All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:02
Bombs Away, Biden?

Mainstream media is reporting that President Biden has made a decision on how to respond to the drone strike that claimed three US service members over the weekend. Will it be a direct strike on Iran? More bombs in Iraq? Syria? And will he bother to get authorization from Congress? Also today, John Bolton's "dire" warnings about Trump 2.0.

|

Time Text
Biden's Unspoken Plan 00:14:55
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Doing well.
Doing well.
And it looks like the things we talked about yesterday, they still want us to talk about it.
At least it's in the news, and people are still asking questions.
We don't have any answers yet.
And we're going to try to figure out what's Biden up to.
He has a plan.
He hinted.
He has a plan.
He knows what to do.
Except we're not allowed to know about what it is.
We have to keep that a secret.
Neither is Congress.
But maybe he doesn't know either.
That's true.
He doesn't know exactly what's going on.
But this is a dilemma for them because they have to blame Iran for everything.
And they probably have an incentive to do us harm, there's no doubt.
But exactly who does what when, I think, is really pretty much unknown.
At least it isn't known enough to start World War III.
So and that's what we're getting closer to all the time because this bombing is going on.
And that is why there was a bit of retaliation by the various Mideastern countries who are sick and tired of our occupation, our taking over of oil wells, and telling people what to do.
And we've showed the map so many times how many spots are over there.
How many times have they bombed us?
Why are we there?
They don't ever seem to ask that question.
So I guess if I were to be asked, I would say, well, you first have to ask the question, why do we have this mess and recognize is a real mess.
And it's not going to be cured by waving the wand and saying, oh, behave yourself.
And we'll work.
We'll work at this.
We'll have another conference, that sort of thing.
That's not going to work.
But I don't think they're going to come.
And I've made fun of those who, and I mentioned it yesterday, that why don't you look to history?
And I mentioned, look into the history of Ronald Reagan.
When he got into trouble, he did something he said he wouldn't do, but it was the best thing in the nation, and that was just get out of the way.
And so he walks away from Lebanon, and he didn't suffer.
He still remained the most popular president ever.
He probably saved lives by doing that.
But no, they're not interested in that.
They have control of the pro-military group, the military-industrial complex.
And so no matter how ridiculous the policy seems, it seems like they're going to do it anyway over and above what the people deserve and what our Constitution requires.
And this is the reason this same thing continues.
So, but Biden, Biden's team is searching for what to do.
But I think he's searching in all the wrong places.
He doesn't have any basic principles to follow.
I don't think there's many, a whole lot of Republicans in leadership over the years, nor Democrats, that really follow the precepts of the Constitution and Ford policy.
Oh, that's something that's always bipartisan, you know, and do that.
Lately, though, there's been some healthy division and discussion, but at least they should have discussed why and what are they doing, what's being done wrong.
Is there a principle that we haven't followed that we're now, you know, resolved in protecting an empire where we can't even protect the rights of the people here in this country?
Yeah, I mean, Biden is in a corner.
It's a corner of his own making.
You know, the Reagan option is not on the table.
You know, he's being hounded by Republicans.
This whole thing happened because you didn't show resolve.
You weren't strong enough.
It was a sign of our weakness.
It was never the fault of having troops there in the first place where they didn't belong.
So that's off the table.
So he has Republicans yapping at him.
Why didn't you attack Iran last year?
Why don't you attack him yesterday?
And you have Democrats for the most part saying the same thing: where are you going to retaliate?
So he really is boxed into a corner.
He doesn't have any way to back out right now, except maybe to do a Trump.
After Trump sold this whole song and dance about a chemical attack in Syria, he bombed a couple of empty buildings and said, okay, I took care of it.
That's pretty much his only option.
But this is something that just came out about a half hour ago.
If you can put that first clip on, all the mainstream media is talking about it.
I will save you and spare you having to listen to the president.
And I'll just read the headline.
Breaking, President Biden says he has made a decision on how to respond to the drone attack in Jordan and that he holds Iran responsible.
Now, the juxtaposition of those two parts of the phrase suggests that his decision involves an attack on Iran, although that's not explicit.
