Speaker 1: Welcome to today's podcast sponsored by Hillsdale College, All Things
Speaker 1: hilldalet Hillsdale dot ed or. I encourage you to take
Speaker 1: advantage of the many free online courses there, and of
Speaker 1: course I listen to the Hillsdale Dialogue, all of them
Speaker 1: at q for Hillsdale dot com or just Google, Apple,
Speaker 1: iTunes and Hillsdale. Welcome back. I'm to Hewett, joined now
Speaker 1: by Nebraska Senator deb Fisher. Senator Fisher is a member
Speaker 1: of the United States Senate's Armed Services Committee. Senator welcome.
Speaker 1: Give us your assessment of the first ten days of
Speaker 1: the battle with Iran.
Speaker 2: Hik you.
Speaker 3: It's just great to be with you. First of all,
Speaker 3: I support the President and the administration's actions that they've.
Speaker 2: Taken on a run.
Speaker 3: This is a state sponsor of terrorism around the world.
Speaker 3: They are a threat to our country, so I think
Speaker 3: that the actions are being taken.
Speaker 2: Have been good. First of all, we've been given briefings.
Speaker 3: A number of times. We just had another classified briefing
Speaker 3: this morning on the Arm Services Committee about what's happening,
Speaker 3: how it's progressing. But the administration's been clear, as I said,
Speaker 3: on those military objectives, and that's to make sure that
Speaker 3: Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: It's also to destroy their.
Speaker 3: Ballistic missile capability right now.
Speaker 2: That short range and medium range.
Speaker 3: Capabilities that those ballistic missiles have. But looking forward, it
Speaker 3: would be a year maybe two before Iran would have
Speaker 3: an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Speaker 2: That can't happen. That would put Europe in play for them.
Speaker 2: It would be.
Speaker 3: Dangerous, and then it's just not hopskipping a jump until
Speaker 3: they would threaten the United States. So we need to
Speaker 3: take out those capabilities. And then the third one was
Speaker 3: to be able to destroy their navy, and we've seen
Speaker 3: a lot of accomplishment there. Over thirty forty ships have
Speaker 3: been taken out of action, and that's important due to
Speaker 3: the straits of hormouse and commerce. We need to make
Speaker 3: sure that that commerce can still travel safely through that area.
Speaker 3: And by taking out their navy and taking out their
Speaker 3: ballistic missiles, that's going to help us to make that
Speaker 3: a safe passage once again.
Speaker 1: Senna Fisher, your colleague, Sennor Blimenthal from Connecticut is a Democrat.
Speaker 1: He came down to talk to reporters today and said
Speaker 1: he'd been in a classified briefing and he believed we
Speaker 1: were preparing to send ground troops to Iran. I don't
Speaker 1: know where he got that. Have you heard that.
Speaker 3: Senator Bloomenthal was in the same briefing that I was in, now, Hugh,
Speaker 3: I don't talk about what we discuss in classified briefings,
Speaker 3: but I can tell you that was.
Speaker 2: Not my understanding, and I was.
Speaker 3: There throughout the major part of the brief including Sender
Speaker 3: Blumenthal's questions that he asked, and I specifically asked some
Speaker 3: questions related to ground troops as well as we both
Speaker 3: known as your listeners know, the Department of War makes
Speaker 3: plans for many contingencies.
Speaker 2: That are out there. We want that to happen.
Speaker 3: We want to be able to have our military look
Speaker 3: at what the objectives are in any area to achieve
Speaker 3: and then what steps they would take, and then to
Speaker 3: practice on those. But it's up to the commander in chief.
Speaker 3: It's up to President Trump to determine when those plans
Speaker 3: or if those plans are ever going to be put
Speaker 3: into practice. We saw that with Venezuela and learned later
Speaker 3: that that was a plan that had been in place
Speaker 3: for many years, as well as the Twelve Day War
Speaker 3: with Iran, when we did the bombing of their new
Speaker 3: clear facilities, So I think it I would never have
Speaker 3: phrased that the way that Senator Bluementhal tried to phrase
Speaker 3: it with the press.
Speaker 1: Now, I'd like to move on to the cost. It's
Speaker 1: obviously large, and it's going to be getting larger and
Speaker 1: perhaps into the hundreds of billions. So usually in wartime
Speaker 1: and in time of a battle or a conflict, the
Speaker 1: United States Congress would vote a supplemental appropriation. I don't
Speaker 1: think the Democrats will support that. They're against this battle.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure they want us to win this battle.
Speaker 1: But what about using reconciliation? Senator? That would require the
Speaker 1: budget committees of both houses to agree on the top line,
Speaker 1: on a DoD line, on a and then come to
Speaker 1: your committee Committee of Authorization and then to appropriation. Is
Speaker 1: that a simple majority? Is that on the table?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 2: I think we need to look at everything.
Speaker 3: This is important that we are able to pass additional
Speaker 3: funding to cover the expenses that we're going to have
Speaker 3: in protecting our national security by taking out, as I
Speaker 3: mentioned earlier, number of the objectives that are that are
Speaker 3: listed in Iran that we need to take out. We'll
Speaker 3: see what happens the speaker. Speaker Johnson has talked about
Speaker 3: doing a reconciliation in the House. We'll see if if
Speaker 3: they're able to do that. I guess you, I still
Speaker 3: have hopes that we can get a supplemental done. I
Speaker 3: think the more information that the Administration can give us
Speaker 3: here in the Senate, especially when we're trying to work
Speaker 3: through this, and then also in the House giving us
Speaker 3: that information so that we can have a better understanding
Speaker 3: of what you know they're they're doing moving forward. So
Speaker 3: I still have some hope for a supplemental. I think
Speaker 3: there's different ways that we can put one together and
Speaker 3: maybe address other issues besides just looking at around itself.
Speaker 1: Last question, Senator, I have not heard one Democrat unequivocally
Speaker 1: embrace the idea of winning, of having this regime which
Speaker 1: is a malign in evil presence and has been for
Speaker 1: forty seven years. Fall have you heard any Democrat advocate
Speaker 1: for by whatever means it comes about popular revolution, a
Speaker 1: coup inside the regime itself at cracks, whether or not
Speaker 1: we kill every Mula that ever wants to be the
Speaker 1: supreme leader, I don't know how it is, But does
Speaker 1: any Democrat speak in terms of winning and what an
Speaker 1: unqualified good that would be for the world and for
Speaker 1: the people of Iran.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard them say that. What I've heard from every.
Speaker 3: Democrat is they always begin by saying, you know, we're
Speaker 3: glad the Alatola.
Speaker 2: Was taken out. He was an evil man, he needed
Speaker 2: to be gone.
Speaker 3: But and then they go on in a not in
Speaker 3: a supportive way for the actions that this administration is
Speaker 3: taken in addressing it. You know, we've seen forty seven
Speaker 3: years of Republican and Democrat administrations say that around is
Speaker 3: a threat to this country. They've killed hundreds of Americans,
Speaker 3: they sponsor terrorists around the world. We are not safe
Speaker 3: because of the actions that they have and they were
Speaker 3: continuing to work on developing and enriching uranium, developing a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon, continuing to work on their ballistic missiles and
Speaker 3: also get ICBM.
Speaker 2: And yet we don't seem to hear that. I was
Speaker 2: going to.
Speaker 3: Say full throat in support from Democrats, but any of
Speaker 3: support I agree from Democrats saying you know, this is
Speaker 3: this is necessary, this has to happen.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: God bless our troops, God bless our commander in chief
Speaker 3: for stepping forward and finally taking action to remove this evil, horrible,
Speaker 3: threatening world, threatening a regime that only wanted to become
Speaker 3: more and more emboldened so they could blackmail the world.
Speaker 1: It would be nice to hear one.
Speaker 2: Democratic understand why they can't do that.
Speaker 1: If you find one centator like Diogenes with a lamp,
Speaker 1: please let me know and I'll interview them. Just one,
Speaker 1: just one Democrat. Senator Deb Fisher from the Great Katy, Nebraska.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator. I'll be right back in America. Please
Speaker 1: stay tuned the Sail News channel to Salem Radio Network
Speaker 1: on our affiliated radio station. I'm he hewing Welcome back
Speaker 1: in America. I'm huge few at David M. Drucker as
Speaker 1: a senior political writer for The Dispatch in Washington, d
Speaker 1: See David. I just spoke with Sender Deb Fisher of Nebraska,
Speaker 1: and I asked her if one Democrat, one Democrat had
Speaker 1: come out and unequivocally called for victory in the battle
Speaker 1: with Iran so that the Iranian people might be free,
Speaker 1: in the world a better place. And she said no,
Speaker 1: to her knowledge, have you heard even one Democrat call
Speaker 1: for victory.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to think here.
