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.
Speaker 3: You, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show everything. Good morning, everybody, it
Speaker 2: is Thursday. We have a big show for today. What
Speaker 2: do we have today?
Speaker 4: Yeah, there is a lot to get into.
Speaker 1: We are going to update you on a horrific mass
Speaker 1: shooting out of Maine. We also have actually some good
Speaker 1: news UAW striking a tentative deal with Ford.
Speaker 4: We're going to bring you that.
Speaker 1: We also, of course, have a lot that is happening
Speaker 1: in Israel and with Gaza Biden down playing civilian deaths.
Speaker 1: A ground invasion does appear imminent, but some real questions
Speaker 1: remain there. We also do have a house speaker, boy
Speaker 1: has he said some things. We're going to get into
Speaker 1: who he is, what he might do, and what the
Speaker 1: landscape looks like there. We also have the new York
Speaker 1: Times going to war with US intel community over the
Speaker 1: reality of that hospital bombing.
Speaker 4: Very interesting.
Speaker 1: We'll bring you all of the details there and you
Speaker 1: can decide for yourself what's going on. Al Jazeera targeted
Speaker 1: both by Tony Blinkin on a policy level and also
Speaker 1: directly by Israeli bomb's horrific story. We'll bring you that
Speaker 1: one as well. And on a somewhat lighter note, Hollywood
Speaker 1: kind of melting down right now over exactly how to
Speaker 1: properly virtue signal Yes, with all of the atrocities being
Speaker 1: committed right now in Gaza and with Israeli civilians as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're excited to position in particular to talk about
Speaker 2: that one. Before we actually get to that, though, there's
Speaker 2: a piece of major breaking news we just wanted to
Speaker 2: update everybody on at the moment.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Several people have been murdered in May Lewistown, Maine after
Speaker 2: a man who is likely Robert carrd who's been named
Speaker 2: as a person of interest. Photos released of that man
Speaker 2: in a mass shooting incident at a bar in Lewistown, Maine.
Speaker 2: As I mentioned, now, the details on this remain and
Speaker 2: still coming out. They show photos released by the Sheriff's
Speaker 2: office of him holding some sort of rifle of rampaging
Speaker 2: through and murdering people. That death toll, Crystal is unknown
Speaker 2: right now. At this time, mister Robert Carr of Boden,
Speaker 2: Maine is the person of interest as I said, it
Speaker 2: was named by law enforcement. He is actually a firearms
Speaker 2: instructor and a former or as a US Army reservist
Speaker 2: as well. Some of the details also on the motivation
Speaker 2: unfortunately for mister Card. One document that's been circulated to
Speaker 2: law enforcement officials. Crystal said that Carr has been committed
Speaker 2: to a mental health facility for two weeks in the
Speaker 2: summer of twenty twenty three. Did not provide details about
Speaker 2: his treatment, but said Card had reported at that time
Speaker 2: hearing voices and threats to shoot up a military base.
Speaker 3: So, okay, that's what we know about him so far.
Speaker 2: Has not yet been apprehended by law enforcement, but it
Speaker 2: does look like it is a horrific situation. We're not
Speaker 2: telling anybody with the death tollisks who don't know that's
Speaker 2: been cautioned yet from law enforcement.
Speaker 3: But it's not small. It's fortunately horrific.
Speaker 1: It looks like this occurred at multiple locations, both a
Speaker 1: bowling alley and a restaurant in this town of Lewiston, Maine.
Speaker 1: What the local paper is saying is that at least
Speaker 1: sixteen people were killed and perhaps as many as twenty
Speaker 1: two dozens more injured in multiple shootings. As Saber said,
Speaker 1: he is still on the loose, so this continues to
Speaker 1: be an unfolding tragedy and breaking new story. People residents
Speaker 1: in that area have been told to shelter in place.
Speaker 1: He is considered to be armed and dangerous. They said
Speaker 1: this morning that they did find the vehicle that they
Speaker 1: thought that he had used basically abandoned, but they still
Speaker 1: don't know where this dude is according to what we
Speaker 1: have information that we have at this time, so a
Speaker 1: horrific situation. If these numbers, do you know, end up
Speaker 1: being accurate, this will be likely the worst mass shooting
Speaker 1: in Maine history. Maine has not actually suffered with that
Speaker 1: many mass shootings as compared to the rest of the country.
Speaker 1: So our hearts break for the community there, for the
Speaker 1: people who have lost loved ones in yet another horrific
Speaker 1: mass shooting tragedy, And you know, a lot of questions here,
Speaker 1: of course, about the fact that he was known to
Speaker 1: have mental health issues. He was reportedly known to have
Speaker 1: said that he was hearing voices that he wanted to
Speaker 1: shoot up a military base and somehow still this firearms
Speaker 1: instructor able to you know, be free have these kind
Speaker 1: of weapons and perpetrate this type of horrific mass strategy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's going to be the big question about how
Speaker 2: the weapons were required in terms of so Maine does
Speaker 2: not have a red flag law as I understand it. However,
Speaker 2: you know, based on a lot of regulations, most state, local,
Speaker 2: and federal do require that if you do have it,
Speaker 2: you know, mental health event like that. Also questions around
Speaker 2: like whether he would still retain access to fire us
Speaker 2: from his job, whether he was cleared his army reserve status,
Speaker 2: and what the military knew about all of this. So
Speaker 2: we know, we're not going to drop this one because
Speaker 2: in almost every single case you know, known to federal
Speaker 2: authorities is almost like a meme at this point, but
Speaker 2: unfortunately does remain true. So that's what we know about
Speaker 2: the situation so far. It's a terrible, terrible event. The
Speaker 2: people of Lewistown right now are sheltering in place nearby.
Speaker 2: Bates College students classes are canceled and they're anxiously awaiting.
Speaker 2: You know, probably a lot of terrified parents out there.
Speaker 2: The advisory from law enforcements don't approach him. He's considered,
Speaker 2: as you said, armed and dangerous. That's basically we've got
Speaker 2: so far. Unfortunately, all right, we're going to move to
Speaker 2: Israel and palsign. There's a major breaking news yesterday from
Speaker 2: President Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing a date has been
Speaker 2: set for the invasion of Gaza.
Speaker 3: And also coding it basically as a holy war.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any other way to describe some
Speaker 2: of the rhetoric. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Our war against Hamas is a test for all of humanity.
Speaker 5: It is a struggle between the access of evil of Iran,
Speaker 5: Zabala and Hamas and the axis of a freedom and progress.
Speaker 5: We are the people of the light. They are the
Speaker 5: people of darkness, and light shall triumph over darkness. My
Speaker 5: role is to lead all Israelis, the State of Israel,
Speaker 5: and the people of Israel to an overpowering victory. It
Speaker 5: is now a time to come together for one purpose,
Speaker 5: to storm ahead to achieve victory in joint with a
Speaker 5: joint forces and a profound belief in our justness, a
Speaker 5: profound belief in the eternity of the Jewish people. We
Speaker 5: shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah. There will no longer
Speaker 5: be stealing at your borders, and your gates will be
Speaker 5: of glory.
Speaker 3: Together, we will fight together, we will win.
Speaker 2: That translation there from I twenty four or Israeli news
Speaker 2: coming from them, just to be clear about how exactly
Speaker 2: what it was meant to be messaged and how it's
Speaker 2: interpreted and then distributed to the Israeli public. At the
Speaker 2: same time, Crystal, there has been some news overnight that
Speaker 2: we were just discussing, Israeli troops and tanks actually launched
Speaker 2: an hour's long ground raid into northern Gaza. This is
Speaker 2: overnight on Thursday. The military set striking several military targets
Speaker 2: in order to quote prepare the battlefield before the widely
Speaker 2: expected ground invasion after two weeks now of devastating air strike.
Speaker 2: So the pre invasion setting of the ground the use
Speaker 2: of the tanks going into northern Gaza following the announcement
Speaker 2: of a date being set, it appears to be imminent,
Speaker 2: although we will talk in a little bit about how
Speaker 2: imminent it is what exactly all of that looks like,
Speaker 2: but it does seem as at the next phase of
Speaker 2: this military campaign is going to begin at least sometime soon.
Speaker 2: And then the preview also a framing into the Israeli
Speaker 2: public as a holy war in order to garner both
Speaker 2: domestic support, but I also think, you know, targeted at
Speaker 2: some audiences here in the United States, very clear in
Speaker 2: the rhetoric that he's trying to get, yes.
Speaker 1: Including the new Speaker of the House, which we'll get
Speaker 1: in specifically with that reference to we will fulfill the
Speaker 1: prophecy of Isaiah. I'm not a big biblical scholar person,
Speaker 1: wasn't raised in any particular religion, So I reached out
Speaker 1: to some of my Jewish friends to say, when you
Speaker 1: hear this kind of language, what does it mean to you?
Speaker 1: And this is caught up in the whole like End
Speaker 1: Times prophecy, but it also without coming out and directly
Speaker 1: saying it is an indication of the entire land from
Speaker 1: the river to the sea, as they said, should be
Speaker 1: our land. That is the undertones of what we're talking
Speaker 1: about when he says the prophecy of Isaiah. So that
Speaker 1: is obviously very scary. The framing of this is so
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not just reminiscent of this is literally
Speaker 1: the same language coined by David from and the neocons
Speaker 1: to talk about our own battle post nine to eleven
Speaker 1: in the quote unquote Axis of Evil. Net Yahoo takes
Speaker 1: it one step further by reiterating he said this before,
Speaker 1: and they had to take down the tweet because there
Speaker 1: was such a backlash, But now he's doubling down on it.
Speaker 1: We are the people of the light and they are
Speaker 1: the people of darkness. Think of how disturbing that is.
Speaker 1: Think of what sort of atrocities are justified if you
Speaker 1: truly believe you are on the side of God and
Speaker 1: they are on the side of evil, If you truly
Speaker 1: believe you are fighting a holy war against an evil
Speaker 1: people of darkness, you don't even have to guess what
Speaker 1: sort of atrocities that justifies, because you can see them
Speaker 1: unfolding before your eyes right now. And you know we're
Speaker 1: about to play some of Biden's comments. This is the
Speaker 1: administration and the government the most extreme, the most right
Speaker 1: wing in history. That Netanya, who's not even the most
Speaker 1: extreme of this coalition. These are the people that we
Speaker 1: are giving Kart black much, that we are saying we
Speaker 1: want to send you more weapons, that we are saying
Speaker 1: you can do whatever you want with no holds barred.
Speaker 1: And actually they just passed, you know, first at order
Speaker 1: of business in the House to just pass a resolution
Speaker 1: effectively backstopping green lighting whatever Israel wants to do in
Speaker 1: Gazan by the way, adding some belligerent rhetoric about Iran. Two.
Speaker 1: So let's be clear about the type of language and
Speaker 1: that is being used here and how seriously to take
Speaker 1: that in terms of their intentions and where this could go.
Speaker 2: I also think it was not a mistake to put
Speaker 2: it in Hebrew in the speech, but then to delete
Speaker 2: the tweet that they put out in English like the
Speaker 2: actual literal translation.
Speaker 4: Part of why we always tell light and people of darkness.
Speaker 2: You always tell you, you know, you got to pay
Speaker 2: attention very closely what's being messages to us and what
Speaker 2: is being messaged to them. It's what's happening in different languages.
Speaker 2: Hamas does it to It's very important always to see
Speaker 2: that the information war.
Speaker 3: Is huge, probably the biggest part of all of this.
Speaker 2: On top of that, as you said, President Biden addressed
Speaker 2: the conflict and made a comment about civilian casualties about
Speaker 2: support for Israel more, let's take a listen to what
Speaker 2: he said yesterday.
Speaker 6: And we will ensure Israel has what it needs to
Speaker 6: defend itself against these terrorists. That's a guarantee. We also
Speaker 6: have to remember that Hamas does not represent we say
Speaker 6: it again, Hamas does not represent the vast majority of
Speaker 6: the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip or anywhere else.
Speaker 6: Hamas is hiding behind Palestinian civilians and it's despicable and
Speaker 6: not surprisingly cowardly as well. This also puts an added
Speaker 6: burden on Israel while they go after Hamas, but that
Speaker 6: does not lessen the need to operate in the line
Speaker 6: with the laws of war. For Israeli, it has to
Speaker 6: do everything in its power, Israel to everything his power,
Speaker 6: as difficult it is to protect innos and civilians. It's difficult.
Speaker 6: I continue to be alarmed about extremist settlers attacking Palestinians
Speaker 6: in the West Bank. That pouring gasoline on fire is
Speaker 6: what it's like. This was a deal, the deal was made,
Speaker 6: and they're attacking Palestinians in places that they're entitled to
Speaker 6: be and it has to stop. They have to be
Speaker 6: held accountable and has to stop. Now Sydians are telling
Speaker 6: the truth about how many people are killed. I'm sure
Speaker 6: innocence have been killed, and it's the price of equaging
Speaker 6: the war. I think we should be incredibly careful. I
Speaker 6: think when that we, Israel should be incredibly careful to
Speaker 6: be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks
Speaker 6: that are propagating this war against Israel, and it's against
Speaker 6: their interest when that doesn't happen. But I have no
Speaker 6: confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using. But
Speaker 6: are these hostages in jeopardy if there is a ground
Speaker 6: in me, if you want to make a speech.
Speaker 2: So the takeaway that we can get there from President
Speaker 2: Biden is clear, Number One, we support Israel. Number Two,
Speaker 2: trying to at least rhetorically talk about civilian casualties and
Speaker 2: about the expanding situation in the West Bank. We're going
Speaker 2: to try and flat We're going to talk about that
Speaker 2: in a little bit, just to make sure that people
Speaker 2: understand it. One of the reasons why is Hezbollah is
Speaker 2: not the only two front war that could happen in
Speaker 2: this the people in.
Speaker 3: The West Bank.
Speaker 2: They are very supportive of Hamas the last poll that
Speaker 2: came out of there showed the vast majority. If they're
Speaker 2: an election were held today there hasn't been an election
Speaker 2: to two thousand and five, they would probably elect them.
Speaker 2: And so that means that anything that's going on in
Speaker 2: Gaza is not going to be contained to Gaza. We've
Speaker 2: talked about the prospect of a wider war in Lebanon
Speaker 2: with Egypt, with Jordan, or with any of the Arab countries.
Speaker 2: But you know, even we did not or have not
Speaker 2: flagged yet that it's very possible that a war inside
Speaker 2: the country itself, including the West Bank, the population there
Speaker 2: and a lot of weapons that are coming to the area,
Speaker 2: could also explode. That's part of the reason why probably
Speaker 2: President Biden made it a choice, you know, to deliberately
Speaker 2: flag this in the same speech the first time I
Speaker 2: believe that he has said anything to that effect.
