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 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.

Megyn Kelly To Kaepernick: “Everything is Racist”

>>Megyn Kelly hasn’t really been out in the
public much lately. But she did decide to respond to Colin Kaepernick’s
tweets about US aggression toward Iran. So first, let me give you what Colin Kaepernick
had tweeted, and then I’ll give you her response. She said, there’s nothing new about American
terrorist attacks against black and brown people for the expansion of American imperialism. America has always sanctioned and besieged
black and brown bodies both at home and abroad. American militarism is the weapon wielded
by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world. Now-
>>Yep.>>Anyone who knows anything about American
history and American foreign policy sees what he’s talking about here. This isn’t simply about race. This is about US foreign policy toward countries
that are typically majority black or majority brown, right?>>Yep.>>And why, why do they do that? And I’m gonna fill in those blanks in just
a second. But Megyn Kelly, in her lack of sophisticated
thinking says, because everything is racist. Everything. Even fighting back against terrorists who
kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud? Okay, so if you’re so concerned about terrorists
killing Americans or terrorists killing people that they shouldn’t be killing. How about the fact that Donald Trump defended
Mohammed bin Salman after he ordered the killing of a US resident and Washington Post journalist
Jamal Khashoggi. Didn’t bother you, right? Didn’t bother you. I mean, it’s just such a disingenuous argument. And besides which, Colin Kaepernick is actually
making an important point that isn’t often made by public figures, especially people
in the entertainment industry or in athletics. Colin Kaepernick comments about things that
are so important to shed light on. And US imperialism is incredibly important
to discuss, especially in the context of what the United States is doing in the Middle East
right now. So for anyone who maybe didn’t have, and most
people in America didn’t, the appropriate history lessons about what the US has done
with coups abroad. We’ll do a quick run through of it. And I wish we had more time cuz there’s so
many interesting details to every single one of these examples, but we’re just gonna run
through some of the examples right now. So first off, when it comes to Latin American
countries, our CIA has loved orchestrating coups. We have orchestrated coups in Argentina, Brazil,
Cuba, Chili, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, okay? Now, we attempt to stage a coup in Cuba, we
failed there. So we weren’t successful in every single
case, but every single time you see this happen, especially in Latin American countries, there
are US business interests involved, right? It’s not because we’re trying to spread democracy. It’s because there’s some sort of resource
that the United States government wants access to. So we’ve done coups in countries like Iran. So in 1953 there was a coup in Iran. It was orchestrated by the United States. Despite continued speculation about the CIA’s
role in a 1949 coup to install a military government in Syria, the ouster of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh is the earliest coup of the Cold War that the United States
government has acknowledged. They’ve acknowledged it, okay? But you don’t hear much of it in US history
classes. In 1953, after nearly two years of Mossadegh’s
premiership, during which he challenged the authority of the Shah and nationalized an
Iranian oil industry previously operated by British companies, he was forced from office
and arrested, spending the rest of his life under house arrest. Did you think that you could just nationalize
your country’s oil and the US would let you get away with it? We don’t think so. Let’s move on. Guatemala, 1954, though the United States
was initially supportive of Guatemalan Guatemalan President Arbenz, the State Department felt
his rise through the US-trained and armed military would be an asset, the relationship
though soured as he attempted a series of land reforms that threatened the holdings
of US-owned United Fruit Company. A coup in 1954 forced him from power, allowing
a succession of juntas in his place. Classified details of the CIA’s involvement
in the ouster of the Guatemalan leader, which included equipping rebels and paramilitary
troops while the US Navy blockaded the Guatemalan coast, came to light in 1999. I mean, the examples go on and on and on. Congo in 1960, what we did to Patrice Lumumba. I mean, how many more examples do you want,
okay?>>I think she doesn’t want any.>>I’m sorry, Lumumba, Lumumba.>>And I would argue she probably doesn’t
care.>>But that’s what I wanna know. Look, Megyn Kelly’s not dumb. I don’t think she’s a dumb person. She’s a lawyer. She worked her way up to pretty lucrative
gigs at Fox News and then I think it was CBS or NBC.>>Well, no offense to us, but being a host
doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a genius.>>No, I get that. I get that.>>She had a public spat about how Santa’s
white. She’s kind of dumb when it comes to racial
stuff.>>You’re right. You’re right. Right.>>To hold these simplistic, stupid, bigoted
views on race you can’t be that intelligent.>>You guys, the United States will go into
countries and overthrow democratically elected leaders. We just did it in Bolivia. We just did it in Bolivia. We will do that. We will go into a sovereign country, overthrow
