Pod Save the World - COVID Commander-in-Chief

Episode Date: October 7, 2020

The foreign policy implications of Trump catching Covid, erosion of democracy in India, a possible coup in Kyrgyzstan, an update on fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a major dam project in Ethiopia, then weird military music videos, Subway subs and soccer. Then former CIA Director John Brennan joins to talk about Russia’s 2016 election interference, Saudi Arabia, the CIA’s darker history and his new book, Undaunted.

Welcome back to Pots Save the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Ben, last week of this time, we talked about how we had no idea how our listeners would feel about the debate because it hasn't happened yet, and it was hard to predict. And I have to say, uh, there's no world in which I could have imagined it was going to be as bad as it actually was. That was an abomination. Yeah. It was a dumpster fire within a dumpster fire. And, uh, I was just, you know, having done debate prep as you talked about, I also don't know how you prep somebody for that. You know, like I was very sympathetic to Joe Biden because, like, I'm sure he went in there with some points he wanted to make and some, you know, lines he'd practiced.

And how on earth you do with a raving lunatic spouting COVID at you from across the stage, you know? I don't know, man. I don't know. And look, if you can't get enough of this punishment, the vice presidential debate will happen this evening Wednesday, if you're listening to the day this comes out, as you should be. you can hear Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence square off. If you want to watch it live with us because we all need a little bit of humor, go to crooked.com slash debate.

We're going to stream the whole thing. We'll do our fun group thread. Crooked.com slash debate. But man, if I'm Kamala Harris, I don't think I would do this thing. Like, how does she know Mike Pence doesn't have COVID right now? She doesn't. Yeah. I mean, I just, you know what, it's just not worth it.

I mean, like what is gained? I mean, we all now know that Joe. Biden was likely put at grave risk, you know, by appearing at that debate. These people have lost control. They can't protect themselves from COVID. Why should we trust that they're going to protect Kamala Harris and Joe Biden? There's just no reason to debate these lunatics, especially when they're just going to lie, you know. Yeah, it makes me crazy. Well, look, along those lines today, we're going to talk about the foreign policy implications of Trump getting COVID, some worrisome news about the future of democracy in India. Breaking news about a possible.

coup in Kyrgyzstan. There's an update on fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We'll do some Russian interference updates. We're going to talk about weird military music videos because why not. There's a dam project in Ethiopia that has huge geopolitical implications. We'll talk a little bit about subway subs. Why not? Arsenal, the soccer team, why not? And then our friend, former colleague, former CIA director, John Brennan joins to talk about his new memoir, Undaunted. We did that already. We talk about life in the CIA, the 2016 Russian interference, the Saudis, the darker history of the CIA. I've read about three quarters of the book.

It's really good. It was a great conversation. I miss John a lot. I actually think you'll learn a lot about a guy who's had very senior roles who is not very well understood, frankly, by the public. Yeah. And it's well written, too. In John's tone, it's very, like, direct. but I think pretty straightforward, honest, you know.

And, you know, John is a guy who embodies, like, the contradictions and challenges of being in national security your whole life while trying to, you know, uphold a set of values. And I think he's come out of it well. Like, he's stood up forcefully for what he believes these last few years. That's the John Brennan we all knew behind the scenes. he even speaks in the same mannerisms of his Twitter feed, you know. But yeah, no, it was good to kind of go back and get into the substances some of these things, too, and not just do a Trump interview. Yeah. Also, final episode of Missing America Out Today, speaking of super thoughtful, great foreign policy staff. Or do you talk to Jake Sullivan for a while about what a future Biden administration will be like?

Yeah, I think, you know, in part because the debate was what it was, I want everybody to check out this show because we don't really, spend a lot of time on Trump. It's really about like what would Joe Biden do about the issues we've been dealing with in Missing America, about global authoritarianism, about China, about disinformation, about climate change. And Jake is very specific about what Biden would do. I frankly learned more from that conversation than I've learned from the campaign because the campaign is so unusual, to put it one way. So if you've gone through the journey of Missing America, listen to it, even if you haven't listened to it for an insight into what is actually going to happen in a Biden administration and what lessons people like Jake took from the Obama experience as well. And if you

haven't listened yet, you can still go back and binge listen because it's now all there, all nine of them. All nine of them, maybe. And to be clear, we are saying if Joe Biden wins, we're not assuming you win this is what it would be like. But God, who knows what will happen. So let's talk with the big news, Ben. I'm not sure if you've heard, but Donald Trump, Melania Trump, half the White House, they've all gotten coronavirus, totally understandable if you missed it. So obviously, this is a big deal, despite all the happy talk from Trump, his lackeys, his doctor, like the battle with the disease is by no means over. And so I wanted to ask you about the potential national security implications. Obviously, if Trump is incapacitated for any period of time,

and he has to actually transfer power to the VP, that's a huge deal. But I'm also seeing a lot of, you know, kind of hyperbolic doomsday stuff about the Russians or the Chinese doing something drastic, while Trump is, you know, sick or the military having to bypass the West Wing to take action or the, you know, the national security team being too sick to function effectively. And while I certainly think it's fair to worry about all these things, to worry that adversaries might take actions when they think we're distracted, people should just know we have a massive intelligence, diplomatic, and military infrastructure that operates independently of, like, how many people are sick in the White House.

You know, look, today there are reports that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Millie, and almost the entire Joint Chiefs of staff, we'll have to quarantine after coming in contact with the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, who later tested positive for COVID. So that is a very big deal. But again, like few folks are better equipped to work from home than like four-star generals. They basically bring the office with them wherever they go. I remember the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joining Situation Room meetings via video conference from his airborne plane.

So that gives you a sense of their capabilities. Ben, what do you think the national security equities are that are at stake here? Are there things that you really worry about or, I don't know, is continuity sort of built into the system? Well, I think there are two things that we have to separate out here, right? Like, one is, okay, yes. I mean, in the event of a nuclear war, you know, the system is designed so that the president can make a decision in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in the event of a nuclear war, that was built in the Cold War, and that's why there's a nuclear football, and that's why, that's frankly why there's

like Marine One and all these things. That's not very likely, you know, and by the way, if that were to happen, we'd already have a bigger problem than Trump's self. Yeah, no kidding. The second thing is just, yeah, this idea that hidden being incapacitated or on drugs is going to open up space for adversaries to do things. That is fundamentally, is fundamentally, flawed because it presupposes that Trump was somehow some engaged commander in chief, reading his presidential daily briefing and giving direction to diplomats and military officers around the world. Yeah. That hasn't happened for four years. And it's sure as hell hasn't happened in the last several months under COVID. So the U.S. National Security apparatus has kind of been running on autopilot

with Trump's occasional interjections via tweet or directive or politicization of our foreign policy. So, no, I don't, some of these things I've read about this is like the most. dangerous national security situation to have Trump, you know, sick. I mean, again, you're presupposing that Trump was doing that job anyway. What I will say, what does concern me, though, is that America is a mess. We are in an unstable period. The transition, if Biden wins, is a very worrisome period. You know, you'll have an administration on the way out, probably burning things down, settling scores, making corrupt deals with the Saudis, sanctioning Iran. You know, you won't just have the normal instability of a transition where there's an outgoing

president and incoming one, which is sometimes a period of time when nations do things, nations go to war, nations test the United States. That worries me. It's just that we're in this kind of period of instability. I honestly don't think that Trump being sick, you know, exacerbates it that much because frankly it just means he's working even less on the stuff that he doesn't pay much attention to. Frankly, the national security threat is Trump infecting people like the military. I mean, that, you can't overstate it. Like, people can't go to work

