They used the term to mean we
Speaker 3: will have a world government that essentially will turn the
Speaker 3: un Security Council and General Assembly into something like the
Speaker 3: Upper and Lower House and make something like a world
Speaker 3: federal government. Especially in the twentieth century, people really did
Speaker 3: believe in that and push for that. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: people also really just use it in lower case letters
Speaker 3: to mean the way things are now as opposed to
Speaker 3: the way that they were before. There is an order
Speaker 3: in the world of who's on top? Is it the British?
Speaker 3: Is it the French? Is it the Germans? Is it?
Speaker 3: The Americans? Is it the Soviets or the Russians or
Speaker 3: the Chinese or who.
Speaker 4: I heard it the way I heard it was. I
Speaker 4: heard it the way I heard it was. Basically, he
Speaker 4: was saying that there was it's going to be. Instead
Speaker 4: of a unipolar moment, it's now going to be multiple.
Speaker 4: That's right, That's what.
Speaker 3: He's talking about. Yeah, he's saying the era of what
Speaker 3: America says goes and everybody else has to obey is
Speaker 3: now done and in fact, like pretty fittingly and because
Speaker 3: and it's all their own fault too, he really is
Speaker 3: the one putting a stuck to it, you see. You know,
Speaker 3: I mean, hell, I guess you could say the Ayatola
Speaker 3: shoved it down w Bush's throat into Rock War two
Speaker 3: as well. But you know, Putin is absolutely drawn a line.
Speaker 3: And as you said, he's winning, He's gonna draw that border. Kiev.
Speaker 3: Don't decide where that border is gonna go. He's gonna decide.
Speaker 3: He's going to negotiate when he wants to. He's the
Speaker 3: one in the position of strength and they're just not
Speaker 3: and they're not gonna be. So he is just right
Speaker 3: about that. And it's also true and people should understand,
Speaker 3: we don't want the Chinese to be communists. We want
Speaker 3: them to be Milton Friedman nights, because when they when
Speaker 3: they were really Marxists, they starved to death by the
Speaker 3: tens of millions. Literally, a lot of people maybe don't
Speaker 3: know this, Malaise Tongue and his government millions, tens of
Speaker 3: millions of people, like between thirty and forty million people
Speaker 3: starved because of Marxism. Okay, we want them to be wealthy.
Speaker 3: And you know that in India they were never part
Speaker 3: of the Soviet system or anything, but they were very
Speaker 3: commy during the Cold War years. Their economy is very
Speaker 3: centralized in all this, so you have these extremely you know,
Speaker 3: these huge countries that are just mired in government economics
Speaker 3: and people just going without just absolutely you know, some
Speaker 3: of the poorest populations in the world. People are so
Speaker 3: afraid of China. Now, China has millions of people still
Speaker 3: living in poverty. They're just coming up, you know on
Speaker 3: the East coast. Yeah, things are looking great, but it's
Speaker 3: a big country with a billion people in it, and
Speaker 3: the standard of living there overall is not so high
Speaker 3: that they're prepared to take over the world in our place.
Speaker 3: You know, they certainly can't afford to. But this is
Speaker 3: what we want. I'm sorry, I'm speaking for everyone here.
Speaker 3: We want Brazil to stop being a poor country and
Speaker 3: become a wealthy one. And we want the same thing
Speaker 3: for Egypt, and we want the same thing for Sierra Leone,
Speaker 3: and we want the same thing for India, and we
Speaker 3: want the same thing for Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia
Speaker 3: and China and North Korea too. We want people to
Speaker 3: be free, we want them to be prosperous. And we
Speaker 3: have to understand that part of China abandoning Marxist economics
Speaker 3: for Freedman Night Chicago School economics is they're going to
Speaker 3: have more money and they're going to have us say now.
Speaker 3: And the same thing with the Soviet Union. We wanted
Speaker 3: Soviet communism gone. We fished our wish. It's gone. Well,
Speaker 3: guess what. They're a capitalist's economy, sitting on a bunch
Speaker 3: of rivers and timber and metal and energy.
Speaker 4: I wish some would let the US State Department know
Speaker 4: that they're no longer the ussor. I don't think they
Speaker 4: got the memos cut right.
Speaker 3: Well, they're finding out the hard way, right. They said, oh,
Speaker 3: don't worry about us we're gonna hit them with an
Speaker 3: economic nuclear bomb. And they're like, on, you're not doing
Speaker 3: nothing us.
Speaker 4: We'll just sell more oil.
Speaker 3: Do you know the war Nerd Gary Bretcher, he's like
Speaker 3: partners with that scumbag Mark Ames. But he's a good guy,
Speaker 3: like John Dolan is his real name, the war Nerd.
