All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
30:22
INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern : Weekly Wrap
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Friday, December 6, 2024, the end of the day, the end of the week.
It's our favorite roundtable with my dear friends, Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson.
Gentlemen, thank you.
Welcome here.
Always a pleasure.
There are a lot of events that happened this week, and I want to pick your brains on all of them.
Ray, to you first.
It seems the neocons are at it again, this time in Syria.
Before you address what they're up to, why do we have a thousand troops in Syria when the government of Syria asked us to go?
You want a very cynical explanation?
Yes, I want a McGovernesque explanation.
There are people in Washington strong enough to prevail upon the military to leave the troops there.
There are 900 to 1,000 troops.
They are extremely vulnerable.
Now, the ones across the border in Iraq have been shot at and have been damaged and wounded, that is, the U.S. troops.
So why are they leaving these troops up there in Syria?
Well, a considered decision was made to, well, leave them up there and let's see if we can get, let's see if some of them get killed and that will be a pretext for us to do real damage to whoever killed them, okay?
There's no sense there except that they are helping to protect the extraction of the oil that we are stealing there, that Trump bragged about stealing, and actually some of that oil goes to Israel.
So there is some utility to having those people up there.
But the vulnerabilities far outweigh the benefits of keeping troops in Syria.
Besides, they're not invited, okay?
At least the Iraqis have asked us to leave, but they say, okay, you can stay a little longer.
All right, you can stay a little longer.
The Syrians never invited us.
On the contrary, they have invited the Russians.
So that should say something with respect to international law.
Larry, before we get into what the neocons are up to, didn't Trump in his first presidency order the military to get the heck out of Syria?
And if he did, what happened?
He did.
They ignored the order.
They didn't carry it out.
Look, the presence of U.S. troops in Syria is not just to protect the oil.
It's also part of a longer-range plan that actually started back...
The real irony here is that the United States, in providing this support, which it was collecting weapons in Benghazi, Throughout all of Libya, the weapons in Libya were then brought to Benghazi.
They were shipped from Benghazi to Turkey.
They were given to the Turks.
The Turks then distributed them to the radical Sunni Islamists, who are, let's call them, the theological descendants of Al-Qaeda.
The terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 begat, you know, this will sound like something out of Genesis, Al-Qaeda begat ISIS.
ISIS begat al-Nusra.
Al-Nusra begat this Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is right now carrying out that military operation.
They are receiving from the United States, indirectly, training, intelligence, and weapons.
And those weapons now are being used against the Shia and the Alawites.
And the Christians in Syria.
So the United States now, think about this, wrap your brain around it, the United States is supplying weapons and lethal aid to the very terrorists that attacked us on 9-11, okay?
That's how far we've fallen, and we're using our military to attack the Shia elements, the Alouette elements, the Syrian army that's trying to defeat those terrorists.
You'd think we'd be lined up with Bashar al-Assad, but no, no.
We're more concerned about Iran, who hasn't carried out a single major terrorist attack against the United States in the entire first quarter of this 21st century.
Instead, we're providing weapons and aid to the very terrorists who have been attacking the West because they want to establish a global caliphate.
Ray, you have a great piece at antiwar.com.
I think it came out yesterday.
The neocons are up to it again.
What is their possible justification for what Larry just described?
They've been doing it, as Larry said, before 2011 when the spring broke out in Damascus.
We have been kind of letting ourselves be used as a tool.
Now, Bashar al-Assad, not the nicest person in the world, but he has absolutely no threat to the United States.
Who is he a threat to?
Well, I mean, just like Saddam Hussein seemed to be a threat to Israel, so with Bashar al-Assad.
So what do we do?
Well, we train these moderate rebels, mind you.
We showed that little clip of Lloyd Austin saying, well, we spent $500 million, but we got four or five good ones that are still in the fight, okay?
That's how we distributed our largesse.
And why?
To keep chaos going in Syria.
To deprive the ability of other people to supply Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most of all, to make that area not a threat to Israel.
I want to quote, there was a New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem, Jodi Ruderin.
At the height of this first breakout in 2013, she went to senior Israeli officials.
Which she knew quite well.
She said, now tell me, what's the preferred outcome of this Sunni-Shia fighting here in Syria?
What's Israel's preferred outcome?
And they said, well, Jody, it doesn't sound very good, but our preferred outcome is no outcome.
As long as Sunni and Shia are at each other's throats.
As long as they're hemorrhaging their capabilities here, Israel has nothing to fear from Syria.
That's the name of the game as far as Israel is concerned.
And it's impossible to look at U.S. policy towards Syria without thinking that we're joined at the hip as Israel.
We're doing Israel's bidding by arming these moderate rebels, even if we're running four or five for the half billion dollars we invested in that particular tranche.
Larry, can we expect any change in American policy in Syria under Donald Trump, or will it be more of the same, notwithstanding Trump's campaign promises?
No, I don't think there'll be much of a change, you know, unless Trump wakes up.
But unfortunately, he surrounded himself with people like Waltz and this clown, Sebastian Gorka, and Marco Rubio.
They see this as Ray pointed out.
This is doing Israel's bidding.
And remember, Israel is actually, it wants to, quote, destroy Hezbollah.
It doesn't want to do a thing about HTS, you know, the Hayat Ahir al-Sham, that group.
Even though that group is listed as one of the top ten terrorist groups attacking international targets over the last ten years.
That's who we're supporting.
And we say, well, we're not supporting them directly.
Oh, no, no.
We give it to Turkey.
We give it to Ukraine.
And then we use them as a cutout.
That way we go, oh, gee, we don't know anything about this.
No, we're absolutely up to our eyeballs in this.
And now we've seen that it is expanding with the reemergence of the white helmets.
You know, these guys are a British intelligence outfit.
They're a front group.
And they're out there to spread misinformation, to create false flags.
You know, they tried it, geez, 11 years ago to pretend that the Syrian army had launched a chemical weapons attack when in fact it was al-Nusra.
It was the Western-backed terrorists that were launching it in order to try to create an incident that would justify further Western intervention.
But this has a broader play beyond just Syria, Israel.
This is also designed in part because the West genuinely believes that Russia, by providing military support to Syria, will weaken its effort in Ukraine.
I think they're mistaken in that, but that's part of this plan as well.
Ray, I want to jump to South Korea.
Is there any geopolitical significance to the...
It was bizarre, truly bizarre.
I think that Yoon is not long for staying in office, and after all, he's one of our, you know, he's our Zelensky out there in South Korea.
He's a peg to this big alliance we're trying to construct against China.
If he falls, there is enough ferment in South Korea.
There's enough burgeoning knowledge as to how they've been used.
And reluctance to keep in this little close alliance with Japan and to allow for some substantial change in South Korea.
That's the danger as the people in the White House see it.
But South Korea has changed for the better in the past.
I have some hope that this will lead to a change in government and a change in attitude toward getting along with other people like the North Koreans.
Larry, why do we have 28,000 troops there?
Hey, got to keep that.
The military-industrial complex needs them.
If we don't have them there, how do we justify an $850 billion budget?
That budget is helping sustain over 750 military bases around the world.
And with every base, there comes a command position.
Got lots of officers that have to get those command positions in so that they can get promoted.
You know, this is part of the gross corruption of our so-called national security strategy.
This isn't about defending against communism or authoritarianism or whatever.
This is about grift.
This is about padding the pockets of Washington lawmakers who get donations from LaRathion, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics.
And then those companies in turn, they hire retired generals out to come in, put them on the payroll, put them on the board, give them a sinecure.
And then the money keeps flowing back and forth.
And every year gets bigger and bigger.
There is absolutely no reason to have those troops in South Korea.
Yeah.
Do you think they might be there because Of some planned military aggression against China, Larry?
No, I mean, they wouldn't even be a speed bump in the road if they were involved with China.
You know, 26,000, that's nothing.
You know, look at my comparison.
Russia's killing that many Ukrainians in one month.
Okay?
So this is, you know, this is all they are, potential cannon fodder.
No, this is, we pretend that they are there to keep the peace, to be a tripwire for the future.
But no, it's just, it's corruption, pure and simple.
It's a money-making machine for the Washington politicians and the defense industry.
And those soldiers are just cogs in the wheel.
Or as, you know, Roger Waters, his song, just another brick in the wall.
Another brick in the wall.
We're going to switch to Ukraine, but first I want to play a clip from the person that Larry Wilkerson says is the worst Secretary of State since Thomas Jefferson, which of course means the worst Secretary of State in history.
He says there's $50 billion he still wants to send to Ukraine.
You'll hear him say this.
Chris, cut number 10. We're focused in very practical, concrete ways, really on three things.
Making sure that it has the money, the resources it needs to sustain its economy and to sustain its defense.
We've now managed, on the basis of the frozen sovereign assets, the Russian assets that are frozen, to get $50 billion to Ukraine that will be going out the door in the coming weeks, both from the United States and Europe.
And that will carry Ukraine for some time into next year.
Second, munitions and everything that goes with that, whether it's air defenses, whether it's missiles, whether it's armored vehicles.
We're working in a very determined way, again, to make sure for many months ahead that Ukraine will have what it needs.
The United States is pushing out the door everything that we can.
But beyond that, we have this process long established, Secretary Austin established at Ramstein, to make sure that we're fully coordinated with allies and partners.
And that's exactly what we're doing.
And we spent time, again, talking about what the needs are and how each of us can play a part in filling them.
And then finally, mobilization.
This is critical because even with the money, even with the munitions, there have to be people on the front lines to deal with the Russian aggression.
Ukraine has hard decisions to make about further mobilization.
But these are necessary decisions.
We have a commitment though.
For every person, every soldier that Ukraine mobilizes, we're committed to making sure that they have the training and the equipment they need to effectively defend the country.
I mean, not only is much of this absolutely untrue, Ray, it's as if he's been asleep the past two years and is utterly ignorant.
Of the slaughter that the Ukrainian young men have endured and the thin ice that the military is on now.
I'll let you take it from there.
Ray.
Well, Judge, he did mention the 18 and 19, 20 and 21 year olds who have escaped the carnage so far.
Now, Tony Lincoln and Jake Sullivan are Adamant that they be recruited, that they be wrapped up and sent into the battle or into the fight, as Lloyd Austin has taught them to say.
My God, how cynical.
The battle is lost.
All these guys want to do is go out and go out of office saying, we gave Zelensky everything he asked for.
The only problem was, We draft the 1819.
The 19 volunteered in Vietnam.
Well, these guys don't know anything.
They never volunteered for Vietnam.
They never put on a uniform.
So it's terribly cynical that they're accusing the Ukrainians of not being able to use our weaponry, and Blinken has done that explicitly.
Because they don't have enough troops.
Well, it's just really, you say, you know, the carnage.
Well, most people think 500,000 to 600,000 troops in Ukraine have been killed, right?
That's a lot.
I mean, for God's sake, when peace was at hand after the first six weeks, and we put the kibosh on it together with Boris Johnson.
I mean, how do you live with a conscience, if you have a conscience, about those things?
Larry, before you weigh in on what we just heard from Secretary Blinken, I want you to hear what President Zelensky said late last week on November 29th.
Chris, cut number one.
If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.
That's what we need to do fast.
And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.
So he's drinking from the same water fountain as Blinken, if he honestly thinks, after all of this, after all the death and all the slaughter and all the loss of territory and the steady and exorable march of the Russian military, that the rest of Ukraine can, quote, be taken under the NATO umbrella.
Man, they're doing vodka shooters, dude.
They're lit up.
They're intoxicated and not in a good way.
You know, they need to pay attention that...
And that was preceded by Sergei Rybkov, the number two member, the deputy in the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Zelensky, Blinken, and the West better damn well pay attention to what they're saying.
When you listen to what Ripkoff Larry, hang on, because I have the clip for you.
Oh, okay.
Cut number 14. Oresnik is not a strategic ballistic missile.
It's an intermediate range missile which was tested in combat and the results are known for people in Kyiv, for people in Washington, in Brussels and of course in Moscow.
We use this as not just a messenger of a sense but we use this to test what we really have in terms of our
Let me tell you that if not for the Trump-1 administration that simply destroyed INF Treaty, which served well interests of both US and Russia for several decades, then there would be no Orешnik in our hands.
We will still be restrained from our capability to develop such weapons, We do not complain about missed opportunities.
We look forward.
We're very sure that we will reach all our goals and objectives through our action on the ground and all the objectives of the Special Military Operation will be achieved.
According to Gil Doctorow, Sergei Rybakov is the smartest, strongest, and most tenacious of Lavrov's deputies.
Go ahead, Larry.
Well, almost a year ago today, I was standing next to Pepe Escobar, and Pepe and I were talking with Mr. Rybakov.
And then we sat down, and there were 14 of us around the table.
Alistair Crook was there as well, Pepe, myself.
Meeting with Sergey Rybkov and a couple of others, Dmitry Symes chaired the event.
It was really an informal discussion.
What Rybkov made clear back then, and he reiterated in this interview with CNN, he says, we've never been in a more dangerous time in the entire history of the relations between Russia and the United States, including the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, because, as he told us, at least back then, There were communications between the president, between Kennedy, and between Khrushchev.
They were talking, at least, Kennedy's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was communicating with the Russian ambassador and the head of the KGB here in the United States.
And Rybakov made it clear.
There's no talking going on.
There's no communication.
This is extremely dangerous.
And he made clear, and it was reiterated by his boss later, Lavrov, in his conversation with Tucker, that Russia's not playing.