Speaker 6: I think we may have heard some sentiments like that
Speaker 6: from possibly Josh Gotheimer in the House, Jared Moskowitz in
Speaker 6: the House. Possibly Democrats have mostly focused their comments not
Speaker 6: just on their opposition to the war generally, but their
Speaker 6: argument that the administration hasn't laid out a reasoning for
Speaker 6: why now, even though the Iranian threat they acknowledge exists.
Speaker 1: You know, after Yosemite sam on all of its neighbors
Speaker 1: on day one of the battle, you would think it
Speaker 1: would be self evident. But they're thick, or they are
Speaker 1: ideologically incapable offending the hard left of their party. Here's
Speaker 1: a tougher question. Should Republicans in the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate come out and put their arms around this battle,
Speaker 1: say it was right to have been begun, and we
Speaker 1: need to win it in a decisive fashion. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that looks like, but we need to win
Speaker 1: it in decisive fashion because they're going to own it,
Speaker 1: whether or not they want to own it. It's their party,
Speaker 1: it's their president, it's our president. Actually it's all Americans president,
Speaker 1: but it's their nominee who started it. So shouldn't they
Speaker 1: own it?
Speaker 6: Well, from a political perspective, you're making a really good
Speaker 6: argument and I think most of them have been doing that.
Speaker 6: It's just that you know, there are you know, some
Speaker 6: dissident voices here, right. I mean, you know, as I've
Speaker 6: reported and as I've discussed repeatedly over the past twelve
Speaker 6: days or so, most Republican voters, including self identified MAGA voters,
Speaker 6: are supportive of the president's action in Iran. But you
Speaker 6: do have some loud voices on the right among influencers
Speaker 6: and podcasters, a few politicians.
Speaker 5: And some others who are.
Speaker 6: Diametrically opposed to what the President's doing for all sorts
Speaker 6: of reasons. And so I think some Republicans maybe have
Speaker 6: treaded cautiously. I think some of them have been trying
Speaker 6: to figure out what they're wrapping their arms around because
Speaker 6: the administration hasn't been very forthcoming in its battle plan
Speaker 6: broadly speaking, the why now and what.
Speaker 5: The ultimate goal is.
Speaker 6: But what I've heard from Republican elected is mostly you
Speaker 6: is support or any or you know, at the very
Speaker 6: least open minded is but mostly support. So I think
Speaker 6: you're getting that, you know, I think you know, when
Speaker 6: you look at Democrats, just to get back to that
Speaker 6: point for.
Speaker 5: A minute, that they have a fine find they have.
Speaker 6: A tightrope to walk because you don't want to sound
Speaker 6: like you don't understand the threat from Iran.
Speaker 5: That Iran has posted those over the last.
Speaker 6: Nearly fifty years with a budding nuclear weapons program. On
Speaker 6: the other hand, their party, their voters are against the war,
Speaker 6: and American voters broadly when you look at Democrats and
Speaker 6: Independence against the war. So they don't have the same
Speaker 6: pressures that Republicans might.
Speaker 5: But your overall point is.
Speaker 6: An apt one, and that Republicans are going to own
Speaker 6: this whether they like it or not. So if they're
Speaker 6: not on board, unless they have a philosophical opposition to it,
Speaker 6: a principled opposition, you might as well speak up and
Speaker 6: speak out and before it.
Speaker 1: That's my point. Deb Fisher, Nebraska, Tom Cotton Ark and
Speaker 1: saw they both been on the last two days. They
Speaker 1: are very much for winning, and they argue this is
Speaker 1: a malign regime. The world would be a much better place,
Speaker 1: and certainly the Iranian people would be better off in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, more secure and stable. The world would
Speaker 1: be better off if Iran's regime collapse tomorrow or indeed
Speaker 1: before nightfall today. But Republicans, I don't know, they're caught
Speaker 1: up in process arguments. I don't hear it except individual interviews,
Speaker 1: and I think maybe Speaker Johnson I ought to go
Speaker 1: out there and say, thump the table a little bit.
Speaker 1: We're in favor of winning. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Look again, from a political standpoint, I think you're onto something.
Speaker 6: I think part of the problem that Republicans may be having,
Speaker 6: if this is something you're picking up on, and I
Speaker 6: think you may be picking up on it more than me,
Speaker 6: is that they don't really know what the whole point
Speaker 6: is in terms of the why now. Look, I can
Speaker 6: make a very good case to you personally about why
Speaker 6: now in my opinion, right, I mean, I'm old enough
Speaker 6: to have watched Iran and it's a bad regime and
Speaker 6: it's bad actors and all of the.
Speaker 5: State sponsored terrorism and everything.
Speaker 6: Right, I can make a case that after fifty years,
Speaker 6: we've tried diplomacy, every president's tried it. It was an admirable attempt.
Speaker 6: We've done everything we could. And so maybe you disagree,
Speaker 6: but there are risks to doing nothing. There are risks
Speaker 6: to continuing diplomacy, and so this is why now. I
Speaker 6: will tell you that outside of some occasional statements from
Speaker 6: Marco Rubio, the administration has not had a uniform, unified,
Speaker 6: really cogent argument for the why now and what the
Speaker 6: ultimate goal is, and it is so much different than.
Speaker 5: The Bush administration leading into Iraq.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 6: Notwithstanding, you know, most Americans have concluded the Iraq War
Speaker 6: was a mistake and we didn't find weapons of mass destruction,
Speaker 6: that administration made a unified, cogent argument for why they
Speaker 6: were going in and what the goals were and what
Speaker 6: they hoped to get out of that. And I think
Speaker 6: to the extent that you don't hear like a sort
Speaker 6: of unified Republican support for this thing is because they're
Speaker 6: all trying to figure out what they're supposed to be supporting.
Speaker 6: I mean said that, I mean, I've detected a lot
Speaker 6: of support, but I think they're waiting to echo whatever
Speaker 6: the administration's rationale is, and they keep hearing different arguments
Speaker 6: on different days.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a very well taken point. I think
Speaker 1: they ought to be supportive ex extraordinarily of winning and
Speaker 1: winning will be defined at a later date, but we'll
Speaker 1: know it when we see it sort of Supreme Court test,
Speaker 1: and it might be it might not be a white flag, David.
Speaker 1: It might be Larajani Dad Hamany two point zero, who's
Speaker 1: already in a Koma Dad. It might be the people
Speaker 1: of Iran back and I don't know what it's going
Speaker 1: to look like. But the key is the inability of
Speaker 1: Iran to terrorize its neighbors and supply China with oil,
Speaker 1: and that basically it.
Speaker 6: Well that's one version of it. But let me just
Speaker 6: play devil's advocate for a minute. We can look back
Speaker 6: on Iraq two thousand and three and what ultimately happened
Speaker 6: at the end of the day after the surge and
Speaker 6: all the blood and treasure that the US invested in
Speaker 6: that war, and say that we achieved an objective. We
Speaker 6: got rid of Zadam Hussein, We installed at least the
Speaker 6: quasi democratic government in there that was no longer a
Speaker 6: threat to the.
Speaker 5: US or its neighbors.
Speaker 6: That's all true, and yet most Americans will tell you,
Speaker 6: generally speaking, that war was a mistake.
Speaker 5: We lost, We didn't accomplish anything.
Speaker 1: I agree, but that's because Obama came in after the
Speaker 1: color fact.
Speaker 5: But that that may be true. That may be true.
Speaker 6: But my point here is Hugh to play devil's advocate,
Speaker 6: is that I don't think you can say, well, we'll
Speaker 6: know what winning looks like when we see it, because
Speaker 6: there could be a lot of follow on consequences to
Speaker 6: the war that we've you know, that we've initiated over
Speaker 6: the past twelve days. I just said, and I believe this.
Speaker 6: I can make a great case for doing it. What
Speaker 6: the objection should be and can be and why and why?
Speaker 6: Now I'm just saying the administration hasn't done a good
Speaker 6: job of giving Republican something that she.
Speaker 1: Wants, and I think they may be too afraid of Iraq,
Speaker 1: when in fact Iraq was a success and is a success.
