Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi: Biden’s Indifference to Israeli Slaughter.

Episode Date: December 14, 2023

#russia #ukraine #USMilitaryHistory #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostages #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Please signify those against and abstentions. The voting has been completed. so Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, December 13th, 2023. Phil Giraldi returns to our cameras for his weekly time with us. Phil, thank you very much, my dear friend. What we all saw right before the introduction to the show was the final vote tally at the United Nations yesterday. Prior to that vote tally, there had been a vote in the Security Council, two bodies in the UN, General Assembly and Security Council. The Security Council of the U.S. has a veto, and so the vote was 13 to 1 with the U.S. vetoing, and with Great Britain, which also has a veto,

didn't exercise it, it abstained. The Secretary General of the United Nations used a very rarely used section of the U.N. Charter, allowing him to bring directly to the floor this vote calling upon Israel for and Gaza for a ceasefire after it had been defeated in the Security Council. You can see 153 in favor, only 10 against, some I don't know why, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Liberia. Of course, the United States voted against them. There's 23 abstentions. What does this tell you about the United States' pig-headedness in all of this, indifference toward human suffering, and wherever else you want to characterize it, that it opposes even something as humanitarian as a ceasefire to bring food, water, and fuel to the people of Gaza?

Well, unfortunately, this is all too common in terms of what we've seen from various administrations since the war on terror began. They say one thing out of one side of their mouth for an appropriate political response, and meanwhile, they do something completely contrary. Now, this is the second time that the United States has voted against a resolution, which in the case of the Security Council would have mandated a ceasefire. In terms of the General Assembly, it's not clear what the legal dimension of it is, but many believe it can be used in the same way. So anyway, the point is this would have ended the fighting.

This would have started people talking. And this was exactly what Joe Biden was claiming, that he was extremely upset about the level of casualties, which are exceeding, of course, 20,000 Gazans right now and probably will go a lot higher when they start digging through the rubble. And the fact is, this is hypocrisy at a level that's almost unimaginable uh and the same time as this was happening uh i noted that we were sending a secret uh armed shipment uh to israel to help them kill more palestinians and this uh circumvented the normal procedure in congress where munitions are not supposed to go uh except in a state of emergency, to a belligerent. They have to be reviewed by Congress. So this procedure was circumvented. And there's Joe Biden saying one thing and doing the

other thing and sending over more weapons that will be killing Palestinians. This is incredible. Phil, this is very, very troubling. I think that the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, committed perjury because in order to bypass Congress under this emergency legislation, he must certify under oath that the legislation is, quote, vital to United States national security interests, close quote. How on the planet is sending $106 million worth of bombs, munitions, bullets, and artillery rounds to Israel on an emergency basis vital to the national security interests of the U.S. You know, Congress can send whatever it wants, but for the president to bypass Congress, the president or the secretary of state or the secretary of defense must file this document under oath. I don't think he could possibly defend it in a court of law. I can't, I've read the thing very carefully to see if there was something I

was missing, but there wasn't. It basically made the argument that this was vital for national security for the United States of America. And if you could figure out a way that that is true, you're a better man than I am. I just, could not see it i could not find it and it seems to me that this was just the ultimate hypocrisy again where he is saying one thing and then seemingly going behind his back and apologizing to net yahoo by sending him this um this arm shipment which the israelis incident, don't necessarily need. And this is just, it's an atrocity. I mean, we're killing people and we're pretending we're doing something else.

I mean, this is just as awful as it gets. Here's Admiral Kirby, who is certainly not a better man than you are. He can't tie your shoelaces. Attempting to avoid discussing, this is just 15 minutes ago, Phil, bypassing the Congress, cut 18. That with respect to Gaza, whatever governance in Gaza looks like,

it can't look like what it did on the 6th of October. With Hamas in charge, it's got to be representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. And that means it's going to require some leadership and some change in the Palestinian authority. And one last one, I promise. When you say that the U.S. requires Israel and all other allies to obey requirements of the law of armed conflict when they're using U.S. weapons, how can you ensure that when the administration has bypassed congressional oversight on this,

debate on this, and also internal State Department debate on this? I'm not sure I understand the premise of the question. You have a bunch of weapons on Saturday without going through Congress, correct? We have a normal process for providing aid and assistance to foreign countries, Ukraine and to Israel, and that's all done within the normal standard consultative process. He is either lying or is woefully ignorant, Phil. I'll let you take this ball and run with it. There is nothing normal about emergency bypassing of Congress claiming its national security of the United States when it's a bald-faced lie. Well, it is a bald-faced lie.

