Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: Biden Says US Not at War

Episode Date: August 14, 2024

Aaron Maté: Biden Says US Not at WarSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, August 14th, 2024. Our dear friend Aaron Maté joins us now. Aaron, thanks very much for your time. You have a fascinating piece out in which you undermine an argument made by President Biden that the United States is not at war. And I want to explore that with you and what Biden is saying and what he's overlooking. But before we do, there are some hotspots that I need to address of recent breaking news, the first of which is the invasion, the Ukrainian invasion into Russia, which seems to be going on as we speak. Colonel McGregor reports that this was actually a NATO invasion, that it was planned by NATO, that it was orchestrated in Poland, that it involved troops from Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Germany, Great Britain, and likely some people from the United States, because the Russian surveillance has heard

English-speaking voices which had identified as having American accents. Question, has the United States invaded Russia? What I can say is confirmed is certainly that U.S. weaponry is being used for this invasion of Russia. U.S. military equipment is being used, that's obvious. And of course, this crosses a so-called red line that the Biden administration once had, which is that they weren't going to let Ukraine use US military equipment to attack sites inside Russia, which of course is a red line that the Biden administration has long crossed, along with many others that they said they would not do, because that's the inevitable consequence when you're fueling a proxy war against a much larger

power in Russia. As to the involvement of foreign countries with Ukraine in this, I can't speak to that. Personally, I'm skeptical of those claims. And there's all sorts of claims flying around. You have some people on the pro-Russian side saying that actually Russia let Ukraine do this, that this was all a setup for Ukraine, that they fell into Putin's trap, which I have a hard time believing. Would the Russian government knowingly endanger its own people and humiliate itself by letting Ukraine cross in? So many sides are saying different things. Ukraine's also saying that now Russia's been forced to divert its own forces fighting on the Eastern front to help defend its own territory inside Russia. And so therefore for Ukraine, this is a success. So everyone's making

all sorts of claims. What I know is that all this could have been avoided. All this bloodshed could have been avoided had the U.S. been willing to allow diplomacy. It's something we've talked about many times. And the question is now is, is that diplomatic opening still on the table? Because what does Vladimir Putin just said? He said, there's no more talking with this government, that negotiations are over. We can't speak to people who not only cross into our territory, but also are engaging still and trying to shell the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, where there was recently a fire. And implausibly, Ukraine claimed that Russia was responsible, which they've said many

times, which never makes any sense. Why would Russia set on fire the nuclear plant that it itself is controlling and is trying to keep as part of its annexed territory? So negotiations could have prevented all of this. The way Putin's speaking now, I don't know if they're still possible anymore. But look, in defense of Ukraine, I think they do have every right to do this. I mean, they were invaded by Russia. So Russia has the right to be invaded too by Ukraine. I don't think tactically,

ultimately this will be the Ukraine's benefit. Just based on the balance of forces here, you just have in Russia an overwhelming power that no matter what Ukrainians do, Russia will always be able to match. I suspect that's what we'll see here in the Kursk region. I think Russia will always be able to match. I suspect that's what we'll see here in the Kursk region. I think Russia will ultimately repel it, but what do I know? I'm not a military strategist. No, no, no. But your observations are very sound.

The governor of the Kursk region claims that 28 towns and villages have been taken over. Well, what do the Ukrainians do when they take over the villages? Do the Russians leave? Do they leave their homes? Does the government of these villages leave? Yeah, thousands of people have fled, which is very embarrassing for the Kremlin. And there is a lot of footage of Russian prisoners of war, people being blindfolded. So those prisoners will be held and likely exchanged in a hostage exchange, which has really been the only act of negotiation involving Ukraine and Russia for a long time now. Ever since the Istanbul Accords were killed by the US and UK over two years ago, the only real diplomacy that we've seen is of negotiating prisoner releases. So I suspect that will continue here. But yeah, there

are thousands, if not tens of thousands of residents of these Russian towns that have been forced to flee. Very embarrassing for Moscow. Some people want to believe that Moscow set this deliberate trap to get Ukraine to invade and then to kill them off. I doubt Russia would put itself

through this humiliation just to do that. But it's all speculation. This will aggravate you, but I want you to see it and you'll know who these two gentlemen are. Chris, back to back, cut number 13 and then cut number 14. You're fighting our fight, the independence and freedom of people around the world, including the United States. But we want the American people to appreciate the value of this alliance.

