Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: Is the US Still the ‘Essential Nation’?

Episode Date: December 6, 2023

#Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesABOUT SCOTT:Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer whose service over a 20-plus-year career included tours of duty in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements, serving on the staff of US Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War and later as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq from 1991-98. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.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 Tuesday, December 5th, 2023. My dear friend, dear friend of the show, Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, always a pleasure. Thanks for coming back and for giving us your time. Thanks for having me. Recently, the president of the United States had an op-ed in the Washington Post, which he entitled, words to the effect of the essential nation, referring to the United States. And he's used that phrase a lot. You have a recent piece out called, Is the United States. And he's used that phrase a lot. You have a recent piece out called,

is the United States the essential nation? And of course you take issue with the president. What is your issue with the president when he claims we are the essential nation? Well, I mean, first of all, the hubris that's in that statement, What are we essential to? You know, the Biden administration has made preservation of what they call the rules-based international order, the foremost foreign policy objective. But what is the rules-based international order? One would think that the United States, and Judge, I think you would understand this, you know, being a constitutional republic where we are founded upon the principles, the values that are inherent in the Constitution, that is a body of law upon which we are defined, that we would be more

accurate to call ourselves, you know, a law-based international order. That should be what we want, but a rules-based international order. What is a rules-based international order? It means it's not lawful. It means it's something other than law. It means it's something that we have dictated to others that they must follow. So we are essential to a rules-based international order, but is a rules-based international order essential to the world? And the answer is no, it's not. Ukraine is an example of this. What are we essential for in Ukraine? Let's put it this way. This Ukraine conflict is going to end sooner rather than later. And when it does, the American people will have forgotten it just as quickly as we forgot the Afghan conflict. You remember the other existential crisis that we

faced just a couple of years ago. And it's the same thing with Israel. We're essential for what? For the preservation of the Zionist entity? So no, the president wrote this opinion piece, this op-ed piece, and I took umbrage. He says that we're in an inflection point in history. And that I do agree with him. We are at an inflection point where America is becoming increasingly the irrelevant nation in the world because we have chosen to embrace the rules-based international order, while the rest of the world is talking about the United Nations Charter, which is a law-based order. Remember, Kissinger, it is dangerous to be America's enemy. It is fatal to be America's friend. Just to ask Vladimir Zelensky and General Zelushny and the mothers and fathers of the 50011 and the extraordinary manifestation of hubris.

Get our minds off of 9-11. Forget about the fact that you slept at the switch. Forget about the fact that your Saudi buddies financed it. Let's blame it all on the Afghans. Let's do what 25,000 British soldiers couldn't do in the 19th century and 100,000 Soviet troops couldn't do in the 20th century. Let's turn Afghanistan into a democracy and prove that we spread democracy. Baloney, we spread violence, death, and destruction. Am I getting carried away? Yeah, you know, right after 9-11, I think it was actually in October of 2001, I was on the History Channel doing a debate with Richard Holbrook,

and he's, you know, he's deceased now, unfortunately, but he was a well-known American diplomat. He helped negotiate the end to the Kosovo conflict. And he also later on became the head of the Afghan-Pakistan policy team for the Obama administration. But at that time, he was advocating very strongly in favor of a military intervention. I said, well, why don't we try a diplomatic intervention? He said, with whom? I said, well, what about the moderate wing of the Taliban? He said, there's no such thing as the moderate wing of the Taliban. And I said, well, do you know who the foreign minister is, Muda Wakil? Have you listened to him? It's very moderate what he's saying. He's saying that he's willing to talk to the United States about the crimes

committed by Al-Qaeda. And if the United States can document these crimes, then under the Pashtun Wali, the Pashtun tribal code, because Afghanistan is a Pashtun Wali, the Pashtun Tribal Code, because Afghanistan is a Pashtun-dominated nation, they brought Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in as their guests. And if they violated Islamic tenets while guests, they must be held accountable too. And he said, the Taliban will hold him to account if you can document the crimes. But the United States said, no, no, no, we've already found you guilty. We're going to come in and we're going to remove you. So we engaged from the very start, not just about a war of retribution against Assad bin Laden, but a war of regime change against the Taliban. Today, the Taliban's back in power. That didn't go very well. And the other

thing is Al-Qaeda has expanded its presence globally. So we failed in that too. Well, it was a miserable, miserable failure on the part of the Bush administration. Maybe one of the worst foreign policy decisions of the modern era. Another horrific foreign policy decision of the modern era is to convince President Zelensky that Vladimir Putin is a monster unworthy of entering into with a treaty, and that we would so back him up with sufficient moral, political, emotional, international, financial, and military support that he would never be wanting. Now he's wanting. Zelensky. Look, one of the big problems here, let's look at two foundational elements of that, of what you brought here. The first one is we don't care about Ukraine. Let's just be honest

for once as American people, just like we didn't care about Afghanistan, we don't care about Ukraine. Do you remember when we were talking about how we were going to save the Afghan women, how we were going to come in and put Western values, turn Afghanistan into a forward thinking country because it was so important, not only for the humanity of the Afghans, but also because we had to transform Afghanistan. So we would fight the enemy over there, keep them over there. So we didn't have to fight them here at home. But overnight, all that went away. We don't. Who's talking about the Afghan women today? Who's talking about the Afghan? No one, because we never really cared about them.

