Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Gatty.
Speaker 2: Enough he.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: I'll start, as we often do here at the Department
Speaker 3: of War, with the bottom line up front for the
Speaker 3: world to hear and the press to actually admit that
Speaker 3: the United States is decimating the radical Iranian regimes military
Speaker 3: in a way the world has never seen before. Never
Speaker 3: before has a modern capable military which Iran used to
Speaker 3: have been so quickly destroyed and made combat ineffective, devastated.
Speaker 3: We said it would not be a fair fight, and
Speaker 3: it has not been.
Speaker 1: That is all true. However, it doesn't really have anything
Speaker 1: to do with the issue of the day. Was just
Speaker 1: the whole strait of Hormuze situation. Anyway, We'll get to
Speaker 1: that in the second. This is getting a lot of attention.
Speaker 1: As Pete hegsit. The Secretary of War describes the current
Speaker 1: Supreme Leader.
Speaker 3: We know the new so called not so Supreme Leader
Speaker 3: is wounded and likely disfigured. He put out of statement yesterday,
Speaker 3: a weak one actually, but there was no voice and
Speaker 3: there was no video.
Speaker 1: It was a written statement. He called for unity.
Speaker 3: Apparently, killing tens of thousands of protesters is his kind
Speaker 3: of unity. Iran has plenty of cameras and plenty of
Speaker 3: voice recorders. Why a written statement. I think you know why?
Speaker 3: His father dead. He's scared, he's injured, he's on the run,
Speaker 3: and he lacks legitimacy.
Speaker 1: It's a mess for them who's in charge. Iran may
Speaker 1: not even know we blew off his beer. I told
Speaker 1: you disfigured beardless. So I think that's baiting the guy. Hmm, like,
Speaker 1: show your face before we get into the substance of it.
Speaker 2: Does Pete hags Eth not sound to you like a
Speaker 2: guy who's ready to fight you right now?
Speaker 1: Yeah? He does sound like that.
Speaker 2: I mean like if a reporter took a run at him,
Speaker 2: there wouldn't be that half second of oh my god,
Speaker 2: what's happening.
Speaker 1: No, he'd be cocked and ready. Let No, he'd be thinking,
Speaker 1: finally I wanted to fight somebody, That's right. That's why
Speaker 1: the Colin Jost portrayal of him is that way. When
Speaker 1: they comes out all right, listen up, dip whats Yeah.
Speaker 1: I love virtually everything he says, though, Yeah, I think so. Uh.
Speaker 1: The strikes of the substance, the straight of horror mooze situation.
Speaker 1: He was asked about that. All the chatter now is
Speaker 1: did you prepare for this properly? And he was asked
Speaker 1: that and answered, yeah, right.
Speaker 4: Here, yeh sugar, you have said that the US midal
Speaker 4: jay is essentially aerial superiority, naval supiority over Iran.
Speaker 1: Yet we're not escorting ships in the Strait of wour Youth.
Speaker 1: Why how did you not.
Speaker 4: Plan for this?
Speaker 3: We plan for it, We recognize it because ultimately we
Speaker 3: want to do it sequentially in a way that makes
Speaker 3: the most sense for what we want to achieve and
Speaker 3: ensure that we're sending the right signals to the world
Speaker 3: when we do so. So when Chris Wright speaks or
Speaker 3: we speak, it's based on a full assessment of what
Speaker 3: we're up against, what we want to say to the world,
Speaker 3: how that we want them to see and understand the conflict.
Speaker 1: So go ahead, well, I was going to say.
Speaker 2: Kim Strassel wrote a brilliant column for The Journal this morning,
Speaker 2: Trump's energy triumph, and he writes, she writes, the democratic
Speaker 2: media complex, which we just heard right there, seems determined
Speaker 2: to get everything wrong. About Iran, though few efforts compare
Speaker 2: with this week's work to tag the Trump administration with
Speaker 2: the global energy crisis. Not only is this uninformed and overdone,
Speaker 2: the sudden concern over energy security comes about three years
Speaker 2: too late. And she points out that Trump and his
Speaker 2: drill baby drilling, and we gotta be self reliant and
Speaker 2: have domestic production. Fredy, oh, yeah, that is absolutely made
Speaker 2: this situation. I can't put a percentage on it, but
Speaker 2: much much, much less damaging than it could have been.
Speaker 2: And to hear the Democratic media saying we've got to
Speaker 2: have oil flowing.