So two and a half years later you're still standing and you're in Russia. Remind me not to invade Ukraine. I'm so proud of you, your people, your military, your leadership, your country. You're under siege unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. They were predicting in Washington that Kiev would fall in four days, the whole country fall in three weeks. Well, they were wrong. That, of course, was Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut making the preposterous argument that Kiev is fighting America's fight. And of course Senator Lindsey Graham. Who looked like he had a spider in his pants.

He couldn't sit still. But was smiling from ear to ear. At what he believes is the success of the Keeve invasion. I was completely turned off by what the two of them said. It is this neocon attitude that will bring America down. I agree, and everybody else down with them. Two years ago, last month, in July 2022, Lindsey Graham said that as long as we arm Ukraine, they will fight to the last person. And two years later, his prophecy is coming true.

That's what Ukraine is doing. Now, Richard Blumenthal can believe that somehow this is our fight. No Americans have been polled and say, do we want to sacrifice Ukraine, risk nuclear conflict with Russia, and all the other consequences of this horrible war just for the goal of bleeding Russia. Does anybody in America, beyond neocons in Washington, share that commitment to that goal? No. This fight that he talks about is just a dream of neocons going back many years to basically do everything they can to bleed a geopolitical foe that they don't like because Russia can fight back. It stands up to U.S. hegemony. It's a very big country. It's powerful. And it's in the way of U.S. hegemony. So therefore,

it must be weakened. That's the fight that Richard Blumenthal is bragging about. And amazingly for Zelensky, he's sitting across from someone who's celebrating, from two people celebrating the fact that Zelensky is sacrificing his country you know his younger Generations for their fight a fight of that has nothing to do with concern for Ukraine but everything to do with a just a a ideological desire to bleed Russia going back to the Cold War it's's just insane. And Zelensky's proud of himself, I suppose, because he'll be handsomely rewarded when all this is over. I bet he'll go into exile somewhere, live a nice life. But what about his country? Does he have any concern for his own people?

And again, you could say that, yes, Ukraine has the right to fight back against someone that invaded it, which is true. But again, you have to look at the fact that there have been multiple diplomatic opportunities to avoid all of this. And they were just premised on simply Russia's demands of recognizing the equality of Russophile Ukrainians who live mostly in the east, who voted for a president who was backed in a U.S.-backed coup, cheered on by people like Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, who just want to be respected and be able to speak their language, be able to speak Russian without being persecuted by neo-Nazis, which was the case after the U.S. helped install the coup regime back in 2014. So had minimal diplomatic openings been followed, all this could have been avoided, and there would be no fight to have because everybody could live in peace. Switching gears to Israel and Gaza, here is a clip from August 13th, which is yesterday, of Itamar Ben-Gavir, the head of the national security for Israel's government, the rough equivalent of the head of our FBI, leading a few thousand Zionist fanatics into the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem. I want you to watch this, and I'd like you to listen to what he says. There is a translation. And then let us know what you think is the significance of this. Cut number 10.

We are at the Temple Mount on Tisha B'Av. Today we commemorate the destruction of the Temple, but we must also honestly acknowledge that there is significant progress here regarding the governance and sovereignty. The sight of Jews praying, as I said, our policy is to permit prayer. But I'll say something else. We must win this war. We must win, not go to summits in Doha or in Cairo, but defeat them. Bring them to their knees. That's the message. We can defeat Hamas, bring it to its knees. Chris, if you have it, you can run some of the B-roll. You'll see, Aaron, Zionists lying down with their arms spread out in a cross mimicking, but preventing people from entering the mosque. What's the significance of Zionists in the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Well, this is an extremist Zionist who said the most incendiary, racist things about Palestinians for a long time, deliberately trying to provoke Palestinians by

visiting the third holiest site in Islam. And this is nothing new. Whenever Israel wants to foreclose any possibility of diplomacy, of peace, and wants to basically incite Palestinians into violence that could then hasten a brutal Israeli crackdown, a war of aggression against them. They do things like this. They visit the Al-Aqsa compound. This is what Ariel Sharon did back on September 28th, 2000. This was right after the so-called peace talks in Camp David failed between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, mediated by Bill Clinton. And there was growing resentment at that time of the occupation, Israel's refusal to end the occupation. The message to Palestinians was that you have to accept just complete surrender and these major West Bank settlement blocks

if you want to have peace. That was the message of the failed peace process. So at the time of growing anger about that and fears of even worse, Ariel Sharon goes and visits the Al-Aqsa compound accompanied by hundreds of armed guards. And he got what he wanted. He provoked Palestinians.

