Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: West’s Ukraine Failures Are Obvious.

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Ray McGovern: West’s Ukraine Failures Are Obvious.See 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 15th, 2024. Ray McGovern is with us at this usual day and time on how obvious are the Western failures in Ukraine? And why is the media covering up the true damage that Iran did when its missiles and drones struck Israel over the weekend? But first this. How do you really feel about your financial future right now, today? Stable or uncertain? Despite all the happy talk that the Fed and the banks want you to buy into, I believe that 2024 is going to be a very unstable year, politically and financially. That's one of the reasons I decided to buy physical gold and silver.

And I suggest you should do the same and do it now. Why? Because throughout times of economic uncertainty, gold and silver have rightly earned a reputation for stability. Owning precious metals has made me feel more stable and it can do the same for you. Reach out to my friends at Lear Capital and get their free wealth protection guides. You can reach them at 800-511-4620.

Lear has earned an excellent reputation by helping thousands of customers just like you move portions of their retirement savings into Lear gold and silver IRAs. It's easy to do and it's tax and penalty free. Don't be caught off guard. Experts predict the markets may tank again. You'll be happy if you have protection in place. So call Lear at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Ray McGovern, a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. Thank you for your time. Good morning to you. Let's start with the hot news over the weekend.

The Western media and, of course, the Western governments would have everybody believe that what Iran did was reckless, not militarily advised, and not successful at all. Alistair Crook points out that a lot of the drones were sent to sort of lost leaders, if you will, so as to compel the Israelis to reveal the location of their defenses, to force them to spend a lot of money, and that in fact, the missiles that Iran wanted to get through did get through. And unlike the Israelis who killed innocent civilians, the Iranians targeted and attacked military and intelligence installations. Where do you stand on this? What do your sources tell you? What is your intuition on what Iran did to Israel?

Judge, it was most unusual. It was indeed unprecedented to send the drones out three and a half hours before they're going to strike Israel and then send the cruise missiles and send the ballistic missiles. It was very artfully planned. It should have been anticipated. And it was, I suppose, because the Israelis and the United States and others shut up all their anti-aircraft missiles to the tune of $1 billion, I'm told. And yet, we haven't seen a damage assessment completely, but we know that two Israeli airfields and an intelligence center in Tel Aviv were hit. Now, how much damage was done? It really doesn't matter, because what the Iranians have done now

is show the potential of what they could do in the future. And they could do this like every day and the Israelis would run out of $1 billion a day. The awful thing here was this was all coordinated with the United States of America beforehand. There were talks between, actually the Financial Times in London had this story. There were talks between the Americans and the Israelis. The Israelis said, look, this is all we're going to do for now. But you tell your Israeli clients that if they retaliate for our retaliation, then all bets are off. We could do a lot worse.

So we'll have to wait to see how damaged those Israeli airfields and that military intelligence center from which the strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was planned, and the fighter jet, the F-35s, took off from those airfields. So it was a very, very pointed response. We'll have to see whether the damage is great. But as I said, that's less significant than the demonstrated ability of Iran to hit Israel directly. That changes the whole ballgame.

They're willing to do that. The ball now, of course, is in Biden's court. Will he be strong enough to tell the Israeli leaders, look, I mean it this time, you retaliate for this warning attack and we're not with you anymore? God, I don't know if Biden is up to that, but that's where it comes down to. The idea that Iranian intelligence informed American intelligence of what the Iranians were going to do ahead of time, is this novel or is this standard? I'm not sure it was through intelligence channels. It may have simply been between the people who talk on the sidelines or Subrosa, and we do conduct talks with the Iranians, or it could be through the Swiss or some other diplomatic entity acting on our behalf, or it could be the Russians, it could be the Chinese. Bear in mind, Judge, this time the game is completely different because the Russians

and the Chinese are decidedly on the side of Iran. Sure, they're raising their hands and say, oh, we don't want any further escalation, and they do not want any further escalation, but we'll have to see how strong they come out in condemning Iran. They haven't just yet. I don't think they will, because they can see the logic in this thing. The whole thing depends on Biden and Netanyahu, whether Netanyahu will take Biden seriously this time. And if he doesn't, as I suspect he won't, then whether Biden will really follow through and say, no, no more aid. You know, it's really, really crazy. We're back to where we started.

Are you surprised that mainstream media is touting the success of British, American, and Israeli defenses, notwithstanding the cost, making it sound like Israel didn't even get a scratch. Well, you know, 99%, sort of like that's, you buy something for $3.99 or $5.99. 99% is a little sketchy, okay? But even if it was 99%, you have to understand that those 99 were the drones sent as sacrificial lambs to a cost of 10,000 bucks apiece. And these people, these missilery that shot them down were very, very expensive. And you have to you have to realize that this was a demonstration. And, you know, the demonstration is truly quite vivid here.

