Endless War and US Security State: W/ Sen. Ron Johnson and Rep. Davidson
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
Interview with Senator Ron Johnson (5:37)
Interview with Representative Warren Davidson (35:37)
Outro (1:14:40)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 o'clock p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, we speak to two members of Congress about a variety of issues.
Involving war in Ukraine, war in Israel, the U.S.
security state, warrantless domestic spying, and much more.
The first is the Republican Senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, who started off back in 2022 supporting the idea of U.S.
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russia, but has since become one of the most vocal and stalwart opponents of sending more aid there.
And we'll talk about what motivated that change and his views of current U.S. foreign policy.
Then we speak to Congressman Warren Davidson, the former Army Ranger who now represents Ohio's 8th Congressional District, a job he has held ever since his predecessor, former Republican House Speaker John Boehner, retired in 2016, where we spoke extensively not only about the evils of U.S.
foreign policy but also his view on the vote that took place in the House yesterday that we reported on on last night's show that blocked renewal of the FISA spying law without any meaningful protections, warrant requirements, or reforms.
As I've been arguing for some time, one of the most significant and one of the most overlooked developments in U.S.
politics, especially when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, is the radical realignment among left and right, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to who supports the military-industrial complex in the United States and who does not.
Who supports the U.S.
posture of endless war and who does not?
Who supports vesting vast and unaccountable powers in the hands of the U.S.
security state and who does not?
Both of our guests tonight are in many ways highly illustrative of this realignment.
Senator Johnson, for instance, is not just an opponent now of the U.S.
role in the war in Ukraine, but also a thoughtful critic of imperialistic American foreign policy over the last several decades, which he insists Washington needs to study much more to understand its foundational mistakes.
Meanwhile, Congressman Davidson has become one of the most scathing opponents of what he calls the neocon consensus in Washington.
In some ways, his foreign policy critique of American wars and militarism could almost be called Chomsky-esque.
And notably, it's almost impossible to hear similarly fundamental principled critiques of U.S.
foreign policy, the military-industrial complex, and the U.S.
security state from any Democratic member of Congress.
It is almost impossible to note that this critique is I should say it's important to note that this critique is not always applied with complete consistency.
I asked each of these lawmakers why their arguments against funding the war in Ukraine, namely that we cannot afford to fund more foreign wars, that it brings no benefits to American citizens, that it jeopardizes our standing in the world.
Does not apply equally to our current policy of financing and arming Israel's war in Gaza, which most Republicans and most Democrats support.
In other words, even if one sides more and empathizes more with Israel over the Palestinians, why shouldn't Israel pay for its own wars instead of having Americans pay for them?
Both gave thoughtful answers, even if not fully convincing, and I appreciate how willing they were to reconsider and think about, in the interview, their stances on those questions and how it might align or not align with their broader principles.
Now, both of these interviews, I believe, are highly illustrative of the realignment I described and why these clear changes in the D.C.
consensus are starting to become ever more promising.
We recorded both interviews last night after our live program, and we are delighted to share them with you now.
Before we get to that, a few programming notes.
First, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, you can follow all the programs you like to watch on Rumble, and if you turn on notifications, you will be immediately notified whenever any of those programs begin broadcasting live on the platform.
Additionally, System Update is available as well in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, on Apple, and every other major podcasting platform.
And if you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we will move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive after show, where we interact with your questions and critiques.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community, so if you want to become a member, which gives you not only the access to that is after shows, but also to the multiple interactive features we have there, to the daily transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish transcripts there.
It's where we publish our original written journalism, and it's the community on which we really rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that platform.
Even though tonight is Thursday, because we taped these interviews in advance, we won't be having our live interactive after show tonight, but we will be back next week on Tuesday and Thursday at our regular times for those after shows.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Senator Johnson, it's great to see you.
Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us tonight.
Thanks for having me on.
Absolutely.
So I'd like to start with the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Back in September, more than six months ago, President Biden requested another $60 billion in American aid to continue to fuel that war in Ukraine.
House Republicans have succeeded for six months now under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson in blocking that aid package.
Speaker Johnson has been a longtime opponent of funding the war in Ukraine.
And yet, seemingly out of nowhere, by all accounts, Speaker Johnson is now assuring everybody that he will make certain that this $60 billion gets a House for a vote and will do everything he can to ensure its passage.
What do you think explains the change in his posture?
And what do you think is the likelihood that this $60 billion will be approved by the House?
Well, I don't want to speak for the Speaker.
But I think my guess is his position has been somewhat similar to mine.
That, you know, pretty much the minute that President Biden requests the supplemental funding for the war in Ukraine, people started pointing out that we've already spent about $100 billion.
And before we spend billions more, On helping Ukraine secure its border, maybe we ought to turn our attention to our own wide-open border.
There's a clear and present danger to this nation, and any kind of funding for Ukraine must be tied to securing our own border.
That's pretty much been my position.
But at the same time, for more than a year, I've also been pointing out the reality situation, the sad reality, that Vladimir Putin's not going to lose this war.
I don't see any strategy for Ukraine to win it.
Losing the war is existential to Vladimir Putin.
Russia has four times the population.
The average age of a Ukrainian soldier is 43 years.
Vladimir Putin has the resources.
I think last time I checked, oil prices are up about $20 a barrel since the war began.
So he has plenty of money to fund his industrial base.
They can produce 4.5 million of the 155-millimeter shells that are pretty much the weapon of choice.
By the way, they produce those 4.5 million shells at a cost of $600 a shell, where the West, we can produce about a million shells at a cost of as high as 8,000 euros.
In America, somewhere between $5,000 and $6,000 per shell, you know, 10 times more than what Russia is producing.
I don't see that Russia is being weakened by this.
If anything, their industrial base is probably being strengthened by the war.
And so I think it's just a fantasy.
It's just denying reality to think that pumping more money, fueling the fire of that bloody stalemate is going to break this thing open and show that the Ukraine can be victorious.
That's just not going to happen.
And so better to recognize reality and realize the only way the bloodshed ends is if we sit down and negotiate with Vladimir Putin.
I'm not going to like the result, but every day that goes by, more Ukrainians die, more Russian conscripts die.
I take no joy in that.
More Ukraine gets destroyed.
So the sooner the better.
And personally, I would like to have been a fly in the wall in Istanbul when they apparently were negotiating a peace agreement.
and the Biden administration airdropped Boris Johnson in there to blow that thing up.
This is a few weeks after the war started.
I mean, it's a tragic, tragic turn of history there.
The first time that Congress was asked to vote on a major or significant package was back in May of 2022, just a few months after the Russian invasion.
The White House had requested $33 billion for Ukraine.
Congress increased it $7 billion and made it $40 billion.
I don't know if they were rounding up or what their rationale was, but it was a $40 billion package.
And when it came to the Senate, there were 11 Republican senators who voted no.
You were not one of them.
You voted yes on that original aid package of $40 billion to Ukraine.
What changed for you between then and now?
Well, first of all, the reason I voted for that is at least $10 billion was just replenishing our own stockpile of weapons we'd shipped over to Ukraine.
You know, Congress has no control over that.