Speaker 1: And thank God today I mis James not untill there.
Speaker 1: David M. Drucker follow my next free him at the Dispatch.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. Americans America, I'm too cute. Joined
Speaker 1: by Brett Bair. He was the host of Special Reports,
Speaker 1: America's Newsman. Actually it's an anchor and you can watch
Speaker 1: them tonight at six pm on the Fox News Channel. Brett, welcome.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember if you arrived in DC for
Speaker 1: Fox the week before or the week after nine to eleven?
Speaker 1: Was it before after?
Speaker 7: On?
Speaker 8: On?
Speaker 1: Okay? So yeah, you've been there for nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: You've been there for two thousand and three, so two
Speaker 1: invasions Afghanistan and Ibrock. You were there for the Libyan
Speaker 1: operation under President Obama. You have covered Midnight Hammer, You've
Speaker 1: all the drones that all the presidents have used, and
Speaker 1: now you're covering this conflict. Is this the most partisan
Speaker 1: of all of those?
Speaker 9: Yes, I'm pretty sure. I'm thinking back in the rolodex
Speaker 9: of my brain if there was as much of a split. No,
Speaker 9: I think this is the most partisan of all of them.
Speaker 1: That's my assessment too. I just had on deb Fisher
Speaker 1: of Nebraska. She went to the same briefing as Senator
Speaker 1: Blumenthal of Connecticut, and I think both have been on
Speaker 1: your program. And Senator Blumenthal came out and said, I'm
Speaker 1: afraid we're head towards ground trips in Iran. And she
Speaker 1: came out and said, I didn't hear that at all,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't talk about what you did here. Is
Speaker 1: that just the new normal? Yeah?
Speaker 9: I think people are hearing different things and the same briefing.
Speaker 9: We saw that with the drug boats off of Venezuela.
Speaker 9: We saw that with you know a number of things
Speaker 9: where senators from different parties here completely different things. This is,
Speaker 9: you know, I don't get a sense at all that
Speaker 9: there is a massive effort for ground troops in Iran.
Speaker 9: In fact, I get the sense of exactly the opposite,
Speaker 9: that the President was signaling and trying to tell the
Speaker 9: markets and the oil companies and the American consumer at
Speaker 9: the gas pump that there is a light at the
Speaker 9: end of the tunnel, that our objectives are going to
Speaker 9: be met and we're going to work with whatever comes
Speaker 9: out of Iran after that. So, you know, I took
Speaker 9: that as I'm going on the a trip with President
Speaker 9: Trump March twenty ninth, I think everything's going to be
Speaker 9: wrapped up with a bow before them in their eyes.
Speaker 9: As far as kinetic.
Speaker 1: Action, Oh, that's the most aggressive timetable. I thought from
Speaker 1: a political standpoint, the President would have not later than
Speaker 1: the end of April and May maybe, but by June
Speaker 1: people begin to lock in their political understanding of the war.
Speaker 1: But you're saying before he sits down with g he
Speaker 1: wants to have a result that he can retail when
Speaker 1: he goes to sit down with you. By the way,
Speaker 1: on that trip, do you expect Jimmy Lai to come up?
Speaker 9: I don't know if he's going to come up. You know,
Speaker 9: I would think that there'll be questions one hundred percent.
Speaker 9: But whether the President brings that up don't You don't
Speaker 9: know Behind closed doors he's got I think there's it's
Speaker 9: a consequential moment to go to China at this moment,
Speaker 9: in this environment, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't
Speaker 9: some big deal announced that we have yet to kind
Speaker 9: of put our head around me.
Speaker 1: It is indeed, you're focusing on something that I hadn't
Speaker 1: focused on. I'm glad you did that. I can think
Speaker 1: of a lot of summits that have not been consequential,
Speaker 1: but for a US president and the General Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party to meet at this moment that
Speaker 1: Iran is in the balance is significant and China might
Speaker 1: need help. I really do think they might need oil. Brett,
Speaker 1: do you agree with that?
Speaker 10: I do.
Speaker 3: I mean, the.
Speaker 9: Tie of Venezuela and taking that avenue off, the kind
Speaker 9: of whatever is going to happen with Ron and it's oil,
Speaker 9: the situation with Russia. I think that there is, you know,
Speaker 9: probably some kind of deal in the making that the
Speaker 9: President envisions with all of these things at play don't suffer, guest,
Speaker 9: excuse me that in that interim time over the next days,
Speaker 9: we could see some change in Cuba that because they're
Speaker 9: dealing with massive blackouts and protests almost every night now.
Speaker 1: Asked to Cuba Brian kill me to ask me this
Speaker 1: on Sunday Night's program. What what I thought was coming?
Speaker 1: And I think revolution, kind of revolution is coming, but
Speaker 1: I also think it's not going to be one that
Speaker 1: we assist, but we will help with food ad because
Speaker 1: we're not going to let the Cuban people starve. Do
Speaker 1: you agree with me on that?
Speaker 10: I do?
Speaker 9: And I think that if you think of effectiveness embargoes
Speaker 9: effectively hurting the regime while letting business kind of bring
Speaker 9: in some release to give up, they're they're in the
Speaker 9: process of doing that. And we haven't covered it as
Speaker 9: much as I want to because we obviously are dealing
Speaker 9: with the action in Iran and other things. But I
Speaker 9: really think that there is a change that's that's happening.
Speaker 9: And he the presidents claims that Cuba's reaching out and
Speaker 9: talking to Marco.
Speaker 1: Ruviw imint and what year it would be if Venezuela,
Speaker 1: like Cuba and Iran off flipped from being bad guys
Speaker 1: to wearing, if not white hats, at least hats that
Speaker 1: are somewhere around gray.
Speaker 10: Uh.
Speaker 1: But I want to go back to the politics. The
Speaker 1: other thing. I haven't seen a lot of Senator Cotton
Speaker 1: on this program, Senator Fisher on this program. They have
Speaker 1: been full throated in favor of winning. And the definition
Speaker 1: of winning is accordion and can be larger, it can
Speaker 1: be small, but they want to win, and they're not
Speaker 1: afraid to say that. Have you had Republicans on your
Speaker 1: show that we got to win, that this regime needs
Speaker 1: to fall.
Speaker 9: You know, there's not a ton of people that are
Speaker 9: ready to say that. Lindsey Graham is obviously one that
Speaker 9: says it all the time. But I think that there
Speaker 9: is a scaling back of objectives. As far as what
Speaker 9: the US wants, what Israel wants is something different. If
Speaker 9: it happened, I think there'd be a lot of politicians
Speaker 9: who who said they think it's good for the world
Speaker 9: that that regime changed. But as far as US, the
Speaker 9: US being the catalyst for that, I think they can help,
Speaker 9: but not do it now.
Speaker 1: Brett, there's something unusual going on. I've never seen it
Speaker 1: been doing this a long time. The President of the
Speaker 1: United States calls up reporters. It's like he has a
Speaker 1: darkboard and he throws it dark. And if it's said
Speaker 1: it's Brett Bahre or you Hewett, don't call him up.
Speaker 1: And he caught up Brian killed me on Sunday night.
Speaker 1: What is he doing? It's unusual, it's unprecedented, and I
Speaker 1: like it.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I mean, you talk about getting a message out, that's
Speaker 9: a way to do it. He sees somebody on TV,
Speaker 9: he sees somebody saying something, and he says, get me
Speaker 9: that number, and I'm going to call them. I've had
Speaker 9: you know, conversations obviously with President Trump for a number
Speaker 9: of years off the record. I think is the cadence
Speaker 9: in which he's calling reporters and anchors or they're calling him.
Speaker 9: A lot of people have his number now and he's answering.
Speaker 1: He's called him three times. I got Jonathan Carl said
Speaker 1: he's called him three times.
Speaker 9: Yeah, and I've called him, you know, wanting to know something.
Speaker 9: He'll pick up in the Oval office and he's I'm
Speaker 9: sitting here with Sixtair Rubio and Vice President's vance and
Speaker 9: you know, you're thinking, you're going to get a the
Speaker 9: answer machine and maybe somebody will call back. He picks
Speaker 9: up and he says, you know, hold on, Vice President's here,
Speaker 9: sectors here, and you know you feel like, well, I
Speaker 9: don't want to interrupt, you know, But he does pick up,
Speaker 9: and he wants to get his message out.
Speaker 1: And he's doing it a different It's unusual.