in the White House because they're afraid of getting sick. The chairman of the agency staff is quarantined, like, that's a problem. But I don't think it's, you know, quite as big a problem that Trump, you know, is at the hospital or something. Yeah, I'm a little less concerned about the White House not standing up to China when they cracked out on Hong Kong since they already cracked out on Hong Kong and yeah, they already did that. So far, status quo, ante. Yeah, all the things that people say that the adversaries might make a move because they think the United States is distracted. Well, yeah, Russia poisoned election of all the leading oppositions. China passed national security laws to basically swallow Hong Kong. This has happened this summer because they saw that Trump was

distracted, right? Or doesn't care. So we're already living in that world. Yeah, we're all living that one. Let's turn to India for a minute because I think this is a very big deal and it's not getting a lot of attention for understandable reasons. Last week, Amnesty International announced that they were halting operations in India after Prime Minister Modi froze their bank accounts. So for those who aren't familiar with Amnesty's work, it's a widely respected nonprofit, the advocate on behalf of human rights. A lot of that work involves documenting and publicizing human rights abuses. And that's what got them on Modi's radar. So a friend of the pod, Ron Ayyub, had a great piece about this in the Washington Post. February feels like a billion years ago.

But remember, at that time, there were these really scary riots in violence against Muslims in India. And Amnesty documented instances where police officers in Delhi were aiding and abetting the rioters. They were giving them rocks. They were, like, you know, helping them hurt people. Amnesty is also called out arbitrary detentions and excessive force being used in Kashmir. Modi did not like any of that. He has a history of being someone who has benefited from and been in charge when Hindus attacked Muslims in India.

So this is a real sensitive point for him. So he basically used a law that restricts how non-governmental organizations like Amnesty can spend money to harass them essentially out of the country. And the specifics of how are less important than the fact that this is a trend among authoritarian governments. Russia has cracked down hard on NGOs. like Amnesty International. NGOs have been restricted or prevented from operating in places like Egypt, Turkey, Hungary. So I just really wanted to flag this one because it's part of a set of anti-democratic actions by Modi that should really worry us. I mean, this is the stuff you see

from Putin. You shouldn't see it in a democracy. Relatedly, Ben, the L.A. Times ran a piece a couple days ago about how Indian journalists who have reported on government mismanagement of the pandemic are facing prosecution and intimidation. They counted 55 journalists who have been arrested, investigated, or questioned by Indian police. So, I don't know, Ben, like, how worried are you about what we're learning about the trajectory for India's democracy and, like, what tools do you think are at the next president's disposal to counteract it? Well, I'll put in a brief plug.

Episode 5 of Missing America really goes deep on this with Rana Ayub, who's just a terrific, terrific, terrific reporter in person. but I think it's very worrying, and as we go through in that episode, that Modi, particularly since he's been reelected in the last year, has been unsettled by moving an undemocratic and Hindu nationalist direction. And this move where you essentially start to kick out civil society, restrict civil society, kick out international human rights organizations. Yeah, that's part of the playbook. But it's a playbook used by countries like Russia, you know, not by what's supposed to be the world's largest democracy, India, this, you know, vibrant dynamic.

place of people from different religions and different backgrounds. And Modi is methodically dismantling that. Per our last conversation, Tommy, like, this is the kind of thing you do when you think, well, maybe Joe Biden will win. And, you know, I'm going to, you know, run through this playbook as fast as I can so I don't have to deal with an American president giving me any grief over it. Because Donald Trump certainly isn't going to pick up the phone and be like, what are you doing with Amnesty International? So that worries me, too. In terms of what can be done, I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, do think that the U.S., you know, just, one, we have to set a better example on these things, which Trump hasn't done. And I wouldn't discount that because a lot of what Modi's done is kind of

ripped from the Trump playbook, too. Like he has his version of a Muslim ban among, you know, talks about the fake news, spreads disinformation. So set a better example. I think secondly, you know, incorporating human rights into our bilateral relationship more and raising these issues more directly. I think, you know, India traditionally has been a country that, you know, carries about what America thinks cares about international opinion. And right now, Modi clearly feels no pressure from that direction. I think another piece of this that's interesting is that Modi has gotten a lot of support and the BJP, as party, has gotten a lot of support from the United States, from the Indian diaspora here, which is very influential here and in India. And I just think this isn't a

problem solved by government alone. And, you know, this point was made by Rokana, an Indian American whose grandfather was actually imprisoned in India, supporting Gandhi. movement for independence, you know, the diaspora needs to start speaking up too, and their voices carry a lot of weight, and they've actually been generally favorable to Modi. But I think we just, you know, we have to see this for what it is, which is somebody moving a country, something we've seen, you know, in Turkey, something we've seen in Hungary. But this is, you know, a country of a billion people, the world's large democracy, moving it in the direction of a one-party repressive state. And that's in the long run, not good for India, because holding country together of a

billion people, you know, you can do it really in kind of two ways. One is a democracy that allows everybody to feel like they have a voice and the other is what we see in China, right? And I think India will be in the long run much better off if it embraces its diversity and its pluralism and its openness. That's what sets it apart from China. And so I think this should be on the agenda for the Biden administration, even though I'm sure they don't want to have a good strategic partnership with India. Yeah. And I heard part of today is missing America. episode this morning. I heard Jake talking about sort of having a conference of democracies to talk about this sort of set of issues to make sure we have our own houses in order. And I guess, you know,

hopefully put pressure on some of these more authoritarian tendencies among some of the leaders to try to fix it while we still can. So one will watch, I'm sure, very much on Biden's radar. Another issue sort of breaking as of today, it looks like there may be a coup in Kyrgyzstan. So there's reports that opposition groups have taken control, uh, of government buildings in the Capitol following protests over allegations of vote rigging, basically, in Sunday's parliamentary election. Kyrgyzstan Central Election Commission said that they're going to annul the results of that election, which had awarded the majority of seats to the current president.

CNN's reporting that one person has been killed. 590 were wounded with apologies to Jordan Waller. I'm not even going to try the name of the current president, but he is saying that this is a coup. the opposition has freed the former president who was in prison where he was being held on corruption charges. So it's not clear if these opposition groups are going to try to reinstall the former president. Kyrgyzstan is a former Soviet republic of just over six million people. They've dealt with multiple coups over the last couple decades. Ben, can you help listeners understand why this matters to the U.S. or sort of why this matters

geopolitically? Well, you know, Kyrgyzstan is one of these Central Asian countries. it is kind of balance between Russian influence, Chinese influence, and a degree of U.S. influence. So they basically become a country that is subjected to a lot of corruption fueled by either Russian interests or Chinese interests or, in some cases, you know, Western corporate interests. And, you know, there's a small country that has trouble resisting those antibodies. Why is it important? I mean, it's important baseline because people everywhere deserve functioning democratic institutions

elections where their votes are counted and their leaders aren't on the take. And so we should support those principles everywhere. I think it's also important because the extent to which a Russia is seeking to try to dictate or shape events in former Soviet republics has been a growing trend. And so watch what Russia does here. Watch what hand they play. The Chinese are pumping more money into places like Kyrgyzstan. So in some ways, this kind of sometimes becomes either a competition of influence between Russia or China or sometimes they back the same person. Obviously, what we want to see, the world does want to see, is just some mechanism, a process for this to have a democratic outcome where, you know, elections are determining leaders and not