This elicited some people throwing stones, which then Israel used as a pretext to launch a massive wave of violence, just gunning people down as they always do. So I think that what is being done here is a similar playbook, trying to provoke Palestinians more, trying to remind them that Israel claims

the right to control their lives, to control their holiest sites, and feels biblically endowed to do so. And the timing is peculiar because Israel is under a little bit more pressure now to finally agree to the ceasefire hostage deal that it's been avoiding for so long. You have U.S. officials speaking a bit more forcefully now about Netanyahu holding up the deal. So I would suspect that what he's doing here is trying to incite some sort of provocation to do his part in foreclosing any possibility of a deal. Chris, can you put up the full screen of Smotrich. This is Ben Gavir's colleague on the hard right in the cabinet, basically saying that it's in Hebrew, as you can see, but the headline is that a deal for a ceasefire is effectively a surrender deal. So I guess there is still pressure on Netanyahu from these two, who if they pull out of his

government, Netanyahu is a caretaker rather than the prime minister. Correct, and he faces prison time because he'll no longer be able to avoid a trial by virtue of being in office. I mean, we're talking about someone here, Smotrich, who recently complained that the world won't let Israel starve the two million people of Gaza, which he said would be justified and moral to starve two million people if it could free the hostages. That's what he said. But of course, he doesn't want to free the hostages because he knows, just as Netanyahu knows, that there's a deal on the table, which everyone except for them have accepted, but which Netanyahu has been stalling because he wants to prolong his political career.

And also he wants to destroy Gaza. He doesn't want to let that enclave exist anymore because it's the center of Palestinian resistance. So therefore it has to be destroyed. And whether the people there survive, he doesn't care. He wants them all. He wants as many Palestinians to leave Gaza as possible. That's his only goal. And that's why Netanyahu's been lying

through his teeth about the ceasefire deals. He said recently that it was Hamas that added a bunch of new conditions that made a ceasefire deal impossible. It's a complete lie. Even the New York Times was forced to admit recently that Netanyahu was lying. The Times had a headline saying, in the typical Times

way of downplaying Israeli rejectionism, said that Israel was less flexible in recent ceasefire time. Less flexible, which means in the real world, Israel is blocking a ceasefire deal. Because as the Times admits in the article, again, very reluctantly, I think, Netanyahu added a bunch of new conditions. He wants basically for Israel to control the corridor between Gaza and Egypt after previously saying it would let, it would withdraw from controlling all the border areas. And also wants to screen every single Palestinian coming back to their home in the north. So basically handing to, so for Hamas to

accept that deal, they'd have to basically cede control of the north of Gaza to Israel, which is a nonstarter for Hamas. They're not going to do that, which Netanyahu knows, which is why he's imposed those conditions, which is why he's also lying about it. And where is the U.S. calling him out on this? They've put out some rumblings of this, but if they were being honest, this is what Biden would be going before the world and saying that Netanyahu is the only obstacle and he's withholding all U.S. military support because of Netanyahu's stance, which, of course, Biden refuses to do. Is it any wonder that Hamas has said we're not going to negotiate with these people? First of all, you assassinated our chief negotiator. Secondly, every time we agree to something, you up the ante.

This is not a negotiation that you want. It's a capitulation, and we're not going to capitulate. I think it's a totally reasonable stance. I mean, what other conclusion can you draw from an Israeli government that, as you said, assassinates the top negotiator, that keeps adding new non-starter conditions while falsely claiming it's the other side doing so.

There's repeatedly assassinated people engaged in negotiations. Hamas leaders before Haneeb have been killed by Israel as they carried out negotiations that has used the so-called peace process, which was supposed to lead to a Palestinian state in theory, to accelerate the colonization of the Palestinian land that would be a part of any future Palestinian state, thereby making such a Palestinian state impossible.

So what do you do with people like that? So, you know, choosing not to negotiate at this point, I think, is a very reasonable stance. A former national security advisor for Israel named Gira Island recently said that the Middle East only understands the language of force, which was a complete projection. It's only Israel that understands force and seeks to achieve, seeks to use force to basically impose its hegemony and to scare everybody around it into submission. And the lesson that they're teaching everyone now is that it's basically only violence that will resolve anything.