We, Iran, have the capability now that you used to have, Israel, when you threatened us with nuclear weapons. We don't have nuclear weapons. We're not working on nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence recognizes that, but we have all kinds of other stuff, including hypersonic missiles, which you, Israel, don't have and which your patron, the United States, has not yet been able to develop either. How did Iran get the hypersonic from Russia? I imagine they had some help from the Russians, but I don't know that for a fact. The Iranians are quite clever people and witnessed the sophistication of the ballistic missiles that got through the Israeli air defenses after the Israelis shot down 300 decoys, or what we call those hovering little things that came first.

So the drones cost $10,000 apiece, and maybe a few hundred of them were destroyed. The Israelis spent a billion, a billion, in one night shooting these down. How much longer can they afford that? That's the question, of course, Judge. Not too many more nights. And that is the threat that's dangling out like a sword of Damocles now. For the first time, the Israelis have been warned, look, not only can we hit you directly, we will. We just demonstrated that. Now, knock it off. This was just a warning. We can do far worse. And the United States is pleading with the Israelis, look, please don't retaliate again. And the way they're justifying that is we won. We knocked down 99% of those damn things, man. That's the lead story today. Do you think that Biden is serious about not backing Netanyahu if he decides to retaliate or even to invade? I think it would be insane for him to do it, but he behaves in his own way. Invade Iran?

Well, invasion is off. But I think that Biden is listening to people who are saying, Joe, you're going to lose the election, both with respect to Ukraine and now with respect to losing the young voters that used to always vote Democratic. You know, the Gaza thing continues. You better call Bibi off before the killing, the slaughter, the starvation, and the genocide continue. And what's interesting, Judge, is that the folks on your program, this program,

Scott Ritter, I remember him telling months ago, the Israeli army is not all it's stacked up to be. They're going to lose. Take it from me, says Scott, they're going to lose. Now, they have lost. They've pulled out their last brigade from Gaza. What does that mean? Well, they're refitting. They're getting ready to go in. Well, no. It means that they've lost, and they're really up against the wall now. And what Netanyahu and his coterie of right-wingers are going to do is really scary because they have a lot at stake, including personal stake. Netanyahu, if he leaves office, will end up in jail with his wife, a nice little bridal suite.

Has anything changed in Gaza while all this is going on with Iran? Not that I'm aware of. are preparing to leave Turkey with that 5,500 ton cargo of medical supplies and food. We'll have to see how that comes off, whether Biden will protect them. Biden will say, well, you know, we couldn't get stuff in, but let these people in, or more likely he'll give Netanyahu carte blanche to do to my friends what he did to the World Central Kitchen folks, deliberate killing. Well, you and I literally have friends on that boat with the ship. It's many ships. Would the Israelis sink those ships?

I don't think they'd sink it. They could easily do what they did in 2010 to the Mavi Momora, a Turkish ship laden with supplies to break the siege of Gaza. They landed on that ship. They killed nine people, wounded about 20. And one of the people that they killed was Furkan, get his last name. He was an American citizen, dual citizenship, Turkish and American. The Americans never said a word about it. Just as a codicil here, the next year, we outfitted, fixed up a boat called the U.S. Boat to Gaza. We called it the Audacity of Hope. Okay.

And we were set to sail for Gaza, too. And Netanyahu said, Obama, you better call those people up because I will not guarantee that they'll be safe. And Obama told the Greeks not to let us leave from the port of Piraeus outside of Athens. That's how that one came out. So Obama was really afraid, and he couldn't persuade Netanyahu not to do a sin, as he had done those nine people on the Mavi Marmara the year before. And so our boat to Gaza got nine nautical miles out of Piraeus Harbor. One was confronted by Greek patrol boats apologetically saying,

my God, we have orders. You got to turn around. You got to turn around. After an hour standoff, our captain said, and Anne Wright, our co-captain said, okay, we better turn around. We want them landing on us and killing some of us. Switching gears, after our colleague, Karen Kwiatkowski, gave a terrific presentation to the United Nations Security Council last week, which we'll discuss with Karen in her regular time slot on Tuesday, the Russian ambassador who was there, who heard her,

had some very, very strong statements to make. The first of which was, where's everybody from the West? Where are the other ambassadors? This woman's an American citizen. You didn't even want to hear what she had to say, but he began to tick off what the Russians

believe is fairly observable from the concert hall attack. That Ukraine was behind it and that it may very well have been financed by, you're not going to believe this, I mean, you know this, but Burisma, the same gas and oil holding company that Joe Biden's son was once on the board of.

