Live with Colonel Douglas MacGregor - Are We On the Brink of World War?
Colonel Douglas Macgregor is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and decorated combat veteran who led troops in the historic Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War.
A West Point graduate with a Ph.D. in international relations, he authored groundbreaking books on military reform, including Breaking the Phalanx, influencing modern warfare concepts worldwide.
He later served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense in 2020 and remains a prominent author and commentator on defense and foreign policy.
A woman asking Eric Adams to punch him in the face.
And we are, let me remove this from the screen here.
We are quickly approaching.
Oh, that period of time where people say, my goodness, we would have been better off with Eric Adams compared to the alternatives.
I just wanted to start with something random before we get into today's show very quickly because we don't have Colonel McGregor for we don't have him for marathon length times.
We're going to be talking Iran, Venezuela, Russia.
I've been boning up on Colonel McGregor's analyses, and I've got some questions lined up for him.
Robert is in the house, so we're just going to get started.
I'll let Colonel McGregor introduce himself.
We don't have much time, and I don't want to bungle his.
Colonel McGregor, I'll put you on the upper left.
There we go.
Sir, could you, in a nutshell, very quickly, just explain to everyone your credentials, and then we're going to get into some geopolitical analysis of what's going on in the world.
Okay, well, first, I'd ask that Robert just call me Doug or Douglas.
I answer to most things, you know, even nasty things if I have to.
I'm a former, or I was in 28 years inside the Army.
I was a combat soldier.
My last major action that I saw on the battlefield was in 91 in what turned out to be the largest tank battle since World War II that the Army's been involved with.
Did a lot of different and interesting jobs at the strategic level.
I was the director of the Joint Operations Center at Supreme Headquarters of Light Powers Europe during the Kosovo air campaign.
Then ended up being dragged into the initial operation to go to Baghdad and dismantle the Saddam Hussein regime, which is an interesting story because it was no plan to occupy because everybody knew occupying the place was a big disaster.
So once it became clear they were going to occupy, I was out because I had opposed that anyway.
And anyhow, to make a long story short, I came back in at the end of the last Trump administration as a senior advisor to the acting Secretary of Defense because at the time, President Trump had told me he wanted to get out of Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan, most of all.
And I was told, whatever you could do, see what you could do.
So I did what I could do.
We all see how that turned out.
But that was also a function of President Trump, who went pushed hard, buckled, and opted out.
So anyhow, I think that's enough.
So why don't we talk more interesting things?
Robert, can I get the first question in?
Sorry, Robert, I was going to get this one in because it might lead into Robert's question, but I can't.
I did not have sex with that woman.
No, what I've been hearing in a number of interviews we've been doing is talking about the conditions for war breaking out to be currently being set up.
And one question that I had is, when people say Trump is preparing for potential conflict, talking about Greenland, talking about Venezuela.
And the question that I have is, where's that line between preparing for and potentially causing?
And what are the conditions for war that you see being set up right now across the world?
Well, you have to talk regionally because the conditions in the Middle East are the ones that are of greatest importance because that's the one place where we could conceivably be dragged suddenly and directly into confrontation, not just with Iran, but potentially with Russia, even China, and other actors in the region, namely the Turks and other Arab states could be drawn in.
This is a very dangerous set of circumstances.
And I think we have to understand that regardless of whatever Trump says publicly, I'm sure he's aware that his donors and the same people that drove us to war in Ukraine against Russia are interested in doing to Iran what we have failed to achieve in Russia,
namely regime change, the destruction and fragmentation of the state into smaller pieces that can be effectively exploited and raped at will by the Western financial interests in New York City and London.
And, you know, control of the oil fields is very, very important to people in London and New York City right now.
And they really want to do that.
And the only way to do that is to destroy Iran and make it ineffective and incapable.
So the war is about much more than do the Israelis like or not like Iran.
It's a much larger issue.
Israel is acting in what it thinks is its interest.
I don't agree with that.
I don't think it's in Israel's interest to become involved in this war because Israel could be destroyed.
But the Israelis haven't asked me for advice for a long time.
So I'm afraid they're on the wrong road.
As a sort of general overview, what's your take on this shift from Trump first term to Trump second term that seemed to start around the time the beginning of the second term, we were seeing more action akin to the first term.
Then the Epstein file sort of, you know, all of a sudden we get a reverse on that.
We get a reverse on everything else.
And a lot of people are sort of baffled.
And, you know, geopolitical observers around the world are baffled.
Many of Trump's own supporters are baffled that suddenly we have this Bushite regime that's let's intervene in Venezuela.
Let's intervene in Cuba.
Let's intervene in Mexico.
Let's intervene in Colombia.
Let's interview it.
Let's, you know, we got the Mr. Syrian head chopper inviting him into the White House, first ever Syrian president is that guy.
We've got Gaza, where Israel might elevate again, apparently.
We've got now Iran.
We've got ongoing Ukraine.
We've got the CIA that seems to be running amok.
You know, the helping hit, you know, Hamas negotiators, Iran, right, when they were sending negotiators, apparently attempting to assassinate and murder the president of Russia, which could have, what's your, in your general sense, any sense of why Trump, you mentioned that Trump just tended to back down to these folks, but that his instincts were to not be entranced, not get trapped in all these things.
He said in 2015, wouldn't it be better off if we get along with Russia?
What's your sense of where Trump's mindset is as we start to go to these hotspots around the world?
Understanding President Trump means understanding what happened to him in 2020.
He was not re-elected.
And he is convinced, not without evidence, by the way, that he lost re-election because the election was rigged against him.
Now, we don't need to spend a lot of time on that.
Everybody can show up and debate.
But a lot of the people that are now supporting President Trump and driving policy were people that adamantly opposed him in November of 2020 and contributed enormously to his defeat by investing huge quantities of money in his opponent and his opponent's campaign.
So first thing is he lost that election.
He left very bitter and angry.
Secondly, he decided that he was going to regain the White House no matter what it took, come hell or high water.
In order to do that, he had to sit down and reach a Faustian bargain with the very people that prevented him from winning the election in 2020.
And these are the billionaire oligarchs who ultimately, ultimately, shape policy for this country and determine its direction right now.
And he's fine with that as long as he gets to be president and to pretty much do what he likes.
And in return, he does their bidding, particularly in foreign policy and to some extent, I would argue, in defense policy.
And what do these people want?
Well, they were 100% behind Biden's war against Russia.