Speaker 9: I think it'd be tough to be Caroline Levitt hment.
Speaker 1: But yeah, last question, Senator Cotton gave a speech today
Speaker 1: about anti semitism in the influencer world on the right
Speaker 1: wing ecosphere. I don't know that we'll get picked up.
Speaker 1: I think it it's extraordinarily significant, not unlike William F.
Speaker 1: Buckley taking on the McCarthy Heights in the fifties. What
Speaker 1: do you think of Senator Cotton's remarks.
Speaker 9: I think he's laying down a marker. I think it's
Speaker 9: a concern inside the Republican Party that there is. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 9: everybody's for a free speech and everybody's for expressing yourself,
Speaker 9: but it does seem to come from a point of
Speaker 9: view and some of those folks are getting incoming based
Speaker 9: on some of those influencers, and I think Tom Cotton
Speaker 9: is expressing the pushback.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Center Cotton, good for him. Brett Bear always good
Speaker 1: to talk to you. We'll be watching tonight at six
Speaker 1: pm on the Fox News Channel, a special report gets going.
Speaker 1: Always watch it, America's anchorman. Thank you, Brett, Welcome back
Speaker 1: in America. Alex Gray is the CEO of American Global Strategies.
Speaker 1: In term one of Donald Trump, he was the Chief
Speaker 1: of Staff at the National Security Council. Alex Gray, welcome back.
Speaker 1: Can you begin by telling us what you think whoever
Speaker 1: has your job in tom II is doing this week,
Speaker 1: because it's got to be wild. Yeah.
Speaker 11: I can only imagine Hugh and having been there in
Speaker 11: some wild moments, I think this may top them all. Look,
Speaker 11: the biggest role that the National Security Council plays is
Speaker 11: making sure that the information from the interagency, from the
Speaker 11: intelligence community, from allies and partners gets disseminated through the
Speaker 11: chain of command to the president in an actionable way
Speaker 11: that gives some policy options. And you have multiple simultaneous,
Speaker 11: somewhat interconnected crises going on, whether it's Cuba, Venezuela, obviously Iran,
Speaker 11: but then the Ripplan effects with China, the upcoming trip
Speaker 11: to China, the trade dynamics of that the Russia Ukraine
Speaker 11: conflict and the interconnection with the Iran conflict. So what
Speaker 11: you're going to be dealing with in that role is
Speaker 11: this massive amount of incoming somewhat raw information that has
Speaker 11: to be taken, synthesized, put into some form of useful
Speaker 11: and actionable information, and then relate to decision makers up
Speaker 11: to the President, including Secretary slash National Security Advisor Rubio,
Speaker 11: in a way that they can make some sense out
Speaker 11: of and turn into policy. And that is right now,
Speaker 11: that's going to be one heck of a.
Speaker 1: Job, Alex Gray. I'll come back to the battle with
Speaker 1: they're on in a moment. But you did bring up
Speaker 1: the president's scheduled trip to China where he'll sit down
Speaker 1: with General Secretary Gi. We've had precedents like that before
Speaker 1: during the Cold War one when President Nixon another would
Speaker 1: sit down with Brashev or Joe and Lyon Mao. When
Speaker 1: you add really no idea what the purpose was? What
Speaker 1: do you think the purpose of this is?
Speaker 11: Well, look, I think the purpose of this is to
Speaker 11: give us something approaching and equilibrium. I don't think there's
Speaker 11: any question that the President identifies China as the pacing
Speaker 11: threat as the consequential national security challenge of our time.
Speaker 11: But I think the President did identify something based on
Speaker 11: what happened after Liberation Day. He identified that because of
Speaker 11: multiple administrations of both parties and their failure to prepare
Speaker 11: our industrial base and our supply chains and to take
Speaker 11: the proactive measures necessary, we don't have critical capacity in
Speaker 11: things like rare earths and critical minerals and other things
Speaker 11: that will give us the resilience and redundancy to sustain
Speaker 11: the type of long term competition we need to have
Speaker 11: with China. And I think the President realizes that he
Speaker 11: has to buy us a little bit of time on
Speaker 11: the economic front, which obviously has broader strategic implications, but
Speaker 11: he's got to buy us a little bit of time
Speaker 11: to get our own house in order. You're seeing him
Speaker 11: taking really important steps to get those critical minerals and
Speaker 11: rare earths in fighting shape. But I think part of
Speaker 11: the purpose of the summit is to come in from
Speaker 11: a position of strength, which he very much has following
Speaker 11: Venezuela and Iran. He made a little allusion to that
Speaker 11: earlier when he noted in a remark yesterday that we
Speaker 11: don't have the dependency on oil from the Middle East
Speaker 11: that the Chinese do. It was a very clear to me,
Speaker 11: a very clear jab at hi jimping about who has leverage.
Speaker 11: But at the same time, going into this talk, these talks,
Speaker 11: the President has I think, has come to the realization
Speaker 11: that we have to at least get the US China
Speaker 11: relationship and something approaching equilibrium so he can take the
Speaker 11: time needed to get us prepared for the long term,
Speaker 11: which Hugh, I think we learned over the last year.
Speaker 11: We don't have the depth of resilience, particularly in the
Speaker 11: industrial base, that we need to have for success in
Speaker 11: the long term.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree with that. I would like to see
Speaker 1: a supplemental that addresses that, or at least a second
Speaker 1: reconciliation that can pass on a majority vote that addresses funding.
Speaker 1: And the National Security Council will ever get involved with
Speaker 1: the omb's discussion about Department of War funding. Alex that
Speaker 1: part of the wrint over there.
Speaker 11: To some extent. You know, when I was there, Ambassador O'Brien,
Speaker 11: the National Security Advisor, and Russ Vought then and now
Speaker 11: Director of O and B. They had a great relationship.
Speaker 11: They saw eye to eye on a lot of the
Speaker 11: big questions we faced, including rebuilding the Navy and the
Speaker 11: building our space capabilities. I think there's a lot there
Speaker 11: should be a lot of interaction where NSC helps set
Speaker 11: you take the president's priorities and then turn with O
Speaker 11: and B turn those big strategic priorities into dollars and
Speaker 11: cents that can go to Congress and turn into resources.
Speaker 1: Alex Gray, I know in Trump won, the National Security
Speaker 1: of Council helped President Trump put a focus on and
Speaker 1: a demand signal out for hypersonic missiles and other weapons
Speaker 1: of the New war, the war that we're watching right now,
Speaker 1: which is not a ground game, it is a standoff
Speaker 1: or standover if you're unthreatened. Do you think that the
Speaker 1: demand signal coming out of this battle is going to
Speaker 1: be more of that? Please?
Speaker 11: Absolutely, Look, I don't think that we can have both
Speaker 11: of these things be true at the same time. On
Speaker 11: the one hand, we don't have sufficient munitions for what
Speaker 11: we need to do in the potential Taiwan straight into
Speaker 11: Pacific scenario. That's manifestly true. On the other hand, we
Speaker 11: can't allow ourselves to be hamstrung in other critical theaters
Speaker 11: just because previous administrations have failed to prepare the inventories
Speaker 11: and stockpiles that we need. Both of those statements can
Speaker 11: be true, and I think they are the president. Frankly,
Speaker 11: the people who are making the argument that we don't
Speaker 11: have sufficient munitions to do what needs to be done
Speaker 11: in Iran, I think they're missing the bigger picture, which
Speaker 11: is that doing what needs to be done in Iran will, finally,
Speaker 11: if the President is successful, as I believe he will be,
Speaker 11: will free us up to be able to extricate ourselves
Speaker 11: from the Middle East finally, to eventually do the pivot
Speaker 11: that Hillary Clinton prom is sixteen years ago. We will
Speaker 11: not be able to do that unless we can actually
Speaker 11: extricate ourselves from the Middle East. This action could let
Speaker 11: us do that, And it also, Hugh, I think reinforces
Speaker 11: the need to do a full peacetime mobilization, like it's
Speaker 11: nineteen thirty nine, nineteen forty to build the munitions in
Speaker 11: an industrial base for an Asia Pacific scenario, now long
Speaker 11: before it's actually needed.
Speaker 1: You mentioned success in this mission. How do you define
Speaker 1: that outlex.
Speaker 11: I think the President has three operational metrics that I
Speaker 11: think are sound, and Frankly, if you listen to General Kaine,
Speaker 11: it sounds like We're very close to meeting those metrics.
