Judging Freedom - Joe Biden Says “Our Work Is Far from Over!”

Episode Date: February 2, 2023

#biden #ukraineSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 2nd, 2023. It's about one o'clock in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. Phil Giraldi, no stranger to those of you that regularly watch this podcast joins us now. Phil, it's always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Did you recently receive something in the mail from the President of the United States that said, Philip, our work is far from over, and this raised your blood pressure? Well, not only did it raise my blood pressure, which is a bad thing, but it also terrified me. It implied that Joe Biden is going to work more of his magic over the next two years and his agenda is God knows what.

I mean, we're on the verge of a possible nuclear war right now that he self-generated pretty much. And we have millions of people pouring over our Southern border and the economy is going. So yeah, I'm really looking forward to what Joe Biden is going to do in the next two years because he believes we have a lot of work still to do. How worried are you, just from your knowledge of the way government works and perhaps from your sources in the intelligence community,

of which you were a part for much of your professional career, of America being dragged into or in Ukraine? I know we've talked about this before, but it doesn't seem to me that anybody did an honest intelligence assessment or a foreign policy assessment before getting into this mess. Because there is absolutely nothing in it for the American people. There's nothing in it in terms of creating a cure situation for the United States. Russia did not threaten us. This whole situation did not threaten us. And now we're tied, basically tied and committed to one of the most corrupt country in Europe, which is going through a purge right at the moment. And there is nothing in it that is there to be optimistic about. The people that I listen to who really understand combat on the ground,

people like Colonel McGregor, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, and sources like that, these people are adamant that this is a non-winnable situation, apart have engaged in, ordered and conducted some sort of intelligence assessment before he started sending $60 billion in cash and armaments to President Zelensky and his cronies? Well, yeah, he probably did get some assessments that tried to be, if not pessimistic but at least shall we say realistic and uh but the the fundamental problem with the intelligence assessments is they all depend on the original sources that that contribute to the assessment and if if if the people that were being sent over to Ukraine in the lead up to this war by the United States were essentially listening too much to false information that was basically being peddled to them by the Ukrainians for various reasons of their own, then these assessments are not going to be very good. But a good intelligence briefer,

a guy like Ray McGovern, would probably throw in the caveats on that kind of an assessment. I want to play a clip from one of your former colleagues. I understand you never worked together, but you were in the agency at the same time and he was an intelligence uh briefer uh jack devine who's a regular on the show who candidly my fans and the viewers of the show love to hate so jack truss big audience what the things they say about him on the message screen uh i can't even read them out loud. But here is Jack saying that he's betting on Ukraine. I'm betting on the Ukrainians still. It's not to say that the Russians aren't going to be formidable. I do think they'll be under-trained.

Sometimes when you create something big and it's not well-trained, they become cannon fodder. So I think it's going to be a really tough spring. And I think the war in many ways will be decided. There won't be a victor. In other words, the Russians cannot conquer Ukraine. And the Ukrainians are not going to beat the Russians at a certain point where both sides pull back. Even if you don't have an agreement, they lower their intensity. And that's what I think Putin personally is in trouble in his own country. And I think he goes. That's why the stakes are so big. And I think he goes. Did he tip his hand as to the true goal of the American intelligence community and the globalists

in Western Europe and in the State Department? Yeah, I think he did, but that's only half the story. The regime change to get rid of putin is certainly one of the major objectives and has been for an objective for a long time because basically uh putin is pushing a an agenda for russia which is a separate path are relating to maintaining its culture and its traditions and its history. And we don't like that kind of stuff anymore. But the other thing is that, again, Divine is getting this from somebody. He's getting information from a source or sources. And I would be very curious as to whether he is somehow personally benefiting or at least maintaining

some kind of profile that he wants to maintain by saying these sorts of things. I think, as I say, the people that I listen to, these people are real serious combat and intelligence veterans of a different type, people who've been on the ground and have the experience, and they're saying quite the opposite. Well, this will raise your blood pressure even more. Here's Jack Devine talking about the effect of the Ukrainian-Russian war on the strength and relationship between Russia and China. And I want to talk to you about China in a minute, Gary. Do we want a strong Russia with Putin and Xi? Is that going to bring us peace and harmony so we can live in isolation? I think Putin, the day he crossed, I'm on record, I'm on record in the Washington Post,

in March last year, a few days after he invaded, he sowed the seed of his own demise. That is actually good news for us. Whoever causes it, that's a good news. A weak Russia that sees Putin going weakens China as well as Russia. Does Jack know what he's talking about? No. That's one of the craziest comments I think I've ever heard. If anything, the NATO-U.S. intervention in the Ukraine situation is driving China and Russia closer together. Yes. And China and Russia are great powers, whether you want them to be that or not. And I don't get it.