And I don't believe that Kirby can actually be that ignorant. But obviously, this is a position that the United States government, the White House, has taken to justify what is unquestionably a violation of the rules of the U.S. government itself and is also being used or will be used to kill more people. You know, it's just like, it's like, you know, I don't know if you remember from when you were young and I was young, the television show The Twilight Zone.

It's like we've stepped into the twilight zone. And all of a sudden, things that are in terms of the words used and the expressions used are supposed to mean something. They mean something that's quite the opposite. And this has been going on for a while. And now it's just it's a it's like an avalanche. Everything to justify things that are not justifiable, and they come out with the big lie, which is this is based on the security of the United States of America. Hey, buddy, it ain't. Did you catch what else he said?

That when the war in Gaza is over, the government in Gaza cannot look the way it did on October 6th. It must be reflective of the will of the Palestinians. Hey, pal, Gaza was elected by the Palestinians twice. What is he talking about? Well, he's, I think, woefully badly informed on that issue. Yeah, they were elected twice in elections that were monitored by the United Nations and including the United States and were deemed to be fair and just elections. So this was the people of Gaza who elected these people. And the fact of, you know, if you support democracy, which clearly is something I'm beginning to question, too, about the U.S., you basically let people make the choices they want to make. That doesn't mean that you elect a government with a mandate to attack your neighbors or anything like that. But it means that you have

a choice, you have a vote. And obviously, Mr. Kirby doesn't quite understand that. This is something very bad that's coming. Is the United States, and I want to prevail upon your expertise from your military as opposed to your intelligence community days. Is the United States militarily weaker because of all of this stuff, arms, armaments, heavy-duty weapons, massive amounts of bombs and ammunition that we're giving away to Ukraine and Israel. This stuff isn't being manufactured for Ukraine and Israel. It already exists, and we're just sending it there. Doesn't that deplete our substance? Well, there are two arguments there. The first argument is that the United States, by its very nature, should have all these these 1100 bases scattered around the world with all

this equipment and so on and so forth, and all this money, the $1 trillion that's being spent every year on this. This is a legitimate role of government. I would dispute that, of course. And they would argue, of course, that, well, we have these alliances and we have these relationships israel as uh as we've discussed before is not an ally in any sense alliances is a reciprocal relationship and uh we have now israel doing things that are clearly not uh beneficial for the united states position in the middle east so, we have all these things coming together, and it really doesn't make sense at the end of the day. We are weaker when we give these weapons away, but sure, maybe we don't need 1,100 bases. Maybe we should be thinking a little farther back,

a little in terms of what the concept is here. And if the concept is here that the United States has to rule the world, then well, I guess we need all this stuff, but maybe we don here. And if the concept is here that the United States has to rule the world, then, well, I guess we need all this stuff, but maybe we don't. And many experts are arguing, of course, that this stuff we're giving away, we don't have the industrial capacity to replace it in any short term. So that's another issue. I did not know that the number was 1,100. I thought it was closer to 900. It doesn't matter. There is no one human being that could name all these places. There is no one human being that could, other than in the most generic way, justify having all these bases. Why are we in Syria? Why did

the Senate vote 84 to 13 against a resolution by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky asking the president to bring the troops home from Syria. Have we invaded Syria? Have we declared war on Syria? Are we there with the consent of the Syrian government? What are we doing there? Well, we've been trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad ever since 2004, when the Syria Accountability Act was passed by Congress. And the whole idea is that he is not a guy that is amenable to the kind of thinking coming out of Washington and out of Jerusalem. And the fact is that we've had a presence there, military bases with full capabilities, who have been supporting some of the insurgencies that have been trying to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government. And while we're doing that, we're stealing all the oil that Syria produces,

and we're selling it and giving it away. So our role is not exactly benevolent. And there's no reason beyond that for us to be in Syria. And we keep encouraging the Israelis to bomb them. And Damascus Airport was hit a few days ago again. Aleppo Airport keeps getting hit. So we have that. And we also have a neighboring Iraq military bases. The Iraqi parliament has asked us two times that I know of for those bases to shut down and leave.

