Judging Freedom - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is Netanyahu a Terrorist?

Episode Date: February 2, 2024

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is Netanyahu a Terrorist?See 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 Friday, February 2nd, 2024. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is with us today. I'm going to ask him a couple of questions. What is a broken down, on its last leg country like Ukraine going to do with 50 billion in cash from the European Union? And Netanyahu, is he or isn't he a terrorist? But first this. Judge Napolitano here. Do you know that we, the people, have reached $34 trillion plus in debt? It's unsustainable and it's growing. Our government is addicted to printing money and it's not going to stop.

And if you believe that, as I do, then you need to understand why gold prices will continue to rise along with our staggering debt. In this report called $3,200 Gold, it explains how rising debt will cause the value of gold to rise and it could reach $3,200 an ounce. Listen to some of the stats that I pulled from this report. They make a very strong case for the likely surge in the value of gold. In 2002, gold was $256 an ounce and the national debt was $6.5 trillion. Last year, the debt broke through $33 trillion and gold exceeded $2,000 an ounce. That is a 400% rise in the debt and a 700% staggering rise in the value of gold.

And now the debt has hit $34 trillion and the value of gold continues to rise along with it. It's great information from my friends at Lear Capital and I encourage every one of you to call today and get your copy of this report. There's no obligation of purchase. It's a free report. It's free education. Call 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. And when you talk to my friends at Lear, tell them the judge sent you.

Conor, welcome and welcome here. Thank you very much for your time and your thoughts as usual. Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary in getting him to agree, has agreed to either give or lend to Ukraine the equivalent of about $54 billion in U.S. dollars over four years. Ukraine is on its last legs. It's lost 500,000 troops. The president's about to fire the head of the military. What are they going to do with $54 billion? They're going to spread it out amongst the oligarchy, as it were. This is the corruption that was my principal objection to when Bill Clinton started this hell-bent expansion of NATO, letting countries like Albania and Montenegro, potentially Georgia and Ukraine, and others into NATO,

because they couldn't even pass the smell test, let alone the very rigorous standards we had. They were more rigorous than membership in the European Union. Democracy, fighting criminality, fighting corruption, all these things were parts of the ruler you had to go down in order to be even considered for membership in NATO. Bill Clinton and his boys just discarded all of that. And ever since we've discarded it and we've let some really weird people into NATO and we're paying for it. We're paying for it. We're going to pay for it again and again and again. And that's one reason why I didn't want Ukraine or Georgia to come in. You think this cash is going to go for corrupt purposes? I mean, what are they going to do? Buy secondhand military equipment from

arms dealers? They can't get anything from the U.S. We don't have any more to give them. I don't know if Europe has any more to give them. Is this extending on life support? A government without the life support is dead? This is the European Union trying to look as if it's doing something. I would have some question since it's over a period of time that any of it or certainly all of it would ever actually make it into Ukraine. It's a signal that they're trying to send to the United States, principally, that they're still in the game. I don't think it's going to do anything but increase and enhance and deepen the corruption in Ukraine. And as I said, I don't think all of it will ever get there. Isn't Ukraine on its last legs for the reasons I articulated, the loss of a half

million troops, the president saying he's going to fire, I don't know why you would say something like that rather than do it, but saying he's going to fire the very popular military commander. Let me back up. Do you know General Zeluzhny or know of the way he is perceived by professional military men like you in Europe and the U.S.? I know the reputation he has with the few people that I know and trust their views on Ukraine. And I can read about the reputation he has in Ukraine, and I suspect that it's probably valid. He's a rare creature in many respects, because not only is he fairly competent as a military professional, but he also apparently tells the truth to his civilian overseers. And as you know, he has higher poll ratings than