But let's go back to the Russian ambassador himself. Why would he be making these statements at the UN now? This was a very tough and all-encompassing speech. I recommend people read it. It's only about four or five pages long, okay? Now, he said a number of very interesting things. I made some notes here. Already at this stage, there is no doubt about the direct involvement of Ukraine in the terrorist attack of March 22nd. The question of involvement of Western intelligence services remains open. So they're looking for evidence. It's a strange way to proceed, to look for evidence in investigating something.

But they have the goods on the Ukrainian. Now, Burisma, you mentioned, so did, of course, Nibenzia. And what was really interesting is Nbensia finished up this way. He said, you know, he's a Russian ambassador to the UN. Okay, the person we're talking about. I'm sorry. Yeah. The Ukrainian leader Zelensky, quote, has already lost touch with reality and is no longer capable of adequate judgment. Your Frankenstein, he says to the West, may turn on you at any moment. The sooner you realize this, that you have created this monster, and contain the Ukrainian crisis, the better for you. Now, get this, quote, it's a matter of months,

not a matter of weeks. Now, coupled with that, Putin met with Belarus President Lukashenko, okay? And what was distinctive about that was that Putin kept saying, we're ready for talks. We're ready for talks. Of course, not on the formula that has been offered by Zelensky. But, you know, we don't really, we don't want to get even. We don't want to shame people. We're ready to talk. He said that five times, if memory serves. So what does that mean? It means that the Russians are ready to talk if they get somebody to talk to. And there have been hints by Lukashenko, for example, that, you know, resiliency is not going to be around forever.

We're quite prepared to talk to new or more sensible Ukrainian leaders. So this is approaching a denouement, Judge. And the Russians, when they talk about it's a matter of months or maybe even weeks, they have the capability of moving forward now. There's nothing standing in their way. They can do more than just attrition, attrition, attrition. They can, if they wish, go to the Dnieper River. I, for one, think that Putin would much prefer to negotiate before swallowing that much of the other part of Ukraine.

Does the West recognize the, and by the West, I mean Western Europe as well as the U.S., the futility of continuing to pour arms and ammunition and cash into Ukraine? The New York Times ran an op-ed by J.D. Vance on Sunday or Saturday, I guess it was. Incredible. J.D. Vance says everything that Larry Wilkerson and I said six weeks ago, saying, look, there's no way that the Russian trajectory of victory can be stemmed, okay? Ukraine doesn't have enough people. Even if the U.S. had the armaments to give Ukraine, which it doesn't, they couldn't get there early enough. So what are you talking about? 60 billion

more makes no sense. Now, of course, J.D. Vance is in the Senate, right? Senator, junior senator from Ohio, I think. Now it's the people in the House that has to decide this. But I think. Now, it's the people in the House that have to decide this, but we have this bet. I hope I win very much, not only for the 25 cents, Judge, but- What's the bet that we have? I forget it. The bet is that Mike Johnson will hold firm for whatever reason and not approve $60 billion more, throwing $60 billion more bad money. I'm so down on Mike Johnson. I'm going to be speaking, I think, later this week with Rand Paul. Senator Paul ripped into Speaker Johnson over the weekend on the spying.

It's just reprehensible. Section 702 of the fisa act you're familiar with this sure uh the house voted to extend it it allows warrantless spying on non-americans and the americans with whom they communicate uh congressman andy biggs proposed simple legislation requiring the f FBI get a search warrant. Oh, that sounds familiar. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment require that? Before they searched this database, the vote was 212 to 212 on the Biggs Amendment. Speaker Johnson came down from the Speaker chair, took his seat as a regular member of the House, and voted against it to defeat that amendment whatever happened to fidelity to the

constitution well fidelity or fear of the deep state trumps no pun intended and and trump now pun intended came down on the right side of this he said kill pfizer this is that may not be the same statute or the same section of the statute, but it's the same mentality that spied on me. Basically, what he said was true. Yeah, actually, I think somebody I know advised Trump to come down that way, and I applaud whoever that was. You know, there's a saying that I will adduce in these circumstances. We were in Berlin, that is Sam Adams Associates for Integrity and Intelligence, and we visited the old Stasi, the old East German secret police thing. We asked a fellow named Wolfgang Schmidt what he thought about Americans who say,

I have nothing to fear from collection. If they catch a terrorist, I don't care. And Wolfgang Schmidt said to us, this is very naive. The only way to prevent them from going after you is to prevent them from collecting it in the first place. I mean, that's it. They collect it. They don't read it all.

