Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Blinken’s Juvenile Diplomacy

Episode Date: April 29, 2024

Ray McGovern: Blinken’s Juvenile DiplomacySee 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 Monday, April 29th, 2024. Our dear friend Ray McGovern joins us now. Ray, thank you very much. Always a pleasure. The New York Times is reporting this morning that the International Criminal Court is preparing an indictment of, among others, Benjamin Netanyahu. I assume it would be his senior defense people and perhaps even some leaders of Hamas as well. But this would be earth shattering, at least in the Western news, if it were to happen. What would this mean? Would he be subject to arrest? Technically speaking, it would. But you have to look at the provenance of these reports. They come out of the bureau chief for the New York Times, if memory serves, in Jerusalem. It's five, count them,

five Israeli sources warning about that this would be a bad thing. And then, of course, the coup de grace, the U.S. is working against this too. So don't think anything is going to happen in a world criminal court. We can put the kibosh on it. A little footnote here, Judge, you probably remember that George W. Bush, the younger, he said about the world criminal court, look, if anyone so much as dare bring an American serviceman before the world criminal court, I authorize an armed plucking of that person out of harm's way. Now, that's how much respect the U.S. and Israel were actually not party to the World Criminal Court.

Correct, correct. Well, that was my next question. Does the International Criminal Court, pursuant to the Treaty of Rome, not signed by Russia, China, Iran, the U.S., or North Korea, interesting combination, does it indict people, nationals of countries that are not signatories? Yes, it can. We've had several, usually African dictators who have been brought before the court, if memory serves. So my belief is, sure, they can do that. The fact that you're not a signatory

shouldn't matter in that case. Yeah, the EU has actually indicted George W. Bush, a Spanish magistrate. I don't know if that indictment is still out there. I believe Dick Cheney as well. I know neither has traveled to Europe since leaving office, so those indictments might still be valid. Well, I do know that George W. Bush was prepared to give a big speech in Geneva. It's about 15 years ago now, and word got around, and people were ready to serve him with papers as soon as he touched Swiss ground. And he learned about that, unfortunately, a day before he canceled his trip. Lots of money he was going to get for that trip. The embarrassment of the U.S. President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who had to do the same thing in Paris two years previous. You know, it's really embarrassing, but there it is. There are

legal restrictions on making a war of aggression as the case in Iraq. And of course, certain war crimes have no statutes of limitations, like an illegal war or torture. Rumsfeld has passed away, but Bush and Cheney are still very much alive and theoretically could be prosecuted. This would mean that theoretically Netanyahu and Gallant, the defense minister, could be prosecuted for as long as they're alive. If they're arrested, now, I don't know if they conduct prosecutions in absentia when they can't arrest people. I believe that Putin has been indicted by one of these courts for something in Ukraine.

I'm not sure. It's the same sort of thing. Yeah, Putin was indicted the same by the World Criminal Court, but this time the U.S. was behind it. You have to realize that the guy running the court is very much in the pocket of the West. That's well known. It's been embarrassing to the whole world to see how much he inclines toward the West. So in my view, over the short term or even median term, it's not anything that the Israelis have to worry about, but they want to put out a little preemptive message. Look, not only are we not going to comply with this, but our patron, the United States, is also a social vote shame because Biden is just as guilty as anyone else for enabling the genocide. They're with us.

Nothing's going to happen, at least for several years. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, and especially in cases like this. Right. What did Anthony Blinken do or say over the weekend that caused you to refer to his diplomacy with the word in quotes as juvenile? Well, I quoted an old pamphlet that none other than Lenin wrote. He talked about being way out on the ideological spectrum, okay? Left-wing communism. So this is not really communism. This is extreme left-wing Trotskyism and that kind of thing. He said it was an infantile disorder, of course. Now, if you look at what Blinken did in China just over the last week, that betrays this infantile disorder

that U.S. exceptionalism, U.S. power to shape the world still exists. He could not have performed worse to alienate his Chinese interlocutors, including Xi Jinping, the president who met with him and gave him a little lecture about, hey, when you say something, you ought to follow through on it. Right after that, while he was still in Beijing, he gave this incredible press conference and saying, look, I told those Chinese they better not fortify the Russian economy anymore because Russia is getting that kind of help so that they might succeed in Ukraine. We told them to stop that.