That's something that the President does on his own authority.
But I was hoping at that point in time, if we would show a unified front, Russia had not successfully taken over Ukraine.
They were back on their heels.
They were in retreat.
I was hoping that Vladimir Putin would recognize that he's not going to win this war.
Again, he's not going to lose it, but I wanted to demonstrate to him that he wasn't going to win it to hopefully bring him to the negotiating table.
But that's the last time I supported funding for Ukraine.
Again, as sympathetic as I am with the courageous people of Ukraine who were invaded by Vladimir Putin, who I believe is an evil war criminal, I don't support Vladimir Putin in the slightest.
But in the end, you have to recognize the reality of the situation.
I realize that you don't want to speculate about Speaker Johnson and what might be motivating him in his position, but as somebody who works every day in Congress, of course you're in the Senate and this bill is in the House, but you're obviously in Washington with your finger on the pulse of what's going on.
Do you expect that the House will find a way to approve the $60 billion?
Do you have an expectation on that one way or the other?
Well, again, from my standpoint, I hope if they approve any funding for Ukraine, it's going to come with strong enforcement mechanisms to force President Biden to use the authority he has to secure a southern border.
That's what we did not require in the Senate, tragically.
That's certainly what I would hope to see come out of the House.
The rationale that people who support funding for Ukraine at this point in time use is the world is watching.
President Xi is watching.
Taiwan may be in play.
That is the rationale.
I don't necessarily buy it.
Again, I think you have to take a look at each one of these situations separately.
I certainly believe that Vladimir Putin could have been deterred from invading Ukraine probably with just a simple statement from the West, from NATO, that we were never going to allow Ukraine to join NATO.
That's obviously a huge problem for Putin, which we unfortunately have just ignored at the peril of Ukraine.
Yeah, in fact, not only did we refuse to promise that Ukraine wouldn't be a part of NATO, but we made very clear that, in fact, we believe that Ukraine has the right to join NATO and should be on the path to doing so.
And then last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made one of his most declarative promises yet, standing next to the Ukrainian foreign minister at a meeting of NATO, where he said Ukraine will absolutely become part of Ukraine.
You kind of indicated your view on this a little bit in the last answer, but I just want to get a better understanding for you.
Do you think that American overtures to Ukraine to join NATO, the change of government that the Americans supported in 2014, where you had a democratically elected president who was a little bit more leaning toward Moscow, replaced by a pro-American government, a pro-American replaced by a pro-American government, a pro-American Do you think that those are major factors in why Putin decided to invade Ukraine?
Yeah, absolutely.
One thing we don't do in America is we don't look back.
We don't reflect on what our foreign entanglements, what our involvement around the world has resulted.
We need to retroactively do that.
And when it comes to Ukraine, you need to seriously take a look at our support for the revolution of dignity.
And again, we're freedom-loving people.
We want to support people that want their freedom, that want to integrate with the West.
But by helping foment that revolution, the result has been pretty much the destruction of Ukraine.
That hasn't turned out very well.
What I would do is I'd go back to, for example, the readout of the conversation that James Baker had with the Mikhail Gorbachev, what happened to Glasnos and Perestroika, that moment when people were predicting the end of history because it was the fall of the Cold War and James Baker was incredibly concerned about how US troops in Germany would be perceived
By Russia, but at the same time, Gorbachev wanted American troops there and it wasn't in NATO, it was under their own authority, so they were very concerned about this.
They were working cooperatively.
Russia wanted to integrate with the West.
It was such a hopeful time for long-term peace.
What happened between then and now, we're back in this Cold War, where Vladimir Putin is threatening the use of nuclear war, or at least using theater nuclear weapons.
We've obviously blown this situation and we need to go back and recognize and analyze why.
What happened?
Things were so hopeful back then and now things are looking so dark.
So I want to actually probe that a little bit because You described, I think, very persuasively why Ukraine is very unlikely to be able to win this war, especially under the definition of victory that NATO and the United States offered, which is expelling Russian troops from every inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea.
I don't think anyone thinks that's possible now.
The only changes to the front line in the last 18 months with all of this intense fighting and people dying have been some moderate gains for Russia, almost none for Ukraine.
Ukraine faces immense challenges, a lack of artillery, also just a lack of people.
A lack of soldiers to keep feeding into the front line, it's almost impossible to imagine how Ukraine can win this war.
So if I know that, and you know that, obviously intelligence agencies and policy makers in Washington know that, why do you think, given that, they're still so intent on sending billions and billions and billions and keeping this war going seemingly indefinitely?
It's one of the ways that they won't have to admit that they were wrong.
They won't have to explain their policy mistakes.
They'll keep saying, like Schumer said when he emerged from the meeting at the White House, when they were talking about the $60 billion, he basically said, to paraphrase him, this is simple.
If Ukraine gets $60 billion, they win.
If they don't get $60 billion, they lose.
And the first question I had is, well, how are they going to win?
I have the unique perspective, as I was the only member of Congress that was at Zelensky's inauguration.
I went back a number of months later with Senator Chris Murphy, and we had the conversation with Zelensky.
At that point in time, he wanted to do a peace deal with Putin.
This is when Russia completely controlled Crimea.
They were in firm control of eastern Ukraine.
He knew at that time, before any war started, a couple years before that, he knew he had no chance of dislodging Russia from those Ukrainian territories.
So he was very realistic.
He understood that it would be politically popular in Ukraine, but he wanted to take that political risk and do a peace deal with Putin.
So now here we are, four years later, and they've had the war.
It's decimated so much of Ukraine.
We're in a bloody stalemate.
It's obvious they can't win, but yet that remains the war aim of America.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
I think part of the problem is that one of the war aims now has shifted.
Not to necessarily liberate Ukraine, but to utilize the Ukrainian people to fight a proxy war with Russia and degrade their military capability.
Yeah, I mean, when you hear this argument, oh, it's a great war, we're sacrificing Ukrainian lives to weaken the Russian military and we're not dying at all, only Ukrainians are, it seems morally dubious to put that in the most generous terms possible.
Yeah, I mean, when you hear this argument, oh, it's a great war.
We're sacrificing Ukrainian lives to weaken the Russian military and we're not dying at all.
Only Ukrainians are.
It seems morally dubious to put that in the most generous terms possible.
But let me ask you, you had mentioned earlier one of the arguments in favor of sending aid to Ukraine, which is the idea that if we pull out now, Now it will embolden the Chinese to think that they can attack Taiwan and we don't have the will to fund the Taiwanese against a Chinese invasion, just like we didn't have the will to keep funding the Ukrainians against a Russian invasion.
But I think what you said just now is so important, which is that Zelensky has never sought a war with Russia.
He was very willing, even after the Russian invasion, to negotiate with the Russians.
And yet, as you said, the West came in and said, basically told them, don't negotiate.
We will give you everything we will need.
We will back you until, for as long as we have to, in order to ensure that you have what you need to fight against the Russians.
So what about the argument that even though there's no strategic benefit to the United States, it's a huge waste of money, there's kind of a moral obligation to fulfill our promise to Zelensky which led him to abandon those negotiations when we promised him that we would give the Ukrainians everything they needed until the end?