repeated coups. Kyrgyzstan is up against a lot. I mean, they're not in a democratic neighborhood when you look at, you know, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. But, I mean, I, you know, I think it's important, you know, this is why you'd want to function the international system and you'd want the United Nations to be a venue to be raising these issues. That's not currently the case. But clearly, I mean, I don't know enough about these protests to speak with any kind of authority whatsoever about what's motivating them. But, you know, when you watch the images, it's like how many countries are we seeing people who are just fed up, you know? In this case, they'd literally

scale the fence of their White House, and it's actually called the White House. I mean, there's something thing happening out there. We keep saying this, but I mean, how many countries have we now talked about on this show where people basically got fed up with a mixture of corruption and anti-democratic behavior? I think to that point about that Jake made about a democratic conference, like the idea of trying to, the U.S. once again, if Biden wins, trying to breathe momentum into the popular mobilizations that we're seeing and give them some structure and give them some agenda that is common and give them some sense of international support is going to be really important to give these people a fighting chance who are just trying to protest for the same things. Again, I think it's too early

to tell exactly what the source of these protests is. So I don't think we can put this in a Belarus category yet in that regard. But I do think when you look at it, you just can't help but think something is happening out there. People are just fed up. And this is going to keep happening. And the U.S. needs to get its arms around this and try to mobilize the world's democracies to play a role to support people. Yeah, agreed. So sticking the same general. neighborhood for a minute. So last week we talked about fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the disputed Nekorno-Karabakh region. So that territory that we talked about is part of Azerbaijan, but the population is mostly Armenian in the area as functionally controlled by

Armenian separatist groups that are backed by the Armenian government. Complicating matters, again, is the fact that Turkey is allied with Azerbaijan, Russia is allied with Armenia. So it becomes this proxy battle. And so unfortunately, Ben, it sounds like Turkey is really upping the anti. The New York Times reported that the Armenian prime minister called the White House. I think he talked to the national security advisor to basically say, hey, why is no one stopping Turkey from using American-made F-16 jets in these bombing raids in Nagorno-Karbach? You know, Turkey is a NATO ally. You guys sold them this hardware. And so, you know, Ben, it was troubling to read this because you could see a scenario where this escalates further NATO gets drawn in, et cetera. So

two-part question. I mean, first, just like a temperature check on how worried you are about the latest here. And the second question is sort of to your point earlier and about Russia. I mean, Russia views Eastern Europe, the Caucasus region, Central Asia as part of their sphere of influence. How do you think Putin feels about a possible coup in Kyrgyzstan, intense fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and nearly two months of pretty intense political turmoil in Belarus? I suspect he's not in love with that going on at once. Yeah, to your last point, you're exactly right. These are two other former Soviet republics, you know.

And so this idea that has been built up that Putin is this master, you know, mastermind, chessmaster orchestrating events in all these places. These are not the events he'd be orchestrating, right? And you see on his periphery, you know, a mix of instability and corruption and democratic protests, right? So I think it does highlight that let's tone down the idea that just because it was so easy for him to have a mark in the White House doesn't mean that there's an inevitability to it even in the former Soviet Union. I'm very concerned about this. And look, like it's a contested area. But let's also unpack some of this.

Like watching this, it does feel like, you know, number one, Azerbaijan and Turkey feel like the aggressors here. you know, at a minimum they've been escalating things and you see Turkey coming in. Number two, Armenia had a very hopeful democratic transition in recent years where, you know, there was a protest movement that led to a changing government and they're trying to do the right things. Azerbaijan is the opposite. You know, they've got one of these guys who's been in charge forever, you know, kind of a former Soviet apparatchik, you know. And so, you know, it's hard for your sympathies not to lie with the democracy here. And then number three, as was underscored at a protest here in Los Angeles of the Armenian-American

community, you know, the historical echoes of Turkey going into, you know, a contested area and killing Armenians is not good. You know, I mean, this is a country, Turkey that undertook a genocide against Armenia, you know, and frankly, the reason Armenia is such a small state is. in part because they were driven, you know, into this small enclave landlocked, you know. So I do think that the recent events, you know, in what has always been seen as a frozen conflict and in a difficult issue to resolve, you know, this balance does seem to be tipping of sympathy towards Armenia in this picture. And so again, I think for the U.S. and Europe to try to play

constructive role to just end this fighting and de-escalate the situation and make the point I've said before in the show, like Turkey is a NATO ally. Like that there's no reason that that has to be inevitable. You know, they're not behaving as a democracy and they're, you know, we should be looking at whether or not the benefits of Turkey's full participation in NATO are worth, you know, the challenge to NATO's existence as an alliance of democracies. It shows restraint in global affairs. It's also interesting to see how pockets of Armenian Americans are pretty well organized.

Like the mayor of Los Angeles put out a statement about the fighting. I thought that was interesting and reflected some effective and intense lobbying, probably, from his constituents. I mean, this is worth talking about because Los Angeles is the second largest Armenian city in the world. And this is not just the Kardashians here. You know, there's a ton of Armenians live in Los Angeles, including, by the way, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles. of Nina Hichigan, who worked in the Obama administration with me. But I think also it does demonstrate that like an organized diaspora community can have an important voice.

And that can be good, bad in between. But I think it's usually a good that they're raising the perspectives of people who might not otherwise be heard in American foreign policy, you know. Yeah, for sure. This is definitely like a white hat. This is a more white hat thing. Raise awareness about violence that is hurting both sides of a conflict. So good for them.

One last thing on Russia. So, Ben, this weekend on CBS's Face the Nation, Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien, said that during recent meetings with his Russian counterpart in Geneva, he warned him that there would be no tolerance for any interference in the November election. And this is a real quote, Ben, the Russians have committed to doing so. So there you have it. an ironclad commitment from the Russians brought directly to you from the National Security Advisor. In his defense, he did the whole like trust but verify, blah, blah, blah thing. But the fact

that he even would regurgitate that is absurd. No mention of the fact that the FBI director testified about ongoing Russian interference back in September, right? Never mind that the CIA has reportedly determined that Putin is directing these efforts to help Trump, ignore all the tech companies that have released evidence of Russian interference so far this year. I don't know about you, man. I don't really feel safer having heard O'Brien's assurances. And also, just having talked to John Brennan and read the book a minute ago, like, can you imagine John, who was, by the way, the first person to call over to the Russians in 16 and say, knock it off? Obviously, that was not effective. It might have been too late. But I just can't imagine, like, John regurgitating the Russian line to a U.S. audience like that. It's absurd. Yeah. Well, the whole thing is absurd. Its whole thing is patently ridiculous. I mean, you know, Trump himself stood there with Putin and said, you know, He trusted Putin that they didn't interfere in the last election when we knew they did. The Russians know that Trump is not going to hold them accountable. The Russians know that whatever O'Brien said to them, if somehow Trump wins, it's not

like Trump is going to look into it or have consequences on them for what they did. Give me a break. But look, and who's this guy? I mean, like, this is the guy. Like, a couple years ago, what he was trying to get ASAP Rocky out of prison, you know, in Scandinavia. Like, this guy doesn't get enough attention because, you know, he's. He's not quite as nefarious as Bill Barr just because he's more incompetent.