Speaker 11: So it's destruction of the terrorist proxies, the nuclear program,
Speaker 11: and the missile program. I think those are three very
Speaker 11: very important operational metrics that we're tracking. I think the
Speaker 11: strategic question is, can we do something in a modified
Speaker 11: form analogous to what happened with Delcy Rodgrie in Venezuela,
Speaker 11: where you can use the operational success to have impact
Speaker 11: and influence on the next leadership of Iran such that
Speaker 11: they will change behavior enough to bias the time to
Speaker 11: finally stop this twenty five year whack a mole game
Speaker 11: we play with Iran where we are constantly going back
Speaker 11: into the Middle East in some form to deal with
Speaker 11: their malign behavior. We have to have enough of a change.
Speaker 11: This doesn't mean we have to choose leadership. We doesn't
Speaker 11: mean we have to choose the government of Iran, but
Speaker 11: it means we have to have enough influence in suasion
Speaker 11: over that government so that we can eventually make the
Speaker 11: full pivot to the Indo Pacific that I think most
Speaker 11: of us agree eventually has.
Speaker 7: To be done.
Speaker 1: Alex greg CEO of American and Global Strategy for Chief
Speaker 1: of Staff at the National Security Council during the first
Speaker 1: term at President Trump, thank you for joining me. Don't
Speaker 1: go anywhere, America. I'm coming right back. I got lots
Speaker 1: more of the tape, and again I may play again,
Speaker 1: Chairman a Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Kine. Summary of
Speaker 1: the metrics. Thus, far more than fifty ships of the
Speaker 1: Iranian Navy are now at the bottom, and we're not
Speaker 1: even getting started on the ships. Stay tuned in America.
Speaker 1: I'm here. I'm joined now by Rich Lowry of National View. Rich,
Speaker 1: do you think the President or the Republicans are making
Speaker 1: the case for the battle with Iran in sufficiently moral terms?
Speaker 1: Not a strategic and technical, but moral terms? Well, not really.
Speaker 12: I don't think there's been enough of the case made.
Speaker 10: It would be much better if there's a big case
Speaker 10: made beforehand instead, In part because they had the target
Speaker 10: of opportunity hitting the eye toll right at the outset, there.
Speaker 12: Wasn't much of the case made at all.
Speaker 10: Right, it was an afterthought in the State of the Union,
Speaker 10: maybe a passing reference at Many minute ninety or something,
Speaker 10: in part because they wanted to maintain the.
Speaker 12: Element of surprise.
Speaker 10: But I think they've been behind the eight ball in
Speaker 10: terms of making the case public case for this Hue
Speaker 10: literally from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Now, I would like Secretary Ruby to do that because
Speaker 1: he is a set piece speaker. The president is better
Speaker 1: in an exchange. By the way, what do you make
Speaker 1: I asked quit bare this earlier. I've been covering politics
Speaker 1: for thirty five years. I have never seen a chief
Speaker 1: executive call this many reporters or accept their call.
Speaker 10: Have you, No, it's extraordinary, but this has always been.
Speaker 10: He's just extremely accessible. He wasn't the first term.
Speaker 12: He has been in the second term. And he'll pretty
Speaker 12: much call anyone who call him.
Speaker 10: Went back, who attempts to call him. I had an
Speaker 10: incident in the first term, or I hadn't talked to him.
Speaker 10: You know, we weren't huge Trump fans. Obviously that that
Speaker 10: primary said, there's some after effects of that. And I
Speaker 10: just called the switchboard one night, the White House switchboard, and.
Speaker 12: He called me back the next day.
Speaker 10: And I told Lindsay Graham about this, and Graham said, yeah,
Speaker 10: he's the most successful person in Washington. And Graham said,
Speaker 10: when he was having trouble getting Pompeio on the phone,
Speaker 10: he'd called Trump to call to.
Speaker 12: Get Pompeio to call him back. So this is just
Speaker 12: as typical of Hope.
Speaker 1: Well, Lindsey Graham is actually Centator Cotton very consistent. Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham is very consistent. They want to win. Today, Senator
Speaker 1: Cotton and Senator Cruz held an anti Semitism function in
Speaker 1: which they invoked your predecessor Bill Buckley as having driven
Speaker 1: the anti Semites out of the Republican Party in the fifties.
Speaker 1: They also drove out the Birchers, who were more expansive
Speaker 1: in their hatreds than just anti Semitism. What do you
Speaker 1: make of that? I think it's long overdue, and all
Speaker 1: honor to Jefferson, as Lincoln said, all honor to Cotton
Speaker 1: and Cruise.
Speaker 12: Yeah, this is actually a nast review events.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that that we did.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that we did this morning in conjunction with the RJC,
Speaker 10: and they're both excellent.
Speaker 13: Banks.
Speaker 10: Centator Banks was there as well and very good. But
Speaker 10: Cruz just really has this bowen in his teeth.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 10: He's just not going to let it go. He just said,
Speaker 10: I'm in director world with Tucker Carlson. I think he's
Speaker 10: corrupting our movement and our party, and I'm not going.
Speaker 12: To stand for it. So he really came to play
Speaker 12: this morm Well.
Speaker 1: Cotton came to play. But Cotton lives by the rule
Speaker 1: I do, which is, don't give publicity to people who
Speaker 1: want publicity. And I've done that for twenty five years
Speaker 1: on this program. And I don't bring up fringe actors,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, our anti Semitic influencers to use Tom Cotton's
Speaker 1: air quotes already get enough clicks. Rich Lowry, how much
Speaker 1: of a problem do you think it is really in
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, because I don't think it's really a
Speaker 1: problem in the Republican Party.
Speaker 12: Well, it depends on how you define the Republican Party.
Speaker 10: Are there senators and members of Congress who are anti
Speaker 10: Semites openly or secretly? No?
Speaker 1: Oh wait, but there are three? There are three?
Speaker 10: Well, okay, all right, But is it a huge problem
Speaker 10: among elected officials. No, but I think they Young Republicans,
Speaker 10: especially young males, are increasingly slay this way. And Manhattan
Speaker 10: Institute study last December and the last year indicated this
Speaker 10: is the case. You hear about it anecdotally all the
Speaker 10: time I went to the University of Virginia.
Speaker 12: I was just talking to a friend the other day.
Speaker 10: His daughter goes to UVA and she came to him
Speaker 10: recently and said, I'm not going to a college Republican
Speaker 10: meeting ever again.
Speaker 12: He's like, why, you know, college republicanly uba? What could
Speaker 12: go wrong?
Speaker 10: To forget what issue was being discussed at a meeting?
Speaker 10: But the guys in front of her muttering, Oh, it's
Speaker 10: a jewice, It's a juiceful, and I think it is.
Speaker 10: It is more prevalent than you'd like among young guys.
Speaker 1: That alarms me. I've been teaching Launston's at Chaman University
Speaker 1: for twenty five years and thirty years. Actually I started
Speaker 1: teaching before I started doing the National Show. I started
Speaker 1: the National Show in two thousand. I started teaching in
Speaker 1: ninety five. And I've never met a conservative who's any
Speaker 1: nice I might in the classroom, not once. So I'm
Speaker 1: alarmed because VA is high end. Those are smart kids.
Speaker 1: What do you think the university had to do about that? Well?
Speaker 12: I don't.
Speaker 10: I don't think that it's the university's purviewed to, you know,
Speaker 10: I don't. They're not teaching anti Semitic content as far
Speaker 10: as as far as I know, and they're not, you know,
Speaker 10: they're not Columbia. They're they're left at center. I think
Speaker 10: I think this is being done by conservative right wing influencers.
Speaker 1: You know, I am going to suggest that if I
Speaker 1: found it on Chapman University, and I have not, I
Speaker 1: would urge everyone there to hold the rally or not
Speaker 1: the rally. The event you did today, how many people
Speaker 1: spoke today, how many people came, and what was the
Speaker 1: coverage of it.
Speaker 10: It was a good crowd we did at the Museum
Speaker 10: of the Bible, A couple hundred people there. It was
Speaker 10: just a morning event or about from nine am to
Speaker 10: one pm, but packed with the.
Speaker 12: Great great speakers. Three three.
Speaker 10: I mentioned Leo Parrell, others, David Azerat, they're familiar with him.
Speaker 10: He's a Mitsdale, a little more new right than we are,
Speaker 10: but brilliant based case. He's making the base case for
Speaker 10: Israel in a really compelling way.