We should have made that promise.
We should have, if we were concerned about the Ukrainian people, we should have taken an honest assessment of what this war was going to do to Ukraine.
And it's not pretty.
So again, at some point in time, you'd have to recognize reality and you'd have to base your decisions on reality.
But the Biden administration is not willing to do that.
The generals aren't willing to do that because they'd have to admit they've been wrong all along.
You had said a little bit ago that one of the things you would demand at a minimum is that any attempt to continue to provide aid to Ukraine would be tied to commitments to first secure our own border.
I mean, that's after all what the War in Ukraine is about is securing the Ukrainian border against Russian encroachments and your argument and a lot of Republicans' argument is, well, you know, we shouldn't be funding Ukrainian border security while we don't have any at all.
Now, the response of the Biden administration is, we offered Republicans a Hugely significant increase in border security.
We made massive concessions that were going to anger immigration activists in our own party.
And when we offered that, the Republicans were ready to take it.
Trump came and said, don't vote for that.
And that's then what made the Republicans refuse that deal.
Did you think that that deal that the Biden administration offered was sufficient to secure the border in order to send aid to Ukraine?
No, first of all, none of what you just laid out there is true.
It was an awful bill.
It weakened presidential authority.
You know, the Supreme Court in 2018... By the way, just to be clear, I was just summarizing... Okay, go ahead.
I just wanted to make sure.
I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying, you know, by laying out what they're saying, none of that stuff is true.
But in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Or stated that existing immigration law exudes deference to the executive branch.
Now, that authority, presidential authority, has been diminished because of a couple of court cases.
But even with that diminished presidential authority, President Trump secured the border.
Using that exact same presidential authority, President Biden opened up the border.
So he has the authority.
Nobody in the Republican conference other than Mitch McConnell was looking for an immigration bill.
We were looking for, knowing that this is a lawless administration, a president that ignores Supreme Court rulings.
We were looking for some enforcement mechanism to force him to use the authority he has.
If he wanted strengthened authority, we would have done that.
The biggest problem with that bill wasn't the threshold at 5,000 a day, which is, again, it's a massive normalization of immigration.
It was the 4,000 limit, which said the president then had the discretion to stop processing asylum claims.
Well, if we were to pass that law, that would imply the president doesn't have that discretion currently.
And I would argue he did.
And even worse, that discretion ended after three years.
So the bill that McConnell negotiated, and I know he used James Langford, but this was Mitch McConnell.
That's what Senator Murphy said.
His staff's in the room.
Mitch made the decision.
This was Mitch's bill.
It would have been worse than doing nothing from a standpoint of weakening A serious president's authority, somebody who wanted to actually secure the border.
So that bill was awful.
It killed itself.
I'm not aware.
President Trump never called me.
I'm not aware that President Trump called anybody and told them not to vote for that bill.
Again, within 24 hours, even Mitch McConnell voted against that awful bill once all these things were pointed out to him.
So, again, I realize the Democrats Use that as political cover.
I think that's unfortunate.
The truth of the matter is President Biden wants an open border.
Democrats in Congress want an open border.
They caused this.
They weren't negotiating in good faith.
They were just negotiating for political cover.
And unfortunately, Mitch McConnell gave them political cover to a certain extent.
I don't know if you saw this, but when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan under President Biden only to watch the Taliban march right back into power, we spent 20 years there, $2 trillion on those wars only to see the Taliban march back into power like it was 2001.
The Chinese government released a video basically mocking the United States for constantly using its money on an endless number of foreign wars, and they pointed out that while the U.S.
was fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, going into debt to do it, The Chinese, who haven't fought a war since 1979, spent $800 billion to build a high-speed rail system connecting all of China to itself, and it obviously helps trade, helps the population in all sorts of ways.
Do you think there is a significant connection between how many wars the United States fights, or finances on the one hand, and the standard of living for Americans at home?
Well, let me also point out China's also done deals, build ports for countries all over the world to improve their access to natural resources.
So again, while we've been spending money on endless wars, they've been building up their own infrastructure and building up infrastructure for global partners.
So no, this is the point I'm making that we need to look in Hindsight with some serious retrospection and say, what have all these foreign entanglements gotten for us?
I think one of the best books on Afghanistan I read was written by a couple special operations personnel who said, we've pretty well done what we need to do in Afghanistan reaction to 9-11 before Tommy Frank ever put a boot on the ground.
We certainly told, you know, shown the Taliban, you better not be harboring Al Qaeda people like Osama bin Laden, you know, we might have, you know, it might have made sense to establish a Bagram Air Force base and keep that as a listening post.
We certainly should have maintained that, having invested 20 years of treasure and blood of Americans, that we probably should have at least maintained that to provide the Afghan security forces the support they're going to need to keep the Taliban at bay.
But we didn't do that.
We just bugged out.
An embarrassing and dangerous surrender in Afghanistan.
But we had kind of Lisa Rice in front of our Senate lunch and I asked her, does she ever look back in hindsight and take a look at what has been the result of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Of course, she said everything's coming up roses.
I don't agree.
Go back to Vietnam.
Go back to all these foreign entanglements.
I think a sober and honest assessment has to be they haven't resulted in what we actually wanted.
These have been a disaster for America.
It has weakened America.
Of course, that winds up happening to empires, to republics.
They more often rot from within, and they rot from overextending themselves more often than through foreign invasion.
Just a couple more questions.
This rationale that you just laid out, that you've laid out in other answers as well about Ukraine, namely that we're pouring money that we don't have that would be better served at home to secure the border, to build our infrastructure, to improve the lives of the American people, would be better spent at home, not constantly financing foreign wars like the one in Ukraine.
In addition to financing Ukraine's war, we're also currently financing Israel's.
We're providing them with all of the arms they need.
We give them $4 billion every year.
Whenever they have a war, we pay a lot of money, many billions of dollars on top of that $4 billion we give them every year to finance their war.
I understand that you're a supporter of Israel, but do you see at least the validity of the view that that same rationale Applies to the way in which the United States finances Israel's wars, given that there are millions of Israelis who have a higher standard of living than millions of Americans?
First, let me back up.
I wouldn't spend that money we spent on the endless wars here in America.
I would just not spend it.
You know, one of the things that's weakening America is that we're almost $35 trillion in debt.
You know, Biden's just put forward a budget that will increase debt by $16 trillion in the next 10 years.
Not one year's deficit is projected to be under $1.5 trillion.
Again, that is what is weak in America.
You achieve peace through strength, but it starts with economic strength.
And you can't be strong economically if you've completely indebted your nation and weakened your currency.
When it comes to Israel, again, we want to support people who desire freedom, that want to fight for their freedom.
I think that's certainly the description of Israel.
Hamas broke the ceasefire in a most horrible and brutal and horrific way.
If you compare what...
Hamas did to Israel, percentage of population, that'd be basically the equivalent of a terrorist attack killing 50,000 Americans.
You can imagine what the American public would demand there.
So right now, listen, I am concerned about civilian casualties in any war.
I hate war.
It needs to be avoided.
