Judging Freedom - COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Israel in Turmoil.

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Israel in Turmoil.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 Thursday, November 7th, 2024. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating our schedule. I want to talk to you at some length about Israel in turmoil, but before we do, let me get to the heart of another issue which has been on my mind and probably is on yours. Will a Trump State retain the same pro-war, pro-Zionist, neocon attitudes as the Biden State Department? I have to assume from his previous administration and other things like Jared Kushner's contacts and such that yes.

But I don't think the State Department will be very instrumental in it. I don't even think if he moves Bill Burns over from CIA to be Secretary of State, which is what I would do, or if he puts Marco Rubio or any other one of the aspirants in there, I don't think that will change it much either. I think it'll be Trump who dictates that policy and his people who are for him in that policy's regard and not the State Department. But the State Department, there's a lot that it can do to accelerate what the president wants or delay what the president wants. the attitude, the prevailing attitude, neocon, pro-Zionist, pro-war, pro-peace, libertarian, whatever it may happen to be, will have some influence. Does that level of people below the political appointee level generally stay the same no matter who's in the White House and who's the Secretary of State? There's some shifting around, but yes, it does maintain itself as any meritocracy is supposed to do. That was the purpose of

establishing the civil service and the professional services like the Foreign Service, to have stability and continuity and to have people who weren't politically oriented, basically. We adumbrated that and bastardized it by, for example, in my administration, George W. Bush's administration, 33 or 34 percent of our ambassadors were political appointees, one of the highest percentages ever. But nonetheless, and let me go back to my original point, the State Department is not a very influential entity in the United States government, period. All right. I want to ask you who really runs U.S. foreign policy, but you intrigued me with something you just said. What do ambassadors do? Is it just social or are they covers for

the intelligence community? Or you, and Trump has promised that he is going to empower the DNI now. He has said that the CIA director will never darken his door, never get in his office. The DNI is going to be given money and people power. That is to say he can now decide who goes where in the 16 intelligence entities. And he's going to be a powerful individual. If Trump does that, he will be. And he will be probably Trump's man. And he will give him the strategic intelligence that Trump wants.

Or if he's a really honest broker, he will give him the intelligence that he should be getting. We don't know yet. That's a positive move in my respect, if it's used properly. But that remains should be getting. We don't know yet. That's a positive move, in my respect, if it's used properly, but that remains to be seen. If you look at the whole thing as an entity that has to function and that the civil service and the meritocracy, as it were, caused that function to take place, he's threatening and has said he's going to, through Project 2025, eliminate that efficiency. He's going to eliminate it in the name of his power dominance. I don't think that's possible. So we might see a lot of chaos.

For whom do ambassadors work? Do they work for the CIA? Do they work for the Secretary of State? Do they work for the President? They work for the President of the United States. They are so commissioned by a personal letter signed by the President to each of the ambassadors. And if they want to, and they have in the past from time to time, they go straight to the President. The smartest ones will back brief the Secretary of State, but there have been ones that went to the President and didn't tell the Secretary of State anything about it. And the Secretary of State found about it in a principals meeting or an NSC meeting. Do ambassadors know who in the embassy are really intelligence officials as opposed to State Department or ambassadorial people? They are, but that is kept to, depending on the ambassador, that's kept to a minimum in terms of information because they do not want the ambassador to have to lie about things. For example, if the chief of station

in a particular embassy, especially an important embassy like Islamabad, is in the position to know about a covert operation that's being run by his station chief, he's got to lie about that to the Pakistani people and even to the American people if he's asked questions and he can't reveal them. So you just let him know an operation's going on. You don't give him any details. Sometimes they don't give him even the knowledge that it's going on. Depends on the deep cover that that operation is under. But it is a source of some trouble in embassies all across the globe from time to time. Who runs American foreign policy? The President of the United States, through the Secretary of State. But, and here's my point,

if you give a trillion dollars to the Defense Department, position its four stars all across the globe in fiefdoms of 30 to 40 nations each. And you give the State Department a pittance of that, not even close to a heavy percentage of that. And they have ambassadors in countries all across the world, some 196, 197, who are operating on a shoestring most of the time, guess who has the most power in terms of diplomacy or in terms of anything? Because of who has the money. That's it. And who's got the ships, the bombers, the planes, and everything else. Chief Fritz told us that you would not be upset about my mentioning this. During the administration of George W. Bush, was it Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who essentially ran American foreign policy? For four years, absolutely.