Speaker 1: Well, the base case for Israel is that the most
Speaker 1: powerful ally we have in the world, that's a nuclear
Speaker 1: power and not afraid to project force. Got nothing to
Speaker 1: do with her being Jewish. Tell me Rich when you
Speaker 1: do the editors next, will you be talking about this,
Speaker 1: because I would love to hear more about this event.
Speaker 12: Yeah, we just recorded. We did not talk much about this.
Speaker 10: I mentioned it, but we're focused to first and foremost
Speaker 10: on ran For understandable reasons.
Speaker 1: This is to you.
Speaker 12: You know, it's a different one for Trump.
Speaker 10: Almost everything else he's done has been a one off
Speaker 10: anti its campaign a little different, but still just an
Speaker 10: air campaign against guerrilla force.
Speaker 12: This is a much more difficult challenge. Is important that
Speaker 12: he prevailed.
Speaker 1: And last question, Rich, I want more Republicans to talk
Speaker 1: in terms of winning a victory.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know what victory looks like, whether the regime
Speaker 1: has to collapse or whether they just have to cry
Speaker 1: uncle or go delsy and then I want cubit of fault.
Speaker 1: But I think they had to talk about winning and
Speaker 1: changing the world because Trump is changing the world. Has
Speaker 1: anyone besides Cotton dead Fisher did it on the show today?
Speaker 1: Anyone else talk about that? We got a minute.
Speaker 12: No, not as much as they should. I think Walter
Speaker 12: Russell made a good case in the Journald this morning.
Speaker 10: That victory is basically, can you open the straits before
Speaker 10: moves even when the regime is still hostile, showing that
Speaker 10: they don't have control of it, or are they backing
Speaker 10: you off because.
Speaker 12: You can't reopen it. I think that's a key indicator.
Speaker 1: Well said as always Rich Lowry, host of the Editors
Speaker 1: podcast for National Review, editor in chief of National Review,
Speaker 1: and the host of The McCarthy Report. Don't forget that
Speaker 1: because it's always entertaining, except for the New York baseball
Speaker 1: bias that is in evidence and soon will be overwhelming
Speaker 1: like kudzuu as the season gets close to the beginning.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Rich. Don't go an here where America. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back on the uq AT show. Welcome back
Speaker 1: in America. Have Bethany Mandel is the co founder of
Speaker 1: the Wars, which you can find at the mom Wars
Speaker 1: dot substat dot com, co author of Stolen Youth and
Speaker 1: It's better to be Lucky than Smart. In the last hour,
Speaker 1: I played Senator Cotton and Senator Cruz talking about anti
Speaker 1: Semitism among quote influencers on the right. Then Rich Lowry
Speaker 1: in the last segment, explained to me that National Review
Speaker 1: had both put on this great, big show at the
Speaker 1: Museum of the Bible today about anti Semotism on the
Speaker 1: so called influencers of the right segment. And then Bethany
Speaker 1: Mandel shows up It was supposed to be on yesterday,
Speaker 1: but I had to come on today because of me. Bethany,
Speaker 1: you were there today, tell us about it.
Speaker 8: I was there, That's why I'm wearing makeup and address.
Speaker 8: It all worked out for the best.
Speaker 7: It was.
Speaker 8: It was a really incredible event. I was really impressed
Speaker 8: with NR for doing it. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas
Speaker 8: spoke and I'm forgetting his name Begaret on Good Morning Trick,
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I was.
Speaker 8: I was on the radio with Larry O'Connor this morning
Speaker 8: at five and sorry, well little Rundown fumes today and
Speaker 8: he explained sort of the connection with Buckley standing athwart
Speaker 8: history and saying stop when it came to anti Semitism
Speaker 8: in his day, and it felt like that moment today
Speaker 8: with NR.
Speaker 4: It was really well timed.
Speaker 8: It was a beautiful event, and I thought everyone should
Speaker 8: go listen to Ted Cruz's entire speech. There was a
Speaker 8: couple of funny parts in there that you're going to
Speaker 8: see a lot of clips, but it's really worth sitting
Speaker 8: down and spending the fifteen twenty minutes on listening the
Speaker 8: whole speech because it was incredible and it was.
Speaker 4: A really important, pivotal moment.
Speaker 1: I think, Bethany, you and I were at the rally
Speaker 1: for Israel in the aftermath of ten seven, when hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of people from all over the United States
Speaker 1: went to the mall, and since that time Israel has
Speaker 1: been taking a pounding online. But I never confused the
Speaker 1: online world with the real world. I don't believe it
Speaker 1: is a problem among elected Republicans anti Semitism, do you.
Speaker 8: I don't think it's a problem among elected Republicans. I
Speaker 8: do think it's a problem among Republicans writ large, including
Speaker 8: the staff in a lot of these offices, including the
Speaker 8: interns at a lot of these offices. The kerfuffle that
Speaker 8: happened at Heritage didn't come out of nowhere.
Speaker 4: I think that. I mean Cruz.
Speaker 8: I think it was Cruz said, you know, this is
Speaker 8: a problem in Hill offices, with interns, you name it.
Speaker 8: This is not just an online problem. If you look
Speaker 8: at polling data about how young evangelicals feel about Israel,
Speaker 8: it's as bad as black liberals.
Speaker 1: You know, that is very disconcerting. But I would put
Speaker 1: this word out to the people who run internships on
Speaker 1: the Hill, like I have an intern here on The
Speaker 1: hu Huitt Show and I always have. I've got probably
Speaker 1: how many interns that we had Duyne over the course
Speaker 1: of twenty five years, seventy five. If someone came in
Speaker 1: here and was anti Israel, anti Zionists, and certainly anti Smic,
Speaker 1: they would not be here for the next day. They'd
Speaker 1: be fired, and it would be with reason, because it's irrational,
Speaker 1: and I can't have irrational people. Do you think that
Speaker 1: word is out?
Speaker 8: No, I mean I think I don't think that there
Speaker 8: should be a litmus test for people being you know,
Speaker 8: pro Israel or whatever. But the problem for anti Semitism,
Speaker 8: and and a lot of people hide their anti Semitism
Speaker 8: with oh, I'm just an anti Zionist, is that they're stupid.
Speaker 8: And a lot of people are stupid, especially as you
Speaker 8: go younger and younger, and a lot of them are uneducated,
Speaker 8: not just stupid, but also uneducated about the tenets of
Speaker 8: their faith. And so you see a lot of the
Speaker 8: trad bros who proclaim that they're Catholic. This is Tucker
Speaker 8: Carlson's latest guest, the Carrie, the woman from the Sorry
Speaker 8: like a Catholic?
Speaker 1: Can we be as a Roman Catholic? Don't no Catholic?
Speaker 1: But she she calls herself a Catholic, but then she
Speaker 1: doesn't know anything about John Paul the Second or Benedict.
Speaker 1: Even Francis, who was bad on everything, got this sort
Speaker 1: of right.
Speaker 8: She's brand new, she's brand new, and she doesn't understand
Speaker 8: anything about Catholicism.
Speaker 4: My mother was Catholic. I probably understand more about Catholicism
Speaker 4: than she does. Right, But this is this is the problem.
Speaker 8: These are people that walk around saying Christ is King,
Speaker 8: but don't understand anything that anything that you you just
Speaker 8: spent thirty seconds talking about it. It's all Chinese to them.
Speaker 8: And so this is a real problem of people just
Speaker 8: not understanding what do we believe as conservatives, what do
Speaker 8: they believe as Catholics, And that ignorance is manifesting in
Speaker 8: their anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: And I will I will add to this for my
Speaker 1: Catholic listener, Cardinal Koopich, if you're listening, I'm online right
Speaker 1: now in Chicago, if you're listening, take it back. You
Speaker 1: don't know anything about just war doctrine. I doubt you've
Speaker 1: ever studied it. You may have picked up Augustine once
Speaker 1: and put it right back down. But he's saying this
Speaker 1: is not a just war and in fact that it's
Speaker 1: classic Augustinian just war doctrine. But we got a cardinal
Speaker 1: in Chicago who's just like an old seventies liberal hippie
Speaker 1: my age, and it didn't get it. They're ignorant. It
Speaker 1: really does upset me when people holding themselves out as
Speaker 1: authorities on in church doctrine don't even know church doctrine.
