Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : Dept of Defense, War, or Peace?

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : Dept of Defense, War, or Peace?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Don't let an expensive wireless bill disrupt your summer plans. As you map out beach getaways, backyard gatherings, and long weekends, your wireless bill shouldn't be a source of stress. With Mint Mobile, you get the reliable coverage and high-speed performance you're used to at a significantly lower cost. For a limited time, Mint is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for just $15 a month, while others are dealing. with overage fees and surprise charges, you can enjoy peace of mind and more money in your

pocket. Say goodbye to overpriced plans and hello to simple, straightforward wireless service. Every Mint mobile plan includes high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, and access to the nation's largest 5G network. Plus, you can keep your current phone number and contacts. Make the switch and get three months of unlimited service for just $15 a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash freedom. That's mintmobile.com slash freedom. Up front payment of $45 required.

That's an equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited. plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, September 9th, 20205. Colonel Karen Koukowski is here with us. Colonel, welcome here.

I try to smile when I do these intros, notwithstanding what the news is. What is your understanding of the latest U.S. Israeli attack or Israeli slash U.S. attack on a residential neighborhood in Doha, Qatar. Yeah. Well, it's becoming predictable. You know, if you're a negotiating team that wants to make peace, certainly relative to Gaza or anywhere in the Middle East, you better not meet or you better meet in secret because these are targets. Apparently, Trump and Netanyahu believe these are legitimate targets. And it's obvious. You know, one time is an accident. The second time, coincidence, perhaps, third time, you know, they do it on purpose to advance the mission that the U.S.

and Israel have vis-a-vis the Middle East, which is one in the same mission. It is expansion of greater Israel. It is the elimination of any resistance, including human populations, whole human populations, as we're seeing in Gaza. That's the goal. It's quite simple. Well, I mean, this is particularly reprehensible because Trump himself lured these negotiators, was a team of 37 of them to this location in Qatar. According to Max Blumenthal, I haven't seen it. The Trump proposal is 100 words long. Now, Colonel, wouldn't it be more like 100 pages long

if you're talking about a ceasefire or a peace arrangement? A hundred words. Did Trump compose this while he was in the bathroom? I mean, I don't get it. Was Whitkoff involved in any? of this because he's not a government official. He doesn't have immunity. He could be indicted as a war criminal for what he did. And Trump can't pardon that. Yeah. Well, and Wikoff conveniently left the last set of talks early. He was not in Doha. So yeah, they're all

implicated in this, I think. You know, the 100-word thing is pretty much tells you two things. One, this was written by Israel, which is what the Arab side says, that this was clearly written, these words are Israel's words, or Netanyahu's words. The 100-word limit is just like the 12-day war. You know, it's a little catchy bumper sticker designed to really deceive and simplify what is, you know, what is obvious to the rest of the world and also very complicated. There's no intention. And I think this, if nothing else we can conclude, there's. is no intention for Israel to do anything other than accelerate what it has been doing. And now that the starvation has been going on for several months, it won't be long before

the remaining population, which is probably down to 1.5 million in Gaza, will, they've been weakened. They are unsheltered, unhoused, as we would say here in this country. And disease will take its toll along with malnutrition and, of course, actual starvation. So the Israelis, this is a win for them. Yeah, everybody hates them. Sure, nobody's going to trade with them. But they're so short-sighted that what they see is we must exterminate Gaza and take it over and control completely. And they're going to get that.

They're going to do that. That is their intention. And when you, this late in the game, assassinate, you know, or attempt to assassinate the negotiating team, when negotiations have been publicly, you know, Trump was very positive about these, right? I mean, Trump was like, oh, yeah, we're going to, it's going to be a couple weeks. We're going to have this Gaza thing put to bed, you know, very positive. But, you know, it's all, it's all lies. They're going to Israel with the United States help is going to resolve this by killing probably through death and, through their own death and disease that they will be implicated in, probably 80% of the population.

And I think that Israel thinks it can handle the remaining 20% of surviving Gaza. I think that's their goal and that's what they're going to do. Who can stop them? Only the United States can stop them. And we can stop them in one executive order. Trump could stop them in one phone call to the Pentagon. Nothing gets to Israel, zero. And it would be done with in three weeks.

Israel cannot sustain what they're doing without our help. I mean, this is the country that we haven't even decided if this is legal yet, gave Trump a gift worth $400 million. Oh, yeah. Is it probable that Cutter was behind this as well just to satisfy their American masters and their Israeli tormentors? I mean, your retired Air Force, you know better than I, the largest American Air Force base, maybe in the world, but certainly in that part of the world, is right there in Qatar. Yeah, it is. And the family that has been running Qatar for quite a long time, I forget the name, but it's, you know, they've, they've have a firm hold, but like many of those countries, you know, these are kind of minority ruled states. So they're always at odds to some extent with their population. But, yeah, it's possible. Anything's possible. But I think the more obvious answer is Trump has done this at least three times. This is the third time that.

we know of possibly more. This is definitely something Netanyahu and the IDF, the Massad, this is what they do. So I think that's probably the more straightforward answer. It's very believable. You know, I will say this. The UAE, unrelated to Gaza, but the UAE told Netanyahu and Trump that if they didn't end what they were trying to do in the UA.E, unrelated to Gaza, but the UAE told Netanyahu and Trump, that if they didn't end what they were trying to do in the West Bank, which is, of course, they want to totally absorb the West Bank and control it and also vacate it of Palestinians. And they're doing that.