He's picked that up.
And after wandering around and trying to come to some sort of resolution, which he couldn't reach, because he insisted that whatever happened had to be a win for Trump.
How do you get a win for Trump unless you pay attention to what the opponent says?
And there was no willingness to take legitimate Russian national security interests into account.
And then, of course, he is absolutely committed 100% to allegiance to Israel and whatever Israel wants.
And so whatever Mr. Netanyahu, along with all the donors that we're discussing, decide they want us to do something for Israel, we do it.
Now, again, there's another agenda, though, as I pointed out.
It's not just Israel.
There's an agenda about gaining control of Iran's resources and potential in scientific mineral potential and destroying it as an actor in the region, because it's currently seen, not accurately, I would argue, but it's currently seen as the last major obstacle to both London, New York City, Washington's control of the Middle East and its oil.
It's also seen as the last obstacle to greater Israel.
That's not really true because the Turks have yet to be heard from.
That's going to happen soon.
Now, when you turn to Venezuela, you have a similar situation, except that now the Senate, thankfully, has involved itself and said, you can't put any troops on the ground in Venezuela.
Well, if you can't put any troops on the ground in Venezuela, what are you going to change?
Zippo.
So that's one of the reasons people like me and others have said, don't go.
It's not that important, contrary to popular belief.
But things got caught up in what I would say is his ego, too.
He makes bombastic statements publicly, and then he can't retreat from them.
It's a very dangerous position to take.
This happened to LBJ in Vietnam.
He made lots of ridiculous statements in the first two years.
He could never retreat from them.
Exactly.
Now, I heard from people in Washington when I was there last week that they think it's mostly bluster and bluff and that Trump is not wanting to actually go back into Iran.
But you see a lot of momentum.
I mean, Sean Hannity is his de facto national security advisor half the time.
And that nut job has supported every loony war we've ever been involved in.
It strikes me as what's going, from what I can understand, what's happening in Iran, mostly an economic-driven protest initially, not a regime change protest.
That in fact, the patriotism, like one of the things you've highlighted over the years is that this American mythology that the whole world is just waiting for us to come and invade, like Team America World Police, the South Park film, to free them from their local government.
And they can't wait for American bombs to be dropping on their cities.
It's just not a very credible belief.
One would think people in the Pentagon and elsewhere would know that, but somehow large parts of the military-industrial complex, they don't care.
As long as somebody's buying the weapons, who cares where the war goes?
There's a lot of truth in that.
I think, you know, you mentioned one of my favorite films of all time, Team America.
And Team America is the perfect analogy or metaphor for what's going on right now.
Pete Hegseth is Team America.
Rubio's Team America.
Just line all these people up in the cabinet.
That's what you've got.
Now, there are exceptions.
Tulsi Gabbard is being told to sit in the corner, shut up in color.
And her new title is not Director of National Intelligence.
It's Do Not Invite.
So they don't invite her to meetings, and that solves the problem of dealing with her.
I don't know why she stays, but she's ambitious, has political aspirations.
So I suppose that explains it.
The bottom line is: no, you're right.
There is no strategy.
This is controlled chaos, as it was put to me yesterday by someone very high up in the government.
He said, Doug, this is just controlled chaos.
It's whatever the boss wants.
And a lot of people are afraid of Donald Trump.
And so they'll do whatever Donald Trump says.
They're trying to make him happy.
And then there are others who are happy to do it because they sign on for the agenda.
They would like to destroy Russia.
They still want to destroy Russia.
They still want to take its resources.
They want to break it up into pieces.
It's not going to happen, but they're still out there.
Those are the same people involved right now in Iran.
And everybody also sees this as an opportunity to hurt China because in the background, everybody says China, China, it's the big enemy.
The Danish prime minister just upset everyone by saying there are no threats from China or Russia towards Greenland or Denmark.
So, gosh, bummer, you can't have the Danish prime minister say there aren't any threats to Greenland when you're telling everybody day and night, oh, the Russian and Chinese Navy are there and those ships are coming and they're going to take Greenland.
No, they're not that stupid.
But nevertheless, you know, this is the sort of thing that's just like Venezuela.
We want to hurt China, so we'll take Venezuela.
Well, Venezuela is less than 4% of China's oil interest.
And frankly, they don't need it.
They can get it elsewhere.
But Iran is different.
Almost 30% of the oil that Iranians buy and utilize, or excuse me, Chinese buy and utilize come from Iran and come from the Persian Gulf.
You shut down the Persian Gulf and the Chinese suddenly become terribly interested.
That's not a good thing.
That's a prescription for a much larger and more destructive war.
The Russians are very sensitive to what happens in Iran.
It's on their southern border.
And we are constantly at work and have been ever since we got into Afghanistan in the beginning to destabilize, disrupt, and undermine Russian national security in Central Asia.
And all the Central Asian republics are all very close to Putin because they see him as the only one they can rely on in an emergency because they are fighting Islamism every day.
The president of Uzbekistan was asked by a foreign ambassador, you know, what's wrong?
Why are the Americans angry with you?
Why are you on their sanctions list?
And he said, well, you know, I put 500 Islamists in jail and I executed a couple of hundred people.
And they don't like that.
And this ambassador said, well, these are Islamists.
He said, yeah, well, that's okay with us.
We have no problem.
We shouldn't have a problem with that.
But we're busy shoving hypocritically this notion of democracy, freedom, and human rights down anybody's throat that we care to.
Not that it has anything to do whatsoever with what we do in the world.
It never has.
It's always been a big lie.
So the bottom line is that the agenda is clear.
President Trump has decided to attach himself to it.
I think it's very dangerous.
I think he's biting off something that could bite him very, very badly.
He might not even survive in office as a result of what goes on in Iran this time around.
Because I just read the most recent traffic.
The Iranians are up and ready to go.
They are trigger ready and they are not missing all the usual indicators that are out there.
The only thing that's missing right now from the equation in that region are two carrier battle groups.
But the truth is, you can fight without the carrier battle groups.
You've got a lot of other naval assets out there involved in missile defense and so forth, but those carriers are not absolutely vital.
But it is interesting that they're absent.
I think the Navy is being worn out.
I think the Navy's in bad shape.
I think there's a morale problem.
There's a discipline problem.
There's toxic leadership there.
And that's having an impact, unfortunately.
I feel so badly for these poor people that are down in the southern Caribbean that have been floating around forever down there.