I don't know where he's coming from on that. It's a week in Russia is going to create a week in China. No, it'll create a crazier China that's afraid of being Russian. It's almost as if this is the same type of propaganda that CIA and MI6 feed on a daily basis to mainstream media to get them to believe that somehow Putin's going to go and there'll be peace in the world and China will no longer be a threat. He used another curious phrase, and I don't want to overly pick apart what he says, when he said that Putin sowed the seeds of his own demise. I mean, Putin is probably stronger politically and Russia more united, the Russian people more united behind him than was the case a year ago before the first shot was fired. Am I right on that, Phil? Well, every opinion poll I've seen, and a lot of these opinion polls are conducted by Western European agencies, German or British or French, so they're

reasonably reliable, has indicated that Putin has been consistently well over 7% approval rating well before this fighting started. And ever since. Sure, there are some Russians that are actively opposing what is going on, and God bless them. But the fact is that the Russian people know what the stakes are here, and a Ukraine in NATO is a national security threat. And it's also a threat to Russian identity of the people in Donbass who are ethnic Russians and in Crimea. So, you know, there are some serious issues here. And we're not necessarily on the right side of this. When the CIA gives President Biden his daily assessment or however frequently they give him an assessment,

do they actually make an argument that a Russian victory in Ukraine, which to me means the establishment of the Russian-speaking portion of Ukraine back to Russia, where it was 300 years ago and had been back and forth, somehow adversely affects the national security of the United States? So they actually feed such an argument into the president's brain? I'm not sure what's going on in the president's brain, to be quite frank. But I think that would be a stupid argument even for them to make to him. I think what's being played here is a lot of vague national security type allegations that Russia is a threat to stability in Eastern Europe. And if Russia is allowed to get away with this with Ukraine, the Baltic states will be next, then Poland.

And, you know, it's this kind of nonsense. Almost like a domino theory argument, like the nonsense we heard in the Vietnam years. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's a kind of thing that if we don't do this, then this might happen, or this will happen. This is probably what they're saying. But the fact is, you know, they're good at this kind of thing. They kind of weave things together. And even though Russia was no threat of any kind to the United States back before this started, they hypothesized how it would become a threat because this guy Putin is kind of a dangerous dude.

But in your recent piece at the UN's review called Joe Biden Says Our Work Is Far From Over, where you recount your apoplexy when you received this email from him saying, Philip, our work is far from over. I guess they have you on some sort of a democratic fundraising list, Phil. I wouldn't even ask how you and your wife got on that list. But anyway, in the piece, you recount, of course, very well, as only you can do, that this has been the mantra of the State Department for many years. I mean, this is the argument that Condoleezza Rice made, you know, if we don't invade Iraq, they're going to invade Baltimore. I'm sort of paraphrasing. This is the argument that Hillary Clinton, her successor, made for bombing and slaughtering Muammar

Qaddafi. This is the argument they always make without any rational basis behind it whatsoever. So question. Your guys, your former colleagues, are professionals professionals and many of them risk their lives to gather information how do they react when they see it distorted like this yeah that's that's of course the major question here i i can only go um with go with a view on this based on my own colleagues, former colleagues in the agency, and many of whom I'm still in contact with. Out of all of them, I would say I can only think of one or two that supports the current policy of unrelenting hostility towards Russia. I can't think of any of the others that are anywhere on that page. In fact, quite a few of them, like Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, are very much in the anti-war side on this and are very active in it. So it's, I think, you know, you're an intelligence officer, you're paid with the

queen's shilling, as the old expression used to go. And while you're in harness, you play by the rules, and you kind of do what you're expected to do. But basically, that doesn't mean you put your brain into a filing cabinet and lock it away. When you're away from actually working for the government, you should start thinking for yourself, and that's what most of us do. You point out in this article that so impressed me that Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is about to duplicate what Mrs. Pelosi did a few months ago and make a well-publicized trip to Taiwan and purport to speak on behalf of the U.S. government, or maybe to mouth what President Biden has already said, which is that the American government will use the military to defend

