Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot of news that is breaking
Speaker 1: this morning, including chaos in the Middle East. You've got
Speaker 1: hundreds killed and thousands more injured by Israel in Lebanon,
Speaker 1: and the US sending additional troops to the regions. We're
Speaker 1: going to start the show with that. We also don't
Speaker 1: want to lose sight of what is going on in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: There are some important developments there, including Zelensky. Here in
Speaker 1: the US with Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 2: Basically campaign it's not great.
Speaker 3: It's not great at all.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, turning to domestic politics here, Nebraska made an extremely
Speaker 1: consequential decision with regard to the electoral College. It could
Speaker 1: actually be the thing that the election hinges on. So
Speaker 1: we'll break all of that down. We also are going
Speaker 1: to take a look at Trump doing far fewer rallies
Speaker 1: this time than in previous campaigns. What his campaign is
Speaker 1: saying about that, and also appearing to do a lot
Speaker 1: fewer fundraisers and certainly raising a lot less money than
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is So what does it mean, if anything?
Speaker 3: Will dig into that.
Speaker 1: He's also got a very interesting new policy on capping
Speaker 1: credit card interest rates. It's actually very similar to a
Speaker 1: proposal that Bernie Sanders and AOC had floated before. Interesting
Speaker 1: critics Interesting Also, people had previously been melting down about
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris floating price controls quote unquote now silent when
Speaker 1: it comes to anyway, There's a lot that's interesting, heroent
Speaker 1: that we'll get into. We also have a journalist who
Speaker 1: is coming on to discuss why opium production in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: fell off a freaking cliff really after the US pulled out.
Speaker 3: So we saw this chart come across both our radars
Speaker 3: and we.
Speaker 1: Were like, huh, question Mark, And I mean turns out
Speaker 1: is actually literally writing a book on this topic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Set's been on the show before. Seth
Speaker 2: is awesome. We're excited to talk to them before we
Speaker 2: get to that. Thank you to all of our premium subscribers.
Speaker 2: A bunch of people took advantage yesterday. Like Crystal said,
Speaker 2: we're going to start with some foreign policy today, but
Speaker 2: we have a lot of exclusive election content that were
Speaker 2: dropping behind the scenes only for our premium subs. So
Speaker 2: if you want to be able to see that, you
Speaker 2: can go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: But yeah, we've got a crazy situation going on Lebanon.
Speaker 2: We're on the brink of a full blown regional war
Speaker 2: which people assured us was not going to happen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's all right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a catastrophic failure of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration policy, which has explicitly stated from the beginning this
Speaker 1: was the outcome they wanted to avoid, and yet here
Speaker 1: we are, we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We have video of new bombings and strikes inside of
Speaker 1: southern Lebanon. Massive attack leading to roughly five hundred deaths,
Speaker 1: thousands injured, give you the latest count there the Lebanese
Speaker 1: officials saying that the majority of those were unarmed civilians,
Speaker 1: scores of children and women who were killed in this onslaught.
Speaker 1: And if we could go ahead and pull up this
Speaker 1: next tear sheet, you know, if we get to the
Speaker 1: US consequences here, immediate consequences. Pentagon has planning to send
Speaker 1: more US troops to the Middle East as quote tensions
Speaker 1: rise or its very passive language there. Major General Patrick Ryder,
Speaker 1: Pentagon Press secretary, declined to say exactly how many troops
Speaker 1: were deploying, citing operational security.
Speaker 3: Worth noting, you.
Speaker 1: Already have about forty thousand American troops stationed in this
Speaker 1: region on bases in a Rock, Syria and in the
Speaker 1: Persian Gulf countries. USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Gulf
Speaker 1: of Omont. A second aircraft carrier, the USS Harry Truman,
Speaker 1: left Norfolk, Virginia, on Monday for the Mediterranean Saga. They
Speaker 1: say is part of regular scheduled deployment. But my understanding
Speaker 1: is that it left in advance.
Speaker 2: Yes, I left early, ahead of its deployment schedule. So
Speaker 2: we know at a minimum, and aircraft carrier is like
Speaker 2: roughly six thousand people. So at a minimum, we've got
Speaker 2: six thousand people going. I mean, we've got forty thousand
Speaker 2: troops in the region, more people who are headed there.
Speaker 2: We've got people all over Iraq and in Syria who
Speaker 2: are now potentially in danger. The aircraft carriers now possibly
Speaker 2: might have to get involved. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 2: we can stress just how dangerous this entire situation is
Speaker 2: now for us the Biden administration. You know what's so ironic,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden will take the stage today at the United
Speaker 2: States General Assembly or the UN General Assembly to declare
Speaker 2: the results of his foreign policy. How could we have
Speaker 2: such a better contrast of not only a failure. His
Speaker 2: signature foreign policy objective of the last years was to
Speaker 2: secure a ceasefire. They no longer even you know, think
Speaker 2: that that's possible. Second, now, was to prevent the explosion
Speaker 2: of full blown nuclear war or full blown regional war,
Speaker 2: hopefully not nuclear. It's September twenty fourth, we're weeks away
Speaker 2: from October seventh anniversary, and it just seems even more
Speaker 2: likely that that's the result. Five hundred people killed roughly
Speaker 2: in Lebanon in a single day, the biggest clash in
Speaker 2: two thousand and six. All of the reading and research
Speaker 2: that I've done so far, it is terrifying. What this
Speaker 2: war would look like would one hundred percent I want
Speaker 2: to be like very clear, the US establishment is one
Speaker 2: hundred committed percent committed. If this thing goes full on
Speaker 2: past two thousand and six levels, which current indications, if
Speaker 2: it does, that's what it would look like. We're in
Speaker 2: There's no getting around it. We have forty thousand people there.
Speaker 2: Our troops are going to be in trouble. The global economy.
Speaker 2: It will be a nightmare considering what's been happening with
Speaker 2: Yemen and a lot of the hoothies, it will be
Speaker 2: that times ten in Iran involvement. I mean, we've got
Speaker 2: this is a real catastrophic situation. This is probably the
Speaker 2: most dangerous the world has been since what happened in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: And if you see already America is addicted to Middle
Speaker 2: Eastern war. We cannot extricate ourselves in Israel is the
Speaker 2: primary culprit that is involved here there. What is the
Speaker 2: justification for this attack is that some Hezbola guys launched
Speaker 2: the missiles. No, it's just continue this to further BB's
Speaker 2: political ambitions. But really they seem to believe that they're
Speaker 2: in an endgame, like they're like, we need to take
Speaker 2: out all of our enemies all at the same time.
