Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: US Funds More Murders

Episode Date: September 30, 2024

Ray McGovern: US Funds More MurdersSee 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, September 30th, 2024. Ray McGovern is here with us on the United States just keeps paying for killings in Lebanon and in Ukraine. 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 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. Ray McGovern, my dear friend, good morning and welcome here. What role do you think, if any, CIA and MI cooperate closely on all manner of capabilities, including cyber attacks.

And we know from what Julian Assange disclosed that the CIA has a whole division devoted to this and a whole branch devoted to offensive cyber attack capability. So that was called Vault 7, and it's really why Pompeo moved against Julian and put him in prison. So we know that they're cooperating very closely. Whether this particular operation was known to my old friends in the CIA, I suspect it was to some of them, but I can't prove that. But would they, would the White House, would the State Department have known

of a plan so dramatic as this? 80, according to Alistair Crook, 80 2,000 pound United United States-manufactured bombs causing catastrophic damage to buildings and infrastructure, and of course, the death of Nasrallah and many of his senior people, ordered by Netanyahu while he was in the United States. There's some dispute as to where he was. The Israelis claim he was in his hotel room, in which case he committed a federal crime and a state crime. No chance of him being prosecuted. Alistair Crook says, Intel says he was in the UN. He may still have committed the crime

there, but he would be immune from prosecution, I would think. Well, in either case, it's chutzpah on steroids, which you'd not agree. Yes. I had been referring in my previous remarks to the pagers and the walkie-talkies. If you're talking about the attack on Nasrallah, well, we have reports that Secretary of Defense Austin was just outraged because he was only told apparently a short time before that this was going to happen. And in this case, this is completely believable because the Israelis are famous for not asking for permission, but it's far better to ask for contrition or for penance after having done these things. So I don't imagine the Israelis gave much of any time for the U.S. to react because they knew that the U.S. was the sensible ones.

And it turns out Austin was one of the sensible ones now, would have said, don't do that. And then they would not have permission. They would have done it anyway. But they prefer not to give the U.S. a lot of lead time to think these things through. You talk about chutzpah. take a look at this statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu directed to the people of Iran and listen for the outrageous braggadocio of just ask Nasarallah. Cut number 14. Every day you see a regime that subjugates you, make fiery speeches about defending Lebanon, defending Gaza. Yet every day, that regime plunges our region deeper into darkness and deeper into war.

Every day, their puppets are eliminated. Ask Muhammad Def. Ask Nasrallah. There is nowhere in the Middle East Israel cannot reach. There's nowhere we will not go to protect our people and protect our country. With every passing moment, the regime is bringing you, the noble Persian people, closer to the abyss. Does he really think that a statement like that appeals to the noble Persian people, as he calls them? No, it's directed at the Israeli people, as a matter of fact, and to people like Blinken that relish this kind of chutzpah. You know, it's very interesting, Judge. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the Iranians and even Hezbollah, well, Hezbollah will lick its wounds for the nonce, right? It's not going to react immediately

other than to defend itself against a possible Israeli onslaught on the ground. My God, that would be crazy. And what's going to happen is what happened in April. What happened in April? Well, that's when the Israelis struck the embassy in Syria. And what happened after that? Well, the U.S. and the Iranians and the Russians and people got together. My God, let's not let this get out of hand. Here's what we'll do. Iran, we know that you have to retaliate. But look, let us know when you do that. Please send the little drones first so we can shoot them down. Don't do any real harm. And then Israel, when you react, please don't do anything real damaging. Now, that happened. The first was the assassination at the embassy in Damascus. On the 14th of April, we had this incredible barrage of all kinds of artillery,

including drone attacks on Israel, most of them shot down by prearrangement, some damage done. That was the 14th. On the 19th, by God, you had Israel retaliate. What did they do? They did very little damage by design. So what I'm saying here is that Iran is a main player here. It's not going to be provoked. Hezbollah?

Well, Hezbollah has been served notice on by Iran that, you know, they'll support them, but only up to a point. And so what we have here is the kind of situation where the Russians can say, look, do you remember that attack where hundreds were killed at the Crocus concert? Remember how we reacted? Yeah, okay. We reacted with sang-froid. We reacted in not such a crazy way as to play into the hands of people who want to provoke us. So that's my best guess. Now, I could be completely wrong on that, but I think the equities argue for a period of calm now, in particular because the BRICS meeting, which will involve Iran and China and Russia and many other friends of Iran, takes place on the 20th, 22nd of October. That's just three weeks away. That's going to be a big deal.