Speaker 1: It's so important that oil flows, and Trump's not doing
Speaker 1: a good enough job, I mean, is just hilarious. But
Speaker 1: I thought this was really interesting for Mark Alpern's newsletter
Speaker 1: today because he has sources in the White House that are,
Speaker 1: you know, in favor of this action and close to
Speaker 1: the president. So here's what he writes. In its initial days,
Speaker 1: the public story of the conflict with Iran was one
Speaker 1: of force momentum success. The briefing stress to what had
Speaker 1: been hit, what had been degraded, what had been decapitated,
Speaker 1: Naval assets, damaged, command and control, disrupted, missile capacity, diminish
Speaker 1: villains eliminated on paper and in early headlines, it looked
Speaker 1: like a campaign moving with confidence and purpose. But in
Speaker 1: the last few days, based on my reporting and conversations
Speaker 1: with people in and around the administration, including some who
Speaker 1: support the mission, I have developed real doubts about where
Speaker 1: this thing stands. He said. Let me be careful here,
Speaker 1: because this is the kind of subject where people hear
Speaker 1: what they want to hear. I'm not saying the original
Speaker 1: objective is foolish. I'm not saying the mission cannot still succeed.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not saying that to question the execution of
Speaker 1: a war effort is somehow to root against the United
Speaker 1: States or its military. That is not serious thinking. It
Speaker 1: is not patriotic thinking either. He goes on to talk
Speaker 1: about Walter Cronkite famously, you know, questioning the war at Vietnam,
Speaker 1: and Lyndon Johnson, President at the time, saying if I've
Speaker 1: lost Walter Krunkite, have lost America, and Mark Helprin says,
Speaker 1: I am not Walter Cronkite. But right now, the biggest
Speaker 1: problem is not abstract. It has a named the Strait
Speaker 1: of Hormuze. If the United States and allies cannot reopen
Speaker 1: that waterway to commercial shipping, then much else about the
Speaker 1: effort becomes secondary, maybe at least somewhat useless. Doubts have
Speaker 1: grown over whether or not they had prepared properly, or
Speaker 1: that they have a plan to deal with this. The
Speaker 1: pre war cogitation is that thinking fancy words for thinking fancy.
Speaker 1: The pre war cogitation by Team Trump about the Strait
Speaker 1: and how to keep it open seems at best to
Speaker 1: have been insufficiently planned for, and a failure to open
Speaker 1: the Strait in a fortnight or so that'd be two weeks,
Speaker 1: many analysts and sources say, could lead to world oil
Speaker 1: prices rising to two hundred dollars a barrel, which would
Speaker 1: likely create catastrophic consequences worldwide. I like a lot of
Speaker 1: what he said. One more thing and then they go
Speaker 1: perfect deleted. The question being asked now, including by allies
Speaker 1: of the administration inside the Beltway, is how the United
Speaker 1: States could enter a conflict of this magnitude without a
Speaker 1: more fully developed answer on two obvious fronts, hormus and drones.
Speaker 1: Hm yew the drones thing? Is there on earth a
Speaker 1: satisfying answer to that question? I have no idea that's the.
Speaker 2: Great military challenge of our time. That seems a little unfair,
Speaker 2: the Hormuz thing. Maybe they didn't really have a plan,
Speaker 2: or maybe it's just going to take a while to
Speaker 2: execute the plan. But I know this, most thinkers didn't
Speaker 2: think the Iranians would mine the Strait of Hormuz or
Speaker 2: Straits of Hormuz if you prefer, because it's so critical
Speaker 2: to their own oil exporting they wouldn't want to make
Speaker 2: that a war zone. But now that they have, I
Speaker 2: guess the US is thinking about taking that carg Island,
Speaker 2: which is enormously important to their oil industry and exports
Speaker 2: and everything else and revenue, because we've got to get
Speaker 2: a hold of that and shut that down now, right. Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a hell of a problem the.
Speaker 1: Whole they didn't have a plan. They didn't have a plan.
Speaker 1: We're in the middle of a war. It may be
Speaker 1: just and look, I know always in favor of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration guy, but it seems to me the time
Speaker 1: for that analysis is maybe down the road. Well, if
Speaker 1: we have to do now is a question, Well, if
Speaker 1: this reporting is true, is reporting is people inside the
Speaker 1: White House who are supporting of this mission are saying,
Speaker 1: did we not have a plan for this? Oh? Boy,
Speaker 1: so that's what he's reporting, right, Okay, fair enough. So
Speaker 1: I wonder just to end here, no matter how supportive
Speaker 1: you are of the president, President Trump, no matter how
Speaker 1: legitimate you believe the aims of this conflict to be,
Speaker 1: there is reason for concern, not panic, not despair, but
Speaker 1: concern based on what people are saying inside the White House.