They're doing that right now, but we're not really talking about it so much. What did the UAE threaten? They said that this will basically, well, in kind words, it will devalue the Abraham Accords. But what they meant is, I think, is we're not participating in the Abraham Accords. And that is one leverage point that seemed when they said that Netanyahu was taken aback by that. Because, you know, Israel needs trade and a big part of, of course, the rest of the world hates Israel, we're not trading with. I will never buy knowingly another Israeli product.

So, you know, this is average people believe this and feel this way. But Israel needs regional trade, both in energy and arms and all kinds of things. And the Abraham Accords kind of that was its big selling point. Yeah, sure, it's security, but it's about trade. And so Israel realizes that their trade globally is limited in some ways because of what they're doing, and they don't want to lose that. Anyway, I thought they paid more attention to the UAE announcement of that, which is really a threat, in a sense.

They responded to that much more, you know, logically than they respond to anything Trump says, which means if Trump seems to be telling Israel what to do, I don't think you can believe that. I think he speaks from, you know, he speaks out, I mean, Netanyahu pulls the strings, I think. You know, Max Blumenthal was on before you, reminded us that when the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, the Qatar air defenses were activated because the Americans who constructed it, and control it, feared that that air base would be attacked. And one of the missiles got through and it did some significant damage, but it didn't kill anybody. This time, no cutter air defenses were activated.

How could the United States not have known about this in advance? Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. And this is another problem of having, you know, a global empire with military bases everywhere. even if the U.S. had nothing to do with this, which is, of course, you know, inconceivable. When you look at the power to do things militarily around the world that we have and the surveillance capability and air defense capability we have scattered all over the world, no one will believe you if you say you weren't involved in it. So we're, you know, we were involved in it. But if we deny that, it's no one's going to believe it.

So this is a huge, it's a huge loss of credibility, one additional, particularly for Trump. I mean, you know, it's funny we talked about Biden's credibility because he was senile and nobody knew who was running the government. But Trump has actually earned the fact that he is not credible on the global scene. And Trump expects a Nobel Peace Prize out of all this because that mobster, monster Netanyahu nominated him for it? Yeah. Oh, he wants that. Yeah. I don't know why he would. And, you know, and if Trump was on the campaign trail, he would probably be poo-pooing the Nobel Peace Prize because of how it has been devalued itself, you know, when Obama got it. But that was one I remember most distinctly when I thought there was no such thing as a Nobel Peace Prize after they gave it to him for doing nothing. And then he proceeded by engaging in all kinds of conflict and illegal acts. But yeah. I'm going to unleash the Ph.D. in you. Why do presidents kill?

Why do American presidents love to kill? Okay. First off, why are they American presidents? Because they love power. And if you love power, how do you express power by using the tools of power? And one of the biggest tools of power that the United States has is, of course, our military. and to some extent our covert capabilities. But yeah, any state that is well known for some particular power or strength that it has, like the Mossad, Israel has a Mossad.

Massad is feared globally. Why? Because it conducts amazing assassinations at will. Do the prime ministers of Israel use this strong, valuable tool that they have? Of course they do. Of course they do. And we have a tool of a global military. We have a tool of a still quasi-large economy that we can leverage.

We have reasonably good targeting information around the world. Why wouldn't you use that? I mean, I say man, because we've only had men presidents, right? But what was one of the close runners-up female president that we might have had in our lifetimes? It was Hillary Clinton, right? I mean, she would have, in my view, spent the same or more money than Trump has on the military. And she would have conducted as many assassinations, attempted assassinations, intrigues, setups,

you know, deals that would cause massive death. Yes, she would do that. People that choose to be president and that run for president and make the compromises, the moral compromises that in this day and age are required to be the United States president. I mean, they're moral compromises. We're an empire. We're not, you know, what are we, electing an emperor. But you know, this is the M.O. of really sick people who have to exercise power and have to show that they have the power and want to kill innocent people like 11 people in a speedboat 1,300 miles from the American coast. Is it realistic that we could not have a standing army as the framers wanted? Is it realistic that we could have a military budget of one quarter of the trillion dollars that we now spend? It is realistic because the enemies that we are fighting that we supposedly have around the world are enemies of our own creation.

And some of them are created in our imagination. You know, we talk about Russia is a great threat. Well, Russia is no threat. It is a peer nuclear power, but it's no threat to us. China, the same. In fact, the very idea that your worst enemy is the guy that provides you with your quality of living. And pretty much 90% of the items that you have in your home, that that's the enemy that we should arm up against them. It is irrational.