It's ridiculous.
So that's another issue.
But the point is, that's a really, really dangerous place to be right now.
The Russians have evacuated all of their people from the embassy in Israel.
All the Russian citizens are out that wanted to get out.
Nobody has left.
We're now beginning to pull some people out of bases in the Persian Gulf.
It's a dangerous thing.
And we don't seem to understand that this is not going to be easy to contain.
But President Trump thinks he's on top of the world.
He was interviewed in the Oval Office and they said, Mr. President, do you think there are any limits on your power?
He said, no, no, only my morality, which I thought was an interesting response.
What's that?
We'd all like to know what that is.
So he sees himself as in charge of the world, able to dictate pretty much whatever he likes to anybody, anywhere.
Douglas, if I may ask you this, people don't know what's going on in Iran, and that includes myself.
On the one hand, you see, not to put any names on blast, you see some people saying 20,000 dead in the streets, others saying it's all Mossad, CIA.
In my view, is any of the uprising organic that's getting co-opted by intelligence?
And what evidence is there that intelligence has co-opted it?
And what is actually happening on the streets, to the best of your assessment?
Well, first of all, I'm not tied into the intelligence community.
The man who is probably in a better position to answer that would be Larry Johnson.
But we do have statements coming out of Israel acknowledging that Mossad is on the ground in Iran, which should not surprise anybody.
They were there before the last war, and they will be there as long as possible.
And frankly, they have been able to co-opt some people.
Iran's in terrible economic shape.
I mean, to somebody coming out of the desert, how much is a glass of water worth?
It's worth a lot.
So if you're on the edge of poverty and you're despairing of any change in that and somebody walks in, it offers you a great deal of money by your standards.
You try to rationalize it and say, well, I'll take it.
They'll never find out.
It won't make much difference.
So that's obviously happened.
But beyond that, there are a lot of people in Iran who are very unhappy because of inflation, unhappy because they don't have access to the goods that they need, unhappy that their standard of living has fallen.
But that's understandable.
That's not something that overthrows the government.
Those are simply protests from people that have said, damn it, we're sick of this and it's up to you to fix it.
Now, the Iranian government, as I understand it, is now distributing cash to people at the lower end of the spectrum that they need in order to survive.
So they haven't turned a deaf ear to it.
But the notion that everybody out there is cheering for the end of the government, even the people that don't like it, is false.
The second thing is that there have been substantial changes and reforms over the last 40 years in Iran.
This is not 1979 or 80.
And all you have to do is visit the place.
I've got lots of friends I have not been there who have been over and were there recently.
They were shocked when they were there during Ramadan.
Nobody paid any attention to it at all.
The cafes were open.
People were eating in the open.
There were no scarves over people's heads.
The women were dressed very, very impressively and very exquisitely.
I mean, Iran is not what is being pitched to the rest of the world.
Now, is everybody happy?
Would everybody like to see a very much more of a secular state?
Sure.
You've got another thing in Iran that nobody ever talks about.
Islam is an Arab import.
It is not organic to Persian civilization.
Zoroastrianism is.
And if you look carefully at Zoroastrian religion, you begin to see an awful lot of similarity with Christianity.
The point is that everybody is not a Muslim fanatic.
Certainly you go into certain areas, certainly in eastern Turkey, for instance, you're going to find very, very devout Muslims in Eastern Turkey.
What do you find in Western Turkey, in Istanbul, on the coasts?
People very, very different.
It's not black or white.
But the point is that the notion that we're going to go in there and liberate these people from a government that is just intolerable is false.
That's just not true.
And then lastly, and this goes back to what Robert was saying, and I think you mentioned it earlier too.
The population is patriotic.
Whatever they feel about the government, they love their country.
They will all pull together and fight for their country.
I think right now the most important development is not the suppression of the few serious enemies on the streets.
It's the elimination of the fifth column, number one.
And number two, it is the cohesion of Iranian society on the edge of war.
They're ready to fight.
And that's the way we should look at this.
Yeah, that's how I see it as well.
And Ira decided to, you know, play footsie with the MEK, a group that America designated as a foreign terror organization for the benefit of the people.
Well, you guys are familiar with what just happened over the weekend, Friday night.
400 Kurdish fighters tried to get into Iran.
Are you familiar with this?
Yes.
And the Turks and the Iranians cooperated.
And these 400 fighters were killed, destroyed.
And this is something we don't seem to understand.
We and the Israelis have worked very hard with the Kurds.
So has MI6 to build them up.
The Turks have about had it.
And if there's one thing that Erdogan could use if he decided he wanted to attack somebody to unite the Turks, it would be the destruction of the Kurds.
Right behind that would come the destruction of the Israelis, because right now the Israelis who once enjoyed a pretty good reputation inside Turkey are mud because of what they've done to people in Gaza.
And the Turks and the Iranians have a long history of competition and conflict off and on, but they all share the same enemy.
Everybody's in the same boat.
If you talk to people at high levels in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt, elsewhere, privately, what they'll all tell you is Sykes-Pico is over.
In other words, the arrangements reached after World War I are at an end.
Whatever they say publicly, privately, they're determined now that Israel must go.
And speaking of which, I mean, it seemed to me that the reason for why we did the ceasefire the first time was Israel was losing that war with Iran.
I mean, I look at how vulnerable our own military.
So let's play it out.
If we go back in, it seemed that Iran's most likely first steps would be to go to attack Israel and attack our military bases in the region.
And that it's not apparent to me that we have adequate air defenses or Israel has adequate air defenses.
And that, you know, Israel is a very small country geographically, depends on only a few locations for its water supply, for its energy supply, that, you know, it was already starting to come offline towards the end of that conflict.
I don't think Israel is in any position to win this war, which is why they want the U.S. involved.
But I don't think we're in a position to necessarily adequately protect Israel.
For those people that are pro-Israel out there, a good way to get yourself into big trouble is to go to war with Iran right now, in my opinion.
And then how do we protect their military bases in the region?
Well, two things real quick.
When the last war ended, at least the last conflict was paused after the 12 days.
Peshkian, the president of Iran, visited Moscow.
And President Putin walked up to him and a lot of people missed this.
It was translated later, but he said to him, right there in the forum, in the open, with microphones on, you should have let us help you earlier.
Now, I thought that was very interesting because I was under the impression that the Russians had done a lot for them.