But we're still there. And now we're getting hit by some other insurgencies in Iraq and Syria because of the stuff we're doing in in gaza supporting in gaza so it's like a no-win and all these things come together and they make no sense whatsoever in terms of our national security you know i have a friend um tom woods who agrees with us and all this stuff and says a pithy one liner. No matter who you vote for for president, you end up with John McCain. Look, George W. Bush did two horrific wars. Barack Obama, the peace candidate. Forget about it. Donald Trump, bring the troops home. He didn't bring them home.

Joe Biden, anti-Trump. He's starting fighting wars. All we want to do is fight and kill as if they were. John McCain. Yeah, I've heard that line from Tom Woods, and it's right on the money. You know, I was amazed over some of the demonstrations that took place in Washington, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, where Tulsi Gabbard, of all people, showed up and became John McCain. And, you know, it's just like, what is wrong with these people?

Is there something in the water in Washington? Or is it just some kind of a machine that brainwashes everyone? I mean, what a different world it would be if the United States would pretty much butt out and leave everyone alone. Not in our blood. It was in George Washington's blood. It was in the foreign policy of the United States until World War I, but it hasn't been in our blood since then. I wonder if there's something in the water in Jerusalem. Did Jerusalem's deputy mayor state publicly that Palestinians, it's hard for me to repeat this, and if I got this wrong, tell me,

Palestinians are subhuman and should be captured and buried alive. Did an official of the Israeli government actually say that in public? Yeah, and you added the right words, in public. He wasn't even shy enough or embarrassed enough by what he was saying to say it to his wife or to one of his cabinet members. He said it in public, and's been recorded and uh and he's not the only one i mean there are numerous government ministers in the current israeli government of netanyahu who have described palestinians as subhumans who have described the the plans to completely expel the palestinians from palestine as the most desirable option. I mean, this stuff is out there and it's out there openly and they're not embarrassed by it.

And did Bibi Netanyahu or Joe Biden or Tony Blinken or Victoria Nuland or Jake Sullivan or any of them, the ghost of John McCain, sorry, I'm getting carried away with McCain, that anybody in the Israeli government or the American government condemn those words? Yeah, that's the point. Well, here we have Joe Biden condemning everything that he claims, most of which are fabricated, about the Hamas people. And now we have stuff that's indisputably being said and being turned into policy by people in the Netanyahu government. And there's no word coming out of Blinken. There's no word coming out of Biden.

What is wrong with these people? I mean, don't they see what they're doing? Don't they see that they're advocating war crimes and mass murder? You're not only advocating them, they're enabling them. They're giving the Israelis money and they're giving them weapons. How else do you call it? Well, we know that the Israelis have engaged in indiscriminate slaughter. But if you want to hear something sort of like

Bill Clinton's, it depends what the meaning of the word is, is. Here's Admiral Kirby on it depends on what the meaning of indiscriminate is. Cut 19, Chris. I guess indiscriminate just by definition means without discrimination. It means not deliberate, not careful. I'm just wondering, and I think my colleagues are trying to get at this, why insist that the intent is there to minimize civilian casualties when the president himself said yesterday that Israel is bombing indiscriminately? Sometimes in war, and again I'm not speaking for the Israelis, sometimes in war your best plans

your best execution of those plans doesn't always go the way you want it to go doesn't always go the way you expect it to go we know that from bitter experience in our own military no matter how precise and targeted we tried to be in Iraq and Afghanistan there were times when we caused civilian casualties as well that's one of the reasons MJ that we sent a couple of military advisors over there, some senior generals who had experience in that kind of urban warfare,

to talk to the Israelis before they moved into Gaza, to help them learn from our own mistakes. So sometimes in war, the best laid plans just don't get executed exactly the way you want, and unfortunately, civilian casualties result. So you're saying they are trying their best to reduce civilian casualties, but in practice that is not what you are seeing happen? I'm saying that there is a clear intent by the Israelis, an intent that they have admitted to publicly that they are doing everything they can to reduce civilian casualties.