Speaker 1: And coming out of a Catholic family, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. In the speaker's lineup today, you're at
Speaker 1: the Museum of the Bible. By the way, can we
Speaker 1: give a shout out to the MOB for hosting.
Speaker 4: That one percent?
Speaker 8: I am a paid member. This is not a plug
Speaker 8: that I'm not an influencer for them. I'm a paid
Speaker 8: member because I wanted to go to their play of
Speaker 8: Joseph and it was fifteen percent off if you were
Speaker 8: a member, and so I finally bit the bullet and joined.
Speaker 8: We've been I don't know, probably half a dozen times.
Speaker 8: It is spectacular and speaking specifically to the Jews, it
Speaker 8: is even though it's built by Evangelical Christians. I know
Speaker 8: the woman that helped supply all of the Jewish artifacts,
Speaker 8: she is amazing. She works with passages on Christian tours
Speaker 8: to Israel. But she's Jewish.
Speaker 4: Her name is Rifka. Amazing. I could not speak more
Speaker 4: highly of the Museum of the Bible.
Speaker 1: I can speak about the Greens because I know the Greens,
Speaker 1: and both the Green Senior and the Greens Junior, who
Speaker 1: poured all their fortune into the mob and they're fabulous people.
Speaker 1: And they've had to return some artifacts whenever some artifacts
Speaker 1: have been determined to have been inappropriately acquired, and they
Speaker 1: do so willingly and joyously. But it's a great museum.
Speaker 1: It's near the mall, but a lot of people won't
Speaker 1: find it, and then it'll be a little bit stunned.
Speaker 1: Because the Rembrandt room over at the National Portrait Gallery
Speaker 1: is free, I mean the National Gallery of Art. You know,
Speaker 1: you know in there and sit among the rem Brands
Speaker 1: for free. And Dan Da Vinci MLB is not free.
Speaker 1: But you're saying, if you live in the area, join
Speaker 1: as a member.
Speaker 8: They have great homeschool events too. That's another reason we joined.
Speaker 8: And they also I'm this is actually a road trip
Speaker 8: that I'm taking with my kids next year. They have
Speaker 8: the Arc Encounter in Kentucky where they've built a life
Speaker 8: size Noah's Arc and we are going to go next year.
Speaker 1: Good for you. Don't don't miss Dollywood. Let me go
Speaker 1: back to the war. How do your friends in Israel
Speaker 1: feel it's going.
Speaker 4: I think that they feel like it's going well.
Speaker 8: The exhaustion is an otherworldly I was actually going to
Speaker 8: send you an Instagram video that one of my friends
Speaker 8: made of her making dinner, and she planned on making fajitas.
Speaker 8: That way she could stop and start if she had
Speaker 8: to run to the into the shelter. Her kids have
Speaker 8: been home for ten days straight and they don't want
Speaker 8: to go outside in case there's a siren and they
Speaker 8: have to run.
Speaker 4: It's exhausting. It's really, really deeply exhausting.
Speaker 1: Is she on optimist that it will be over soon
Speaker 1: in terms of the sirens?
Speaker 8: I don't think anyone is, honestly, And I also wanted
Speaker 8: to plug. I mentioned you on my mom Wars podcast.
Speaker 8: I had Lahav l Harkov from Jewish Insider and we
Speaker 8: talked about you.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, I have to go and listen. I hope
Speaker 1: it's a nice thing. But the mom Wars dot sup back.
Speaker 1: She's a fine reporter. How long has she been doing this?
Speaker 4: Yes, she's fantastic. I'm probably twenty years Yeah.
Speaker 1: She is a very very fine reporter and I turned
Speaker 1: to her as well as a meet Sagala vibredda Ger.
Speaker 1: You don't have to send me your contact information so
Speaker 1: I can have her on so. Bethany last question we
Speaker 1: got less than a minute. Do you think President Trump
Speaker 1: has been clear enough in deciding in telegraphing what victory
Speaker 1: looks like.
Speaker 8: I am not super keen on criticizing him, but no,
Speaker 8: I don't. I feel like we've heard a lot of
Speaker 8: different answers about when this war is over and what
Speaker 8: that metric is. I think that they've achieved something really
Speaker 8: incredible with real minimal losses on the Americans part. And
Speaker 8: that being said, I wonder what the endgame is here,
Speaker 8: and I think he hasn't really clearly articulated.
Speaker 1: That it should be the incapacitation of the regime worth
Speaker 1: the lives of at least seven Americans one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty wounded and dead Israeli than our golf Arab allies.
Speaker 1: The cost must beating quots of the game, and the
Speaker 1: game must be the increpencient incapacitation of the regime. Bethany
Speaker 1: Mandel can be followed on exp Bethany Seandark and you
Speaker 1: should and the mom Wars, God Subtacks dot Com. Stay
Speaker 1: tuned me. You've heard me talk a lot about Consumer Cellular.
Speaker 1: How you can switch your carrier save money without the sacrifice.
Speaker 1: That's because Consumer Cellular uses the same towers as major carriers.
Speaker 1: Make the switch today and get twenty five dollars off
Speaker 1: at Consumer Cellular dot Com slash you if you're over fifty,
Speaker 1: get one line of unlimited talk, text and data for
Speaker 1: thirty five dollars, plus an additional five dollars per month
Speaker 1: off for the first five months. When you visit Consumer
Speaker 1: Cellular dot Com slash shoe, use the promo code Q
Speaker 1: twenty five. Consumer Cellular ranks number one for network coverage
Speaker 1: and consumer satisfaction. According to ACSL, You'll be working with
Speaker 1: an actual human being when you switch base right here
Speaker 1: in the US, so get one line of unlimited talk,
Speaker 1: textan data for only thirty five dollars per month, plus
Speaker 1: an additional five dollars off per month for the first
Speaker 1: five months. Think of all the money you will save.
Speaker 1: Go to Consumer Sular dot Com slash shoe promo QUE
Speaker 1: twenty five or call one eight hundred and four to
Speaker 1: one one forty four fifty four consumer cellular dot com
Speaker 1: slash shoe. Clean water is not complicated, but it is essential.
Speaker 1: Without it, public health suffer, education declines, economic stability well
Speaker 1: it weakens if it doesn't collapse. Across Latin America and
Speaker 1: the Caribbean, families are facing that reality of unclean water.
Speaker 1: Every day. Mothers walk miles for clean wine. Children are
Speaker 1: exposed to preventable diseases because they haven't got it. Communities
Speaker 1: are held back by the absence of basic clean water access.
Speaker 1: But strategic compassion changes outcomes. Through food for the poor,
Speaker 1: your gift provides safe and living water, improving house strengthening communities,
Speaker 1: and supporting gospel centered transformation through trusted local partnerships. There's
Speaker 1: a measurable impact with lasting results. Your gift to fifty
Speaker 1: dollars ensures two people have safe and living water, or
Speaker 1: four one hundred dollars a family of four will be
Speaker 1: transformed for a year. I hope you act. Text Hewitt Hgwitt,
Speaker 1: that's Hewet Hwitt to five to one five fifty five.
Speaker 1: That's Hewett to fifty one five five five, or visit
Speaker 1: hewit dot com right now and click on the blue
Speaker 1: giving living water banner at the top to provide living
Speaker 1: water today and thank you.
Speaker 7: I love my classes.
Speaker 9: A crazy teacher you wear start.
Speaker 1: What does President Trump mean? I'm calling on our telepath
Speaker 1: James Lylynx as in James Lynx dot substact dot com
Speaker 1: to a bit of translation forth crescin staff for those
Speaker 1: of us old enough to remember, Carson.
Speaker 5: What does he mean?
Speaker 1: Jane? Last night the war's almost over. Then last night
Speaker 1: we got a long way to go? And then this
Speaker 1: morning Peteg says that weeks what's going on here?
Speaker 7: What bad messaging? You just not consistent messaging.
Speaker 13: When he says the war's almost over, I don't know
Speaker 13: exactly what he means because there still is the government in.
Speaker 7: Place and the bad guys.
Speaker 13: So then, you know, I'll trust access to say we
Speaker 13: got a long way to go, because that prepares people
Speaker 13: for the ineditable.
Speaker 7: That prepares people for long sustained campaigns.
Speaker 13: I mean, do you think they've been hammering them now,
Speaker 13: day and night for how long and how much can
Speaker 13: they have left?
Speaker 7: Well, you know plenty. It's a matter of launchers.