Speaker 2: The more I think about it, if you were to
Speaker 2: pre launching the attack to list just like three threats
Speaker 2: or levers that Aron has closing the strace, so horror
Speaker 2: moves would be on that list of three, you wouldn't
Speaker 2: have to go five deep or ten deep.
Speaker 1: It's right there at the time, possible that they completely
Speaker 1: thought of it and thought, ah, we just got to
Speaker 1: hope we hit them so hard that they can't cause problems.
Speaker 1: I guess either way. I mean, you still might come
Speaker 1: down to either way. Tomorrow at two o'clock, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Leader and forty of his cabinet are going to be
Speaker 1: up above ground, and we know exactly where we either
Speaker 1: hit him or we don't. Excellent reminder. Yeah, and it
Speaker 1: might just be that. But this looks like a stick,
Speaker 1: but a problem. This looks like a problem, like a
Speaker 1: real problem. How we get that open back up again?
Speaker 2: The other factor that may well be at work here,
Speaker 2: And I don't know if Halpern's been talking about this
Speaker 2: at all, but is uh. I still don't think Trump,
Speaker 2: maybe until recently, gets religious fanaticism. He thought the usual
Speaker 2: levers applied in the usual ways violence, you know, such sanctions, whatever,
Speaker 2: would get the usual results that he's gotten from, say Venezuela.
Speaker 1: He thinks everyone's a businessman. Yeah, yeah, that's a good
Speaker 1: way to put it. I don't think he gets that.
Speaker 2: No, No, they will watch their entire country and every
Speaker 2: person in it burn a fiery death before.
Speaker 1: They give into the Great Satan. And they themselves are
Speaker 1: willing to die, which because then they'll be at Allah's
Speaker 1: side with all the virgins, which I don't think he
Speaker 1: can wrap his head around either.
Speaker 2: So many virgens. He got to like learn all their names.
Speaker 2: I mean that just seems respectful.
Speaker 1: Anybody around, anybody here with a little experience, huh, Yeah,
Speaker 1: can just say, have you know, like how about forty
Speaker 1: virgins and thirty two galzu who know what they're doing?
Speaker 1: Forty five year olds have been around the block, Come
Speaker 1: on here, got the skills?
Speaker 2: Yeah, anyway, I'm not a.
Speaker 1: Scholar. You're not a scholar. I'm not an expert on
Speaker 1: the Koran. No hi karama. These are weird times.
Speaker 2: Well well, well, on a lighter note, Bigfoot is rampaging
Speaker 2: across Ohio. I've been digging into those details.
Speaker 1: And seems legit to me, and I want to get
Speaker 1: to this later because there are some interesting philosophical discussions
Speaker 1: that have around it. If they actually have figured out
Speaker 1: how to freeze brains and then thaw them back out,
Speaker 1: what does that flipping mean going forward? Horrifying zombie apocalypse?
Speaker 1: I think, or certainly, you know, preserving your your brain
Speaker 1: for a future where maybe they could put it in
Speaker 1: a body that the future doesn't want my brain. The
Speaker 1: present hardly does. There's always that. Okay, we got lots
Speaker 1: on the way. Stay here.
Speaker 4: Benito Mussolini's granddaughter will compete on Celebrity Big Brother in Italy.
Speaker 4: Is the weirdest combo of Dictator's descendant reality competition since
Speaker 4: Survivor was won by Brenda Hitler.
Speaker 1: Obvious punchline. So but okay, the word is crepo preservation.
Speaker 1: I guess that's the official term. For freezing a brain
Speaker 1: and bringing it back alive, and it's never been possible
Speaker 1: till now, and that when you freeze a brain it
Speaker 1: destroys the cells and you can't thought out and have
Speaker 1: it still work. But they figured out a way to
Speaker 1: freeze the cells in such a way that it doesn't
Speaker 1: destroy them. And they sliced up brain tissue from mice
Speaker 1: and have frozen them for a week or so and
Speaker 1: then thought them back out. The freezing and the throwing
Speaker 1: have to be very careful and still gotten a brain
Speaker 1: activity that could happen. So they haven't done it with
Speaker 1: a full brain yet. But that's well, Covin said, where
Speaker 1: am I? What's happening to me? Same day, different cheese?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Yeah, how about the length of time because you can
Speaker 2: get freezer burn.