So if you don't have, if you look at where your real enemies are, the United States has very few. if we stay in our lane and live by our Republican, small our Republican principles and abide by our Constitution, we'll have no enemies. And when you don't have enemies, then you have a military that does Coast Guard type duties. You know, we don't need, we could get by on 10% of what we spend, but here's what. The military industrial complex cannot get by on 10% or 25% or even 50%. they must have their trillions. They must have their trillions. And they own the Congress and they elect the president.

So we got a big problem here. So if you want to reduce the military, you really have to end the empire. And to end the empire is a big, big problem. I mean, it's going to end on its own. If you want to accelerate that, we need states and people to secede and end their support for Washington. And that is not going to happen overnight. How is it that Russia has a bigger and more professional army and China has a Navy a little smaller, but every bit as formidable as ours?

And we spend more than the next 10 countries combined, which of course includes Russia and China. Yeah, well, the way that we fund our military, of course, military industrial conflicts, we let private enterprise, so to speak. It's really corporatism. It's really fascism. It's state favored and cultivated and hot house flour managed industries. Those are very expensive and they produce very little and they're less and less competitive every year, less and less competitive with themselves. I mean, the top five defense contractors have 90%, 95% of all defense business. So there's no competition. We call it free market, see, but it's not really the free market. And the way the Russia Russia certainly does it this way and China as well.

And China is still, you know, I don't think we call them communists, but they definitely have a central planning type organization. Russia is a little bit less, but it's still top-dominated. They view their military, their defensive capability as a government interest area, a government department, and they fund it like that. So they kind of fund their military and their military. military research, like we do things like education, right? When we don't, the states mainly fund education.

But if the federal government says, well, I'm interested in something and they put the money there, they're not like competing and trying to play a big game and being lobbied. It's like it's as if you had all civil servants doing your military and they were all patriotic. And they all knew why they were building weapons. and they all understood the importance to the country and the limits on what that country could invest. Our system accepts no limits on what we can spend on our military. There are no limits. It goes up 10, 20 percent a year. They expect that. They are organized around that free money train. And a small side benefit of all of this is we get some weapons, okay? Most of them

don't work very well. Very, very expensive, low in numbers. And they like hot house flowers. You know, we are, look how difficult it's been for us to increase the production of artillery shells just in the four years that the Ukraine war has been going on when suddenly someone in the army woke up and said, oh my gosh, we can't produce these and we're running out. I mean, it's a joke. But they do depend on money and they lobby Congress to get that money. And they do a little propaganda across the, you know, football games, right? You see the power of the U.S. military at football games and other events. You know, there's a propaganda aspect of all this.

But the system is a flawed system. It does not provide defense. Trump's right about its Department of War. Our Department of Defense in the past since 1947 has done no defense. It has only conducted offensive activities. Not very well. Is this name change stylistic? or substantive?

Well, is Pete Hegseth a stylistic or substantive secretary of war? Oh, boy. Let's not go there. I've known him for 15 years. Let's not go there. He's probably not a bad guy. But, yeah, he is an icon of a failing and flawed empire. And this name change, you know, if you think about why we change names of anything,

it's because we're losing traction with the old name. You know, New Coke. Well, that was a big mistake. Defense of Department of War, probably very similar. You know, because you would think that if you had this big idea that you were going to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, the War Department, that you might have some actual changes in mind

that you have broached, even within the Pentagon, on to actually change what it is you're doing, how you're doing it, how you're going to be more effective, what your real mission is. They didn't do any of that. They just said, make it the Department of War. That's what we do. We fight wars. And, you know, Trump, I'm no offense to Trump or anybody that hasn't served in the military,

but Trump knows nothing about war. You know, he doesn't. This is, it's just like a lot of people. They see it on TV. They have this kind of patent complex, you know, they're all patriots. Well, they're not patriots. You know, these are not real wars. If this country was ever attacked,

I think we know who would be fighting to defend the country, and it would not be the Pentagon. Well, Karen, thank you very much. A very difficult subject to talk about with cheerfulness and perspective, but you managed to do it. Deeply appreciated here and on the folks watching. All right, Chris, put it up. Watch this.

Remember what happened with Crackerbrow when they tried to get rid of that, gentlemen. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Wow. All right. Thank you, Colonel Koukowski. Always a pleasure. We look forward to seeing you again next week. Absolutely. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Another busy day tomorrow at 8 in the morning, Phil Giroldi, at 11.

in the morning, I believe he's in Shanghai or Beijing, Pepe Escobar, at one in the afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, at two in the afternoon, Aaron Mate, at three in the afternoon, Professor John Mearshamer, and sometime during the day, we haven't pinned it down yet, because he's so hot over what the Americans and Israelis did in Qatar today, wants to come back on, and he's always welcome here, Professor Jeffrey Sacks. Judge the Palatano for judging freedom. Thank you.