Zelensky right now, though Zelensky's are still fairly high. So he's a real political threat to Zelensky. And the more he takes a different tack than Zelensky, I think the more Zelensky will recede in the polls and he will climb in the polls. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see use, drones, manned aircraft or whatever. Ukraine can't hardly even oppose them. So the average Ukrainian now knows how much to rest there under the ostensible leader of the political apparatus in Ukraine is dangerous. And the government of the United States of America continues to argue that Putin has lost. I mean, does anybody, when you once helped to run the State Department, do you think anybody in the State Department, serious career foreign service officers, accept that nonsense when it comes out of the mouth of President Biden or Secretary Clinton? Forgive me, Clinton. Secretary Blinken, their boss? Not those who work in the Eurasia division. Those people who know this area and know the countries and know what Ukraine is up against

and what Russia has in terms of potential strategic depth, industrial base, population. This business of the sanctions that we put on them, hurting them, is just laughable. Russia's economy is banging along, doing well. Growth is good. All the sectors of the economy that account for Russia, principally oil and gas in particular, are going bangers. So there's no reason in the world for anyone who has the least bit of expertise on this region to think that our administration is doing nothing but lie. We interviewed a Russian businessman a couple of times. what is the opinion of the Russian people of the government of the United States? As soon as the translator translated, he had a big smile from ear to ear because of the answer he gave us. And he said, in Russian, translated so we can understand it, Judge, you're not going to believe this,

but in Moscow we have an expression, thank you, Joe Biden. Because the sanctions have forced a different type of economic activity, which has turned out to be more prosperous than was the case before this, more self-sufficient and more prosperous than was the case before the sanctions. In fact, the sanctions have hurt the EU, not Russia, the EU. Yes. If you want to look at the glaring example of what you just stated, here we have Russia banging along on at least seven of eight cylinders, if not all eight, doing fairly well. And we have the strong man of Europe, really, the strong man of NATO,

other than the United States, and I'm almost willing to say the strongman of NATO, period, Germany faltering and its economy falling apart, largely because, not exclusively, but in significant ways because of our actions in taking out the Nord Stream pipelines, and also our actions in politically putting pressure on them not to take the Russian oil and gas. And Chancellor Scholz has a 20 percent approval rating. An alternative for Deutschland, which is looking more and more aggressive and not quite the party we might want to be mounting to the leadership of Germany, is really moving fast. Right. You can't come in with a 20% approval rating. Switching to Israel, you said on this show the last time you were here, Benjamin Netanyahu was a terrorist.

Has anything happened since the last time you were here to change your mind or to fortify that dramatic statement? Actually, the southern flank and its anchor, Turkey, of NATO, and Erdogan said it very clearly about 48 hours or so ago. It was after Netanyahu had hinted at the possibility that, well, he essentially said we have nuclear weapons and so forth, and Erdogan said, and this is a quote in English, Israel's end is drawing near, you're going away, end of quote. Wow. Did Netanyahu actually, this would be for the first time in the history of Israel, that a prime minister said this, acknowledged that they have nuclear

weapons? Yeah, the only thing he did, I think, was hint that there was a possibility that there were nuclear weapons. And that's enough for me. I mean, the world knows they have nuclear weapons. Most of the world knows they have somewhere between 150 and 300. Most of the world knows that they stole them from the United States. Or in some people's minds, LBJ was complicit. Lyndon Baines Johnson was complicit in giving them the nuclear weapons. Not handing them a nuclear weapon, but giving them the plans for building one. I think the world is fully aware that they are a nuclear weapon state. Certainly Turkey is.