It was always political garbage, hot air. The same with Ukraine. All the Americans have put the Ukrainian flag on their social media as a little feel-good thing. You don't care about Ukraine. That flag will be gone. It's probably already gone now that Ukraine has lost. You don't want to be associated with losers because you never really believed in them. Ukraine has lost. We're abandoning them like the bad habit they are. This is the fact. The other thing is, why did we do this? We did it because we said- That's the question. That's the $64,000 question. And that gets us back to the government's belief that we are essential. But it's more than that, Judge. It's arrogance and it's ignorance.

But give you an example. My good friend Seymour Hersh, and he is my good friend. I've known him for 25 years. But he put out a substack that I take umbrage at. Not against him. His job is to report. But he's quoting a source or sources within the U.S. government about so-called negotiations that are taking place between Ukraine and Russia, between Zelensky, the head Ukraine military guy, and Gerasimov, the head of the Russian. And just on the surface, this is so absurd.

It's beyond belief. A, Gerasimov constitutionally is not permitted to engage in these kinds of negotiations. So right off the bat, you want me to believe that Russia has waived all constitutional due process, et cetera, to allow this conversation to occur. Two, it's premised on the notion of a frozen conflict that would freeze Russia's line, leaving important elements of Kherson, Oblast, Zaporizhia, and Donetsk in Ukrainian control. That can't happen because constitutionally they belong to Russia and Russia can't freeze that. That requires the legislator, the Duma, together with the president to re-approach the issue and get permission to do this constitutionally. That hasn't happened and it won't happen. And lastly, it's premised on, once this happens, that Ukraine will be allowed

to join NATO. Russia went to war to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. And to believe any of this, you have to say that Russia's losing this conflict. But we know now that they're not. There's not anybody out there today, with the exception of maybe Jack Devine, who is articulating that Russia is losing this war. So now we come, why did this article get published? Because it's designed to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of a Russian population that we continue to believe to be susceptible to disinformation, to get them to doubt their government, doubt the sincerity of their government, to promote discontent that can rise to the point of a Moscow Maidan moment to remove Putin from power. And there it is, Judge, the answer to the $64,000 question. Why did we do all this? Because

we somehow believed that Vladimir Putin was vulnerable and that if we could expose him to the political pitfalls of economic sanctions combined with military difficulties in Ukraine, that the Russian people would rise up and remove him from power. He is the most popular president in the history of Russia. The Russian people are 100% behind him. The Russian economy is stronger than it's ever been. The Russian military is the strongest military in the world. We failed, as we always do, when we have the hubris and the arrogance to say we are the essential nation. Because the moment we say that, we blind ourselves to the reality of the world out there. Rather than saying we are the essential nations, we should say

we are a nation that is engaged in very complex problems with other nations that we need to understand better if we are to come up with solutions that actually solve the problem. But you can't solve a problem unless you first adequately define the problem. And when we define the problem in Ukraine as the potential of getting rid of Russian President Vladimir Putin, we'll never have a solution. Have the powers that be in Washington come to the realization that Ukraine is lost? The reason I ask this is somebody that you and I keep poking in the ribs all the time because he never met a war that he didn't want somebody else to fight. Lindsey Graham made a unique statement over the weekend that he will oppose further aid to Ukraine unless it's combined with building a border wall. And of course, there's really no connection between the two. But the fact that he would say that, knowing the Democrats are against

it and knowing Zelensky is on his last leg, makes me wonder if even he and Victoria Nuland and Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan and the president, to the extent he knows what's going on, are looking for an off-ramp. I think they found their off-ramp, and their off-ramp is the funding. And this is all about politics. It's never about Ukraine. Remember, we were with Ukraine until the end. We're going to stand with you until the end. We're not standing there now because the end is here. And so what is Lindsey Graham saying? Don't blame me. Not my fault. I supported Ukraine. And I would support Ukraine again, he's saying. But first, we have to do a politically impossible task that the Biden administration isn't going to do because we're in that silly

