Judging Freedom - Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Those Who Supply Weapons Are ____

Episode Date: February 1, 2024

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Those Who Supply Weapons Are ____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, February 1st. February already. 2024 Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer, my longtime friend, joins us now. Tony, thank you very much for your time this morning. You know how much I appreciate it. When the ICJ, the International Criminal or the National Court of Justice, it's not the ICC, it's not the International Criminal Court. When the International Court of Justice, the UN's court, issued its ruling about 10 days ago, it didn't actually say there is genocide, but it did say, if there's genocide, stop it and report back to us in 30 days. The if there's genocide, stop it was a 15 to 2 vote. The Israeli justice was one of the two dissenters. The report back to us in 30 days was 16 to 1. The Uganda judge alone was the dissenter. in any way implicate the United States, since we are obviously sending about three plane loads a day of military hardware to Israel? The answer, I don't think you're going to like it, is no,

no, not really. I mean, we provide a lot of support to a lot of organizations. I'm not saying it, I'm not here to say we should be doing it. I'm saying it as an observable fact that our FMS program, the foreign military support program we have in the Pentagon is extensive. I first started learning about the existence of that program during an operation I was running in 1980, 88, late 88. And as a very young case officer, I'd come across some stuff when I was doing an assessment of an asset I was supposed to recruit regarding Libya, believe it or not. I started looking at that. And even during those days when Libya was on and off, we were still providing some things to Libya, which I, really? We're kind of not getting along with those folks right now. So who we give weapons to does not, I believe, because if we were held accountable

for every weapon we give everywhere, everybody at the Pentagon would be locked up. All right, but should we be concerned? Should we have some control over how these weapons are used? from being essentially willing to sell to anybody and using it as a tool of national security, foreign policy, to the point of where we recognize that our best future is trying to shape our own military and focus on that. Now, I'm skeptical we'll ever get there because there's so much money now tied, andisenhower award is about this the military industrial complex right after world war ii we established uh the concept and i'm not against the concept of having uh you know bruce fine and i've talked about this you know bruce and bruce is a friend of ours the idea that that we should have overwhelming defensive force available to use in case we are we are attacked and i everybody agrees on that. The problem is the industry which we created to support this has become a monster unto itself.

And by the way, there's some truth of this. It gets out there once in a while, the whole Ukrainian thing. I think one of the Ukrainian officials, I think Zelensky even said to you, well, don't you understand the money that you give us actually spent in the United States? You benefit from it. It is. It is. It is.

So we give them equipment we already have, and then we pay the military industrial complex billions to replace it, and they start producing this stuff 24-7. Where I'm getting at with this is, can we hold responsible those who supply weapons, even if they are not the ones who use the weapons? And if so, does that redound against us, since we're supplying weapons to Ukraine and we're supplying weapons to Israel? Yeah, that's a great question. But again, I don't see how it's possible, especially in regard to how we've promoted and put weapons in the hands of all sorts of folks to include. We've talked about Judge here on the show several times, the fall of Afghanistan.

We'd left the fourth largest standing army in the world on the ground. And those weapons are all off to the four winds. Some of those have already gone. We've seen them show up in terrorist attacks in other places. So there's just no way to do it. Here's somebody, you'll recognize him as soon as you see him. He's speaking with a lot of noise in the background. So I have to read aloud what the subtitles say.

This is cut number eight, Chris. Somebody who disagrees with what you just said, and I am happy to have you challenge him. Have you made a decision on how you respond to the attack? Do you hold Iran

responsible for the deaths of Americans? Do you hold Iran responsible for the deaths of Americans? I do hold them responsible in the sense that they're supplying the weapons to the people who did it. What will happen in response? We'll have that discussion. You discouraged attacks from the past.

What's the different this time? All right. So you see it there. I do hold them responsible in the sense that they're supplying the weapons. I guess he wasn't realizing or thinking about what he's supplying to Ukraine and what he's supplying to Israel and the allegations in both of those wars. It's hypocrisy, Judge. Look, the one thing that I remember sitting in Walter Jones' office and talking about this, you know, Walter Jones, God rest his soul, I love Walter, he was a great guy. Sitting and talking about- And Brandon both of ours, go ahead. Yeah. Walter was an amazing man of great courage and refined sense of reality. And this is one of his points that we, we will say one thing and do something completely different if it,