And Erdogan's statements were, I think, unprecedented, as far as I know, about what anyone has said about Israel and about nuclear weapons. Is President Erdogan's bark worse than his bite? Or do you think that state actors like Turkey, which I said you know this better than I, has a large and sophisticated and well-trained military, will enter the fray and do something to stop the slaughter in Gaza? There's no question that Erdogan is speaking mainly for political purposes and to his own parliament. And that's one reason why that's the scene most often of his most dramatic statements, because he's building up his political portfolio. But I don't discount the fact that Turkey might at some point were this to become a regional conflict, which every day, I'm sad to say, is looking more like it has the potential to do, that Turkey wouldn't eventually become a player in it. And Turkey would be a formidable player, a very formidable player. Do you think that the President of the United States

wants a regional conflict so he can run for re- reelection as a wartime president in the hopes that the country would rally around him and forget his rather indefensible stewardship of the executive branch in the past three and a half years? I don't think I would go that far. Sometimes I feel like that I should go that far. But I think we're still looking at a situation where Sullivan, Blinken, the others in the group that are surrounding him, giving him most of his advice, and Biden himself, are trying to play this almost fancy game of doing just enough to get by and just enough to get him reelected, but not enough to excite a regional war and, God forbid, a global war. But that's a very dangerous business. It's an extremely dicey business because you never know when you're going to push the button, as it were,

that is going to cause what I'm talking about to actually happen. You've got Netanyahu looking seriously at taking on Hezbollah. You've got Biden talking every day about responding in some way to the three deaths in Jordan. You've got the situation in Yemen, and you've got the situation in the Red Sea next to Yemen. And we have retreated for the first time, as far as I know, in the Eastern Med who've been there so long that they are ETSing, Exploration Term of Service, leaving the military on board ship. Ah, au contraire, they can't do that. So we have our second backdoor draft. Remember Rumsfeld did that during the Iraq and Afghan campaigns. Well, we now are holding these Marines on service

because they are in the middle of a potential battle. That's not just a comment on a particular situation. It's a comment on the status of the Marine Corps, the Navy. And now I learned the other day, the submarine force even, which I thought was in pretty good shape, personnel situation. I used to say, Donald Trump, you can talk about 300 ships all day long. Go ahead and talk about it. We couldn't build them and we couldn't man them. That's the clear and honest truth. The Navy is so short on personnel right now, it can't sail the 270 some odd platforms it has. And the Army's

not much better. The Air Force is not much better. I want to make sure I understand this. The Marines in the eastern Mediterranean have been there so long that their time in the Marines is over. But because they're in this near warlike environment, they can't leave. So they're

forced to re-up. It's an involuntary re-up. Do I have that right? Exactly what we did in Iraq. Rumsfeld essentially told people who were coming home, it was even worse. He told people coming home and landing in the United States who were expiring their service within the next month or two that they were already on orders back for Iraq and therefore they couldn't get out. Back door draft, we call it. That's exactly what professional military men in the West think when they see the IDF dressed in feminine and in hospital garb, invading a hospital and blowing the brains out of three young men who were injured, two of whom were in a coma? I can tell you what I think, and I can tell you what most of my comrades with whom I still talk

think. They think the Israeli Defense Force is capable of almost any heinous act known to man. They think the Israeli Defense Force doesn't understand or know or care about the laws of land warfare. They think they have no conception of the Geneva Conventions. They think they have absolutely no limits whatsoever as to what they'll do on the battlefield. Chris, cut number one, please. You'll recognize who this is. You've heard him say this. You heard him say it at the time. I believe were uh the chief of staff to the secretary of state of the united states when this two statements by the same person uh when these statements were made you said that the president united states had launched an attack on iran without congressional approval that would have

been an impeachable offense do you want to review that comment you made well how do you stand on that now yes i do i want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. The reason I made... I don't say those things lightly, Chris. You've known me for a long time. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I was its ranking member. The president has no constitutional authority

to take this national war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. I don't use words lightly. Some of you may have seen me on Stephanopoulos or Meet the Press, the shows I've been on on a weekly basis. I want to make it clear to you. I've drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the judiciary, or the ranking member. And ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the limit to tap on the president of the war clause I went to five leading scholars constitutional

scholars and they drafted a treatise for me as being distributed to every senator and I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president that if he takes nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. Much of what he said at the time is a sound understanding of the Constitution. Do you think he believes that today? I can't. I can't believe it. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the committee, the senator, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was right. But as president of the United States, and boy, have I seen this before, where someone goes from one position to another position of power, and that position of power

changes this whole perspective. That's what's happened to Joe Biden. That's what happens to all presidents, I think, particularly in the post-World War II era, when they find out that there are inhibitions to the only power that they really have that is significant, deadly, dangerous, and something to be reckoned with. And that's the war power. When they find that out, they are anxious to use it. As you and I discussed previously, James Madison said, the sure nurse of executive aggrandizement is the war power.

