Pod Save the World - Democrats Not Dictators

Episode Date: October 24, 2018

Tommy's in Philadelphia for HBO! So Ben Rhodes reviews the latest on Trump’s refusal to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for brutally murdering a journalist. Then he talks to three candidates who could hold Trump accountable if Democrats take back the House: Rep. Stephanie Murphy, Minnesota's Dan Feehan, and New Jersey's Andy Kim. All of them have national security backgrounds. All of them are among the very best people. All of them (and America) need you to vote this election: votesaveamerica.com 

Hey, welcome to Pod Save the World. I'm Ben Rhodes sitting in for Tommy, who is on the road. He will be in Philadelphia for the next Pod Save America HBO show, where he'll also be joined by Chrissy Hulahan, a great candidate we have in Pennsylvania on the Democratic side, somebody who has a national security background. And that's what we'll be talking about today and hearing from a few candidates who both have served either in the military or national security positions and now are taking that in the to politics and hopefully helping us take back the house. Before we get to that first interview, I just want to review one news of the day item, which is we are now over three weeks since the really brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. And I think it cannot be overstated just how consequential this last few weeks has been. because essentially what you have is an obvious murderer of a guy who goes into a consulate to silence a very prominent voice of dissent of the Saudi regime. It teaches us something about the Saudi government that frankly a lot of us had always thought,

which is that this is a leader of Saudi Arabia, Maham bin Salman, more interested in consolidating his own power and cracking down on any dissent than he is on some vision of modernization that he's been essentially touting across the United States, but also it says something profound about the Trump administration, who from the very first weeks in office has thrown Muhammad bin Salman in a full embrace. Trump's first trip as president was to Saudi Arabia. He consistently praised, heaped praise on Muhammad bin Salman. He deputized his son-in-law to essentially run this relationship between the two of them. He did nothing and in fact welcomed it when Saudi Arabia escalated its misguided war in Yemen

causing the largest humanitarian crisis they were currently facing in the world today. He did nothing when the Saudi prince detained large numbers of his own family in the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh. And in fact, there are even reports that Jared Kushner may have helped him identify who some of those internal critics were. Trump did nothing when the Saudi government detained in kind of a hostage situation, the prime minister of Lebanon, in their country. So time and again, we've seen Trump give this Saudi government a pass and particularly give Mahm bin Salman a pass. Then we saw him get this kind of heroes welcome to the United States earlier this year, where he was celebrated by all aspects of the American establishment, fawning pieces, and the New York Times and the Washington Post. you had the business elite lining up to meet with Maham bin Salman.

You had the entertainment industry doing the same thing. And of course, Trump rolling out this red carpet. So even before the Jamal Khashoggi murder, despite all the warning signs that this young leader, and he's only in his early 30s, that he was moving in a more authoritarian direction and a more belligerent foreign policy direction. Despite all that, we see him being rewarded. And I think, you know, the end result of this gruesome murder. getting the attention it's gotten, it should also shine a light on, you know, what this relationship with Saudi Arabia is and whether we really need it. Because Trump has been acting like

we're the weaker partner and the Saudis are the stronger partner and it's the reverse. And I think it's time that we as Americans start saying, why are we selling arms to this country? Because essentially there's this kind of captive argument that people make, oh, we need the Saudis. But I served in government for eight years. Yes, we'd like to cooperate with them to counterterrorism. Yes, they're a rich country. They buy a lot of arms from us, but it's not like we need them in some existential way. We can exert leverage in this relationship. And frankly, the more we get ourselves off of foreign oil, the less we need them.

So hopefully this can be a clarifying moment, if not for President Trump, for the rest of the country. And I will say there are profound consequences just in the rest of the world, seeing the American president not standing up for a journalist who is murdered. and not holding this regime to account. It's another chink in our armor. It's another blow to our credibility. That is another reason to vote in two weeks here. Again, I know national security is not front-center, but not having a check on a president who totally abandons our values, who refuses to stand up for journalists around the world. Indeed, calls journalists at home the enemy of the state and then coddles dictators who murder journalists. Congress can be a check on that. Congress can hold him to account. Congress can change the nature of our relationship with

