| Time | Text |
|---|---|
|
Why We Don't Strike First
00:05:35
|
|
| Well with all this information that you've just shared with us just now, why wouldn't we go ahead and do something to take this guy out? | |
| But why? | |
| Could you help us understand the mentality of us Americans? | |
| I think one thing is we don't usually strike first. | |
| Is that right? | |
| I mean as far as somebody's coming for us, then we're going to react. | |
| And that's what the President's been saying. | |
| He said, you come for us, and you're going to see fury and fire. | |
| That's part of it. | |
| Historically, the United States doesn't start wars and launch preemptive strikes against potential adversaries or the Western democracies. | |
| Historically, they have not done that. | |
| But I'm hoping we can learn from history and not repeat the mistakes of history because it has been a mistake not to preempt Adolf Hitler and not. | |
| Yeah, you've made it very simple for us to understand that. | |
| Israel understands it. | |
| Yes. | |
| I mean, Israel is a democracy. | |
| They share our values. | |
| Israel has not hesitated to launch preemptive strike. | |
| Absolutely. | |
| We live in a technological age where we can't afford the luxury of letting the adversary hit us first. | |
| It's a different world. | |
| There'll be no coming back from an EMP attack if we let them hit us first. | |
| Now, but there's more to the explanation as to why. | |
| This gets us into another question I know you wanted to discuss, which is how is the Trump administration? | |
| We do want to know what you think. | |
| From my perspective, your perspective is a Trump supporter, a fellow conservative, a person who supported Trump and a person who still supports Trump and is a big fan of the president. | |
| But despite being a Trump loyalist and a supporter, I have to say, I have to say, Mr. President, I don't think you're doing a good job when you're into your administration. | |
| You're not delivering, you're not draining. | |
| The reason we haven't acted, I believe, is because the swamp is still in charge of Washington. | |
| You know, because the government that we have in the Department of the State, in our intelligence community, in the Department of Defense, is still the Obama administration, even though we have a new president. | |
| Even though we have a new Secretary of Defense, and even though we've got on the top, we've got a few of these Trump appointees at the very top of our government. | |
| The rank and file of the bureaucrats and the Defense Department, the intelligence community, the people that are advising the President are still Obama administration holdovers. | |
| And the policies, you can see the policies that we're following are still Obama administration policies. | |
| You can sometimes tell the president doesn't even like following these policies. | |
| He'll say things like, you know, we can only talk so long. | |
| We can only talk so long. | |
| Yesterday, after the missile test, the third, third successful ICBM test by North Korea, President Trump said something like, well, we're going to handle it. | |
| We're going to handle it. | |
| But what are we doing to handle it? | |
| We're doing exactly what the Obama administration pretty much did. | |
| Are you saying because there's the Obama leftovers, you're saying in the deep state, they're deep inside and how do we get them out? | |
| And they should be fired. | |
| So you're saying the president can just fire them and get them out? | |
| They serve at the discretion of the president. | |
| And I would rather see a lot of empty seats and the president making decisions on his own and his own instincts, surrounded by a few of his trusted advisors, than having hundreds and even thousands of these Obama holdovers guiding our foreign and defense policy toward disaster, which is what is happening. | |
| Our foreign policy toward North Korea, for example, has been somewhat more aggressive than the Obama administration's policy of what he called strategic patience, which was basically doing nothing and sitting back while North Korea developed ICBMs and hydrogen bombs. | |
| Trump hasn't been that bad. | |
| At least he's managed to get the Obama State Department to go to sanctions, to impose greater sanctions. | |
| But the fundamental policy is the same. | |
| It's to go with our hat in our hand to China and beg China to save us from nuclear-armed North Korea. | |
| That was the Obama administration. | |
| When they did do something, that's what they did. | |
| And that's what we're doing now. | |
| And that policy is not only doomed to fail, but it's counterproductive. | |
| Beyond that, I would say the great danger is the possibility of a nuclear war through proxy. | |
| Because I believe that Chinese communists, and let's not forget it is Red China, it's a totalitarian communist state, even though they've been our business partner, and Russia, which is an authoritarian state, they still see us as the enemy. | |
| And if they could fight a nuclear war against us by proxy through North Korea, so that they wouldn't have to take any risk, it's North Korea that's taking all the risk. | |
| I think they'd be perfectly happy to end up having a nuclear war start between us and our allies and the North Koreans, because it would end. | |
| It would end even if we ended up destroying North Korea. | |
| In the end of the day, we would lose such a war because we would lose our alliance relationships. | |
| The South Koreans and Japanese, I believe, are willing to be our allies, just as long as it doesn't turn into a war. | |
| That's what deterrence was all about. | |
| Peace through strength. | |
| But if we can't deliver peace through strength and it results in a war, even if they're only a little bit damaged, I think their calculation would be, you know, this relationship with the United States has basically failed. | |