Speaker 3: And I'd like this in the book. He wrote an
Speaker 3: article back in like twenty twelve or something I forget,
Speaker 3: long time ago, where he goes, hey, check it out, everybody,
Speaker 3: Russia just open a new oil pipeline to China. Game
Speaker 3: is up. They don't give a damn about you anymore.
Speaker 3: You think that you can blackmail them into doing what
Speaker 3: you want, well you can't. They just sell their oil
Speaker 3: to the East instead. You think that there's a ceiling
Speaker 3: on how much oil the East wants to buy from China,
Speaker 3: how much gas they want to buy from China, I
Speaker 3: mean from Russia. Wrong. Wrong, They don't need you at all.
Speaker 3: You can try to extort them and blackmail them all
Speaker 3: you want. The game is up. And he wrote that
Speaker 3: ten years ago or more. I swear man, you.
Speaker 4: Know, well, see this is what's so fascinating to me,
Speaker 4: is like it seems from a geopolitical standpoint, if you understand,
Speaker 4: like you understand that you're a fading power and that
Speaker 4: unipolarity is not going to be able to hold on
Speaker 4: held on to forever, but you want to maintain yourself
Speaker 4: in basically a plurality control where you're you're not you're
Speaker 4: not the everything, but you have enough allies that you
Speaker 4: could basically still semi dominate the planet. Well, America had
Speaker 4: that on offer, like, we could have done that. We
Speaker 4: have NATO, we have so many of the more wealthy
Speaker 4: economies that are are in lockstep with us. But instead
Speaker 4: and we could have brought Russia into that fold in
Speaker 4: opposition to China. But instead of that, they do the
Speaker 4: opposite and they push Russia into the arms of the Chinese.
Speaker 4: In what fucking world does a geopolitical strategists think that's
Speaker 4: the proper end game to this? It seems so counterproductive.
Speaker 4: Are they they just overplayed their hands?
Speaker 3: Looks that's a great question, right, And first of all,
Speaker 3: let me just say that Henry Kissinger agreed with you
Speaker 3: and Trump about this, right that like this is so
Speaker 3: In other words, I'm not saying you're a horrible kissingery
Speaker 3: and I but I'm just saying this was like perfectly
Speaker 3: within the realm of professional discussion by credentialed foreign policy
Speaker 3: acolyte types that like, what are we doing here? Are
Speaker 3: we fighting your Asia or are we fighting East Asia?
Speaker 3: And certainly if we're fighting East Asia, we want to
Speaker 3: make friends with your Asia first, right, that only makes sense. However,
Speaker 3: the people who are the vested interests on the fight
Speaker 3: in your Asia, well they don't want to switch, right,
Speaker 3: And so you have essentially these separate interests, you know,
Speaker 3: competing and then their compromises will just do every wrong
Speaker 3: thing instead of stopping doing one to do the other.
Speaker 3: And you also have and you know, look, as individualists,
Speaker 3: we understand that this is how it goes. Like you
Speaker 3: can oversimplify and go, oh, the CFR wants this or
Speaker 3: the State Department wants that, but like, man, it comes
Speaker 3: down to it. There's this great interview in the New
Speaker 3: York Times, and I cite this in the book, but
Speaker 3: they're talking with a guy named Thomas Graham, who's like
Speaker 3: a lifelong foreign service officer who warned all along about
Speaker 3: this stuff. I quote him way back in the nineties
Speaker 3: saying we should not be doing this, and he stayed
Speaker 3: in government, and this is in the late W. Bush.
Speaker 3: Hears now, so he stayed through Clinton and through W.
Speaker 3: Bush and he's still around somewhere. But so this is
Speaker 3: late W. Bush and he's explained I'm pretty sure he's
Speaker 3: talking to Keith Guesson at the New York Times magazine?
Speaker 3: Is this footnote? But he's he's, uh, I'm sorry, I
Speaker 3: got off track on Keith Guessing. I got what Biden's got.
Speaker 3: You got to forgive me the I'm sorry, what was
Speaker 3: I just saying? Who was talking to Keith Guessing? What
Speaker 3: I just say? God damn it, save me.
Speaker 4: Now, I'm caught up on Guessing. I can't I get No,
Speaker 4: you got New York Times.
Speaker 3: Oh it was Thomas Graham. Thomas Graham explains, Sorry, everybody,
Speaker 3: I'm kind of an idiot. Thomas Graham says to Keith Guessing,
Speaker 3: He's like, yeah, no, we should not be doing this stuff. Man,
Speaker 3: It's terrible and crazy. It's driving the Russians crazy. It's
Speaker 3: going to lead to a terrible conflict with them. And
Speaker 3: Keith Guessa goes, well, I don't understand, man, You're the
Speaker 3: head of the Russia desk. On W. Bush's National security Council,
Speaker 3: So what the hell? And Thomas Graham says, oh, but
Speaker 3: that's the Ukraine Desk. I'm not in charge of that, right.