Speaker 1: There's a lot to say about what President Biden just
Speaker 1: said there. I mean, on this piece of Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: sure some civilians have been killed, but that's the price
Speaker 1: of waging war. I want you to recall the correct
Speaker 1: and justified outrage when Israeli civilian deaths were dismissed in
Speaker 1: that same way. And now think about the most powerful
Speaker 1: man on the planet waving his hand.
Speaker 4: Wow, that's just war.
Speaker 1: Okay, now for all the people as oh, well, it's
Speaker 1: different because Israel doesn't target civilians.
Speaker 4: First of all, I think.
Speaker 1: That's bullshit, and I think we can see that by
Speaker 1: the indiscriminate bombing, the fact that forty two percent of
Speaker 1: Gaza has already been destroyed. Second of all, very hard
Speaker 1: to argue that when they're literally executing a complete siege
Speaker 1: on the entire civilian population, which when you were with
Speaker 1: Ryan and watch you Guys show, I thought it was
Speaker 1: really very informative and sightful. He made a really I
Speaker 1: think key point, which is that in Obama's Obama being
Speaker 1: the quintessential lib right in his letter where he gently
Speaker 1: expresses some concerns about what's going on, the thing he
Speaker 1: honed in on is the siege because it's indefensible because
Speaker 1: there's no like, oh, you know, human shields, There's no like, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: we're really trying hard to avoid hurting the civilian population. No,
Speaker 1: you are intentionally harming and keeping essential food, water, medicine,
Speaker 1: et cetera from the entire civilian population. So to look
Speaker 1: at that and handwave away and say, oh, well, we hope,
Speaker 1: we hope Israel follows international law. Well, we already know
Speaker 1: that they're not. But this has presented a real conundrum
Speaker 1: for liberals democrats like Joe Biden. Neat Naho is not
Speaker 1: going to give them the face saving cover that perhaps
Speaker 1: previous Israeli administrations might, and so they're trying to come
Speaker 1: up with this what Adam Johnson calls like bombneiser language.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders going on the floor last night talking about, oh,
Speaker 1: let's have a humanitarian pause. Oh so you can have
Speaker 1: a couple hours break from having your family and your
Speaker 1: towns blown up. That's what the quote unquote anti war
Speaker 1: senator is calling for at this point, this all this
Speaker 1: handering it we hope they follow international lunk, and you
Speaker 1: know already that they're not. So that's why all of this,
Speaker 1: you know, all of this virtue signaling language is completely
Speaker 1: without content or without import You can see how much
Speaker 1: the Israelis care about it by the way that they
Speaker 1: are going forward and doing exactly what they want. And
Speaker 1: so what is more critical is that we have already
Speaker 1: said and we've already indicated, and with what's going on
Speaker 1: in the House right now, the resolution that was just
Speaker 1: passed and the you know, push to get more military
Speaker 1: weapons in their hands, that we'll back them really no
Speaker 1: matter what. That's the only message that they're really listening
Speaker 1: to at this point. And I just want to make
Speaker 1: one more, you know, just to give you the numbers
Speaker 1: on the civilian death piece so we understand what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here. Yes, it's true the health ministry in
Speaker 1: Gaza is Hamas related, and so you can't take verbatim
Speaker 1: what they're saying, although I will point out the US
Speaker 1: government as recently as just a couple months ago was
Speaker 1: saying that their numbers tend to be accurate, and they
Speaker 1: tend to rely on them and find them to be
Speaker 1: relatively reasonable.
Speaker 4: Relative reliable.
Speaker 1: But even if you discount that, you're talking about thousands
Speaker 1: of Palestinians killed, the majority of them have been women, children,
Speaker 1: and the elderly. Do you know how many Hamas fighters
Speaker 1: have been confirmed killed by their own reports? Thirteen not
Speaker 1: thirteen percent, not thirteen hundred thirteen out of the thousands
Speaker 1: of Palestinians and Gaza who have been killed at this point.
Speaker 1: So when we're talking about civilian deaths, we're talking about
Speaker 1: what's going on in Gaza. If your goal is rooting
Speaker 1: out Hamas, this indiscriminate bombing campaign that they've been engaged
Speaker 1: in has nothing very little to do with actually achieving
Speaker 1: that goal.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It actually just I think comes back to the Jocko point,
Speaker 2: and we will, I think spend a lot of time
Speaker 2: today talking about how exactly you can tactically even pull
Speaker 2: something like this off. Just to bring it back, we're
Speaker 2: teased about the West Bank. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. As you can all see here, weapons
Speaker 2: are now flooding into the West Bank, fueling fears of
Speaker 2: a new foref with Israel.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Iran and its allies are operating a smuggling network that
Speaker 2: crosses hundreds of miles at least four borders as part
Speaker 2: of an effort to broaden Palestinian military capabilities beyond Hamas.
Speaker 2: What they are talking about here is about avenues into
Speaker 2: the West Bank where they were able to bring weapons
Speaker 2: in and if a major war does break out inside
Speaker 2: of Gaza, where Hezbola may not necessarily have to draw
Speaker 2: forces away, but the West Bank itself don't forget also
Speaker 2: that there's significant tension inside the West Bank right now
Speaker 2: between Mahmudabas and the Palestinian authorities government as well as
Speaker 2: its own population, which is probably far more militant than
Speaker 2: mister Abbas wants to admit. And that shows you why
Speaker 2: he's in great amount of difficulty and why he also
Speaker 2: canceled his meeting with President Biden.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next one.
Speaker 2: Please here up on the screen, this shows you this
Speaker 2: is a past numbers. These are from the New York Times,
Speaker 2: which is sourcing it from the UN Office Coordination of
Speaker 2: Humanitarian Affairs, and also the Palestinian Health Ministry in the
Speaker 2: West Bank. Again to be clear, in the West Bank,
Speaker 2: so these are not Hamas controlled like Gaza Health Ministry.
Speaker 2: What they are saying is that twenty twenty three already
Speaker 2: was one of the deadliest years, with several hundred Palestindians
Speaker 2: in the West Bank who had been killed and clashes
Speaker 2: with the Jewish settlers. But actually significant number have since
Speaker 2: been killed there after October seventh in a per recent
Speaker 2: spate where obviously tensions are very very high, and some
Speaker 2: of the Jewish settlers that they're talking about there have
Speaker 2: been taking advantage. The one quote here is quote mass
Speaker 2: settlers shot and killed three Palestinians in the village of
Speaker 2: Kushka on October eleventh, according to the Palestinian health officials,
Speaker 2: at a funeral procession for the victims. The next day,
Speaker 2: settlers attacked again, killing two more Palestinians, a father and
Speaker 2: a son. That is exactly what President Biden there was referencing.
Speaker 2: And I think it just comes back to the idea
Speaker 2: that this is widening and creating a lot more ethnic
Speaker 2: tension than is just confined to Israel and to Gaza
Speaker 2: West Bank itself.
Speaker 3: We can't. I mean, there's a lot of people of Palestinian.
Speaker 2: People who live there and they're in a direct border
Speaker 2: with Israel. Not only that, there's a huge Palestinian diaspora
Speaker 2: all in in Jordan and they're going to be watching,
Speaker 2: you know, some of the same scenes, and are they
Speaker 2: going to be flooding into the West Bank now, you know,
Speaker 2: wanting wanting to fight against Israel. It really does highlight
Speaker 2: like how precarious the situation is and how that's part
Speaker 2: of why the US is doing its best to draw
Speaker 2: drag Israel away as far away from any invasion as
Speaker 2: possible because everybody with clear eyes can see it. Now, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it doesn't seem like that's going to be possible, and
Speaker 2: so thus we've just accepted, like, oh, I guess we're
Speaker 2: all just going to be in a wider war.
Speaker 3: We'll save that, you know, for a little bit.
Speaker 2: But the scenes that are coming out of Gaza, as
Speaker 2: I said many times here now on the show, it
Speaker 2: it is, you know, people are not watching breaking points
Speaker 2: in the Arab world to be like, oh, that's what's
Speaker 2: happening there. They are getting this stuff direct from the source,
Speaker 2: in many cases from their relatives and others, getting direct
Speaker 2: video being sent to them on WhatsApp or on Arabic Twitter,
Speaker 2: or on Al Jazeera or the Telegram or many of
Speaker 2: the other places.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 2: The Internet and mobile phone data has revolutionized the way
Speaker 2: that people in the developing world get news. In my opinion,
Speaker 2: they actually get news in a more timely manner than
Speaker 2: most people in the United States. They are much more
Speaker 2: online per se, which means they are getting the completely
Speaker 2: unfiltered version of what is happening, and they happen to
Speaker 2: be related to them. So yeah, people really need to
Speaker 2: keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: Many have direct connections. So it's not abstract, it's incredibly visceral.
Speaker 1: Just to go back to what you're saying about the
Speaker 1: West Bank and what a powder cake that is, recall
Speaker 1: that the reason part of the reason at least why
Speaker 1: there was such a dramatic failure in response initially to
Speaker 1: Moss's massacre of Israeli citizens they're outside of Gaza, is
Speaker 1: because the IDF had been redirected to the West Bank
Speaker 1: to try to protect these Jewish settlers. There had been
Speaker 1: already a lot of IDF activity, but also Jewish settler
Speaker 1: attacks and reprisals from Palestinians. That's why those numbers of
Speaker 1: deaths in the West Bank this year were already some
Speaker 1: of the highest.
Speaker 4: In recent memory.
Speaker 1: Before you get to this place, you were talking about
Speaker 1: Mahmundobas and Palestinian authority. He is incredibly weak and the
Speaker 1: Palestinian authority is incredibly weak, and you're right that they
Speaker 1: have very little support because they are effectively rightly seen
Speaker 1: as collaborators and enforcing this you know, occupation and IDF
Speaker 1: and Israeli regime inside of the West Bank. So that's
Speaker 1: why he has very little credibility, and he also has
Speaker 1: very little credibility because you know, they're just in terms
Speaker 1: of like basic security services, very much unable to deliver.
Speaker 1: I mean, most of the residents of the West Bank
Speaker 1: are effectively on their own when it comes to trying
Speaker 1: to fend off attacks from Jewish settlers or certainly from
Speaker 1: the IDF et cetera. One of the lines that they
Speaker 1: mentioned in that Wall Street Journal article about why so
Speaker 1: many weapons are flowing into the West Bank, which you know,
Speaker 1: as Americans who are very much committed to the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment and right to self defense, et cetera, you may
Speaker 1: be able to relate to an arms dealer in the
Speaker 1: West Banks that he sells hundreds of weapons every month,
Speaker 1: mostly to people who are organizing to defend their villages
Speaker 1: in the absence of coordinated Palestinian security. So you have,
Speaker 1: you know, a population that is increasingly armed, that have
Speaker 1: armed themselves to try to defend themselves in their own villages.
Speaker 1: You have this incredible, unchecked, unaccountable violence being perpetrated from
Speaker 1: Jewish settlers and also from the IDF. And you have
Speaker 1: the horrific atrocities that are being committed in Gaza that
Speaker 1: they are seeing every single day on their phones, on
Speaker 1: their TVs. You know, however, they're getting their news, and yeah,
Speaker 1: you better believe this is an absolute powder cake. This
Speaker 1: is actually where Nyahu and his government and his coalition partners,
Speaker 1: they were more worried about spikes and violists out of
Speaker 1: the West Bank than they were out of Gaza. Now,
Speaker 1: they ended up obviously being wrong, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: there was nothing to their concerns because there have been
Speaker 1: so many provocations and so much escalating violence there already
Speaker 1: this year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, And we have some of the footage
Speaker 2: out of Gaza, and you know, just a warning for everybody.
Speaker 2: It's very very graphic we could see here. This is
Speaker 2: actually one that was posted which showed major air strikes.
Speaker 2: This is obviously just a market area. I mean much
Speaker 2: of this just is very reminiscent of exactly.
Speaker 3: What it looked like during the Iraq War.
Speaker 2: This one is a supermarket where a bomb hit very
Speaker 2: close by and people began sprinting out with the security camera.
Speaker 2: This is one of the more difficult ones to watch.
Speaker 2: Just as a content warning. The person who's being pulled
Speaker 2: out here is actually a small child out of rubble,
Speaker 2: and scenes like this are you know, obviously repeating all
Speaker 2: across of Gaza. You have like a little boy there
Speaker 2: who is help being helped here at least out of
Speaker 2: the rubble. So unfortunately, this is just this is what
Speaker 2: the reality of the life is like inside Gazi. You
Speaker 2: see a little child there again being carried. And I
Speaker 2: can just guarantee you that every single one of those
Speaker 2: is being shared, is being spread. It's on Facebook, it's
Speaker 2: on Twitter, and you know, think about our own politics.
Speaker 2: You know, one video of George Floyd set the whole
Speaker 2: country on fire.
Speaker 3: This is like that. Time's very much.
Speaker 2: And I just want to say again, this is before
Speaker 2: the entire invasion has begun. We had a little bit
Speaker 2: of we had a little bit of a taste from
Speaker 2: it yesterday with tanks and all that rolling in there.
Speaker 2: You know, think about it's like you have to reach
Speaker 2: back to almost a decade before of American combat forces
Speaker 2: to even preview what things are going to look like.
Speaker 2: It is literally going to be an appear in some
Speaker 2: cases like out of a movie or a video game,
Speaker 2: and not in a good way. So anyway, I think
Speaker 2: that's a good understanding here of the forthcoming invasion. A
Speaker 2: lot of the things that are at play, We're going
Speaker 2: to turn. Now we're going to talk about the United
Speaker 2: States and it's role and how it expects its military
Speaker 2: to be engaged. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from the Wall Street Journal, and this is
Speaker 2: a little bit of a conundrum. It's a difficult headline
Speaker 2: to work through. But as we come through some of
Speaker 2: the reporting, I think it'll all begin to make sense.
Speaker 2: They say that Israel agrees to delay Gaza invasion to
Speaker 2: allow us to prepare defenses. So the subtext really of
Speaker 2: the article is that the United States, and we've brought
Speaker 2: you the discrete numbers, but we have sent now thousands
Speaker 2: of American troops and service members directly to the region.
Speaker 2: On top of that, we have surged two carrier strike groups,
Speaker 2: costing who knows untold amounts of.
Speaker 3: Billions firepower to the region.