Speaker 1: But obviously this opens the door if they can perfect
Speaker 1: this to all kinds of wonders where someone could have
Speaker 1: a terrible disease, freeze the brain, get to the point
Speaker 1: that we can cure the disease, and then you know,
Speaker 1: you reanimate your brain. But we'd have you'd have to
Speaker 1: put in a body though in that case, because we
Speaker 1: still haven't perfected the brain transplant. So what good does
Speaker 1: it do to to bring it? To freeze a brain
Speaker 1: outside of a body, bring it back alive? And now
Speaker 1: you're what a guy who lives in a jar? According
Speaker 1: to the fifties sci fi movies, Yes, yeah, and you
Speaker 1: can speak and stuff like that. You can speak I
Speaker 1: don't know, and command people to kill, as I recall
Speaker 1: from some movie I watched as a kid, boy that
Speaker 1: gets into some serious thinking about human nature. If I
Speaker 1: am h I don't want to I don't want to
Speaker 1: make this dark. But like if I if i'm if
Speaker 1: I lose the ability to do anything, speak or move
Speaker 1: my body at all, and I'm just a brain? Do
Speaker 1: I want to live like that? Well, that's what you'd
Speaker 1: be in a jar.
Speaker 2: Could I like to do crossword puzzles and stuff like that?
Speaker 2: Surely elon musk and you're gonna do crossword puzzles all day,
Speaker 2: every day for the rest of eternity. Well, it's just
Speaker 2: a forsss for the rest of eternity. I mean, you'd
Speaker 2: have like one man, right, it'd just be a long later. Yeah, yeah, yeah, No,
Speaker 2: I'd watched TV. I'd watched golf. I think boy, I
Speaker 2: watched it. I wish I could play golf, but I
Speaker 2: don't have a body. I keep forgetting.
Speaker 1: I'd watch TV. I don't know. I would read books.
Speaker 1: I just don't know if there's any point of being
Speaker 1: just a brain. How are you going to hold these books?
Speaker 1: You don't need to go to the library get the book. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right. I have no eyeballs, you surely well, and
Speaker 1: I have no ears. Wait a minute, Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: wait a minute. Well that's what I'm saying. Unless they
Speaker 1: perfect all those other things, who would just want consciousness,
Speaker 1: can't see here, feel do anything. But I'm alive. No, No,
Speaker 1: that's that's a horrifying nightmare. Yes, it is a horrifying nightmare.
Speaker 1: It limits you, that's the understatement in the air. That
Speaker 1: is the subtle joke of the day, Michael Ashelo's subtle
Speaker 1: comment of the day. It limits you.
Speaker 2: Well, for those who are fans of science, I find
Speaker 2: this super super interesting.
Speaker 1: The problem. And they've always talked about this as various
Speaker 1: rich people or ballplayers or whatever, we're gonna get their
Speaker 1: heads frozen. That when you freeze tissue, crystals form.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And as the water freezes, the crystals expand, they
Speaker 2: puncture membranes disrupt the intricate network of neurons ultimately destroy
Speaker 2: the connections that make the brain what the brain is.
Speaker 2: But this team of neurologists in Germany circumiting the problem
Speaker 2: by using a technique known as vitrification, which cools tissue
Speaker 2: so rapidly that it prevents ice crystals from forming at all.
Speaker 2: Instead of crystallizing, the liquid inside and around the cells
Speaker 2: transform into an amorphous glass like state, preserving the tissue
Speaker 2: structure with all molecular motion effectively halted.
Speaker 1: I think I read the whole article, though I don't
Speaker 1: think it ever got to the next step that we've
Speaker 1: just been discussing. Okay, So even if you can take
Speaker 1: a brain, freeze it, and thought back out and it
Speaker 1: still functions, you got a long way to go before
Speaker 1: you've accomplished anything. In my mind, you've got to be
Speaker 1: able to put one thousand miles. We gotta start. You
Speaker 1: gotta put it in a body.
Speaker 2: Well, right, But there's no point in doing the other
Speaker 2: stuff until you can figure out you can preserve a brain.
Speaker 1: So this is the first step, an important first step.
Speaker 1: I need eyes and on something that I can't imagine. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but anybody's brain's been formed, frozen in the past. Ted Williams,
Speaker 1: the baseball player Frozen's brain Walt Disney that they didn't
Speaker 1: freeze it in the right way, so they're out of luck.
Speaker 1: They're just frozen brains that won't ever work. So yeah,
Speaker 1: they're all messed up, too bad, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5: After several delays, the US Space Agency NASA has set
Speaker 5: new dates for the launch of its Artemis two Moon mission.
Speaker 5: Liftoff is now set for April first, with six alternate dates.
Speaker 5: It will be the first crude lunar trip since the
Speaker 5: Apollo missions fifty years ago. The ten day crude mission
Speaker 5: would loop around the Moon. The rocket has had problems
Speaker 5: with various fuel leaks, but on Thursday, officials finished a
Speaker 5: two day flight readiness review, an evaluation of whether the spacecraft, rocket,
Speaker 5: and ground systems are prepared for launch.
Speaker 1: That's exciting. I heard.