And he doesn't go into it when he's interviewed here about what that decision might be.
But it's interesting the phrasing, he holds Iran responsible.
Now go to the next one.
Here's Dave DeKemp's write-up in anti-war.com.
Pentagon admits it has no evidence that Iran was behind the drone attack attack that killed three U.S. troops.
They say that Iran bears responsibility for the attack, but they admit they have no evidence Iran was directly involved.
The Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said the responsibility fell on Iran due to its support for Iraqi Shia militias that the U.S. believes carried out the attack.
The only thing that's interesting about this, Dr. Parliament, the main thing that's interesting is that so the U.S. says we reserve the right to bomb Iran because Iran is funding and providing weapons to these militias.
Well, by that measure, Russia should have the authority to bomb the United States because the United States is training, supplying, and financing the Ukrainians.
So it's a corner they're backed into, but by that logic, Russia can attack France, all of the missiles that have hit Russian territory that are not military related.
But you don't fully understand that their job is to teach people to reject the principle of logic.
You throw a few logistical things out of there.
Won't solve the problem.
But we still have to do that because eventually we'll run out of steam, we'll run out of money, and we might even run out of bombs right now.
They're scurrying around, and therefore they have to come up with something else.
Now, we've heard hints, and we've had hints.
You mentioned one already of what Trump has done.
And this is a big issue, just like the border is a big issue.
And if they're trying to change parties, where there could be some benefits from that, they have to at least have a consistent policy and an alternative.
But, you know, to say that, well, we might not agree with what Biden is doing.
The Republicans might say that.
But we have to do something to them.
So we have to punish them.
I mean, didn't we have success with sanctions and freezing money?
Look, we froze money there for 40 years.
And then when we give it back to them, you know, it doesn't solve any problems because nobody changes any policies.
So now, well, Trump voiced his opinion, what is his reflex.
And he has a record to stand by, and that is this was just put big tariffs on and punish the Iranians.
But besides, the one thing is that I'm convinced of, if you put tariffs on a foreign country and our people are voluntarily spending their money because they find the goods better than what we have and cheaper, that you're just punishing the American consumer.
And there's a lot of evidence to show that.
So this whole idea you can threaten them with tariffs, and even if they're extremely high, the higher they are, the more damage you're going to do to the American consumer and to trade around the world.
I mean, sure, they get away with it because there's a lot of wealth to waste, and there's a lot of extravagance that we have that we can waste because we've been able to issue the reserve currency.
So we don't have, we're an official counterfeiter and we get away with it, but there's always going to be a limit to a counterfeiter.
The people can discover, they're beginning to discover that the American currency, the dollar, is a fiat currency and it's like a counterfeiter.
Yeah.
Well, the one thing we do know is that the U.S. is not in a position right now for a fool-out invasion of Iran.
People will remember it took at least six months to build up the military in the region for the attack on Iraq.
And Iraq was no Iran of today.
They had a few missiles that they were throwing around that weren't very useful.
So there's no way they're going to mount a ground invasion.
That's out of the question.
And the question of whether they'll actually hit Iran proper is also a very big question considering we've talked about it yesterday, the U.S. resources and personnel, 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. military personnel in the region.
However, there are some indications of what they might have in mind.
In this next clip, we'll give you one.
This is Flight Tracker, and it tracks aircraft.
And it says there are six KC-135 refueling tankers that flew across the Atlantic.
Now, they took off from March Air Force Base out in California, near where I used to live, actually, where I grew up.
So you have six refueling tankers headed to the Iraq-Syria border, and you can see them tracking to that border itself.
There are a couple of reasons, and I'm not a military expert.
I don't pretend to be one, but there are a few reasons why they may have them in the air.
One of them may be, why do you need tankers?
Well, you need them when you have fighter jets in the air for an extended period of time.
They can refuel.
It may be that some of our bases are vulnerable there to a retaliation from Iran, and they want to get those fighters in the air so they can't get hit in their bases.
We don't know exactly what it is, but there's something planned.
They're certainly getting things ready, which should be expected.
But let's just kind of take a little trip down memory lane because now Sky News reported last night that Biden is going to authorize an attack in retaliation.