Iran and Hezbollah have yet to retaliate against Israel. And we have to think about why. I mean, maybe there's something strategic there, but also I think both countries are still holding out hope for a ceasefire deal and are basically saying to Israel, this is your last chance to avoid violence. But Israel, consumed with hegemony, consumed with supremacy, it has a hard, it's actually impossible for it to look at anybody else in the region as equal actors worth negotiating with and worth giving some sort

of nod to. So Israel's put the whole region and the world in a very difficult position where violence seems to be the only answer that it will respond to. Is Joe Biden serious when he claims that the United States is not at war? Well, that's what he said in his first public address since he dropped out of the presidential race. He said, I'm proud, I'm happy to report that no American soldiers, that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world, which is false on so many levels. First of all, the U.S. is currently waging a belligerent occupation of Syria where they're stealing Syria's oil and wheat to deprive Syria of the chance to rebuild after Syria was decimated by

a decade-long U.S.-backed dirty war. And that's technically war because Syria doesn't want the U.S. there. They've asked them to leave. And hence, you have constant flare-ups where U.S. soldiers are attacked. Did Joe Biden forget that three U.S. service members were killed under his watch because they were stationed at the Jordan-Syria border as part of these bases that are stealing Syria's resources? He must have forgotten about that. Those people were at war because they died. On the same night that he said that, the U.S. bombed Yemen, as they've done multiple times under Biden's watch.

The Pentagon just said that they've attacked some Houthi vessels in the Red Sea. So the claim that we're not at war while we're engaging in war activities across the world is just, it's a remarkable statement for the president to make. And then of course, there are the areas that are even more dangerous where the U.S. isn't technically at war because they don't have combat troops there, but the U.S. is fueling to catastrophic wars. I mean, the war in Ukraine, obviously. In Gaza, it's hard to call it a war. It's more of a massacre. But the ignorance it takes to say we're not at war when he's fueling two of the world's most dangerous conflicts that we've seen in decades, it's just remarkable. It speaks to out of touch he is and his entire cabinet. And what is he doing to stop any of these conflicts? Nothing that we can see.

And aren't American troops effectively a tripwire in Syria, in Yemen, on Kinmen Island off the coast of Taiwan? Isn't he basically putting them in harm's way, which will give him an excuse for a full-blown Lindsey Graham championed war? Absolutely, they are. And think about how much more in danger they are, not just by virtue of being in Syria, but because of Biden's policies elsewhere. So look, if you're the militias that operate inside Syria, you're tied to Iran, you're tied to the Syrian government, you're tied to Hezbollah, and you want to achieve a ceasefire, then one way to put pressure on the U.S. would be to target these U.S. troops that are sitting ducks at these bases in the middle of Syria. They're not there to fight ISIS, as Biden says. They're barely fighting ISIS. And in fact, the U.S. presence in Syria has before encouraged the spread of ISIS, as John Kerry once admitted a long time ago. But so because of Biden's refusal to call for a ceasefire elsewhere in Gaza, that increases the incentive

for these U.S. troops to be attacked inside Syria, because that's one way to put pressure on Biden. Another tripwire aspect of this is that the U.S. and Russia are at direct odds inside Ukraine. And there has been talk of Ukrainians of going over to Syria to fight Russians there. So all these other conflicts that Biden is fueling amplify the dangers in the other conflict zones. And this guy's decision,

along with Jake Sullivan and Antti Blinken, rather than to do anything to deescalate, they're just escalating. And that's why we're seeing now the U.S. deploying new military vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers to the Middle East, because just like Israel, the only language that Biden knows is force. Chris, do we have President Biden in the Oval Office saying the U.S. is not at war?

I'm the first president in this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world. We'll keep rallying a coalition of proud nations to stop Putin from taking over Ukraine and doing more damage. I believe that that was the talk he gave about a week after he withdrew from the Democratic presidential, well, from the presidential race. It was. And he's there to reassure Americans, I suppose,

because of course that was a very humiliating experience for him. But he goes and tries to reassure Americans by saying one of the most ridiculous things he's ever said, which is a very impressive feat considering how many ridiculous things that Biden has said over the course of his career. But again, to go before the world and say that we're not at war when he's fueling two major catastrophes while engaging in military occupations. I mean, this is a good illustration of why he just not fit, not only as a candidate, but for office. The recklessness of this administration. I heard

Jeffrey Sachs on your show the other day talk about just where this administration will rank, like Secretary of State Antony Blinken. What does he do? How does he spend his time? Does he ever engage in a single act of diplomacy? One of the most useless Secretary of States in history. Their legacy is not going to be very kind. And it's just, I hope we just can survive the rest of it as long as they're in office for, because everything they do just fuels danger. The piece that we just put up while you were speaking was Blinken's statement on the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, a statement filled with lies. So two 75th anniversaries within a month.