Speaker 2: I think it was on ABC that NASA somebody said
Speaker 2: there's about a one in thirty chants of crew loss.
Speaker 1: I'm on that crew. I'm thinking, whoa, whoa, what wait?
Speaker 1: What wow?
Speaker 2: And can we call it a mission without a mission
Speaker 2: with crew instead of a crude mission?
Speaker 1: Because I hear crude mission.
Speaker 2: I think there's gonna be a lot of swearing and
Speaker 2: breaking wind or something like that, the crude mission to
Speaker 2: the Moon, or if we're gonna paint graffiti on it,
Speaker 2: or it's a hand hewn wooden spaceship exactly right, right,
Speaker 2: So this didn't get near as much attention as I
Speaker 2: think it should have. Pew did a giant worldwide poll
Speaker 2: with tens of thousands of people asked in surveys a
Speaker 2: variety of questions, and one particular thing stood out. America
Speaker 2: uniquely among countries in the world, and by a lot,
Speaker 2: don't trust or have good feelings about they're fellow citizens.
Speaker 2: A majority of Americans said people in their country have
Speaker 2: bad morals and ethics.
Speaker 1: Only country whereas a majority and if you want to
Speaker 1: compare it to other countries, for instance, in other countries
Speaker 1: such as Canada, ninety two percent of Canadians feel that
Speaker 1: the other people they live with have good morals and ethics.
Speaker 1: Ninety two percent say it's good. In America, it's fifty
Speaker 1: three percent bad. In Mexico, eighty three percent of people
Speaker 1: in Mexico thinking o other people in this country are good.
Speaker 1: People in Britain eighty two percent. In Germany three quarters
Speaker 1: Israel seventy percent. We are the only country that is
Speaker 1: upside down and by a lot. What the hell is
Speaker 1: that all about? Boy howdy? I mean, part of it
Speaker 1: is diversity, because if you don't have a shared set
Speaker 1: of what is good morals, you don't have a shared
Speaker 1: answer to that question, then how in the world would
Speaker 1: you say, well, he has completely different morals than me,
Speaker 1: but he appears to stick to them. No, that's not
Speaker 1: the way people function. I don't know if that theory
Speaker 1: that's part of it. I don't know if that theory
Speaker 1: fits in with this or not. The view in the
Speaker 1: United States is influenced by partisan divides. Sixty percent of
Speaker 1: Democrats and Democratic leaning independence rated fellow Americans morals is
Speaker 1: bad compared to forty six percent of Republican and Republican leaners. Okay,
Speaker 1: so it's too high among Republicans, but it's significantly higher
Speaker 1: among Democrats to think the rest of their country is
Speaker 1: immoral and lacks ethics. Oh my gosh. That's probably the
Speaker 1: primary explainer, although I'm sticking to my immigration thing too.
Speaker 1: Is a part explanation.
Speaker 2: It's what we've been talking about a fair amount lately,
Speaker 2: which is conservatives think most lefties are misguided.
Speaker 1: They're just wrong.
Speaker 2: Their policies aren't as good as they think they are,
Speaker 2: whereas the left thinks conservatives are evil baby eating monsters.
Speaker 1: That's got to be a significant factor. I'm reminded of
Speaker 1: this great quote. Who said this? I should have jotted
Speaker 1: down who said it? I think it was Matt Tayibi.
Speaker 2: Political disagreement is increasingly treated as a serious moral offense
Speaker 2: rather than a simple difference of opinion. When you see
Speaker 2: the world that way, punishing someone for holding different views
Speaker 2: becomes a moral good.
Speaker 1: Political polarization among the strongest anywhere in the world. In
Speaker 1: the United States, over seventy percent of Americans say conflicts
Speaker 1: between political parties are strong or very strong. They are correct.
Speaker 1: I would be with that seventy percent, But that is
Speaker 1: we are an outlier in terms of that also, which
Speaker 1: probably fits in with the other number pretty well. Shouldn't
Speaker 1: it be a cause for concern that we stand out
Speaker 1: in so many ways in America? We are exceptional America
Speaker 1: also in the fact that we think the people we
Speaker 1: live with suck. I mean, and like Canada, practically nobody
Speaker 1: thinks they're fellow Canadians. The suck the same way to
Speaker 1: all these other countries. That's a problem, and then one
Speaker 1: more thing to throw in, very low trust in government.
Speaker 1: The US also stands out for extremely low institutional trust
Speaker 1: compared to other countries. Only twenty two percent of Americans
Speaker 1: say they trust the federal government most of the time.
Speaker 1: Are always I don't think I do. I'm in the majority.
Speaker 1: But by the way, it's nine percent of Democrats in
Speaker 1: twenty six percent of Republicans. I assume if you did
Speaker 1: this pull during Joe Biden's presidency, those numbers would flip.
Speaker 1: This is dramatically lower historically than numbers for instance, in
Speaker 1: the fifties and sixties, eighty percent of people trusted their
Speaker 1: government most or most of the time. Are always eighty percent.
Speaker 1: Now that was probably misplaced, but a number of twenty
Speaker 1: two percent is incredibly low.
Speaker 2: I think it's all a measure of how far left
Speaker 2: the left has swung in this country. The bulk of
Speaker 2: the left, you know, the pig in the python. If
Speaker 2: you're looking at a chart of political beliefs, it's just
Speaker 2: the parties or the two philosophies used to.
Speaker 1: Be so close.
Speaker 2: There was so much overlap, and a few things over
Speaker 2: here on the right, a few things over there on
Speaker 2: the left that was not overlap. But now the bulk
Speaker 2: of certainly the energy and the Democratic Party is way
Speaker 2: way left. And so as you switch parties what they do,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, when you switch parties that are in power,
Speaker 2: what they're doing is so foreign or hostile to you
Speaker 2: you can't support it, I guess.
Speaker 1: But culturally, can you turn that around? Has this ever
Speaker 1: happened before in the Roman Empire? Did the majority of
Speaker 1: people think, Man, everybody in this empire sucks. It's not
Speaker 1: happened in other countries. We're the only country in the
Speaker 1: world is like this the majority. So I don't know
Speaker 1: what you say about that. Yeah, that's bad, it's unhealthy.
Speaker 1: Certainly I would say, hey, on that topic.
Speaker 2: There are a couple of things to uh expand the
Speaker 2: discussion to one I think is going to have to
Speaker 2: come next segment. But, uh, Barack Obama is a rotten,
Speaker 2: rotten human being. I've never been a fan. You're a
Speaker 2: pretent pretentious college lecturer think all things. All the world
Speaker 2: is a you know, think tank, and you can just
Speaker 2: you know, bore people into complying with your brilliance. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Obama's going to come in for a kicking in a
Speaker 2: few minutes. But uh, do you know the name David
Speaker 2: boys b o I e s famous, famous attorney. Two
Speaker 2: of his most three most famous cases were unquestionably left
Speaker 2: or Democratic.
Speaker 1: He was Al Gore's lawyer in Bush Vigor and he
Speaker 1: uh represented the plaintiff in the case that invalidated the
Speaker 1: ban on same sex marriage in California.
Speaker 2: And he's at all sorts of super heavyweight clients. But anyway,
Speaker 2: he's he's definitely a Democrat. But he wrote hell of
Speaker 2: a good piece.
Speaker 1: It's entitled Partisanship on Iran is Dangerous for America. Trump
Speaker 1: is doing the right thing for the US, and we
Speaker 1: Democrats should judge the war on its merits good for him.
Speaker 2: He opens with every past president since Bill Clinton Republican,
Speaker 2: a Democrat alike, has declared that Iran could not be
Speaker 2: permitted to develop nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: I know, not one acted to prevent it. I know
Speaker 1: there's several examples of that, but stating over and over
Speaker 1: again one thing, it is certainly true. And how many
Speaker 1: presidents say this, Iran will not be allowed to get
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon and everybody cheers, but you don't do
Speaker 1: anything to enforce that. Yeah, Trump finally does, and you
Speaker 1: kill him for it, he writes.
Speaker 2: Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in
Speaker 2: terrorism against American citizens, interests, and allies.
Speaker 1: No one acted to stop it. Instead, each president left
Speaker 1: his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more
Speaker 1: complicated threat to address. Last June, President Trump undertook a
Speaker 1: limited military operation does to interrupt the development of nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons and discourage them from continuing blah blah blah. In
Speaker 1: the face of Iran's refusal to come around, he began
Speaker 1: the current military campaign. I'm summarizing now back to the text.
Speaker 2: If he hadn't acted, his successor would have been left
Speaker 2: with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him.
Speaker 2: Three or four years from now, the Uranian missiles now
Speaker 2: hitting Iran's neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps
Speaker 2: even New York or Washington, perhaps with a nuclear device
Speaker 2: or at least a dirty bomb. No sensible person wants
Speaker 2: a war a president, at least of all. Wars destroy lives,
Speaker 2: waste treasure, and are usually unpopular. But the widespread hostility
Speaker 2: to this military action seems untethered to any serious discussion
Speaker 2: of the merits.