But this guy's a total flunky for Trump, you know? And so the whole point of this was for him to kind of appear like he did something and give them a talking point. I mean, that's all this was. It's so that from now the election, if people ask him at Russian interference, they can say, well, Brian delivered a strong message and the Russians assured him of this when nobody believes it. I mean, it's just, it is what it is.

It's a joke. Total joke. So Jordan Waller, the producer mentioned earlier here at Cricket Media, who's going to be mad at me for my terrible lack of pronunciation ability, flag this amazing story from 2018 that is weird and odd and worth talking about despite its age. So Vice News did a piece about this proliferation of music videos that are written and produced by militaries. It came up in this context because the lead example in this story is Azerbaijan's state border service, who they've been fighting with Armenia.

So, Ben, imagine, like, the typical cheesy bullshit, like normal 80s rock videos. But then you give the producers, who is probably not Spike Jones in this instance, like military hardware to play with, right? Like tanks, helicopters, Navy ships, rocket launchers, real stuff, real troops. China and Russia have made music videos to help them recruit. Iraq has these like music video, hype videos. Stepping back, like the U.S. does similar stuff. We'll put the link to this story in show notes, right?

But it does raise a question that's sort of been swirling my head for a while about the ethical and moral lines about military recruiting to like 17, 18 year old, younger maybe audiences. Is it wrong or unethical to portray war as a music video? What about Top Gun? What about other military movies? What about the military recruiting on Twitch by having service members play call of duty against other people? You know, I don't have a good answer, but I thought it was an interesting conversation in debate that starts with us sort of like laughing at these goofy music videos from abroad, should probably lead to some introspection about how we're,

you know, how we're talking about the military in the U.S., like 13-year-old kids on Twitch. Yeah, I mean, on a light side, you can look at it, and it is funny,

but I'm unfortunately going to take it to the darker side, which is, well, yeah, like, as you say, you know, we grew up with this subtext, right? I mean, yeah, top gun,

totally romanticizing, the experience of being a fighter pilot, you know, but a whole history of movies that did that, on top of the basic advertising, the few, the proud,

you know, the whole thing. But then, you know, I think where it got a little darker, frankly, is like you've got video games like Call of Duty, right? You know, you got a gamer set that, you know, I think is probably being targeted by the military for recruitment because it's like, oh, you like the video game. Well, you know, why didn't to try it the new thing? And in the U.S., part of what happened is as things got worse in the post-9-11 wars, they also started lowering kind of certain requirements for who could join the military. and, you know, the idea of appealing to, look, I think there's a good in it, right? There's a good in the sense of like the military has given a sense of purpose and structure to people who didn't otherwise have it.

And there's enormous success stories of people, you know, who were somewhat lost and found themselves in the military and went on and have great careers. But I do think it to be mindful that, you know, are you suggesting to people that this is a video game? Are you, you know, because the real experience is going to be quite different, you know. And are you in your recruitment process, you know, are you making sure that you're looking hard at the personality type so that you're not, I don't know, letting in the wrong people who might be in it for the wrong reasons? So it is worth considering, you know, hopefully if we get out of these Forever Wars, you know, looking at how we recruit and looking at at the ways in which, you know, we are, you know, predict. projecting the military experience to people to draw them in. And I would hope that there's less, you know, appeal to people that this is like Call of Duty or this is like a movie and more like, no, this is bad service and it may be

very hard, but it can also be very rewarding. Yeah. And look, this is not just a military problem, right? There was zero dark 30 and the way it sort of was seen as recruiting tool for the CIA. But I agree with you, like, you know, I think if you're portraying war as a game or as glamorous or as cool, that is dangerously misleading to someone who could lose their life in service of the country. So yes, bring it back to first principles. It's turned to Ethiopia because the BBC reported that Ethiopia has banned all flights over this mega dam project they are building on a

tributary of the Nile River, the Blue Nile, citing security concerns. And I thought it was a way, I should wait into this discussion because this dam has become a huge source of tension in the region, and we should talk about it. So it's called the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, or GERD. It is massive. This thing is going to cost $5 billion. And once it begins producing electricity in the next year or so, it will be the biggest hydroelectric plant in Africa. And it could provide power to up to 65 million people in Ethiopia. So you can understand why the government would want to do this. The problem is the river, the Bunile, flows north into Sudan and then to Egypt. And it could constrain their water. And Egypt called the dam a threat of existential proportions. That's a

quote, because they get basically all their water from the Nile. And this reduces the flow, obviously. And so the U.S. has tried to broker a diplomatic agreement, but that has failed thus far. About a month ago, the U.S., some U.S. officials were quoted saying they would cut aid to Ethiopia. You know, militaries are sort of like on alert in case something happens. I think that's why this flyover restriction happened. So, Ben, you know, a couple of reasons. I thought this is worth talking about. First, like, it's just a major dispute between three big, well-armed countries. And then second, I do think that people should be aware that, you know, water disputes and water scarcity like this is likely to increase in the near future because of

climate change. This feels like a test case. I don't know. Is there anything else you think people need to know, or does anything, you know, you think can be done to mediate this? Or is this just like a zero-sum existential thing for these countries? Yeah, no, I, well, you. your last point is when I was going to hit, which is that, you know, this, get ready for a lot more of this, you know, as resources become more scarce because of climate change while populations grow and the need to provide people with energy and electricity and, like, you know, becomes more acute. This came up a bit in the end of the Obama administration, and we began to mediate some of this, and there's no substitute for trying to get these countries into some form of dialogue so

they can determine how to share the resources, how to address concerns of other countries as you build projects like this, maybe perhaps how to share in the output of projects like this. Oftentimes, regional organizations can be useful in addressing this, right? So in Southeast Asia, there's ASEAN as a grouping of 10 countries there that addresses a lot of these shared environmental concerns, you know, Egypt and Ethiopia, both part of the African Union. So part of what you'd like to see is diplomacy, you know, including engagement by world powers like the U.S., but also at the regional level to just start to figure out what is a fair way to, you know, share resources that flow through multiple countries.

Because otherwise what you're going to have increasingly with climate change is the risk of resource wars where people are going to be back in the business of fighting over things like water, you know. Right. Two more lighter things before we get to John Brennan. So big breaking news here. Last week, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the bread served at Subway, like Subway Subs, is not legally considered bread because it has too much sugar in it. Instead, they have ruled that it is technically a confectionary. So this case ended up in Ireland's legal

system because in Ireland, bread is considered a staple and therefore it is not subject to their value-added tax like sales tax. But pastries and ice cream and other sweets are tax. So here's the rub. A six-inch sub-roll from Subway contains five grams of sugar. That exceeds Ireland's standard. Just for context, like a standard sugar cube, if we have any listeners in the UK, they'll get this instantly. That is four grams of sugar. I guess a McDonald's Big Macbun has even more sugar than a Subway sub that's 5.8 grams. So this is all diligently reported out by the Guardian, who also reminded us that in 2014 Subway removed a flour whitening agent from its baked goods that is used to manufacture yoga mats and rug pads.

So that is delicious. And a statement to the Guardian, a subway rep said, quote, Subway's bread is, of course, bread, end quote. So there you have it. I'm very mad about this. I naively thought that Subway was the healthy option when I was driving reporters around in Downstate Illinois or living in Iowa or the campaign trail or on a road trip for the last couple of decades.

very upsetting stuff then. Upsetting news. Yeah, I mean, I hope you didn't fall for those ad campaigns either, right? Whereas like, you know, eat nothing but subway and lose like 100 pounds or something. Yeah, that guy didn't end well for him. Yeah, that guy had a bit of a fall from grace. So we won't go there. Look, yeah, it could be a backdoor way in a clever way, frankly, for the Irish to raise a little more revenue.