It was not the president. It was not his all-star secretary of state. The president thought he was. Powell put it, I think I gave you this one time before. Powell's metaphor with me on multiple occasions was Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld know how to get the president to pull his.45 out of its holster and start shooting all over the place. I got to figure out how to get him to put it back in his holster. And he never figured it out. That is consistent with what Chief Fritz said.

He basically said that Rumsfeld and Cheney were able to talk Bush, who was a neophyte, even whatever is below a neophyte, had zero experience in foreign policy, and the two of them had a tremendous amount when he hired each of them. Perfect example, Powell finally talked himself onto Air Force One, doing Africa with the president without any other people there of consequence. He managed in that flight to convince the president to send our emissary to Pyongyang to talk directly with the North Koreans.

Not only that, to go to the six-party talks in Beijing, I think it was that year, and we were going to talk directly with the North Koreans. Not only that, to go to the six-party talks in Beijing, I think it was that year, and we were going to talk directly with the North Koreans. This was absolutely opposed by the vice president. The president agreed. So if Rainey and Rumsfeld had been there, this probably wouldn't have happened, or at least the decision wouldn't have been made on the spot.

The vice president was fishing in, I think, Wyoming or Idaho or someplace. He finds out what's happened. He had an extraordinary network, part of his bureaucratic power. He flies back to Washington, gets the president alone in the Oval Office and talks him out of it. So we have to call our emissary back. He's refueling at Hickam in Hawaii. We have to call, we didn't call him back, but we essentially changed his orders. He had to talk through the Chinese or other interlocutors. He couldn't talk directly with the North Koreans. Was George W. Bush such an intellectual lightweight that he listened to whoever he was speaking with last? With respect to Cheney, yes, and Rumsfeld backing him up all

the time. I don't think it's right to call him a lightweight. He was a pretty smart man. I met him several times, one time for 30 minutes in the Oval Office. And I was impressed with the grasp he had of issues, especially domestic issues, which really surprised me. But he was very influenced by these other people who knew everything about the bureaucracy. Cheney was a bureaucratic entrepreneur of just enormous proportions. Richard Haass called him the best bureaucratic entrepreneur he'd ever met. And when Cheney got with him, he knew his instincts. He'd studied him. Remember, he's the guy picked to be the head of the selection committee for the vice president.

Picked himself. This wasn't the only thing Dick did. Dick made sure this course of action took place with his wishes all the way up from six months before the election to the time he was made vice president. Everything happened the way he wanted it to happen. In that time, he learned the governor. We call him the governor at the time of Texas. He learned his inclinations, his predilections, his wishes and such.

And he knew how to turn him any way he wanted to. And he did so. And he had the last bite at the apple every single time. And remember, Bush was scared to death because Karl Rove was telling him this, that Powell would be his opponent in 2004. And one of Bush's major objectives was to beat his daddy to be elected for a second term. Do you think Trump will get sick and tired of Netanyahu? I do. I think Trump gets sick and tired of Netanyahu? I do. I think Trump gets sick and tired of anybody who hangs around him too long.