Speaker 1: What is the alternative? He asks, Boy, that is exactly
Speaker 1: what we've been saying. And I think reasonable people have
Speaker 1: been saying, when I hear endlessly on all these other channels,
Speaker 1: why are we doing this? They still haven't explained. Yes
Speaker 1: they have. Every president has explained it for decades. We
Speaker 1: can't let Ryan get a nuclear weapon, and they're the
Speaker 1: weakest they've ever been, so let's stop them now.
Speaker 2: Obviously that's the end of the discussion. Well, Ran right,
Speaker 2: it should be, But he asks, what is the alternative?
Speaker 2: Obviously few are prepared to say it is simply to
Speaker 2: permit religious mad men who swear death to America and
Speaker 2: back up their threats with terrorism, just to hear nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons and the capability to deliver them. The scope and
Speaker 2: scale of Iron's response shows how much its military capabilities
Speaker 2: have progressed and how dangerous it would have been to
Speaker 2: permit them to increase further. For three decades, we've tried
Speaker 2: everything that each president could think of. We'd try being nice,
Speaker 2: talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic sanctions. None worked.
Speaker 2: The problem is that there's only one language Iran's leaders understand,
Speaker 2: and he goes on in that vein. But then he
Speaker 2: points out, I also.
Speaker 1: Understand and deplore the fringes of both parties that apparently
Speaker 1: hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any
Speaker 1: action to neutralizer on Israel's enemies. What is harder to understand,
Speaker 1: particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply an
Speaker 1: antipathy toward Trump himself. We used to you know.
Speaker 2: And he goes into the history blah blah blah, and
Speaker 2: then he goes into most important criticisms have historically been
Speaker 2: based on policy differences over the military action at hand,
Speaker 2: not knee jerk opposition to the president himself. Many Republicans
Speaker 2: supported mister Clinton's military actions and President obama surge in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: Many Democrats supported George W. Bush's actions in Afghanistan, and
Speaker 2: at least initially Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably supported
Speaker 2: LBJ in Vietnam, et cetera. But this is just knee jerkism,
Speaker 2: and he points out it's just terrible for the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was listening to a podcast yesterday in which
Speaker 1: they were discussing the fact that it sure seems like
Speaker 1: they're rooting against us on a lot of these cable
Speaker 1: news shows. Yeah, I would say so that they want
Speaker 1: a negative result, that they would be gladdened by a
Speaker 1: negative result. And you know, the following the whole bomba
Speaker 1: of the school thing, they're really you could I feel
Speaker 1: like you could tell they're really hoping we hit that school.
Speaker 1: That's that turns out to be true. Yeah, they're really
Speaker 1: excited about reporting it. I could hear it in their voices.
Speaker 1: That's weird. You think any sane human being would have
Speaker 1: a spirit of oh man, this is bad news, folks.
Speaker 1: It looks like it was our missile. But no, their
Speaker 1: tone was, oh, this is great. This is exactly what
Speaker 1: I've been saying. The US is evil because that's what
Speaker 1: they think and enjoy thinking it. For some reason, it
Speaker 1: gives them comfort the crowd that it makes them feel
Speaker 1: good to hate on America. So we feel.
Speaker 2: Enlightened and accepted by their peers for expressing hatred of
Speaker 2: their own country.
Speaker 1: That's the long and short of it. Clearly, all right,
Speaker 1: we got more on the way. Stay here.
Speaker 5: Chipotle is set tomorrow to offer customers with tattoos buy one,
Speaker 5: get one free entrees from three to four pm. Well,
Speaker 5: customers without tattoos will probably just oh somewhere nicer.
Speaker 1: Iran has stated their preconditions for a ceasefire. Oh so
Speaker 1: they're pretty hilarious. Oh, but we'll get to those in
Speaker 1: hour three.
Speaker 2: Also, one of Jerry Garcia's most famous guitars was auctioned
Speaker 2: and they expected it to get one to two million dollars.
Speaker 2: It went for eleven and a half million dollars. Which guitar,
Speaker 2: the Tiger guitar. Okay, holl it wow? Eleven million?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, if you're a super grateful dead fan
Speaker 1: who's got more money than you could possibly spend in
Speaker 1: a lifetime, it'd be freaking cool to have.
Speaker 2: What would your networth have to be to suspend eleven
Speaker 2: and a half million dollars on a guitar? Like I
Speaker 2: would buy one of John Lennon's guitars or Paul McCartney's
Speaker 2: Hoffner bass or something like that.