But when somebody starts a war, Absolutely.
I understand the Israeli view.
The question is, why can't the Israelis pay for their war?
Israeli's public, their desire to destroy Hamas so they don't have to be facing that threat in the future.
Oh, absolutely.
I understand the Israeli view.
The question is, why can't the Israelis pay for their war?
Why should Americans pay for Israel's military and its wars?
Well, I think that's a fair point.
You know, what we do supply Israel with is, in terms of our budget, not particularly large.
It does send, I think, a solid signal that we want to support Israel, hopefully keep people at bay.
Again, that's peace through strength.
You're showing strength when you show that kind of support for an ally.
So, again, you can Quibble with that fact, but again the dollar amount that we commit to Israel I don't think is a particularly large amount that impacts our budget deficits very significantly.
Last question, just out of respect for your time, I have a ton more I'd love to talk to you about, but just I'm gonna make this last question.
We'd love to have you back on sometime.
If you look at polling of Americans consistently for almost 20 years now, they Across the spectrum, left, right, center, say that they are tired of endless wars, that they want the United States to pay more attention to our own country and less attention and involvement in foreign wars.
And yet it seems like the United States always finds new wars to get involved in.
We pulled out of Afghanistan.
It was barely six months that went by when we were heavily involved in the war in Ukraine.
I realize Russia invaded, but we decided to get involved in that war.
Donald Trump ran on a platform in 2016 and won.
On this idea that we need to be much less involved in the conflicts and internal affairs of foreign countries, and we always seem to be, one of the more cynical views is that one reason that happens is because war is a very profitable business for a lot of very powerful corporations, arms dealers, Boeing, that wield a lot of power in Washington, that fund both political parties, and therefore wield a lot of influence to keep this military-industrial complex, to use Eisenhower's terms, very well funded.
Without delving into sort of a conspiracy theory, just like basic notions of lobbying power and corporate power inside Washington, do you think that's one of the reasons why we always are involved in so many wars?
First of all, I don't think that's a cynical assessment.
I think that's a very accurate assessment.
I don't think we heeded Eisenhower's warning nearly as much as we should have.
I think the military-industrial complex drives so much of what we're experiencing here today, the endless wars.
Again, I can't tell you how many governments we have, through covert action, how many governments we've overturned.
What's been the net result of that?
You know, there's some very interesting books.
JFK and the Unspeakables, The Devil's Chess Board, talking about Alan Dawson's CIA.
Again, you read our history and you really come away scratching your head.
That's why I'm talking about looking back at history, doing an honest assessment of what all of our foreign entanglements have resulted in.
It's not a pretty assessment.
It's not going to show that we've done the right thing, probably done the wrong thing time and time again.
Again, I'm somebody that loves this country.
I think the American people are good, but I think we've been Grossly misserved by our government in so many cases.
And certainly in one aspect, it's in terms of foreign entanglements, which our founding fathers tried to get us to avoid.
They were very skeptical of foreign entanglements, tried to do everything they could to avoid them.
We unfortunately haven't done that.
We should.
Yeah, it's really fascinating to hear that critique, which I recommend the Devil's Chessboard all the time, coming increasingly from conservatives and from Republicans, while Democrats increasingly seem to be far more united in support of the U.S.
security state, foreign wars, and the like.
That realignment that I think Trump had a lot to do with is very fascinating.
I think one of the most important political developments.
I really appreciate this conversation.
I think it was incredibly interesting.
We'd love to have you back on, but thanks for coming on tonight.
Well, thanks for inviting me.
I'm always happy to come back on.
Great.
Nice seeing you.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
We're very appreciative of all of them, and we are delighted to present to you one of our newest ones, which is Hillsdale College.
They offer more than 40 free Online courses in the most important and enduring subjects.
There's never a time in your life when it's too late to continue learning about things, and at Hillsdale, you can learn about a wide range of topics.
The works of C.S.
Lewis, all kinds of theology, including stories in the Book of Genesis, the meaning of the U.S.
Constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, the history of the ancient Christian Church, all with Hilldale College's online courses, all of which are available for free.
That's right, for free.
I personally recommend, and I'm sure viewers of this program inherently would have an interest, in signing up for the course Constitution 101, The Meaning and History of the U.S.
Constitution.
In this 12-lecture course, you'll explore the design and purpose of a constitution, the challenges it has faced during many phases of American history, and how it has been undermined for at least a century by all kinds of dogma down to a road Spare basic liberties.
Now the course, like all the courses, are self-paced.
So you can start whenever you want, continue and do the course as rapidly as you want.
You can enroll now in Constitution 101 or any other subject that interests you.
I think our country obviously would benefit from people across the political spectrum.
Studying the Constitution, understanding the freedoms that it guarantees against the encroachment of all kinds of efforts to erode our basic rights.
So you can go right now to hillsdale.edu slash glenn to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
That is hillsdale.edu slash glenn to register.
or hillsdale.edu slash gun.
Congressman Davidson, it is great to see you.
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us tonight.
Yeah, definitely an honor to join you.
Thanks for talking.
From my understanding, you are a critic of the FISA bill, a believer that there needs to be additional safeguards to protect Americans' privacy rights, and yet you were not one of the 19 Republicans who voted no on bringing this bill to the floor.
Why weren't you?
Well, I agreed not to work against the rule.
I'm the lead sponsor on the Fourth Amendment's Not-for-Sale Act, which would close the data-broker loophole.
When we moved that bill through Judiciary Committee last summer, it passed 36 to 1 through committee, and because of that it was incorporated into the FISA reauthorization that went through Judiciary Committee, and that passed Judiciary 35 to 2.
So, virtually never do you see, like, Jim Jordan agree with Jerry Nadler, but they agree.
We should get a warrant.
We should close the data broker loophole.
We should have some other reforms.
And unfortunately, that whole process was scuttled.
But the long story as to how we wind up with a bill that completely guts all the reforms that went through judiciary.
And that's why, frankly, a lot of people worked to take down the rule.
So I'm still trying to guarantee that we get a vote on this provision of Fourth Amendment's not for sale.
And part of my agreement was to keep this alive is I will not work against the rule.
Now, on the other hand, I didn't say I would work for the rule, and so I didn't do anything to try to help save it.
I didn't vote for it or against it.
But if the bill, in my understanding as Speaker Johnson, had reached an agreement with the two committees, the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, to allow three different votes on particular amendments, including the one that you mentioned, only to then try to bring a Bill to the floor that would have allowed renewal with no reforms of any kind.
If that bill had been brought to the floor, if Speaker Johnson had been able to do that with the unanimity that we usually see from the entire Republican caucus, do you think there was a chance that that bill with no safeguards for American citizens and our privacy rights could have passed the House?
Well, let me correct the premise.
I mean, so the bill that was the base text does have some reform in it, and I will say it's a little more than it was, even though it does have some things that are substantive in it.
There's 56 reforms, but about, I think, 47 of the 56 reforms came from the Intel Committee.
So they're palatable for the intelligence community.
They're not Something that's going to be draconian.
In fact, there's some concern that the provisions in the Intel Committee asked for would actually could be used against whistleblowers instead of used against the people that are violating a right.