But, you know, when Miriam Adelson is giving him $100 million and a whole bunch of other people who are a little bit more circumspect than she, I don't know that he's going to be able to. He may try, but I don't think he's going to be able to without hurting himself badly. So Netanyahu has colossally failed to eliminate Hamas, failed to get the bulk of the hostages home, failed to degrade the Iranian defenses failed to return the illegal Israeli settlers to northern Israel, West Bank, and Lebanon. Where, and yet he fired his defense minister, where is he going? What kind of shape is he in with the Israeli public? I see it this way, Judge. I see, and I just jotted it down right before we went on. I see that he's in a 10-front war. I see that he's got Yemen, Hamas, Syria,

Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and behind them, China, Russia, and looming behind them with power that he is just about to find out about, Iran. I think all of those countries are now aiding and abetting the process against Israel, and some of them majorly. Would you call that the resistance? I would. I didn't hear Turkey, and I was surprised to hear Egypt. I mean, the person at el-Sisi is practically a CIA agent. I can't imagine him doing anything the U.S. didn't want. What I'm looking at Sisi for is blocking any idea Netanyahu has.

And I think there's one reason he fired Gallant. Gallant gave three good reasons, I think, that they encompass this. He wants to push what is left of the Palestinians he cannot kill, and he'd prefer to kill them. He wants to push them into Egypt and into Jordan. Here's what Gallant says. It's very succinct, very direct. Where are the three reasons he was fired? Cut number six, Chris.

This dismissal comes as a result of a dispute on three issues. The first, my firm stance that everyone who is eligible to be drafted to the military must be drafted to the military. They must serve in the IDF and protect the state of Israel. Second topic, our moral obligation to return our sons and daughters, the hostages. The third topic, the need to implement learning from the mistakes of the war. I support a deep investigation into looking into who is responsible, and I call for a national commission of inquiry. So these are more intractable problems for Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled by a vote of six to one that there's no exemption in Israeli law for the ultra-Orthodox. The IDF really doesn't want the ultra-Orthodox in the military. Surely the right-wingers in his cabinet, Ben-Gavir and Smotrich, don't want the

ultra-Orthodox in the military, and yet Galant was willing to comply with what the Supreme Court said. This is a domestic issue in Israel. I don't think it affects us, but is this the type of thing that could topple Netanyahu, the ultra-Orthodox, being exempt from the military? I think what Yohan was trying to do there was brilliantly political. It doesn't sound that way. It sounds like a true soldier, and he dresses like that, nondescript and so forth. But what he's doing is he's issuing the three things that make the Israelis the maddest against Bibi Netanyahu, whether it's the secular people getting out of service or whether it's investigation,

his third reason that ought to take place. Or the hostages. They all three excite these really big protests that are now taking place and not just in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, but in other cities too, Haifa and elsewhere. So there's a very astute political statement, as well as what looked like at base, a good soldier delivering himself of the truth. So Golan's no fool. But yes, it's a problem for Netanyahu because he's got to fool his minister of defense now. And I got news for Bibi, he ain't doing well on the battlefield. Do you have an understanding of BB Gate, the top secret documents that were leaked to a German publication?

And it resulted in BB's principal spokesperson being arrested and twice having bail denied. And when the document was shown to the judge, now listen, I don't know if this stuff is a forgery or not, Colonel. Maybe you can enlighten us. The judge said, this will materially affect Israeli state security. No bail. Back to jail. And who was the lawyer standing next to this guy in the courtroom? Bibi Netanyahu's personal criminal defense lawyer.

Can you untangle this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson? I don't think it needs untangling, really. What Netanyahu is doing is what he does repeatedly. He's leaked a document, valid or invalid, who knows, and the document is supposed to reflect in a way that ultimately would be positive for him, politically and otherwise. And he's protecting the guy who did it because he realizes that this is what he did. So at least he's got that decency that he's sending a good lawyer down to defend him. Should Gallant be in the category of be careful what you ask for, because a thorough investigation of October 7 is going to focus not only on Bibi,

but on him. Am I right? Yes. And that's the reason I said it was astute politically, because I don't think we're going to get that. And if we do get it, it'll be so far down the road that Golan will probably be approaching the grave. Another Israeli judge partially released a gag order on Shin Bet. And once they were able to speak, they revealed that they are conducting an investigation and began one in June about what actually happened in October. Now, my understanding of Shin Bet is that they are the Israeli equivalent of the American FBI. Are they independent? Are they professional? Are they courageous? Are they political hacks? result, whatever it might be, ever come out in a way that it will be inimical to Netanyahu's interest, not while he's in power. It might come out after he's out of power and being tried in another court for another offense or many offenses, but it won't come out beforehand because he'll make sure it