And besides, they ought to stop surplus production. They shouldn't overproduce things because that's hurting our economy. I mean, hello, the guy is a juvenile or a disorder that comes of thinking you're exceptional or, as Madeleine Albright put it, even more exceptional. The word will come to me. Here's Secretary Blinken, cut number three, Chris, criticizing China empowering Russia's, just what you're talking about, Russia's brutal war in Ukraine. In my discussions today, I reiterated our serious concern about the PRC providing components that are powering Russia's

brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia would struggle to sustain its assault on Ukraine without China's support. Is that true? No. That Russia would struggle to sustain its assault on Ukraine without China's support? Colonel McGregor reports this morning that the Ukrainian military lost 8,000 men and women last week dead, and that a Russian general has arrived on the scene with 100,000 fresh and trained Russian soldiers. No, it's not true, Judge. It never was true. Now, I suppose that China could, if Blinken told them, stop importing so much oil from Russia and stop paying Russia so much. But, you know, that would not be in China's interest. I don't know why you think that China would do something like that. But up until now, China has developed normal trade relationships with Russia. They're not going to stop. And the Chinese have made that clear after Blinken said those warning words. With respect to what they're providing, you know, even a year ago, top intelligence officials were saying, yeah, it doesn't matter. We're watching that very closely,

but China has not really provided much in the way of real help for Russia, and they don't need to. They get lots of help from North Korea, from Iran, and they can do a hell of a lot indigenously. Here's Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi responding to the time he spent with Secretary Blinken. Cut number four, Chris. The China-U.S. relationship is facing more negative factors and all kinds of disruptions. China's legitimate development rights have been unreasonably suppressed, and our core interests are facing challenges.

Should China and the US stay on the right path of moving forward with stability or return to a downward spiral? This is a major question facing our two countries and tests our sincerity and ability. Doesn't sound like Blinken made much progress. That's the guy he was talking to for two days. Yeah, this wasn't about progress, Judge. It was about showing that we could stay in Beijing for three days and talk to Chinese officials and warn them what we want them not to do. Even before the trip, it was made very clear by the State Department and others that we have very low expectations for this. And it looked like

the Chinese were not very inscrutable. You saw Wang Yi there, pretty direct. And Xi Jinping, the president, came in and crashed that meeting and also read the Blinken, the riot act. Blinken was taking notes, okay? Now, Blinken didn't say a word publicly in that one, but then before he left Beijing, he decided to insult the Chinese up and down and tell them, look, you're overproducing, look, you're enabling Russia to make progress. And, you know, it just doesn't make any sense unless it's all for domestic consumption to show that we can deal with the Chinese and we can face them down and tell them what to do still because we are the exceptional country in the world. Exceptional country.

Do you think the State Department recognizes any limitations to its exceptionalism? Well, not the people running the State Department. You know, it's sort of a contagious illness. When you're brought up and when you're nurtured in the various top schools to believe that you're indispensable, which is the other word I was seeking, the one from Madeleine Albright, and exceptional, then you kind of glom onto that and say, well, you know, that must be the case.

And then you translate that into international relations, and you find yourself 30, 40, 50 years behind the curve because after World War II, after the implosion of Russia and the Soviet Union, we were exceptional. We were number one. It's the sooner these people realize that we're not number one anymore. Russia and China together are number one. We're a distant second to all that. What kind of a bind do you think Netanyahu is in now with respect to Rafa? If he fails to invade Rafa and if he fails to attack Hezbollah, the right-wing fanatics in his government might leave the government, and then the unthinkable

happens for Bibi. He has to call an election during wartime, and he's personally very unpopular. Members of his own party want to dump him. Well, not only those, but Chuck Schumer wants to dump him too. I mean, Chuck told him four weeks ago, look, Bibi, you ought to have early elections. You guys ought to sort things out in a better way. I mean, it's really ridiculous, isn't it? Now, the thing to remember, of course, is that close to 70% of the Israeli people favor what's going on in Gaza now, the extermination of the Palestinians there. Now, ironically, a greater percentage don't like Netanyahu, but their focus is on cleaning out this menace, okay? Now, how are they going to clean it out? We know that right after October 7th, Tony Blinken went to Cairo and said, President Sisi, please,

please let maybe a million, million and a half Gazans come into the Sinai. You got lots of room in the Sinai. We'll pay for the tents and everything else. Let them come in because we don't want them all to be killed because that's the tenor in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Now, Sisi said, you're out of your mind. I'm not going to do that. So what's the choice here? Are you going to kill them all? 1.4 million people driven into Arafa? Or are you going to try to find some way to get rid of, is Sisi going to bend to U.S. partial now? I don't know. But, you know, the choice that Bibi Netanyahu faces now is really very delicate. And I think, just as the past indicates, that despite

what Biden says in wringing his hands, you know, I don't want everybody to be killed in Rafah. He'll do it anyway. He'll invade or he'll try to make this out as a war against the remaining people, the leaders of Hamas, and he'll decimate that population. In broad words, that's what he'll do. That's what he'll do. And guess what? The United States will continue to give him the wherewithal to go ahead of the rest of them and make Gaza beachfront property for Israelis.