Apparently, the Iranians took a lot of things from them, but also said, no, don't bring your technicians.
We can handle this.
We know what we're doing.
And as it turned out, their air and missile defense didn't work nearly as well as they thought it would.
Well, that has been changed.
And the Russians have come in in a big way and dramatically improved air and missile integrated defenses in Iran.
Since the last strikes.
Yes, since the last 12-day conflict.
A lot has changed.
Now, in the meantime, you have this tremendous arsenal of missiles that the Iranians can build anyway.
A lot of that is a product of Chinese help and assistance.
And the Chinese have also been on the ground.
They helped them identify the 40,000 Starlink terminals that were smuggled into Iran to support this alleged uprising.
And they jammed the Starlink.
Once they jammed the Starlink, that really put a dent in the CIA Mossad MI6 operation.
And as a result, they were able to go out, find these star-like terminals and destroy them.
As I said, they killed the fifth column.
If they had waited until the war began, that fifth column would have been far more effective than it turned out to be in advance.
But I think there was a hope that they could achieve more than they did with the fifth column.
And so now when they attack, they won't have that to work for them.
I'm going to ask you the question.
I appreciate that you distinguish between Iran and Islamic extremism.
What is the incentive of Russia, who's had its own long history fighting Islamic extremism, to assist anything when it comes to Iran?
Well, they don't see the Iranians as Islamist extremists, to be perfectly blunt.
Iran is involved wherever there are Shiites.
So guess who hates the Iranians?
The Emirates.
Because you have Shiite minorities in the Emirates, you have them in Saudi Arabia.
And if you are oppressing or attacking Shiites in the Persian Gulf region, you can expect some assistance from Iran.
But then let's go to the Houthis.
They're not all Shiites, but they're usually viewed as part of the Shiite community.
And they went to the Iranians repeatedly for help.
And the Iranians told them, look, cut the best deal that you can get with Saudi Arabia.
You know, we just can't assist you to the extent that you need it.
And they kept coming back.
And they kept coming back saying, well, we've talked to the Saudis.
We've talked to the Saudis.
Remember, the Saudis came to us because they wanted our assistance bombing the Houdis.
Well, it didn't work very well.
And so the Iranians finally said, all right, we'll do what we can for you.
My point is that the Iranians are not the right word, irrepressible terrorists that they're pointed out to be.
I think the whole external terrorism bit has been dramatically reduced, if not completely eliminated.
So I don't think the Russians see them as a threat at all.
On the other hand, they do have a large Sunni Islamist problem in the Caucasus.
And the Russians are relying very heavily on the cooperation of their friends, the Chechens, to deal with that, as well as people in Dagestan and other places.
So if you were going to ask a Russian, do you feel threatened by Islam?
They'll tell you, yes, we feel threatened by Sunni Islamists.
And Putin has bent over backwards.
I think the whole Russian government has, to cooperate and work with the Sunni Muslims.
I mean, you have mosques all over the place in Russia.
The people there embrace these Chechens and others as fellow Russian patriots.
You have this Akhmat brigade inside Russia that is now a combination of Orthodox Christian Slavs and Muslim Chechens.
They even have a flag that puts together the crucifix with the crescent moon.
I mean, there's tremendous effort in that country to put an end to this long-term conflict.
And it has been a long-term conflict off and on for hundreds of years.
Now, is it a permanent fix?
I don't know.
Could it happen again?
I'm sure you could have problems.
The Caucasus is the kind of place where if the leadership changes, then the leadership can move the people in a new and different direction.
But I would tell you, the Russians are not at all worried about that with the Iranians.
They're much more concerned about it with the Sunnis.
And that's why there's a certain amount of mutual respect and also mutual suspicion between the Turks who are Sunni Muslims and the Russians.
And speaking of which, the other thing that Putin, after he saw what happened in Libya, determined is that this whole Western strategy of destabilization of the Middle East is a disaster on Russia's doorstep.
And if Iran, people seem to think that if, say, the Iranian government fell, that what would flourish is the son of the Shah would be back or the MEK fake democracy would be back.
Those guys are Marxist, by the way, if you dig into their history, that's who we're funding and doing business with.
And if you wonder why Rudy Giuliani is taking pot shots at the son of the Shah, it's because he's affiliated with MEK.
Neither one of them are a good idea.
And most likely what you would get in a very complex society like Iran, a country that dwarfs Iraq or Libya in terms of geographic size and territory, that it would be the shit show of all shit shows if that country falls apart.
Can you explain the risk there?
You know, there's another aspect, and I didn't mention this earlier, but I should have.
You know, Putin has gone out of his way to maintain good relations with Israel.
The Russians are very sensitive to anti-Semitism.
They've suppressed it whenever they've seen evidence for it.
And when Syria unfolded, Netanyahu was nothing but offensive towards Putin.
And the Israelis have been very brazen in their treatment and behavior towards the Russians.
So the Russians have pulled completely out of Israel.
I regard that as very ominous, and I think that's been a very foolish mistake.
You know, again, what has Russia done historically?
If you go back to the 1840s, you will see that today's border between Iran and Iraq was fixed by the Russian Tsar.
The Russian Tsar was called in and said, we want you to mediate an end to the war.
We have to solve the border problem between Iraq and Persia.
And he did.
The Russians have been involved down there for a long time.
They know the people there.
The people there know the Russians.
So I think Netanyahu's made a big mistake in terms of the way he's been treating the Russians.
That's just an observation.
Pretty soon he's going to have one friend and only one friend, us.
What do you think the risk is that Israel just starts to lose the conflict?
I mean, what happens if the way this plays out is all of a sudden they're able to knock out Israel's energy, able to knock out Israel's water salination plans.
That, you know, is there, you know, it's obvious that our Pentagon doesn't have, I call them criminal one-step thinkers, you know, like people say criminals have low IQ.
And I'm like, only caught criminals.
That's right.
A lot of our Pentagon seems like in a deep state and CIA, it's like, oh, wouldn't it be great to grab that bag?
And there's no, how do I get away with it?
There's no second step thinking.
You know, we've never really had any sort of national military strategy.
The last time we had the semblance of one came with NSC 68.
This was containment.
And if you go back and look at that memorandum, look at the unclassified version, it outlines the strategy.
That's it.
There's never been anything else since then.
Now, what you did get with Mr. Wolfowitz, or Dr. Wolfowitz, I should say, when he was in the Pentagon back in 1992 was the Wolfowitz doctrine.
