Sean Hannity CANCELS Geraldo Rivera


>>Geraldo has disagreed with other personalities
on Fox News when it comes to war with Iran. In fact, there was a video that went viral,
where he is saying it’s a terrible idea to escalate tensions with Iran and Brian Kilmeade
went at it with him. Now, recently he was supposed to make an appearance
on Hannity show, but that appearance was cancelled. And it seems like it was cancelled specifically
because Geraldo was gonna continue making the case that war with Iran is a bad idea. So he starts off with this tweet. Urging Donald Trump to keep his powder dry,
please don’t let this spin out of control. You can always hit them back. Please don’t let this become an escalating,
you hit me, I hit you back harder until we have another full blown, bloody Mid East war
on our hands. What would we win? And so then he ends up responding to someone
who apparently liked his tweet and he says, thanks. I’ll be on with Sean Hannity tonight counseling
restraint and talking about these deeply disturbing developments. And then later he said, Nevermind, Hannity
just canceled me. And I just like to end this whole exchange
with Malcolm Fleschner tweet, cancel culture strikes again.>>I really liked that tweet. So look, before we open this up for discussion,
I just wanna remind you of how passionately Geraldo feels about avoiding war with Iran. This was a segment that Fox had earlier. Take a look.>>Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You’re gonna see the US markets go crazy today. You’re gonna see the price of oil spiking
today. This is a very, very big deal.>>And I don’t know if you heard
>>But this isn’t about his resume of blood and death, it is about what was next. We stopped the next attack, that’s what I
think you’re missing.>>According to the Secretary of State.>>By what credible source,
>>Okay.>>Can you predict what the next Iranian move
would be?>>They’ve been excellent, the US Intelligence
has been excellent since 2003, when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real
reason. Don’t for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we
have unleashed.>>I will cheer
>>Then you, like Lindsay Graham, have never met a war you didn’t like.>>That is not true, and don’t even say that.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation-
>>We should just let him kill us for another 15 years.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation
and to bring our troops home. What this was a reaction to-
>>What about the 700 Americans who are dead? Should they not be happy because of him?>>What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis
who have died since 2003? You have to start seeing things. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the
first place? Why are we there? Why aren’t these forces home?>>You’re blaming President Bush for the maniacal
killing of Saddam Hussein?>>I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for
those fake weapons of mass destruction that never existed and the con job that drove us
into that war.>>Listen, you gotta give people credit when
they’re right, and Geraldo was right there. I think that he took a strong position. I also give Geraldo credit for consistently
speaking out against Donald Trump’s disgusting immigration policies on Fox. I’m sure that’s not an easy environment to
share your accurate opinions in. But yeah, so Hannity canceled. Now, who knows? Maybe they canceled him to maybe replace that
segment with something that involves a legal analyst or?>>I don’t know, should we give Hannity the
benefit of the doubt?>>Hannity did not want any of that smoke. He’s like man, I saw what you did to kill
me. And I don’t think any more clearly than he
does. His producers probably said hey, we’re gonna
go ahead and cancel Geraldo because first off, Geraldo’s only mistake was revealing
what he wanted to do that night. When he talked to the person who retweeted
him or liked it and he goes, thanks I’m gonna be on later to make sure I council against
this. They’re like no that’s not the agenda tonight. That’s not what we’re on board for. Of course, yes again we’re speculating. But I mean, if it’s not the case, go and let
us know what the other difference was. I mean, they canceled on me tonight so I can’t
come on and say what I had to say. So I mean, again, what’ll happen is you end
up revealing what your real intentions are and what your real beliefs are. And people on the region are like, well, 700
Americans were lost. You don’t care about the Americans being lost
when it comes to anything else except for pursuing war. And then so, of course, when Geraldo brings
up the tens of thousands of Iraqis dying, there’s no answer to that. Those aren’t real people? Those are casualties of war. Or when we talk about how we wanna make sure
we keep American troops out of harm’s way. They go hey, well American troops they signed
up for it. They knew what they were getting themselves
into. Somehow when it comes to having any kinda
empathy towards people it’s all based on whether or not you’re falling not behind this president
and his line of ridiculousness. Secondly, Geraldo use Trump’s talking point
about we gotta get out of these stupid wars. You can’t follow a guy who continues to contradict
his own agenda and policies throughout his presidency.>>Right, exactly. And look, it’s hilarious to me to hear anyone