And, you know, you see stuff like this. This is kind of nuts and bolts of international relations, right? like, you know, can I get a little more advantage and a little more revenue out of that, that subway bread? But, I mean, I got to tell you, like, I've had my concerns about the subway meats. Um, uh, in, they don't, well, they don't, like, I mean, it doesn't always look exactly like that meat, you know, I mean, it reminded me, I mean, I'm glad Subway's not a sponsor the show. There's no promo code here. But, um, uh, you know, remind me the KFC thing, right? Remember when KFC was found not to be chickens or the gun,

Kentucky Fried Chicken. And I think KFC took corrective action here. So if the outcome of this is that Subway has a little less sugar and their bread, you know, that's, everybody can win in the end, right? That is a good outcome. Subway could like, you know, make this a little healthier, a little less sugar. You know, that might make it a little less addictive, but still. And then they won't have to pay this VAT tax in Ireland.

Yeah. So the former spokesman for Subway Jared Fogel went to jail for having child pornography on his computer, which is depraved and disgusted. and I hope he stays there for a very long time. But before that happened, I remember he got sent up to Capitol Hill for some reason. I don't know why. It's probably part of this stupid advertising campaign. And, like, again, I really did, like, constantly eat Subway on the campaign trail.

It just was, like, easier than, like, Wendy's or whatever. It felt healthier. And I remember Obama ran into Jared and, like, he, like, leaked it to the press or whatever that Obama said something great about Subway. And we were like, Senator, did you actually say this? And he was like, no, he ran up to me and asked me about Subway. and Obama said to him, how do you eat that shit every day? But they leaked it out like it was some super favorable thing.

So whatever. Subway's fine. I'll continue to eat it. Back of the day, I was a Blimpies guy. Oh, okay. What's the one in Chicago that has the really good subs? It was Jimmy Johns. Jimmy Johns is good.

The other one. I always got the wreck. Oh, Potbelly? Pot belly. Your pot belly guy? Love pot belly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, they're big in D.C.

There's a pop belly, a kiddie corner of the White House. and I used to hit that. I used to do the breakfast sandwiches there, too. Those are excellent. For the once every six months, you left the building to eat food. Last topic. So we're going to talk a little English Premier League football

because Arsenal, the EPL team. They are taking heat because they fire their mascot. Gunnersaurus after 27 years of service. If you want to imagine Gunnersaurus in your head, imagine Yoshi from Mario Kart in an Arsenal jersey in a red baseball cap and he's about eight feet tall. That's him. The mascot was played by a human being named Jerry Kwai since 1993.

And I guess the rationale for firing him was to say, you know, we don't have in-person fans or games, so why have a mascot, which just is dumb. The good news is someone set up a GoFundMe Pades that said, let's keep him going for another 65 million years and save him from twerking on only fans for a living. So the good news that sounds like this is going to be reversed. but Ben, I don't know, how many billion-dollar franchises have owners that would fire a beloved mascot after 27 years? Maybe it's better business not to be a dick, just a thought. Yeah, I mean, these owners, right? These are basically billionaires, like the 1% of the 1%. I mean, cut the mascot a

break here. I'm a Met fan and, you know, Mr. Met, beloved. I mean, just beloved, right? I mean, the team is terrible, but the mascot is always there. He's got a big baseball head. He's always got a smile on his face. And I'll tell you, actually, I, um, when I moved out of my apartment in Queens to move down to D.C., Mr. Met looked at my apartment. He didn't wear the, the baseball head when he came. Really? But I was like Starstruck. I couldn't, you know, believe that Mr. Met might actually move into my apartment, um, along with those people who, like, fired the T-shirt cannons into the crowd. I mean, in all, seriously, these are not people making the big bucks, though. I mean, so come on, come on, guys.

No, there's like, they love the sport. You know, they love the team. Like, yeah, you're going to fire Wally the Green Monster. You're going to fire Pat the Patriot. Get out of here with that shit. Premier League is doing just fine, okay? In fact, you guys have, like, encroached significantly on the American sports market. Like, you know, come on.

Yeah. Just keep your mascot. Like, do we need a mascot stimulus here? Seriously. We might. Well, Trump just tanked all additional stimulus until after the election. So, you know, political genius there. Okay.

When we come back, we'll have our interview with John Brennan about his new book, Undaunted, and his time at the CIA, the White House and everything in between. So stick around. We are so excited to have on the show our friend, our former colleague, former CIA director, John Brennan, who is out with a fantastic new memoir, Undaunted, which I'm holding up, which is stupid because this is a podcast. John, it's great to see you. Good to see you, Tommy, and Ben as well.

So thank you for the invitation. It's great to be on. You know, listen, it's great to see you again. You were one of my favorite people to work with at the White House. But also, this is a really great book. I picked it up last night thinking I'd skip around to read a bunch of chapters. And I ended up reading way more than I expected because it's incredibly readable. It's great stories from your time growing up in Jersey. If you're your time at the White House, from the time at the CIA, the younger John Brennan, who was stationed abroad in places like Saudi Arabia. So I really think people will learn. a lot about you as a person in the intelligence community generally if they read this. But that kind of leads me to my first question, which is you were a guy who spent a lot of time behind the scenes. You often had to withhold information from your own family. Now you're someone who is a very public critic of the Trump administration on Twitter to the point where I think even Mike Pompeo called you to complain and scold you, which was pretty pathetic sounding.

Now you're the author of a memoir. How is your general comfort, level with that shift? Well, I think when I joined President Obama in the White House in January of 2009, I started to come out of my intelligence shell because one of the requirements for that position was to speak publicly. And I had a number of speeches to talk about the president's characterization, program, and policies and considerations. I also was the Homeland Security Advisor.

And thinking back in the early months of the Obama administration, we, we were a lot of we had to deal with the H1N1 pandemic. And all of a sudden, I was pushed out in front of a lectern and had to talk about that without my medical background at all. But one of the things I greatly appreciated about President Obama was his reliance on science and the medical experts. But I just found that my four years during the Obama administration, his first term, I really had to talk more and more about national security issues and intelligence.

And when I went back to CIA, I carried that back with me, because I do think it's important for the American people to understand the very important role of the intelligence community because there are just so many mischaracterizations and misrepresentations out there about what it's all about. And that's why I decided to write this memoir so that I could share it with the American people. And also to convince some young Americans to pursue a career in intelligence and security. This is a tremendous country. I benefited greatly from my 33 plus years in government, and I hope that the best and brightest among young Americans will consider public service as part of their career path. So, John, diving into one of the subjects in your book, Russia, the last time I think I saw you in the Oval Office, you, together with the leaders of the intelligence community, were giving a briefing to President Obama and his senior team on the Russian Interimpherson.

