Judging Freedom - Is CIA Seeing Any Light? Intel Round Table w/Larry Johnson & Ray McGovern

Episode Date: September 22, 2023

Is CIA Seeing Any Light? Intel Round Table w/Larry Johnson & Ray McGovernSee 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, September 23rd, 2023. Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson join us for what is now our weekly intelligence roundtable. You all know both of my friends and colleagues very well. Larry and Ray, thank you very much for joining us. Our friend and compadre, he'd actually get a kick out of being called compadre, Cy Hirsch is out with another dynamite piece. Everything he writes is compelling, arguing that there's a dispute between the CIA and the DIA, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, over how well the Ukraine military is doing. And of course, the White House will listen to the flavor of the month. The White House will listen to whoever tells it what it wants to hear. How can there be this kind of a dispute, Larry? And who is the White House favoring, according to Tsai? Well, it's actually fairly common, and it depends upon the issue of which side is in the right.

I remember back during the Contra Wars in 1986, 87, 88, I was the Honduran analyst would frequently clash with the defense intelligence analysts who were much more optimistic about the prospects of the Contras. So, you know, we had a difference of opinion back then. Usually my opinion prevailed. Jump ahead to 2012. There were, you were hearing a lot in the media and from the CIA about Syrias and weapons of mass, you know, the gas, poison gas being used by Syria. Well, it turns out at that point, the Defense Intelligence Agency actually was giving a more balanced point of view. So jump ahead. Here we are today. A week and a half ago, two weeks ago, DIA's chief analyst sent out a guy who was designed to go out and deliver the party line. That, yeah, we think there's still a real good chance that uh ukraine might pull this off who is this larry uh i forgot i forget his last name uh okay a phd because you and i texted about him yeah he was well he he had been a naval intelligence uh analyst and then he got out and worked, he got a degree in political science. So he was

sent out. He didn't go out on his own. He didn't just say, oh, I'm going to get up today and talk to some press. But this is classic Washington when you start seeing people that go to Cy Hirsch now and tell a completely different story. And the story they told science, Ukraine has lost the war, not going to lose, they have lost. So Ray, how do these agencies work? Do they work the same? They try to co-opt agents from a foreign government? They have signals intelligence and human intelligence? Or do they work differently since one is civilian, CIA, theoretically civilian, and one is military, DIA? Judge, when there's a war going on, as was the case in Vietnam, the head of Central Intelligence,

Richard Helms, at the time, was told by us analysts that there were twice as many Viet Cong under arms in South Vietnam as General Westmoreland and his deputy, General Abrams, were admitting to. Okay. We had a national intelligence estimate prepared and we got back from Richard Helms, look, folks, you're right, but I can't approve this estimate because my first duty is to protect the agency. And there's no way I can protect the agency if I get involved in a pissing match with the U.S. Army at war. So sorry, we can't go with the accurate numbers. So did they lie to LBJ? I don't know if this was LBJ or Nixon,

but whoever it was, did they lie to the White House? It was LBJ. You know, lies, lies. Well, you know, if you don't tell them the truth, is that a lie? If you acquiesce in what Westmoreland insists on, is that a lie? If you acquiesce in what Westmoreland insists on, is that a lie? Well, if you know that Westmoreland says there are 200,000 and there are really 500,000, it's certainly an act of deception not to correct Westmoreland. You're dealing with

the president of the United States. Yeah, I'm just telling you how the system works. How does the system work on the ground? Is it the same? Do they have the same sources, the same signals, intelligence, the same surveillance, the DIA and the CIA? Maybe Larry will agree with you, but it really doesn't matter. I mean, there are some really good sources from the CIA, but if the head of the CIA is saying Russia has lost the war, the inability of Russian military to have any success has been laid bare to the whole world. Okay. Six weeks ago.