Speaker 2: On top of that, we sent one of our most
Speaker 2: sophisticated anti missile defense systems to the region, the FAD
Speaker 2: missile battery. On top of that, we also sent extra
Speaker 2: patriot batteries. You don't do any of this if you
Speaker 2: expect to fight Hesbola. You don't especially don't do this
Speaker 2: if you expect to fight Hamas. You only do this
Speaker 2: if you expect to fight a advanced conventional military force
Speaker 2: where there is only one that wouldld potentially be involved
Speaker 2: in this, and that's called Iran. They are almost certain
Speaker 2: at this point that something is going to pop off.
Speaker 2: Now is it going to be with the actual sovereign
Speaker 2: nation of Iran or is it going to be with
Speaker 2: Iranian proxies on the proxy front. We are already in
Speaker 2: a military combat situation with them.
Speaker 3: We just don't even want to admit it. Let's put
Speaker 3: this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The Pentagon has now admitted and held this information from
Speaker 2: US for days until it was leaked privately to journalists.
Speaker 2: Twenty four US troops have now been injured in attacks
Speaker 2: since the Gaza War began. The Biden administration has, they say,
Speaker 2: withheld these details about these incidents for days, even though
Speaker 2: they acknowledge that service members are under a heightened risk
Speaker 2: and Crystal just overnight, another US base in Syria was attacked.
Speaker 2: Of course, it bears a question of why we have
Speaker 2: a thousand people in Syria. But my big one would be,
Speaker 2: if we're gonna have a thousand people, can we make
Speaker 2: sure that these people are safe? I mean, they're under
Speaker 2: at this point bombardment from drones, from rockets, and in
Speaker 2: some cases from missiles from god knows where are we
Speaker 2: sure that we have the requisent capabilities and stuff to
Speaker 2: deter that, because what we're really learning is how vulnerable
Speaker 2: our people are.
Speaker 3: And these are in Iraq and in Syria.
Speaker 2: Again, have not even mentioned the thousands of troops in Bahrain,
Speaker 2: the people in Kuwait, the people in Doha. I mean,
Speaker 2: we have soldiers all over the place in the Middle
Speaker 2: East and bases which two weeks ago they were hanging
Speaker 2: out and they had no clue that any of this
Speaker 2: was going to happen, And now they're on a footing
Speaker 2: where they could be attacked at any moment.
Speaker 3: So this is really scary stuff.
Speaker 2: With the carrier group, and again we've already had the
Speaker 2: USS Carney of the guided Missile destroyer which had hours
Speaker 2: long engagement shooting down freaking cruise missiles coming out of
Speaker 2: Yemen allegedly being headed over to Israel. All signs crystal
Speaker 2: point to US military engagement right now in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: The only question is is will it evolve into a
Speaker 2: full blown war with Iran or not? And I honestly
Speaker 2: don't know. I think It's genuinely think it's a coin
Speaker 2: toss at this point considering what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, especially just given the like belligerence from the Nan
Speaker 1: Yahoo government, you know, his framing and belief that this
Speaker 1: is some sort of a holy war. You certainly have
Speaker 1: elements of that here within the US political class as well,
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham coming out and saying the same thing. You know,
Speaker 1: I do think the Biden administration realizes how catastrophic it
Speaker 1: would be to get into a direct war with Iran.
Speaker 4: You know, we brought you.
Speaker 1: The graphic from the what's his name? We runs and
Speaker 1: Barton with our guest today, Darryl Cooper. Darryl I want
Speaker 1: to call him, Brett Darryl Cooper about how Look, we're
Speaker 1: talking about like a draft, we're talking about massive regional
Speaker 1: I mean, you were talking about World War three. When
Speaker 1: you're talking about war with Iran and along religious like
Speaker 1: holy war lines.
Speaker 4: This is a catastrophe.
Speaker 1: So I do believe that the Biden administration knows this
Speaker 1: would not be a good thing. They're not that dumb.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that we won't end up there.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why they've tried to downplay and I
Speaker 1: actually sort of appreciate it. Tried to downplay the attacks
Speaker 1: on our troops in the region. First of all, it
Speaker 1: does raise the question among many Americans of like.
Speaker 4: Wait, why are we there anyway?
Speaker 1: Like did I grien what are our troops doing in
Speaker 1: these areas at this point anyway? So there's that, But
Speaker 1: also because they are very worried about the way that
Speaker 1: public sentiment, by the way that the war drums can
Speaker 1: start beating the interest that by the way defense contractors
Speaker 1: are admitting how excited they are about the possibility.
Speaker 4: Of a broader war.
Speaker 1: They're talking about this on earnings call, like yay, we'll
Speaker 1: get to make more money. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: forces beyond just the president of the United States that
Speaker 1: could push us in this direction. There's a couple of
Speaker 1: things to say about this possible ground invasion you mentioned
Speaker 1: there were you know, the tanks that went in and
Speaker 1: some kind of a raid overnight. It's like bulldozed paths
Speaker 1: and seemingly to ease the path of a ground invasion,
Speaker 1: you now have had multiple delays, effectively at the request
Speaker 1: of the United States. First it was let's work on
Speaker 1: negotiating on the hostages. Now it's hey, give us some
Speaker 1: time to get defenses in the region in case this
Speaker 1: really pops off and we end up directly engaged. But
Speaker 1: there is also some indication here that Netnaho himself is
Speaker 1: interested in delaying, dragging out, and potentially limiting the ambition
Speaker 1: and scope of this ultimate ground invasion. So Number one
Speaker 1: recalled that net and Yahoo, before all of this happened,
Speaker 1: was in serious political jeopardy, facing corruption charges, that Israel
Speaker 1: was at war with itself in terms of these judicial
Speaker 1: quote unquote reforms, trying to kneecap the independent judiciary, mass
Speaker 1: nationwide protests, et cetera. And now he's even under war
Speaker 1: fire because some ninety percent of the Israeli public blames
Speaker 1: him in part for what was able to what Hamas
Speaker 1: was able to perpetrate, for the intelligence failures, for the
Speaker 1: military failures, etc. This is a man who built himself
Speaker 1: as quote unquote mister security and said that his one
Speaker 1: and only goal was to keep the Israeli people safe.
Speaker 1: So you can see how people are feeling about him
Speaker 1: given the manifest failures of what he said his primary
Speaker 1: mission was as Prime Minister. So he has said that
Speaker 1: there needs to be an inquiry and questions need to
Speaker 1: be answered, even with regard to himself. But he says,
Speaker 1: after the war's hover so he has a political, major
Speaker 1: political motivation to drag his feet and drag things out
Speaker 1: as long as possible.
Speaker 4: That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, there seemed to be some indications that the
Speaker 1: American warnings about, Hey, you all don't really know what
Speaker 1: you're getting into here. This is not going to be easy,
Speaker 1: This is going to be extraordinarily difficult. You have no
Speaker 1: plan for what comes after. I would argue they actually
Speaker 1: do have a plan, but you don't seem to know
Speaker 1: what's going to come next. Do you really know what
Speaker 1: you're getting yourself into. Combined with the fact that you
Speaker 1: had these intelligence and security failures on octob October seventh,
Speaker 1: could be could be giving nt Nyahu's some pause about
Speaker 1: going all in with the full ground invasion. Now it's
Speaker 1: very hard to tell what is real, what is misinformation?
Speaker 1: What's a fate to try to get you know, Hamas
Speaker 1: to let down their guard in Gaza. This is all
Speaker 1: just speculation, but it is worth noting at this point
Speaker 1: that this ground invasion has now been delayed and delayed
Speaker 1: again and could could possibly be more limited than the
Speaker 1: initial full scale all in move that was being signaled
Speaker 1: early on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is something I really want to talk about
Speaker 2: with Darryl on the POT whenever we talked to him,
Speaker 2: because he has said before that the IDF's military capability
Speaker 2: and track record in the more modern wars is not
Speaker 2: really the gold standard. Yeah, they're good at dropping bombs.
Speaker 2: In terms of like fighting urban combat, they have a
Speaker 2: pretty mixed record, so maybe they're realizing some of that.
Speaker 2: I really think the main thing that's holding any of
Speaker 2: this back at all is the prospect of a broader war.
Speaker 2: Not only does pressure from the US, but pressure from
Speaker 2: inside the region. One way we can show people this
Speaker 2: is a recent interview with Queen Rania of Jordan. Queen Rania,
Speaker 2: you know, the wife of King Abdullah of Jordan. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is a figure who's definitely more described as like
Speaker 2: moderate inside of Jordanian society, and in this interview she
Speaker 2: very clearly blames Israel. It also is because inside of
Speaker 2: Jordan it's a powder keg. You give a massive Palestinian population,
Speaker 2: the monarchy itself could be put at risk. But this,
Speaker 2: I believe is an instance of the monarchy responding to
Speaker 2: public sentiment inside of Jordan, which is outrage about the
Speaker 2: situation in Gaza. Here is a preview of what you
Speaker 2: know it looks like in the region and what she
Speaker 2: said in this interview on CNN.
Speaker 7: Equally, I think the people all around the Middle East,
Speaker 7: including in Jordan, we are just shocked and disappointed by
Speaker 7: the world's reaction to this catastrophe that is unfolding. In
Speaker 7: the last couple of weeks, we have seen, you know,
Speaker 7: a glaring double standard in the world. When October seventh happened,
Speaker 7: the world immediately and unequivocally stood by Israel and it's
Speaker 7: try to defend itself and condemned the attacks that happened.
Speaker 7: But when we what we're seeing the last couple of
Speaker 7: weeks we have, we're seeing silence in the world. You know,
Speaker 7: the countries have stopped just expressing concern or acknowledging the casualties,
Speaker 7: but always with the preface of declaration of support for Israel.
Speaker 7: And you know, are we being told that it is
Speaker 7: wrong to kill a family, an entire family at gunpoint,
Speaker 7: but it's okay to shell them to death. I mean,
Speaker 7: there is a glaring double standard here and it is
Speaker 7: just shocking to the our world. This is the first
Speaker 7: time modern history that there is such human suffering and
Speaker 7: the world is not even calling for a ceasefire. So
Speaker 7: the silence is deafening and to many in our region,
Speaker 7: it makes the Western world complicit, you know, through their
Speaker 7: support and through the cover that they give Israel that
Speaker 7: it is just it's fright to defend itself. Many in
Speaker 7: our world are looking at the Western world is not
Speaker 7: just tolerating this, but as aiding and abtting it.
Speaker 3: That is a very clear shot. Here at Washington.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you that lady probably spends more time
Speaker 2: in Washington than she does back at home based upon
Speaker 2: everything I know. Also, though they want to keep their crown,
Speaker 2: they know what's going on. That is in my view
Speaker 2: right now, it's funny the Saudi government, for example, the
Speaker 2: Saudi government and the monarchy has put out an edict
Speaker 2: where they're like, hey, stop spreading some of these videos.
Speaker 3: Around about what's going on in Gaza. You know why
Speaker 3: they don't want the population inflamed.
Speaker 2: This is one of those situations where I really do
Speaker 2: not believe that people in the West are at least
Speaker 2: grappling with the level of like bottom up rage, which
Speaker 2: will eventually erupt into something who knows what it will
Speaker 2: look like. That interview is a good example of this.
Speaker 8: Lady.
Speaker 2: Her entire government, their whole regime is backed up by
Speaker 2: the United States and has been for a long time.
Speaker 2: So when she's going out there talking about the West
Speaker 2: and blaming the West like that is a clear message. Also,
Speaker 2: it was in English, again for a reason. It is
Speaker 2: being minn clearly targeted. Agreed to directly to guys like
Speaker 2: Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blincoln and President Biden, just to be like, hey,
Speaker 2: just so you know, even your so called close allies,
Speaker 2: why do you think her husband canceled the meeting with Biden?
Speaker 2: You know, during all of that, there's there. While these
Speaker 2: places may not be democracies, it does not mean that
Speaker 2: like small d democratic like feeling is not bubbling up
Speaker 2: to the government.
Speaker 3: The governments want to survive.
Speaker 2: That's the story really of every regime in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: and they know where the power is right now and
Speaker 2: if right now, if anything, they are a restraining force
Speaker 2: on their population.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot to say about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, it is worth noting she is herself Palestinian,
Speaker 1: and there are many Palestinian refugees in Jordan, and so
Speaker 1: as you say, even you know, in a place like
Speaker 1: Jordan or a place in Saudi Arabia, even in a monarchy,
Speaker 1: they are still concerned about, you know, their own population.
Speaker 1: She's also correct about the double standard here. She's also
Speaker 1: correct about how cowardly it is that there's not even
Speaker 1: an ability to sign onto resolution for a ceasefire.
Speaker 4: And to me, the.
Speaker 1: Most important part of what she said is how she
Speaker 1: said multiple times that watching this in the view of
Speaker 1: the Arab world, the Western world is complicit, that we
Speaker 1: in the US, and as you said, this is aimed
Speaker 1: directly at the Biden administration, no doubt about it, that
Speaker 1: we are complicit, that we are aiding and a betting.
Speaker 4: What is happening there. And so as much as.
Speaker 1: You like to keep your liberal, nice Internet nationalism humanitarian
Speaker 1: face in the world and all the beautiful things you
Speaker 1: said about democracy in Ukraine, et cetera, what is happening
Speaker 1: on the ground in Gaza will not be forgotten. And
Speaker 1: that you know, there is no controlling the rage that
Speaker 1: it is sparking throughout the region and really actually uniting
Speaker 1: a lot of very unlikely countries throughout the region in
Speaker 1: you know, in common cause against what is happening on
Speaker 1: the ground in Gaza. So it really should be seen
Speaker 1: as like a warning shot at the US for what's
Speaker 1: unfolding here. And we're going to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about Tony Blincoln going to Katar and trying to get
Speaker 1: them to rein in what Al Jazeera is doing. And
Speaker 1: you know, clearly the US is aware of how damaging
Speaker 1: these images are and how you know, volatile this situation is.
Speaker 1: So look, this is a powder keg and it could
Speaker 1: create total chaos or are even chaotic situation, Let's be clear,
Speaker 1: but that chaos could easily spread and ignite way out
Speaker 1: of control. And even if the administration doesn't really want
Speaker 1: to find itself in a war with Iran, that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that is any guarantee against it happening.
Speaker 2: It's very much on the table right now. So we
Speaker 2: finally have a speaker. As we all teased, it happening.
Speaker 2: It only took what twenty nineteen days where the United
Speaker 2: States didn't have a speaker, in my opinion, didn't really
Speaker 2: change all that much.
Speaker 3: But it is what it is.
Speaker 2: Here is the moment that the vote happened, and that
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson, representative from Louisiana, became the next Speaker of
Speaker 2: the House.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: Well, Mike Johnson of the state of Louisiana has received
Speaker 9: two hundred and twenty votes.
Speaker 3: There it is.