Speaker 2: It's very two thousand and three. They are repeating the
Speaker 2: exact same problems that happened to the United States, and
Speaker 2: it's overconfidence going into that war. So they've quote unquote
Speaker 2: accomplished wherever they wanted to in Gaza, and now with Lebanon,
Speaker 2: they're like, yeah, let's do this too. And you know,
Speaker 2: they have no idea what's coming for them, They really do.
Speaker 2: And they're they're generals, they're commanders, they know because they're
Speaker 2: the ones who are sounding the alarm behind the scenes
Speaker 2: with Gallant and others. But the political leadership is dedicated.
Speaker 2: They're like, they want this war. The key line is
Speaker 2: now escalation through de escalation, which America is such a coward.
Speaker 2: Were the only pushback that we have seen from the
Speaker 2: Biden administration so far is nowhere have we seen escalation
Speaker 2: through de escalation work. But it's a background quote attributed
Speaker 2: to some senior Pentagon official. Why should I care? The
Speaker 2: President of the United States has the possibility to put
Speaker 2: a stop to this and he just won't do it.
Speaker 3: That's right, I'm my god, you know.
Speaker 2: And now you know what our people are going to
Speaker 2: get killed again for all of this. If Israel and
Speaker 2: Lebanon wanted to handle it, fine, but you know what,
Speaker 2: there's no way in the current US political establishment that
Speaker 2: that's a possibility. We will bear the product, we will
Speaker 2: bear the cost. I have no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: It's I was reading all the like New York Times
Speaker 1: coverage of They have a whole article that's, oh, how
Speaker 1: we got here, which conveniently does not mention a single
Speaker 1: time the fact that the core reason why Heswela has
Speaker 1: been firing missiles into Israel is because of Israel's onslaught
Speaker 1: in Dasa.
Speaker 3: And then if you had a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: In fact, when you did have a temporary ceasefire, those
Speaker 1: rocket launches stopped. The Biden administration has now given up
Speaker 1: on a ceasefire because they can't just like, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of like hand ring their way into talking Bibi
Speaker 1: into actually committing to any sort of a ceasefire.
Speaker 3: They've just given up.
Speaker 1: Rather than doing the very obvious thing of saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: you want to fight your word, good luck to you.
Speaker 3: You're not going to do it with our weapons. That simple.
Speaker 1: And there was recent polling that came out that is
Speaker 1: a popular position, so on the American strategic interest, the
Speaker 1: choice is clear.
Speaker 3: On the moral imperative.
Speaker 1: The choice is exceptionally clear, and even on the political imperative,
Speaker 1: the choice is clear. No secret that Bibe would rather
Speaker 1: have Trump in the White House, no accident that this comes,
Speaker 1: you know, heading into October, nice little Bibi Netana, the
Speaker 1: most predictable October surprise of all time.
Speaker 3: And yet the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are either the dumbest people on the
Speaker 1: planet or the most dishonest people on the planet. Because
Speaker 1: how many times have we seen the background quotes, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're upset about this, and we're telling them that we
Speaker 1: disagree with the strategy, blah blah blah. At a certain
Speaker 1: point you just go, I don't believe you, because you
Speaker 1: can't possibly be so stupid as to think that these
Speaker 1: little background quotes and a little tough you know, on
Speaker 1: the sidelines conversations are having any impact whatsoever.
Speaker 3: You mentioned two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: This is already the deadliest day in Lebanon since two
Speaker 1: thousand and six. And I know it gets tiresome to
Speaker 1: say these sorts of things, but I want you to
Speaker 1: imagine if Hesbela had successfully pulled off these level of
Speaker 1: attacks in Israel and killed a majority civilians, including scores
Speaker 1: of women and children. I want you to imagine what
Speaker 1: the news coverage would be like. I want you to
Speaker 1: imagine how the moral equation would be laid out here
Speaker 1: versus how it's described in mainstream publications. At this point,
Speaker 1: let's put a too B up on the screen. We've
Speaker 1: got the This is the latest death toll as best
Speaker 1: as we know. Lebanon says that four hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: two people have been killed and Israeli strikes, including thirty
Speaker 1: five children. The Lebanese people are panicked. They are fleeing
Speaker 1: to Beirut, hoping that that would be safe. They're fleeing
Speaker 1: north into the mountains, hoping that that would be safe.
Speaker 1: But the truth of the matter is very hard to
Speaker 1: say where it's actually safe. And I'm going to get
Speaker 1: in a moment, very eerie echoes from bb NEAT and
Speaker 1: Yahoo and other officials sounding exactly like they sounded before
Speaker 1: the genocidal onslaught into Gaza, sounding very similar notes. And
Speaker 1: so this, as we come up on the one year
Speaker 1: anniversary of October seventh, is terrifying, chilling, and deeply disturbing,
Speaker 1: and Isaiah said, just the manifest failures of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration here could not possibly be more clear. You'll recall
Speaker 1: last week we covered that Israel had launched what I
Speaker 1: think is accurately and Leon Panetta, former CIA director, agrees
Speaker 1: with me, described as a terrorist attack where they managed
Speaker 1: to blow up the pagers of HESBLA operatives and walkie talkies.
Speaker 1: They did so indiscriminately. You know, you had children killed
Speaker 1: in that attack as well. People were in busy markets,
Speaker 1: on streets and public places around their family, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And it's interesting to note that former CIA
Speaker 1: director Leon Panetta agrees with them with us that that
Speaker 1: was in fact terrorism and is deeply disturbed by what
Speaker 1: it could mean for the future of warfare.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 4: The ability to be able to place an explosive in
Speaker 4: technology that is very prevalent these days and turn it
Speaker 4: into a war of terror, really war of terror. This
Speaker 4: is something new?
Speaker 5: Is it terrorism?
Speaker 4: I don't think there's any question that it's a form
Speaker 4: of terrorism.
Speaker 5: Former Defense Secretary and former director of the CIA, Leon Panetta,
Speaker 5: at least in no words in describing what he fears
Speaker 5: maybe the result of letting this particular genie out of
Speaker 5: the buck.
Speaker 4: This has gone right into the supply chain, right into
Speaker 4: the supply chain, and when you have terror going into
Speaker 4: the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, what
Speaker 4: the hell is next?
Speaker 5: It sounds like you're genuinely worried.
Speaker 4: I am, I am. This is a tactic that has repercussions,
Speaker 4: and we really don't know what those repercussions are going
Speaker 4: to be.
Speaker 1: So he said Zager, I don't think there's any question
Speaker 1: that this is a form of terrorism. What did you
Speaker 1: make of him making those comments?