There's concern with the base tech.
But to say that it has no reform is wrong.
And there were six amendments that were made in order.
So we were going to vote on a bill that would have given us a chance to vote to add in a warrant requirement to close the abouts collection, to increase the reporting requirements.
Those were the judiciary reforms.
And then there were three indulgence committee amendments that were made in order.
One would expand surveillance to collect information from Wi-Fi hotspots.
It would essentially nullify the Fourth Amendment if somebody's having a conversation about drug trafficking, and then it would collect information about new entrants into the country, which probably would have passed because of the problem we're having with illegal immigration.
So those are the six amendments that were made in order, and so the people that voted against it said, We don't like the way it's framed.
You're not making an order of things that shorten the duration of the authorization.
They wanted it to last during the next Trump administration, for example.
This version that was coming to the floor would have had a five-year authorization.
That could have been completely outside of a second term for President Trump's ability to influence that point ahead.
And it gutted the Fourth Amendment time for sale and pulled it outside.
You couldn't even get a vote on that.
So those are the main reasons that people voted against the rule.
Oh, right, exactly.
And I didn't say there were no changes.
There definitely were some.
But as you said, they were the ones that the Intelligence Committee was happy about, which I think is indicative of the fact that they don't really impose meaningful limits.
And some privacy groups actually have said, for reasons you actually alluded to, that in some senses, it might actually weaken protections even further or strengthen their power to spy on Americans.
But let me ask you, the reform that you are advocating, the Fourth Amendment is not for sale amendment is one that deals with this program where the security state can buy data on American citizens on the open market that they would be constitutionally prohibited from collecting.
Can you talk about why you think that reform is so important and what other reforms would you require before you're ready to vote for a renewal?
Yeah, so the warrant requirement on a different provision, not 702, but a different provision, they did abuse a warrant when Carter Page was doing the Russiagate, the Russia collusion stuff, all that stuff that was used against Donald Trump's campaign.
So the warrant itself isn't a complete failsafe.
But even when you do get a warrant requirement added, I think a lot of people are saying, well, even if the warrant amendment passes, we can always bypass it.
Because the data brokers are collecting so much intelligence on average citizens today.
And if they're not already collecting it, because of what's known as third-party doctrine, this is the idea that once you've shared your information with someone else, then you no longer are supposed to have an expectation of privacy.
Never mind that to be able to open a bank account, you had to share the information, or to have a cell phone, you had to share the information, and so on and whatnot.
Any account-based relationship you've got, the government essentially says, share with us what you're collecting, And if you're not already collecting information, we'll pay you money to add to the things that you're collecting, and then you can share it with us.
And so they create an entire market for what these data brokers collect and how it moves.
And people say, well, if insurance companies are buying this data to underwrite insurance policies, why are you okay with that?
Well, I'm not.
But the insurance companies aren't going to be able to put you in jail.
They're not going to be able to present evidence in court and you not be able to get access to exculpatory evidence.
So those are the kinds of abuses that are going on in cases right now in America without this reform and we need to close that loophole.
So in the event that the final bill that gets voted on by the House does not include that reform that you just described, or some version of it, and I hope it will for sure, and I hope other reforms are there too, but in the event that the final bill does not have that protection that you just described, would you prefer that the FISA authority lapse, or would you be willing to vote for its renewal even without those protections?
Well, I think two things that I want in the bill for sure.
Get a warrant and don't bypass getting a warrant with the data broker loophole.
And if those two things pass, then I'm for the bill.
But the reality is, the Speaker's alternative, he's talking about bringing a bill that just reauthorizes the program status quo on the one hand, or on the other, reauthorizes the base text of the bill without considering any of the amendments.
I think either of those would be a complete disaster.
I'm completely opposed to that version.
And frankly, it shortchanges the ability to get future reforms.
And there is progress on alternatives in the Senate, so there might be a case to just let the Senate move first.
And then lastly, if it does expire, it's not like the government's going to stop collecting this intelligence.
Four years ago, I was having a debate with Liz Cheney.
Mike Turner is now the Liz Cheney of this fight in this cycle that wants to keep spying on Americans.
And the business records provision was up for reauthorization.
So when they did the Patriot Act, they didn't just let the whole thing lapse after a period of time.
They've got layer after layer of these expiration dates.
So it's really hard to dismantle the whole system.
But in 2020, we got the business records provision to expire.
They said it's going to be a disaster if this happens.
I met with Bill Barr and he goes, well, look, FISA is a limitation on our ability to do surveillance.
It simply says how we do the surveillance.
Once this lapses, we're going to keep collecting the information.
And that's what they do.
This is one of the problems with Executive Order 12333 or 12333.
The government collects all kinds of information, and there's very little accountability for them on it.
A truly robust reform would say that the only mechanism to collect this kind of information is FISA, and we would nullify Executive Order 12333.
Neither committee touched that, and that would have been desirable for me.
Yeah, you know, and it's amazing that the FISA authority, the one, the FISA bill enacted in 2008, barely provides any limits on the FBI's ability to spy on the NSA's, and yet there's constantly a mountain of evidence that they can't even abide by those minimal limits.
They are abusing their authorities in all sorts of ways, and it's kind of shocking that there are members of Congress who just want to renew that law, even in the face of those abuses, without safeguards.
But let me ask you.
Just a couple of months before Speaker Johnson became Speaker, when he was a member of Congress, we had him on our show.
And the two topics we discussed primarily were the abuses of power by the U.S.
security state, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA.
It was the day that the FBI director had appeared to testify in the war in Ukraine.
And Speaker Johnson was adamant on both that we can't have the renewal of spying powers of the U.S. security state without major reforms because they're abusing their power.
And we cannot continue to finance the war in Ukraine because it's a futile effort.
We should spend that money here at home.
Suddenly, after he becomes Speaker, he now attempts to bring to the floor a bill that would renew FISA without the warrants he had.
He told me and many other people the reforms were absolutely necessary and is also working to get another $60 billion to the war in Ukraine.
I don't want to ask you to speculate on his motives, but you are somebody who is his colleague, who works with him.
Can you shed any insight at all into what accounts for these changes?
Yeah, I mean, I think one of the funny headlines I saw in here, but it's somewhat accurate, Congressman Mike Johnson disapproves of Speaker Johnson.
You know, Mike Johnson's positions on these things were pretty good, and frankly, that's part of why he rounded up the votes to become the Speaker.
And so it's really frustrating to see somebody who's been a champion for getting a warrant, been a champion for... I mean, just in July, he voted for both of these bills.
You know, he voted for the Fourth Amendment's not for sale in July, and in the fall, just before becoming Speaker, he votes for, you know, the Pfizer reform effort in Judiciary Committee.
So, it is disappointing, and he hasn't yet brought the Ukraine bill to the floor.
I don't think there's a plan to bring the exact version that the Senate brought up.
We're not clear on what exactly the plan is, but I think, you know, the real risk for him is if he brings up something like a supplemental omnibus that's got funding For Ukraine, funding for Israel, funding for Taiwan, and no funding to defend America, no policy changes by the administration that are forced, you know, I think there's a real risk that someone brings up a motion to vacate, and it may well work.