Saudi Arabia. That can be done before we have a different person in the White House. And frankly, just electing a Democratic Congress will send a message to the rest of the world that this is not who we are. The way Trump has been acting is not who we are. The rest of the world, I can tell you, I travel and talk to people, are watching this election very closely. And we can show the world another side of America with how we vote. We can show the world that, no, Trump is not. Trump is not who America is, which is what people around the world are wondering since the 2016 election. So with that, we've got three great candidates coming up. The first is Stephanie Murphy, who worked in the Defense Department and then decided to run for Congress in 2016 after the

mass shooting at the Pulse Night Club because she was so disgusted with the grip that the NRA had on the politics in Florida and the person that she ran against and beat in a very tough District. Stephanie has a great personal story, too, having come here to the United States, fleeing Vietnam on boats with her family and building a true All-American success story here. So we'll hear from Stephanie first about her recent visit to Saudi Arabia and how she's looking at that issue. We are very pleased to be joined here on POTSA of the World by Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, one of the most exciting, promising, dynamic young members of Congress in the Democratic Party.

also someone who worked in national security herself before coming into Congress. So great to be with you, Congresswoman. Thanks so much, Ben, for having me on and for such a kind introduction. Well, look, I wanted to start just because it's on everybody's mind with the Jamal Khashoggi murder and the response from the Trump White House. But I thought we could start by talking about the trip you took to Saudi Arabia earlier this year, a congressional delegation that you were on. And I just wanted to know if you could share with the listeners the impressions that you took away from that trip, which obviously was right around the time that Muhammad bin Salman, the Crown Prince, was really beginning to assert himself more aggressively. Sure. I took a trip in January of 2018, the beginning of this year, with six other Republicans and me. So I was the only Democrat on the trip, and the congressional delegation was led by Speaker Ryan.

and we went to the Middle East and met with both King Salman as well as the Crown Prince and some others in the foreign ministry. You know, my impressions were mixed. I think on the one hand, MBS was personally charismatic and friendly, and he spoke about his ongoing efforts to grant Saudi women additional rights. They had just been permitted to go to their first soccer game shortly before we were there, as well as they were planning on allowing women to drive in a few months after our trip. And he also spoke about the need for the U.S. and Saudi to work together to contain Iran and combat terrorist organizations.

So on the one hand, I think the delegation really liked hearing those things. On the other hand, I think we were all very well aware of MBS's efforts to consolidate power within the royal family. In fact, while we were there, he was imprisoning members of the Saudi elite at a, hotel in Riyadh, and, you know, he was spearheading the Saudi intervention in Yemen's Civil War. And that intervention in Yemen has contributed to a severe humanitarian crisis. I think today we're at 13 million risk of famine. But it was a mixed impression. And I'll admit that I was probably one of the only members of the delegation to press MBS on human rights issues and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. And I'll give Speaker Ryan credit for

giving me the space to ask those questions and to express a view that was separate than some of my Republican colleagues. Yeah. Did he, you know, bother to respond much to your concerns about Yemen or human rights, or did he kind of blow right through that? You know, his, they had just released some amount of humanitarian assistance for Yemen. So he noted that. But really, he fell back on the argument that Iran is an existential threat for,

for Saudi Arabia and as a result, Iran's engagement in Yemen was really the reason why they were pursuing their intervention in the way that they were, is that they see Iran as an existential threat. Yeah. Well, looking back in the last couple of years, it does strike me to your point that, you know, they were happy with the election outcome. They were no fans of Obama. I'm wondering what, to what extent you feel like they may, have taken the wrong signal, the Saudis, that, you know, they had almost a sense of impunity, that they could do whatever they wanted. They could escalate that war in Yemen, even after the humanitarian crisis was out of control. They could ultimately kill this journalist. Do you think

kind of they may have taken the wrong message from the type of relationship they were building with, in particular Trump and other parts of the American establishment? Certainly in evaluating where this White House is, listening to some of the, the rhetoric coming out of the White House, the president's sort of constant denigration of the press corps and undermining of the right to free press, which is enshrined in our Constitution, we're seeing it's not just dangerous domestically. It can give people an impression of what our priorities are. It can also serve to emboldened authoritarian leaders and give them a sense of impunity as they deal with their own critics in the press. And also, I think it would

be fair to say that this administration has sort of de-emphasized the human rights, motion as a key element of American foreign policy. And so that could give foreign leaders the impression that there's no longer any meaningful limits to their conduct and that their relationship with the U.S. will not be affected. The one piece that I find hopeful, though, is that in this most recent, just shocking murder of a journalist, that, you know, Congress in a bipartisan way is responding even if the White House isn't yet ready to do so. And in addition to Congress responding, we're seeing corporate America reflect American values,