Speaker 2: I think this is somebody who was once in the
Speaker 2: room that pulled the trigger on Osama bin Laden, and
Speaker 2: then we should take it. Look, I always find a
Speaker 2: difficult former national security officials and all that. I think
Speaker 2: most of the time they're full of it. I don't
Speaker 2: really like to listen to them. So I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that these people have a ton of credibility. But I
Speaker 2: would take his fear seriously in that this was the
Speaker 2: type of person who probably had to green light or
Speaker 2: say no to the very similar types of operations, and
Speaker 2: obviously also sat across the table from Mosat and many
Speaker 2: of the other international intelligence agencies and probably himself had
Speaker 2: to grapple with these very same questions. So his fear
Speaker 2: about the supply chain is warranted. And this is what
Speaker 2: I want to bring to which right now, you know,
Speaker 2: this isn't getting a ton of attention because this the
Speaker 2: whole thing is weird. But according to the FBI, there's
Speaker 2: been some weird Iranian hack of the Trump campaign that
Speaker 2: lasted up until last week. I mean, listen, is Iran
Speaker 2: like a joke economy? Yeah, but clearly they have some
Speaker 2: cybersecurity like sophistication. And if we get into a full
Speaker 2: blown war in Lebanon or with Iran or whatever against Hesbola,
Speaker 2: what you think we're not going to be subject to
Speaker 2: things like this. One of our major presidential campaigns has
Speaker 2: been hacked apparently for months, and so that's the same.
Speaker 2: And then what are they going to do. They're like, well,
Speaker 2: your client state Israel, blew up a bunch of our people.
Speaker 2: So if we do the same to you, don't complain. Yeah,
Speaker 2: what are we going to say?
Speaker 1: By the way, separate note, but it's crazy that journalists
Speaker 1: are not reporting on.
Speaker 3: The contents of the leak.
Speaker 2: A whole lot that hack.
Speaker 1: It is weird complete, I mean, the complete opposite of
Speaker 1: how they handled the Hillary twenty sixteen situation. They came under,
Speaker 1: you know, criticism from liberals. Those liberals were wrong, the
Speaker 1: journalists were correct. If you have information that is newsworthy,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if it's a sketchy or motivated source,
Speaker 1: of course you take that into account. But if the
Speaker 1: information is accurate and valid, you report it period, end
Speaker 1: of story. But that's another matter for another day. But
Speaker 1: it is outrageous the totally different ways that they handled
Speaker 1: those two those two hacks. You know, going back to
Speaker 1: what I was saying about the deeply chilling echoes of
Speaker 1: the type of language that was used from the Israeli
Speaker 1: government before they began their complete annihilation of Gaza, and
Speaker 1: we showed you some of that yesterday. The new language
Speaker 1: that they're using with regard to Lebanon, which again echoes
Speaker 1: what was said about Gaza. Here is Prime Minister Bibi
Speaker 1: Natanyahu saying, I'm talking like some of the exact same
Speaker 1: phrases that he said in advance of their onslaught and Gaza.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to it.
Speaker 6: I have a message for the people of Lebanon. Israel's
Speaker 6: war is not with you, it's with Habala. For too long,
Speaker 6: Hasbala has been using you as humans? She fields it
Speaker 6: placed rockets in your living rooms and missiles in your garage.
Speaker 6: Those rockets and missiles are aimed directly at our cities,
Speaker 6: directly at our citizens. To defend our people against Riballa strikes,
Speaker 6: we must take out those weapons now, starting this morning.
Speaker 6: The IDF has warned you to get out of harm's way.
Speaker 6: I urge you take this warning seriously. Don't let his
Speaker 6: blain danger your lives and the lives of your loved ones.
Speaker 6: Don't let his ballin danger.
Speaker 1: Lebanon so very predictably using the same language about human
Speaker 1: shields to justify bombing and destroying any civilian to Tarium again,
Speaker 1: this sounds just like the case that they built up
Speaker 1: in Gaza, and the case that they have used for
Speaker 1: time immemorial to justify assaults on civilian infrastructure. Says they
Speaker 1: placed rockets in your living rooms and missiles in your garage. Ie,
Speaker 1: We're going to blow up a bunch of houses, and
Speaker 1: we're going to justify it as a legitimate military target.
Speaker 3: And that's how you.
Speaker 1: Already end up with what appears to be a high
Speaker 1: civilian death count. Similarly, let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You have an Israeli minister, tell me if this sounds
Speaker 1: familiar claiming Lebanon can't be defined as a state. Oh,
Speaker 1: really interesting. You also have them saying that the IDEAF
Speaker 1: should establish a buffer zone inside of Lebanon. Again identical
Speaker 1: to the language with which they describe Gaza, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, part of Palestine, and identical to you know,
Speaker 1: their justification they've said for a while now they're creating
Speaker 1: this buffer zone in Goz. Of course, it looks like
Speaker 1: the assault in Gaza is never going to end. Buffer
Speaker 1: zone or no buffer zone, et cetera. So really really
Speaker 1: similar and deeply disturbing language coming from these Israeli ministers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, we have to spend a lot of
Speaker 2: time here because this is just this is the most
Speaker 2: precarious that that region has now been, honestly since October seventh.
Speaker 2: And worse, really, what it tells us is that the
Speaker 2: US commitment to full blown war is one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: We have a sleep at the wheel literally present. I mean,
Speaker 2: the difference between his public rhetoric and then the actual
Speaker 2: actions could not be crazier I just I really can't
Speaker 2: believe that he has the gall or his people at
Speaker 2: the gall whatever to put him on the UNBAA stage
Speaker 2: today and say that his foreign policy has had results
Speaker 2: and that there's peace around the world, Like, how could
Speaker 2: you possibly the worst war in Europe since World War
Speaker 2: Two that you are fueling, by the way, and now
Speaker 2: we have possibly, you know, an explosion of a war
Speaker 2: in the Middle East which would bring the United States
Speaker 2: back in. Don't forget two thousand and six was not
Speaker 2: that long ago. Israel, it was a big problem and
Speaker 2: this is already looking way worse for them. Also, Lebanon
Speaker 2: is very different than Gaza. There is no you know,
Speaker 2: argument about the you know, like you were just talking
Speaker 2: about nineteen sixty eight borders and all that.
Speaker 3: This is left.
Speaker 7: This is the internationally recognized country, all right, not disputing Yeah,
Speaker 7: it's not just like there's no there's nothing in the
Speaker 7: what is it the from the river to the sea
Speaker 7: or whatever that applies. As far as I know, I'm
Speaker 7: sure there's some biblical scholar that I could disagree. My
Speaker 7: point is just that in the region as well, this
Speaker 7: would significantly I think ramp up tensions the golf Arab
Speaker 7: States and others have always kind of had a weird
Speaker 7: relationship with Palestine. Recently there's mostly just didn't care that
Speaker 7: much about the Palestinian issue.