Speaker 13: As you read today that they just nailed a launcher
Speaker 13: and it seemed to be an odd thing to note
Speaker 13: and hawk because we were told that a lot of
Speaker 13: the launching were put out of business early on.
Speaker 7: I mean, so consistent messaging would be better.
Speaker 13: But I'm less concerned about that than more concerned about
Speaker 13: the efficacy of the entire operation.
Speaker 7: Aren't you?
Speaker 1: And I'm with you on that. Now, what I would
Speaker 1: really love to see is the Republicans put their arms
Speaker 1: around winning. Have they done that?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 7: Yeah, No, I don't think so, don't.
Speaker 13: I haven't gotten a full throated pushed back to what
Speaker 13: the Democrats are saying.
Speaker 7: I did enjoy Bill Maher pointing out.
Speaker 13: To Camp number who was Cory book, Adam Schiff reading
Speaker 13: Adam Shif read it right, a line about the statements
Speaker 13: of the war powers and all the rest of it,
Speaker 13: and Shift said it was just totally vague. Totally vague
Speaker 13: is what Obama said. We all know that the presidents
Speaker 13: claim these powers for themselves, and the war powers is
Speaker 13: dodgy and the rest of it. But yes, I would
Speaker 13: like to see a full throated pushback because I don't
Speaker 13: think the anti.
Speaker 7: War message is getting traction at this point.
Speaker 13: I think the only people who are really spun up
Speaker 13: about it are the ones who'd be inclined to be spun.
Speaker 7: Up about it anyway.
Speaker 13: But yes, better messaging would be great, but again, you know,
Speaker 13: messaging is one thing, the actual operation.
Speaker 7: Is the other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and let's put the war to one side, because
Speaker 1: now you know are experts on what's going on. But
Speaker 1: I think we know how to communicate the Republicans.
Speaker 7: Speak for yourself.
Speaker 1: I know, I know we're actually we played risk. No,
Speaker 1: I really do think Republicans are going to get stuck
Speaker 1: with the war, whether or not they wanted the war.
Speaker 1: So they should put their arms around the war and
Speaker 1: say we want Iran to be free, and it would
Speaker 1: be a good thing. It would be a great thing
Speaker 1: for the world if Iran was free. How hard is
Speaker 1: it to say that it isn't.
Speaker 7: But it's not just it would be a great thing.
Speaker 7: It will be a great thing.
Speaker 13: That's the thing, not say, well, you know, in some
Speaker 13: ideal world we'd like ironic it will be free.
Speaker 5: To go forward to the.
Speaker 7: Positive messages to what this is all about.
Speaker 13: But again, how many times have we been told that
Speaker 13: we don't want forever wars, want nation building and all
Speaker 13: the rest of it. Hard to talk about the endpoint
Speaker 13: of this, which is Iran welcomed back into the international
Speaker 13: community without sounding as if you're nation building, without sounding
Speaker 13: as if it's the same regime change thing we've heard before.
Speaker 13: And unfortunately in this part it's true. We do want
Speaker 13: regime change. We may have to do some nation building
Speaker 13: in the sense that you know, arrange it. I think
Speaker 13: Trump said, not a shot. No, he hasn't been there.
Speaker 13: It's got to be somebody from the inside. I mean
Speaker 13: that indicates the sort of thinking and strategy about what
Speaker 13: happens after we hope the mole regime collapses. But yes,
Speaker 13: get around it, embrace it as a thing that America
Speaker 13: does and shows two things, one the power of the
Speaker 13: American military and two the fact that we can be
Speaker 13: a force for good in this country, which according to
Speaker 13: a survey of the last week, something like eighty four
Speaker 13: percent of Republicans believe that the US is a force
Speaker 13: for good. Is something like, I don't know, it's like
Speaker 13: thirty six percent of Democrats believe to.
Speaker 5: So so make that out there.
Speaker 7: Put that out there.
Speaker 13: People are amazed by what they've seen, but eventually they
Speaker 13: get tired of air footage of tomahawks going into windows
Speaker 13: and want something more behind this.
Speaker 1: We want the people back out in the streets, not
Speaker 1: getting killed this time. Now I want to go to
Speaker 1: next week. I want to anticipate a week from now.
Speaker 1: Cuba is out of everything. They're more out of everything
Speaker 1: than I am. After the White's been gone for two weeks.
Speaker 1: I got nothing in here in the house if there's
Speaker 1: because I don't shot. Cubans can't shop. There's nothing there.
Speaker 1: So we're going to get demands made on America to
Speaker 1: feed Cuba. I think we will feed Cuba, but I
Speaker 1: don't think we out of fuel Cuba. What do you think?
Speaker 13: Well, are you saying that Mexico hasn't been supplying you
Speaker 13: with food when your wife was up for a fortnight
Speaker 13: notes tisk, I think Mexican. I think Mexican supplies to
Speaker 13: Cuba have been curtailed.
Speaker 7: And what I've heard there are intimations that think that
Speaker 7: the US.
Speaker 13: Administration will help Cuba through this difficult patch, which is
Speaker 13: interesting because instead of trying to make it brittle and
Speaker 13: crack and fall and then you have chaos, it's it's
Speaker 13: is they're attempting to manage a leverage bio.
Speaker 7: To ease Yes, should we do that?
Speaker 13: I think we should because if it's all contingent when
Speaker 13: the end of the cast for a regime and the
Speaker 13: downfall of communism, because then we will have shown three
Speaker 13: different ways in which the new doctrine works. One the
Speaker 13: guys go in in the middle of the night with
Speaker 13: supersonic special weapons and turn everybody into jelly and take
Speaker 13: the head of the state and put him in another
Speaker 13: country Venezuela. Two overwhelming show of force Shakana and Iran.
Speaker 13: And three let's all sit down to the table and
Speaker 13: talk about how you're going to be out of power
Speaker 13: in a month or so. So yeah, I mean, those
Speaker 13: are three different approaches to instability and troublesome regimes.
Speaker 1: But yeah, they here the name Diaz, Carnal or Carnal Diaz,
Speaker 1: I can't remember. He's just another he's not named Castro.
Speaker 1: But there's still Rangel still alive. I don't know if
Speaker 1: he's right combinant. Do we need to escort him off
Speaker 1: the island, along with maybe thirty thousand of their ultra
Speaker 1: security people to whomever will take them.
Speaker 13: Yes, I would like to do it in two ways.
Speaker 13: One question about the fuel. I don't know if we
Speaker 13: give them fuel, but food is a good thing.
Speaker 7: To do.
Speaker 13: But when it comes to getting them off, I would
Speaker 13: not put them on a seven forty seven and ship
Speaker 13: them over here. I would actually just make sure that
Speaker 13: they got to the coast of Cuba and were required
Speaker 13: to leave by rickety boats. That would be That would
Speaker 13: be poetic justice. What's more, not just wicked rickety boats
Speaker 13: or fifty seven mercury. Reason that they've somehow managed to float,
Speaker 13: but know that they will be met on the other
Speaker 13: side in Florida by the friends and the families of
Speaker 13: everybody who is dispossessed by the cast or magime.
Speaker 7: Ideally, that's what I'd like to see happened.
Speaker 1: Now. The three countries Nzuela, let Iran in Cuba, you know,
Speaker 1: are Ukrainian, you know the big We have one minute.
Speaker 1: Which country will recover quick ast if it's freed?
Speaker 7: Interesting?
Speaker 13: I think I won want to say Ukraine because they've
Speaker 13: got a lot of stuff that people want, which surprises people.
Speaker 7: It's like what they got just grain, they you know,
Speaker 7: they got lots of stuff.
Speaker 13: They have neon, they have rare earth and the rest
Speaker 13: of it, and you great as a smart capable place
Speaker 13: that I think could bounce back. And they've been free
Speaker 13: for a while. Venezuela has been, like Cuba has been,
Speaker 13: has been slumping under the burden of bad governments for
Speaker 13: a long time, so it may be a while to
Speaker 13: shake that out of the system.
Speaker 7: Iran.
Speaker 5: Who knows.
Speaker 7: That's the big question, isn't it, And we're going to
Speaker 7: find out.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be Cuba only because of
Speaker 1: the proximity two and the incredible energy and well made
Speaker 1: and accumulated in the United States going back into Cuba
Speaker 1: big time. But lit'll see, and we'll check in with
Speaker 1: Lilacs otherwise noted Cruscan next week. Follow him at Change
Speaker 1: Lilacs dot subsect dot com.