We have made our views very, very clear.
We will defend ourselves.
It's no different than if Russia was providing weapons to Mexico and that Mexico was shelling San Antonio, Austin, Albuquerque, Phoenix, and San Diego.
If that was taking place, we would view that as an act of war, and we would be compelled to respond militarily.
That is why this is so damn dangerous and Blinken and Zelensky and and Trump aren't paying attention.
Ray, I think Larry's 100 percent correct.
And to make matters worse, General Kellogg.
How the hell can that be?
And how can Trump end this war in 24 hours if the people he's going to appoint have the same mindset, Rubio, Waltz, Gorka, General Kellogg as the people they're replacing, Ray.
Well, Judge, I think it's a little premature to dismiss Kellogg.
He's got some plans that could form the basis of a give-and-take with the Russians.
I think that he will show some flexibility, as I think Putin will, once they finally start.
Talking to each other, okay?
There's been no talking for two and a half years, all right?
So I wouldn't rule him out.
Now, I'd like to comment on what Larry said about Ryabkov.
He stressed, you'll recall, that this is not a strategic weapon.
No, no, no.
What is that all about?
Well, strategic weapons are ipso facto nuclear weapons.
And Putin made a statement in Astana, I think it was the 28th of November, which has gotten him into some trouble, I believe, okay?
What he said is, and I'll read it here, military and technical experts note that when it's used in a concentrated massive strike, that is, using several Arashnik missiles simultaneously, resulting impact is comparable in power.
To that of a nuclear weapon.
Period.
End quote.
Whoa!
Okay.
Now, I won't go into semantics, and I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an engineer.
I mean, this is a layman president, but he's comparing it to the power of a nuclear weapon, not the fallout or anything.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that the U.S. can go back and say to Russia, look, you said...
So be aware.
We know this is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon, even though you say it's not strategic, even you say you do say that it's nuclear capable.
So I think Putin, this is very interesting because the full text of his speech was taken off the web, taken off the president of the Russian Federation's website.
it is.
I mean, it doesn't have the burst and the heat and all that kind of stuff, but that's semantics.
He's saying, look, it can be just as powerful as a nuclear weapon And I think they're reluctant to give the West a chance to say, okay, you've got something as powerful as a nuclear weapon.
Next time you do something, we're going to use the only thing we got comparable, which is nuclear weapons.
I think this is very dicey in the semantics now.
Putin said it.
He's downplaying it now.
And you get people like Ryabkov always saying it's strategic.
It's not a strategic weapon.
It can't do the kinds of things.
That's strategic, namely nuclear weapons too.
Larry, I'll give you the last word.
Biden's people obviously don't understand the Russians and don't believe what President Putin says.
Is there any reason to expect different thinking than Donald Trump?
No.
No, there's no sign that anybody on Trump's side either understands the Russians or even wants to make an attempt to understand the Russians.
You know, Judge, what's shocking, you know, you, Ray, and I, we're all sort of children of the Cold War.
We grew up in an era where we were taught, you know, starting in elementary school, that we faced a threat from international communism.
And we had to stop international communism at any cost.
And that's why we got involved with the stupid war in Vietnam in part, as well as trying to protect France's colony possessions.
But with the implosion of the Soviet Union, all of a sudden that international communist threat went away.
And yet, despite that going away, despite the fact that Vladimir Putin presides over a country, That emphasizes its Christian faith as the primary thing that drives that country, as it emphasizes the importance of family values, healthy relationships of husband and wife with children.
Yeah, very traditional, very 1950-ish of them.
Yet the West persists in portraying Russia It's this enormous threat that we must counter at any cost and at any expense.
It's madness.
It's utter madness, and there's no rationale for it.
We keep trying to construct one.
And what's really going on is the reason we hate Putin so much, at least our leaders and the business folks, is Putin stopped them from raping Russia of its natural resources.
Stop the West from seizing the oil, seizing the gas, seizing the gold, seizing the uranium.
And it's that greed, that lust that drives us in the West.
There's nothing that Putin's doing.
And instead of recognizing that, and shame on Trump, shame on everyone that he's appointed, because none of them are willing to acknowledge that.
Instead, they persist with this nonsense that somehow Russia represents a threat to us.
Russia does not.
Gentlemen, a great segment.
I know we've all had a long and tiring week, and we just went around the globe.
But thank you very much for your double duty, as always.
Have a great weekend.
Look forward to seeing you both on Monday morning.
All the best.
Thanks, Judge.
Same to you.
Thank you for watching.
It's been an exhausting week.
We'll have all of your favorites on next week as well.
▲
Export Selection