Speaker 2: But with Lebanon, that's not the same thing. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is a country that they know, they have relations
Speaker 2: with Iran in particular. I think this is one where
Speaker 2: this would be everyone always liked to say, like, oh
Speaker 2: Hamas in Iran. I mean, this is Lebanon. Though this
Speaker 2: is a majority and Hezbola role, or at least Hesbola
Speaker 2: country with a large Shia population. I'm not so sure
Speaker 2: that they would respond in the same way to October
Speaker 2: seventh or that they did with Hamas that they would
Speaker 2: with Hesbola. I mean, they consider themselves like blood brothers
Speaker 2: and allies. And if you have mass civilian death in
Speaker 2: the city of Beirut, I mean just the possibility of
Speaker 2: mass explosion cannot be discounted. And the fact is is
Speaker 2: that the containment strategy has not worked ailed completely from
Speaker 2: the Biden administration. All we get our background quotes, everything
Speaker 2: that they tell us is well, we hope that Hezbola
Speaker 2: doesn't respond. What is hope? I mean, what are we
Speaker 2: doing here? Are we a superpower? Or are we not?
Speaker 2: And I mean the crazy part is that we are one,
Speaker 2: and we are you know, dispatching the firepower of the
Speaker 2: US Empire to a region which is not all that
Speaker 2: strategically important to defend the country that is not all
Speaker 2: that important to US interests in a war where frankly, like,
Speaker 2: what do we have to gain out of all this?
Speaker 2: So it's a real lesson in the failures of the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. Their foreign policy people will be writing about
Speaker 2: this and talking about it decades. But I'm scared, I
Speaker 2: really am. I have absolute confidence in the worst way
Speaker 2: that the US political establishment is committed to war, to
Speaker 2: this war in particular. Already we see republican politicians and
Speaker 2: democratic policy like Israel, US has the right to defend itself.
Speaker 2: It's like a chant, you know, It's like a mantra
Speaker 2: that you asked.
Speaker 3: It's it's almost religious.
Speaker 2: It's like a religious shibboleth that you must say before
Speaker 2: you're able to and to the temple of the US Congress.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a few mac Producer Hack points out about
Speaker 1: the BB commentary there too. Message to the Lebanese people
Speaker 1: in English. Yeah, okay, obviously this is meant to justify
Speaker 1: this onslaught to the American people and provide, you know,
Speaker 1: this bullshit rationale and pretend like, oh, we're really protecting
Speaker 1: Lebanese civilians, which we already see is not true. The
Speaker 1: other thing that's really significant to note is that I
Speaker 1: think there's a very good possibility that part of the
Speaker 1: intent here by BB is to draw Iran war directly
Speaker 1: into this and provoke them. I mean, listen, there've already
Speaker 1: been exchanges of Israel that Israel provoked from Iran. Their
Speaker 1: retaliation has been largely relatively constrained intentionally so and frankly
Speaker 1: coordinated with the US. After the last provocation of assassinating
Speaker 1: Ismael Hania in Tehran on the eve of the new
Speaker 1: president's inauguration, they actually did not end up responding, which
Speaker 1: was showed incredible restraint at that point, given that brazen
Speaker 1: attack on their own soil. And so I think part
Speaker 1: of the intent here may be to try to provoke
Speaker 1: Iran into direct conflicts so that then they have the
Speaker 1: excuse and maybe can get his fondest wish of many years,
Speaker 1: which is dragging the US into that conflict with Israel
Speaker 1: on the side of Israel versus Iran. And I think
Speaker 1: they're also may be an intent here with the escalation
Speaker 1: in the West Bank, where they have stopped providing West
Speaker 1: Bank with the tax revenues that they are due, so
Speaker 1: they're squeezing them financially. Palestonians in the West Bank are
Speaker 1: no longer able to go and work jobs in Israel,
Speaker 1: so there's a financial a deep financial pressure. But being
Speaker 1: put on the West Bank. You've had a massive uptick
Speaker 1: in state sanctioned settler violence, and then you've also had
Speaker 1: this invasion of the IDF in the West Bank, and
Speaker 1: I think it's entirely possible that there's also a desire
Speaker 1: to provoke some sort of you know, a mass uprising
Speaker 1: like another into Fada in the West Bank to also
Speaker 1: justify and you know Gaza style assault there as well.
Speaker 1: So that's what I see as a likely strategic.
Speaker 3: Goals of BB dot Yahoo.
Speaker 1: And if the Biden administration has any problems with any
Speaker 1: of this, it's sure as hell doesn't seem like it
Speaker 1: from the way that they've approached the situation. Let's move
Speaker 1: on to the next part showing Yeah, so as part
Speaker 1: of you know, one of the only democracy in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, one of their latest actions was to raid
Speaker 1: the Al Jazeera headquarters in the West Bank and sees
Speaker 1: cameras equipment, shut it down, et cetera.
Speaker 3: They sent an IDF soldiers to do this.
Speaker 1: Our own Ryan Graham has actually been in Doha at
Speaker 1: a conference there.
Speaker 3: I think he's back now. He's just arriving. Said the
Speaker 3: jet lag was pretty terrible.
Speaker 1: But while he was there, he appeared on Al Jazeera
Speaker 1: to talk about this situation.
Speaker 3: Let's take less and what.
Speaker 8: He joining us on set is Ryan Grum, co founder
Speaker 8: of drop Side News and the host of the show Counterpoints.
Speaker 8: Thanks very much for joining us, Ryan. This attempt to
Speaker 8: silence the media, is it a disparate attempt by a
Speaker 8: government that's increasingly under pressure.
Speaker 9: I don't know how desperate an attempt it is, or
Speaker 9: if it's a pressage for you know, a ramping up
Speaker 9: of the assault on the West Bank that we're seeing.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure I would characterize it necessarily as desperation.
Speaker 5: It is.
Speaker 9: It is certainly a lashing out and a flailing but
Speaker 9: you know, this is of a pattern that we have
Speaker 9: seen consistently, as you just laid out, and you say
Speaker 9: that it.
Speaker 8: Would potentially be a ramping up of military operations in
Speaker 8: the West Bank. So it's logical to conclude Israel wouldn't
Speaker 8: then want an international audience to see exactly what he
Speaker 8: is had happening there.
Speaker 9: Well, they very conspicuously prevented international journalists from entering Gaza
Speaker 9: after October seventh, and also, as you mentioned, have killed
Speaker 9: more than one hundred journalists on the ground there. So
Speaker 9: the number of working journalists in Gaza now is dwindling
Speaker 9: into the dozens, and so it does raise It would
Speaker 9: raise alarms for me if I lived anywhere near there
Speaker 9: that step one would be the silencing of the media
Speaker 9: before step two are ramping up of the assault.