Speaker 2: He got two hundred and twenty votes. All the Republicans
Speaker 2: actually united behind him. Honestly impressive feet after the multiple
Speaker 2: defeats and all those things that happened. But it bears
Speaker 2: the question, who is Mike Johnson?
Speaker 7: Not?
Speaker 2: The only ones asking people in Washington are like, who
Speaker 2: the hell is this Guy's barely been in Congress that long?
Speaker 3: What's his track record?
Speaker 2: Johnson, based on my research, is probably the most conservative
Speaker 2: like speaker aligned with the BASS since Newt gang Rich.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's another way to describe it. But
Speaker 2: Pastor Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and you're a missing painter.
Speaker 2: These are all multi year creatures of the establishment, people
Speaker 2: who had ties to the party. Sure they were swung,
Speaker 2: you know, by the base, but this person is someone
Speaker 2: I would really describe as a winger, not only just
Speaker 2: in terms of like Maga sympathies, but deeply embedded in
Speaker 2: the Capital C conservative movement for a long time, going
Speaker 2: all the way back to some of the gay marriage fights,
Speaker 2: which we will get into and just give you an
Speaker 2: idea here he's asked about his vote not to certify
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty election. Here's how he and his colleagues
Speaker 2: handled that question. A couple of days ago. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen. Election that was Virginia Fox the Congress, Zoman
Speaker 2: there at the top side. Shut up, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: derace I mean, it was a significant problem for Republicans
Speaker 2: in the twenty twenty two mid terms. Johnson quote recruited
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty five Republicans to join him in
Speaker 2: signing in the US Supreme Court brief saying that January
Speaker 2: saying as much, and on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: that voted against certifying the elections. That brief was the
Speaker 2: one filed by the state of Texas. So he not
Speaker 2: only was a person who voted against certifying the results
Speaker 2: of the twenty twenty election, he actually took a pretty
Speaker 2: active role in getting some of his co workers to
Speaker 2: sign on to that. Do you want to comment on
Speaker 2: that before we move to entitlements and other things?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I was thinking about this. You used
Speaker 1: to used to talk about Josh Holly and high browse
Speaker 1: top the steal. This is very much he's kind of
Speaker 1: like that, and it sort of seems to typify his
Speaker 1: whole approach to politics. You know, people talk about the
Speaker 1: banality of evil. This is like the banality of extremism.
Speaker 1: He has this, and I think this is why he's
Speaker 1: able to win the quote unquote moderates, and he won unanimously. Okay,
Speaker 1: every single even the most embattled Biden district Republicans voted
Speaker 1: for this man who holds incredibly extreme positions as we're
Speaker 1: about to get into. But moderates tend to not really
Speaker 1: focus that much on actual policy, and for them it's
Speaker 1: all about just like the decorum and the vibes and the.
Speaker 4: Cordiality, etc.
Speaker 1: So it's no surprise to me that in the end
Speaker 1: they were cowed by this message of just like this
Speaker 1: is embarrassing and it's messy, so we have to unite
Speaker 1: behind someone and it doesn't really matter who that someone
Speaker 1: ultimately is. So yeah, I think the fact that he
Speaker 1: holds so many and is a true believer hard right,
Speaker 1: you know, real right wing positions in the party. As
Speaker 1: you move into an election season where Republic paid dearly
Speaker 1: in the last midterms because of their extremism on stop
Speaker 1: the Steal and abortion in particular. Yeah, I think this
Speaker 1: could be a real political.
Speaker 2: Problem for them. The question is just how much Johnson
Speaker 2: is a real major political figure now obviously somebody like Nancy,
Speaker 2: how long even last, how long they last, whether or
Speaker 2: honestly anyone cares. I mean, it used to be Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 2: Paul Ryan, John Bayinner. They were titans, not because of
Speaker 2: the control necessarily of the House. They raised a ton
Speaker 2: of money. I'm talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2: Same with Nancy Pelosi. They did not live in Washington
Speaker 2: or even their district. These were like warriors who were
Speaker 2: always on the plane, this fundraiser, that fundraiser.
Speaker 3: Tuesday morning, I'm here in this city. Tuesday night, I'm
Speaker 3: in this city.
Speaker 2: Wednesday morning, I'm in another city, and I have a
Speaker 2: reception at every single one. Every hour of their time
Speaker 2: is scheduled. It's around fundraising. Fundraising is the nexus of power,
Speaker 2: because that's why people listen to them in the first place.
Speaker 3: Is he going to do that?
Speaker 2: I mean, honestly, his fundraising track record is like a
Speaker 2: million dollars. He's got a three hundred x his return.
Speaker 2: I mean, do the big donors in New York and
Speaker 2: in California, like, do they even know who this guy is?
Speaker 2: Probably not, He's never been to any of those meetings.
Speaker 2: That is a Titanic like personal life burden that he's
Speaker 2: now got to bear on top of running the house,
Speaker 2: on top of is this the real ceter of policy?
Speaker 2: Ryan was a cetter of policy, There's no question about. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he was a policy guy. Kevin he never cared about policy.
Speaker 2: He just decided to go with whatever. Gingrich though, was
Speaker 2: a real policy person, and Bayner kind of was also
Speaker 2: in his own way.
Speaker 3: Who knows.
Speaker 2: This is the big question of like, is he going
Speaker 2: to get dragged because he just doesn't want like drag
Speaker 2: to wherever the center of the party is and allow.
Speaker 3: Other people to negotiate.
Speaker 2: Probably or likely I think, but on his own positions.
Speaker 2: And this is where the big question is is will
Speaker 2: he become a national figure somebody that Democrats can run against.
Speaker 2: He certainly embodies, you know, much of the most unpopular
Speaker 2: parts of the Republican Party from the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 2: but also on entitle in programs. As I said, This
Speaker 2: is a very traditional conservative Republican.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say in the past, the
Speaker 3: safety net programs.
Speaker 10: But the reality is they're headed towards bankruptcy in just
Speaker 10: a few number of years. So security goes belly up,
Speaker 10: so does Medicare, Medicaid, all of these big spending programs,
Speaker 10: because we're drowning in debt, and so we've got to
Speaker 10: think about long term reforms to those programs.
Speaker 2: Long term reforms all of that. I can guarantee you're
Speaker 2: going to see that in an ad somewhere. May not
Speaker 2: work obviously against him in Louisiana, but in my work
Speaker 2: in I don't.
Speaker 3: Know, Michigan, someplace like that.
Speaker 2: On top of that, though, and this really to me
Speaker 2: is the death now probably his single most unpopular position.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. In the past,
Speaker 2: you know, he has put out this is a tweet,
Speaker 2: for example, where he says, breaking late yesterday, the Louisiana
Speaker 2: Department of Health informed abortion facilities in our state. The
Speaker 2: right to life has now been restored. If you perform
Speaker 2: in an abortion and get imprisoned at hard labor for
Speaker 2: one to ten years and you re fined ten K
Speaker 2: to a hundred kay. On top of that, signing on
Speaker 2: and directly endorsing a national abortion band. So that is
Speaker 2: probably the most salient one and probably the single most
Speaker 2: unpopular position that the man hell holds. I'm talking nationally,
Speaker 2: not necessarily in his district. Obviously, he got elected, has
Speaker 2: been re elected multiple times since twenty seventeen. But Johnson
Speaker 2: has been a conservative winger on cultural issues now for
Speaker 2: honestly decades based upon my research. As I said, he
Speaker 2: very much comes from the traditional like Bush wing of
Speaker 2: the party in terms of his heavy activism on evangelical
Speaker 2: issues from the beginning, and then since being elevated to
Speaker 2: Congress in twenty seventeen, has also adopted kind of a
Speaker 2: maga flare to him. So, to be honest, I actually
Speaker 2: think he's a good choice to represent the Republican Party
Speaker 2: because I think, to be like, really, he has his
Speaker 2: finger on the pulse of a lot of maga stuff
Speaker 2: from the twenty twenty election. On Ukraine as well, we
Speaker 2: can put this up there. For example, he has voted
Speaker 2: against every single Ukraine aid package since May of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two.
Speaker 4: Is it just ana of that picture looks like a
Speaker 4: totally awful picture.
Speaker 2: I think he learned how to do his hair in
Speaker 2: the interim. But Mike Johnson has voted against Ukraine Aid,
Speaker 2: you know, for debt reasons and says we need to
Speaker 2: care about our border. He didn't vote to certify the election.
Speaker 2: Comes from the evangelical base of the party. He's like,
Speaker 2: as you said, he's somebody who holds like pretty traditional
Speaker 2: Republican positions but also is like traditional but unpopular for
Speaker 2: the general electorate. And also as like a nice affect
Speaker 2: to him. He's got like multiple kids. He seems like
Speaker 2: a nice guy. The only thing going against him is
Speaker 2: five eight, which you know I got. I got some
Speaker 2: questions about it. No offense to the short guys.
Speaker 1: As a five eight woman, I'm supportive of his height.
Speaker 1: But okay, let me give you a little bit more
Speaker 1: about this guy to see you get a full sense.
Speaker 1: He is a some may say true believer, others might
Speaker 1: say religious fanatic in terms of his social conservative views,
Speaker 1: longtime veteran of the you know, LGBTQ war on opposing
Speaker 1: any sort of rights for gay people, even going so
Speaker 1: far as when he was an attorney and spokesman for
Speaker 1: this religious right group called the Alliance Defense Fund, which
Speaker 1: apparently is known today as the Alliance Defending Freedom. He
Speaker 1: authored an amicus brief opposing Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence
Speaker 1: versus Texas, which overturned state laws that criminalized gay sex
Speaker 1: between consenting adults. Okay, so if you ask the American public,
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly they do not think that what you do in
Speaker 1: the bedroom should be the subject.
Speaker 4: Of state law.
Speaker 1: He was on the other side of that, writing in
Speaker 1: part states have many legitimate grounds to proscribe same sex
Speaker 1: deviate sexual intercourse. He goes on to say, by closing
Speaker 1: these bedroom doors, they have open a Pandora's box. Okay,
Speaker 1: So those are some of the things that he was arguing,
Speaker 1: albeit in the early two thousands. He's still not just
Speaker 1: all in on like the anti trans stuff that's very
Speaker 1: popular in Republican circles these days. But he's also opposed
Speaker 1: to gay marriage. Like I said, he is a true
Speaker 1: believer on that, on abortion, et cetera. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: do I think that Mike Johnson Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be the center of attention.
Speaker 4: For the general election, There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: But part of why Democrats had more success than they
Speaker 1: expected in the midterms is because they were successfully able
Speaker 1: to paint like, hey, it's not just Trump. All of
Speaker 1: these people are wacko. All of these people are way
Speaker 1: out there with incredibly unpopular positions that are unpalatable to
Speaker 1: the overwhelming majority of Americans. Mike Johnson very much helps
Speaker 1: Democrats to be able to make that case. And you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats are kind of bad at grabbing narratives and bad
Speaker 1: at like, you know, pushing their messaging, et cetera. But
Speaker 1: I would not doubt that they try to use him
Speaker 1: to try to paint this broader picture, especially because again,
Speaker 1: every single Republican.
Speaker 4: Voted for him.
Speaker 1: So even a guy like Mike Lawler was in this
Speaker 1: you know, swing Biden district whatever, like, he is now
Speaker 1: tarred with this guy in all of his extreme positions.
Speaker 1: So as much as he may try to separate himself
Speaker 1: and I'm different than the Republicans, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: you voted for this guy who was against who wanted
Speaker 1: to criminalize gay sex and is against gay marriage and
Speaker 1: once a national abortion band from the moment of conception
Speaker 1: and was all in on stop this deal, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 3: So good luck, guy.
Speaker 2: I think that well, the question as I said, it
Speaker 2: remains is like, well, Johnson become a Nancy Pelosi type figure.
Speaker 2: The reason that Pelosi, even when Obama was president, was
Speaker 2: like the bug.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: It's like everyone was like, oh my goodness, Pelosi. She's
Speaker 3: like a damon, and.
Speaker 4: She was in every act, every Republican.
Speaker 2: Yeah, actually I'm sure you know, I know, yeah, it
Speaker 2: was like she It's like she was the president.
Speaker 3: Is he gonna become that? I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Democrats in particular and even moderate it's like they hate
Speaker 2: Trump a lot more. The question is is like, what
Speaker 2: about in an after Trump world if that happens. Let's
Speaker 2: say Trump loses and this guy is still the speaker?
Speaker 2: Now what or what if he's still the Republican leader
Speaker 2: and then what tactics and all that is he going
Speaker 2: to use? Now?
Speaker 1: Then what does it do for their ability to hold
Speaker 1: onto the House right which they have a very narrow margin.
Speaker 3: That's another great question.
Speaker 2: Is he going to raise money for people who are
Speaker 2: pro gay marriage or a Nancy So I forget what
Speaker 2: Nancy Mays actually believes on abortion. I honestly don't remember,
Speaker 2: but it's like, is she going to raise money for
Speaker 2: her to be run I think she's pro choice or
Speaker 2: like pro choice ish or something not in the mainstream
Speaker 2: of the Republican Party. Let's at least say that, Well,
Speaker 2: is he going to raise money based upon his beliefs
Speaker 2: or like his standard, like what litmus test is he
Speaker 2: going to impose? This is why, you know, being ideologically
Speaker 2: flexible is actually a benefit whenever you're the leader. If
Speaker 2: you think about people like McConnell. McConnell does not care
Speaker 2: about basically anything except power and also funding foreign wars
Speaker 2: in Ukraine and in Israel now, so he flexes his
Speaker 2: muscle very very rarely whenever he actually wants something.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's conservative quote unquote on economic issues for
Speaker 2: big business and all of that, but he does that
Speaker 2: so that he can raise money so that he can
Speaker 2: elect more Republicans.
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer. Schumer does not believe anything.
Speaker 2: This is a guy who at one point wrote a
Speaker 2: book about why we need a border wall and is
Speaker 2: now like the biggest illegal immigrant lobbyist in Washington. So
Speaker 2: it's like, you know why, because he wants to get
Speaker 2: elected in terms of Christian cinema. And then I don't know,
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders, he looks at them as one and the same.
Speaker 3: He like just wants his caucus to run.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and actually, like as I said, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of good reasons for that whenever you're in leadership, because
Speaker 2: when you have a real agenda, it will obviously alienate
Speaker 2: other members in your party. How will Mike Johnson govern?
Speaker 2: We have no idea on Israel, though we do know this.
Speaker 2: This is probably one of the most pro Israel legislators
Speaker 2: to speakers, probably to ever occupy the chair. Here's what
Speaker 2: he had to say immediately upon taking the gavel. Let's
Speaker 2: take a listen.