season leading up to a presidential election. So he knows that Biden can't make the compromises that are required for him to support the funding. And so it's the same thing, but it's the end for you. Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, just spoke and said, look, 97% of the funds are done. There's nothing left. We're done. Ukraine's out of money. Germany has told the European Union they're not going to contribute anymore to the European Union's Save Ukraine Fund. Ukraine is broke. Not just broken, but broke. It's all over but the shouting. Again, I just remind people when I say it's all over, that doesn't was not the Battle of the Bulge. It was April 1945, after we had strategically defeated the Germans, crossed the Rhine, and were in the so-called cleaning up. That was the bloodiest month where the Germans put up the greatest level of resistance. So it's potential for Ukraine to continue to put up resistance, even as they're dying on the Chris, let's run the clip of Vice President Harris saying too many innocent Palestinians have died. President Biden and I have also been clear with the Israeli government in public and in private many times.

As Israel defends itself, it matters how. The United States is unequivocal. International humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Does Bibi Netanyahu think that there are any Palestinians who are innocent. No, the Israeli leadership doesn't believe that either. They have made the Palestinians an extension of Hamas. And their policies reflect that, the indiscriminate bombing, the collective punishment. But my question to Kamala and to Joe Biden and anybody in the Biden administration is, what number of dead Palestinian children is acceptable to you? What's not too many? I mean, that's where we're at, 7,000 dead children and growing because there's about a couple thousand under the rubble that

they haven't counted yet. But what, well, I just want to know what number, because we know that Madeleine Albright accepted 500,000 dead Iraqi children. That was a price she was willing to pay by extension America. So what is the acceptable price, Kamala? And, you know, that's the absurdity of her statement to say that too many children, one is too many, especially when the one dies because of, you know, deliberate war crimes, which is what Israel is doing, deliberately targeting Palestinian civilian, you know, objects and the civilian population themselves. But that's the hypocrisy of the United States. That's why we can't ever be trusted to be

self-designated, not only as the essential nation, but a humane nation, a nation premised on the notion that we respect individual civil liberties and individual lives. What is too many? Where was that threshold crossed, Kamala? And understanding that below that threshold, they were all killed with the same American airplanes and same American bombs. So there's no difference between the ones you killed below that number and the over under on what constitutes too many. It's the absurdity, the inhumanity, the insanity of the Biden administration, Pasha, when you hear somebody say that. You're going to say that on steroids after you watch this. Chris, the Biden administration's five points for saving Gaza after the war. So we all want this conflict to end as soon as possible and to ensure Israel's security

and ensure security for the Palestinian people. We must accelerate efforts to build an enduring peace. And that begins with planning for what happens the day after the fighting ends. Shortly after October 7th, President Biden and I began discussions with our national security team about post-conflict Gaza. We have begun to engage partners in the region and around the world in these conversations, and this has been a key priority over the last eight weeks.

Five principles guide our approach for post-conflict Gaza. No forcible displacement, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism. We want to see a unified Gaza and West Bank under the Palestinian authority, and Palestinian voices and aspirations must be at the center of this work. Nobody can take that seriously. Everything she said she wants to happen, we are providing weapons, ammunition, and cash to make sure it doesn't

happen. She doesn't want any terrorists in Gaza. The IDF are terrorizing Gaza. Right. And again, Judge, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I just want to recall all the Americans out there. Sam Adams was a terrorist. George III, George Washington was a terrorist. Sam Adams was a terrorist. Paul Revere was a terrorist. Sam Adams was a terrorist. Paul Revere was a terrorist. Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist. So here we have Hamas. Is Hamas a terrorist organization? I mean, people have classified them as such, but we also have recognized them as a legitimate political entity tasked with the governance of Gaza. So they're more than a terrorist organization. They're an organization now that has a political responsibility for the

welfare of people who constitute the population of an open-air concentration camp. Kamala Harris says that she wants to talk about the future of Palestine, and she says after October 7th. Well, Kamala, I just have one question for you. Where was this on October 6th? Where was this concern for the Palestinians on October 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, fading all the way back, non-existent. So the only reason why you're talking about it after October 7th is because Hamas attacked Israel. And Hamas' attack against Israel was a political act designed to get you to start talking about Palestine. So stop talking about Hamas as a terrorist entity, because there will never be a solution to this problem so long as you seek to categorize them, because Hamas will not be defeated by Israel.