Speaker 8: Israel is under an increasing amount of pressure, especially internationally.
Speaker 8: We've seen the TI turn in terms of what is acceptable.
Speaker 8: We've seen accusations, heard, accusations of violating international law. Meanwhile
Speaker 8: Israel calls itself the only democracy in the Middle East.
Speaker 8: Actions like this against a free press, is it not
Speaker 8: then counterproductive? It doesn't help their case at all, does it?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 9: But I don't think that they have much credibility on
Speaker 9: the international stage left to lose. I think that going
Speaker 9: into their calculations here, they are already saying that we
Speaker 9: have lost this mantle of the most moral army, the
Speaker 9: only democracy in the Middle East. Those have become punchlines
Speaker 9: internationally rather than rather than talking points that anybody takes
Speaker 9: seriously anymore. And so this feels like a gloves off
Speaker 9: situation because sending in armed troops to you know, drag
Speaker 9: journalists out of their headquarters is you know, creates the
Speaker 9: kind of images that would make any country calling itself
Speaker 9: a democracy ashamed. The fact that not only were they
Speaker 9: willing to do this, but it appears did so partly
Speaker 9: for the production of those images suggests that they are
Speaker 9: beyond that the realm of worrying about the pr of
Speaker 9: how it looks.
Speaker 1: I think that last point from Ryan is such an
Speaker 1: important one that they're not even trying anymore. And of course,
Speaker 1: you know, for liberal Zionists inside of Israel, and many
Speaker 1: liberal Zionists who defend all Israeli actions, here comes very
Speaker 1: difficult because that key talking all the only democracy in
Speaker 1: the Middle East becomes very difficult to say with the
Speaker 1: straight face when they're taking such actions that are brazen
Speaker 1: against a free press. And he's also a right to
Speaker 1: point out, you know, it was very intentional that post
Speaker 1: October seventh The only Western journalists who were allowed in
Speaker 1: were like, you know, if they went on a hand
Speaker 1: selected IDF ride along a friendly outlet like CNN, Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll take you along, We'll show you what we want
Speaker 1: to show you. And even within those narrow confines that
Speaker 1: still sometimes led to the exposing of, you know, horrific
Speaker 1: war crimes. Jeremy Diamond was able to expose some horrific
Speaker 1: war crimes, assaults on cemeteries and gaza and things of
Speaker 1: the sort, and some debunking of IDF lies and propaganda
Speaker 1: as well, even within those narrow confines. So the assault
Speaker 1: on journalism has been long standing, but as Ryan says,
Speaker 1: there is now just completely gloves off, as they don't
Speaker 1: even try to maintain a fig leaf of credibility because
Speaker 1: internationally it's already preposterous, it's already a joke. Let me
Speaker 1: just put up Al Jazeerra's reporting on what exactly happened here,
Speaker 1: so I can give you some more of the details
Speaker 1: they write. Israeli soldiers have rated AlJazeera's bureau and Romala
Speaker 1: in the occupied West Bank, ordered the Doha based news
Speaker 1: network to shut down operations amid a widening Israeli cracked
Speaker 1: down on media freedom. Heavily armed and mass is Raeli
Speaker 1: soldiers forcefully entered the building housing Al Jazeera's bureau handed
Speaker 1: the forty five day closure order to the network's West
Speaker 1: Bank bureau chief. That bureau chief said that Israeli military's
Speaker 1: closure order accused the network of incitement to and support
Speaker 1: of terrorism. Al Jazeera also said that Israeli forces used
Speaker 1: tear gas in the vicinity of the bureau and in
Speaker 1: that area in the heart of the occupied West Bank city.
Speaker 1: She added, Israeli soldiers confiscated their cameras, and she feared
Speaker 1: the military might try to destroy Al Jazeera's archives, which
Speaker 1: are also stored in the office.
Speaker 3: You saw some of the footwat. We can put this
Speaker 3: back up on the screen.
Speaker 1: When Ryan was talking of the assault on Al Jazeera's headquarters.
Speaker 1: I think we have some vo that we can play
Speaker 1: here as well, of these masked IDF soldiers coming in
Speaker 1: holding weapons and what appeared actually to be cameras and
Speaker 1: raiding this office with very little notice. So yeah, so
Speaker 1: that's the reality in this great democratic ally.
Speaker 3: Of our Middle East.
Speaker 2: Good to see Ryan in a different setting. It's definitely fun.
Speaker 1: Good to see him in Field zero ruving counterpoints internationally.
Speaker 2: I love that Baldazier actually for saying counterpoints. How hosts
Speaker 2: of that show, the details of it are honestly crazy.
Speaker 2: I mean, the more I read about it, I was like, okay,
Speaker 2: Like what's the justification? It says the initial order is
Speaker 2: closed for forty five days, it was renewed. Al Jazeer
Speaker 2: journalists are not allowed to report from inside the country
Speaker 2: after the raid. The bureau chief says, what are they
Speaker 2: doing to our office? The government media in a government
Speaker 2: media office in Gaza of still you know, has maintained
Speaker 2: its own problems. The Secretary General of the Palestinian Initiatives
Speaker 2: that Israel quote had no right legally speaking to even
Speaker 2: close any office in Ramala, which just kind of highlights
Speaker 2: the entire insanity of the legal regime and how this
Speaker 2: entire thing works. So the whole thing is nuts. And
Speaker 2: it's one of those where I could just say, in
Speaker 2: the region, you know, at this moment, this is all
Speaker 2: being taken notice of. And yes, nothing exploded luckily post
Speaker 2: October seventh. Yet you know, in other places Jordan, Iran, Qatar,
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia, But all of these places they have their
Speaker 2: own populations, their own populations who Al Jazeer's their number
Speaker 2: one news source, and they see things like this and
Speaker 2: the level of anger gets ramped up. A conflagration in
Speaker 2: Lebanon would be just what they need for there to
Speaker 2: be some sort of global, you know, conflagration in the
Speaker 2: entire region. And that's probably what I worry about the most.
Speaker 1: Al Jazeera is the only large network that has been
Speaker 1: able to maintain coverage in Gaza at all, and in
Speaker 1: West Bank. I mean a lot of the more professional
Speaker 1: images and understanding of this conflict that we've been able
Speaker 1: to attend to obtain our courtesy of their genuinely brave journalists.
Speaker 1: And remember that quite a number of journalists, I think
Speaker 1: one hundred journalists have been killed by Israel since October seventh,
Speaker 1: and some of those have been al just you're a journalist,
Speaker 1: so you know. Now they're just they don't want any
Speaker 1: sunlight whatsoever. They don't want people to know, they don't
Speaker 1: want those images coming out, and so they're making the
Speaker 1: show of force and shutting Al Jazera down entirely.