To be sold by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law. No joke. We all watched the clip of him speaking to some professor at Harvard and suggesting that. The United States also doesn't seem to care if Bibi Netanyahu wants to interfere in American domestic politics. We watched that clip. I'm not going to play it again, but I will play for you in a minute. The State Department spokesperson being grilled over this. Nobody seems to care that the head of a foreign country is admonishing mayors, governors, and federal law enforcement about what they should

be doing to quell freedom of speech on college campuses. When's the last time you heard this happen, Ray? Well, that's chutzpah on steroids. I guess the last time I heard it happen was last time V.B. Netanyahu was given an appearance at the joint session of Congress, despite the wishes of Obama that he not come. So this guy is a real operator. And, you know, it's interesting how the spokesman for the State Department handled this issue. We'll watch that right now. It's about two minutes long, but it's worth watching. It's deeply, deeply frustrating that the American government has such fools as official spokespersons for them. But this is a journalist grilling Mr. Patel, the deputy spokesperson for the State Department, cut number five.

But I'm asking you, there is a foreign leader who's saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I'm asking you on this particular issue, not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I'm asking you, do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves? MR PRICE A leader can call on whatever they'd like, Said, but it's – no one is naive to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors. I understand. MR.

And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he'd like. No, no, hold it. Please, I'm not done. I'm not done. I'm not done. Hey, I'm not done. Please.

I'm not done. I just want to ask – I understand. I understand the need to combat the despicable anti-Semitism and so on. I understand what the president is doing. I'm asking you, do you reject the fact that a foreign leader is saying that the demonstrations ought to be put out, ought to be cracked down upon? That's what I'm asking you.

Do you reject that? I mean, do you reject people, I mean, do you reject the U.S. government cracking down on peaceful demonstrators, correct? Correct? You reject that? I mean, this is part of what America is all about. I'm asking you, do you reject the interference of a foreign leader calling for the crackdown on full American citizens exercising their

basic rights, their First Amendment right, to demonstrate. That's what I'm asking you. Look, the prime minister was commenting on something happening in this country. I will say over the course of this- I'm not asking the prime minister. I'm asking you. You are here representing the government of the United States of America. I'm asking you, you as an officer of this government, of this administration, do you

reject the interference of a foreign leader saying that you must crack down on Americans exercising their right to demonstrate? It's a very simple question. I wouldn't equate that to interfering, Said. So now, I've taken a couple of questions on this. You've got a bunch of colleagues. I have a couple more questions, but I have one last comment. Don't you feel offended by the fact that a foreign leader

is trying to fan the flames against Palestinian Americans in this country? That's exactly what he's doing. You don't feel offended by that? Saeed, that is not how I would interpret the prime minister's comments. And I defer you to his office to offer any clarification on what he said. God, this is frustration on steroids. Obviously, the United States State Department is terrified of Netanyahu. What he said last week, calling for a crackdown on free speech was reprehensible, even if it had been articulated by an American politician, and the State Department is afraid to address this. Well, Judge, you know, this is symptomatic of the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Netanyahu bragged in 2001 that the American support, 80% of the time, was absurd, his word. Now, there were other people that got really frustrated, as we are now. One was General Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Republican administrations. And when he saw little George Bush start a war, largely on behalf of Israel, the Israelis were prodding us to do this war of aggression against Iraq. I have come to the realization that, yeah, there were three reasons, oil, Israel, and the logistics for these permanent military bases. But I think Israel, the prime minister at the time, was bending our president, he said, you know, Sharon has President Bush mesmerized. He's wrapped him around his little finger.

Now, would Scowcroft usually want to go to the press to say these things? Never, never. Very discreet, okay? Why did he go to the Financial Times to say that? Because they thought Americans should know that. What was his position at the time? Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. What was his position the next day? No longer chairman. Don't darken our doorstep again. So if Scowcroft can be so upset by the handle that the Israelis had on George W. Bush and on our president now, Biden, okay, well, we should not feel out of step. We should feel that this is a guy in the know. That's how he felt. That's what he was compelled to say.