the withdrawal of the media and tech companies, as well as J.P. Morgan and Ford from the investor conference. It demonstrates that American values can be reflected in a broad set of actors, not just out of the White House. Well, I was going to ask, you know, what do you think Congress could do further? do you believe it's appropriate for Congress to really start inserting itself into the U.S. Saudi relationship on issues like the war in Yemen or arms sales to Saudi Arabia or sanctions if this Khashoggi investigation continues to be kind of the sham investigation that it appears to be, particularly if Democrats have control of the House where you serve, do you think there's

a role for kind of legislative action by Congress or is it more an oversight approach? I think it should be both. I mean, the way that our democracy is. founded, Congress is meant to balance and check the darker impulses of the executive branch. And I think that it's absolutely imperative. I think Madeline Aubright calls it an Article 1 moment. It's one of these moments where Congress absolutely must exercise its support. And I think at the end of the day, what members of Congress need to remember is that they took an oath, and that oath is to defend the Constitution and America from threats foreign

domestic. And their allegiance is to upholding the Constitution into the American people, not to any particular president or any particular party. And so giving an administration a pass on issues that are of utmost importance to our national security and America's place in the world shouldn't be what Congress should be doing. They absolutely should be exercising their powers. And, you know, when you look at those options, do you think that, you know, it's time to essentially try to use pressure to, you know, withdrawal support for the war in Yemen, for instance, or would you focus more on trying to pressure the Saudis on the internal human rights situation through either, you know, shining a spotlight or sanctions? Or are you kind of looking across the board at the relationship in light of the Khashoggi murder? You know, I think first we need a full accounting of the Khashoggi murder. I think that it's really important that the U.S. intelligence community prepare an analysis on what they believe occurred

and that we should believe them and that the president should believe them. And once we know what happened and who was involved, then we should take a look at the range of options that we have in front of us to respond to what happened. But I think it has to be also in the context that, you know, we want to encourage them to continue the positive steps that we're seeing inside the kingdom with respect to women's rights and economic diversification. But we want to make sure that if they were involved in this brutal murder and this attack on free press, that there are consequences for that. And we should recognize and use whatever leverage that we have with a sense of humility that we can't dig up. state Saudi behavior, but we certainly can try to shape it. Well, look, I wanted to shift gears here. We're talking about the many Democrats running who have a national security background.

Now, you worked in the defense department for the Secretary of Defense, and I just wondered if you could share your view. Now you've been in Congress for two years about, you know, what that experience in national security, how that helped inform you as both a politician and then ultimately as a sitting member of Congress. Sure. And I'll note that I worked in the office of the U.S. the Secretary of Defense under a Republican president.

So I was there working under Secretary Rumfeld as well as Secretary Gates, but it was George W. Bush that was president. And so for me, that was my first experience in public service. And I found that at that department, we sort of suppressed our political opinions and just focused on the mission. And it was all about putting our country first above politics, pursuing a a national security strategy that could keep this country safe. And I think that that's a healthy perspective for me to carry on into Congress where things are so hyperpartisan in Washington. But in

my district, people don't walk around saying, oh, I'm a Democrat or I'm a Republican or I'm a no-party affiliate. They're just saying, oh, I have to deal with, you know, high prescription cost or high cost of health care or I need a well-paying job with quality benefits. They're dealing with the day-to-day, which isn't necessarily split into political problems. They're just American problems. And I think having that first public service experience be one that was just focused on mission and serving the American people is a really good perspective to take into kind of our hyper-partisan congressional atmosphere. And then I think the other thing that's really been helpful is I got a chance to work on a broad range of national security issues. And those things are complicated.

And if you're not somebody who's worked on those issues for a long time, you know, you cover down on a wide range of issues as a member of Congress, and it was really a leg up for me to already have some experience with that, and also have a sense of how the executive branch interprets legislative or congressional intent and legislative agenda. That's also been really helpful because it helps my office craft our correspondence with the executive branch in a way that hopefully leads to better results. I know that part of what compelled you to run for Congress in the first place was the mass shooting in Florida and the gun issue broadly. And I'm wondering, you know, having looked at the, you know, the security of the country from the perspective of, you know, sitting in the Pentagon and now looking at the issue of guns, why guns aren't seen more as a national security issue? And essentially, you know, they take the lives of so many more people than terrorist attacks.