Why does it matter? Okay. All right. Larry, has there been... Let me jump in and explain something. The DIA does not collect and run agents in the same way that the CIA's director of operations does. But everybody should have access. The CIA analysts and the DIA analysts will all have access to the same information. They don't have different information. Has there been, Larry, a sea change in the thinking of senior CIA,

if it is now known to Cy Hirsch and others, of this dispute in the intelligence community, CIA listening to its people on the ground, concluding Ukraine has lost, DIA gathering intelligence from the same sources as CIA, as you just told us, concluding Ukraine can win. What changed CIA's mind? Unless I have this wrong, Larry. Well, no, I think, I think what's, what's going on is there are at least some people in the CIA management who are reaching out to Cy Hirsch to say, you know, this is over now. I'm sure there are others within CIA right now who are supporting the policy. And, you know, I think the point Ray was making about back there in

Vietnam, the role of the CIA, that role has changed. The CIA is diminished in stature compared to what it was 50, 60 years ago. It no longer has the same clout. It has access to some, you know, the same kind of information from human sources, but it's now one of equals in theory, at least as they sit around the table. Ray, as far as you can tell, Ray, are Bill Burns and Averill Haynes and whoever accompanies them still telling Joe Biden what they think he wants to hear? Or are they reflecting senior management's views that it's over? Well, Judge, if you talk about senior management, these are all sycophants, pretty much malleable and kind of just going with the prevailing wind. We used to apply the term to Bobby Gates, for example.

What's that flag on an airport? What do you call that thing? Windsock. Windsock. Right. So now Cy is talking to reputable people he's been in touch with forever. Okay? They're operations people. So been in touch with forever. Okay. They're operations people.

So you can't depend on them. All right. So they're not management. They're operations people like you two guys were who are sick and tired of getting raw data to management that's being twisted and spun so that the recipient of it is pleased with it. Yeah. And I have to say, they are CIA folks. And so they have a sort of parochial interest in making themselves look good. And let's say they are good. But it doesn't matter because when it gets to Burns, Burns is now on the cabinet.

That should never happen. He's making decisions based on the intelligence that he serves up to others. That's a disconnect. That's a structural defect that should never happen. Happened first with Bill Casey, and we should have learned from that terrible example. Would Tony Blinken, I'm going to keep the president out of this because of his own issues. Would Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan and Lloyd Austin be aware of this dispute between CIA and DIA, Larry, or would they only see what the White House gets, which is the varnished version? No, they're aware. They have the ability to be aware.

I think we're seeing a revisit, we're revisiting the phenomena that Graham Allison wrote about, you know, over 50 years ago with respect to group think. It's when a group of people get together and, you know, it doesn't matter what the objective facts are. They come to believe in a certain narrative, and they are so seized with that narrative that they can't let go of it. And you saw that yesterday with Jake Sullivan at his press conference at the White House talking about the meeting between Biden and Zelensky. It was delusional. He was talking about, oh, yeah, Ukraine's taking back. They've taken back more territory than Russia captured. And, oh, they're winning and they're moving on.

And it was like it was divorced from reality. But I then talked with a friend of mine who's still an active intelligence officer in the military. And he was describing a brigadier general that was in charge of this one particular command, and this was just two or three days ago, standing up and saying, yeah, guys, any minute a rush is going to crack. Rush is on the ropes. We just got to hang in there. You said brigadier. Otherwise, I would ask if this was David Petraeus.

Yeah, no. This was active duty. This is an active duty one-star. This is not retired. Yeah. So the point is, it's across the board. Right. duty. This is an active duty one star. This is not retired. The point is it's across the board.

Ben Hodges is keeping this thing up and portraying us. One other thing, of course, is, Larry, correct me if I'm wrong, but DIA is part of the Defense Department. Their report to Secretary Austin. Secretary Austin has a well-deserved reputation for corrupting intelligence to coincide with what the White House wants here.

And so it's no surprise at all that DIA and this particular analyst who is chief of analysis now might become deputy director of DIA if he keeps this up. OK, so they're getting they're getting. Let me let me use one irony here, which is really ironic. We're going to get M1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine this week. We know where they are. They're in Poland, just about to get on those rail cars. Now, will the Russians zap them as soon as they get out of the tunnel under the Carpathian Mountains? That's a good question. But the question is, they're Abrams tanks. Are they any good? Well, they're good, but they're no better than the challengers that the Brits have or the leopards that the Germans have.