doesn't because the shin bed is going to be faithful to him to the last straw. Does the Israeli public recognize that every time there is mass turmoil in the past 10 or 12 years, it's been because of Netanyahu doing something to enhance his own power, his own stability in office? We just elected Donald Trump and you asked me that question about the Israelis? I'll be asking you that question six or eight or ten months from now, Colonel, I am sure. I am sure. Even though he has been a friend of mine for 40 years, I am sure I'm going to have to ask you that question. But look at the demonstrations in the three largest Israeli cities. If Joe Biden fired Lloyd Austin, there wouldn't be a single person demonstrating anywhere in the United States.

Mrs. Austin would greet it with glee. Most people would say, who is Lloyd Austin? Right, right. You have these demonstrators out in front of the Israeli defense industry. The other day they were lighting fires. Is there turmoil in Israel due to Netanyahu's decisions? Absolutely. And I do think that eventually we're going to see Netanyahu in an imbroglio, a coup attempt or whatever you want to call it, that's going to be successful. It'll probably be one that simply calls for new

elections and we'll have new elections and have a new prime minister, but it'll be expedited probably. You know, they don't have a constitution. So the Knesset can pretty much pass a law to say, we will have an election tomorrow morning if they want to. And I suspect that if it gets as dire as I think it's going to get, and this all depends on this interregnum we have now between the election and inauguration and what the Biden administration does with respect to Iran and Israel and what they leave as a gift, if you will, for the Trump administration. And I know one of the traits of Joe Biden that is most prominent when he's in a situation that is not comfortable for him is spite. So if I were guessing what he would do as president of the United States

between now and January 20th or whenever, is he would get something started that Trump would inherit and then say, over to you, Donald. I was. Who wants that? Who wants that? I was. and then say, over to you, Donald. No, no, that's not who wants that. That's not who wants that. Well, you tell me about Biden's character and personality. I was asked the other day how these criminal cases against Trump will end.

I think that the DOJ is foresighted enough to end them now rather than waiting until Donald Trump's attorney general comes in and asks federal judges to dismiss them. But I did make an off-the-wall suggestion. That's why I asked you about your knowledge of Joe Biden's character and personality. I have an announcement to make. I've just signed three pardons, two are for Donald Trump and one is for my son. You've just signed three pardons, two are for Donald Trump and one is for my son. You've just done that? No, no, no. This is what Joe Biden would say. Oh, okay. I don't have the pardon. I was trying to figure out how you got there. Right, right. Well, you know, I go back to what Trump said during the campaign. So many things he said, I'm wondering if he's

going to fulfill or even try to fulfill. He said he was going to weaponize the Department of Justice, that he was going to make the attorney. He didn't believe the attorney general should be the attorney general for the American people. He should be the attorney general for the president. Therefore, the Department of Justice should be the president's own fiefdom. So if he does that, then all we're talking about with respect to the rule of law, domestic or otherwise, is moot. Well, the Department of Justice has 90,000 employees. All of them will be changed under Project 2025. Well, they will be looking for about 50,000 lawyers, none of whom will have any prosecutorial experience, and all of them will be ethically challenged if they think that a politician is going to tell

them who to prosecute and they can't exercise their own independent judgment. And that will cause chaos in the courts for months and months and months and maybe years. One of the problems we had in the Bush administration, as I think I've said before, we had personnel policies that look very much like Project 2025 in its initial stages, if you will. We experimented first with the Defense Department. Congress told Rumsfeld to go pound sand, so he had to go do it in private, but he still tried to carry it out. He tried his best to more or less begin to eliminate the civil service working in the Pentagon. What we had at Justice was lawyers leaving in hordes. I remember going to a meeting one time