is there a way to kind of approach, particularly some of these high-capacity guns like AR-15s as more of a national security threat as a means of trying to get it under control? When I talk about security, I talk about strong and smart national security that keeps us safe from foreign threats, but also about domestic security that keeps us safe from gun violence. Having worked with folks who were trained for those weapons that you talked about, meant to cause the greatest damage on a battlefield. I know that those battlefield weapons don't have a place in my communities on our community streets. And so it really is something that I work really hard on to try to cast that issue in the light

that it is, which is it's a public health crisis here in this country. I'm proud to say that I led an initiative to lift the 22-year ban on gun violence research because I believe when we legislate, we have to start with the facts. And even though it's a big public health crisis, we don't have data around this issue. And maybe it's my DOD training that has me looking for intel and the facts and data that drives me to try to attack this problem the same way. Well, look, a common threat here, you know, making decisions about Saudi Arabia informed by our intelligence, making decisions based on data as it relates to gun violence,

I think that's a healthy attitude that we hope more of our members of Congress would take. Great. Well, look, we're really appreciate Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy joining us, and she's in the 7th District of Florida. If you're looking for someone to support, to knock doors, to make phone calls. And, of course, exciting candidates up and down that ballot in Florida with a great candidate for Governor Andrew Gillum and a very important Senate race with Senator Nelson. So lots of work to do in Florida, but we're glad you're out there doing it on the trail and in the halls of Congress. Stephanie Murphy. So thanks for being with us. Thanks so much, man. I appreciate us.

Now we'll hear from Dan Fien, who is running for Congress in Minnesota, who is a veteran of the Iraq War, also a former schoolteacher. It's someone who really has excited a lot of us around the country about his potential for service. So really excited to be joined by Dan. With us today on Ponce of the World, we are very lucky to have Dan Feehan, who's running in the first district in Minnesota, a veteran of the United States military, did two tours in Iraq, and also worked at the Pentagon in a very important position on readiness issues in the Obama administration. So, Dan, thanks for joining us here today. Ben, thanks so much for having me.

I wanted to just start. You know, you're kind of in this post-9-11 generation of folks who signed up to serve after those attacks and now are serving in different ways. But I wondered if you could take us back to your first decision. What led you in those years after 9-11 to choose the uniform as your form of service. In southern Minnesota, and there's a lot of farmland here. It's on 9-11 itself, I was a college freshman at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. From there, you could see it burning that day, and that was kind of my moment for my generation to a vengeance, but I was knowing that.

Yeah, and so then, you know, that leads you to Iraq. Which years were you in Iraq in the military? Yeah, 2006, and then again in 2000, time, as an Army officer and as an engineer officer, so a job and purpose, IEDs. And to find them out of my second tour at the time trying to just to east to Sutter City, find them before. And again, a very tough experience. Yeah, and I mean, for our listeners, you know, Dan was over there, literally some of the toughest fighting of the Iraq War in 06 and 08. and around Baghdad, some of the toughest areas of the toughest fighting. So this is really in harm's way, as it were.

Dan, you mentioned something that I was going to ask, which is, you know, in this day and age of tribalism and division, you know, the military is one of the institutions in the country where people are mixed together, people from all of the country, different races, ethnic groups, religions, political beliefs. You know, what do you think you learned about, you know, America by being in that position overseas in harm's way, but with people from different parts of the United States, different backgrounds. Did it change your perspective on your country, your district, to be over

there with your fellow troops? Yes, the country itself on the best, on the best cigarette, the best anything when it came to that, but they're, you know, put in a place, incredibly uniting force in an ability to kind of put your, any differences you might have aside of my non-commission officers and of making sure people's ideas could come from a teacher as well for a couple of years. And then working in the Pentagon, and it was because of that first, you realize that the toughest things in life are done with a group of people that are diverse and who have different viewpoints, something done in spite of that.

And that certainly was what working in the Pentagon was, too, because when you look at the house that they are satisfied and get nothing done, and that flies in the face of what public service did things done on behalf of. So that was the most important experience I could have in my early 20s. Yeah, well, and I was going to ask you about your decision to run and to run this year. You know, what's interesting is, you know, for some people, you know, running for Congress is the toughest thing that they're going to do. You've done something far tougher, right? You made a decision to put on the uniform at a time when you knew you were going to go to war.