the independence of Taiwan at all costs. How insane is a trip like this? Sure. And as I point out in my article, Pelosi's trip had the reverse effect. It didn't make the Chinese back off. It made the Chinese have military exercises that came very, very close to Taiwan, sending their own message. So if you want to encourage Chinese aggression, the perfect way to do it is to have these trips by congressmen who don't seem to know anything about what's going on anywhere. Now talk about simulated military, simulated attacks. And I didn't see this in the mainstream media. I didn't see it anywhere except in your reporting. Did the United States and Israel recently engage in some sort of a simulated war game against Iran? Yeah, yeah. Well, we haven't seen it. It wasn't in the New York Times. It wasn't on Fox News. It wasn't anywhere.

Why would they do something like this knowing it can be a provocation that can lead to real war? Yeah, absolutely. This, again, is an insane policy. This was war games about two weeks ago uh it was conducted in the eastern mediterranean it was the biggest war games ever entered into by the united states and israel together and comes on the heels of an enhanced uh security pact between the two countries and it simulated an attack on iran that's what it did so i mean if you're going to, you know, really make people your enemies to the point where they're going to want to do something about it, this is the kind of stupid stuff that you go out and do.

I wonder if they're also trying to provoke Putin. I mean, Putin has a substantial commercial—Russia, the Russian government has a substantial commercial relationship with arms manufacturers in Iran. We know that. Putin blasted Prime Minister Netanyahu when the Israelis sent some drones to attack one of the munitions plants that makes Iranian drones. So the U.S. is trying to provoke Iran and trying to provoke Russia at the same time. It's old Joe crazy. Or might this never have even reached the level of the White House? I don't know.

This type of a military pretend war. Does the president himself have to sign off on this? I would assume that the president either signed off on it on a document or he was verbally briefed by one of his national security people. But again, you're quite right. I mean, the fact is that why do you do these things against countries that basically are not threatening you and don't have much capability to threaten you. Because when you do this sort of thing, whatever efforts they're able to make, they're going to amp up as much as they can. And I'm writing an article right now, and I'm noting that, look,

Israel is bombing Syria and it's bombing Iran without the U.S. ever squeaking or saying anything, and yet Syria has never attacked Israel, and Iran has never attacked Israel. So, you know, what is the equity here that people are looking at? It's reckless. So, Iran is Emanuel Goldstein. You remember who Emanuel Goldstein was? That was the true name of Big Brother in 1984, Orwell's novel, where tens of thousands of people in theaters and stadiums would be ranting and raving at his image. He didn't even exist, his fictitious picture on a screen. That's what Iran has become.

Prime Minister Netanyahu rails against Iran all the time, as you pointed out. Israel's attacked Iran. Iran has never attacked Israel. How do the pros feel? Well, let me restate the question. Is anybody telling Joe Biden that the Ukrainians are losing, or are they just telling him what he wants to hear? Is any intelligence entity, would it be CIA, would it be defense intelligence? I don't know what other entities we have that do foreign intelligence, but would any of them be saying, Mr. President, this is not going the way you expected it to. When Putin brings these 300,000 to 500,000 more troops in March, it's going to be over with pretty quickly, and you better be prepared for it. Does anybody say that to him?

I don't think any of them would have the courage to say it in those words. I however think that there have been hints dropped uh the uh secretary of defense austin for example uh to everyone's surprise about three weeks ago came out with a with a comment about uh something gee maybe it would be a good idea if we negotiate our way out of this do you remember that yes yeah so i'm sure he got his knuckles slapped by the nuns, so to speak. I think he was doing that as kind of protection for a policy that he, probably better than most of these others, sees it going in the wrong direction. Is it probable that there are some back channel communications going on between Washington and Moscow that we don't know about? Under normal circumstances, I would say that would be likely, but I don't think we're quite there yet. I think the statements that are being made back and forth are too definitive, too decisive in terms of their

intent to indicate that there's any softening going on. I think we might well come to that when the Ukrainians are truly on their heels in about 60 days' time. Bill Giraldi, always a pleasure, my dear man. Keep sending those articles, and thank you very much for your time today. Well, thank you for having me on again. Of course. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.