And that's a funny word because no one said Congress, and there are a few members of Congress who said, well, hang on a minute.
That's our job.
But let's take a little trip down memory lane, Dr. Paul, to Joe Biden of 2020.
And here's what he said when Donald Trump was president.
He said, let's be clear.
Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without congressional approval.
A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.
Joe Biden, before he was president.
Do you think he was sleepy even back then?
He might have been sleeping back.
See, I think someone maybe have helped him write that.
Isn't that so sad?
And, you know, the whole thing is, is, you know, when you showed me the U.S. airplane carrying fuel and all that.
And I think of all the people that are supporting these wars and Biden, but they are also environmentalists.
Can you imagine the hydrocarbons?
You know, even the Carries and the others who fly jobs, private jets, it adds up.
And it's the inconsistency.
It isn't that you have to endorse carelessness on pollution, but the whole thing is, is the hypocrisy of it all.
You know, to say that we have to be very careful, and yet they don't blink an eye when they talk about war.
If you're involved, say, on the debate about the Israelis against the Palestinians, that's a big deal.
You know, a little hard to carve it isn't going to hurt anything because of the importance of that.
But I do think we found that hypocrisy was a very valuable tool when we were talking about COVID.
You know, there was a bit of hypocrisy there.
But that might be prevalent in almost everything government does.
Anyway, if you compared their speeches at home and how they voted, a lot of hypocrisy.
A lot of hypocrisy.
Well, one thing I did read, and I didn't bring a clip of it.
I couldn't find one.
I couldn't find it, frankly.
But apparently there have been some back-channel communications between the U.S. and Iran using a third country, a third-party country.
I don't know because I don't know the details.
Nobody does.
Everyone's speculating, except the people involved.
But apparently, what was said by the Iranians, well, the U.S. side said we don't want to escalate, we don't want war with Iran.
The Iranians said, if you strike any Iranian territory, we will retaliate against U.S. troops in the region.
Now, that's just what I read.
But reading that and looking at the reality of Iran's military capability, if you put that next clip up, will let you know that it wouldn't be a wise choice for that to happen.
Now, this is, again, I am not an expert, but if you look at the range of these missiles, Dr. Paul, you can see Iran is capable of hitting from the West all the way to, I would say, Western Hungary, southern Italy, down to Somalia, even over into China.
They have an enormous range.
They have some with 3,000 kilometer range, some missiles.
Apparently, they've claimed they have some hypersonic missiles, and they have been enriching uranium.
They don't seem to have a bomb yet, but they have the capacity probably to make one in a hurry if necessary.
So the point is, again, that it's a very, very dangerous situation.
We don't know what the retaliation will be, but something's going to happen, unfortunately, because no one says the obvious the Reagan solution, which is, you know what, these guys aren't serving any purpose anyway.
Let's just bring them home.
I doubt they had the authority to invade our territory like that.
That never crosses their mind.
But do you want to talk about your old friend?
You used to.
No, no, I wouldn't accuse you of that.
Bolton's Predictions 00:03:56
But Bolton, Bolton is not a good person when it comes to protecting our freedoms.
Where's his base?
Did he lose the base?
How come he still gets in the news?
Here's what is first look at what's Bolton's prediction for the second Trump's term.
He's considered the expert.
But I don't know whether he's worth talking about at all, but whether he personally has a lot of prestige left, I think that his views that he has expressed still linger that we should deal with.
Bad smell.
Yeah, still lingering.
Because if you talk about a military philosophy and a pro-war philosophy, he was the epitome of it.
Yeah.
And you say, where's his base?
His base is the think tanks in the Washington, D.C. Beltway.
Now, if they had a vote and they could elect a representative, he would be their member of Congress, you know, because he brings home the bacon for them, that's for sure.
And unfortunately, it does remind us of the many, many mistakes Trump 1.0 made.
He elevated this guy who belongs in a funny farm.
He elevated him to be his national security advisor.
From which point he began to stab Trump in the back the entire time, and Trump just took it.
Well, we're talking about this article on Axios.
If you just go ahead and skip and go to the Axios article.
Now, this is supposed to be a warning for everyone.