That's what is ruling the Roost and has been ruling the Roost since 1992.
That was essentially said, we're going to make war everywhere against everybody until the Middle East is safe for Israel.
We've been engaged in that ever since.
His doctrine still rules supreme.
Now, we've added the, you know, we hate Russia to it and want to make sure that Russia is destroyed.
The same people that Wolfowitz and his company wanted to do damage to Iran and everybody else in the Middle East, they're also 100% behind destroying Russia.
They're a little lukewarm towards China, but in their minds, and they're still ruling the government, as far as I'm concerned when it comes to strategy, they see whatever damage we do in the Middle East as harming China.
And so if they can shut off the oil from Iran, they think that this is going to pressure China into some sort of relationship with us where the Chinese will be willing to humiliate themselves in front of us.
I don't think so.
In fact, I think that's over.
But there are people that still think in those terms right now.
In the meantime, everything here can go to hell.
Nobody cares.
Let me ask you this.
I don't know what your intel is in terms of the actual damage that was done subsequent to the 12-day war and the strikes on the Iranian facilities.
We don't know what happened to the amounts of enriched uranium that they had.
What is your knowledge as to the actual scope of the destruction and how far back it set Iran?
And then the subset subsidiary question to that is: what other non-military ways would there be for Iran to interfere with Israel and its influence in the region?
Well, Iran has tried diplomacy, but it's not very successful because the Arab states in the region, although they may not like the Israelis, harbor serious doubts about Iran.
They would like to have the goodwill of the Saudis and the Emirates and others.
I think they have made good inroads in Egypt.
I think the Egyptians now regard the Iranians as almost heroic figures because they're the only people willing to stand up against us and Israel.
But the rest of the region, they haven't had too much success.
The Iranians were doing very well in Europe until we came along.
You know, if you go back to the axis of evil speech, I had a friend.
He's passed away now, brilliant journalist.
His name was Steve Comaro.
And he was sitting in Berlin with dozens of other journalists.
They were all having a meeting in the morning, having coffee in Berlin.
They listened to the speech and they all went, oh my God, the axis of evil.
Why did we include Iran?
Because when 2001 occurred, when the Twin Towers went down, and millions of Iranians went into the street to memorialize the people that were killed.
In Tehran, almost a million people went out with candles at night to hold a vigil and pray for the victims of 9-11.
And the Iranians thought this is a breakthrough.
We can now have a good relationship with the West.
They'll understand we had nothing to do with this and we don't have to be your enemy.
Well, of course, that all ended.
As far as the damage assessment, first of all, you can't believe anything the United States government tells you about it.
Everything is going to be influenced by the Israelis.
The Israelis aren't going to tell you the truth.
I mean, there's just no incentive for anybody to be honest about the damage.
So what am I supposed to say?
30% of the country was destroyed or damaged, 10%, 20%.
I don't know, but I know it was severe, and Robert is right.
The Israelis were screaming, uncle, they wanted to end of this thing because it was doing a lot of damage to them.
The thing to keep in mind about the Israelis is that they've got air power, and that's about it.
Their army is overstretched.
It's not strong enough.
And it's a citizen-soldier force.
I would compare most of it to the U.S. Army National Guard.
How long will the National Guard last in a major conflict with anybody?
Not very long right now.
And I don't think we can turn it into something it's not.
It's a citizen-soldier force purely for the defense of the country.
I think if the IDF were told to defend Israel, that's fine.
But asking them to move into Syria, move into Lebanon, move into Egypt or anywhere else, then Jordan, then you've got a real problem.
So I think the Israelis have real limitations, except for their air force.
Now, their navy is small, but it's pretty good.
Now, to go back to this question of Roberts, what if the next round is so devastating that the very existence of Israel is open to question?
This has been my concern for a long time.
The Israelis will turn to the use of a nuclear weapon.
And what can they do with a nuclear weapon?
They're not going to stop the war.
They're not going to win the war.
It'll be a purely vengeance weapon designed to kill as many Muslims as they can inside Iran.
That would be a catastrophe.
That would be really fundamentally the end of Israel.
At that point, there would be no restitution, no restoration, no rebuilding, nothing.
But that's what I worry about because they're quite capable of that.
There are a lot of people over there that think in those terms.
If we can't have what we want, then the hell with everybody.
Speaking of the other things that could trigger nuclear war, it appears that our CIA attempted to murder President Putin and assassinate him with a drone attack.
That first they pretended the drone attack didn't happen.
Then they said, don't worry, we're aiming at some other building in the neighborhood.
We just can't identify which one.
Of course, the Russians got the drone, got the map from inside the drone, shared it with the Americans, and it only had one direction, one address, and it was President Putin's address.
Thankfully, the Russians' air defense system continues to be the best in the world, and we don't have to worry about what that could have triggered.
But how, I mean, I have had this debate with members of the administration twofold.
One is Ukraine cannot win that war.
It's not going to happen.
It's only a matter of time before Russian, and Russian self-restraint is the only reason why Ukraine still exists.
And then second, that if Putin was removed, the Russia would be much more adversarial.
Putin is the most tolerant, the most pro-Western leader in Russia amongst the leadership.
Can you describe how dangerous what some people in the CIA are plotting and planning and trying to do?
Well, first of all, I can't even begin to evaluate what they're doing.
I don't have any inroads there.
Radcliffe is an Israeli puppet.
He was established there to ensure that the Israelis would get whatever they wanted.
The Israelis, the Mossad are all over the CIA.
I don't think President Trump is really in charge of it.
I think the CIA is a rogue organization.
I don't believe that anybody briefed President Trump and said, we're going to launch drones specifically at this location where Putin has been known to reside that is also a command and control node for Russia's nuclear strike capability.
And by the way, we're going to destroy it.
We're going to send 91 drones.
Do you really think anybody went to the president and told him that?
I don't think so.
Because even Donald Trump would have said, well, wait a minute, say that again?
I think he was probably told, well, we're going to let the Ukrainians launch deep strikes because those Russians aren't listening to you, boss.
You got to show them who's boss.
And he probably said, yeah, you're right.
We got to be tough.
That's all.
It's tragic, but I think that's probably what happened.
I think President Putin knows that.
That's why I keep saying, you know, President Putin, you've described him brilliantly.
He's also trained as a lawyer.
So this is someone who's very sensitive to the law.
And when he talks about international law and norms, he's not kidding.