if it meets the short-term goals of, of whatever the wackadoodle political issue is of the day. And this is a, this is a wackadoodle guy talking about a wackadoodle policy. So it's wackadoodle all around. And in this case, Biden, and by the way, just the way he says this makes no sense. Oh, we're going to do something. We're going to hold him accountable. What are you going to do? Well, you'll see. John Kirby was asked directly two days ago about this. What exactly is the policy and what are you going to do? And John's answer was very

interesting because it reflected what Biden just said, kind of. John Kirby said, we're going to degrade the enemy based on what they did. It's like, what does that even mean? It's completely soft. Who's the enemy, John? Well, he didn't really clarify that either. And then secondly, he said, we have a quote-unquote tiered approach tiered approach what does that even mean and so let me let me ask you for your take on what happened over the weekend at tower 22 it is either in yemen or jordan or very close to the border between the two what what are we doing there who attacked us how did it happen to the best of your understanding so um the group that took credit let me make sure i get this right

was his ball of brigades of their iraqi and they say uh iran didn't direct us to do it i think they did i think they're lying. It's all propaganda. So as much as, you know, as all the other groups, they're doing what they can right now to kind of take free punches and hitting us. So why are we there? We are there. Where are we? Is it Syria?

Is it Jordan? Is it Yemen? I think it's Syria. All the above. We're everywhere. And that's what I was about to announce. So basically, the presence of U.S. forces there is an artifact of the successful by, with, and through strategy that was planned and conducted by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Joe Dunford. Joe was Barack Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that Trump kept.

And by the way, I recommended to Trump because Trump asked me about this, President Trump, and I did recommend it, and General Dunford was retained. So when Trump came in, he gave General Dunford a directive, go beat ISIS. ISIS was, at the time, as you recall, taking up and retaining whole swaths of land. They were taking and holding, I mean, they were becoming their own nation. So President Trump's policy was, we can't permit that, go get rid of them. And he did. Joe Dunford did it. There's a series called Chain of Command. I was one of the producers on it for Nat Geo, and we documented all this. And it was brilliant. The problem is this. Once we

accomplished our goals, once we handed things back over to the Kurds for the most part, folks in the Pentagon didn't want to leave. And so Trump said, it's time to get out of there. You know, we've done our job. And even the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joe Dunford, said, it's time, you know, I don't, he said this to my, face to face, it's not a good idea to have forces, army forces there, because once they're there, they start looking for things to do. That's a clue. And so Dunford ended his term as chairman. He had two terms.

He left. And then a guy named Mark Milley comes in. And then Trump continues to say, hey, you need to get those troops out of there now. They're not needed. And basically, Milley and Esper, the Secretary of Defense, refused to follow Trump's orders. Like, no, we're going to keep them there. Now, you might ask, why would you keep them there? Well, the answer is, Judge, because ultimately, the neocons want to go and start again what Obama was doing, which was trying

to remove Assad, the leader from Syria. So that's why they're there. They're just kind of marking time, waiting for a point in time where they can essentially start doing the same thing that created ISIS again, ISIS to do it again, because that's what they do. And so that's why they're there. What is the basis for your belief, Tony, that the people who claimed credit for this attack, which killed three American soldiers and wounded 34, were just issuing propaganda when they said, we're Hezbollah and Iran has nothing to do with this? Because it's all lies.

I don't trust anyone. No, but why do you say it's lies? Because they do. I mean, it's apparent, Judge, that Houthi, all these other groups are all acting in unison. It's called pattern analysis. I spend a lot of time doing this as a professional. So if you see one thing here on the map, it's like you look at the big board. Remember the big board and Dr. Strange's level? There is something like that. And so if you start seeing a pattern where you have the Houthi,

you have other elements within these militias all acting at once, it's not random. To quote the movie Jaws, this is no boat accident, you know, when he's looking at the body, this is deliberate. And the idea that you're gonna have groups come up and say, oh, we did it on our own. Really, Where'd you get the weapons from? Why did you get encouraged to do this? And by the way, one of the things notable about that location, Tower 22, is that someone

had to do a great deal, invested a great deal of time on studying the pattern of our drones coming in and out, that basically there's safe lines of passage. These things tend to fly down. I don't think it's a good idea because of this very issue. And yeah, someone studied that. Someone took a great deal of time to understand the functionality of that base. And I think there is a level of sophistication, which also shows the Iranians were behind helping organize and advise on this. Okay.

Here's Secretary Blinken saying what you referred to earlier. It's not very long, and at the very end, he talks about multi-leveled different tiers of responses. I think this is what you might have been referring to. Cut number five, Chris. The president said this, I think, virtually from day one to anyone who would try to use the crisis in the Middle East, the conflict in the Middle East, to sow further instability and to use it as an excuse to attack our personnel, we will respond. We will respond strongly.