And nobody wants a war in the Middle East while that's happening. Very interesting. Do you think Mossad has penetrated Hezbollah? Alistair Crook is of the view that only actual living human intel could have pinpointed Nasrallah's location with such precision and accuracy and timeliness? It's hard for me to know. The precision of electronic snooping is such today that I would not rule out that it was completely electronic. On the other hand, there'd been so much of this inside stuff preparatory to such assassinations that Alistair is probably right. They have agents galore. They've been working on this for decades. And it's really not, doesn't speak very well for Hezbollah to have been unable to detect these people and stifle them before they did real harm. The New York Times is reporting as we speak that Israeli commandos, I guess that's the rough equivalent of American special forces, have begun incursions into southern Lebanon.

Would this be a precursor to a ground invasion? And if Netanyahu does order a ground invasion, would that bring Iran into the picture militarily? I saw those reports, Judge, and my first reaction was this would be at best a reconnaissance in force, as we say in the army. In other words, they're sort of preparing the battlefield in case they go in. Now, will they go in? Yeah, they'll go in for some modest kind of incursion. Will they try to take over all that area south of the Latani River? I think that depends on what Secretary Austin tells them this time. And when we have Pat Wright, the general writer, the Pentagon spokesman, saying yesterday, look, you know, we're going to give Israel all the defensive things it needs

to defend itself. We're going to keep the carrier in the Mediterranean. Yeah, we're going to keep the Marines. So you have to say you're going to keep them here? Well, they're going to keep them there, but it's for defensive purposes. Now, whether Netanyahu will listen to these people, in an election year, what do you think she's got? Well, to use an expression used by General Brent Scowcroft with respect to how Ariel Sharon, the previous prime minister, had Bush wrapped around his little finger. He had him mesmerized. Those are quotes. Well, if Netanyahu believes that's the same case with President Biden and Netanyahu's lawyer, Tony Blinken, well, there's no telling how free Netanyahu will feel to the thumbless nose that the likes of Austin and other people are urging moderation and go farther than the Israelis really can do

by themselves. And Biden will be faced with an election year decision, do we rescue the Israelis or not? Now, I think Netanyahu calculates Biden will have no choice other than to send in the Marines, okay? Whether he's right about that, I hope he's wrong, but the chutzpah has no end. He thinks he's right. We'll see what happens. Well, that would be an October surprise that nobody could really anticipate the outcome, sending the Marines in. Do Americans unite behind Biden and inferentially and deferentially behind Vice President Harris?

Donald Trump is certainly not going to oppose sending the Marines in. What does the public do? It's been done before. What was it, 58 that we sent Marines into Lebanon? It never has a good end, so to speak. But we do it. And you know why we do it, Judge. The lobby is very, very strong. And the votes are there. And of course, the money for the candidates is there. They want to risk that. So in an election year, all bets are off. Let's transition over to Ukraine, because you've been writing some interesting things about it with our friends at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I want to begin by showing you something I think you've seen before, but I'd like our audience to see it.

This is President Biden at the U.N. last week. It's a lot of gibberish, except for his statement that Putin has failed. I can't imagine he believes this, but this is what he says. Cut number seven. So my direction, America stepped into the breach, providing massive security and economic and humanitarian assistance. Our NATO allies and partners in 50 plus nations stood up as well. But most importantly, the Ukrainian people stood up. I asked the people of this chamber to stand up for them. The good news is Putin's war has failed at his core aim. He set out to destroy Ukraine, but Ukraine is still free.

He set out to weaken NATO, but NATO is bigger, stronger, and more united than ever before. Is NATO bigger, stronger, and more united than ever before? I mean, this is almost farcical, Ray. Well, I'm surprised that others didn't get up and walk out like they did with Netanyahu. No, it's not true. Does he believe it? I don't know. I mean, he is delusional, and so is his alter ego, Blinken. So, you know, as long as these people are delusional, they have this illusion of grandeur. And when the Zoloshnys, who are equally delusional, and the Zelenskys tell them what to do, well, in election year, they can't let them down, can they? So, yeah, Putin has lost. Well, in the middle of July last year, in Helsinki, Biden made this big pronouncement,