For us, that's just hot air.
But no, he really does.
I think he understands now.
It's absolute bullshit.
But let's be frank, that's truly the way he thought.
If for some reason he were removed, you would get somebody else.
And the probability, given the numbers of people over there who might be in line, would be a lot tougher.
The Russians, I sat with a journalist.
This was at a session with Dimitri Simes at the national interest.
This would have been four or five years ago.
And this particular journalist had actually been put in jail by Medvedev as president.
And Putin at the time was the prime minister and got him out.
Went to Medvedev.
Don't put this man in jail because, yeah, he was critical, but he's a Russian patriot.
Okay.
Let him out of jail.
Now, he said that he went to people before he came to visit the United States, all across the Russian government, military, civilian, everything.
And he said, what message do you want me to deliver to the Americans?
And he said, universally, they said, we've had enough.
If you're going to challenge us, bring it on.
We can't wait to crush you.
I sat there.
I said, oh my God.
Guy was very honest.
There was no emotion.
He just said it matter of factly.
And you're right.
That's not what Putin wants.
He sees that as a catastrophe for everyone.
This is a man that doesn't have to be convinced that nuclear Armageddon is a real possibility.
He gets it.
He understands.
So does she.
We're the ones that don't seem to understand it.
And we keep pushing and pushing and pushing.
I'm going to give a, it'll come out next week.
There's a presentation where I'm trying to argue directly to the president.
You know, you're not going to solve Ukraine.
That's going to solve itself.
We've tried.
We failed.
But what you can do, Mr. President, is you can lead the charge for a no first use pledge from all the nuclear powers.
If we can achieve nothing else, if we can get everyone to sign on for no one will use a nuclear weapon first, then we have a chance to at least avoid Armageddon.
And I think that's where he should focus.
He could make that happen.
If he let it, it could work.
He could drag the British and the French in, the Pakistanis and the Indians.
The North Koreans could be dragged in by the Russians who are their real mentors, not China.
People don't get it.
Chinese don't like the Koreans, don't want anything to do with the Koreans.
In fact, if you want to unite the Korean Peninsula, let the Chinese attack North Korea.
The South Koreans and the North Koreans will all unite to fight China.
You know, we don't understand these people.
Mongols, Manchus, Koreans are all alike.
They hate the Chinese.
That's been going on for over a thousand years.
So you could get, I think, everybody on board, if you're willing to be serious about it.
You can establish liaisons in every capital with everybody to ensure that this is monitored.
There will be no first use.
If I were in his position, I would do that and I would urge him to do that instead of running around trying to solve these little wars.
It's not going to happen.
The way it is.
At the beginning, you mentioned the Fossgian bargain that Trump struck with oligarchs.
And my question is, is it big name donors?
Is it the military-industrial complex?
Or are there other names to the oligarchs whose interests seem to have been?
Big name donors.
When you talk about the military industrial complex, go back to what Robert said.
These people are, what's the right word, agnostic.
They don't care who pushes for the agenda as long as they profit from it.
That's just a simple fact.
These people are not pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-American, anti-American.
They don't care.
They're looking at how much do we make at the end of the next quarter.
That's the sad truth of the matter is.
I was on earlier today and I explained to someone when I was working, believe it or not, for the Secretary of the Navy back in 2007.
I had lunch with someone from one of the big five corporations that build ships.
They own some of the shipyards.
And he said, Douglas, do the admirals understand that we are going to build ships whether they want to or not?
If they don't have any designs for new ships, it doesn't matter.
We'll build ships because we have to build ships to stay in business.
And I laughed.
I said, no, I don't know that they all get that.
And at the time, we were talking about this abortion called the Zumwalt destroyer, a billion-dollar destroyer.
I mean, if you resurrected Halsey or Nimitz and said, here's a billion-dollar destroyer, they wouldn't believe it.
They'd say, no, you're insane.
You know, you're from Mars.
This is never going to happen.
Well, I think we've built, what, three or four of them.
And of course, you know, you lose a billion-dollar destroyer, and I'm sure as an admiral, you're finished.
So I don't know that we'll ever use the damn thing.
I mean, the point is, we don't get the way the industry works.
Now, what we need to do is we need to try.
And I think Pete Hegseth was trying to get at this, is to break up these monopolies, these five monopolies.
They're practically state-sponsored enterprises.
You know, oh, if you don't give me the money for this, oh, I'm going to shut down that assembly line in York, Pennsylvania.
Oh, and that assembly line down in Alabama and the one up in Ohio, you're finished.
I mean, the Air Force was the first to crack the code on this and ensure that every airplane is built in almost all 50 states.
The point is we should go.
He's right.
We need to go in there and fix that.
That's going to take a long time.
And that brings me to an important point I want to make before you guys dump me here.
And that is we have a microwaveable president and a microwaveable society and a microwaveable military.
In other words, everybody believes everything can happen instantly.
If we spend another half a trillion dollars on defense, we're going to get more defense.
They don't understand how it works.
They don't understand the defense budget.
It's very complex.
About a third of it goes into pensions and medical care and a lot of other things.
And then you have to make all the congressmen in their districts and the senators in their states happy with their little hobby horses.
You know, how much real latitude do you have when you want to do things?
And then you're dealing with the admirals and the generals and the big services.
Those services, those service bureaucracies exist to exist.
They're not sitting there and saying, well, Freiheit down there has a great idea.
That would be good for America.
Let's adopt Freiheit.
Hell with that.
You know, they're going to do whatever they're going to do to survive.
So they're not the people to decide what the future should look like.
And that brings me to the final comment of all.
There is no vision strategically in this country for anything.
Stop and think.
You are going to impose, what, 25, 30, 40% tariffs on the Chinese.
And then the next morning, somebody comes in and says, well, you know, boss, we got a problem.
What's that?
Well, we get all our rare earths from China.
90% of your rare earths are in the clutches in the hands of the Chinese.
You know, this happened in World War I to the Royal Navy.
The fools in London declared war on Germany, and then the first sea lord came in and said, You know, we buy all our optics for all our instruments, all our guns, everything from Germany.
You know, by the way, Germany leads the world in chemistry and chemical weapons and chemical munitions or anything else.
In other words, nobody was thinking.
Nobody is thinking.
You know, we have been dependent on rare earths forever, ever and ever.
We don't have a rare earth refinery.
We do have rare earths in this country.