Speaker 3: And it's a loss for all.
Speaker 1: Of us that we won't have access to the same
Speaker 1: level of reporting that we did previously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all I want is the ability to see all size.
Speaker 2: You know, it's totally fine. Is really want to put
Speaker 2: your stuff out, Okay, cool, but just let people in.
Speaker 2: That's it. You know, let a lot of people into
Speaker 2: report and I think it's telling.
Speaker 3: You're fighting such a moral war you should want to
Speaker 3: show us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, you shouldn't have it. I mean hate America,
Speaker 2: but they were literally journalists on the front lines of
Speaker 2: the of Iraq, in the front convoy. You know, some
Speaker 2: of the best one of my favorite books, Generation Kill,
Speaker 2: was literally from a guy there. It's like, with this
Speaker 2: level of press access, it's like zero, it's absolutely ridiculous. Yep,
Speaker 2: let's move on to Ukraine. This is just I mean,
Speaker 2: this is this is an insane situation. It's that President
Speaker 2: Zelenski is here in the United States, not just in
Speaker 2: the United States, in a battleground state, flown there on
Speaker 2: a US Air Force jet so that him and the
Speaker 2: Governor of Pennsylvania can have a grotesque signing of bombs
Speaker 2: that are being manufactured to be shipped into war. Let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Governor Shapiro met President Zelenski on the tarmac. They appeared together.
Speaker 2: That's Bob Casey, by the way, right there, the Senator
Speaker 2: also from Pennsylvania, shaking Zelenski's hands, and they're like gleefully
Speaker 2: in this factory signing bombs that are being manufactured in Scranton, Pennsylvania, manufactured,
Speaker 2: by the way, with our tax dollars, and then being
Speaker 2: shipped abroad to fund the war in Ukraine. And he says,
Speaker 2: you know, we must all do our part for the
Speaker 2: fight for freedom, the workers in Scranton, the arsenal of democracy.
Speaker 2: This is all just World War two nostalgia bs and
Speaker 2: the details of it show anything. But I mean, for example,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there, my friend Dan Caldwell flag
Speaker 2: this you could see right here. Zelensky was flown to
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania on a US Air Force C seventeen. The quote
Speaker 2: the Biden Harris administration is using military assets to fly
Speaker 2: a foreign leader into a battleground state to undermine their
Speaker 2: political opponents. And if you think he's exaggerating, at the
Speaker 2: very same time that this was all happening, he literally
Speaker 2: gave an interview to The New Yorker where he was
Speaker 2: denouncing any of the Trump vance or I guess vance
Speaker 2: in particular, statements saying that the war in Ukraine needs
Speaker 2: to come to an end. And of course, as always
Speaker 2: with Zelensky's visits to America to beg for weapons, there's
Speaker 2: a split screen as to how the rest of the
Speaker 2: world is allowed to have like a very rational conversation
Speaker 2: in America, just like with Israel. If you're like bow
Speaker 2: down before Ukraine, be like, no, please take all the
Speaker 2: money and weapons who could possibly give you. Put this
Speaker 2: on the screen, for example. You can't accuse this guy
Speaker 2: of being a Russian shill. Ukraine quote needs to be
Speaker 2: realistic about its goals. This is from the President of
Speaker 2: the Czech Republic, present President Petra pavel A quote. Former
Speaker 2: NATO general who has been vocal in his support for Ukraine,
Speaker 2: said Kiev needed to accept that some territory could remain
Speaker 2: under Russian control quote, at least temporarily. He said that
Speaker 2: Ukraine needs to be realistic. The most probable outcome of
Speaker 2: the war, he says, will be that the part of
Speaker 2: Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation temporarily. But add
Speaker 2: to that temporary thing could last four years. And I
Speaker 2: mean it just it's almost noteworthy to me. Crystil that
Speaker 2: the most obvious thing in the world to any casual
Speaker 2: observer is anathema in diplomatic and US foreign policy circles.
Speaker 2: If you utter that very basic sentiment, you're accused of
Speaker 2: being a Russian sympathizer. You know, no one is saying
Speaker 2: that this is a good outcome. It is just the
Speaker 2: realistic outcome without further escalating the war. And of course
Speaker 2: Zelenski's chief aim from everything I've seen so far, is
Speaker 2: to prosecute a case in the media and on the
Speaker 2: Biden administration at the United Nations to force the United
Speaker 2: States to allow him to use long range missiles and
Speaker 2: strike inside of Russia. That's what this is all about.
Speaker 2: This whole little campaign stop and everything is about further
Speaker 2: escalating the war. And you know, we just talked about Lebanon.
Speaker 2: How many wars were supposed to be funding here. You know,
Speaker 2: at what point does it end? What does America have
Speaker 2: at stake allowing long range missiles to be fired inside
Speaker 2: of Russia where their president, Vladimir Putin take him, at
Speaker 2: least somewhat seriously, says that would be an official declaration
Speaker 2: of war by NATO. Okay, I mean, the guy has
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons. You have to take it seriously. You don't
Speaker 2: have to like the guy. You have to take it.
Speaker 1: So can we put b one back up on this?
Speaker 1: I want to dwell on this for a moment. First
Speaker 1: of all, I have a question for you, Sager, which
Speaker 1: is is this thing of signing missiles?
Speaker 3: Is this like a long standing thing?
Speaker 1: Because there were there were so many politicians who did
Speaker 1: this in Israel, which is to jury Seinfeld did this
Speaker 1: in Israel and bombs that were going to like murder,
Speaker 1: you know, Palasidian children. It is a grotesque practice to
Speaker 1: be like delightedly signing weapons of war that are going
Speaker 1: to be used to kill human beings. And I think
Speaker 1: that this should not be normal. I don't think it
Speaker 1: should be normalized to the extend it already is that
Speaker 1: is deeply disturbing. The other thing, and you mentioned the
Speaker 1: language about the quote arsenal of democracy. This is language
Speaker 1: that Biden himself unveiled a number of months back, and
Speaker 1: then he sent out a bunch of and miserable to
Speaker 1: the extent that he does anything or directs anything from
Speaker 1: his White House at this point, sent out some of
Speaker 1: his administration officials to circulate a talking point in Congress
Speaker 1: that providing military aid is quote unquote good for American jobs.
Speaker 1: And this is a part of the story of why
Speaker 1: we have these, you know, continually expanding military budgets, endlessly
Speaker 1: expanding military budgets. It's part of the story of why
Speaker 1: we end up getting ourselves entangled in one, two, three
Speaker 1: wars at a time and never are never able to
Speaker 1: extricate ourselves from them.
Speaker 3: Is because, first of all, you have a.