Hamas is not being defeated by Israel. Hamas is prevailing right now because Israel has set an impossible bar for its success, the destruction of Hamas politically and militarily. Politically, Hamas, man, it's won the world right now, even though we don't say we're demonstrating for Hamas. The people demonstrating for Palestine are only demonstrating for Palestine because of what Hamas did on October 7th. So indirectly, you're demonstrating in support of Hamas's political objective of a Palestinian state. The world is turning against Israel because of what Hamas did on October 7th. Hamas is a legitimate entity. If there was an election today in Palestine, Hamas would win the legislature and the presidency. It

has more legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the Palestinian people because it's the only entity that's standing up for the Palestinian people, because it's the only entity that's standing up for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, they are supporting Israel. They serve as an adjunct of the Israeli security state, terrorizing their own population. Hamas is a reality that we're going to have to learn to deal with. You're not going away. They're getting stronger and they're winning. They're winning politically, abroad and domestically amongst the Palestinian people. And they're winning militarily. The Israelis have been fought to a standstill in Gaza. Hamas is inflicting a defeat

of death by a thousand cuts. And this conflict continues. The Israeli casualty figures are going to expand even further. I was going to ask you if we should expect Vice President Harris, who is a lawyer, to understand and explain that indiscriminate bombing is against federal law, against international law, and against all moral principles. And then I thought, I'm going to ask a bigger question. Are we naive to expect political leaders to tell the truth? Yes, because the truth is not the friend of political leaders. It would be nice if our politicians had, you know, the intent of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a classic movie where he wants to do the right thing. Maybe, maybe some of our senators and congressmen or representatives have that when they enter Congress. If you're a representative, you have two years to get reelected, which means day one, the first thing that happens is your handlers take you to a series of phones where you start raising money for the next election, which means money becomes the whole reason why you exist as a representative.

Money that has to come from somewhere. And rather than spending all the time calling every man, woman, and voter in your district, you cheat and you go to funders. You go to the supporters who own you now, because they give you the money that allows you to get your committee seat, get your power. And here's the other thing to point out. Let's just go through every one of these congressmen and senators and look at their salaries when they entered Washington, D.C., and take a look at their value five years later. And you'll see that they go from $150,000 to $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, and they ain't getting that $20 million by the money we, the taxpayers, pay them, which means that they have sold out to the system, to the establishment.

There's not an honest politician in America today. I hate to say it that way and be that blunt, but I'd like to see one prove me otherwise. So we are naive. We are naive. There's a tool for interpreting statutes called legislative intention. And you look at what the legislature said at the time they enacted the legislation. And my late great friend, Justice Antonin Scalia, said it doesn't matter what they said. There's only one reason they ever vote for anything, to get reelected.

Bingo. Bingo. He's 100% correct. And they get reelected by pleasing the people that finance their campaigns. you think the Israeli government will recognize the damage it's doing to Israel in the PR war and in international standing and the danger it's exposing to the Israeli people as their neighbors get angrier and angrier, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Iran? Look, the whole purpose of the Israeli government as it's currently configured is to keep Benjamin Netanyahu out of jail. That's I'm being serious because the number one priority of this current Netanyahu government is to was was at the time to rewrite basic law in Israel so that the judiciary would no longer be free and independent, but instead be subordinated to the whim of a politicized legislative branch, the Knesset. And this was destroying Israel. So hundreds of thousands of people in the streets demonstrating against Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for his resignation. And it was harming Benjamin Netanyahu abroad, including in the United States, because

you can't speak of being a democracy when basically through this act, this coup d'etat against your judiciary, Netanyahu had elevated himself to be the supreme autocrat. So he doesn't care about Israel. He only cares about Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, you know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think people out there who talk about 9-11 and all that, they're very unhappy with me because I don't buy into their conspiracies. But, you know, and I viewed people who said, well, Netanyahu knew, he knew this, they had to do this. And I said, you know, at first I'm like, that's a conspiracy. I'm more a fan of incompetent theory. But the more you dig into this, the more you realize what the Israelis knew and, you know, the detail of information that had been provided to Israeli decision makers and the insanity of the Israeli government meeting to discuss the inevitability of a Hamas invasion on the morning of October 7th and failing to at least

put the forces on alert, at least tell the people on the border, stand to get armed, get ready to repel borders, do something. But instead to say, we're going to sleep on it. And then Hamas attacked and did what they did. And then the delay in the response, when you have a five minute plan for helicopter response, it takes seven hours to execute. Benjamin Netanyahu has a lot to account for here. And I do believe that we're going to need a commission of inquiry at some point in time. And I do believe that he's probably going to be pushed out of power because he's an embarrassment. Less than 4% support amongst the Israeli public. And it's falling even further if it can fall too much more because of the lies being told by the Israeli government about what happened on October 7th. Scott Ritter, always a pleasure, my man. Thank you for your

passion. Thank you for your intellect. And thank you for your ability to analyze these things as few others can. We'll see you again soon. Thanks for having me. Of course. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom, 245,000 subscriptions. Thank you so much. Our goal, of course, is a quarter of a million by Christmas. We are well on our way there, thanks to you. All of our usual guests will be back with us in the coming days. Thanks for watching. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.