in the 2016 election and kind of the results of the review that conclusively found, as conclusively as the intelligence community can, at least a high-confidence assessment of Russia's efforts on behalf of Donald Trump. And then I know after that briefing, which was a chilling briefing to receive, you were part of a similar briefing team for President Trump at Trump Tower. And, you know, I was wondering, you know, what you can share with us, you know, how you address that in your book, the briefing with President Trump. And whether, I mean, to me, one of the most frustrating things in the last few years is the extent to which just the reality of that Russian interference has been upended,

question, challenged. I'm sure that the kind of 40% of the country that lives in in the information system of Donald Trump's Twitter feed and Fox News really just doesn't believe that happened. I mean, could you have foreseen when you walked out of Trump Tower that the assault essentially that would be waged for four years on just the fact of Russian interference, and what concern does that give you today? Well, Ben, I did brief, along with Jim Comey and Jim Clapper and Mike Rogers Menaisei, President Obama and Vice President Biden and you and a few others at the White House the day before we briefed Donald Trump up at Trump Tower. One of the great things I admired

about President Obama, indeed all of the presidents I had served and I had served for six, that they greatly appreciated and respected the work of the intelligence community. That doesn't mean that they didn't have questions about it and even challenge it because the intelligence really needs to be questioned and challenged, but they greatly respected it and had confidence that we tried to do our best work and providing insights into our national leadership. When I went to Trump Tower, that was the first and only time I met with Donald Trump. And I could tell that he was not really,

receiving the information the way my previous first customers had. He was looking at it with a rather skeptical eye and being very dismissive in many respects of the conclusions of the intelligence community assessment, wherein we said that it was Vladimir Putin who directed this interference effort to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump get elected. And so I detail in the book, the back and forth that went on with Donald Trump, as well as with some members. members of Congress on this issue. And unfortunately, Donald Trump and some of the Republicans at that time were more concerned with getting Donald Trump elected and not looking at the Russian interference and the grave threat that I believe that Russian intelligence activity poses to our democracy

and our national security. So it was a much different briefing for Donald Trump than any I had given for others, other presidents. he was quite skeptical of what we were telling him. He kept pointing out that it could have been China, it could have been China, even though the findings were conclusive as far as what Russia was doing. So when I left Trump Tower that day,

and I say in the book, I had a very ominous feeling that we were entering a very difficult chapter of our nation's history because I didn't believe that Donald Trump had the experience, the temperament, the attitude, or the right understanding of the role of the United States and the world and just the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief.

I think he was assuming the job, thinking how this is going to enhance his status, his reputation, and maybe also in the future his financial prospects. I didn't get a sense that he was putting the country first and foremost. It reinforced my strong suspicion that he had always put Donald Trump first and would continue to do so when he went to the White House. So, and you mentioned the China point. You know, I was struck by the statement by the DNI that seemed to draw for 2020, for the 2020 election, an equivalence between what Russia was doing for Trump and what China, they said, was doing for Biden. When my assumption is just China always has kind of anti-U.S. information campaigns and they're

trying to draw that equivalence. How worried are you about Russian interference this time around? And how much do you think we might see more of this, you know, rooted all the way back in that Trump Tower meeting, this effort to kind of cast it as if China's doing the same thing? And really, you know, there's nothing to be worried about with Russian interference. I mean, how concerned should we be about, again, both that fact of Russian interference and the possibility that if Joe Biden wins, there'll be this, I think, false allegation of Chinese assistance?

Well, I think it is quite clear in my mind that Russia is hoping that Donald Trump is going to be reelected and that the Russian intelligence services will do what they did in 2016, which is to launch as many, information operations as possible to try to shape the attitudes, the sentiments, and the votes, the American people so that Donald Trump is reelected. It's quite clear that Donald Trump has given Vladimir Putin a pass.

His very strange obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin is just very, very puzzling. But the Russians have benefited from Donald Trump's presidency, and I think that's why they want another four years of that. I would argue that I think the Chinese have a mixed mind as far as whether or not they want Biden or Trump elected. I think Joe Biden will continue to engage the Chinese to try to strike a better balance in our trade relations because there are things that need to be addressed there. I think he will do it in a more thoughtful way and in a more effective way.

But the Chinese have to be very concerned that Joe Biden will hit there. for human rights abuses and the types of things that they're doing in Hong Kong and against the Uyghur Muslims in China as well as just the continued repression of freedom of speech and freedoms inside of China. So, you know, I do think that the Chinese, you know, have a very sophisticated cyber capability. They'll probably get engaged somehow. But it might be, you know, trying to do it on both sides as a way to further throw sand in the, in the political mechanics of the United States as a way to distract the government from engaging on some of these issues that I think we really need to have a more effective policy vis-à-vis

China. John, you served in Saudi Arabia twice. You developed close working relationships with top Saudi officials. Those relationships paid enormous dividends for the United States in 2010 when Saudi officials alerted you to an AQAP plot to send a bomb, two bombs, actually, in a printer cartridge to the United States. In fact, those bombs were in transit when they were located and disassembled by, I believe, British authorities. But Saudi Arabia today, under Muhammad bin Salman, has taken a dark turn. Many of the officials that you and others had a close relationship with have been deposed

or kind of pushed out of senior leadership. Mahomet bin Salman ordered the execution of Jamal Khashoggi journalist. If Joe Biden is elected, how do you think he should approach Saudi Arabia in this new context? Well, I think we need to continue to try to work with the Saudis because they are a very important player in the Middle East. The U.S. Saudi relationship is an important one. But as you point out, Muhammad bin Salman really has been appalling in terms of types of things that he's done, the horrific murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, but also the incarceration of a number of activists inside of Saudi Arabia, including women who have been maltreated. He is very much an authoritarian and has a monopoly on political power there.

And I think when Joe Biden is elected and is inaugurated, I believe that he needs to send very clear signals early to Saudi Arabia that the type of activities that Muhammad's Salman has been responsible for need to cease immediately if they believe, if they want to have a good relationship with Washington. Unfortunately, although some of the members of Congress, Republican members, have spoken out against some of these atrocities in Saudi Arabia, they really have, I think, bent to Donald Trump's will. And what I would recommend to Joe Biden is that he send almost a bipartisan, you know, group over to Saudi Arabia. to let the Saudi leadership, King Salman, as well as MBS, know that this is a, the dawn of a new day

has occurred in terms of the U.S. government and its approach to Saudi Arabia, and that we're not going to countenance at all, the continued trampling of human rights inside of Saudi Arabia. I am hoping that the counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia has continued, but I must tell you, I have real, real concerns that Mohammed Salman, if he's left to his own devices, and he has been, you know, by Donald Trump and others at the White House, will continue to suppress and oppress the people of Saudi Arabia. You know, it's interesting when I was the head of CIA and at the White House, my counterpart was Muhammad bin Nayef, who was an outstanding counterterrorism partner and one of the person who called me that time

to let us know about those printed cartridges that they were being put into a cargo plane coming to the United States. It could have been a horrific terrorist attack with a plane's fuselage coming down in an urban center. And Maham bin Nayev talked about the need for political reform in Saudi Arabia

and evolving into a constitutional monarchy. So some progress has been made under Mohammed Salman, but at the same time it has come at, I think, a great cost. And this is, again, something that Joe Biden and the Biden administration are going to have to come to terms with early on. Yeah. I mean, sort of a related issue is, you know, again, I know from working with you that you have a deep affection for the people of Yemen for the country that you're, you know, you would talk to President Sala all the time on the phone. You talk to President Hadi all the time on the phone.