Speaker 10: Extraordinary crisis right now, and the world needs us to
Speaker 10: be strong. They need us to remember our creed and
Speaker 10: our admonition. Turmoil and violence of rock to Middle East
Speaker 10: and Eastern Europe. We all know what intentions continue to
Speaker 10: build in the Indo Pacific. The country demands strong leadership
Speaker 10: of this body and we must not waiver. Are our
Speaker 10: nation's greatest ally in the Middle East is under attack.
Speaker 10: The first bill that I'm going to bring to this
Speaker 10: floor in just a little while, we'll be in support
Speaker 10: of our dear friend Israel, and we're overdue and getting
Speaker 10: that done.
Speaker 2: Also courtesy of Chrystali actually found this one. This is
Speaker 2: from Haretz, Israeli newspaper. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. The new House speaker Mike Johnson, and evangelical
Speaker 2: Christian holds ties to Israel's far right. He described his
Speaker 2: twenty twenty visit to the Jerusalem Temple quote as the
Speaker 2: fulfillment of a biblical prophecy, and his election is one
Speaker 2: of the most significant victories to date for Evangelicals in DC.
Speaker 3: I genuinely do think that is true.
Speaker 2: Also, as I said, and I I had to explain
Speaker 2: here in the past, Evangelical Christians are more pro Israel
Speaker 2: in many cases than some people who are American Jews.
Speaker 2: And it's because it all ties to what we began
Speaker 2: our show with this whole like prophecy of Isaiah and
Speaker 2: end times for those who are Christians. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 2: didn't grow up Christian. You know, I don't know anything
Speaker 2: about the Bible.
Speaker 3: Or the prophecy of Isaiah or whatever.
Speaker 2: This is only based upon my understanding of like a
Speaker 2: biblical battle for the end times. It is why evangelical
Speaker 2: Christian groups often make pilgrimages to Israel, because it's described
Speaker 2: as like the final battleground. Actually when I was in Israel,
Speaker 2: encountered a lot of these people in Jerusalem, like from
Speaker 2: the Church of Memphis, Tennessee or whatever, and they're like,
Speaker 2: here's where it's all gonna happen. It's you know, the
Speaker 2: Soldiers of the East or whatever rule come from there.
Speaker 2: I remember being like alongside and just be like, oh wow,
Speaker 2: this is kind of crazy. Anyway, this is one of
Speaker 2: those people who is very much subscribes to those beliefs,
Speaker 2: and so their fervor for Israel is on another level
Speaker 2: in some cases than even people like Joe Lieberman or
Speaker 2: other American Jews who serve We've been joking about this privately.
Speaker 2: To date, the only American congressman who has worn an
Speaker 2: IDF uniform to the US Congress, which is Brian mast
Speaker 2: is an evangelical Christian.
Speaker 3: He is not even a Jew, but that his is
Speaker 3: a Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, if you ask me, wearing the uniform
Speaker 2: of any foreign military probably should be legal for congressman.
Speaker 3: But that's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, the thing about basing your support for
Speaker 1: Israel on your religion is that's not negotiable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, that's right.
Speaker 4: You can't debate with this person.
Speaker 1: You can't argue with them, you can't show them what's
Speaker 1: happening in Gaza, you can't persuade them with that right
Speaker 1: because this is foundational to their belief system.
Speaker 4: So yeah, they don't care.
Speaker 1: I mean the stuff Netna who was saying that we
Speaker 1: played of like, you know, the people of life versus
Speaker 1: the people of darkness, and you know, framing it as
Speaker 1: a holy war, and we have to fulfill the of Isaiah,
Speaker 1: and we will fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah and the
Speaker 1: access of via like he would be nodding along absolutely,
Speaker 1: and you know, he already made good on his promise
Speaker 1: that his first act as Speaker was to push through
Speaker 1: this resolution unconditionally affirming support for Israel and also, by
Speaker 1: the way, and Michael Tracy was tweeting out some of
Speaker 1: these specific provisions with some very bellicose language towards the run,
Speaker 1: which I want to say was almost unanimously supported four
Speaker 1: twelve to ten. There were nine Democrats who voted no
Speaker 1: Rashida to leave, Corey Bush, Jamal Bowman, Andre Carson Green
Speaker 1: of Texas, AOC Summerly of Pennsylvania, Ramirez ilhan Omar. There
Speaker 1: was one Republican who voted no. Thomas Massey like a libertarian.
Speaker 2: Well he votes no on like everything, so it's not
Speaker 2: necessarily a reflection of his views.
Speaker 1: But I want to say, like, you know, I I
Speaker 1: would have actually felt differently about this resolution. That's just
Speaker 1: like affirming support for Israel, and Israel has a right
Speaker 1: to defend yourselves, et cetera, et cetera, if it had
Speaker 1: come right at the time when they had just suffered
Speaker 1: these attacks.
Speaker 4: But now that we're into.
Speaker 1: You know, the siege of Gaza and the indiscriment bond,
Speaker 1: more than seven thousand targets, forty two percent of Gaza destroyed,
Speaker 1: the overwhelming toll on civilians, the thousands of children dead,
Speaker 1: the hospitals that are no longer functioning, all of these things.
Speaker 1: When you support a resolution such as this with no
Speaker 1: language about any of that, you are giving total green
Speaker 1: light and carte blanche to what the Israeli government is doing.
Speaker 1: So coming in this context at this moment, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's disgraceful and I want to applaud in particular,
Speaker 1: and we're about to talk about Jamal Bowman the fire
Speaker 1: alarm stuff, but I want to applaud him in particular
Speaker 1: because for a lot of the Democrats who voted no
Speaker 1: on this resolution, you know, their districts are such where
Speaker 1: they're unlikely to pay a political price. It's relatively safe,
Speaker 1: not that it's ever totally safe, because you know, at
Speaker 1: these democratic packs that are extraordinarily pro Israel, that are
Speaker 1: there to enforce unanimous, you know, unanimous backing of Israel
Speaker 1: no matter what, they're still going to come in after them.
Speaker 1: But they're a little bit safer. But Jamal Bowman is
Speaker 1: in a district where you know, this could be a
Speaker 1: real issue for him, and he voted no. And I
Speaker 1: just want to say, I think that took that took
Speaker 1: a lot of courage in order to be able to
Speaker 1: do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I just think politically, I don't think
Speaker 2: there's any real price to be paid for just like
Speaker 2: being generically pro Israel. They're not looking at it in
Speaker 2: the same way. They're like, yeah, we were supposed to
Speaker 2: pass it on day one, but we couldn't because nothing happened,
Speaker 2: So yeah, we're just going to pass it now.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, it's also like, again, all the problems
Speaker 1: that we have, like all of the issues that we
Speaker 1: have here in inflation, and the struggles in et cetera,
Speaker 1: and our priority is to once again, for the one
Speaker 1: million time reaffirm that Israel can do whatever they want,
Speaker 1: whenever they want. Seems like a very skewed priority system
Speaker 1: to me as well. And in terms of the political piece,
Speaker 1: it was interesting hearing Ryan talking to Emily yesterday about
Speaker 1: John Fetterman, who has become this like extreme Israel hawk
Speaker 1: in all of this, and his analysis was basically, like
Speaker 1: Fetterman decided in his Senate primary that he would just
Speaker 1: do whatever the pro Israel Democrats, the Democratic majority for
Speaker 1: Israel people, which is this big pack that, like I said,
Speaker 1: tries to enforce like unanimity of opinion on being pro
Speaker 1: Israel no matter what that he would just basically be like,
Speaker 1: whatever you all want me to.
Speaker 4: Say, I'll say.
Speaker 1: And so he's just like sticking to that. But there's
Speaker 1: lots of political incentive to you know, be to vote
Speaker 1: for this resolution, to say the right the right things,
Speaker 1: to as the ADLD and said, get the story right
Speaker 1: on Israel. There's and it's very difficult to talk about
Speaker 1: this without playing into anti Semitic troupes. It's true there's
Speaker 1: way more money in organization between being on that side
Speaker 1: of the issue. There are basically zero dollars to be
Speaker 1: gotten in terms of campaign contributions, of speaking out for
Speaker 1: Palestinians or being you know, on the side of Palestinian
Speaker 1: civilian life. There is no political benefit to be gained whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, that's why you get an incredibly lopsided
Speaker 1: result like this, because all of these people can see
Speaker 1: where the political power lies and where their personal political
Speaker 1: benefit is as well.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to the next part that you teased,
Speaker 2: the story of the century.
Speaker 3: Some are calling and let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Jamal Bowman has now officially been charged with one count
Speaker 2: of false fire alarm in violation.
Speaker 3: Of the DC Criminal Code.
Speaker 2: This is according to documents which have now been filed
Speaker 2: in the District of Columbia. The Attorney General for the
Speaker 2: District of Columbia has now summoned Jamal Bowman sometime actually
Speaker 2: around right now when we're filming the show, I'm to
Speaker 2: court in order to answer for his crimes, to be.
Speaker 3: Arraigned being charged with a misdemeanor count.
Speaker 2: They say, you are hereby commanded to appear before the
Speaker 2: Criminal Division. All of this again is a violation of
Speaker 2: the DC Code for falsely pulling a fire alarm. The
Speaker 2: Capitol Police say that their investigation has been done for
Speaker 2: a while.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Our agents gathered all the evidence, packaged it up, and
Speaker 2: sent the entire case with charges to prosecutors for their consideration. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the prosecutors have decided to go after him. We should
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen as well. Let's
Speaker 2: just not forget all of this. His original explanation is
Speaker 2: that he pulled the fire alarm because it would help
Speaker 2: him open the door. Now, allegedly, according to some reports
Speaker 2: from the Capitol Police and their investigation on video, they
Speaker 2: don't actually show him trying to open the door. So
Speaker 2: obviously I always thought he was completely full of it
Speaker 2: and he was lying. But the video evidence that we
Speaker 2: will likely hopefully hear a trial if he does contest
Speaker 2: it and stick to his original story, will vindicate that
Speaker 2: he was not telling the truth.
Speaker 3: It is still a very bizarre situation.
Speaker 2: I still because the context for why he would have
Speaker 2: pulled a fire alarm was to delay a vote, or.
Speaker 3: Was to stop a vote.
Speaker 2: I apologize about the speakership, but he did end up
Speaker 2: voting in that so I mean maybe like the jiu
Speaker 2: jitsu explanation in your mind is he pulled the fire
Speaker 2: alarm because he was late for the vote so that
Speaker 2: he could get to the vote.
Speaker 3: So he wasn't delaying it to stop the vote.
Speaker 2: He was delaying it so that he could get to
Speaker 2: the vote, although it didn't even work and he still
Speaker 2: did end up voting.
Speaker 3: So no explanation does make a whole lot of sense.
Speaker 2: But just to be clear about this, the false pulling
Speaker 2: a fire alarm, the code says that you willfully had
Speaker 2: to pull the fire alarm, So they believe they have
Speaker 2: to prove, and they believe that they have evidence beyond
Speaker 2: the shadow of a doubt, beyond reasonable doubt, that he
Speaker 2: did intentionally pull said fire alarm, not did it in
Speaker 2: an accidental manner.
Speaker 3: That's it. That's as far as I understand it from
Speaker 3: the DC Criminal Code.
Speaker 1: This feels like it happened eighty five years ago, and
Speaker 1: I have to say I barely cared about it at
Speaker 1: the time, and I one hundred percent don't care about
Speaker 1: it anymore.
Speaker 4: And if Jamal Bowman.
Speaker 1: Keeps taking courageous votes like what he just did, as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, he can pull the fire alarm
Speaker 1: every damn day for the rest of his life.
Speaker 4: I really don't care.
Speaker 2: Well, he's a guy who believes so much in the law.
Speaker 2: He's always talking about, Oh, we got to abide by
Speaker 2: the law. We got to throw all these January six people,
Speaker 2: all all the people in jail. Like, come on, he
Speaker 2: can't be he can't be pulling fire alarms in order
Speaker 2: to delay votes.
Speaker 3: You can say you appreciate the guy's vote, but you
Speaker 3: should be advocated for the guy to be pulling fire alarms.
Speaker 4: I don't care. I mean, it's my official position.
Speaker 1: There's like war and carnage going on, and I cannot
Speaker 1: possibly care about this story less. And like I said
Speaker 1: for me this week, I am one hundred percent team
Speaker 1: Jamal Bowman. I think he is one of the most
Speaker 1: courageous members in terms of this vote that he just took.
Speaker 1: He has a sizeable Jewish population in his district. For
Speaker 1: him to vote knowing this, he could actually face a
Speaker 1: political price. You know, he is likely to face a
Speaker 1: primary contender that is backed by this Democratic majority for
Speaker 1: Israel group.
Speaker 4: So I'm pro Jamal.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you what, if you care about Jamal, you
Speaker 2: should be telling him not to be lying and pulling
Speaker 2: fire alarms because I can guarantee you this.
Speaker 3: Became a meme.
Speaker 2: I still believe him. This became a meme national wie. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean, look, let's see the evidence. Let's see what
Speaker 2: he pleads at.
Speaker 3: I want to see.
Speaker 2: Are you gonna plead not guilty and stick to your
Speaker 2: little accidental story or are you going to admit that
Speaker 2: you lie?
Speaker 1: Make our friends to pull a fire alarm in a
Speaker 1: different building to try to delay a vote that's happening
Speaker 1: in the like, that doesn't make any I agree.
Speaker 2: It never made any sense. But I still think he
Speaker 2: did it. You know, he panicked it was in his
Speaker 2: mind and then he lied about it. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: do we want people who were liars who are in Congress?
Speaker 3: I think he's I think.
Speaker 1: He's where it counted this week. He did the right thing,
Speaker 1: and so I give that. Can't be way more credit
Speaker 1: for that than this fire alarm.
Speaker 2: SITU mean, I agree with you on a practical basis.
Speaker 2: That is mostly how we should analyze lawmakers. This's white
Speaker 2: people are like, did you see that somebody you should
Speaker 2: port like voted for this thing. I'm like, yeah, I
Speaker 2: don't care, because I care about even on this one
Speaker 2: on Mike Johnson, you know why, I don't care what
Speaker 2: he said about gay people twenty years ago. I don't
Speaker 2: want more aid to pass for Ukraine. This guy's voted
Speaker 2: against everything for Ukraine. So for me, like, yeah, I
Speaker 2: don't care how Kevin McCarthy thought about gays in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2: I care how he was going to bring a Ukraine vote.
Speaker 1: In your house, speaker like that has in port and
Speaker 1: can impact the sort of led shirts that he brings.
Speaker 3: We'll care about that done.
Speaker 2: If he brings a national gay thing, you know, to
Speaker 2: the floor, which I don't think is going to happen,
Speaker 2: then sure, i'llso be like, hey, I don't do that.
Speaker 2: But on Ukraine, which is like a present clear thing,
Speaker 2: I'm like, look, this is the greatest thing that gonna
Speaker 2: happen at least for our side on this, in a
Speaker 2: long time.
Speaker 1: So I will convinced that he is going to hold
Speaker 1: the line on that.
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced either, But look, six billion is not
Speaker 2: forty billion, which is not one hundred billion.
Speaker 3: So it's like, okay, but.
Speaker 1: Look at how pro Israel he is. He's just gonna
Speaker 1: They're just going to tie him to get, it's.
Speaker 3: Not the same thing. Yeah, well we don't know that.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a there's a thing that's high there's
Speaker 2: a bill right now in the Senate with multiple co
Speaker 2: sponsors from Republicans to strip the AID part. Mount Gate
Speaker 2: said yesterday that he would not that there's not majority
Speaker 2: support for dual Israel Ukraine AID.
Speaker 3: So and like I said, even if they get, if
Speaker 3: they get two billion.
Speaker 2: Or six billion, or even ten billion versus one hundred billion,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a massive substance of difference than what
Speaker 2: would have likely happened. So look, I guess I'm talking
Speaker 2: myself into your own direction, which is I agree, you know,
Speaker 2: none of these people are angels and all of that.
Speaker 2: I still think it's amusing. And mister Bowman, I always
Speaker 2: believed was a liar, and now it appears to be vindicated.
Speaker 1: Since you all undoubtedly recall there was that horrific explosion
Speaker 1: at Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza which killed some huge
Speaker 1: number of civilians. We still don't know exactly the toll
Speaker 1: numbers could be as high as five hundred. I've seen
Speaker 1: as low as one hundred, huge number of people, and
Speaker 1: there have been a lot of disputes over exactly what
Speaker 1: happened here. Was it Israel's fault? Was it a Palestinian
Speaker 1: rocket that misfired? Both Israeli and US intelligence came down
Speaker 1: on the side of it was an Islamic jihad rocket
Speaker 1: which exploded midair and fell and landed in the hospital courtyard,
Speaker 1: igniting this blast explosion that killed all of these people.
Speaker 1: One of the key things that they based this assessment
Speaker 1: on was this particular video from the Al Jazeer live
Speaker 1: coverage that evening. Okay, so we have a new development
Speaker 1: in the investigation into whatever the hell actually happened here,
Speaker 1: coming from the New York Times, directly disputing the analysis
Speaker 1: of both Israeli intelligence and critically US intelligence of what
Speaker 1: this video actually shows.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen. So this is
Speaker 4: from journalist Eric Toller.
Speaker 1: He says, Israeli and US intelligence officials believe that a
Speaker 1: projectile captured on videos shortly before the Ali Arab hospital
Speaker 1: explosion was a Palestinian rocket. New York Times visual investigations
Speaker 1: found that this object was actually launched from Israel and
Speaker 1: likely unrelated to the deadly blast. He goes on, I
Speaker 1: want to bring you all of this analysis here so
Speaker 1: that you can have all of the details. So he
Speaker 1: goes on to say that an IDF spokesperson went on
Speaker 1: CNN and the BBC with a printed out screenshot from
Speaker 1: an Al Jazeera livestream showing this projectile, claiming it was
Speaker 1: the rocket that hit the hospital. We also believe that
Speaker 1: American officials are incorrectly assessing this to be a Palestinian rocket,
Speaker 1: and US officials did base did confirm to them that
Speaker 1: they believed that this was a rocket, and they used
Speaker 1: this in their assessment. We geolocated five videos that showed
Speaker 1: this projectile launch from the north, southeast, and west. By
Speaker 1: drawing lines of perspective, three of which can be seen here,
Speaker 1: we assessed that this project was launched from near the
Speaker 1: Israeli city of nahl Us. We cannot say with confidence
Speaker 1: what exactly the projectile actually is, but we know that
Speaker 1: there is at least one iron dome launch site in
Speaker 1: nearly the same location that overlaps from the sitelines we
Speaker 1: drew from the five videos. This site was still present
Speaker 1: in satellite imagery this year. This projectile may have been
Speaker 1: launched in reaction to barrages of rockets from Gaza. Here
Speaker 1: is the timeline one Palestinian rocket Brajes, followed shortly by
Speaker 1: two Israeli projectile launch three seventeen and a half seconds
Speaker 1: in air before the projective debtonates for explosion of the hospital.
Speaker 1: Seven seconds later. The projectile launched from Israel detonates at
Speaker 1: least two miles away from the hospital, so not very close,
Speaker 1: and twenty five seconds passed from when the final Palestinian
Speaker 1: rocket was launched. In these videos and the hospital explosion
Speaker 1: they go on to save, the situation in the area
Speaker 1: around the hospital was chaotic that evening. The Al Jazeera
Speaker 1: livestream of the scene plus other videos we reviewed, shows
Speaker 1: at least two large explosions near the hospital in the
Speaker 1: minute before the deadly bat blast. And he talks about
Speaker 1: and we had discussed before the fact that this very
Speaker 1: same hospital had actually been hit by a warning shell.
Speaker 4: That part is more or less confirmed.
Speaker 1: They had also been worn to evacuate in advance of
Speaker 1: whatever happened with this explosion. One other update here, Lamond
Speaker 1: also confirmed the newspaper. Lamond also confirmed that The New
Speaker 1: York Times, telling of what this video actually shows. Asked
Speaker 1: about the Times findings, a spokesman for the Office of
Speaker 1: the DNI said, The Times and American intelligence agencies different
Speaker 1: interpretations of the video. So again, basically this video coupled
Speaker 1: with that, what I think is total bs alleged conversation
Speaker 1: between Hamas militants is what Israeli officials in particular were
Speaker 1: basing their assessment on, and what American intelligence was largely
Speaker 1: basing their assessment on. As far as we know based
Speaker 1: on what they've said publicly the New York Times directly
Speaker 1: disputing their analysis of this video.
Speaker 2: What I think is interesting is that they're saying, and
Speaker 2: this actually explains a lot, because everyone was like, well,
Speaker 2: if it was Israel, and it would have had to
Speaker 2: be a jadem, it would have had to be a bomb,
Speaker 2: and if it was a bomb, then it would have
Speaker 2: caused a ton more damage in the hospital. Because it
Speaker 2: didn't end up anying hospital, It hit the parking lot
Speaker 2: and then a lot of the scorch marks that were
Speaker 2: on top of it. Everyone was like, well, that's consistent
Speaker 2: with the rocket and with something that is fueled in
Speaker 2: particular by it basically has fuel and it gets on
Speaker 2: fire and it like sprays everywhere. According to their analysis,
Speaker 2: if it was then an iron dome interceptor, what was
Speaker 2: it intercepting they say. A possible answer is that by
Speaker 2: the IDF's own admission, there was a rocket incoming to
Speaker 2: nahalal Oz and saw it at the exact moment of
Speaker 2: this projectile launch, which would then strengthen their theory now
Speaker 2: that this was actually an iron Dome missile. And the
Speaker 2: thing is is that again, if anybody doesn't even know,
Speaker 2: Iron Dome is the Israeli system which shoots down incoming
Speaker 2: or intercepts more importantly incoming rockets, like with their own
Speaker 2: missiles that were fired. There's a lot of software and
Speaker 2: technology that goes into that. The point though, is that
Speaker 2: that could be again could be consistent.
Speaker 3: I guess. The big question though, is why did.
Speaker 2: Hamas just scrub everything in the parking lot the day afterwards.
Speaker 2: They never released any of the photos. They were like, no, no,
Speaker 2: it's an Israeli strike. And remember even their story was
Speaker 2: that it wasn't an iron don interceptor. They blamed the
Speaker 2: Israeli air strike. They specifically said air strike. So the
Speaker 2: confounding variable is the parking lot itself, Hamas's sketchiness and
Speaker 2: their immediate lies about the death toll, at least on
Speaker 2: a media basis, there's just no way they could have
Speaker 2: decided at that time be like, oh, five armed people
Speaker 2: died and you just know that, you know what, thirty
Speaker 2: minutes after this strike as impossible.
Speaker 1: So anyway, independent estimates, which again journalists can't get and
Speaker 1: aza to verify, but are that hundreds were killed, but
Speaker 1: probably not the five hundred that the Health Ministry originally said.
Speaker 1: We still don't know exactly what the civilian what the
Speaker 1: death toll was, and we still have we still don't
Speaker 1: nominy definitive proof of what happened here.
Speaker 4: The New York Times.
Speaker 1: Investigation is basically saying this video that Israel and that
Speaker 1: the US were pointing to again is really like the
Speaker 1: bedrock piece of their evidence doesn't actually show anything that
Speaker 1: had anything to do with this hospital because based on
Speaker 1: first of all, it came from Israel, second of all,
Speaker 1: it was two miles away from the hospital, and the
Speaker 1: timing doesn't exactly match up either. So they're not saying, like,
Speaker 1: we know what happened, but they are saying there were
Speaker 1: Israeli airstrikes right in the vicinity of the hospital. At
Speaker 1: the same time is really say, oh, but it wasn't close.
Speaker 4: Enough to damage to the hospital. Maybe that's true, maybe
Speaker 4: it's not.
Speaker 1: And they're saying this thing that the intelligence agencies are
Speaker 1: basing their assessment on doesn't show what they're purporting it to.
Speaker 4: Uh that they say that it showed.
Speaker 1: I think on the other side, what you point to
Speaker 1: is maybe the most critical piece against Hamas's version of
Speaker 1: the story, which is like, Okay, well, where's your avenue.
Speaker 3: You have to take a picture of the dam the
Speaker 3: thing you want it and then send it to the world.
Speaker 1: And I think I think it's important to say, like,
Speaker 1: there are other things that Israel could have used to
Speaker 1: bond the site other than jay Dance, sure right, and
Speaker 1: which would have have a smaller footprint and be more
Speaker 1: consistent with the type of creator that appears to have been,
Speaker 1: you know, in this parking lot, in this courtyard after
Speaker 1: the strike. But it's number one. I think it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, adds to the level of uncertainty. It certainly
Speaker 1: calls into question the Israeli as I've never had any
Speaker 1: confidence that the Israelis or the American intelligence agencies would
Speaker 1: tell us the truth about what was.
Speaker 4: Going on here.
Speaker 1: They desperately needed at that time some evidence to say
Speaker 1: it wasn't us because Remember the context of this was
Speaker 1: number one, mass protests instantly break out. Number two Biden
Speaker 1: literally visiting Israel that morning, and he needed some kind
Speaker 1: of face saving something he could say and point to.
Speaker 1: So you know, there was a real effort to muster
Speaker 1: this quote unquote evidence so that he could point to
Speaker 1: and say, oh no, no, no, it was the other
Speaker 1: team in his words, and New York Times and other
Speaker 1: news outlets, I would say, at this point, really calling
Speaker 1: that into question.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The reason why it's just so difficult is, you know,
Speaker 2: immediately came to me, I'm like, okay, I obviously I
Speaker 2: don't trust what Hama says.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Then it was like, all right, well then this evidence
Speaker 2: comes out. And then for me, I didn't even care
Speaker 2: about the phone call. For me, it was the parking
Speaker 2: lot phone like, okay with parking lot. Protto is period, Like,
Speaker 2: it's not an air strike. So then it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: like there could have been an alternative explanation. But now
Speaker 2: there is an alternative explanation that considers it, and you're
Speaker 2: not wrong, I mean, don't forget. The Times actually is
Speaker 2: the one who debunked the original store about the US
Speaker 2: airstrike on supposedly against the ISIS ring leader, which ended
Speaker 2: up killing like some random civilian and his kids in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: If you'll remember that airstrike the water salesman or whatever,
Speaker 2: it was actually a ne York Time visual investigation that
Speaker 2: completely demunked that.
Speaker 3: So anyway, look, I don't know.
Speaker 2: And what's even more of a plot twist is the
Speaker 2: guy who's behind this he used to work for Bellingcat,
Speaker 2: which is like ties to the CIA. So I'm like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, man. I mean, it's like, you know,
Speaker 2: one case, a CIA says no, no, no, it was Israel.
Speaker 2: Now he's departing, but now he works than the New
Speaker 2: York Times. He's like, no, actually it might have been Israel.
Speaker 2: I have truly no clue. I'm just gonna come on
Speaker 2: the side of or probably won't know. And it also
Speaker 2: just comes back to the side of why don't we
Speaker 2: let journalists into Gaza, because when you do, that's a
Speaker 2: hell of a lot easier. Somebody can go and bring
Speaker 2: an actual camera and maybe even a news crew to
Speaker 2: this hospital and look around moments after the strike and
Speaker 2: be like, all right, what's that?
Speaker 3: What's that on the ground.
Speaker 2: It's simple when otherwise we're constantly relying on all of this,
Speaker 2: although honestly, at this point the damage is done both ways,
Speaker 2: and it's just a great highlight of like, you know,
Speaker 2: you got to be careful with what the information that
Speaker 2: is coming out here, and that of several every pretty
Speaker 2: much every party who's involved, from the US press to
Speaker 2: the US intelligence community, to the Israeli military to Hamas,
Speaker 2: has all had proven track record of lying in the passer,
Speaker 2: which makes it so difficult to actually even figure out
Speaker 2: what's happening.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: One thing I will say, just to rop up this
Speaker 1: story is there have been sixty two different health facilities
Speaker 1: just in this engagement that have been bombed during this
Speaker 1: quote unquote war against Hamas. So you know what happened
Speaker 1: at this hospital given the level of carnage is obviously
Speaker 1: incredibly significant. There should be an independent investigation. By the way,
Speaker 1: the US is opposed to an independent investigation, which is
Speaker 1: another red flag in terms of their story, and you
Speaker 1: know what they want the world to believe, you know,
Speaker 1: just as it's a red flag on the Maas side
Speaker 1: that they won't muster their own proof and their own evidence,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But why would you be opposed to independent
Speaker 1: investigation anyway, there should be one.
Speaker 4: We should know what happens.
Speaker 1: Here, But of course it doesn't erase the massive, widespread
Speaker 1: damage and civilian casualties that we are seeing throughout Gaza,
Speaker 1: regardless of what happened in the specific incidents of this hospital.
Speaker 1: Your comment saga about the need for journalists on the
Speaker 1: ground in Gaza is unfortunately a perfect segue into another horrific,
Speaker 1: horrific story about a journalist's family which was just killed
Speaker 1: in Israeli airstrikes. But before we even get to that,
Speaker 1: you know, Al Jazeera, the network that is funded by
Speaker 1: the Katari government, has really come under fire both from
Speaker 1: the US and are really from Israel, but also from
Speaker 1: the US. Let's put this up on the screen. In
Speaker 1: terms of Tony Blanket went to the Katari PM and
Speaker 1: asked him to rein in Al Jazeera's war coverage. Let
Speaker 1: me give you the details here, which I think are
Speaker 1: kind of wild. He told a group of American Jewish
Speaker 1: Comunity leaders on Monday that he asked the Katari Prime
Speaker 1: Minister less than two weeks ago to tone down Al
Speaker 1: Jazeera's rhetoric about the war in Gaza. This according to
Speaker 1: three people who attended the meeting. So you have official
Speaker 1: US policy trying to shape what international media outlets, which
Speaker 1: again backed by Qatar, so it is really important to
Speaker 1: keep that in mind in terms of their coverage, right,
Speaker 1: but trying to shape what this coverage looks like internationally
Speaker 1: so it more closely conforms, I guess, to the Western
Speaker 1: propaganda that we typically receive. And in addition, put this
Speaker 1: third third element. Guys up on the screen that Israeli
Speaker 1: government banned all activities of Al Jazeera in Israel. So
Speaker 1: they out and out banned Al Jazeera, ordered the closing
Speaker 1: of all of their offices. The tower which was the
Speaker 1: hub of Al Jazeera and other pro Palace Syne media
Speaker 1: in Gaza has been demolished by Israel. And they go
Speaker 1: on to note that Richie Sunak, PM of the UK
Speaker 1: said today that Israel's exercising it's legitimate right to defend itself.
Speaker 1: They man Israel in terms of a crack dawn on
Speaker 1: any kind of descent, like the stuff worst thing in
Speaker 1: here is child's play compared to their like arresting movie
Speaker 1: stars who are posting vaguely.
Speaker 4: Pro Palestinian stuff.
Speaker 1: They proposed this law that even if you were saying
Speaker 1: things that were true if they were against the quote
Speaker 1: unquote national interest, that they could arrest you at the
Speaker 1: discretion of this one dude. That hasn't gone through. But
Speaker 1: that's the sort of stuff that's being floated there. But
Speaker 1: this direct war on Al Jazeera is the backdrop for
Speaker 1: an absolute horde that there are no words for, which
Speaker 1: is the Gaza bureau chief of Al Jazeera, a guy
Speaker 1: by the name of Whale Dadou. His wife, his son,
Speaker 1: and his daughter were all killed and his grandchild by
Speaker 1: the way, in an Israeli airstrike targeted a shelter house
Speaker 1: that they had fled to because remember people have been
Speaker 1: told okay, you got to leave the north of Gaza.
Speaker 1: They had left, they went to this house that they
Speaker 1: thought would be safer and they end up all of
Speaker 1: them being killed in an Israeli airstrike. He actually received
Speaker 1: the news while he was on air covering what was
Speaker 1: happening on the ground in Gaza. Let's take a look
Speaker 1: at this. You can see him here just after having
Speaker 1: received the news, which as I said, he got on air.
Speaker 1: Here he is with his son weeping over the body
Speaker 1: of his son. And I know these images are very,
Speaker 1: very difficult to see. But again, so many questions, was
Speaker 1: this a deliberate target? Was this house with the family
Speaker 1: of the Gaza bureau chief for Al Jazeera? With Al
Speaker 1: Jazeera coming under fire from Israel, being told to close
Speaker 1: its offices, the United States Secretary of State going and saying, hey,
Speaker 1: they need to turn down their coverage, and then immediately
Speaker 1: afterwards the family of the Gaza bureau chief is killed
Speaker 1: in this air strike.
Speaker 2: A lot of questions here, Yeah, so any when others
Speaker 2: are actually killed in the separate instandent the Al Jazeera
Speaker 2: parent company, Media Network, they're the ones blaming the Israeli
Speaker 2: air strike. They're calling it, quote unquote a indiscriminate assault,
Speaker 2: saying that Al Jazeera is deeply concerned about the safety
Speaker 2: and the well being of our colleagues inside of Gaza.
Speaker 2: I don't think I don't think it's in dispute at
Speaker 2: all that members of his family then were killed, and
Speaker 2: there has not yet been an alternative explanation or dispute
Speaker 2: yet by Israel. You can take that with what you will.
Speaker 2: The big question is about the number of journalists now
Speaker 2: who have died. It's at least twenty four that have
Speaker 2: been confirmed died since October seventh. Twenty of those actually
Speaker 2: are Palestinian, since the hostilities in October seventh really began here. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just absolutely like it's a horrific thing
Speaker 2: to watch. Also, you know, in terms of the front
Speaker 2: on general with Al Jazeera, it is difficult, and they
Speaker 2: are basically directly controlled by the Qatari government. I've used
Speaker 2: to live in Qatar. By the way, I don't believe
Speaker 2: in censorship. I do believe that they should be allowed
Speaker 2: to broadcast in Israel if you're is really actually you
Speaker 2: want that because you want to know exactly what these
Speaker 2: people are saying and reporting from there. Because we like
Speaker 2: it or not, the huge swats of the Arab world
Speaker 2: actually do watch Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera Arabic has been
Speaker 2: caught many times reporting absolute bullshit, especially whenever it came
Speaker 2: to the US in Iraq. So I'm not going to
Speaker 2: sit here and stand for them. At the same time,
Speaker 2: it reflects I think a little bit of what we
Speaker 2: talked about previously about our broader war coverage Crystal, which
Speaker 2: is that Al Jazeera, the images and all of that
Speaker 2: that are flooding across the Arab world and Al Jazeer
Speaker 2: frankly is probably the tame version compared to what's being
Speaker 2: distributed on WhatsApp and on Twitter or on Telegram, is
Speaker 2: laying the base of the exact same media environment the
Speaker 2: United States found itself in in two thousand and four,
Speaker 2: in two thousand and five, where Al Jazeer Arabic basically
Speaker 2: all day, every day was just broadcasting carnage of what
Speaker 2: was going on in Iraq and being like, this is
Speaker 2: America's fault, This is America's fault, this is America's fault,
Speaker 2: which you know, kind of was, and that it was
Speaker 2: the backdrop of the huge rise in the ji Hottist
Speaker 2: movement and which ignited a lot of terrorist attacks against
Speaker 2: the US. And it took a while, you know for
Speaker 2: that to start to materialize, but.
Speaker 3: The London bombing happened.
Speaker 2: Then you had multiple other, you know, major al Qaeda
Speaker 2: attacks that were attempted against the US.
Speaker 3: That was also the beginning of.
Speaker 2: Kind of the quote unquote lone wolf terror thing, which
Speaker 2: I mean what we lived with that for more than
Speaker 2: a decade. So I think we're just going right back
Speaker 2: to very familiar territory and that's what that's actually what
Speaker 2: scares the hell out of me. Is because I know
Speaker 2: that this is this is the backdrop of what every
Speaker 2: person in the Arab world is consuming on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: That's why Blincoln was like, hey, can you please tone
Speaker 2: it down because we know how influential this is. But
Speaker 2: to be honest, I don't think it's going to do
Speaker 2: anything out there. These people are all online now. The
Speaker 2: zero doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Even if Al Jazero became CNN overnight, it wouldn't been right,
Speaker 1: It wouldn't matter. And also, I mean to state the obvious,
Speaker 1: like stop, rather than trying to curb the coverage of
Speaker 1: the atrocities, how about you just curb the atrocities, which
Speaker 1: the United the government, if they wanted to use their leverage,
Speaker 1: could very much, very much do and could get behind
Speaker 1: a ceasefire to try to end. You know, I mean
Speaker 1: I already talked about the number of civilians that were
Speaker 1: killed here thousands and thirteen confirmed Hamas fighters killed, So
Speaker 1: you know, it's also worth mentioning, and we covered this
Speaker 1: here at the time as well. This isn't the first
Speaker 1: Al Jazeera journalist who has been killed by who's been
Speaker 1: impacted by you know, Israeli strikes. You had Sharen Abu Akle,
Speaker 1: who originally Israel set out it was Palestinian fire that
Speaker 1: she got caught in the crossfire and was actually Palestinians
Speaker 1: who killed her. Well, it turns out once down the
Speaker 1: road after investigation, no, no, they had to admit because
Speaker 1: there was too much proof that it was the IDF
Speaker 1: that killed her. So you know, they're is putting aside
Speaker 1: this horror, absolute horror, and whether or not it was
Speaker 1: a direct target, which I think is very much an
Speaker 1: open question here. It's clear that the Israeli government wants
Speaker 1: to try to curb the images that are coming out
Speaker 1: of Gaza, and the American government once you try to
Speaker 1: curb the images that are coming out of Gaza, because
Speaker 1: it is horrible, it's horrible, and they are very much
Speaker 1: afraid of these continued protests and the rage and the
Speaker 1: fury and what that could ultimately spiral out of control into.
Speaker 1: But as I said, the answer here isn't to try
Speaker 1: to change the coverage or curb the coverage or sanitize
Speaker 1: the coverage. It's to actually get at the root cause
Speaker 1: of the war crimes that are being committed here. I mean,
Speaker 1: the siege part is you could potentially have some argument
Speaker 1: out human shields, etc. On the bombings, but the complete
Speaker 1: siege of all the civilians, this is collective punishment, like
Speaker 1: it's by international law, is really indisputable, and the US
Speaker 1: could do a lot about that.
Speaker 3: They could, but they're not going to. Of course, the
Speaker 3: US political system.
Speaker 4: They've made that very clear.
Speaker 2: The US political system supports this action. I think we
Speaker 2: all also reconcile ourselves to that and just be prepared
Speaker 2: for what the fallout from that is going to be.
Speaker 2: At the same time, though, it is also having fallout elsewhere.
Speaker 4: Hollywood. What a story here.
Speaker 1: So you know, these actors and actresses, they've got their
Speaker 1: little brands.
Speaker 4: They got to protect.
Speaker 1: They want to be on the side of good things
Speaker 1: and against bad things. But of course, you know, this
Speaker 1: is a very difficult situation. People feel a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about you know, not just some like bullshit,
Speaker 1: not to totally dismiss it, but like diversity play or whatever.
Speaker 1: We're talking about life death, war piece, possible World War
Speaker 1: three hostages who are being held, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And it has gotten very messy.
Speaker 1: So we have two effectively rival letters being signed on
Speaker 1: to by Hollywood stars. This first one is I mean,
Speaker 1: it's almost just like it's very confused, and it's in
Speaker 1: my opinion, quite laughable.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Long list of Hollywood stars and executives signed on to
Speaker 1: this letter, thanking President Joe Biden for his leadership and
Speaker 1: asking to keep the focus on the hostages in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your unshakeable moral conviction, leadership, and support
Speaker 1: for the Jewish people who have been terrorized by Hamas
Speaker 1: since the group's founding over thirty five years ago, and
Speaker 1: for the Palestinians who have also been terrorized a press
Speaker 1: and victimized by Hamas for the last seventeen years that
Speaker 1: the group has been governing Gaza. We would urge everyone
Speaker 1: to not rest until all hostages are released.
Speaker 4: So basically we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: The list of some of the stars here, We've got,
Speaker 1: you know, Highlighter, Jordan Peel, Olivia Wilde, John Hamm, John
Speaker 1: Watstean Kane. I don't know who most of these people are,
Speaker 1: but that's not because they're not. They're nobody's I just.
Speaker 3: Don't know who anybody is that was the one so far.
Speaker 1: Anyway, So this is one list that's being put out.
Speaker 1: Aaron Sorkin is on this one as well. And the
Speaker 1: reason I call it confused is like, why do you
Speaker 1: need to sign a letter. It's just like, good job,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Way to go, person with the most powerful,
Speaker 1: you know, position in the entire world, like we stand
Speaker 1: with you. But they have to throw in this hostage
Speaker 1: piece to try to act like they're like rebellious and
Speaker 1: standing up to power, and really you're just completely co
Speaker 1: signing what the American government is already doing.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say, it's like, why does he need
Speaker 2: a letter from you to be like, you know what,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna keep working to.
Speaker 3: Get those hostages out.
Speaker 2: It's just like shut up, like keep your you know,
Speaker 2: if you want to make a dumbass post on Instagram,
Speaker 2: like go for it.
Speaker 3: Well good luck with that. Considering with Jamie Lee Curtis
Speaker 3: and all these other people.
Speaker 2: But nobody asked for you, nobody cares, you know what
Speaker 2: you think this entire thing, like you said, it's confused
Speaker 2: because this is the policy of the government. No hostage
Speaker 2: can be left. Well, yeah, the Secretary of Status said it,
Speaker 2: so is the president. It'd be different if the president
Speaker 2: was like, you know what, you know, we're we're giving
Speaker 2: up or.
Speaker 3: Something like that.
Speaker 2: But like, okay, fine, then you can quote unquote speak out,
Speaker 2: but like, what does that even mean. It's also just
Speaker 2: so banal. We all want the same thing, freedom for
Speaker 2: Israelis and Pales needs to live side by side in peace.
Speaker 2: It's like, okay, thanks, you know, thank you Bradley Cooper
Speaker 2: and Courtney Cox or Chris Rock. I'm most surprised at
Speaker 2: Galgado is the one who signed off this because she's
Speaker 2: just straight up Israeli and so if she comes out
Speaker 2: and is like totally supportive of Israel, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't want to have a problem with that. She's from
Speaker 2: the country, So I just don't get it. I don't
Speaker 2: understand the point of this thing. She also did, I believe,
Speaker 2: was margining the Imagine song. Do you remember that whenever
Speaker 2: they all saying Imagine? Oh really?
Speaker 3: So this is not the first foray for Muscado.
Speaker 1: So producer Griffin flagged that at least one of the
Speaker 1: people on this letter is now coming out and saying, god, wait,
Speaker 1: I didn't I actually my agent put me on this,
Speaker 1: and I didn't actually want to sign on to this.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be on the other letter, which let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. The other letter has
Speaker 1: a little more clarity of content here artists calling for ceasefire. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously this is in direct opposition to what the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is pushing for. They say, we come together as
Speaker 1: artists and advocates, most importantly as human beings witnessing the
Speaker 1: devastating life, loss of lives, and unfolding horrors in Israel
Speaker 1: and Palestine. We ask that is President, the a us U,
Speaker 1: and the US Congress call for an immediate d escalation
Speaker 1: in ceasefire and Gaza and Israel before another life is lost.
Speaker 1: More than five thousand people have been killed in the
Speaker 1: last week and half, a number any person of conscience
Speaker 1: knows as catastrophic. We believe all life is sacred, no
Speaker 1: matter faith or ethnicity, and we condemn the killing of
Speaker 1: Palaestinity and Israeli citizens. We urge your administration, Congress, all
Speaker 1: world leaders to honor all of the lives in the
Speaker 1: Holy Land and call for and facilitate a ceasefire without delay,
Speaker 1: and and the bombing of Gaza and the safe release
Speaker 1: of hostages.
Speaker 4: So this one, you know, an.
Speaker 1: Actual challenge to what the Biden administration is calling for
Speaker 1: and you know, Hollywood very much at war over how
Speaker 1: to approach this issue. You also have the Writer's Guild, Yes,
Speaker 1: coming under fire because they didn't say anything, which, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, you know, when you've got a
Speaker 1: union with a lot of members with different backgrounds and
Speaker 1: different views on this, not saying anything kind of seems
Speaker 1: to me like not the worst thing in the world,
Speaker 1: like just to you know, correcting to do, stay hon
Speaker 1: of it if you don't have a unity of opinion
Speaker 1: among your members. That seems entirely appropriate to me. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously I would love for them to call for ceasfar,
Speaker 1: I'd love for them to come down on the side
Speaker 1: of Palestinian humanity. But it's interesting to me that they're
Speaker 1: coming out of under significant fire from their membership just
Speaker 1: for being like, we're going to keep quiet.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I've seen this from the universities too. People are like,
Speaker 2: why has Harvard University not denounced the attack? I'm like,
Speaker 2: who gives a shit? The issue though, is that Harvard
Speaker 2: boxed itself into a corner where anytime the social justice
Speaker 2: caused d joure was happening, they're like, oh, we unequivocally
Speaker 2: stand with Black Lives Matter or trans whatever, and like
Speaker 2: you know, abortion Row versus Wade, or DACA or immigrant
Speaker 2: all these other things.
Speaker 3: I'm like, well, you guys are the ones who dug
Speaker 3: your own grave.
Speaker 2: I'm like, you want to weigh in every single time
Speaker 2: there's something going on, then, yeah, people are going to
Speaker 2: call you out when you don't say anything.
Speaker 3: But I'm very much exactly of the same opinion of yours.
Speaker 2: Is if you have an organization like the WGA, where
Speaker 2: they're obvious, I mean many of the people who just
Speaker 2: signed both of these letters are Remember how could you
Speaker 2: unequivocally come out and have a single position.
Speaker 3: Then that's just the narcissism of leaders. It's not a
Speaker 3: true union.
Speaker 2: And this is one of the in my opinion, big
Speaker 2: missteps that a lot of unions made in the eighties
Speaker 2: and nineties is explicitly aligning themselves with the machine art
Speaker 2: of the Democratic Party. While not majority, but some of
Speaker 2: its people coalition and others did not vote in the
Speaker 2: similar direction. It caused like a big split, and I
Speaker 2: think one of the benefits to a guy like Sean Faine,
Speaker 2: who has been a little political with Biden and all
Speaker 2: of that, but has also been willing to call him out.
Speaker 2: Is that even the people who are in his union
Speaker 2: who support Trump, like for example, I don't think they
Speaker 2: could ever say for a second that the man would
Speaker 2: never put them first over loyalty to the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: That's what you have to do.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I in some ways I don't have some
Speaker 2: sympathy because I'd have to go back and check to
Speaker 2: see what WGAO said about the last you know, BLM
Speaker 2: or whatever.
Speaker 3: I'm sure they probably put out some BS statement.
Speaker 2: So in some ways it's like this is why, like
Speaker 2: you don't have to weigh in on everything, you know,
Speaker 2: and if you do, then when something becomes so inconvenient
Speaker 2: and you don't have one hundred percent of people behind
Speaker 2: you and then you say nothing, people are going to
Speaker 2: call you out. So I'm a bit conflicted. I agree
Speaker 2: with the policy laid out, but I think you should
Speaker 2: be consistent.
Speaker 1: I guess I would just say that it obviously matters
Speaker 1: a lot more what the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: what the people with power in the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: you know, and you know, the people who are funding
Speaker 1: super PACs, and who are you know, really influential in
Speaker 1: terms of our public policy, Like it matters a lot
Speaker 1: more what they are saying than like whatever the Writer's
Speaker 1: Guild might put out, whatever Sarah Silverman thinks about them,
Speaker 1: you know, or Harvard or like, you know, some dumb
Speaker 1: kids marching on some college campus. And it can be
Speaker 1: very easy when we see things we disagree with coming
Speaker 1: from groups that maybe we have antipathy for, to fixate
Speaker 1: on those things. But I would just keep our eyes
Speaker 1: on the price of the people who actually have power
Speaker 1: and what not, even what they're saying, what they're doing.
Speaker 4: That's where all the real actions.
Speaker 3: I think it comes to powerlessness.
Speaker 2: Like you know, nothing that we say here on the
Speaker 2: show is going to impact us policy, and that's actually
Speaker 2: a very difficult thing to accept for a lot of people.
Speaker 2: Even And now imagine you're a billionaire. Now imagine you're
Speaker 2: an actor. What you can control if you're a billionaire
Speaker 2: donor to Harvard is, you know, nobody the White House
Speaker 2: is going to care what you think.
Speaker 3: They'll care more of what you think.
Speaker 4: Oh, if you're a.
Speaker 3: Billion care, well ish, but probably not in a case
Speaker 3: like this.
Speaker 2: But what you can control is Harvard University, who you
Speaker 2: donate ten million dollars a year you can control. If
Speaker 2: you're a student in particular, and I understand being a student,
Speaker 2: It's like you want to be righteous and you want
Speaker 2: to have an impact, but like nobody cares what you think.
Speaker 3: So what do you do.
Speaker 2: You march in or you you know, project some dumbass
Speaker 2: statement onto a wall, and you like embroil the institution
Speaker 2: and conflict because you're trying to be heard, You're trying
Speaker 2: to have agency. Again, I understand where that comes from,
Speaker 2: but that is why I think people get engaged in
Speaker 2: these fights just because ninety nine point nine percent of
Speaker 2: us will never have any impact on what Tony Blinken,
Speaker 2: Jake Sullivan or President Biden have to say. However, you
Speaker 2: can have an impact and a more immediate fight in
Speaker 2: the WGA, in a letter or on campus something like that.
Speaker 2: It's like a way of acting out, and I do
Speaker 2: understand it. I do also mostly think is pointless. So anyway,
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you said that.
Speaker 1: All right, so we do have a little bit of
Speaker 1: good news to bring you guys. Saga just mentioned Sean
Speaker 1: Payne in the United Auto Workers who have been obviously
Speaker 1: doing this stand up strike for I don't even know
Speaker 1: what account is, but number of weeks at this point
Speaker 1: they've been escalating week by week. They actually have a
Speaker 1: ton of deal with Ford, so one of the Big three,
Speaker 1: with the idea being that if they come to this
Speaker 1: deal with Ford, which the membership still has to vote on,
Speaker 1: that'll put pressure on the other two to fall in
Speaker 1: line and also, you know, come to the table with
Speaker 1: sufficient concessions to be able to achieve similar results for
Speaker 1: the membership. Here, let's take a listen to what Sean
Speaker 1: Fain and I think he's like the Vice President, I
Speaker 1: don't know he introduces him, but another UAW leadership member
Speaker 1: have to say about the deal and its contents.
Speaker 8: UAW Family, I'm excited and honored to be joined today
Speaker 8: by Vice President Chuck Browning as we announced a major
Speaker 8: victory in the stand up strike. Today we reached a
Speaker 8: tentative agreement with Ford. For months, we've said that record
Speaker 8: profits mean record contracts, and UAW Family, our stand Up
Speaker 8: Strike has delivered. What started at three plants at midnight
Speaker 8: on September fifteenth has become a national movement. We knew
Speaker 8: we were getting close, but we also knew the companies
Speaker 8: needed a major push. If we were gonna make sure
Speaker 8: we got every penny pop ussible in this agreement. So
Speaker 8: we took our strike to a new phase and hit
Speaker 8: the companies with maximum effect.
Speaker 9: So when we say historic, we mean it. We have
Speaker 9: won a twenty five percent general wage increase over the
Speaker 9: course of this agreement with Cola. We expect the top
Speaker 9: wage rate to increase by over thirty percent to above
Speaker 9: forty dollars an hour. Our starting wage rate will rise
Speaker 9: sixty eight percent for decades temps at the Big Three
Speaker 9: have been abused and exploited. Over the life of the contract,
Speaker 9: temps will see raises of over one hundred and fifty percent.
Speaker 9: Some of our lower tier members at Stirling Axel in Rossenville,
Speaker 9: we'll see an immediate eighty five percent raise upon ratification.
Speaker 1: So those are some of the key provisions. Just to
Speaker 1: reiterate here, twenty five percent raised through April of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight, starting wages going out by sixty eight percent
Speaker 1: to twenty eight bucks an hour, reinstatement of cost of
Speaker 1: living adjustments that those had been lost in two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, workers helped to bail out the automakers, a
Speaker 1: right to strike over plant closures. That's actually a big
Speaker 1: deal that they're you know, if a plant is being
Speaker 1: threatened with closure, they can go out on strike and
Speaker 1: protest that move.
Speaker 4: That's a big deal.
Speaker 1: Abolishing two tiers, abolishing multi tiers at two major plants,
Speaker 1: top pay rises to forty bucks an hour. It's now
Speaker 1: at thirty two dollars an hour. New workers to reach
Speaker 1: the top wage after three years instead of eight, more
Speaker 1: retirement funding for retirees those with pensions, and four to
Speaker 1: oh one case. So, as I said, membership has to
Speaker 1: vote on it and see if they think that this
Speaker 1: is sufficient. But it's also not a surprise to me
Speaker 1: soccer that Ford was the first one to be able
Speaker 1: to come to a deal, because the reporting I had
Speaker 1: seen is that Ford actually had the best relationship with
Speaker 1: the UAW and the CEO there had tried to maintain
Speaker 1: close relations and so it's not a surprise to me
Speaker 1: they're the first ones to come. And we'll see what
Speaker 1: happens at the other two automakers. But you know, these
Speaker 1: already are huge CONCESSI huge victory, and I think really
Speaker 1: validates the strategy and the tactics that Sean Faine, their
Speaker 1: brand new president of the UAW, used in order to
Speaker 1: secure these games.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean twenty five percent is nothing to sneeze at,
Speaker 2: and forty dollars an hour is good money. I just
Speaker 2: still think we all have to remember to annualize it
Speaker 2: because people forget. You know, at the top line, that's
Speaker 2: eighty three thousand dollars two hundred a year. I mean, yes,
Speaker 2: you also receive benefits like healthcare, pension four oh one K,
Speaker 2: so I'm not going to discount that. But on a
Speaker 2: cash basis, that puts you like solidly middle class in America.
Speaker 2: It puts you in a place where you can afford
Speaker 2: like roughly a four hundred thousand dollars house, although you
Speaker 2: was still it's going to take you a while to
Speaker 2: come up with a down payment. And that's the wage
Speaker 2: of the top assembly line worker. There's still a twenty
Speaker 2: five percent bump, so I believe that brings somebody to
Speaker 2: around forty thousand dollars a year. Again, you get decent benefits.
Speaker 2: It's not like they gave them the remember the vaunted
Speaker 2: what is it four day a week? If that's not
Speaker 2: included in the agreement. I always thought, I'm like, this
Speaker 2: guy's reached.
Speaker 3: The Yeah, I get it.
Speaker 2: I was like that's not actually gonna happen, you know,
Speaker 2: But it didn't happen. They agreed to this deal, as
Speaker 2: you said, let's see, I'm curious what the membership thinks
Speaker 2: of it. Although I mean to get costs of living
Speaker 2: adjustments back when they were suspended in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 2: that's pretty big in itself because it's not frozen in time.
Speaker 2: You get the COLA adjustment, and that is really one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why they have not just suffered like
Speaker 2: lack of wage inflation, they actually suffered deflation over the
Speaker 2: last decade. So if it were me, I would take
Speaker 2: the deal. I think that's a pretty good deal.
Speaker 1: The other and now the other two automakers kind of
Speaker 1: have a roadmap for like, okay, if we want this
Speaker 1: to be over and at this point, this strike is
Speaker 1: hitting some of their most profitable plants, Like if we
Speaker 1: want to end this, all right, this is what it
Speaker 1: would take. That's why there's you know, more likely than
Speaker 1: not that there'll be a lot of pressure on them
Speaker 1: and they'd be able to come to tentative agreement with
Speaker 1: those two other automakers as well in the near future.
Speaker 4: Let's hope. The other thing here is you know.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of workers across the country, not
Speaker 1: just autoworkers, but also auto workers at Tesla and other
Speaker 1: foreign automakers that have plants down south who are looking
Speaker 1: at these wages, who were looking at what was able
Speaker 1: to be secured here and are thinking like, why am
Speaker 1: I doing the same job for so much less money.
Speaker 4: So between this, between what the.
Speaker 1: Ups workers were able to secure, between what the actors
Speaker 1: were or the sorry the writers were able to secure
Speaker 1: in terms of their deal, there's a number of very
Speaker 1: clear demonstrations of what you can achieve with a union,
Speaker 1: with this type of collective bargaining, And so I think
Speaker 1: that that helps to spur and continues to spark an
Speaker 1: increased interest and increase success throughout labor organizing. So from
Speaker 1: that perspective, it's also very exciting and much bigger than
Speaker 1: not to say just but much bigger than just this
Speaker 1: one industry, especially since the American auto industry is just
Speaker 1: such an iconic part of American life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one good thing is from GM's perspective, they actually
Speaker 2: just reported their earnings, and their earnings actually rose quarter
Speaker 2: over quarter if they did project a single quarter seven
Speaker 2: percent drop in profit, but they're still profitable as a company,
Speaker 2: so they've got the margin at least right now to
Speaker 2: negotiate from that, and now they have their roadmap. So
Speaker 2: hopefully this does show us that we're coming to an end,
Speaker 2: although you don't know, you know, it certainly could continue.
Speaker 2: No way to say, all right, we'll see you guys later,
Speaker 2: Premium subs and everybody else. We're gonna have a separate
Speaker 2: interview with Darryl Cooper of the Martyr Made podcast is
Speaker 2: going to post later. We just didn't want to include
Speaker 2: it as part of the main show because we want
Speaker 2: to get this one out on time.
Speaker 3: We'll post it as a separate podcast. You guys can
Speaker 3: look out for that.
Speaker 2: Obviously, the premiums you guys will get that first, will
Speaker 2: be on standby should any breaking news or anything happen.
Speaker 3: But otherwise we will see you all on Monday,