a democratically elected leader for our own business interests. So when someone draws attention to that because
they want our country to be better, to keep our country safe, to keep sovereign countries
safe and democratic, it’s a dumb ass response to say because everything’s racist.>>Yeah, it’s hard to be Megyn Kelly. When you say bigoted things people call you
a racist, it’s rough.>>That’s the woman who gets paid tens of
millions of dollars to be an idiot, it’s devastating. That’s what this country values.>>She’s so awful that she makes me like Charlize
Theron less.>>No, don’t say that.>>Although Bombshell was pretty good.>>It was okay.>>Yeah, it was fine.>>Charlize Theron is a national treasure.>>She is, exactly.>>Yeah.>>Yeah, she’s as bad as she ever was when
she was on Fox News. She somehow managed as she like pulled the
ripcord, got out of there, to seem more reasonable than someone like a Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly,
but she’s not. She was picked for that position because she
believes the same sorts of things that they do.>>I want to give some snaps to Colin Kaepernick
because what he was drawing attention to there is important. And a lot of people in America never get the
appropriate schooling or learn the appropriate history of what our country has done. And you need to understand the history to
really dissect and understand what our current foreign policy is. We should be able to hold our elected officials
to a higher standard, and we should not allow them to sell us this nonsense about how the
US government is looking to spread democracy abroad. When in reality, we’ve done a lot to undermine
democracy in other countries consistently over the decades.

Afghanistan Leaks Confirm It Was a Corrupt Mess

We have to talk about the Afghanistan papers.
Okay. There is a Washington post report which I will read a little bit from to get us acclimated.
The Afghanistan papers are a confidential trove of government documents obtained by
the Washington post revealing that senior U S officials failed to tell the truth about
the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18 year campaign making rosy pronouncements. They
knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence that the war had become unwinnable more than
2000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct
role in the war from generals and diplomats and aid workers and Afghan officials have
been published. The quotes are damning. The what these Afghanistan
papers effectively are telling us is that not only has it been a corrupt disaster, but
that a lot of people involved knew that it was a corrupt, poorly planned disaster for
a very long time and still the money flow continued and the public pronouncements that
this was the right war. Remember Iraq? Okay. Iraq was the wrong war. Afghanistan was the
right war. 18 years. It was a disaster. All right, quote from Douglas lute. Douglas lute
is a three-star army general who was the white house’s Afghan Wars are during both the Bush
and Obama, Obama administrations in 2015 he said, we were devoid of a fundamental understanding
of Afghanistan. We didn’t know what we were doing. What are we trying to do here? We didn’t
have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking. Remember publicly, we were told Iraq went
sideways. Maybe we went in for the wrong reason, but
we’re doing the right thing in Afghanistan. Um, loot also said if the American people
knew the magnitude of the disfunction, 2,400 lives lost. Who will say that this was in
vain? There has been a PR management of the Afghanistan war to portray it as properly
run successful reflecting an understanding of the region which we lacked in Iraq and
it was all a farce. The Washington post goes on to say that since 2001 more than 775,000
us troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly of those 2300 died there. Nearly
21,000 were wounded in action. While with most speaking on the assumption that their
remarks would not become public, us officials acknowledged this is from the Afghanistan
papers, that their war fighting strategies were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted
enormous sums of money trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation. This is not just about money. It has been
an incredible, uh, a quagmire when it comes to money, but it has been a foreign policy
disaster as well. Uh, the Washington post, uh, the interviews also highlight the U S
government’s botched attempts to curtail runaway corruption, build a competent Afghan army
and police force. I remember we were told we’re doing really good work. We’re building
up their army and their police force into one that works well. And to put a dent in
Afghanistan is thriving opium trade. The U S government has not carried out a comprehensive
accounting of how much it is even spent on the war in Afghanistan. But the costs are
staggering. Listen to these numbers. Since 2001 the defense department, state department,
and us agency for international development have spent or appropriated between 934,000,000,970
8 billion. We’re talking about almost a trillion dollars. Jeffrey Eggers, who’s a retired Navy
seal and white house staffer for Bush and Obama again said to government interviewers,
we now know that he said this because the Afghanistan papers have gone public quote,
what did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion after the killing
of Osama bin Laden? I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering
how much we have spent on Afghanistan. The Afghanistan papers. Describe what the Washington
post calls constant deception quote. Every data point was altered to represent the best
picture possible. This is, according to Bob Crowley, an army Colonel who was senior counter-insurgency
advisor surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable, but reinforced that everything
we was doing we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone. This
is a scandal, okay? This doesn’t diminish any of Donald Trump’s scandals. This says
nothing about the impeachment. This is a scandal. It is the type of scandal that does not get
a lot of attention. I remember the Panama papers, it got a little attention, but then
these things tend to fade. These documents, these interview transcripts should be front
page news for a very long time. The framing was Iraq didn’t go so well, but
Afghanistan is moral. It’s successful. We’re doing the right thing. It’s not corrupt. We
know where the money’s going. We know everything that’s going on and now we find out from,
from people who were on the ground there, we had no understanding of what was going
on. We had no understanding of what we were doing. The accounting is a farce. Claims were
routinely made publicly that things were going well. When it’s not just that it was an exaggeration,
people knew that it was an absolute and total disaster. This is the exposure of an embarrassing
multi-decade fiasco that is just barely a blip on the radar and it’s not. I know it’s
easy to say, well, damn David, if everybody stopped focusing less on Trump, then we would
hear more about this. I don’t buy that. This is not the type of story that tends to get
a lot of attention. Years ago there were claims made. We had Abu
Ghraib, right? That was the Iraqi prison where there was horrible, horrible, a wrongdoing
by a American members of the military. There were supplementary documents and reports about
truly horrible things that were taking place there and at other facilities it may barely
made a blip on the radar. There was no impeachment scandal at the time. There was no, you know,
we didn’t have a president tweeting 20 to a hundred times a day at the time and it still
did not get nearly the attention that it deserves. These stories don’t do well because corporate
media sets the narrative. People died because of bureaucratic issues. $1 trillion is gone.
We have no clue what’s going on there and to the extent that I’m able to, I will continue
talking about this story because it is so important and it is so, so incredible. Check out the documents yourselves, widely
available online, Washington post again as a very, very good report and summary about

SICK: Trump “Bringing Troops Home”…to Iraq

So Donald Trump continues to tweet and to
say more and more about how he is bringing troops home from [inaudible], from Syria. And this has been one of the big defenses
and justifications for what is actually a completely shortsighted and haphazard decision
to abandon the Kurds in Northern Syria who were immediately attacked by Kurdish forces
after American troops pulled back. We’re bringing troops. Home has been the story, except it turns out
that that is also not true. Trump tweeted that the troops are coming home
and then the Pentagon chief Mark Esper said, well, they’re not really coming home. They’re going from Syria to Iraq. The troops are actually going to the epicenter
of so called endless war in Iraq. And when you look at the details of the entire
situation, it is truly in every sense, the worst of American foreign policy. And I’ll explain what I mean. Uh, we abandoned the Kurds in Northern Syria. Okay. So that is a problem. We immediately have the narrative that getting
troops out of anywhere at any opportunity is by default the right thing. And we should be praising Trump for it despite
all of the both circumstantial questions about it, foreign policy questions about it, motivational
questions about it, blackmail questions about it. I mean, all sorts of questions around Trump’s
decision. Okay, but we’re told we are at least going
to get troops out of harm’s way. We’re going to get out of an endless commitment
that is all good, even if it has some unintended consequences like the deaths of Kurds, except
we quietly kept a small number of forces in Northern Syria anyway, not much publicized. What are they doing? Not protecting the curds. They’re protecting oil fields. Oil fields, case in point, prototypical of
American foreign policy. Abandoned the curds, protect the oil fields. Okay, but that’s not bad enough. Then Mark Esper says in the same statement
where he says, a small number of troops are still there protecting oil fields. He says, all us troops leaving Syria are going
to Western Iraq. No one is coming home. The story is false. The United States is not leaving the region,
and it’s really important to understand the significance of this. The entire justification for abandoning the
Kurds, opening the door to the resurgence of ISIS that we are now dealing with. As the French prime minister recently told
us, it was all about stopping endless and indefinite military commitments. Getting out of the region, taking our troops
out of harm’s way. The troops are moving from Syria to Iraq. We aren’t ending indefinite military commitments. We aren’t taking those troops out of harm’s
way. We’re not getting out of the region. We’re not doing any of the things that supposedly
are good about the decision to leave Northern Syria, and we’re actually perpetuating many