I'm saying, and I have said earlier, that we are seeing them act on that intent in positive ways, and I just went through a couple of details on that. Airstrikes, for instance, have reduced since they've started to move more towards the south. They have relied less and less on airstrikes and more and more on ground troops, which allows you to be more precise. So they have taken measures to act on that intent. But as I said in my opening statement, results really count. And we're still seeing some civilian casualties. So we're still going to talk to them about doing everything they can

to reduce that. So you're saying both things are happening. In some ways, they are acting on their intent to be more careful, be more deliberate. But on the other hand, they are still bombing indiscriminately. We know they have the intent. We know they're acting on the intent. Civilian casualties continue to happen. And again, we're going to keep urging them to reduce those. What utter nonsense, Phil. What a disgrace as a spokesperson for the American public. Who in their right mind would accept that uncritically?

Yeah, I hadn't seen that clip and that was incredible. It's about 20 minutes old Chris just grabbed it before we started uh this show yeah well I mean that is amazing that's when I joked before about talking out of both sides of their mouth he was doing it I mean he's he's he's just he let slip that the Israeli bombing was indiscriminate and it is and uh but then he he sort of does a tap dance to say oh wow i mean they're they're they're not uh doing what we think they're doing uh they're listening to us well that's all bull i mean they've been targeting hospitals they've been targeting churches they've been targeting mosques they've been charging targeting apartment buildings they've been targeting schools they've been targeting mosques, they've been targeting apartment buildings, they've been targeting schools, they've been targeting everything that destroys

infrastructure so that people can never return, and that kills thousands of people. These people are completely off the rails in terms of any kind of humanity in their thinking or any kind of rationale that makes any kind of sense. And we've got to come to grips with that as a people, because we Americans, by our leadership, I hate to call them leaders, are implicated in all this. It's the United States allowing this to happen. And this is horrific. We have voted for a government of Republicans and Democrats. Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate by one vote. Obviously, the president is a Democrat. That is implicit, complicit, supporting, funding, financing, paying for, whatever phrase you want to use, war crimes,

and the American public is not yet outraged about it. What will it take for the American public to be outraged about the war crimes that we, as Americans, through our elected representatives and our tax dollars, borrowed in our name, the government has no cash, have permitted to happen? Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm a little more optimistic than you are on that. I think the images of babies' bodies wrapped in sheets lined up 30, 40, 50 of them have had an impact. I think the picture that came out a couple of days ago of where they were stripping the Palestinian men naked and herding them together as prisoners or whatever, I wasn't even clear why they were arresting them. These were not Hamas soldiers or militiamen. These were just ordinary men who were rounded up in Gaza. Enough of these pictures, and I think the impact starts to come through.

I've recommended before that when you read one of these ridiculous articles in the New York Times, Washington Post covering up for Israel, go down to the comments section. You'll see a lot of people who are not fooled by this anymore. And that's where I see a little bit of hope. Phil, you happen to be on the show at a moment we achieved a milestone. I'm going to hold my iPhone up to the camera. I hope everybody will be able to see it. It's 250,000. There it is. 250,000 subscribers. We just broke it. 250,001. I don't know who the 250,000th was. Whoever you are, thank you. I don't know who the 250,000 and first was, whoever you are, thank you. And yesterday we broke 500,000 on Twitter, now known as X. And it's because of people like you and your incredible knowledge, vision, and personal courage, Phil, that we've been able to achieve these unbelievable numbers. Two years

ago, we were at 93. Now we're at 250,000. Thank you, my dear friend. I had a few more questions, but I think we'll end with that. I hope you'll come back again next week. These Wednesdays with you have been fabulous, and I'm happy to share this good news with you, Phil, and with everybody watching us at the moment. Well, thank you. That's great. Thank you, my dear friend. Tomorrow morning, not sure yet on the time, Patrick Lancaster live from the battlefield in Ukraine and more to come with our superstars the rest of this week, Professor Sachs, Professor Mearsheimer and the Intelligence Community Roundtable. Judge Napolitano, a deeply grateful, if you can believe it, a humbled Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm