Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi: US Searches for New Enemies

Episode Date: August 21, 2024

Phil Giraldi: US Searches for New EnemiesSee 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 Wednesday, August 21st, 2024. Phil Giraldi will be with us in just a moment on why and how the U.S. searches for new enemies. But first this. A divisive presidential election is upon us and the winner is gold. Let me tell you what I mean. Since 2016, our national debt has grown a staggering 70%

and gold has increased by 60%. Do you own gold? I do. I bought my gold in February 2023 and it has risen 33%. You've heard me talk about Lear Capital, the company I trust. Let me tell you why. Recently, Kevin DeMeritt, who is the founder and CEO of Lear, assisted the FBI in discovering a nationwide gold theft ring. And because of Kevin's good work, the FBI caught these people before they

could steal anymore. That's why I have been saying the people at Lear are good people. They believe in America. They believe in their product and they're honest to the core. So take action right now, my friends. Call 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. Protect your savings and retirement before it's too late. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. Remember, hope is not a strategy, but gold is. Bill Giraldi, welcome back, my dear friend. Always a pleasure, of course. Why does the United States, particularly the CIA, search for new enemies? Well, it's actually a multifaceted type of operation. In a sense, when you have enemies out there,

and the better the enemies are kind of nebulous and undefined, you can push policies. This is from the White House perspective primarily we're talking about. You can be pushing policies that otherwise the media and the public would be asking questions about. So a little war is always a good thing to have. It sort of hides a lot of other things. And also, of course, there's the budgetary issue. For the United States to continue in its path to maintain itself as the number one world power, and also the guys who make the rules,

you have to have a, or it's the consensus within the administration, certainly, and several administrations before this one, is that you have to have a military kind of uh network all over the world which uh essentially uh translates these days into something like uh depending on whose count you take 800 to 1100 u.s bases of one kind or another scattered throughout the world. And this basically is costing us every year, get this, more than it costs the United States in separate years to fight the Second World War. In other words, we've never ended the Second World War. We're continuing to spend more money on just maintaining this idea that the United States is the world leader and has to demonstrate this by essentially having this huge military and diplomatic presence all over the

place to make sure everybody plays by our rules. But isn't it true that these countries that the government, whether prodded by the Defense Department, the military-industrial complex, or the intelligence community, has characterized as enemies, they all pose little or no threat to the United States whatsoever. Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973. Some of these African countries that most Americans have never heard of, and Iran again today, Lindsey Graham to the contrary, notwithstanding. Yeah, and Lindsey Graham, of course, has proposed legislation to basically make war against Iran automatic. Yes, it is something the likes of which I have never heard of in my nearly 50 years of studying the Constitution and federal statutes. It is a pre-authorization for war. I can't imagine this being passed by the Congress, but who knows? And this is what he wants.

But before we get into his way of thinking, isn't it true that these countries who are supposedly our enemies, and I'd like you to dwell on some of these countries in Africa if you could, because we're still fighting wars there, pose no threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States. Yeah, if you look, go back all the way with the history of Iran. Iran has never posed a threat to the United States, yet it's being touted by no less an expert than Benjamin Netanyahu as this fearsome force that's building a nuclear weapon which uh incidentally is denied both by the israeli intelligence service mossad and by the cia they say no there are no indications that uh that iran is building a nuclear weapon but in any event iran has never

threatened the united states and yet it's being touted as an enemy to the point of which we are sending a flotilla, including two aircraft carriers, to the Middle East to get involved in a war if such should come about. going after a country that does not threaten us in any way, has never threatened us in any way. And we're doing it if an ally just chooses, this being Israel in the case, just chooses to start something. We're basically committed to, quote, come to the defense and get involved in it. So this is the kind of thing. And even looking at the cases of Russia and China, we were not so long ago on a path for a negotiated and consensus building relationship with both those countries. But this has basically been screwed up in just the last few years. You keep hearing constantly about how China is that over the horizon threat. And how we started with Obama. And we have to build up our defenses against China. And I've always wondered what that meant. Are they building too many Mattel toys for us to be happy with their competitiveness.

And Russia, for example, it was very, very clear that Vladimir Putin was trying to build up a relationship with the West that would have been peaceful and basically organized along positive lines. But we were the ones that screwed it up by our intervention in what was the former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe, and most particularly in Ukraine, because Ukraine is the one big and potentially destabilizing country in the West. And that's, of course, what we went after to go after the Russians. You know, I asked Colonel McGregor just a few minutes ago if he thought that Ukraine

might become another American forever war, Phil, much like Afghanistan was. And he really couldn't answer other than to say that he hoped to God not. But the neocons love this. The military industrial establishment loves this. I don't want to get too much off on a tangent, but Colonel McGregor advised that nearly all of the tanks, all of the artillery, all of the armored personnel carriers, and other heavy equipment supplied by the West used in the Ukrainian slash NATO slash US slash UK-backed incursion into Kursk has been destroyed. Destroyed. Hundreds of millions of dollars destroyed of equipment, destroyed in two weeks. Yeah. And there's, of course, a backstory to the Kursk incursion also, which was that there were kind of stories that there were negotiations going on between Russia and Ukraine to actually

maybe end the war and come to some kind of settlement, which clearly was not what the neocons in the U.S. and not what some of the other hardliners in Europe were wanting to see. So the Kursk incursion might have, rather than being something to change the course of the war, which is what the New York Times is saying, was instead something to basically keep the war going. And so that's an interesting way to look at it. Why is there no backlash to the American participation in the invasion of Russia, financed by American equipment, planned by American intelligence, English-speaking persons with, quote, American accents, closed quote,

perceived by Russian linguists at the scene through their intelligence, I guess you guys call it signals intelligence mechanisms. Why is there no reaction to that here? Well, I can tell you there's a hell of a backlash here in my house. I'm telling you, people are writing saying Rupert wants to go out. Rupert is on board. And it's the same old game, isn't it? We need an enemy. There is the enemy. He's already kind of fighting and we're involved in fighting, but it's kind of a secret and uh the media is um is is really been the biggest uh player in this who's not telling the truth to the public because you know uh that that uh gaggle of clowns that we have

in the white house and state department are going to tell the truth to the public and uh so the fighting goes on and the argument is uh again we again, we're hearing it this week out of the mouths of the Democrats that we're fighting for democracy. And as long as you can sell that to a public which is not well informed enough to be critical, then you get away with it. But eventually, you're not going to get away with it. And we'll see what happens. But, you know, it's just such a sad story. I was looking up earlier today at the pathetic record, the pathetic foreign policy records of both Democrats and Republicans right now and what we can expect after November. And it's truly awful. I think everybody should be moving to Nicaragua as soon as they can. I think it's, and people have heard me say that I've been a longtime friend of President Trump and had many, many involvements with him during his term in office. But I think this race on the issues

that matter, which I will characterize as war and peace, debt, growth of the government, and mass surveillance, it's Tweedledee and Tweedledum. They can say what they want, but they're both on the same page, Vice President Harris and former President Trump, on all of that. I am astounded. One of our writers says, Judge, why are you astounded? The American public is filled with ignorance. I am just astounded that there is no backlash to this. Can you imagine the backlash if the situation were reversed some sort of foreign invasion of Alaska

and we heard Russian uh voices on uh Alaska ground yeah that's an interesting question I've heard it posed in similar terms of of a Chinese invasion force coming out of Canada or something like that. Or Mexico, right. Or Mexico. And the situation would be total chaos with the demands being made to go nuclear immediately. And if we have to destroy the world, we'll just have to do it. And I am remarking to my friends when we talk about this, about how restrained actually the Russians are and the Chinese have been. I'm not terribly sure about the North Koreans. But, you know, the fact is, it's just we're creating these situations.

We're creating enemies to sustain other policies that are unsustainable and to be able to squeeze the taxpayer to do that. And because we're doing that, we're making tremendous sacrifices on the American people who are having to pay for all this, who are watching the crumbling infrastructure in the United States, and are wondering where is all of this going, even if they can't figure it out or can't hear the arguments that they should be hearing. It's just, it's pathetic. And how have we become this kind of a country? Who makes the decisions about our enemies? I know under the Constitution it is supposed to be the Congress, but is it really the deep state? Is it really unelected,

unaccountable, faceless, nameless, in some cases, sidearm-carrying bureaucrats? Well, I would suspect it's a little bit more complicated than that. You know, as a result of my 20-plus years in the intelligence profession in this country. I know quite a few people who are neocons and are very active in the think tanks and the other institutions that have been set up with the support of a number of billionaires who can be readily identified to basically control the foreign policy and national security policy of this country. And they've been very effective at it. They've penetrated the media, which is why the media doesn't pick up the baton here and go to the public and explain to us what exactly is going wrong with our country. They're not doing their job. And both parties, the Democratic Party

and the Republican Party, are basically in control of a neocon-dominated foreign policy, which some might describe as a key component of the deep state. This came about, this has come about since the 1990s. And essentially, it is now the dominant philosophy, if you want to call it that, of the people who govern us. You know, we make a lot of fun, we mock Senator Graham. But are his views representative? Are they not representative of a cross-section of people in the government, both in the Congress and in the executive branch? And is not this view profoundly dangerous to peace and security? Yeah, I think that's precisely it. Senator Graham, and you can name a number of other senators like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, senators who are crazed with the idea of fighting everybody. And this is a solution that they see to what the ills are in the world.

And this, of course, is a ridiculous way to go about things. Because apart from anything else, as I pointed out in my article, this creates enemies. This is why, for example, the one thing the United States has going for it that is an ultimate weapon, apart from dropping nuclear bombs, is the fact that the United States dollar is the reserve currency basically of the entire world and of particularly of energy transactions. And this has given the U.S. tremendous power because it can always turn around and sanction countries and people it doesn't like. And this is basically has a financial and economic impact on them.

And what you're seeing now, of course, with the development of BRICS and other organizations, all of these other countries in the world now have said, look, we've had enough of this, and we're going in a different direction. And once that happens, the ability of the United States to manipulate in this fashion will go with it too. Particularly if the dollar is removed as the standard currency, which now seems more likely than not. I know this sounds crazy, but I don't know if the White House leaked this or what, but recently the president signed some sort of a secret finding in which he directed certain aspects of the federal government to prepare for three nuclear wars at the same time, one against Russia, one against China, one against North Korea. Do I have this right, Phil? Well, according to the New York Times reporting today,

I think you do have it right. And that's precisely what it says, that this is a secret memorandum that basically has gone to the Defense Department and national security agencies of all types. It's secret, or it was secret till today. And the fact is that it basically envisions three wars simultaneously against three nuclear-armed powers.

And we've also had, back a couple months ago, you might recall, Janis Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, was saying that, oh, yeah, we couldn't afford two wars, certainly at the same time, no problem at all. So who is this all coming from? Wow. Very, very dangerous, my friend. How much longer do you think the Ukraine war will last? Where is your view, Phil, on whether this is a forever war or whether as soon as November 5th is behind us, no matter who wins, Zelensky flees and the U.S. says that's it? Well, I tell you, I think the American election is something that looms in

the background on all these wars. And I would think that if we get closer to the election, the more likely it will be that the people who are fighting and dying in these situations will be looking more and more for options to end these wars by some negotiated settlements. I see that specifically more with Ukraine and Russia than I do with what's going on in the Middle East. But I think that's going to be the tendency. I don't know how many Ukrainian people who are seeing their sons and brothers killed, or Russians likewise are too happy to have this thing continue to go on forever when there's a clear uh geographical solution to this in terms of dividing up subterritories and and that sort of thing I have to ask you about uh Prime Minister Netanyahu who only made one public appearance in the past 12 days, and maybe he's in hiding because he's anticipating an onslaught from Iran. But is it still your view?