So I want to get into the substance of Ukraine in just a second, but before I do, I just want to ask you about that, because there are a lot of reports
That have said that the House Democratic Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, and many other House Democrats have essentially promised Mike Johnson that if there's an attempt to depose him as Speaker over a new aid package to Ukraine, that the Democrats would protect him, that they would actually give him the votes he needs to remain as Speaker, even if some in the Republican caucus Abandon him?
How seriously do you take that as a kind of seduction or inducement for him to get this Ukraine aid package passed?
Well, they really do want the Ukraine funding.
I don't know any policy that the Democrats want more than Ukraine funding.
It's amazing.
Because everything else they're doing by executive order, all the policy changes, the open border, all these agenda things, all the executive orders, along with the rulemaking of the executive agencies, are out of control.
How many times has Joe Biden ignored even the United States Supreme Court to try to forgive student debt?
They're running afoul of every check and balance we've got in the government, but they don't have access to the checkbook.
So they want just shut up and cut the checks to happen.
And they'll be happy to use Mike Johnson as long as he'll go along with that scheme.
And why wouldn't they?
He's facilitated everything they've wanted so far.
So having said that, you know, I think they made You know, Kevin McCarthy feel like they might have him covered if there was a floor vote as well, and they didn't deliver those votes.
So we'll see if it's brought up.
My hope is that it isn't because I do think there's a way for the speaker to address these issues without triggering a motion to vacate.
And it really is to find his footing and actually lead on these issues versus being led around by the Police state, national security state, whatever, the same people, frankly, that Dwight Eisenhower cautioned us against in his farewell address.
Yeah, I really think it's one of the things that sours people on the political class in Washington.
I mean, I remember walking away from the interview with Congressman Johnson, very impressed with his intellect, with his commitment to these principles.
He was so passionate about these views, and then he becomes House Speaker, as you said, in part based on these views, and then very quickly starts Seemingly working with Democrats against the very views that he so passionately advocated.
I think, you know, a lot of people get very frustrated in watching something like this.
Let me ask you, I interviewed Senator Johnson, Ron Johnson, this week, who's an opponent of more aid to Ukraine, at least without meaningful improvements in our own border security.
And yet, in 2022, when Congress was first asked to vote on this gigantic $40 billion package, he voted yes and has subsequently changed his mind and now opposes it, and we explored the reasons why.
You were somebody who actually opposed aid to Ukraine from the very beginning.
You voted no.
You were one of 57 Republicans in Congress on that first $40 billion bill.
Why were you, back in May of 2022, just a couple months after the Russian invasion, opposed to U.S.
aid to Ukraine?
Well, the bill that I've got kind of explains it, the Define the Mission Act.
And, you know, they never defined a mission.
So, before I can tell you what resources you need, I need to know what you're trying to accomplish.
And if you ask the administration, they say something that sort of passes for the average person as a mission, but it's completely vacuous.
It says, as much as it takes, as long as it takes.
Well, to do what?
They don't ever really truly define that.
And when I searched for this term, we found that in 2004, when they were trying to shift from the find bin Laden phase in Afghanistan to the nation building phase in Afghanistan, they came up with a phrase, as much as it takes, as long as it takes.
And that's how you wander around over there with no defined mission and just an open checkbook and no real good outcome.
If you could see how that outcome turned out, it didn't turn out well.
And so I started saying, you know, tell me what the mission is and then let me have the tools to provide accountability.
And people shouldn't be deceived.
No matter how much we give them, Ukraine does not have the combat power of their own accord without no other military getting involved directly in the fight.
Uh, on the ground, and in the air, and on the sea, uh, to extract the Russians from Ukraine.
So, it's true that Ukraine would like to extract the Russians from Ukraine, and they're happy to do that, and for some, you know, old cold warriors, uh, like me, uh, they were willing to go along with it as long as, once you said, kill Russians, they were like, yeah, count me in.
But I can't say it's truly a just war when you're completely annihilating the country of Ukraine with a sort of false hope that somehow they have the means to extract Russia from Ukraine.
This is what I'd like to understand.
Maybe you can help me understand this a little bit better.
I can almost understand and forget that back in May 2022, there was all this optimism about the feisty and courageous Ukrainians.
And they were actually quite courageous in standing up to this much bigger army and keeping them out of Kiev.
Maybe there was a sense, a kind of delusion, that Ukraine could actually win the war.
Here we are though now, you know, two years later, and the only changes to the front line in the last 18 months were some modest Russian gains, almost no Ukrainian gains.
The Ukrainians are basically out of artillery, they're running out of people just to send to the front lines, whereas the much larger Russia obviously has a lot more people to send.
It's basically impossible, I think everyone agrees, that the Ukrainians could win By the definition that NATO and the U.S.
set for victory, which was expelling Russia from every inch of Ukrainian territory, not just in eastern Ukraine, but also in Crimea.
So, if I know that, and you know that, I presume that's what the intelligence agencies understand, that's what people in Washington understand, what is then the motive for wanting to continue to pour massive amounts of American resources into a war that Ukraine can't win?
Well, look, the absolutist will tell you that all of Western civilization hangs on this idea of a rules-based order.
And post-World War II, no country conveyed any other country, and we have to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
And if you truly believe that this is an existential threat somehow, not just to United States security, but to the security of planet Earth, which some of my colleagues do believe, then you don't just want Ukraine fighting.
You want the U.S. Army defending Kiev.
You want the U.S. Navy defending Odessa and the port at the mouth of the Geneva River.
And you want the United States Air Force holding all of the ground against it.
You want to use all of the combat power of NATO to extract Russia.
And if you look at what Blinken's saying and Jens Stoltenberg, who's the secretary general of NATO, they're saying that Ukraine will be a member of NATO.
And let's go back into how this started.
I mean, this is really a continuation of something that has gone on since 2014 when Russia seized Crimea.
But where were some of the escalations?
In August 31st of 2021, the United States withdrew from Afghanistan.
Date certain, we're leaving on August 31st.
And they did, even though they left U.S.
civilians behind.
But on September 1st of 2021, the United States entered into a strategic partnership agreement with Ukraine to support their membership in NATO and their membership in the European Union.
So all that fall of 2021, there were escalation after escalation, and there was a real possibility for diplomacy, but it's centered around what is the future of Ukraine?
Is it part of NATO or not?
Is it Foreclosed to Ukraine to say, look, you're going to be somewhere in between.
And the administration and NATO Secretary General kept saying, no, this is non-negotiable.
And on February 22nd of 2022, Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech talking about how important it was for NATO to be able to project power around the world in Asia and elsewhere.
Well, why would a defensive alliance, NATO, need to project power anywhere?
It's a defensive alliance.
So two days later, that's when Putin invaded Ukraine.
And he went in with a force of 100,000.
It was a more limited mission.
But who wasn't inspired when Vladimir Zelensky says, I don't need a ride out.
I need ammunition.
I mean, that was motivating.
And they have held Russia at bay.
And they initially started talking about diplomacy.
Let's reach a peace deal.