that the president officiated at personally, then departed. all the people remaining around me were Justice Department lawyers. Every single one of them was between, say, 35 and 45. They were all leaving justice. Later, I checked to see what the exodus had actually manifested, and it was about a third of the lawyers in the Justice Department. Check this out. We had the lowest morale in the Justice Department in probably 100 years. That will probably change in a couple of months. I was not kidding. I was serious when I said Biden should pardon Trump, but I don't know. Is it in Biden's character to do that? You mentioned spite. Does he have a charitable character? I don't think he has any spite in his mind for Trump. I think he has some spite in his mind for those who forced him out of running for the president again and probably thinks he would have won had he done so. angst that would try to start something between now and justify his own policies, too, with respect

to Israel and with respect to Iran between now and the inauguration. While I have you, would you mind if we transitioned over to Ukraine? Have the elites in Europe and have the neocons in the State Department acknowledged inwardly, not publicly, that Ukraine has lost? I think so. I think you're going to have more results like you had in Germany with the elections there. Schultz is essentially a non-entity now. All across the spectrum of NATO countries, if we don't have some changes and significant ones pretty quickly. So that signal is going to get around pretty quickly. The signal is already getting around that they've lost. I was told today that the Russian scouts are already dipping their ankles in the Dnieper River.

And we had a military discussion, and I said, okay, I would not want to cross the Dnieper if I were Russia. If I had Putin's objectives, which I think are honestly expressed, and I had done what I needed to do and there was no real threat to me, even on the other side of the Dnieper, really, it was retreating, in other words, in pieces, I'd stop because I don't want to take enough of Ukraine where when the peace does come, the ceasefire or whatever, I have to manage an incredible guerrilla force against me forever. So I'd want a real barrier in front of me if I were doing it. And by the way, the last time the Russians were at the Dnieu, it was horrible for them. Last question. Now back to your knowledge of and love for the State Department. It appears the leading candidate for Secretary of State is Mike Pompeo. That shudders me. I think if he gets the job, I used this phrase earlier today, the London bookies will be taking odds as to when World War III starts.

Probably so. Why does it shatter you? Well, it does because I saw him before. Little things, Judge, like going to a ceremony at the State Department where a good friend of mine in 30 years of service was retiring, and Mike Pompeo didn't even make appearances. He turned it over to the Director of Dipl diplomatic security to do the exercise for the Scott, a long-serving, honest, dedicated individual in the State Department. And so I turned to the head of protocol on my right, whom I knew quite well, and I said, why is Pompeo not here? He's having lunch with Republicans, members of Congress. I said, the Secretary of State is having lunch

with just one party's members? Yes, he does it all the time. That's not what you're supposed to do if you're Secretary of State. You're supposed to be the most apolitical member of the administration. I don't know for whom you voted. It doesn't matter to me. I have not stated publicly for whom I voted, but I did not vote for either Trump or Harris. But when talking about this with Ambassador Charles Freeman, an burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters. That's pure Abe. That's that Illinois lawyer in him coming out. You know, I didn't vote for the first time in 60 years. I don't mind. I don't mind admitting that. I found no choice. I told TAS. A reporter from TAS called me and said,

you give me a statement on the election. I said, I can't, I didn't vote. Well, you can give a statement on an election. I don't want to give you a statement on an election. I didn't vote. I didn't vote because there was no candidate. Well, Colonel, thank you very much for your time. Much appreciated.

I hope you'll visit with us again next week. Surely. Watch out. 676,000 subscribers. Our goal, Colonel, as you know, is to reach a half a million by Christmas, and we are well on our way. We average about 20,000 a month, and we have a month and a half to go, and we have 24,000 subscribers to reach that goal. But thank you, Colonel, for helping to participate in that march. Well, that's terrific news. Soon you'll outwrite the New York Times. Then maybe Trump will come after us. Thank you.

Thank you, Colonel. All the best. Take care. Okay. Tomorrow's Friday, the end of the week. At the end of the day, the boys will be here. 4.30 Friday afternoon. Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern for the Intelligence

Community Roundtable. Please like and subscribe. It helps us to spread our message so that good people that don't know the wisdom of Lawrence Wilkerson can experience it firsthand. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.