How do you compare the decision to run for Congress this year? You know, what informed that decision? And does that a continuum of your pastor? service or do you see it as a totally new chapter? Yeah, every day is up and down. Every day is a roller coaster. And, you know, I'm lucky enough to have it, you know, I've done through worse.

And that's the, when I think about growing up here, now looking back, okay, two tours in Iraq, being a middle school teacher, I now step forward into politics with the belief and knowledge that when someone does step forward, they can make a difference. If you keep that as your mindset. And if you do so, now with, you know, my decision to run, very much at this time out of looking at a 2016 landscape that didn't represent the ideals that I'm a millennial. I have student loan debt and had the chance to serve in uniform.

And I look at the inaction in Washington, D.C. and step forward with the belief that I think my voice would matter, I think, nearly enough among that. Yeah, no, and I think that's the exciting opportunity that we have that you articulated really well. And I guess, you know, you've got a national security back when obviously you're talking about voters concerns about health care, I'm sure, and rising costs and the economy. On the national security front, what's been interesting to me to watch is that this was about war and terrorism for so many years. You know, Trump has kind of turned national security into also issues of immigration and identity so that, you hear him talking about MS-13, about people coming across the border as kind of these national security issues. How do you see

what the role of national security is in your district? Is it? Is it a concern about immigration? Is it a concern about terrorism? And how do you come up with the smart and right solutions on those issues while kind of speaking to some of the fears that Trump is tapping into about whether it's the potential for terrorists to come here or uncontrolled immigration? How do you find the way to speak to the concerns of your voters in this climate where Trump is really broadening what constitutes national security?

40,000 plus mil. I think it does tie in raising the straight use. years. And when you raise the impetus now, and you represent our many military families, are now then absolutely needs to be soon for Congress to step into this conversation and shoulder to continue to send our service members into harm's way. And to make that from a son being able to fight in the same war at some point that I fought in, you make that very personal connection, and then you make it in a broader one and

speak to the idea that if we were able to end dollars, when you add up everything into it, and be able to talk about this in a sense that that, that, that, you make it a very that connects, in my view, in a different way that doesn't fit it. We moves along to this idea that is one that we are not constantly using, for example. And we're able to make a connection to people in a way that might not always be thinking about foreign poor. Yeah. Well, look, I think races like the Minnesota First are going to determine the direction of the House. Folks are looking for someone to pitch in and help out and knock on doors and make calls and contributions.

Dan, you know, is the antidote to a lot of talking to you. it's refreshing to hear the absence of cynicism and the vision for what both Congress should do and what our politics can be. So best of luck to you and hopefully we'll do our part to help you get across that finish line. So thanks for joining us, man. Dan, thank you so much. Thanks for having me on. And now we'll be joined by Andy Kim, who was a colleague of mine for a time at the White House, had one of the toughest jobs imaginable. He was responsible for Iraq when we intervened there to take the fight. to ISIS and to roll back ISIS. He's served in the Pentagon. He's been to Afghanistan to serve,

and now he's stepping up to serve in New Jersey, in part because he was so angry at the Republican effort to take away health care coverage for people with preexisting conditions. So happy to join by Andy Kim. Andy, thanks for joining us here today on POTS of the World. Thanks a lot, Ben, for having me. So, Andy, why don't you tell us a little bit about your background of service, and particularly what led you to go down the route of getting into public service and working in particular on national security? What was kind of your decision point and motivation for that? Well, I grew up here in South Jersey, you know, right down the road, not too far away from Joint Military Base, McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. There are a lot of people in this area that

work at that Joint Base, so I certainly had a lot of friends growing up whose parents worked at that base or worked in defense industry. So definitely a big part of this district. But grown up in that way, you know, my parents were both people that pushed service, public service. My mother's a nurse. My dad is someone who dedicated his whole life to try to cure cancer and Alzheimer's. So they always told me this line growing up that service isn't just a job, it's a way of life. And that was something I very much internalized growing up. And for me, I felt, like my way to be a best service is in national security. I was in college when September 11th happened, something that was obviously so important for our nation, especially for my generation.

Being at that time, I really wanted to dedicate my career to tackling these challenges that we faced on foreign policy and on national security. So I ended up getting a road scholarship, going and get a doctorate in international relations, and then joined up at the State Department, worked as a diplomat and a national security official, had the great opportunity to work as a strategic advisor to General Petraeus and General Allen out in Afghanistan, worked over at the Pentagon, USAID, the State Department, and then ended my time doing two years as the director for Iraq at the White House National Security Council. These were incredible opportunities working under both Republicans and Democrats.