And it's widely reported around the world, but scantily reported in the United States, that those negotiations were scuttled by the Biden administration because they said, no, no, don't give up being part of NATO.
Don't give up being part of the European Union.
We got your back as much as it takes, as long as it takes.
And all that's happened in between is you've got hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides.
And you're still like, is there going to be a diplomatic resolution?
Or is it going to be like Victoria Nuland, the Deputy Secretary of the State Department, says that the end state is regime change in Russia and war crimes tribunals for Vladimir Putin.
And anyone rational knows that's a recipe for World War III.
So there are people that think that's somehow good and somehow defending America's national interests and defending America first is somehow bad.
And, you know, that really is the crux of the debate.
You wrote an article in 2019 in the American Conservative magazine and the title of it was, Trump is right, ending the endless wars starts in Syria.
And the sub-headline was, the neocon consensus has brought nothing but disaster.
If the president wants to chart another course, we should support him.
Now, I really recommend that article, and I'm going to ask you about a passage in just a second.
But in general, if you look at polling data over the last 15 years, a wide array of Americans across the spectrum, left, center, right, say that they are tired of America's posture of endless war, that they want us to stop being involved in so many foreign wars, financing so many foreign wars.
President Trump ran in 2016 in opposition to our constant involvement in other countries militarily, And yet, it seems like Washington always finds new wars to be involved in, despite this sentiment.
I mean, the war in Afghanistan was ended, and it wasn't even six months later when we decided to get involved in a new war that the military-industrial complex could help fund and arm in Ukraine.
I mean, I realize the Russians evaded, but we made the decision to involve ourselves in that.
I guess there's kind of like a cynical view that sometimes is described as a conspiracy theory, but I think it's pretty pragmatic that war is very profitable for, obviously, certain corporations, arms dealers, the military industrial complex, They have a lot of powerful lobbyists in Washington.
They spread a lot of money around to multiple members of Congress, the executive branch.
Is that a meaningful factor in why, despite all the sentiment against endless war, the United States continues to be involved, far more than any other country, in multiple wars, one after the next?
Yeah, I think it's a big factor.
And when you look, you know, there was a hard time for the country to get off of the wartime footing of World War II.
And because of that, Dwight Eisenhower, who narrowed our focus, look, the last time the United States had the kind of debt to GDP ratio we have now, 125% more debt than the economy, 25% larger than the whole size of our economy.
Was at the end of World War II.
And at the end of World War II, we reset the entire monetary system at the Treaty of Bretton Woods, and the US dollar thankfully became the world's reserve currency.
But right now, we're putting that at risk.
I mean, let's not forget that the way that the United States prevailed in the Cold War is we bankrupt the Soviet Union.
And they did it largely by spending excessively on defense and not taking care of the fundamentals of their own economy.
Eisenhower scaled down right after World War II and invested in American infrastructure and spent minimal amounts on military power and used nuclear deterrence as the main threat and caught grief from the military.
He's the five-star general that led victory on D-Day, victory in World War II, was Dwight Eisenhower, which is why both parties wanted him to be president.
And in his farewell address, he cautions against the military-industrial complex and the scientific-technical elite, so people like St.
Fauci.
And why?
Because these people would have massive influence with the public, they'd be deemed credible, and there would be a risk that they would put their own interest and the truth at odds with America's interest.
And I think you're seeing that for sure in case after case.
And so how do they pull that off?
In the House of Representatives, if you're not for more wars in more places, you don't get on the War Committees, you don't get on Foreign Affairs, you don't get on Intelligence, and you don't get on HASH, the House Armed Services Committee.
We finally broke that by working with Kevin McCarthy.
Part of his path to becoming Speaker was working with conservatives for months, if truly years, to line up the support to be able to reform Congress some.
And after being here for You know, six years at that time, I finally got on to foreign affairs despite having been an army ranger in Germany when the Berlin Wall came down.
You know, so that's how they've locked everybody out.
And if you look at elections, as you say, go back to 06, the party that was talking about being less involved in more wars in more places did better politically because the American people will defend America.
They just don't want to defend an empire.
So speaking of that, and it is amazing how the parties have so radically changed.
I mean, the only critique that you hear about this posture of endless war and empire and the military industrial complex, for the most part, comes from conservatives in the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party is almost completely united, certainly in support of the war in Ukraine.
Things you wrote in that article on The American Conservative that I really hope people will read is the following.
You said, quote, The United States cannot indefinitely be the guarantor of stability in the Middle East.
American actions have ultimately empowered Iran.
Rather than checking its relentless efforts to destabilize the region, at some point we must restore America's foreign policy to more limited objectives.
President Trump bringing our troops home is an essential and important step in the process.
It is an overdue rejection of the flawed consensus that has caused much of the present situation.
Now, I think it's very clear how that applies to the United States financing of the war in Ukraine.
There's a second war that the United States is currently financing, which is the Israeli war in Gaza.
I realize most members of Congress are supportive of Israel on Israel's side and the war against Hamas, but the question I have is, it's not just that we're supporting Israel.
The United States gives Israel $4 billion a year, every year, and then whenever they have a new war, we finance their war, we pay for the bombs they use, the weapons that they use.
Given that rationale that you just laid out in that article and in some of your answers as well, namely that we can't afford to keep financing these wars, that it's not in our interest, why shouldn't Israel pay for its own wars?
Why do Americans have to do that?
Well, one way we could save some money is funding only one side of the war in Israel, and frankly, they're funding both sides of the war.
The Biden administration wants to port into Gaza so that they can supply Hamas while simultaneously funding Israel.
And, you know, so the last version of the supplemental that we voted on in the House that was a standalone bill with no pay for, I was one of, I think, 14 Republicans that voted against it, not because we don't support Israel, But for two practical factors.
One, Israel has less debt than we do, and they have a better debt-to-GDP ratio, debt-to-income ratio than we do.
But the other part is, in the current Biden administration, Joe Biden doesn't need more leverage over Benjamin Netanyahu to try to influence Israel To negotiate with Hamas.
I mean, Hamas still has hostages over a hundred, including eight American citizens.
And Joe Biden is telling Benjamin Netanyahu to back off of attacking Hamas and to negotiate for a two-state solution, which is part of what Hamas wanted when they did the 10-7 massacre.
And, you know, to have a ceasefire to work something out with the people of Gaza, which is essentially strike peace with Hamas while they're still holding hostages.
So the Biden administration is trying to have both sides of the war, and the United States should speak with clarity for sure.
And I think certainly we don't need to give more leverage to Joe Biden in his efforts to undo it.
Let's not forget that Chuck Schumer was calling for parliamentary elections to try to move Benjamin Netanyahu out of power.
Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, the amount that the United States gives to Israel is a massively larger amount than the humanitarian aid that the United States provides to the Palestinians.
But I take your point.
Let me, I just have a couple more questions, just out of respect for your time.
The... I...
Issue of the war in Ukraine.
I just want to ask about that.
One of the things you had said, and you referred to the fact that Antony Blinken just this last week had vowed in a more declarative way than I think ever that Ukraine will absolutely be part of NATO.
He was standing next to the Ukrainian foreign minister at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers when he said that.