Speaker 1: Lot of you know, people like Josh Shapiro on both
Speaker 1: sides of the aisle, who are like, do see it
Speaker 1: as a jobs program and do see it is like
Speaker 1: good for them politically to have these weapons makers in
Speaker 1: their state and production ramping up to be able to,
Speaker 1: you know, send bombs to the frontline in Ukraine, send
Speaker 1: bombs to our great democratic allies in Israel, and obviously
Speaker 1: said tongue in cheek and so. And obviously the people
Speaker 1: that own those factories and the large weapons makers, like
Speaker 1: they're the ones who really benefit from this. So the
Speaker 1: fact that this had become such an important component of
Speaker 1: the American economy, and that it has become such an
Speaker 1: important part of the personal financial bottom lines of so
Speaker 1: many people who are within a thirty mile radius of
Speaker 1: where we sit right now. That is an understated part
Speaker 1: of why we find ourselves in these situations over and
Speaker 1: over and over again, in spite of the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, if you ask the American people, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: especially with regard to to Israel and Palisa and getting
Speaker 1: dragged into a broader Middle East war, the views are
Speaker 1: more divided with regard to Ukraine as roughly I think
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty split in terms of the approach there.
Speaker 1: But if you ask about hey, you want to go
Speaker 1: fight a war with Israel against Iran, I guarantee you
Speaker 1: you all majorities across the board that say AB's African
Speaker 1: lutely not. And yet here we are getting pulled back
Speaker 1: into the Middle East.
Speaker 2: We just addressed that too. About the Ukraine, I mean,
Speaker 2: this idea that it inject sells cash flow into the
Speaker 2: US is bullshit. The top few US defense contractors are
Speaker 2: raking in record profits and are redistributing those profits not
Speaker 2: to workers through share buybacks, to their investors. It's not
Speaker 2: just the US. Ukraine has been the greatest gift in
Speaker 2: the history in modern history since Iraq, to the modern
Speaker 2: defense industry. They're printing money. And here's the thing. They're
Speaker 2: not even that good at what they do, that arms
Speaker 2: factory and all that. We're spending more to manufacture arms
Speaker 2: than we did in the nineteen nineties for something per
Speaker 2: capita basis, which is way more expensive. They're not even
Speaker 2: good at their jobs. That's the ironic part of all
Speaker 2: of this. It's not particularly that great for the US economy.
Speaker 2: It's only good for a bunch of defense contract shareholders
Speaker 2: and investors. Now, let's continue on this whole like, what
Speaker 2: are we doing here exactly? Shall we? Let's see, let's
Speaker 2: put this on the screen financial times. Russia overwhelms Ukrainian
Speaker 2: forces on the Eastern front. Quote, Moscow is taking advantage
Speaker 2: of Kiev's redeployment into the cursed region. Remember when Ukraine
Speaker 2: and Russia and everyone's like, wow, what a genius move. Well,
Speaker 2: their own commanders are now saying quote commanders and soldiers
Speaker 2: see this as the cost of the Kursk defensive and
Speaker 2: a poor trade off. Kurs was a good idea. It
Speaker 2: exposed Russia as being weaker than many people believed. But
Speaker 2: we are paying the price of it with more of
Speaker 2: our own land. And in fact, they talk about how
Speaker 2: Russian forces have captured several towns in the Donetsk region.
Speaker 2: It says Ukraine quote had hoped its audacious operation would
Speaker 2: force the Kremlin to redeploy resources from Dunats, but that
Speaker 2: has not happened, and instead they have had several towns
Speaker 2: now fall to Russian forces. Russia is now facing calls
Speaker 2: inwardly actually to increased the amount of soldiers and for
Speaker 2: conscription purposes. They have no signs their economy is a
Speaker 2: full on war economy now at this point, I mean,
Speaker 2: they had no current signs of turning back. Every single
Speaker 2: thing that the Ukrainians have done to try and escalate
Speaker 2: has been good for headlines, but the actual ground situation
Speaker 2: has changed nothing, not gained any more territory, especially of
Speaker 2: their own territory they allegedly, you know, is so sacred
Speaker 2: and that we're supposed to like, you know, bend over
Speaker 2: backwards to keep for them. At every level. It's not working.
Speaker 2: Even their long range missile strikes and all that. It's like, well, okay,
Speaker 2: they can't even make a case. How many square miles
Speaker 2: of territory are you going to get back if that
Speaker 2: were allowed to happen? And is that worth the risk?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: Because when you start talking this way, they can't do it.
Speaker 2: The whole argument falls apart, and instead Zelenski is in
Speaker 2: the page of The New Yorker going after our presidential
Speaker 2: candidates on US soil interesting and also basically saying that
Speaker 2: it's a ridiculous proposition that they could give up a
Speaker 2: single ounce of territory. This is when you know, a
Speaker 2: sizeable portion of his own population wants to just end
Speaker 2: the war. The ones who are left, not the ones
Speaker 2: who are you know, filthy, rich and fled who are
Speaker 2: all over Central Europe. But that's a whole other situation.
Speaker 1: And you know, I largely don't blame Zelenski, but in
Speaker 1: one way I think he is very culpable for the
Speaker 1: current situation, which is that he has painted a you know,
Speaker 1: I would say overly Rosie is like sort of too kind.
Speaker 1: He's just lied about how the war alonggoing with his
Speaker 1: own population. And so even in spite of that overwhelming
Speaker 1: propaganda campaign not unusual in war time, but in spite
Speaker 1: of that propaganda campaign, you have increasing numbers who are saying, listen, guys,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to give.
Speaker 3: Up some of our territory.
Speaker 1: And if you can imagine if you had a leader
Speaker 1: who was more honest about the trade offs and what
Speaker 1: a realistic pathward looked like. Then you might have an
Speaker 1: even greater consensus within Ukrainian society in favor of all right,
Speaker 1: we got it. At some point, we have to get
Speaker 1: to the negotiating tai and we have to make some
Speaker 1: sort of a deal. My point for a long time
Speaker 1: has just been this, like, tell me what the endgame is,
Speaker 1: tell me what your plan is, Tell me how this ends,
Speaker 1: Tell me how it ends well for Ukraine, Tell me
Speaker 1: how it ends well for us? Like how much what's
Speaker 1: the is there a dollar figure on is it a
Speaker 1: timeline on it? Is there a plan? Is there a strategy?