And if it's your view, it should be everybody's view, because you're a keen observer, but this is rather obvious. He will never consent to a ceasefire. If he puts something on the table, he knows hamas won't accept it if hamas puts something on the table that they think he'll accept he'll up the ante because if he does smotrich and gevier leave the government the government collapses and his world his domestic world uh collapses so i guess my is, and it's a long one, I apologize. Roger Ailes used to teach us the best questions have five words. Okay, I'm breaking your rule, Roger. He's in heaven laughing at me. Will there ever be a ceasefire while Netanyahu is prime minister?

Ten words. Actually, I would broaden the answer to that a little bit. I would say there will never be a ceasefire as long as Netanyahu is prime minister and as long as Antony Blinken is the American secretary of state, because Antony is the one who keeps changing the text and changing the details to make sure that Hamas will not be able to agree to what is down on paper. The original agreement back in March, which Blinken claimed at the time, and Biden claimed at the time was approved or actually was produced by Israel and approved by them. They've been walking away from that ever since to make it, and which Hamas accepted. They've been walking away from that one forever to make it look to be

something different. For example, it will basically, it monies the water on terms of, and sure the Israeli hostages will be released, but it monies the water on the 10, sure, the Israeli hostages will be released, but it monies the water on the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, what will happen to them. And it also declares basically that the ceasefire is temporary, which was not the original intention. So there are a number of issues that Blinken has introduced at the behest of Netanyahu, because Netanyahu indeed does not want this war to end until he kills every last Palestinian. We're playing a little tribute to the late, great Phil Donahue and his anti-war bona fides.

I think you'll, it's about two minutes long. This is back in 2013, where the idea of the general Petraeus initiated surge was being debated. This is the sensible, rational anti-war Phil Donahue with somebody that I used to work for, who's the biggest loudmouth in all of the media. Watch this. We say that her positions are radical and they are. Let me tell you what's radical. What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder by a president who swaggered us into it with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of

the Democratic Party. There's a lot of sin to go around here. What's radical for you is... Do you want to send more people to this war? Is that your position? If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now. We're going to cut and run anyway of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.

We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill. Well, that's your opinion. We've all, in my opinion, American military leaders have said we're going to draw down beginning next year. The difference is we've drawn down and cut and run. Now, listen, listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill. My nephew just enlisted in the Army.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about very good congratulations yeah you want to just walk away how many more young men and women are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off this is so that you are going to have a and pointed people in a kind of cowardly way and they knew that first of all only congress can declare war. Why is that unimportant to you, Billy? Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be and stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without

the approval and consent of the United States. Poorly planned and poorly executed, but Bill O'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die. We've already had almost 2,000. Just let me have the last word. In the last year, two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled from over 1,000 to almost 2,000. You know what else doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton stock. Oh, what a zinger at the end, Phil.

And he might have added that while our 2,000 American troops were dying, something like half a million Iraqaqis were getting killed correct and of course that two thousand american troops is now up uh to four thousand he was very prescient though on the manner in which this would end which of course was the disaster negotiated by the trump administration executed by the Biden administration, the departure from Afghanistan. Thank you, Phil. Always a pleasure. I thought you'd appreciate that. I was telling Colonel McGregor, I was next on the show and I was in the green room when Phil came out and he gave me a big hug. And then I had to go out and sit down with Bill. And I looked at Bill and I said, Bill,

Phil just ate your lunch. And he was furious at me. That's great. What a great comment. Yeah. Yeah. All the best, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us.

We're back on YouTube, as you know. Wonderful. And we'll see you next week. Okay. Thank you very much. See you then. Of course. Well, coming up tomorrow at nine in the morning,

all times Eastern, Professor Doctorow at noon, Ambassador Charles Freeman. At two o'clock, Scott Ritter. At three o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer. At four o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Back in the saddle. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!