Speaker 3: I can only say, this is what I think, you know,
Speaker 3: what seems to be going on at the Ukraine Desk
Speaker 3: down the hall, what they're doing, what that could effect,
Speaker 3: that could have on our Russia policy. But essentially he
Speaker 3: had been able to carve out a couple of things
Speaker 3: that we could work together with Russia on and hopefully
Speaker 3: try to make things better and whatever. But if the guys,
Speaker 3: if Victoria Newlan and Daniel Freed and all of these
Speaker 3: koops down the Hall on the Ukraine are starting a war,
Speaker 3: he can't do anything about it. So he's w Bush's
Speaker 3: top Russia guy on his National Security Council, and he
Speaker 3: can't tell Bush to not do Ukraine things because that's
Speaker 3: not his job, even though, of course everything Ukraine is
Speaker 3: completely tied up with Russia. They're not separate issues. Stupid,
Speaker 3: These desks should be stuck together. There should be one
Speaker 3: guy in charge of both desks, and there's just not.
Speaker 3: And so like, I don't know, man like, and you
Speaker 3: can tell Thomas Graham is like, I know, it sucks.
Speaker 4: Right, that's all there is doing. Man, that's nuts. I
Speaker 4: want to ask you about the because from my vantage point,
Speaker 4: like the more imminent threat in escalations in this current
Speaker 4: war is that he could, as a show of force
Speaker 4: to try and basically call NATO and the US State
Speaker 4: Department's bluff, pummel poland pummel some Eastern European country to
Speaker 4: send shock waves and see if they actually like, do
Speaker 4: you want to fucking chill out or not? Or they
Speaker 4: immediately fucking send troops into Ukraine and it's on like
Speaker 4: it could go either way. But here's the here's the
Speaker 4: real question. So the real question that I have is
Speaker 4: are these fucking politicians in Europe who are actually imperiling
Speaker 4: their people in a way that's actually much more significant
Speaker 4: than it is America, because if even if this war
Speaker 4: stays conventional, you'd have a real fucking problem on your
Speaker 4: hands if you end up in a ground war against Russia.
Speaker 4: Why the fuck are they doing this? Do they are?
Speaker 4: Have they drank their own kool aid and they think
Speaker 4: that Russia is about to roll across Europe because that's
Speaker 4: the way they're behaving. I don't do you think they
Speaker 4: actually think.
Speaker 3: That that's a good question, Man, I really don't know.
Speaker 4: I don't either, That's why I'm asking. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Most of the time, no matter how bad they lie,
Speaker 3: that they convince themselves of their own lives so quickly.
Speaker 3: In most cases, they don't seem to like, you know,
Speaker 3: you think of like a pathological liar, like he keeps
Speaker 3: a ledger in his head of like what's true and
Speaker 3: what he lied about or something like that, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean. But they don't really seem to do that.
Speaker 3: They seem to just they come up with their line
Speaker 3: of crap and then they just stick with that. A
Speaker 3: lot of times it's a bunch of vague slogan earring
Speaker 3: and just it's the thing that we say, there's not
Speaker 3: too much thought about it.
Speaker 4: It's not very specific democracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, or like yeah, we can't let Russia
Speaker 3: get away with winning, Like yeah, but you're not taking
Speaker 3: into account the land that's already lost and your inability
Speaker 3: to reverse that.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: That was the debate I got in on Pierce Morgan
Speaker 3: the other day where he's like that was pretending to
Speaker 3: invoke like these high minded principles Russia must not be
Speaker 3: allowed to get away with this. Well, if you're not
Speaker 3: willing to send in the Marine Corps and the US
Speaker 3: Navy and the US Air Force to reverse it, then
Speaker 3: you're not gonna reverse it. And if you did that,
Speaker 3: we'd all be dead in a general nuclear war between
Speaker 3: NATO and Russia anyway. So sorry, the Donbass is lost
Speaker 3: and it's a prosia and curse on too. The question
Speaker 3: now is whether you're gonna lose Tarki and Ardessa or
Speaker 3: where you're going to be able to hang on to them.
Speaker 3: Negotiate sooner not later, you know, But they always do that,
Speaker 3: you know. It's always the arguments are always so vague
Speaker 3: when it comes to why we got to continue to
Speaker 3: do these things. When it comes down to the specifics,
Speaker 3: you go see, it makes no sense. And quite frankly,
Speaker 3: do you think that the Germans and the French and
Speaker 3: the Polish could reverse the state of the war. I
Speaker 3: don't know that they could.
Speaker 4: Maybe they sit in.
Speaker 3: Their entire air forces and all that, but they'd have
Speaker 3: to be willing to lose their pilots and get shot
Speaker 3: out of the sky. They'd have to have to be
Speaker 3: willing to lose brigades worth of men in the war,
Speaker 3: which I don't think that they're willing to do. I
Speaker 3: don't think they have the political capital or the political
Speaker 3: will to do that whatsoever.
Speaker 4: Well, then and then you also have to you also
Speaker 4: have to deal with the potential that Russia strikes your
Speaker 4: nation and the fallout from your people in your country,
Speaker 4: or even.
Speaker 3: Or Clint even launch a general mobilization, which so far
Speaker 3: they had not. Right like, this is a police action
Speaker 3: to rush. It's a full scale life and death war
Speaker 3: to Ukraine. But this is a special military operation. They
Speaker 3: have not announce widespread conscription.
Speaker 4: You know, there's much a good question for you, because
Speaker 4: I agree with your assessment on this, But the Navo
Speaker 4: trolls online are constantly trying to portray it that Russia
Speaker 4: is dealing with the same you know, troop shortage that
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians are. I don't think that's accurate whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Look at the census, man, look at the size of
Speaker 3: the nation in question. There's just no question that there
Speaker 3: are many tens of millions more fighting age males that
Speaker 3: live in Russia than live in Ukraine. You could I
Speaker 3: don't have it in front of me, but you could
Speaker 3: look it up on the CIA World fact Book. They'll
Speaker 3: have the population for you.
Speaker 4: There is Russia conscripting at all this at thet Oh yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, they do have conscription, but it's nothing like
Speaker 3: a full scale mobilization, like they're in a real war
Speaker 3: for their lives. They're not doing that. Remember, you know
Speaker 3: they said, oh, look, they're so desperate they have to
Speaker 3: use prisoners when they were using the Wagner group to
Speaker 3: do all that fighting there. It's not because they were desperate.
Speaker 3: That's because of how not desperate they were. They were
Speaker 3: using prisoners to fight. They're saving their infantry and sending
Speaker 3: prisoners off because they didn't even need to use their
Speaker 3: army at that point.
Speaker 4: Probably because they want to use those guys burned through them,
Speaker 4: because if they end up in a wider war with NATO,
Speaker 4: they're going to need all their good guys.
Speaker 3: That's right. Yeah, you always want to like you know,
Speaker 3: remember the South Park movie, just send the darky shield
Speaker 3: first or where the people that they don't care about
Speaker 3: are the ones that go first and they but the
Speaker 3: way they portrayed it was like, oh yeah, see, they're
Speaker 3: so desperate. They can't find a single fighting age male
Speaker 3: anywhere in Moscow or Saint Petersburg to conscript, Like come
Speaker 3: on man, that's not right general prognosis.
Speaker 4: You it seems as if you were at least somewhat
Speaker 4: optimistic we will get to Trump's inauguration. And do you
Speaker 4: think based off of the cabinet picks, which you and
Speaker 4: I have not been tremendous fans of, particularly when it
Speaker 4: comes to foreign policy, do you think that that Trump
Speaker 4: has the backbone and the political will given the kind
Speaker 4: of mandate that the American people gave him to negotiate
Speaker 4: peace despite the warhawks that he surrounded himself with.
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ Gleann. He named Marco Rubio.
Speaker 4: Brother I know, to be Secretary of State.
Speaker 3: I mean, he could have made him any horrible thing,
Speaker 3: I know, but secretary. Ain't you know?
Speaker 4: You know Miriam Madelson bought that slot. She bought that.
Speaker 3: Oh I do know that. I do know that. But God,
Speaker 3: dang man, I that is really that is really makes
Speaker 3: it difficult.
Speaker 4: I tell you one nice.
Speaker 3: Story about Trump, all right, go for it. Trump made
Speaker 3: a deal with I'll make Khalil Zod, who was a
Speaker 3: legit oh j neo conservative, studied under Leo Strauss at
Speaker 3: the University of Chicago, worked for Scoop Jackson with Pearl
Speaker 3: and Fife and then wolf of Witz helped write the
Speaker 3: Defense Planning Guidance of nineteen ninety two ninety four. There,
Speaker 3: Trump somehow, by what magic I do not know, made
Speaker 3: a deal with khalil Zod that khalil Zod would truly, seriously,
Speaker 3: no bullshit, actually sign a piece deal with the Taliban
Speaker 3: to get us the hell out of Afghanistan insane. Now,
Speaker 3: how he got khalil Zod to shake hands and swear
Speaker 3: to God and really mean it that he was not
Speaker 3: going to play some double game and he was not
Speaker 3: going to drag this out and he was not going
Speaker 3: to do this thing. Now, I've read a bit about
Speaker 3: different administrations over the years, and like it matters a
Speaker 3: lot whether you're the president's guy or whether you work
Speaker 3: for the Secretary of State or whatever it is. But
Speaker 3: khalil Zod had a mandate directly from the President that said, seriously, man,
Speaker 3: sign a goddamn deil, I really really mean it, and
Speaker 3: don't take the job if you're not really going to
Speaker 3: do it. I have no anecdotes here, I'm making up
Speaker 3: the dialogue, but the point being he made somehow he
Speaker 3: made khalil Zod promise and mean it that he would
Speaker 3: have a deal done by the end of Trump's presidency
Speaker 3: by in fact, by February of his last year in
Speaker 3: office in twenty twenty. That was amazing. So the deal
Speaker 3: is ultimately like I was saying before about his flaws
Speaker 3: when he could have clamped down when his government was
Speaker 3: doing the wrong thing. He's the president, and quite frankly,
Speaker 3: Marco Rubio ain't shit compared to Donald Trump. When the
Speaker 3: two of them are in a room together and Trump's
Speaker 3: the one in the chair behind the desk, and Rubio's
Speaker 3: standing before him the power and balance right as the
Speaker 3: sexual harassment people would say, or whatever is stark there right.
Speaker 3: In other words, Rubio better goddamn do what he's told.
Speaker 3: And that means that Trump ought to be able to
Speaker 3: say to him. Look, man, these are the ground rules.
Speaker 3: But I want it done, and don't being Hillary Clinton
Speaker 3: on me and doing what the establishment wants. You work
Speaker 3: for me, boy, go and do what you've agreed to do,
Speaker 3: which is do what I say to do. And that
Speaker 3: is the job, right. The job has not come up
Speaker 3: with a foreign policy, Marco.
Speaker 4: You know so because chance you don't know chance? Do
Speaker 4: you think serious question? Do you think that Marco Rubio
Speaker 4: is any worse than Anthony Blincoln Jake Sullivan. I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm not saying Marco Rubio is good and such the imagination.
Speaker 3: But listen, he's not only because of how absolutely horrible
Speaker 3: they are. Anthony Blincoln has us worse as Secretary of
Speaker 3: status we've ever had in all of American history. He
Speaker 3: is absolute just a monster. So Rubio has the potential
Speaker 3: to be that bad.
Speaker 4: He does.
Speaker 3: Rubio is absolutely horrible on everything, and he always has.
Speaker 3: But he's never been good on any single thing, I'm
Speaker 3: sure ever in his life. Right he flew over there
Speaker 3: with Hillary Clinton to celebrate the aggressive war against Libya
Speaker 3: and the regime change for al Qaeda in Libya. Okay,
Speaker 3: he's If he's not guilty of high treason, it's because
Speaker 3: he's too stupid to know that he's taking the side
Speaker 3: of al Qaeda in Iraq, in Libya and Syria too.
Speaker 3: So no, may God damn Marco Rubio. He is absolutely horrible.
Speaker 3: But b Lincoln has already killed exactly hi, tens of thousands,
Speaker 3: hundreds of thousands of people that Rubio just hasn't had
Speaker 3: a chance to murder yet quite exactly.
Speaker 4: See this, this was I was in this spaces last
Speaker 4: night defending Dave Smith's honor because Dave and I both
Speaker 4: ultimately concluded to support Donald Trump and vote for a
Speaker 4: winning president for the first time in my life. I
Speaker 4: don't fucking like it at all, but that's what I did.
Speaker 4: And they were basically saying, you know, what faith do
Speaker 4: you have, Like why do you believe that Trump will
Speaker 4: be any better? And it's like, because he can't be worse,
Speaker 4: Like the footing that the current State Department has with
Speaker 4: the largest nuclear power on the planet is as dangerous, like,
Speaker 4: aside from preemptive fucking nuclear launches, they couldn't be doing
Speaker 4: anything crazier. So that's my argument. And we'll see and look.
Speaker 3: Even younger Biden, who is absolutely horrible on everything, at
Speaker 3: least he could read and think and be awake and
Speaker 3: talk and make decisions. Kamala Harris Kamala Harris was running
Speaker 3: as current Joe Biden right She was running to be
Speaker 3: the person with no brain who sits there at the
Speaker 3: desk and receives her instructions from her committee, from her
Speaker 3: advisors and then says, Okay, I guess I choose Option B.
Speaker 3: But nobody thinks that she knows anything about it. Nobody
Speaker 3: thinks that she's in charge. You know, they used to
Speaker 3: say about Bill Clinton. Boy, if you're going to give
Speaker 3: the president a briefing, you better have your shit together,
Speaker 3: because he's read six books about may and Mar Okay
Speaker 3: and you haven't. You're gonna tell him what's going on
Speaker 3: in Miyan Mar. He's gonna ask you questions that you
Speaker 3: can't answer. And the guy's a horrible face fighting rapist,
Speaker 3: son of a pitch. He's horrible, but he's intelligent, and
Speaker 3: he can read books, and he's interested in what the
Speaker 3: hell is going on in Mayan mar Okay. Nobody. Nobody
Speaker 3: thinks that about Kamala Harris. She literally was running not
Speaker 3: just as but to be an empty suit. She was
Speaker 3: running to rule America by the same committee that's been
Speaker 3: running it, Blincoln and Sullivan and Newland and those guys,
Speaker 3: same group.
Speaker 4: The worst state department, you know, lineup that we've ever
Speaker 4: seen in our lives. And Libertarians are telling me, I
Speaker 4: can't understand why you don't want them to stay in power,
Speaker 4: And it's like, do I have to explain it? These
Speaker 4: people are fucking lunatics now, and he could It could
Speaker 4: very well be hold on, hold on. It could very
Speaker 4: well be that Trump pivots to Iran and then Russia
Speaker 4: assists Iran and we end up in World War three,
Speaker 4: and then China helps Russia and like it could all
Speaker 4: go to fucking hell. It could in a totally different way.
Speaker 4: But I genuinely think that Trump is sincere in wanting
Speaker 4: to see the war in Ukraine ended and for me,
Speaker 4: for me, that is the biggest threat we face as
Speaker 4: human beings in my lifetime. And I don't think I'm
Speaker 4: being paranoid or hyperbolic. And the real way I know
Speaker 4: that is because the media pretends is if this none
Speaker 4: of this is even happening, as if it's not a
Speaker 4: big danger, as if this isn't the Cuban missile crisis,
Speaker 4: you know, part two on steroids, which is what it is.
Speaker 4: So that's that was the decision making process. And you know,
Speaker 4: people can be upset with me, but I still think
Speaker 4: that it was like it was a rational choice whether
Speaker 4: you wanted to join me or not.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And look, I was rooting for the guy. I
Speaker 3: could never vote for him, and I didn't. I didn't
Speaker 3: vote for him in twenty sixteen or twenty either, But
Speaker 3: I was rooting for him both of those times too,
Speaker 3: because you know, even though he really is not far
Speaker 3: outside of the Republican establishment, he ran as a repudiation
Speaker 3: of their entire consensus, and so that message has to
Speaker 3: be sent.
Speaker 4: And look, I said, it's more about his supporters than
Speaker 4: it is him for me. Yeah, that the people, they
Speaker 4: are the people that don't want these wars, you know.
Speaker 3: And also look it is it's about firing the Democrats,
Speaker 3: you know. In four I remember, I've told this story
Speaker 3: a lot of times. I'll never forget. I had this
Speaker 3: couple in my cab and I says to them, I says, so,
Speaker 3: who are you guys voting for? And they go, well,
Speaker 3: it's hard to decide between Bush and Carrie because you know,
Speaker 3: we kind of like both of them a little bit,
Speaker 3: but there's some things that we disagree with them about.
Speaker 3: And like it's kind of hard to know, you know.
Speaker 4: And I said this, yeah to the Iraq war.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of them just lied you into war. He
Speaker 3: hired a bunch of ex communist is. Rarely spies to
Speaker 3: lie you into war. Like, you don't hate him, You're
Speaker 3: not mad at all about that, You don't think that,
Speaker 3: Like just on that alone. He deserves to be fired
Speaker 3: for making your next door neighbor think that Saddam help
Speaker 3: Osama hit the towers and and start a war based
Speaker 3: on that, like and and and yes, John Kerry's horrible.
Speaker 3: John Carrey is nothing but a clone right out of
Speaker 3: the W. Bush machine from the other side of the aisle.
Speaker 3: But the absolute center left. He's nothing but Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 3: John Kerry. But still this guy must be fired. He
Speaker 3: must be repudiated. The American people must say no, if
Speaker 3: you lie us into war, then we hate your guts
Speaker 3: and we kick you out. It really doesn't matter who's
Speaker 3: waiting unless it's whatever make up your worst caricature in
Speaker 3: the world.
Speaker 4: But otherwise, and to a war and Patriot Act and.
Speaker 3: And torturing people to death and all of stuff. Man,
Speaker 3: And then the American people re electing W. Bush, you
Speaker 3: know four is to their everlasting shame that that was
Speaker 3: allowed to happen in any way. I mean by the people,
Speaker 3: not by people with power. And it's the same thing here.
Speaker 3: We're like, what they have done in Ukraine and what
Speaker 3: they have done in Palestine means that they have to go.
Speaker 3: That's it. They must be repudiated. And look, Trump is
Speaker 3: running on being worse on Israel Palestine. He ran on that,
Speaker 3: and he almost certainly promises to be worse on it
Speaker 3: than even them. And and that's and he might be like,
Speaker 3: he very well, but they killed fifty thousand people. He didn't.
Speaker 3: He only like set the thing up and it happened
Speaker 3: because of him in Kushner's horrible policy. But Biden's the
Speaker 3: one who keeps giving them bombs.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 3: Harris is the one who didn't resign over it.
Speaker 4: And we've seen so people are responsible. We've seen so little,
Speaker 4: you know, actual reflection on the disastrous foreign like not
Speaker 4: not so little, zero like negative reflection in fact, on
Speaker 4: the campaign trail, Kamala Harris is still doubling and tripling
Speaker 4: down not just on these wars, but also the censorship
Speaker 4: regime that was that was pushed under, you know, twenty
Speaker 4: twenty one, twenty two under the Biden regime. And it's like,
Speaker 4: this is fucking the most Unamerican shit and the most
Speaker 4: like existentially dangerous foreign policy I've ever seen, and it's
Speaker 4: combined into one. On top, I haven't even mentioned the
Speaker 4: vaccine mandates that they try to shove down our fucking
Speaker 4: throats it's like, these people have to go. Okay, I
Speaker 4: think that Trump was a catastrophe in twenty twenty, just
Speaker 4: disastrous on so many levels, probably the largest transfer of
Speaker 4: wealth and human history as a consequence of what he
Speaker 4: allowed to transpire under his watch. That doesn't change the
Speaker 4: fact that we're on the precipice of fucking World War three.
Speaker 4: And I'm like, these guys gotta go. So anyways, I'll
Speaker 4: stop there.
Speaker 3: I mean, even there, even there, that was the democratic
Speaker 3: state governors that locked the country down the most and
Speaker 3: the worst. What and it was a destabilization campaign against
Speaker 3: him at our expense.
Speaker 4: Right, No, it was. He did the fifteen days, but
Speaker 4: beyond that, I think he was just buffaloed. Let me
Speaker 4: let me play you one last bizarre clip, because we've
Speaker 4: talked about this in the past, and I'm just curious
Speaker 4: what you think.
Speaker 6: Any part of federal government is knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs.
Speaker 4: From the public. Yes, sir, yes, yes, thank you.
Speaker 6: I also want to just go down the line, and
Speaker 6: I know many of you have already said this, by
Speaker 6: just for the record again, just briefly, what do you
Speaker 6: believe UAPs could be or.
Speaker 3: Are strong evidence that they are? Non human higher intelligence.
Speaker 3: I echo my colleague's commentary, genuinely do not know, don't know.
Speaker 4: But we must find out. This is UAP hearings that
Speaker 4: happening on Capitol Hill a couple of weeks ago. Is
Speaker 4: this is this? I mean, was it Project Bluebeam? Are
Speaker 4: they just trying to set us up for when the
Speaker 4: nukes fly? They can blame it on aliens? What the
Speaker 4: fuck are we watching here? Is there any realness to this?
Speaker 3: I don't know. No, I am all ba humbug about
Speaker 3: this UFO, and like I know people, Oh but the video,
Speaker 3: the video man video is two D. It's very hard
Speaker 3: to see. I was looking at someone read you know,
Speaker 3: I saw a thing. I'm not saying this is a
Speaker 3: definitive of like all of the very best footage or whatever,
Speaker 3: but I do know that, like, well, this is a
Speaker 3: year maybe two years ago, they released this whole reel
Speaker 3: of footage and there was this guy and I forgot exactly,
Speaker 3: but like he was the co founder of Compact Computers
Speaker 3: or some kind of crap. We're tired, really young as
Speaker 3: a zillionaire, you know, tech guru and now is like
Speaker 3: the self educated, self appointed world's greatest expert in video imaging,
Speaker 3: and knows all about how all different brands of cameras
Speaker 3: work and all of the different things about video imaging,
Speaker 3: and he just totally debunked this crap. He goes, look, man,
Speaker 3: this plane. You can't see its wings. You know why,
Speaker 3: and you know why. It's the same reason that it's
Speaker 3: not where they think it is on the radar. Oh
Speaker 3: my god, we can see it right there, but it's
Speaker 3: not on the radar. You know why, because it's three
Speaker 3: times further away than they think it is. They're looking
Speaker 3: out the window and it's an optional conclusion, man, and
Speaker 3: they think that it's closer, and it's not. It's further away,
Speaker 3: and that's why they can't see its wings, and that's
Speaker 3: why it's not on the radar. It's not a UFO,
Speaker 3: it's a seven fifty seven, but it's over there, right.