They're going to, mark my words, they're going to burn just like Putin said they're going to burn. Now, the point here is that Abrams tanks are named after General Abrams. A terrific tanker in World War II. Patton said next to Patton, Abrams was the best. But Abrams didn't know anything about politics. So when he was Westmoreland's deputy in Saigon, he wrote back a cable. And he said, and this is a quote, we can't go with the accurate numbers of enemy figures in South Vietnam

because the press in Saigon would have a field day because we have been conveying a picture of optimism. And there is no caveats that we could adduce that would dispel the idea that we're losing the war. He wrote that on the table. It was no diss. Larry, Mike McCaul, who's the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, after a meeting with President Zelensky and the Republican conference, when asked what President Zelensky said to them, said, he told us they're winning. Now, if Congressman McCaul truthfully recounted what President Zelensky heard, can McCaul possibly believe this? There must have been guffaws and oohs and ahs in that room. What human being could possibly accept the statement of the head of state of Ukraine that they're winning? Well, it's not a requirement to be a member of Congress to pass an intelligence test.

So, you know, they don't have like a minimum IQ requirement. So it's entirely conceivable. And I saw McCall making those comments. Yeah. I mean, he's all in. He's all in. He wants F-16s. Hell, he wants nuclear weapons if we have to.

Go all the way. I mean, he's detached from reality. Gary, do we still have that clip of Congressman McCaul? You got to look. What was the president? Right here, sir. That he's winning. Here you go, Cameron.

That he's winning. I asked, what do you need? What's your plans for victory? What do you need? Two things. He took air cavalry, the F-16s, and the attackers. He needs a long-range artillery to hit Crimea, where the Iranian drones are coming out of.

He doesn't have it. Right now, his troops are going in with no air cavalry. They have to take the mines by hand at nighttime. We wouldn't send our troops into that situation. So we need to give them everything they need.

If this administration won't give it to them, then I submitted that we write in our appropriations bill. Wow. This is, this is, this is neocon central.

So can he possibly believe, I know you guys are not shrinks, but you know the way people think. Can he possibly believe that Ukraine is winning? Number one. Number two, since he made that statement, which was yesterday, the White House announced that the attack. Larry, tell us what some specificity what they are, that the attackums are going to make it to Ukraine, that he's going to release them. Oh, they announced that today? Yes. Oh, okay.

So they've done a complete reversal. Well, the attackum missile has a 190-mile range. So they call it, quote, a long distance rocket. The distance from Kiev to Donetsk is about 350 miles. So just you recognize that it's going to require the delivery system for this army. It's an air to ground missile or a ground to air missile launched from the ground. It's still required to bring it forward and bring it within range of Russian artillery and Russian airstrikes. It's just one more thing for the U.S. to blow up.

And this notion that F-16s are going to be a game changer, that is, you know, they'll get shot down just like anyone else. The way to monitor this, Judge, go to London, check in with the bookies, see what odds the bookies are offering for what day will the first Abrams get blown up. I guarantee you they're putting that out there as a possible wager. You know, I've got October 5th. When Trump was forced to be arrested and booked in Georgia, the bookies were putting odds on his weight. Yeah. It was north of 300.

Trump walked out of the booking room and they had recorded 215. Now, don't ask me how that happened, but the bookies lost a lot of money. Josh Hawley, I'm not a fan of his. I doubt either of you is. It's again, neocon central. However, he did say, where's this money going? We have no inspector general. And he did say Biden doesn't want twenty eight billion more. He wants one hundred billion more. Gary, run both of those clips. He insisted that all of the money is going directly to soldiers and that there's no diversion of funds whatsoever, including any humanitarian assistance that's not being diverted or mismanaged. But, of course, we don't know because there's no inspector general to track our money.

I mean, that's the other thing. We spent one hundred thirteen billion. The administration wants another hundred billion over the next year. That's from Austin yesterday. And yet they will not agree to an inspector general. So the White House told McCarthy they want $28 billion. General Austin told the Republicans in the Senate $100 billion. Right. For what? For a stalemate?