on Fox News or even anyone in cable news talk about how egregious it is or how much of an
injustice it is when Americans die. When in our own country they constantly push
for domestic policy that leads to more Americans dying.>>Totally, my god.>>I mean, how many American die every year
because they don’t have adequate health insurance? And they will attack Universal Healthcare,
over and over again. They’ll talk about how we can’t afford it,
can’t pay for it. When it comes to beating that war-drum, by
the way, which is the most expensive policy to support, they’re all for it. They don’t care about American lives. American’s overall, just like troops are nothing
more than pawns, nothing more than props, that these lowly individuals use to make their
arguments when it’s convenient for them. But when push comes to shove, you think they
really care about the lives of Americans? How about all those segments that Fox News
has done on homeless people? Do they care about them? They defame them, they slander them as dead
beats, as druggists, as all sorts of things. They don’t care about human lives. What cares about is appeasing Trump, making
sure that Trump is happy with him. Because you never know, you might lose access
to Trump if you criticize him. And you might not be able to get a job in
Trump’s administration. We all know that Trump likes to pick people
out of Fox News. So it’s just gross. And look, not to get too leftist, I guess,
whatever you wanna call it. But that’s what capitalism is, that’s what
capitalism does. It’s all about profit, it’s all about ensuring
that you have the upper hand and you increase your chances of making more money, right? That’s what happens in our media all the time,
right?>>Making money and being a tough guy, that’s
the other part of it. Even people who don’t have, I guess, the interests
for lining their pockets. It’s, hey, we’re tough guys, we’re America. Hey, we don’t let them F with us like this. Hey, you’re not gonna say that to me. There’s a superiority complex that we have
from the moment that we’re born that says, we have to make sure that we talk about how
much better we are than you no matter what. You can be on the lowest totem pole in America. But you’re like, I’m an American, I’m better
than you. But your life actually has nothing to do with
this American dream that they’ve sold you. That you’re supposed to somehow pursue. And one more thing that they don’t care about
lives for is school shootings, mass shootings, Car Club shootings. We don’t care about that stuff, thoughts and
prayers. What bombs we dropping on people to stop that
from happening? American lives are being lost every day. You don’t care about American lives.>>Again, it’s just something that they cite
when it’s convenient to them to support a policy that’s horrendous, usually. And, in this case, it’s escalated tensions
and war with Iran. So, again, credit where credit is due. I think Geraldo is doing a good job. And I think that he should be proud of the
fact that Hannity canceled his appearance, right? Look, I don’t know what his future is gonna
look like. Obviously, Shep Smith, who had the audacity
to speak the truth every once in a while on Fox News is no longer there. But we know what Fox News is, Geraldo knows
what Fox News is. I don’t agree with Geraldo on many issues. But if you have any integrity and you actually
want to share truthful analysis with an audience, Fox News is not the place to do it. You’re hardly even seen on cable news shows
period, much less on Fox News.

Fox Host Does The Unthinkable, Defends Obama


>>Brian Kilmeade strangely decided to defend
Barack Obama. Now, this is in response to all the right
wingers who have been blaming Obama for the escalated tensions with Iran. When in reality, as we know, Donald Trump
started escalating tensions with Iran the moment he pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal,
started implementing these crippling economic sanctions on Iran. And then he later assassinated Iran’s top
military general. But here’s Brian Kilmeade, speaking out against
all the right wingers who are trying to deflect and place the blame on Obama as opposed to
Trump.>>I just don’t love bringing up the previous
administration, just like I didn’t like when President Obama kept bringing up President
Bush.>>Yeah, but it’s true.>>But it’s how do you know? Well, what I’m trying to say is with President
Bush, you heard that statement all along from President Obama. All was a dumb war, as people who were missing
limbs and no longer can see or missing legs. And here, it’s a dumb war they lost their
limbs in->>Brian, they got 150 billion dollars weapon.>>Well, that’s fine, everybody knows that
policy. But you gotta bring people together as the
president and just to continue to take shots at President Obama-
>>Because I think it’s->>Three and half years later, it doesn’t
make any sense.>>It’s a stupid show.>>Now, understand that Brian Kilmeade was
supportive of Trump’s actions. He defended Trump and his decision to assassinate
Soleimani. And he got into this giant argument with Geraldo
Rivera about it. Geraldo Rivera was critical of what Trump
did. And so he’s not speaking out against what
Trump did, but he is speaking out against people who are blaming Obama for what’s going
on with Iran.>>Yeah, but look, if that was the extent
of it, I would say, look at Brian Kilmeade, able to add a little bit of nuance and in