And those weren't just counterterrorism discussions or talks about governance and assistance and all sorts of manners of the U.S. relationship. But it's another area where I think, you know, in large part because of the Saudis, things have gotten very bad. The Saudi-led war against the Houthi rebels, which President Obama initially supported, has become a humanitarian catastrophe. Do you have regrets in hindsight about Obama's initial support for that military effort or advice for Joe Biden or whomever on how they could fix it? No, I don't have regrets. When I spent a lot of time working on Yemen, I traveled to Yemen about 10 times during the the Obama administration. I remember President Obama one time telling me in the Oval Office when I was briefing him on Yemen, he said he never expected before he became president that he would spend so

much time learning about Yemen and hearing about Yemen and having to deal with Yemen. But it was a hotbed for terrorist activity, but also given the change political environment there, in terms of the Houthi rebels that ousted the government. And then there were missile attacks coming from Yemen into Saudi Arabia. President Obama decided that we would early on in this conflict in Yemen provide the Saudi some intelligence as well as continue to resupply some Saudi military arsenal in order to help protect some of the civilian centers in Saudi Arabia that were being subjected to these missile strikes. And they were very sharply curtailed.

limits to what it was that the United States was providing to Yemen, to Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, when Donald Trump became president, I think those restrictions were loosened, and we have seen just three and a half years of constant conflict, and Yemen has been ravaged. It is a modern day tragedy, a beautiful country, beautiful people that have been just beset by poverty, malnourishment, war, fighting, terrorism. And it's one of the things that I think the international community really needs to focus on. You know, countries like Yemen and Somalia and others really need that outside assistance. But unfortunately, the Trump administration really has not given the type of attention to these humanity, human crises that are required.

And so I am hoping that when Joe Biden becomes president, that he's going to send a signal to Saudi Arabia that you cannot just continue in this endless war, but also there needs to be a multilateral international effort to try to address Yemen's dire needs. John, I wanted to ask you about the CIA. You know, like a lot of Americans, the CIA occupied a huge place in my imagination, but I didn't really know people who worked at the CIA. and, you know, I'm a liberal, so I had my skepticism of the CIA's history as some things they did, although I also admired many things about it. And you were one of the first people I met, you know, who had spent a lifetime the CIA. And it was interesting for me working government for years to get to realize that the CIA is a human institution, right, filled with hardworking people, almost all of them in it for good motivations.

And I'm sure that, you know, I know that part of what you know, you're trying to do in your book is motivate people to serve in different ways and show that human element of the CIA. How do you at the same time, and you've had to deal with, obviously, the controversies around, you know, waterboarding and, you know, the post-9-11 accesses of the CIA, while at the same time, obviously, you know, huge successes like the bin Laden operation, how do you simultaneously, you know, make the case for the agency and the people who work there, as I know you have done passionately, while also acknowledging that like any human institution,

it has flaws and it has done terrible wrongs. I mean, how do you strike that balance between being a defender and an advocate and also recognizing the darker histories that call upon people to change? What is that balance in your view? I think it's a challenging balance, and I had difficulty over the years

sometimes in striking the appropriate balance, between being part of an institution that was engaged in some types of activities that I didn't agree with. But I still felt that the mission of the CIA was integral to this country's national security. And so what I tried to do when I became director of CIA was to try to instill in every CIA officer that although we are involved in very sensitive

intelligence activities, including the conduct of covert action, and some activities that are very, very controversial. I believe that we need to engage in principled and ethical, and even moral intelligence activities. Yes, when we would go overseas and we would try to recruit assets who basically are committing treason against their country, we are engaged in violations of foreign laws,

but we have to be always adhering to American law. And sometimes I felt that some CIA officers felt that they had a certain, you know, sort of carte blanche to do things. And I think sometimes didn't keep in mind the need to have that ethical and principled, you know, guidepost in terms of how they carried out their intelligence duties. So when I was at CIA, for example, after 9-11, and the CIA had the detention interrogation program, I talk in the book about how I was appalled and also even nauseated when I read a account of the waterboarding of an al-Qaeda detainee, Abu Zabeda. I knew about the program. I wasn't in the chain of command, so I wasn't involved in a lot of the discussions that had

details. But when I read that cable, it made real what I found to be an offensive program. And so I spoke up a little bit about it. I spoke to my superiors. But what I say in the book is that I find that I was too silent. I didn't do enough, I guess, to express my concerns. But yet it was a program that was duly authorized by the commander-in-chief, George Bush. It was deemed to be lawful by the highest legal advisory body in the executive branch,

which is the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice. It was briefed to the congressional committees of jurisdiction and the congressional leadership. So it had all of the features and attributes of what the CIA was legally allowed to do and also obligated to do based on its charter. So there were times that I had to decide whether or not I want to be part of an organization that was engaged in things that I personally did not approve of. But yet, I believe that the CIA was engaged in trying to protect my fellow citizens in the homeland from a recurrence of the horrific attacks of 9-11.

So, you know, it's something that every CIA officer has to deal with. And when I would administer the oath of office to new CIA employees every month, I would tell them that the CIA is involved in different types of activities. And if they believe that they cannot carry out these activities and their responsibilities fully and responsibly, they need to speak up and speak out. So, yes, the CIA is an imperfect institution. We are all imperfect bodies. But I really do believe that over time, over the course of its 75-year history or so, the CIA no longer is engaged in some of those tactics.

and activities that I think rightly have been denounced in the past. You also recount, you know, one of the great successes in history of the CIA, the bin Laden operation and the meticulous analysis and work that went into that. You know, after that success, I remember the next morning, Tommy and I encouraged you to brief our press that was voraciously hungry for any detail on the operation. I remember that. Sorry about that. Yeah.

So obviously there's fog of war. And so the initial accounts, you know, changed as all the operators were debriefed. And so you got a lot of flack for relaying what you thought to be, you know, the accounts because that's what we'd heard. My question is really just, did you want to kill me and Tommy? We're sorry for that. what should have been the high point of your professional life, we gave you a headache. So I wanted to apologize and just ask why you were so restrained and generous and not taking that out on me and Tommy. I guess it's a bit of a sign of how, I'm not right in my book,

the fact the Republicans were criticizing us within 24 hours that been law and operation also says something about the failure of them to give credit to anything Obama did. But I'm giving you the chance here to take it out on us. if you want. Well, you know, someone recommended to me that I should write about that account of briefing the press the morning after the bin Laden raid. And it was my job. I was the president's assistant for counterterrorism. And so I went out there and spoke. I think Mike Fickers from the Department of Defense also was with me and spoke. I remember Bob Gates afterward, basically saying something like, well, the White House should shut up about this. Well, I disagreed with Bob Gates

because obviously it was a very important milestone in our country's history. And we needed to be as forthcoming as source of methods would allow. And so I went out there, and I think what you're referring to was I called Bill McCraven right before I went out just to get the latest from him. And Bill told me some things that I then said at the press conference, including that bin Laden before he was shot was reaching for an AK-47. him. And I think the press asked me, well, did he fire any shots? I said, no, I don't believe so, but he was reaching for it. I think then Tommy came into my office and then talking with, you know,

some others, maybe Nick Shapiro, went out with a correction. Well, the thing that bothers me a bit, Tommy, was that there shouldn't have been a correction because, in fact, it has come out in some of the books that were published by some of those that were involved in the bin Laden raid, that yes, bin Laden had his AK-47. In fact, it's in CIA's museum right now, on a shelf, and that he was reaching for that in that direction when he was shot and killed. And so it made it sound as though, you know,

I misspoken on that issue, when in fact, I believe it was an accurate account of what was happening there in the heat of battle. There were no, you know, it wasn't a firefighter or whatever else, but again, I was trying to be as forthcoming as possible. And when I was at the White House, as well as at CIA, I frequently was criticized, including by, you know, people in the intelligence and counterterrorism community,

for speaking out too much. I think I was the first U.S. official to acknowledge that the United States was using drones to carry out offensively lethal actions against terrorists. You know, is the worst kept secret in Washington. So I delivered a number of speeches. Everything in it might not have been 100% accurate, but I tried my best to inform the American public about what we were doing and also to try to counter a lot of the misinformation

that was out there that really misrepresented reality. Again, the book is undaunted and John remains undaunted even on this issue. I love Bob Gates suggesting that we should not talk about the most important. intelligence operation in the history of the country or that we could somehow just pretend that we didn't accidentally park a helicopter inside a compound in Abbottabad, but that's another issue. I mean, you are very forthcoming in this book on a broader set of counterterrorism issues. You include sort of a recreation, I believe, of what a discussion was like when you had to ask President Obama to authorize a lethal strike, often a drone strike against a terrorist target.