There has been, at the highest levels of the U.S.
government, warnings that any attempt to put NATO, or to expand NATO to include Ukraine up to the most sensitive part of the Russian border would almost certainly provoke a Russian attempt to meddle in eastern Ukraine, to perhaps seize and annex Crimea.
There was a memo in 2008 warning Condoleezza Rice and the neocons of the Bush administration, including Victoria Nuland, who was then the U.S.
ambassador to NATO, By Bill Burns, the current CIA director, where he said, it's not just Putin, it's essentially everyone across the spectrum in Russia regards NATO expansion up to include Ukraine as a grave, even existential threat to Russian security.
Was there, in your view, on some level, at least in some factions in Washington, almost a desire to provoke the Russians into this invasion?
Yeah, I mean, none of that justifies Putin's invasion, but absolutely.
And that was what I was pointing out with the escalation from September 1st of 2021 all the way up to the invasion was a continuing escalation of NATO rhetoric.
And I think culminating when Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, says that it's essential that NATO has an ability to project power around the world.
And I'm like, well, if I'm a Russian, I think that's a provocation for sure.
But even as an American, I'm sitting there going, well, wait, wait, I was in Germany, was part of NATO.
Why would NATO need to project power anywhere other than at the border to say, don't attack, we're a defensive alliance.
And so I definitely think that Our intelligent community knows that it's a provocation and they work to convey in many ways that it was in fact a provocation.
So just one or two more questions briefly.
So that experience that you had of being in the military, being in the army, in Germany at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union is an incredibly important part of history.
And there are a lot of people who were part of the process where the Russians agreed to allow the reunification of Germany, which given 20th century history is obviously a very alarming, daunting, threat that the Russians would obviously perceive from Germany for obvious reasons.
And yet, the argument that a lot of people make is that Gorbachev agreed to do that in exchange for a U.S.
promise that NATO would not expand.
Obviously, NATO was going to expand eastward with the unification of Germany to include East Germany, which had been part of the Warsaw Pact.
But the Americans had agreed never to expand NATO even one inch eastward toward the Russian Border.
Is that your understanding of what happened?
And do you think the almost immediate attempt under Clinton and then Bush to expand NATO eastward is something that made the situation between the United States and Russia more antagonistic than it needed to be?
Yeah, I know that the Russians view that as a broken promise by the West.
And, you know, that certainly feeds the Russian nationalist sentiment that keeps Vladimir Putin in power.
So they definitely believe it.
And, you know, historians can debate the factual accuracy of it.
You had statements made by people that maybe implied something else.
But those conversations did have it.
It might not be a precise quote, but the idea of one inch east is certainly part of the negotiations.
And, you know, that's the thing.
You know, you have side conversations.
Are they part of a deal?
Well, if you signed a deal, they're part of the deal.
If not, well, you had conversations.
And I think that's part of the thing.
Did we officially have a deal?
Because on the other side, some people will say, well, we helped facilitate Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons so that you wouldn't have some small starter government in control of nuclear power.
You would have Russia in control of the nuclear weapons in America, and that's overall lower risk.
So we kind of implied that we would guarantee Ukraine's security.
And yeah, well, conversations are different than a treaty.
We didn't enter into a treaty to defend Ukraine.
And frankly, a lot of people are acting as if Ukraine is already a member of NATO.
And I think the way that Russia guarantees that Ukraine never does become a member of NATO is they have a long war.
A long war favors Russia.
It doesn't favor the United States.
It doesn't favor Ukraine.
And it certainly doesn't favor Western Europe.
Russia can do this scale of war for a long time.
And I think they're kind of counting on it.
And frankly, who else is counting on it is China.
Because while we're distracted over here in Ukraine, just like we were for the previous 20 years, China is building the biggest military.
They'll say, oh, Putin's just going to keep rolling west.
You guys are like Neville Chamberlain was with Hitler.
Putin's going to be like Hitler.
Putin did not spend the last 25 years building the world's most lethal military, but China's been building theirs.
And the United States has been completely unfocused after the Cold War, and China has been very focused after the Cold War.
So last question just I want to make it about China because I have a ton of things that I'd love to ask you but in respect for your time I'll make this the last question would love to have you back on the when the US withdrew after 20 years of a war in Afghanistan spending two trillion dollars the Chinese published a video basically mocking The United States for spending so much on foreign wars that had no effect.
The Taliban just marched right back into power as though nothing had ever happened.
And they contrasted all the money that we spent on these foreign wars with the $800 billion that they spent building a high-speed rail system that the United States doesn't have, connecting all their cities and their rural areas.
And obviously it helps trade a lot.
And while it's true they built up their military, it's also true the Chinese haven't Actually been involved in a war since 1979.
Do you think that part of the harm to the United States from going around having all these kinds of wars is that China is able to exploit the resentment that that produces to say, look, it's the United States destabilizing the world.
We don't have any interest in military domination.
So come and join BRICS.
It'll be better for the world and better for your country.
Yeah, I truly believe that China may well have learned more from the Eisenhower presidency than America has.
Unfortunately, we have not been focused.
Look what Eisenhower did is he got us to a period of peace and stability.
He spent less money on the military.
He built up American infrastructure and grew our economy.
We were growing like crazy.
Things were great for America.
And then, of course, the Warhawks got us into a distraction in Vietnam for 10 years.
So, if you look at where we are today with With China, they have been focused, and the United States has not been.
And look, we're less free, we're less safe, we're more burdened by debt, all those things.
Really, I lay at the feet of the neocons.
Neocon, let's not forget, is another word for not conservative.
And they've got an alliance with the Democrats on the other side.
They're bankrupting our country, and bankrupt countries are really hard to defend.
China, I think, is counting on that.
Absolutely.
Fifteen years ago, Democrats were calling neocons extremists and Nazis, and now they're in a very full-scale alliance with the neocons in your party.
Congressman, you bring a very interesting and unique perspective, and I really enjoyed talking to you about it.
We hope to have you back on.
But for tonight, thanks so much for taking the time to join us.
Yeah, same.
Thanks.
It was an honor to join you.
Appreciate it, Glenn.
Absolutely.
Have a nice evening.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
First of all, we want to pay tribute to and express great thanks for our social media manager, Cara Boyer, who has done an outstanding job in building visibility for our show, in spreading it all over social media, and making our program far more visible.
She is leaving for a different job.
We wish her nothing but the best, and we are very grateful for the outstanding work that she did with us.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow, designed to take your questions, respond to your critiques and feedback, hear your suggestions for future shows.
That after show is available solely for members of our Locals community, so if you want to join that community, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week after shows, but to the multiple interactive features we have there, to the daily transcripts we publish, the written transcripts of every show we do here on Rumble, it's the place we first publish our original written journalism, and most of all it's the community on which we rely
To support the independent journalism that we're doing here, simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you to that platform.
Even though tonight is Thursday, we won't be having our after show tonight simply because we recorded these two interviews that we just showed you last night, but we will be back next week, Tuesday and Thursday at our regular time for those after shows.
So those of you who've been watching this show, we are, as always, very appreciative and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