favor of someone who normally disagrees with him. But everything else he added on to it made
me think no, I don’t actually like this at all.>>I agree, I agree, yeah.>>I mean, look, he came out looking better
than Doocy, that’s a high bar for you right there. But no, he said let’s not bring up past administrations
in some sort of weird general DC. Let’s all be polite and always looking forward,
no analysis of what actually has been done. When he said don’t call a war dumb because
have died and lost limbs, what are you talking about? That’s one of the reasons it was so stupid
and pointless and shouldn’t have been fought. That’s not mocking those who fought in it,
that’s speaking with compassion about the suffering that they went through that shouldn’t
have ever happened. And we don’t say it just because we like judging
past actions. We wanna stop future stupid, pointless wars,
like the one that Brian Kilmeade was, he said, I’m cheering for a couple of days ago when
he was arguing with Geraldo.>>Right.>>I don’t wanna have another argument in
ten years looking back on all the people have died in the US-Iran war. I wanna avoid it altogether.>>That’s the reason why we need to be serious
in electing the right person to lead this country this year. Now with that said, I do wanna go a little
back in time. These are clips from the past week where right
wingers on Fox, on Kilmeade’s very network, decided to place the blame on Obama. Let’s start off with Pete Hegseth.>>Listen, this instant, this moment right
now is on Barack Obama, not Donald Trump. When Barack Obama retreated in Iraq and created
a vacuum, he unleashed two radical forces. First ISIS, which President Trump had to come
in and eradicate, but he also opened the door for Iran’s influence to totally take over
Iraq. To the point where now the legislature in
Iraq is effectively controlled by Iran. If we couldn’t solve the problem in Iraq with
150,000 troops and the right strategy, we’re not gonna do it now with 5,000. So whether we leave Iraq or not should be
done on our terms and based on how we stare down Iran and their ability to get the nuclear
bomb.>>Iraq called on the United States and Iran
to help them defeat ISIS in their country. That’s the reason why the United States sent
troops back to Iraq. That’s the reason why Iran sent its forces
to Iraq in order to help defeat ISIS, and they actually did a pretty good job in that. And so now following Donald Trump’s actions,
in doing a drone strike in Iraq, the parliament in the country decided to take a vote and
they want US troops out. All of the escalation, as of late, is what
Trump is responsible for. There was a perfectly fine nuclear deal. It’s a nuclear deal because it was specifically
meant to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.>>And it was working.>>And it was working, they were complying. When he decided to pull out, implement sanctions
and continuously provoke Iran, that’s when things started to get worse.>>Yes.>>So no, this isn’t about Obama, it’s been
three and a half years. What do you mean?>>Yeah, no, it’s not Obama. Actually, I blame Calvin Coolidge. No, I don’t know, we can just keep going back. You know what? It was George W Bush because-
>>And Obama was terrible, by the way.>>If he hadn’t started this war, then we
wouldn’t be there. No, actually it was Clinton because if he’d
taken out Sadam the first time then Bush wouldn’t have had to go in. You could just always keep passing the buck
to the past, it doesn’t mean anything. But that’s what Pete Hegseth does. There’s a couple different brands of horrible
right wing pundit and I would argue that he’s probably the worst. He comes from the Sean Hannity school where
his brain is only large enough for one running algorithm at a time. And it’s, how do I blame a democrat for whatever
it is? Even if it’s a direct predicted result of
a republican action, he’s gonna find a way. He’ll say, it was the democrats fault, throw
a couple of buzzwords out there and that’s it. And so it’s no wonder that he’s doing well
on Fox News. That’s all they need to do.>>That’s right, and there was one other person
on Fox News who wanted to blame Obama. That was Laura Ingraham.>>Whereas, Bush was too idealistic about
what was possible in Iraq, and whereas Obama was too defeatist about Iran, Trump’s a realist. He’s a pragmatist.>>So that’s the stupidity that you hear on
Fox.>>By the way, she was an outspoken advocate
for the war in Iraq.>>100%.>>Just don’t ever forget that, that she was
cheerleading for the war in Iraq. She wants to pretend that that’s not the case. And by the way, she also just coincidentally
wants war with Iran. But it’ll be totally different, it’ll be way
better this time. She’s a realist after all.>>It’s insane. By the way, Vickie, one of our members wrote
in and said, John’s got his energy back with lots of exclamation marks.>>I think I’m at the exact perfect point
of all the medications have lined up, but I am still on a lot of medication.>>And I also wanna announce that he’s starting
to get me sick, so I’m really looking forward to this weekend.>>You can’t prove that. It’s possible, I think Barrack Obama got you
sick, actually.>>It was, you know what, good point, good
point. Become a member, go to tyt.com/join. Members help to make this show happen, you
keep us sustainable, which is why I want to include your comments in the context of the
stories that we do.