Speaker 3: And then he goes, look at this one. This is
Speaker 3: the ass end of an F fifteen flying in it's
Speaker 3: in infrared and in you know, reverse negative contrast, whatever
Speaker 3: the hell where the fire looks dark and the outline
Speaker 3: looks funny. Everything is outlined. They show he showed an
Speaker 3: example of a little voice standing there and he has
Speaker 3: this big kind of halo outline around him, because that's
Speaker 3: how some kinds of infrared imaging work to help the
Speaker 3: operator discriminate and differentiate between different objects. Right, So he
Speaker 3: just he just goes down the list, one after another
Speaker 3: after another after another, where everything that you think you
Speaker 3: see here is easy to explain away as mostly essentially
Speaker 3: artifacts of video. And then the rest is all just
Speaker 3: bigfoot sightings. Man, the rest is all just I don't know.
Speaker 3: My buddy Mike swears to God he saw a UFO
Speaker 3: over Lake Austin years ago, and I guess I believe him.
Speaker 3: But you know, I have a friend who's a UFO kook,
Speaker 3: who's a really great guy. I really love him, and
Speaker 3: he's a really smart guy. And I asked him, would
Speaker 3: you please write an essay for me, like explaining like
Speaker 3: all the very best stuff about like if you're really
Speaker 3: trying to convince me to like, you know, threshold saying
Speaker 3: this stuff was crazy, dude, It was not rational. It
Speaker 3: was not journalism, and anyway, it was not here's a
Speaker 3: collection of hard facts of what we know. It immediately
Speaker 3: was like spiritual, metaphysical, transdimensional blah blah blah. We're just
Speaker 3: having fun now, dude, no, this is true.
Speaker 4: Well I was hoping you were going to tell me that, yes, Clint,
Speaker 4: I do believe in aliens and yes they are actually
Speaker 4: the only thing that are preventing the nukes from flying,
Speaker 4: because that made me feel better.
Speaker 3: Goodness that Yeah, Kenyakodos got our back. Dude, don't worry
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 4: It's all good, all right. We're going to end with
Speaker 4: that pretending as if the aliens are going to keep
Speaker 4: us alive during nuclear winner. Tell people where they can
Speaker 4: best get your books so that you get the most
Speaker 4: profit from it. Where where should they go?
Speaker 3: Absolutely go to Provoked book dot com and that will
Speaker 3: fords you over to Scotthorton dot org slash provoked and
Speaker 3: hopefully I have the right link on there where I
Speaker 3: get a little bit of extra kickback. But otherwise it's
Speaker 3: just an Amazon and you can get the kindle as
Speaker 3: well on the paperback. The hardback is coming, although that's
Speaker 3: going to be a bit of a delay before that
Speaker 3: one's available. But the paperback and the kindle are both
Speaker 3: available now and very soon although not quite yet but
Speaker 3: very soon it'll be on Apple Books and Google Play
Speaker 3: and all of that kind of stuff. For the epub
Speaker 3: version and I'm working on I've already started to record
Speaker 3: the audiobook. But since the book is half a million words,
Speaker 3: it's going to be roughly back of the envelope estimate
Speaker 3: about forty eight hours long, maybe more than that. And
Speaker 3: so it's going to be a substack series and that's
Speaker 3: going to be as Scott hortonshow dot com and that's
Speaker 3: my substack now has its custom you ereil there and people,
Speaker 3: if you sign up for the substack, you'll be able
Speaker 3: to get the audiobook as soon as it's available to us,
Speaker 3: not episodes there.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want people to know, even though I
Speaker 4: have not run the read the final version, I read
Speaker 4: a I don't know, probably six or seven hundred page
Speaker 4: version back a year and a half ago, is a
Speaker 4: fucking masterpiece. I love all of your books, but I
Speaker 4: think this is your whatever magnum opus. It's it's spectacular,
Speaker 4: particularly if you have never read a book by Scott Horton.
Speaker 4: I really encourage you to get this one if you
Speaker 4: think that. But there's any truth to the current war
Speaker 4: footing bullshit narrative that is is the Ukraine War, I
Speaker 4: implore you, I beg you to fucking buy and read
Speaker 4: this book. And if you already know what Scott and
Speaker 4: I know, buy this fucking book and give it to
Speaker 4: your neo Kon relatives for Christmas and shove it up
Speaker 4: their ass and make them learn something for once of
Speaker 4: their fucking lives. Scott Horton, you're a treasure. Thank you
Speaker 4: so much for joining me again.
Speaker 3: Brother, Thank you Clint love Man.
Speaker 4: Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. It's gonna your plock home to
Speaker 4: Liberty ain't come, but yeah it's on holl It's where
Speaker 4: did it come from?
Speaker 3: And where did it