I don't know what State Department spokesman said in reaction to that. Probably nothing at the time. Switching gears, what kind of pressure did the intelligence community put on Speaker Mike Johnson in order to get him to change his mind, change his vote, and permit a vote for the $95 billion in foreign aid, 20 to Israel, 61 to Ukraine, and the rest of Taiwan, and some other pet causes of the State Department. But let's talk about Ukraine. That's the one that most upset conservative and libertarian Republicans. Well, there have been many stories in the press sourced to White House sources saying that Mike Johnson was given the kind of briefing by the CIA director, William Burns,

that he couldn't possibly refuse to give this extra money. Mike Johnson said, I was very impressed by the briefing. It turned me around. What did he say otherwise? Well, there's other things here. What was it? Oh, yeah. Johnson ran through what he took from the briefings, according to this one press report. Quote, I believe Xi and Vladimir Putin and Iran are really at axis of evil. I think they are in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Baltics next. I think that we have a showdown with Poland and with other NATO allies. I think this because Bill Burns told me. Now, he also said the fate of Western democracy was on his own shoulders.

Yeah. So big burden, right? Yeah. So, you know, this is consequential. In other words, the intelligence committee is not supposed to serve Congress or the president by lying. This happened before. In July of last year, the president was in Helsinki, okay? This is the way it works, okay? He wants to make a big speech, a strong speech in Helsinki because Ukraine forces

are beginning to win, okay? So Jake Sullivan calls the head of the CIA, Bill Burns, and Bill, give me a strong statement of how we're winning in Ukraine. Bill Burns comes up with, well, Russia has already lost the war. Biden on the 13th, six days later, Russia has already lost the war in Ukraine. So, I mean, here's the head of intelligence giving his boss, really, Jacob Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, what he wants rather than what his analysts are saying. No one thought, not even Obama thought, that Ukraine could possibly cope with a much stronger Russia on its border, and Obama had the wisdom and the foresight to say precisely that. What he also said was the worst error we could possibly make is to give the Ukrainians the idea that they could cope, that they could defeat a Russia, because look at the map, look at geography, look at the industrial base.

They couldn't possibly do it. That's why I, Obama, am not going to give them offensive arms. Well, what happened? Did the geography change? Did the Russians change? Who changed? Well, Joe Biden came in, and he's going to get these comics. He's going to get these Russians. He has this visceral hate for Russia. There's another guy who has visceral hate for Russia, and that's this guy, James Clapper, who was made head of national intelligence. Now, the question always comes up, you know, these people really believe what they say?

Well, I'm convinced that James Clapper does. And I cite this interview with Chuck Todd because it really reveals how he comes at this. You know, he's an expert in Russia, of course, because he studied in the Curtis LeMay Air Force schools about Russia. That's how old he is. And he told Chuck Todd, if you put the context around everything else we know about the Russians, what they were doing to interfere with the election, and just, quote, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we're very concerned, end quote. Now, that's the head of all intelligence. So is that the mindset that that the Russians are genetic or almost genetically inclined to be really bad people? Well, apparently Clapper did believe that, I believe.

And he set the tone for the rest of the intelligence analysis, such as it was. This is the this is the culture and this is the attitude that influences legislation. But before I let you go, what do you think Burns could possibly have shown Speaker Johnson that would cause him to flip? What would it be? Some secret recording of Vladimir Putin, some cables from CIA agents in the field? What would it actually be that they would look at in one of these secret rooms that they go to in the basement of the Capitol? Judge, the CIA has the finest graphics shop in the world, okay? They're helped by other agencies, but they come up with whatever is necessary for the occasion, unfortunately.

Think of Colin Powell's speech before the UN on 5 February 2003. So what they showed Mike Johnson can be kind of imagined as really sexy photography that brings things down to a matter of inches, intercepted conversations very selectively sought and produced. In other words, this all happened before and no one was held accountable. It happened before the attack on Iraq. It was manufactured intelligence. They knew about it, but they couldn't say anything. Now, Dick Durbin, for example, Senator Durbin from Illinois, okay? He goes into one of these rooms before the Iraq thing, okay? And he comes out and the press says, what do you think?

He goes, I don't know. Yeah, what did they tell you? I can't tell you because it's classified. There were people who knew damn well, Durbin included, this was a fool's errand, and it was illegal, and it was a war of aggression. But they couldn't tell you because once they go into that little room, it's classified. They're afraid. They're afraid of consequences to their careers, to their personal lives. They're afraid, the senators and the representatives of our country. So much for our democracy. Ray, thank you very much, my dear friend. We'll see you at the end

of the week for the roundtable with Larry, as usual. Thank you, Judge. Great, great conversation. Thank you. The aforementioned Larry Johnson coming up at 11 o'clock this morning, at 3 o'clock this afternoon, Anya Parampil, and at 4.30 this afternoon, the inimitable Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.