Can you describe those moments for listeners and why you wanted to include that in the book? Well, I do think that there have been a lot of allegations in the international press and the domestic press, as well as by various pundits and armchair generals who claim that the number of civilian casualties during the Obama administration when we were conducting counterterrorism operations was in the thousands. it was not. One of the things that I greatly admired about President Obama and why I agreed to work with him in his administration was because our views about the sanctity of life and the importance of not taking innocent life as we conduct our responsibilities was Paramount. And so any time that I had to go to the Oval Office and talk to him about a, pending terrorist threats and our inability to stop a terrorist attack from taking place

except for our engaging in some type of lethal action ourselves was with days that I regretted. Not regretted from the standpoint of I shouldn't have done it, but I wish we had other recourse. And President Obama insisted that lethal strike should be the last recourse, that we should try to mitigate the terrorist threat in any other way possible. Working with our intelligence and security and military partners abroad, trying to find other ways to disrupt a terrorist plot. But if no other path is available to us, the president's responsibility is to protect the lives of the American citizens.

And so in the book, I detail what it was like, sitting down next to President Obama and explaining in this instance that there was a truck bomb that was poised to carry out a devastating attack against our embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, and that our intelligence collection confirmed that the operative and the driver and the truck were located at a compound and how we had no choice, basically, but to take a strike against that truck as it made its way to the embassy. But part of that story is that, I say in the book, that truck was parked at a compound that had, I think, over a dozen innocent men, women, and children who were not associated

with al-Qaeda at all. And President Obama, nor I, would take, authorize a strike against the compound if it resulted in the deaths of innocence. And so we established a criteria in the administration that there needed to be near certainty of no non-combatant deaths or injuries. There needed to be no recourse in terms of capture, arrest, detention, or disruption in any other way. There needed to be near certainty that we knew exactly who we were targeting. And we needed to ensure that the government of the country that we were going to take action in had approved such an operation. And so I was very pleased that President Obama wanted to go to great lengths to minimize the

greatest extent possible that we would injure or kill innocence. But at the same time, we would take action when needed to stop these devastating terrorist attacks. I think in the book I say that, you know, at the last year of the Obama administration, We put out statistics about the number of attacks that took place, the number of combatants that were killed, terrorists, and the number of non-combatants that were killed. And I think the number was between 64 and 113 or so. It was a range.

And in my mind, I think it was probably, you know, 100, 120 or so over the course of the seven years. And I think it was a every innocent death was a tragedy. And I deeply, deeply regretted those innocents who were killed. But I do think that President Obama insisted we go to great lengths to do everything we can to avoid that. Yeah. Just sort of last question for you, John, and I really appreciate your time. I mean, you know, like Ben, I recently read a biography of Alan Dulles, right?

And they got into sort of like the wild, wild west period at the agency in the 50s and early 60s. And then you had the church committee and the Pike Committee and a whole bunch of reforms were made that gave more congressional oversight. since that time, there have been all these additional capabilities and authorities added to the CIA's arsenal to include, you know, sort of counterterrorism work. Knowing what you know about those capabilities and authorities, and also knowing that people like Trump and Mike Pompeo are now in charge of them, do you think we've gotten the balance right in terms of checks and balances on counterterrorism work in the intelligence community more broadly? Well, you can have as many laws and policies and oversight requirements as, you know, possible in order to try to prevent abuses of authority. But just like we see that Donald Trump has far exceeded the bounds of, you know,

normal behavior. In all of the wisdom and foresight over the, founding fathers, I don't think they ever envisioned that we would have somebody who is as dishonest, as corrupt, and engages in such, I think, malfeasance as Donald Trump. And so a lot of those checks and balances on a president really have been, quite frankly, trampled. The same thing I think holds true for the CIA and Intel's community. You can have all of these requirements and limits on it, but if you don't have principled ethical leadership at the White House, in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and at the helm of the CIA, you can use

those authorities and capabilities in some very devastating ways. And this administration, despite what it says, has not cloaked itself in a lot of transparency. And so I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I find it really ironic that the Obama administration was pilloried by many folks in the press for our counterterrorism programs because we were forthcoming about it. We talked about it. This administration is tight-lipped about these things, and so it's not subject to the same type of criticism. Well, you know, I do believe that, again, if you have principal leadership at the very top of an organization, and in this instance the government, it will flow down. And that's why, again, I was just so, so thankful that we had somebody

of the integrity, of the intellect, of the moral temperament and principal leadership of a Barack Obama. I would never have considered being in those roles that I had during those eight years if there was somebody like Trump in the White House. There's no way. I wouldn't have lasted. I know that. The book is Undaunted, My Fight Against America's Enemies at Home and Abroad. John Brennan, great to see you again. Thank you for doing the show. Everyone should pick up a copy. you will learn a lot about the agency. You may even be inspired to get in the business yourself. So highly, highly recommend it.

Thanks so much, Tommy. And thank you, Ben. It's great seeing you again and take care of yourselves. Let's keep hoping that we have brighter and better days ahead for this country. Amen to that. From your Matt the God's ears, yeah. Thanks, John. Thanks, John.

Thanks again to John Brennan for joining the show. Great to talk to our old friend, John. I miss him. Yeah, no. I mean, just terrific guy. One of the better guys. One of the better guys out there. John Brennan one time got like a, it was either a hip or a knee replacement.

Remember this? Yeah, well, I think he had both hips and a knee replaced. So, yeah, you're understandably confused. Yeah, and he came to work the next day. Like, that's the guys' work out of course, just in as tenacious. I do have one plug, Tommy. We mentioned Khashoggi, this new documentary, Kingdom of Silence about Saudi Arabia and MBS. You know, full disclosure, I'm in it a little bit, but they really did a great job

at just like the story of Koshoggi's killing, who he actually was, they really bring him to life. And, you know, a portrait of MBS that is about as flattering as you think it'd be. So check it out. I think it's on Showtime. Where is it? It's on Showtime, but they're making it, you know, it was made available actually to all Washington Post subscribers to, which is cool by the post. So that's my one plug for the week. Oh, that's a great plug. All right. Well, with that, we'll talk to you guys next week where we will be one week closer to ever. everyone having voted in this nightmare of an election being over. So look forward to that.

And many you can vote now. So please vote. Yeah, get your ass to the poll. Votesaveamerica.com if you need more information. See you guys soon. Potsay of the World is a crooked media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our associate producer is Jordan Waller.

It's mixed and edited by Chris Basil. Kyle Segglin is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Quinn Lewis for production support. And thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Malkonian, and Milo Kim, film and share our episodes as videos every week.