They don't listen to it all. But they store it. And they got you if they want to get you. Or they could even manufacture stuff. In the U.S., the storage facility in Utah, I forget what they call the building. It's the largest building in the United States. It dwarfs the Pentagon, and it's where the American intelligence communities store all the data that they have collected. What's your gut going back to Israel, Ray, from all your years of

experience? What is your gut as to what Netanyahu will do next? Invade Rafah, attack Iran, invade Lebanon. I mean, he started this mess. I don't know what he's going to do to get out of it. Judge, I'll be honest. I just don't know. This is the first time that Biden has preemptively said, don't do it. Okay. Now, there is so much at stake for Netanyahu and his coterie of right-wing people. And 68%, according to the latest poll, of support for genocide by the Israeli people writ large, that if I were forced to guess, as I guess I am right now, I would say that Netanyahu will thumb his nose at Biden, and Biden will have to decide whether it's better to honor his pledge for this ironclad commitment, or look just as silly as he's going to look on Ukraine, pledging to be with the Ukrainians

for as long as it takes. It's going to be a big black eye. Either way, I just hope, I hope I'm wrong. I think the odds favor Netanyahu and his associates doing even more damage in Gaza, or maybe against Hezbollah. And then given the influence of the donor class and APEC and those groups on Biden and on the American government, not just Biden, the Congress as well, don't the odds favor Biden giving Netanyahu whatever he wants and the Congress going along with it? Those are the odds, and that's why I come down slightly on it. This is a different situation, though, because Iran has made it clear, and the U.S. has actually parroted what Iran has said. Look, next time it's for real.

You got that? Next time your nuclear deterrent is not going to mean much because we have non-nuclear stuff that is fully as good. Look at the size of your country. You're going to face Armageddon if you retaliate in a meaningful way or if you don't stop. Do you remember that speech that Netanyahu gave at the UN where he held up some cartoonish poster

which purported to be Iran's nuclear weapons. Doesn't everybody recognize now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but the Israelis do, who will never acknowledge it? It's true, Judge. Back in 2007, when an honest person came in to run a national intelligence estimate, it concluded Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon. We say that unanimously. We say that with high confidence. It stopped working on a nuclear weapon five years ago. Do the math. 07, 02.

Okay, I wonder why it was 02. But they stopped then, okay? Now, every year since, and this is a good thing, every year since the annual threat assessment, including the one just this year, has said, we still are convinced Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon. Whoa, okay, so does it have to work on a nuclear weapon? No. It just demonstrated its ability with ballistic missiles of all kinds of sophistication, including hypersonic, that it can do what nuclear weapons. Oh, there it is. Yeah, this is terrific. Chris, you're terrific. That's it.

That's the one. That's at the UN. Yeah, and nobody, you know, some people walked out, but most people just Oh, my God, 90%. And the propaganda machine in this country, I defy you to search the New York Times and see what the real stuff see if they mentioned the 200 2007 estimate, which, in my view, played a huge role in preventing a god-awful war with Iran the last year under Bush and Cheney, when they would ride out into the sunset, leaving an additional mess. Who was the honest person that was the head of that team? Do we know the person? Oh, the person who chaired that? Sure. Yeah. His name is Tom Finger. He won the Sam Adams Award for Integrity and Intelligence.

They had to go to the State Department to find an honest guy. He had taken copious dissents, copious footnotes in the 2002 estimate, which said confidently that Iraq had all manner of nuclear weapons, and there were ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell called that a sinister nexus. He knew damn well it wasn't. So, yeah, so they picked this guy who took all the dissents in 2002 and said, Tom, will you run an honest one? Because they're going after Iran now, and that would be Armageddon.

And reluctantly, Tom took the job, worked for a whole year, had the benefit of some really good information, and issued that thing publicly. Bush later said, this deprived me of the nuclear option for how can I send my armed forces to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program. Bummer. Did Netanyahu know he was lying or was he duped by Mossad? No, no. Mossad and Netanyahu are in this together. Matter of fact, you know, originally when they were stealing from us, that is the Israelis, the parts of the knowledge to make such a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu himself was involved in some of that from the United States when he lived here. So, you know, it was a long-kept secret. But I will say this, that John Kennedy knew about this and tried every which way to get the

Israelis to stop. He was thwarted by the CIA, people of the likes of James Jesus Angleton, who was as much a neoconservative and supporter of Israel as he was of the United States. So Kennedy made the last try, the last honest try to stop this. It was not stoppable. Spies like Netanyahu at the time succeeded. And now they have, people say, between 90 and 200 nuclear weapons. The trouble is they can't really use them, can they, except for deterrence. Deterrence has worked up until now, but as of Saturday night, it don't work anymore.

Ray McGovern, thanks very much, my dear friend. Look forward to seeing you at the end of the week at the Intelligence Roundtable with our friend Larry Johnson. All the best. Most welcome, Judge. Thank you. The afforestated Larry Johnson will be here at 11 o'clock Eastern and at 4.30 this afternoon with a profound analysis of the success of the Iranian counter-assaults this weekend. Scott Ritter, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.