NATO Secretary General press point following North Atlantic Council meeting, 06 JAN 2020


Good afternoon. I have just chaired a meeting of the North
Atlantic Council. We addressed current tensions in the Middle
East, and implications for NATO’s training mission in Iraq. NATO and all NATO Allies take part in the
Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. And NATO’s mission in Iraq is an important
contribution to the Coalition’s effort. At the invitation of the Iraqi government,
we are helping to train forces and prevent the return of ISIS. At our meeting today, Allies expressed their
strong support for the fight against ISIS and for the NATO mission in Iraq. In everything that we do, the safety of our
personnel is paramount. As such, we have for the time being suspended
our training on the ground. And we are taking all precautions necessary
to protect our people. We are keeping the situation under close review. And we remain in close contact with the Iraqi
authorities. NATO is prepared to continue our training
and capacity-building when the situation permits. We remain strongly committed to the fight
against international terrorism. At our meeting today, the United States also
briefed on the regional situation, following recent attacks on coalition forces in Iraq,
and the strike against General Soleimani. For years, all Allies have expressed concern
about Iran’s destabilising activities in the wider Middle East region. We agree Iran must never acquire a nuclear
weapon. We share concern about Iran’s missile tests. And we are united in condemning Iran’s support
for a variety of different terrorist groups. We have recently seen an escalation by Iran,
including the strike on a Saudi energy facility, and the shoot-down of an American drone. At our meeting today, Allies called for restraint
and de-escalation. A new conflict would be in no-one’s interest. So Iran must refrain from further violence
and provocations. With that, I am ready to take your questions. Yes please. Sorry, okay, Teri. Well, thank you, that’s what you meant,
right? Yeah. Thanks, Piers. Mr Secretary General, were any of the Allies
specifically mentioning that they would like restraint on the part of the United States
as well? And when the Iraqi Parliament says that it
is going to kick out all foreign forces, if that should come to pass, does that mean . . . do
you believe that the 500 or so NATO personnel would be leaving, or would you ask for a special
dispensation to stay in Iraq? Thank you. At the meeting today, Allies expressed very
strong support for the NATO Training Mission in Iraq, because the training mission in Iraq
is an important part of the efforts of the Global Coalition to defeat Daesh and to make
sure that Daesh or ISIS is not able to return. One of the best weapons we have in the fight
against international terrorism is to train local forces, build local capacity, and that’s
exactly what the Coalition is doing and what NATO is doing through our training mission
in Iraq. We are there by invitation from the Iraqi
authorities. We have suspended our training mission now,
because of the security situation on the ground. But we are ready to restart the training when
the situation on the ground makes that possible. We are in close contact with the Iraqi authorities,
with the Iraqi government. I visited Iraq some weeks ago, or last fall. And then the Iraqi authorities and the Iraqi
Prime Minister stressed the importance of NATO’s support. NATO support, Coalition support to the Iraqi
security forces is important for Iraq, but it is also important for us, because when
we train them, help them in fighting ISIS and international terrorism, we’re also
making our own countries more safe and secure. I will not speculate more than we will continue
to . . . to work closely to . . . have close dialogue with the Iraqi government. And I strongly believe that the NATO Training
Mission is good for both Iraq and for NATO Allies. And we are there by invitation of the Iraqi
government. What was also clearly expressed at the meeting
today was a call for restraint and de-escalation. All Allies have, several times, expressed
their concerns about Iran’s destabilising activities in the region, including Iran’s
support for different terrorist groups. And, of course, all Allies agree that Iran
should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. We have also expressed again and again our
concerns about Iran’s missile programme: missiles which are able to reach, also, many
European Allied countries. Now, TV 2, sorry, just behind Teri. Should Iran retaliate in a way that makes
the United States trigger Article 5? What would NATO’s response be then? I think the important thing now is to really
try to de-escalate and to avoid further increase . . . increased tensions in the region. And I think that if I start to speculate on
how we will react, this will not help to de-escalate, it will actually do the opposite. So we call on . . . on responsible behaviour. We believe in the importance of de-escalation
and restraint. And that was a clear message from all Allies
in the meeting today. I will not speculate, because that will actually