We will respond at a time and place of our choosing. And obviously, I'm not going to telegraph what we might do in this instance or get ahead of the president. But I can, again, tell you that, as the president said yesterday, we will respond. And that response could be multileveled, come in stages, and be sustained over time. Does that make sense to you? I mean, it makes sense to you that that's what they're thinking of. Well, first off, it's their line because they haven't responded. They're not going to respond. This is all just more bluster. This is the ultimate expression of woke and national security and foreign policy. I'm a Reagan guy and Reagan, for the most part,

and the people I'm friends and mentors with, and I still meet with Ed Meese on a regular basis. God, you know, God bless Ed. And I used to meet with with Bud McFarland all the time before he passed. So the Reagan doctrine basically would focus on centers of gravity and personalities to make sure that that people, not organizations, understood the consequences of behavior or benefits. And in this case, there's not going to be any consequence to the Iran. The Iranians are going to continue to do what they're doing. Do I believe that the Iranians want a larger conflict? No, I don't. I don't for a minute believe Iran wants war with us. Do you think that the neocons around Joe Biden want war? Well, we know the neocons want war with Iran. Do you think that Joe wants to run?

Now we're veering into one of your other fields, which is domestic politics. You're close to D.C. You have a thumb on the pulse of this, that Joe wants to run as a wartime president and might use this as an excuse to help out Netanyahu and to boost his standing in the polls by suddenly becoming a wartime president and might use this as an excuse to help out Netanyahu and to boost his standing in the polls by suddenly becoming a wartime president. Yes, but it's not as cut and dry as that, Judge. I mean, that's what he wants. But the problem is he wants a balance between being seen as the leader of the Democrat Party, which includes all these progressives, all these folks, you know, the Talibs and AOCs and others who really are extremists. And so he needs to have them in his

tent, as well as the Israeli support, the Israeli lobby. Think about this. I mean, you know, there's a lot of very rich Jews who are Democrats are democrats so the last thing they love wouldn't they love it if he degraded uh the offensive weaponry in iran uh to give his friend netanyahu some peace of mind or some cachet whatever you want to call it yeah that's but that's the balance how do you how do you take the most wacko elements of your party which don't have money but they're very vigorous and uh and and very outspoken uh and actually get in the streets get nancy pelosi did you see nancy pelosi the day judge you know oh it's russian russian russian russia it's the russians doing the palestinian promote uh protests i mean this is this is their

party this is who they are. So you've got these inherent conflicts that you've created by this this attempt to bring all of these divergent views into your tent. And then people start fighting in your tent. That's what's going on. So yeah, I mean, he Biden would, I think, be very much benefited by a lot of rich folks. He's fundraising up and down. My son complained, he's 17, he complained he got a Joe Biden ad on his YouTube last night. Joe Biden's even asking 17-year-olds for money right now. Just for some more laughs before we get to something far more serious, here's Nancy Pelosi at her best or her worst, however you want to look at her. And what we have to do is try to stop the suffering and gossip.

This is women and children, people who don't have a place to go. So let's address that. But for them to call for a ceasefire is Mr. Putin's message. Mr. Putin's message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine. It's about Putin's message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine. It's about Putin's message. I think some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected to Russia. And I say, remind you before you start, three years ago ago that lady was two heartbeats away from the

presidency of the united states well speaking of heartbeats i you know judge this is tragic i mean this is this is what happens when your stolicia vodka gets cut off as part of sanctions and when you can't get russian vodka you go nuts you start thinking russians are under your bed i swear to god that's what it is it's's all about the Stelistnia. And by the way, it's pretty good vodka. I had it back during the, when I was in my drinking days, what that said. Come on, this is insane. This is utter, this is anybody who listens to that woman and take, gives her one iota

of any credibility has to be literally as insane as she is. This is not the Russians for God's sake. And by the way, the one thing that I'll say about the whole negotiation thing, there are legitimate efforts between us, the Egyptians, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, all trying to negotiate this. So it's not Russia. It's not Russia. I mean, it's just, this is insane. All right. This is what I've been itching to play for you all morning. You will know exactly who this is. It's 2007. He's issuing a warning to George W. Bush. Don't you dare start a war in Iran without congressional approval. You said that the president of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval. That would have been an impeachable offense.

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 or its ranking member.