For a war that the secret documents that were released allegedly by Jack DeShera, remember him, showed that these guys knew and have known since March. It's now almost October that Ukraine was losing. The polls have made a dramatic about face, Larry. Question, was that known to American intel before the Polish prime minister announced it in very graphic terms outside the UN building earlier this week? I don't know. They should have known. The only thing I did notice was when Biden was speaking at the United Nations. You had Zelensky and his entourage sitting right next to John Kerry and to Tony Blinken. And the expressions on their face were, you know, you ever seen that dummy that Jeff Dunham uses, Walter?

He's got the real grumpy look. That's what they all look like. Because Biden was talking up Ukraine at the time. Nobody had a smile on their face. So I suspect by then at least they knew that Poland had given them a gut punch. Why would Poland give them a gut punch, Ray? I mean, this was at one point their strongest supporter. They had 90,000 troops at the Polish-Ukraine border

training with 40,000 American troops. Now all of a sudden, forget it, they're not giving them a nickel. Is the Polish elections coming up and the public is against it? They have it, the election, pure and simple. The Polish people are a little sick and tired of this war and all the refugees that they've had to receive and take care of. Diminishing returns have been quite evident. And when you have the prime minister of Poland saying, look, Ukraine is like someone who's drowning. You know how difficult, you know how dangerous it is to try to rescue someone who is drowning. They're really powerful and they're full of adrenaline. They're going to pull you down with them. I mean, when the prime minister of Poland says that, that means something. And

things are beginning to fall apart here. I doubt whether after the election, Poland will be back in this very tight alliance with Ukraine, because by that time, even Poland will see the handwriting on the wall. The war is lost. What do we do now? depiction of a drowning person being too dangerous to save because they'll likely drown the lifeguard sent out there to save them was lurid. And it was right outside the UN on the East River in Manhattan while President Zelensky was in the UN building. I mean, the only thing he could have done worse was to have said it on the floor of the General Assembly. Last question, I'll let you go. How much longer, Larry, first, do you think the conflagration, the military contact between Ukraine and Russia can go on? I think it can go on for at least another six months if the United States continues to fund it. That's going to be the critical variable.

Will the United States continue to shell out this cash? And that's up in the air right now, because if they don't get this continuing resolution through next week, then the funding is going to be in question. And some of the Republicans are pushing hard to separate continuing resolution from continued funding for Ukraine. And some of the Republicans have said they will never vote for a continuing resolution, which basically funds the government for a month, if there is any aid to Ukraine in there.

Well, Ray, your thoughts on how much longer this can possibly last? How long can Ukraine hold out? I think Larry is right. I think it all has to do with funding. Just like Vietnam, just like the Contras in Nicaragua, if the Congress pulls the plug, the results are inevitable. And the Germans and the French, they're not going to chip in here if the U.S. goes south on this. So it really depends. It's subjunctive right now. I don't know what's going to happen. I continue to be amazed at the caution that Putin and his entourage exercises. And I'm strengthened in my view that they're happy to attrit, attrit, attrit until some major provocation when they'll attrit no more, but go full bore into at least as far as the Dnipro River.

Larry, he sounds like he's writing poetry again. Attrit no more and go full bore. That's the line of the week. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you for all your time. Have a great weekend. We'll see you both. We'll see you both next week.

All the best. You too. Thanks. There you have it. One of the highlights of the week for us. We have two more highlights coming up. At 3.30 Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs on his views after his research of the origins of COVID and the sense

that he got, it was all over the UN this week, the sense that he got from all the diplomats with whom he engaged on how Joe Biden and how Volodymyr Zelensky were received by the delegates. And then at 4.30 today, something I've not done before, but a lot of you have asked for it. I'm going to answer your questions. Obviously, I can't answer all of them, I can tell you, because about 900 of you have commented just while Larry and Ray have been on. But direct a question to me. If it's challenging, if it's interesting, if it catches my eye, I'll put it on the screen. I'll read it and I'll answer it.

So as ever, more as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.