of the problems that some claim Trump is solving by leaving Northern Syria. We’re shifting troops around and we’re shifting
troops around in a way that has led to Kurds being killed. Two, the pleasure, by the way, of Putin and
urge to one, while not accomplishing any of the outwardly stated goals. This is a microcosm of foreign policy under
Donald Trump. It’s a combination of everything Trump says
is actually the opposite with not accomplishing the stated goals, never properly analyzing
what might actually a motivating factor, and then in the end we’re actually doing the opposite
of what it is that we claim to be doing via these foreign policy decisions. Now you know the everything Trump says being
the opposite is not new. There’s many examples of that in the Trump
presidency. Trump says he’s going to drain the swamp. He has filled the swamp more than any president
in recent history. Trump says he knows trade and he’s going to
do better on trade than anybody else. People fall for it. Then he starts a trade war that he can’t win
and he absolutely decimates Midwestern farmers in the United States. He says he will end conflicts of interest
with his businesses. He actually has more conflict of interest
than ever. He’s funneling millions of dollars into his
pockets by virtue of being president and those pockets of his friends and family, he will
be the most transparent president with the most transparent administration. No press briefings since. Is it last March? I mean, has it been nearly what, seven, eight,
nine months since the last actual press briefing? And of course, bring the troops home and get
them out of harm’s way and get out of an indefinite conflict and an endless conflict. Uh, and it’s the opposite. It’s we’ll send them elsewhere while our allies
who have been helping us to fight ISIS, the Kurds are getting killed. If you don’t see the tragedy that this foreign
policy and this presidency is, then maybe you deserve this presidency. I’m sort of at a loss for how to even sum
it up, but the exact opposite of what we were told this happening is actually what is happening
on the ground. And you don’t have to go to fake news media
to be told it. You just read the words of Trump’s own Pentagon,
chief Mark Esper. He’s telling you what’s going on.

What is the Legacy of 9/11?

So it is today the 18th anniversary of nine
11. It’s incredible. It has actually been, uh, more than half of my life has been lived
after nine 11 than before nine 11, which is incredible. It’s also incredible just how
fast time passes and with each passing year since nine 11, uh, since the program has existed,
uh, I have been increasingly unsure, I guess I would say, or kind of just ambivalent about
what should we be doing? Should we just be doing the same thing every nine 11 anniversary
more or less? I don’t know. It’s actually been a few years since we’ve even talked about
it because for the last several anniversaries, I just didn’t really have anything new to
add. So what I want to think about today is I will retell the story of, of where I was
on nine 11, which I remember vividly, although behavioral economists and others would say,
my memory of this has deteriorated over the years and it is no longer accurate, but you
can go back and check contrast with the first time I told the story. And then I also want to talk about the, the
sort of legacy of nine 11 as I now see it. So, uh, on, on the morning of nine 11, I was
in high school and I was sitting in psychology class with a teacher of mine who I really
liked Donald Palmisano, who sadly is no longer with us. He actually passed away not that
long ago and I got the chance to see him out in western Massachusetts at an event a few
years ago. And, um, I remember his wife actually came up to me having heard my description
of, uh, my nine 11 morning and said, you know what, when I heard you tell that story, I
asked him, is it, do you think it really went down that way? And he said, you know, I don’t
remember, but it sounds sort of like how it would go down. So I was sitting in psychology
class and, um, a student who was sort of a regular troublemaker, whose name I forgot,
I think his name might have been Eric. And it’s amazing that his, the, the student’s
name, I forgotten. He was always out of his seat and always walking around in the halls.
He had gone to the bathroom and he came back into the room, uh, agitated and interrupted
psychology class and said to Mr Palmisano, we’re under attack. It’s happening in New
York. Things are crazy. More or less just saying we were, we’re under attack. The country’s
under attack. And Mr. Paul Massano looked at him in the context of this is a guy who’s
always interrupting class and sort of a troublemaker and not particularly well behaved and just
didn’t believe it and said, you know what, I’m sure everything’s fine. Please just sit
down. And of course we later found out that it was true. And, um, I don’t think that there
was early dismissal, but I certainly went home and was just watching TV. Uh, the rest of the day. And the following
day Mr Palmisano actually apologized to the student and said, you know what? You were
right. I apologize for how I reacted. And, uh, it’s, it’s horrible what’s happened. And
we just had a conversation in psychology class about what had gone on. Um, since then with
each passing year. Uh, in some senses our perspective on what took place changes and
evolves partially just because when things are less recent, our point of view is altered.