Putin has already lost in Ukraine. Why did he say that? Because a week before, CIA Director William Burns had said Putin has already lost in Ukraine and the inefficiency of his military machine has been laid bare for the whole world to see. July of last year. So if they're telling Biden this still, they're still delusional. And this is going to get them in a peck of trouble if they don't take Putin's warnings seriously at this point. Does Biden, well, I don't know how you could possibly know what Biden understands. I was going to ask you, does he understand? Does he appear to understand? Do you think the American government understands, A, how precarious Ukraine is, the Ukrainian military and government, and B, how solid is the Russia-China strategic partnership? There you go. That's the tectonic shift, Judge. I'm glad you mentioned

that. No, I don't believe he does. He was briefed before his first and only personal meeting with Putin to tell Putin that, you know, we know you got a real problem with China. China is trying to be the dominant influence in your big economic military, and we know you got a long border, and we know that China is squeezing you, Biden's word. I mean, this is crazy. This may have been the case three decades ago when I was working on Sino-Soviet relations. It's no longer the case. So what's the case now? The case is that they're not only closer than ever, Judge, but what happened last week,

actually, it was on the 11th of September. So it was just before Putin, the day before Putin's speech, where he laid down new rules for the use of nuclear weapons. The foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, she said, look, you know, with China, we have this joint arrangement. Well, we're going to work together in case we have to face a common foe. We have this arrangement where we're going to do that together. Now, the Chinese have been very cheery of being put into a kind of a defense cooperation agreement with anybody, Russians or anybody else. I've been asking my Chinese colleagues, how has China reacted to that? Apparently, they haven't said anything yet. That's probably a good sign, because if they didn't like it, they certainly would speak out against the suggestion that China is already in with Russia if Russia is threatened. And that could not be bigger

whether Biden gets it or not, or Blinken or Sullivan. They didn't get it three years ago. Will they get it now? I don't know. They probably don't care. Here's the statement by President Putin to which you referred with a translator, making it crystal clear who will be held responsible for attacks into Russia and how and with what ammunition and weapons Russia will soon be free to respond. Cut number 12. The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear weapon state, should be regarded as a joint attack on the Russian Federation.

The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly defined. We will consider such a possibility as soon as we receive reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack means and their crossing of our state border, meaning strategic or tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic missiles and other aircraft. We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed upon with the Belarusian side and with the President of Belarus.

This includes cases when the enemy, using conventional weapons, poses a critical threat to our sovereignty. Is he serious? He is serious. And for those who say, well, he's just bluffing. I take the words of one very distinguished national security advisor to British prime ministers who said, yeah, you could say he's bluffing. Yeah, he's still bluffing. And then when he's not bluffing, what are you going to say then? So what he's doing now is throwing down the gauntlet and saying, look, you're talking

about hitting inside Russia. He's chosen this as his red line. Now is it real? Well his red line is real. Why did he choose this occasion? After all, there are only a certain number of attack missiles. There are only a certain number of missiles, the storm shadow missiles that the British have. They can only go about 180 miles into Russia. But why does he choose this time? He chooses this time because because he wants to lay down a timeframe and a rule that will say, look, we no longer will regard Ukraine shooting these things

or firing them into Russia as Ukraine alone. We will say that it's joint. We will say that if it's with a nuclear-powered country, that it's a joint strike, and we will proceed accordingly. Now, is he specific in how he spells out what they would do? Not really, except he does say that if there's a rain of such missiles, that would be interpreted as possibly invoking this new rearranged doctrine, which is more forward-looking and more dangerous, I would say, than any heretofore that the Russians have propounded with respect to the use of nuclear weapons.

So he's dead serious. And the good news, in my view, is that I think that Byelorusov, the defense minister in Russia, got in touch with Austin, our defense secretary, while this was going on, maybe even before Putin spoke, and said, look, please take this seriously. The pinpricks that you will cause inside our country, we're going to still take seriously if you allow the storm shadows and the attack them to attack us. And would you tell the president that because this is very serious and what happened?

The next day when the British prime minister, Stormer, was in the White House, came to the White House to get permission to use US technology within these storm shadow missiles, he was turned down. The day before that the Pentagon spokesman said he was going to be turned down, that day, the national security spokesman for Biden said they have influence and that they can get to Biden and change his mind from these ridiculous things that Blinken wants them to do? The answer is yes. Can the military do that in the Middle East?