Speaker 1: If I had unlimited cash a tremendous amount, it'd have
Speaker 1: to be eleven and a half million. You'd have to
Speaker 1: have like two hundred and fifty million, wouldn't you got
Speaker 1: at least? Yeah, you're gonna spend five to ten percent
Speaker 1: of your net worth on a guitar. Huh, anyway, happy shopping. Oh,
Speaker 1: I said, do you know what a drop is? It's
Speaker 1: super hot in marketing these days. Everything's a drop. If
Speaker 1: everything's a dropped, then nothing's a drop. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: dropping tomorrow or the next hour. Rather, So back to
Speaker 1: bitter partisanship and this, don't anybody freak out. We're going
Speaker 1: to point out that Trump and the Republicans did something dumb, and.
Speaker 2: We're gonna point out that the Democrats are flaming hypocrites
Speaker 2: of the highest order.
Speaker 1: So a little criticism for everybody.
Speaker 2: It's about the jerrymandering fight that the Republicans arguably the
Speaker 2: mid census. Normally you wait to look the what do
Speaker 2: you call it, disenial census, every ten year census to
Speaker 2: do redistricting. Well, Trump was afraid of losing some house
Speaker 2: somehow seats in Texas, and so he redistricted to kind
Speaker 2: of beef up, you know.
Speaker 1: Our chances. The Republicans' dances are hanging out to the House.
Speaker 2: And of course the Democrats are taking their revenge by
Speaker 2: further gerryman daring California and Virginia. And it is on
Speaker 2: Virginia that we're going to cast our gaze for a minute.
Speaker 2: And here's why the absolutely hilarious things being said and
Speaker 2: the people who are saying them about the gerrymandering in Virginia.
Speaker 2: The ballot language for the referendum, which is going to
Speaker 2: be in April, asks if voters want to let the
Speaker 2: legislature adopt a new House map to restore.
Speaker 1: Fairness, quote unquote, by which Democrats.
Speaker 2: Mean they'll be favored in four additional districts, pretty safe
Speaker 2: looking districts, so they can take ten out of the
Speaker 2: state's eleven seats to restore fairness. They're going to be
Speaker 2: taking ten out of eleven seats in a state that
Speaker 2: went forty six percent for Trump, so last year.
Speaker 1: Practically a fifty to fifty state when it comes to
Speaker 1: the presidential election, and it's going to be almost entirely
Speaker 1: ninety one to nine yes with the representation. And if
Speaker 1: you haven't seen the way the lines are being drawn,
Speaker 1: it's the most maybe the most egregious in the history
Speaker 1: of germandering, which goes back to the founding of the
Speaker 1: country right Indeed, and no one is talking about it,
Speaker 1: by the way, You're still hear talk about Texas and
Speaker 1: how outrageous it was they did what they did Barry
Speaker 1: Obama has now endorsed the referendum because, of course he
Speaker 1: is quote Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of
Speaker 1: our democracy, but right now they are under threat, he
Speaker 1: said in an online video.
Speaker 2: This amendment gives you the power to level the playing
Speaker 2: field in the mid terms this fall. What a way
Speaker 2: to characterize giving nine percent of Virginia seats to Republicans
Speaker 2: when they won forty six percent of the presidential vote.
Speaker 1: The ironies abound.
Speaker 2: During his last State of the Union address, Obama said,
Speaker 2: I think we've got to end the practice of drawing
Speaker 2: our congressional districts so that politicians can.
Speaker 1: Pick their voters. Yes, not the other way around. Correct,
Speaker 1: Let a bipartisan group do it. I agree with that.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama an outfit like I don't know. The Virginia
Speaker 1: Redistricting Commission in twenty twenty, two thirds of the voters
Speaker 1: gave approval to a constitutional amendment to create the body,
Speaker 1: which is split between Democrats and Republicans, lawmakers and citizens,
Speaker 1: but it ended up deadlocked after the twenty twenty census,
Speaker 1: a frequent problem with such commissions, so Virginia's current House
Speaker 1: map was drawn by bipartisan experts under the state Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Watch blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: But now Obama calls for a gerrymandering exception in Virginia
Speaker 2: rather than the principles he so long espoused. You wonder
Speaker 2: why people turn off politics and politicians just go about
Speaker 2: their lives. I mean, that is just, that's beyond hypocrisy.
Speaker 2: That's just it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: Race to the bottom. Yeah, I mean, it's punching us
Speaker 1: in the general littles intellectually. It's an unforgivable attack. That's
Speaker 1: quite a phrase. Is that the best you can come up?
Speaker 1: It's punching us in and the genitals intellectually, Yes, utterly,
Speaker 1: by anybody's standards, a horrible thing to do. We do
Speaker 1: not have time for this kind of silliness. I agree.
Speaker 1: What a piece of crap you Wow, that's rough. That's
Speaker 1: part of an I apologize. We're checking on the Iran war.
Speaker 1: There's some interesting doings. I hope you can join us
Speaker 1: in our three