First look, John Bolton's predictions for a second Trump term.
It's going to be scary.
It's going to be terrible.
Well, let's look and see what they are.
Of course, now Axios, it has its spin because it hates Trump.
So kind of read between the lines.
So Bolton reserved his most damning predictions for foreign policy.
He wrote that Trump could throw Ukraine under the bus to favor Russian President Putin, i.e., stop flushing all the money down the toilet.
Two, endanger Taiwan's independence and embolden China.
Translation, stop sailing our ships through the Taiwan Strait and enraging China.
And number three, reunite with North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
In other words, diplomacy, which is what he did the first time.
And the last one, seek a bad deal with Iran, driven by his desire to prove himself a master negotiator, i.e., avoid World War III.
So these are the huge dangers.
Leave that there, please.
These are the huge dangers of Trump in power.
And Bolton writes, it's a close contest between Putin and Xi Jinping.
Who would be happiest to see Trump back in office?
Now that's a warmed-over old canard that they were going to pull out, the Russiagators.
Jason Miller, who's Trump's campaign spokesman, says, for someone who professes to have such great disdain for Trump, book deal Bolton sure has found a way to grift off of the relationship.
Do you think if we could get Bolton to debate McGregor?
Oh, that would be great.
Would we approach, get a little closer to finding the truth?
Pay-per-view, we could make a few million on that, couldn't we?
You know what?
I predict Bolton wouldn't touch that with anything.
That's the thing.
The neocons hate debates.
They hate having anyone, you know.
And remember when Bill Crystal actually had a debate with Scott Horton, and because I don't think Bill Crystal, they're too important.
I don't know who Scott Horton is.
Who's this guy?
Oh, wipe the floor with him.
And I don't know if you saw, I saw most of that debate.
Scott Horton, because you know he's got a lot upstairs, he wiped the floor with Crystal.
And I think that neocons hate debates.
They hate facts.
So that means that they're not going to be very good in diplomacy.
No, they don't like diplomacy.
Spending Trillion on War Terror 00:03:02
They like bombs.
Right.
Okay.
You had some statistics about spending a lot of money in the last several years.
You know, that we've been overboard in money and all the things that we have done, which didn't add up to a good policy.
It looked like that's where the bankruptcy is coming from.
But then again, you know, when I was looking at that list that you sent, that money has been spent and it continues to be spent.
And we've mentioned this number too, is we have to borrow the money to pay the interest on the money we borrowed to do all this.
That has to be, you know, really, really, you know, outlandish enough.
It should wake up people, but not the people who graduated from Harvard and a few other of those elite schools.
Yeah.
Well, let's put that chart up then.
Go backwards a little bit.
The cost of America's post-9-11 wars.
Now, I found this on Twitter, but it's fascinating.
I've seen nothing there that seems out of the ordinary, but looking at it in a graphic form is always very dramatic.
The Consider the War on Terror Congress has funded $8 trillion.
60% of that $8 trillion has gone to contractors.
Military contractor stocks are up between $331 and 1,235%.
That is Lockheed Martin, 1,235% increase in stock.
So if you bought that stock, you're making out well.
On the downside, if you're downstream from that, the taxpayer cost $8 trillion.
The death toll, $4.5 million.
Displaced people, $38 million.
Taxpayer migrant cost, unknown.
But it's a very dramatic chart showing you who really benefits from the, quote, war on terror, which continues to this day.
It's not the American people.
Yeah, that's for darn true.
It continues.
And unless people think in terms of policy rather than a technical decision and maybe one day to get the edge on the other, it'll be all this improvising.
And they've been conditioned now for 30, 40 years where we never really had to think about the danger of spending.
But there's more and more people pointing this out because it just can't continue.
And there's more and more people that are closer to the establishment are saying, you know, this can be a big deal and a really bad deal.
But right now, you know, we work hard on foreign policy because it is a big deal.
So if you take the foreign policy and the interest on the debt, I mean, you're talking about a lot of money.
And if you say, well, what would you do with all that money?
Well, we wouldn't decide.
We'd just give it to the people.
And maybe there wouldn't be so many street people.