The answer is probably no, because of the political equities involved. As strong as the military argument would be, it would be real hard to turn down Netanyahu in the six weeks or so left before our election. Wow, that's a profound analysis, Ray. How headstrong or reckless will the British government be? Are they more war aggressive than Blinken? Well, as I see it there, let's you and him fight. I mean, the British have nothing in terms, well, they have submarines, of course, with sea-launched ballistic missiles. I don't really understand what the British have in mind other than to egg on, to egg on Biden and the rest of them to be more frontal in fronting down Russia.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but the British have always taken us under their arm and said, look, this is what you do. And when some upstart like Russia or anybody else starts to challenge you, be advised, we know what this is all like. So this is what you do. In this case, our military is strong enough to say that's really crazy, Mr. Biden. And as I say, they prevailed. I can't understand really why the British are way out in front on this. Even the French, the Hungarians, the Italians, nobody, the Slovakians, nobody in NATO, going back to your question about whether NATO is more united than ever, nobody in NATO wants to do this. And the Germans, too, are against it. And all hell is breaking loose in Germany because the current coalition government is falling apart

and may even fall apart before the elections that are scheduled for next year. Here is breaking news from the Washington Post. This is just 90 seconds old. Israel has told the United States it is planning a limited ground operation in Lebanon that could start immediately, U.S. official says. Why do they feel free to do that? Well, look at Biden's reaction to Nasrallah's assassination. Look at the pledge of everything Israel needs to defend itself, which continues. And more importantly, look at the $8 billion supplemental that has just been authorized to give to Israel.

I mean, if you want to have leverage on a country like Israel, are you going to give them everything they want before they decide what to do? No, you're not. So, as I say, I don't know what's going to happen. I suspect a limited foray into Lebanon, south of the Latani River. I don't think they're going to try to take over all that territory. But as they sell this to the Israeli citizens, of course, this will hopefully, I don't think it's going to work, allow them to move back into this area in northern Israel, where upwards of 60,000 Israeli settlers... Will Hezbollah fight back?

Of course they will, yeah. Now, they're a little discombobulated and have suffered a real embarrassment these last week or two. But they'll fight back, and they're ready to fight back, and they're in these tunnels, and they have missiles. And, yeah, the only question is whether they will hit Israeli cities, which they can do now, and whether the U.S. and Iran, I dare say, and Russia and China can act as a brake on all this,

because Russia is in this with both feet in defense of Iran, with which it's just about to sign a 10-year defense, well, treaty just short of defense. And China depends on this area, the Persian Gulf, for most of its oil, for God's sake. So these people have strategic interests. That's why I think they'll be saying to the Iranians and others, look, can you just wait a couple of weeks? We're going to get together in Kazan. I'm sorry, in Kazan. And we're going to talk this through.

We'll be able to meet this challenge. But please don't run off half cocked. Look how measured we reacted to provocation, for example, when that Crocus atrocity happened. You know, we model restraint, perspicaciousness, and you ought to follow our lead because it's working. Look what's happening in Ukraine. Here's Secretary Blinken just a few hours ago rejoicing in the death of Nasrallah, cut number 13. Hassan Nasrallah was a brutal terrorist whose many victims included Americans, Israelis, civilians in Lebanon, civilians in Syria, and many others as well. During his leadership of Hezbollah, the group terrorized people across the region and prevented Lebanon from fully moving forward as a country.

Lebanon, the region, the world are safer without him. I guess that is a tacit go-ahead to Netanyahu to invade Lebanon, and it remains to be seen what resistance he meets and if this is enough to bring the Iran missiles in. Yes, I believe that's it. I don't think it's enough to bring Iran in. Yes, I believe that's it. I don't think it's enough to bring Iran in. It will fortify Hezbollah's resolve to avenge this martyr, and that's what they have now, a real live present day martyr. As for Blinken, whoever believes what Blinken says is, you know, sort of wet behind the ears. He's not told the truth on things like aid to Israel.

He's lied to Congress. He said all manner of things that aren't true. because the mainstream media is unwilling to hold him accountable, just as they were unwilling to hold war criminals like Dick Cheney and George Bush accountable. And I'm just waiting for George Bush to endorse Kamala Harris. My God. Well, I don't know if that's going to win her a single vote, but rumors are that it's coming. Ray, thank you, my dear friend. We'll look forward to seeing you on Friday with that youngster, Larry Johnson. Thanks, Judge. Thank you, Ray.

And the aforementioned youngster, Larry Johnson, will be here at 11, as will Anya Parampal at noon, as will Scott Ritter at three, as will Professor Jeffrey Sachs at four. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.