Yeah, I guess, you know, I obviously interacted with you a bit when you were at the White House, And you had this tough position of basically having the responsibility for, you know, Iraq and parts of the Middle East that were dealing with the rise of ISIS when we had to, you know, put together the coalition to begin to push back against ISIS, but also to intervene in Iraq to prevent, you know, potential genocide against a minority population there, the Yazidis. My recollection of that is getting that sense that if the United States hadn't done something, this whole group of people could have been wiped out. and ISIS could have kind of overrun much more of Iraq. I wonder if you could reflect on that appreciation you get for like the difference that America can play in people's lives in the other side of the world. You know, what it was like to have that weight of people coming to you, in this case, people who were threatened by ISIS and literally asking you to save the lives of their family members and their community members and also to deal with this huge threat to our national security, ISIS. How did your view of what America could do in the world change, you know, having to sit in those rooms and make those calls? I think about this a lot.

When I wrote my dissertation, a lot of my studies was about the U.S. response to different crises, whether that was the Rwanda genocide, Yugoslavia, Srebrenica, and understanding what role the National Security Council can play, what role the White House could play, and then finding myself in a situation, working in the situation room. working at the White House on these issues when a crisis occurs of this magnitude, when we see the potential for genocide against the Yazidi people, it was so overwhelming. And having contact with Yazidis who had family members and friends back in Iraq who were being massacred by being targeted, murdered by ISIS, it was something that just heightened that urgency of what was happening. trying to figure out what best can the United States do to be able to address this genocide that was about to unfold. You know, I remember that day very clearly in early August in 2014 and being in the situation room, being in the Oval Office, briefing the president on the plan how to drop, to do air drops, humanitarian assistance, the tens of thousands of EZDISD on top of that mountain.

And the story I often talk about this is just remembering those conversations and thinking, what is it that the United States can get done? And the fact that we were able to take these actions and within just a matter of 24 hours, drop the food and water, shelter material to tens of thousands of people on a mountain, on the other side of the world, deep in enemy territory on the top of a mountaintop, it was extraordinary. It was very humbled by the... abilities that the United States has, the tremendous power that comes with it, and the responsibility

that is layered on top of that. And seeing so many people in the situation room and across government working together for common cause was very inspiring. I would say that I saw a government that can inspire. I saw a government that the American people can be proud of, taking actions to be able to help save lives and stop a genocide. You know, and it's interesting hearing you talk, I mean, obviously you help then put together this very necessary effort to essentially go to war against ISIS and to try to take out their safe havens, prevent them from threat in the United States. You've also seen, you know, both when you're in the White House and I'm sure on the campaign trail, you know, how much fear can be manipulated by political leaders.

And we see Trump doing this frequently, whether it's fear of ISIS, fear of refugees, fear of immigrants. I guess if you could talk about how do you balance the very real need to take seriously threats like ISIS, right? And to say there is something to be afraid of here that we have to take care of versus how that can go too far. And then that can lead to scapegoating whole populations or policies that kind of divide us as Americans, a travel ban comes in mind. You know, what has been your perspective as someone who's been both, you know, a policymaker and now a politician about how you get that balance right between, doing what's necessary to protect the country, but not having fear being used as something that can divide us in ways that may be happening in your district. Well, looking back to what we were just talking about with the discussions in the

situation room and the Oval Office when faced with a genocide of the ZD people, I think about that, and I remember that at no point during those discussions did anyone ask, is that a Democrat idea or a Republican idea? Yeah. I very much came into national security and was taught that the last place that partisan politics belongs is in national security. And that belief is something I hold very deep inside myself when I worked out in Afghanistan and no one there asked me if I was a Democrat or Republican. So this idea that national security can and should be looked at through that very particular lens, devoid of the partisan politics that has consumed so. much of our country, so much of our politics in Washington, D.C. to try to have people approach it

in that way. I think it's so important. And I think that so many of the other challenges that we're facing, especially on the global stage, are getting murky and having these problems because of the injection of partisan politics where they don't belong. Yeah. And I think about the other side, you know, there's the national security issues that, as you say, are kind of local because people could be sent to harm's way or because there's just a large population of veterans who care about these things. There's also kind of what America is as a country who we stand for. And I'm wondering, you know, we've obviously all been following the situation with the journalist Jamal Khashoggi clearly seems to have been likely murdered by the Saudi government. You know, you worked on this