A Nice Local Venue 00:02:22
Maybe there would be jobs for people where they don't live out and the homelessness level would go down.
So that would be fine.
But nobody thinks in that term because they can get away with it.
And, you know, it's, you know, counterfeiting is a really good industry as long as you can get away with it.
As long as nobody discovers that you're passing out counterfeit money.
When they discover it, there's a race to dump it and see what happens.
Well, I'm going to close out.
If you think we're ready, Dr. Paul, and I'm looking at our live viewers, and hello to all of you.
We're happy to see you guys.
Almost 1,000 of you right now.
We're happy for all of those.
Here's a way you can help us, and it won't cost you a penny.
It'll take a split second.
Just hit that like button.
And if you're not subscribed and you see that you're not subscribed or not saying follow, just follow us.
Follow the program.
Follow our channel and like the show.
That'll help us a lot.
The other thing I'm going to announce, I'm going to put a link in the description.
People are wondering what's going on.
We haven't heard about Ron Paul Institute Conference.
Well, we're teaming up with our good friends at the Mises Institute to hold a conference right here in Brazoria County, the heart of Ron Paul Country.
That will be on April 13th.
We're going to be talking about post-Truth America, Post-Truth Society.
Great speakers are going to be there.
Dr. Paul is going to be there.
I will put a link in there where you can get your tickets.
I will say one thing.
The venue we have is a very nice local venue, but it's very small.
So it's going to sell out.
So you're going to want to get your tickets early to this great event.
It's going to be a heck of a lot of fun.
Springtime is nice here in the area, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
You know, when you deal with a problem such as a deficit, I believe you have to deal with it on the principle.
Are you allowed to do it?
Is it a moral principle?
Does it defy the principle of sound money?
And does it follow the rules of the guideline found in the Constitution?
But most of the time that doesn't happen.
They think about, well, if I spend a million dollars here, we don't have to worry about the deficits and it's going to get votes for so-and-so.
So they go back and forth.
But over the years, and Daniel experienced a lot of this too because he worked with me in Washington, we enjoyed the idea of trying to expand the horizon.
Intervention vs. Isolationism 00:03:31
But it wasn't by compromising our principles and agreeing with some wild-eyed liberal.
But we would be interested in working with, and we continue to work with, honest progressives who may call themselves Democrats, but a good progressive, if they're anti-war and they're pro-civil liberties, it's very easy for us to find a place to work together.
But it was interesting that when there was a war vote, send in more troops or some budget or something like that, the progressives, this is something back to when we were in Congress, that the progressives would vote against that spending or sending in troops or bringing the troops home.
But when it came to something else, it seemed to be softer involvement and interference, and that is put on sanctions, you know, and put on tariffs and punish people and not even pay a lot of attention to diplomacy.
But they would do that, and then they'd vote for, say, punitive tariffs and our interference on trade.
That wasn't the same thing.
But what we do in foreign policy is a violation of the principles of liberty because we have so much power of weapons.
We tell people what to do, and we threaten them, and we tie up their financial system if they don't do as we tell them.
And we are too aggressive in using bombs.
Like we hardly ever need these bombs.
I can't think of a real time when we should have been bombing anybody since World War II.
And yet he continues.
But my point is, some people see that if you have a softer approach of intervention, that's okay.
But the softer approach of trying to punish people without dropping a bomb on them is an intervention.
And when you interfere with their trade or whatever, the interference is going to precipitate a problem later on.
So I think what I like to do, what we like to do, is think of the whole principle of intervention because the accusation, the opposition to interventionism and the violation that we place on other people is isolationism.
But the accusation that we have to live with is that you guys want to, you know, you're a bunch of isolationists.
You don't want to deal with the world.
And all I got to say is, look at the world now.
Every day it gets more isolationists.
Countries fight and fume and stirring up trouble and talking about World War III.
And they say that we're interventionists and we are isolationists.
We won't deal with our problems.
Well, why don't we deal with our problems by preventing them?
And it is true, I believe deeply at my heart that it is true that when you have voluntary intervention and to get along with people and trade with people, that will solve the problems and prevent the problems building to the point where we have to threaten people with a nuclear Holocaust.
Export Selection