contribute to the opposite. That will only increase tensions. Philip from NRK? Philip Lote, NRK, Norwegian Broadcasting. Was the criticism of the US by European Allies
. . . Allies during the meeting relating to the assassination of General Soleimani, and
what is your view, General Secretary of the killing of General Soleimani? The meeting we had today was actually a meeting
where we saw a very strong unity from all Allies on the importance of standing together
in the fight against international terrorism, on the importance of the NATO Training Mission
in Iraq, on the importance of the training activities and the efforts of the Global Coalition
to Defeat ISIS. All NATO Allies and NATO are part of the Global
Coalition. And NATO contributes to the Global Coalition
in different ways, including with our troops in Iraq. Again, NATO Allies are very concerned about
Iran’s activities in the region. And the NATO Allies condemned, and have condemned
many times, attacks on Coalition forces by Iran and supported groups. And that criticism, that position, was reiterated
by many Allies in the meeting today. Did you understand the assassination of Soleimani,
General Soleimani? This is a US decision. It is not a decision taken by either the Global
Coalition nor NATO. But all Allies are concerned about Iran’s
destabilising activities in the region, Iran’s support to different terrorist groups. And of course, we are extremely concerned
about the recent attacks we have seen against civilian energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia,
or against Coalition bases in Iraq – bases which are important for our efforts to fight
international terrorism in Iraq and in Syria. Time for one more. Michael from DPA. Hi, it’s Michael with German News Agency. You just said, Mr Sec Gen that the US briefed
on the airstrike against Soleimani. The US justified this killing by saying that
Soleimani developed plans to attack American diplomats. Did they show . . . did the US show some evidence
on that today? The US provided the rationale behind the action
against General Soleimani. And we had several briefers from the United
States, from the State and from Pentagon and they briefed and explained to other Allies
why they took this action against General Soleimani. I will not go into the details of that briefing. I will leave that to the United States. But we value and appreciate the briefings
provided by the United States. I think this provides, or once again shows
that NATO is a platform where European Allies, North American Allies, are able to come together
and address security concerns for all of us. That’s all we have time for. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

Why did Trump win? Look to post-Cold War politics


A people who were bewildered and enraged,
who felt that they had no place to stand, turned the country over to someone who is
manifestly ill-equipped to serve as president, because they were intent on repudiating the policy consensus that had existed during the post-Cold War period. Now, that’s a phrase I use in the book to
refer to the period, roughly quarter-century, between the end of the Cold War, fall of the
Berlin Wall, 1989, to the election of Donald Trump in 2016. 1989, a moment of enormous euphoria, we believed
we had won, we had triumphed. We believed, in the famous title of the essay
by Francis Fukuyama, that “the end of history” had arrived. And I argue that a policy elite, from that
moment on, set out to exploit what they believed as our great triumph. And their exploitation took the form of some
very specific notions. One of them was globalization, the conviction
that corporate capitalism on a global scale was going to create unprecedented wealth and,
they believed, work to the benefit of everyone. They also believed in a permanently supreme
American military power that could keep order in the planet and bring about the further
advance or export of American values. And operationalizing those ideas, which is
what the post-Cold War presidents — Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama — did, led to results
quite other than those expected. Globalization did make
some people really, really rich. And it also created economic inequality that
we have never seen in our nation, at least never seen since the end of the 19th century. It left behind millions and millions of Americans. And this notion of American military supremacy
as enabling us to keep order and to export our values, well, all it did was to plunge
us into a series of wars, some of which we don’t have any idea how to end. So, I think what happened — there are lots
of explanations for how Trump got elected. The earlier discussion of ads on Facebook,
I’m sure, played a role. But my argument would be that the central
explanation for Trump’s victory, that the election was a repudiation. It was Americans who were not served, and
indeed were hurt, by the post-Cold War consensus saying, “No, we’re not going to put up
with this anymore.” Unfortunately, that led to the election of
somebody who is utterly incapable of correcting the mistakes of the post-Cold War period,
reuniting the country and putting us on a more sensible course, hence the continuation
of this crisis, which will last throughout the Trump years and, in all likelihood, will
last beyond the Trump years.