The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to 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 and 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 constitutional limitations have on the president or the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that's being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear, and I made it clear to the president, that if he takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. Old words might come back to haunt old Joe. So, well, he is a self-licking ice cream cone, so I guess he could impeach himself here,

too, which I would. If I were him, I think a self-impeachment would be the solution. Don't you think? It's like I could say some really gross things, but I won't. politician and get involved in politics that I actually become a parody of myself to this degree that we've seen Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi become, because this is not leadership. This is dangerous. And at this point, Joe Biden has become so weak and feckless that I don't even know what, if he understands what orders he's giving. And to your point, there's a real divide. There's a real part of the professional, permanent military and industrial and political class in Washington who wants war with Iran. They've been gunning for this. The Institute for Promotion of War, I mean, Study of War has been doing this. Victoria Nuland and all those folks, they all want it. And I'd like to believe there's going to be sufficient common sense people around these folks who keep it from happening because there will be

no good to come from a war with Iran. Am I saying we shouldn't do anything? Not at all. I'm saying we should look at the Trump solutions and the Reagan solutions for this. I was reminded, I did an interview with Lord Conrad Black yesterday for my own show, and he's a Canadian, good guy, and he talked about, reminded me that Reagan was able to win the Cold War without having to fire a shot, essentially, virtually. There's virtually no blood. And yet he was able to understand the system of systems and the personality sufficiently to cause internal chaos for the system to collapse upon itself. Is the United States military ready, willing, and able to wage a war against iran whether by air sea or land we we we have to have a military that's ready to respond but i don't look you and i will maybe

disagree on this because i debated ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron ron paul Ron Paul, there are too many Pauls. When Ron Paul ran for president, I debated him on John Stossel's show regarding, should we be the ones determining or maintaining free sea lines of communication and commerce? The answer is yeah. If we don't do it, someone else will. So I do believe when we see things like the Houthi jeopardizing 10%, 12% of the global shipping, which they have, it's now exceeded that because now it's impacting 25%. We've already seen impacts of this with fuel going up 35 cents in the past week. I do believe that if we invest in helping establish lines of communication and commerce, we're obligated to keep those open. When Iran and others decide we're going to start messing with the global commerce, then someone's got to do something to stop it. So yeah, I do believe that we should do something about the who. But do you disagree with all the other military people I put on here who say we are not equipped for a full-fledged war 7,000 miles away in the Middle East,

whether by sea, land, or air, we will lose it or find some way to get out of it. We've run this scenario a lot. I've been a military planner, and I can tell you that we've contemplated this a lot. And the answer is it would be as difficult as Afghanistan, if not a bit more difficult because of the other things. So, no, I think we would be – it would be very difficult. We don't have the ground forces necessary to do something like that anyway. And by the way, I think we're far better suited in trying to find a way to support Taiwan.

I know you don't want to hear that, but I do support Taiwan and its democracy, and I think we should be looking there more than Iran at this point. All right. I wasn't going to go there, and we have a few minutes left. Could you imagine U.S. military forces defending Taiwan and attacking Iran at the same time? That would really be an impossible task, wouldn't it? Well, not for the neocons. I mean, remember- Well, the neocons don't consider practical things. All they want to see is somebody else's blood, Lindsey Graham, somebody else's blood. Right. So practically, no. I mean, again, I'm a force structure guy. I got drug into force structure years ago against my will. It was like

being a prisoner almost. And no, I understand the JWICA, JROC process. I understand what it takes to build something. I've studied how we built forces during World War II and established capacity and capabilities related to executing missions. I understand it. And the answer is no. As a matter of fact, some of those resources that would be designated to take action in Iran are already tasked to do things in the Pacific. So literally, you've double-tasked assets within our own system. I've seen this up close and personal, Judge. It's like, hey, you guys have designated this to go there.

What happens if you need it over there? Oh, we don't have anything. So that's the thing. The neocons never think through the next steps. That's what I find frightening. And neocons are on both sides here, Judge. I mean, they are not denizens of the Republican Party only. I mean, Hillary Clinton, amongst other things, a neocon.

So anyway, I'm just saying that there's no practical way to do both. And we could barely do either if we had to. Got it. Tony Schaefer, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. Thank you for your patience in listening to Mrs. Pelosi and Joe Biden when he could compose an English sentence properly. It was a good old day,

wasn't it, Judge? Yeah, it was. All the best to you, Tony. Hope you come back at the same time next Thursday. See you next week. Thank you, my friend. Yeah. Coming up later today, actually coming up at nine this morning, Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, the one journalist allowed in the courtroom when the arguments were made before the International Court of Justice. And this afternoon, the great Professor Mearsheimer, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!