We got rare earths in Canada.
There are rare earths all over the place.
Do you know that Norway right now has identified the largest concentration of rare earths in Europe?
It's right offshore, about 250 feet down.
And the Norwegian parliament decided they weren't going to exploit it because the Greens up there are opposite for environmental reasons.
Well, President Trump, why don't you take a trip to Oslo and sit down with the Norwegians and say, we'll invest heavily here.
We'll do everything we can to offset the environmental damage.
We'll build a refinery for rare earths.
Let's jointly excavate, pull out these rare earths.
And by the way, whatever we refine from Norway, you get it back free.
We'll refine your ore for free.
Well, why don't we do that?
No, instead, we want to invade Greenland, where they say there are rare earths.
Well, I'm sure when you chop your way through, you know, the Arctic cap on top of Greenland, eventually you'll drill down long enough and you'll get something.
You realize how long that's going to take?
That's going to be hell on earth for anybody that goes up there to excavate anything.
In the meantime, we're threatening the Danes.
Danes, are you kidding?
These people are wonderful.
They've been our allies from the beginning.
You know, so have the Norwegians.
These are people with whom we should work easily and closely.
And now the Danish prime minister has contradicted President Trump and his little merry band of men who are insisting the Chinese and the Russians are all over the Arctic and they're trying to get control of Greenland.
And the Danish prime minister said, no, I'm sorry.
There are no threats from China or Russia to Greenland.
If this were not real, I would cry myself to sleep at night.
This is just insane.
There's nobody in charge.
What you have is this man that thinks, I have no limitations.
I'm king of the world.
I can do whatever I want.
And by the way, he thinks that our military power is limitless.
It's not.
We are primarily an aerospace and maritime power.
Our army is a tiny entity and it's not very well equipped right now.
It's not very good either.
It needs to be a hell of a lot better.
And then you have the Marine Corps.
And I don't know what we're going to do with the Marines.
I like the Marines, but we're going to have to fashion them into a much more powerful land instrument than they are because I just don't see any beaches for them to land on.
But nobody wants to go there.
Nobody wants to ask the hard questions.
How about paratroopers?
We want to use thousands of paratroopers in Venezuela, huh?
Where are you going to use them?
What do you want to use them for?
No, I like paratroopers.
They're great, you know, and I think there's a lot of esprit there.
I fell out of airplanes and I have a ranger tab and all that stuff.
I understand all that.
But we got to be practical about how we're going to do things in the future.
That takes time.
It takes a national strategy.
It takes vision.
It takes understanding.
You can't just punt to the generals and the admirals.
If you do that, you're going to get more of what you've got.
And that's not necessarily what we need.
As our final question, I was going to ask you why you took this path to begin with.
You leave the Trump administration.
Unfortunately, the logical path of many of our, once you get coloneling up, particularly once you get to the generals, is cash in time.
You know, go on Fox News, tear for whatever war.
We'll get the military industrial complex all lathered up.
And not enough people do what you did.
You know, Smedley Butler back in the day did.
War is a racket, et cetera.
But not enough people do what you did, which is to go out and conscientiously voice concerns about where we have risked to America's best interest and ongoing policy, regardless of what does or doesn't line people's pockets.
What inspired you to do that?
And could you provide also links where people can go to the foundation you helped establish other social media places and locations where they can continue to follow your work?
Well, a lot of my classmates frequently say, poor Doug, he doesn't get it.
You know, he just doesn't get it because many of them have made lots of money by essentially jumping aboard the train.
And that's fine.
I couldn't do that.
Now, when you say why, I think reality hit me over the head when I was in the desert in 1991 and I was sitting in the turret of my tank.
We had just been pulled out of the line and told that we were going to go into reserve, which was fine because we expected that we would go to Baghdad, not to occupy the place, but to get rid of the government, to essentially put the government in a position where you do what we tell you to do, give us Saddam and we'll go home, or we're going to go in.
Well, I was shocked.
I was in the thing and suddenly I hear the war ends in exactly 26 hours from now or something.
What?
You're going to fight for 26 hours and then magically end the war.
What?
What are you doing?
What's the end state?
I thought we were supposed to destroy the Republican Guard and then the second branch went up to Baghdad.
That's where I discovered there was really no strategy.
That's when I discovered later on that I think it was Colin Powell or it could have been Shaney or maybe it was Bush.
I don't know.
Yeah, senior Bush, the first president, who said, well, let's have an 100-hour war.
You know, that's a great sound invite.
Let's have a 100-hour war.
How's that sound to you?
And Schwarzkopf said, well, it's good with me.
What?
What, general?
Have you been to the battlefield?
Do you know where we really are?
We weren't where he said we were on the map.
You know, what are you doing?
And I said, this is unserious.
This is unprofessional.
And then all of these generals that I had witnessed up close who walked around for months saying, oh, this is going to be bad.
We're going to have a lot of casualties.
We shouldn't do this.
Which drove me insane because I was trying to get soldiers to talk about inflicting casualties, not about our own.
And I talked about how we were going to win, not about how things could go badly.
And I said, my God, all these generals are running around now beating their chest, taking credit for a great victory that was an accident.
They never appreciated the quality of the force at their disposal.
The soldiers performed brilliantly, but what did they do?
They put us out there and then they said, go ahead.
And then when it was over and they were amazed at how well it had gone, they decided they'd done it all.
So that was the change.
And I think that had a bad impact on me because thereafter I lost interest in whether or not the people above me loved me.
I was more interested in doing what I thought made sense and was right.
And we did fabulous things.
When I was in command, I had a great unit and we turned in the best performance in history at the National Training Center, which drove everybody crazy because we didn't do any of the things that we were supposed to do, which guaranteed failure.
So, anyhow, I think those things had a big impact.
And then, when I got back to the war plans division, I really got a great education there, seeing how decisions were made.
And I saw the opportunity to do many good things that were deliberately missed or suppressed.
So, I said, you know, this is not good.
We're on a bad path.
And it wasn't the fault of most officers or soldiers.
They were very good people.
But somehow or another, as you advanced, your preeminent goal was to make the man above you love you, because if he loved you, he'd promote you.
And the whole idea of demonstrated character, competence, or intelligence that went out the window.
And that's wrong.
And we're still there.
And to his credit, I think Hagseth in his roundabout way has tried to address these things.
I don't think he's going to get very far because to do it and make it effective, you've got to get rid of a lot of people.