Speaker 1: And effectively, since that was it the spring offensive that
Speaker 1: you know, was hyped up and ultimately you know, didn't
Speaker 1: result in the massive gains that were predicted or hoped for,
Speaker 1: expected or whatever, that was the last time that there
Speaker 1: was any sort of US strategy with regard to this
Speaker 1: conflict that was at all comprehensible to me. And at
Speaker 1: this point they're just on autopilot. They just want to
Speaker 1: like keep the sort of rhetoric that like, you know,
Speaker 1: human rights rhetoric, which is obviously incredibly hypocritical when you
Speaker 1: see what we're funding in Israel and Palestine. They just
Speaker 1: want to keep that flowing and kind of keep it
Speaker 1: on the back burner, keep it out of the front,
Speaker 1: out of the headlines in the news, so that we
Speaker 1: can muddle through. And they're locked into kind of indefinite
Speaker 1: war mode, like low burner, in definite war mode. And
Speaker 1: it's disgusting because again, you're talking about actual human beings
Speaker 1: who are being slaughtered. You're talking about real cities that had,
Speaker 1: you know, vibrant lives and communities and history to them
Speaker 1: that are being flattened and you know will be will
Speaker 1: never be the same again. And but you know, there's
Speaker 1: no ability to have a serious conversation about trade ufs,
Speaker 1: about what the plan is, about what the strategy is,
Speaker 1: and so you just end up in this muddle. You know,
Speaker 1: with regard to the politics of this, it's pretty split
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty who people think would do a better job,
Speaker 1: and I think it's pretty split in general fifty to
Speaker 1: fifty and how people want to approach the Ukraine war.
Speaker 1: Can put this up on the screen after the last debate,
Speaker 1: this was pulling that came out that showed which candidate
Speaker 1: would be better on the issue. Forty nine percent say
Speaker 1: Trump would do a better job with regard to the
Speaker 1: rush of Ukraine war. Forty seven percent say Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: so pretty split. I also think we shouldn't delude ourselves
Speaker 1: into thinking that this is a primary issue that people
Speaker 1: are voting on at this point, not to say that
Speaker 1: there's no one that cares about it, and it's certainly
Speaker 1: not to say that it's not important, but oftentimes foreign
Speaker 1: affairs doesn't end up being the top issue that people
Speaker 1: are voting on, especially when you don't have direct American
Speaker 1: boots on the ground. But nevertheless, regardless of where the
Speaker 1: political standing is, you know, the Biden Harrison mishtation, ohs
Speaker 1: the American people an explanation, and Trump, by the way,
Speaker 1: ohs American people an explanation of because he just uses
Speaker 1: this than oh, it never would have happened in the war.
Speaker 1: But you know, specifics are important here. What does that
Speaker 1: mean exactly? And because they have komalas subjected herself to
Speaker 1: basically no adversarial interviews. Trump has done very few adversarial interviews.
Speaker 1: We only had this one debate. This is the sort
Speaker 1: of thing that neither one of them has really truly
Speaker 1: been pressed on.
Speaker 2: And this is, you know, a good show at the
Speaker 2: top because what people, I know, everybody wants about inflation
Speaker 2: and all that. That truth is the president and their
Speaker 2: ability to influence inflation, macroeconomic events and in general that's
Speaker 2: really going to touch your like economic life. It's pretty low.
Speaker 2: But in war it's actually they have total discretion to
Speaker 2: be able to do whatever they want. The Imperial American
Speaker 2: president has one hundred percent ability to get the United
Speaker 2: States into a full on nuclear Not enough people ever
Speaker 2: really grapple with that. Only when tensions are very high
Speaker 2: or two thousand was two thousand and four after the
Speaker 2: Iraq War. Prior to that and the Soviet Union times things,
Speaker 2: it was more elevated because people had the specter of
Speaker 2: nuclear annihilation on their minds at all time. But that's
Speaker 2: mostly gone away. But if you look at the most
Speaker 2: consequential acts in the last twenty five years, all of
Speaker 2: them come back to terrible foreign policy mishaps. War in
Speaker 2: Iraq ended up costing like six trillion, War in Afghanistan
Speaker 2: cost two trillion, tens of thousands of dead. The downstream
Speaker 2: effects of that on global trade, on US position on
Speaker 2: American superpower status, on Chinese competition. All of it is
Speaker 2: a disaster. If you look right now at Lebanon, and
Speaker 2: that's situe also Russia and Ukraine. The consequences of each
Speaker 2: of these individual decisions are going to be tenfold to
Speaker 2: whatever tax legislation that you pass in the immediate term.
Speaker 2: And the problem is the tail end effective It is
Speaker 2: just so high, and people don't really think that way.
Speaker 2: They think very They have a lot of recency bias,
Speaker 2: and most people are not paying attention. And that's fine,
Speaker 2: it really is, but you know, you just shouldn't be
Speaker 2: surprised then when something flares up and then your son
Speaker 2: ends up having to get deployed, or you end up
Speaker 2: paying more for a gallon of gas, or you know,
Speaker 2: your favorite company or whatever camp and ship you anything,
Speaker 2: because the straits are completely closed from uh from from warfare,
Speaker 2: and that's a very likely possibility. And in both of
Speaker 2: these cases, we're looking at a very very unstable world
Speaker 2: of which we are the primary bankroller of both. And
Speaker 2: that's what I think just underscores it really for me,
Speaker 2: these wars, we have nothing really at stake for real,
Speaker 2: like what does America care? What do you care if
Speaker 2: you live in whatever, Scranton, Pennsylvania, the square mile territory,
Speaker 2: control of the Dnetsk region of Ukraine. Same with Israel
Speaker 2: and with Lebanon. Why should we be funding this? Nobody
Speaker 2: will give you a real straight an. It's always in
Speaker 2: a democracy, American jobs, but this fake is like a
Speaker 2: couple hundred jobs in Scranted.
Speaker 1: It's also like, I mean, it's also deeply sick to
Speaker 1: just like structure such a large part of your economy,
Speaker 1: you know, around weapons of war meant to destroy human beings.
Speaker 1: But even if there is you know, some truth to like,
Speaker 1: oh this is creating jobs in Scriant, in Pennsylvania or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's a deeply, deeply sick and deprived way to structure
Speaker 1: and think.
Speaker 3: About your economy.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean the other thing is the whole
Speaker 1: thing just seems so so listless, so directionless. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: the American super is just being buffeted around by world
Speaker 1: events and you know, doing whatever Zelenski wants us to do,
Speaker 1: doing whatever bb netnya who wants to do and with
Speaker 1: Netanyahu and Biden, like you know, this guy is a
Speaker 1: political adversary, you know what he's all about. And yet
Speaker 1: you still can't bring yourself to, you know, break from
Speaker 1: the mass, overwhelming, bipartisan consensus that we just got to
Speaker 1: do whatever Israel wants us to do in perpetuity, no
Speaker 1: matter the consequences to our own strategic interest, and no
Speaker 1: matter certainly the consequences to human life in the region.
Speaker 1: So very dark developments, very dark developments, on both fronts.