He was right. Right. A loaded gun in the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, just waiting for the president to pick it up and aim it and shoot it, metaphorically. Let me say something else, sir. Without a draft, without citizens having skin in the game, it is easy to pick that gun up and start shooting. He doesn't have the resistance, the anti-war resistance that LBJ had because of the draft. 500,000 people, young men in Vietnam and 10%,

11% returning in body bags that drove him from office. He could have run again constitutionally in 68, but he was afraid he'd lose to Nixon. Do you think that- Imagine, too, if we were to assess a war tax for all these stupid, endless wars we've had. Every American citizen had the IRS individual show up on his doorstep and say, you owe $1,000 for this year. Why? Because that's the cost of our wars. Then we wouldn't have this $34 trillion aggregate debt. Well, imagine how long those wars would last if that were the case.

Right. Good argument, Colonel. Is Israel losing the war in Gaza? Badly. Badly, badly. Is Israel still, is the Israeli military still feared the way it once was? Or was that fear based on myth, Colonel? This is a huge problem for Israel now because I think that fear is dissipating at a rate no one could have conceived of.

And that means there are a lot of people around Israel that don't like Israel. And that means that more and more of them look at what the Yemeni are doing, for example. This is all based on the war in Gaza. I had two submariners call me the other day out of the blue and tell me they were leaving the submarine force. And I said, wow, you two guys are doing pretty well. Both officers, one on an attack sub, one on a ballistic missile sub. And they told me they're getting out. I said, why are you getting out? We do not buy the U.S. policy of unquestioning support of Israel. So we're getting out. Just like Josh Paul did at the State Department.

That's the same thing that's happening to Israel's image in terms of being all-powerful and so forth. People are beginning to doubt the state of Israel in serious ways. And that reflects on us too. I said at the National Press Club in a speech about five years ago, I said, is Israel a strategic liability or a strategic asset? At the end of that speech, I said, you've seen what I think. They are a strategic liability par excellence. But I said, the American people need to be told that. And the American people need to be asked, are you still willing

to support Israel, given that they are such a significant strategic liability? And, you know, I paused for a second and I said, now, that's what I used to say to Secretary Powell. Every year for four years, I said that to Secretary Powell, when are we going to tell the American people what a liability Israel is? But I then said, I'm not sure what the American people would say. How did Secretary Powell answer that question, Colonel? Well, he essentially said, you know, we can't say that to the American people. I said, we can't tell them the truth because you and I both know, we both believe that militarily speaking, there is strategic liability.

And my fear is that the American people would still say yes, because there are other reasons we're attached to Israel. Would you say to the same audience at the end of which, after you spoke, you asked them, do you still think Israel is a national security asset? Would you tell the same audience if they were reassembled today that the prime minister of Israel is a terrorist? I would. And I think today I would get a different answer. And I have a different feeling about that question. I do not think the American people would say in majority form, yes, we still want to be Israel's ally. I think they would say no. Wow. This is Secretary Blinken leaving his home outside of Washington, D.C. The ladies are from Code Pink. That's colored water. It's not real blood, but that's the depths of their

feelings. You remember the Vietnam years, that would have been tens of thousands of people for the reasons you and I articulated earlier. Colonel, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for your courage and your clarity. I love these times with you, and I hope we can keep doing it. I know the audience does very much as well. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Wow. Another wonderful interview, my dear friends. Four o'clock, we close out the week with the Intelligence Roundtable. McGovern and Johnson, they're warming up.

Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.