NATO, their failed offensive alliance, and the Geneva Conventions, which we wrote, and with which we don't comply. Over the top, we don't comply with it and amazingly so Blinken issues that statement celebrating the Geneva Conventions the 75th anniversary and our respect for international humanitarian law and what does he do less than 24 hours later he announces his state department announces that the U.S. is approving 2020 billion in additional military sales to Israel. $20 billion.

So he's marking the anniversary of international humanitarian law by shipping off $20 billion worth of new weaponry to the biggest violator of international humanitarian law in the world, which is Israel. Is Netanyahu in hiding? Is he underground? He hasn't been seen in about 12 days. Do you know?

Well, they do have a bunker that they've talked about where Israel leaders have been gathering. So yeah, it makes sense that he's there. They are worried about Iran and Hezbollah striking back at them. And the symbolism there. So Netanyahu can go hide in a bunker while the rest of his country is endangered because of his policies, because of his extermination campaign in Gaza and his attempt to escalate by trying to drag in Hezbollah and Iran. From the start, Hezbollah has said, we will stop shelling Israel if there's a ceasefire. Iran has tried to be restrained as well. They totally telegraphed their retaliation back in April when Israel bombed

the Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus. They timed it to make sure that Israel could knock down Iranian missiles to thereby avoid an escalation because it's clear what Iran and Hezbollah want,

which is a ceasefire. So Netanyahu has avoided all that, all he could. He's tried to escalate. And what does he go now and do? He goes and hides in a bunker and is leaving his country exposed to the consequences of his reckless policies. I want to run a clip. It's a little on the long side, but it's very interesting. My friend and former colleague, Lucas Tomlinson, who's a Fox News producer in the Pentagon, attempting to grill General Pat Ryder. Lucas

himself is a former Navy SEAL, now in private critical of the government, but here he is trying to get a straight answer out of General Ryder. Secretary Austin will take every possible step to defend Israel. Does that include taking offensive strikes against Iran? Look, again, we are focused on supporting the defense of Israel, de-escalating the situation, and preventing a broader conflict. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. Rule what out?

Taking strikes against Iran. You're saying the U.S. taking preemptive strikes? If Israel is attacked in a major way. So you're getting in the hypotheticals. You started it with if, and I'm going to not get into hypotheticals. So there you go. Thanks. Be clear. Right. I think we're being pretty clear lucas we're sending significant i'm being very clear to lucas and iran that we are sending significant capabilities in the region to protect our forces and support the defense of israel and respond to a wide variety of contingencies if you look at the strategic goal here it's to de-escalate the situation and prevent a wider regional war. And that requires diplomacy, it requires military force presence, and it requires being smart about

how we go about doing this. We're not seeking conflict. We don't want conflict. But we're going to do what we need to do to support the defense of Israel and support the protection of our forces. But again, the underlying message here is we're working to de-escalate tensions. No one wants a wider war. So you de-escalate tensions by sending an aircraft carrier with all of its support ships. He's as bad as those two characters from the State Department that Max likes to taunt and Admiral Kirby. He's just a little bit less smarmy than the two of them. But you can't get a straight answer out of him.

Because he's in the awkward position of basically being in a military that's supposed to defend the United States, but has been tasked with also defending a foreign country, Israel. And if we were honest, I think then members of the armed forces, when they take an oath to defend the country, they'd be asked to also take an oath to defend Israel because practically that's what they're being told to do. Imagine being someone who signs up to serve in the armed forces for whatever reason, out of patriotism, or perhaps you need help paying for college, whatever it is that leads one into armed service. And you go there signing up to defend your country, but yet now you're being

asked to ship off to the Middle East to go defend a foreign apartheid state. Did anybody sign up for that? And would they have signed up if that's what the original bargain would have been? I strongly doubt it, but yet that's considered normal here in the U.S. Aaron Mate, thank you very much, my dear friend. Articulate as always, very much appreciate your time. All the best. Thank you, Judge. All the best to you. Thank you. Coming up later today at two o'clock Eastern this afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor. At three o'clock Eastern this afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor at three o'clock Eastern this afternoon, Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.