And the last time he went through that in the first 11 months that George Marshall was chief of staff of the army, starting on 1 September 1939, he retired 54 generals and 450 colonels.
And that kept up for the balance of the war.
People don't realize that.
There's almost nobody left at the end of the war who had been there at the outset, who was a general officer.
But he had to do it.
He had to win.
He didn't have time to be nice about it.
And it wasn't personal.
You know, sometimes he said, I know this isn't fair, but it's not working.
He's got to go.
Put somebody else in.
Get it done.
I think we're going to end up in a position like that, unfortunately, because we just haven't done it for so long.
Colonel, I know you stayed longer than we were expecting.
So thank you very much.
I'm going to post all of your links in the pinned comment when you're out.
So have them sent my way and I'll post your X account.
Robert and I are going to stay on for a few more minutes, but thank you very, very much.
Okay.
Well, make sure you post a link to the webpage for the National Conversation, nationalconversation.org, because that's where I'm putting all my effort and emphasis right now.
Absolutely.
Let me bring this up right now and I'll show everyone and I'm going to stick it in there.
Nope, that's not it.
It's the nationalconversation.org.
I'll send you the links because there are several other organizations that use it.
There it is.
Now you found it.
That's it.
Excellent.
You want to go there, and that's where you're going to see a lot of things that we've been discussing and we're trying to put together a platform.
We assume that at some point this mess is going to implode.
And we want to be on hand when it does.
And we want to be able to recruit people that can step into the gap, so to say.
When the wall is breached, we have to have somebody go through it.
And we think that's coming for reasons if nothing else for finance.
Amazing.
Colonel, thank you very much.
Thank you, Doug.
This is fantastic.
And hopefully we'll be able to do it again.
I hope when maybe the world calms down a little bit, ideally.
Oh, I think strap in on this roller coaster.
We're going to be on this puppy for a while.
Thank you, man.
Bye-bye.
All right.
Have a good day.
Robert, let me bring this.
The colonel is awesome.
For those who don't know me, he was a key national security advisor to Robert Kennedy's campaign, provided all kinds of insight and intel to help to map out a way to restructure the entire Pentagon that Hakeseth was starting to implement until it got rerouted and derailed.
So a great follow-you know, he's been on with Professor Deason.
He's been on with Judge Napolitano.
He's been on with a range of sort of with Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis.
So a lot of your sort of independent geopolitical analysis with a, he has a deep, deep understanding of history.
He can go back into great detail about Europe.
It's like Pat Buchanan was that way.
He could get you into details of this general and this lieutenant general and their cultural proclivity and propensity was the guy trying to help execute Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan and everywhere else.
Until, as he points out, Trump just kind of capitulated to the deep state at the end.
But a brilliant guy doing great work.
National conversation is sort of his efforts to organize this to help get people together because he's worried things might get a lot worse before they get better.
Let me read these real quick, Robert, and then we're going to, Robert, you'll come with me and we'll go over to the locals after party for this.
I'm going to have to deal with it.
I'm going on the redacted at 4:35, but I got to pick your brain on something.
Viva, please vote and repost.
Let's get a new AG.
That comes from NetJest.
Ron Schoolcraft says Keith will fall within 22 hours.
And I think that's referring to some early predictions.
I don't think that Colonel said that specifically, but they might have, but for the involvement of the European Union, which just dragged it out for another three years.
King of Bill Tong says, want to add more protein to your diet.
Add some healthy, high-protein Bill Tong packed with B vitamin, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Go to billtongusa.com, code Viva for 10% off.
Dominant one.
I don't know what this is about.
I do not post links.
This is your job.
9 p.m. Central.
Dad, so long ago, picture show, Rolling Thunder, live chat bots, not a talk show.
Dominant one says, Get Barnes to name the time in history when a bad government was changed into a good government only by voting.
We got Jinja Ninja who says, Not so rare earths, apparently.
Thanks for your time and insight today, sir, says Ginger Ninja.
And did the entirety of Bongino's audience pop in Viva's chat today calling McGregor a commie?
You'll make Tim, y'all make Tim Walz sound like a genius.
Get Anton's meat delivered to your back door from Dominant One.
And I've met Doug a couple of times at Ron Paul Institute conferences.
He's great.
And before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, there were two tip questions there.
Thanks, Colonel, says Chris Kraft II.
And Buma says, Does Israel wish to move into Argentina by setting fires in Patagonia to buy land cheap?
I looked into those rumors.
The rumors are that there's allegedly some IDF, what do they call them, grenades, or there's some rumors that IDF is setting bomb, setting, setting fires in the Patagonia Mountains in Argentina.
I think there are rumors.
I'm not going to jump on the Jewish space lasers.
She never said that, by the way.
But that is the rumor.
So the internet's abound with rumors.
What we're going to do right now is go over to viva barneslaw.locals.com.
But first, we're going to go raid redacted, where I'm going to be on with them in 35 minutes.
Give or take.
McGregor is the thing that's been on with Redacted a couple of times too.
The Redacted is also.
I mean, I was watching a lot of people.
He comes from the old populist right, by the way.
You know, skeptical of Wall Street, skeptical of, you know, he doesn't like this huge government debt exploding and all the problems.
Doesn't like the diminution of the currency.
So he's an old school populist right-leaning figure.
And it's amazing, people.
A lot of them are bots.
A lot of them are your Brandon Dilly losers.
These are people that in three years won't have a career, right?
Because they built their whole career on Trump worship.
So they don't like any criticism of any kind of Trump.
And anytime there is, what's interesting is I get it from both sides.
I hear the because I was on the Duran yesterday.
So I get all those people bombarded, barraging the chat in the comment section.
Barnes are Trump apologists.
McGregor, Barnes hates Trump.
You know, they can't make up their mind.
But they have no future.
Who's going to care what Brandon Dilly thinks in three years?
They really don't care what he thinks now.
But once Trump is gone, what's their future?
They don't have a future.
They don't even realize it.
He'll jump on the Marco Rubio if they decide that they're going to be anti-JD coming 2028.
Let's end this.
We're going to end this on both platforms.
There'll be X, Buh-bye.
See you tomorrow.
And Rumble.
Go check out the redacted.
I'm going to be there after I pick Barnes' big brain on the recent raid of a Washington Compost journalist.
We're ending it on Rumble.
Going to remain on local.
So, Rumble, see you all soon and see you tomorrow.