I don’t think any of us can control this also, partially because we know more about what
the legacy has been. And for me, unfortunately the legacy of nine 11 in the United States
has been pretty bad. Uh, we started a war in the wrong place as a result of nine 11
against people who didn’t do the thing that we claimed was the reason for starting the
war. We have seen pervasive, persistent and also
effective privacy invasions as a result of nine 11 under the guise of national security.
We’ve seen the Patriot Act, we’ve seen NSA surveillance, all of that stuff that we’ve
talked about over the last many years. Post nine 11 that the David Pakman show has been
going on, we have become really accustomed to the persistent state of the global war
on terror. Uh, the permanent war status quo of we’re always somewhere for many years it’s
been Afghanistan, a presence in Iraq that never seems to end. Other potential engagements,
all sort of under this post nine 11 mentality of we’ve got to make sure that people out
there who want to harm us aren’t able to do it and that we’re projecting strength and
all of this stuff. One of the elements of the legacy of nine 11 sort of the, the high
points, not in terms of them being morally good or bad, but just notable was the Obama
administration capture of Osama bin Laden. And then of course subsequently everything
we learned about the lead up to that and the people that were involved. We’ve seen a legacy
of continued ignorance and it’s really more than ignorance. It’s really more of a deliberate
kind of bearing our heads in the sand, many of us about what creates radicalism through
foreign policy. And this is not, you know, very often when we talk about foreign policy
creating radicals who want to attack the United States, it becomes a very sort of mannequin
white, black thing of listen, either people are responsible for choosing to attack the
United States, or you’re saying that they lack all responsibility and it’s just the
fault of the u s through foreign policy for radicalizing people. And of course the answer
is no, that’s not the black and white scenario that anyone who’s thoughtful is trying to
lay out. One of the things we’ve hopefully learned over the 18 years since nine 11, is
that radicalization, both domestically and geopolitically, whether we’re talking about
white supremacy or or Islamic, uh, um, extremism or whatever the case may be, is a combination
of, uh, circumstances domestically, which are influenced by the foreign policies of
super powers like the United States combined with the particular, uh, predispositions and,
uh, sort of, uh, circumstances of individuals. All of the white supremacists and former white
supremacists. I’ve interviewed on the show have told a very consistent story about how
they know who is sort of ripe for radicalization and indoctrination and in the same way when
we talk about al Qaeda or isis or whatever, we’re not excusing the actions of individuals
when we say we should consider the role that the relationships between countries and American
foreign policy have on creating an environment ripe for radicalization. While understanding
that millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of people on the planet
are not apt to be radicalized regardless of foreign policy. These things are not black
and white and hopefully if there’s a positive legacy from nine 11 and I know that for a
lot of people this just doesn’t work, but hopefully the more thinking people are aware
of this stuff, hopefully one of the positive legacies of nine 11 if there’s anything to
find in it, is that we have sort of deepened our understanding of the interaction between
personal circumstances, personal responsibility and geopolitical status quo in creating radicalization
around the world. We also have seen continued neo-conservative
war hawking on a lot of the right and even on some of the left as a result of nine 11.
Um, in terms of even justifying, uh, attempted or would be engagements in other parts of
the world over the last 18 years. Airport security and the establishment of the TSA
of course a major legacy of nine 11 and unfortunately not one of the best ones. TSA, a failing to
identify banned items in almost 95% of internal self tests, drills, so to speak of their security
processes. So sadly it is mostly negative. There was, I mean, if we want to find something
that was sort of good that happened after nine 11, um, that of course doesn’t outweigh
any of the bed. There was actually a short lived positive sort of sense of unity in the
United States where hyper partisanship was mitigated a little bit. And it was about coming together as a country
and helping people in New York City and in Washington, D C and all of the people affected
by nine 11. And it didn’t last long. And it’s not surprising that it was these sort of black
swan type events. To take a term from, uh, Nassim Taleb who has written about such events,
um, that really kind of shook up the status quo. It didn’t last very long. And of course
then the administration of George W. Bush choosing to retaliate to nine 11 by going
into Iraq, which had nothing to do with it, did not help at all. My question to you, how
should we be remembering nine 11 as we get closer and closer to 20 years out from the
event, which is just incredible that almost 20 years have gone by. Uh, and what do you
see as the legacy of nine 11 on geopolitics on United States foreign policy, domestic,
uh, issues and the status quo? I want to hear from you.