region of the world, understanding the complexities of dealing with a regime like Saudi Arabia that, you know, is contrary to many of our. our values at times we share some interest with. At the same time, you're out there talking to Americans about how they may be responding to what's in the news. They might not care about things happening around the world, or maybe they do kind of react with horror at what happened to this journalist. When you look at that particular issue, how important is it do you think for the United States to bring its own values into that question of like, what should our relationship be with the Saudis? How should we respond to the murder of this journalist? It's not

a bread and butter issue, right, for somebody in South Jersey. But it is, it is. It is a, is something that matters because it's a reflection of kind of what our values are as a country. How does that inform your view of how the U.S. should respond to an issue like that? How much should we make our values a part of our foreign policy? And how do we communicate who we are as a country in dealing with such difficult and complicated issues? It's very important. It's very important for us to understand what values we hold dear to us as a nation and what we want to project, what we want to be able to extend going forward as we engage with countries around this world.

As someone who remember engaging with Afghans or Iraqis and out in Kirkuk, Iraq, or out in Kabul, Afghanistan, it's so important for us to bring to that table the values that drive our nation and that being an anchor of our foreign policy on national security. And especially at a time right now when I think so much of the rest of the world and as well as so much within our own country, we're having this discussion about what we stand for and what we should be trying to move forward on. So whether it is on us pulling out the Paris Climate Agreement or how we treat our allies and partners, our NATO alliance, so much of that is in question. And I think that's why this incident with Khashoggi, a number of other instances and incidents that come up, why they grab our attention is because right now, this question of what the United States stands for,

what role we play internationally is so much in flux, more than I've ever seen in my lifetime, certainly in this post-September 11th world that I've grown up in. We see so much of that uncertain what our next step is going to be as a country, what footing we're going to have going forward and how that's going to affect other countries and other interests. So I think that's what I see right now happening is each of these actions that are happening, whether it's about the Paris Climate Agreement or this response to what's happening with Saudi Arabia, these are all bigger than just those instances. This is us trying to discuss

and understand what our next steps are and what our country is going to be standing for. And frankly also a lot of other countries are trying to get a sense of what the United States is doing and what's going to be coming up next. And that's why these issues take on a greater significance across our country. And, you know, if you get into Congress then, what do you think the role of Congress is? You know, Congress's been obviously totally, the Republican-led Congress, kind of passive under Trump. You know, how do you see the role of Congress and communicating what America is, what we stand for, what kind of policies we want to pursue in this national security space. One thing I often think back on is this one moment in the situation room that just really

lingers in my mind. You know, I remember the cabinet assembled briefing the president, President Obama about a particular operation. And I remember as Chairman Dempsey was briefing something, he stopped and said, you know, but there's no guarantees how this will all turn out. And I remember writing down a line that the president said. And at the time, I didn't really think too much of it significance, but I remember the president kind of putting his finger on the table and saying, the one thing I never asked for in this room is a guarantee. And I remember writing that down in the margins of my notebook, and it's something that I think about a lot now every single day is I'm trying to understand the role that the United States

plays, and particularly on the international stage. Had an idea that, you know, in the situation room or in the White House, you know, arguably the most powerful building in the world, to see. that what we can't ask for is a guarantee. It's for me this understanding that there's a difference between power and control. There's this difference between understand what we can influence as a country across the world and also a difference between what we can control. And I think it's very easy to get caught up in the idea and that hubris of being able to

control things around the world, especially when you're at the White House and you have the ability to marshal, you know, our military resources, our diplomatic resources, our intelligence operations, it's certainly easy to conflate the two between power and control. Now, what's important for Congress to play a role, you know, for instance, if elected and able to, I'd like to serve on the House Armed Services Committee, you know, that's a place in which, you know, Congress can act as a check, that we can have that type of public discussion and be able to bring a lot of these national security discussions to the American people. That's something that I want to, I wish we had done more of, and I wish I was able to do more of when I was working at the White House, is now that

I'm talking to people in my community every single day, and frankly, we talk a lot about national security issues, and we talk a lot about what we can control, what we can influence. I really think it's important that Congress has those discussions with people back to the United States. in their home districts. I know a lot of people say that, you know, elections aren't necessarily about foreign policy and national security. But also the role of a representative is to inform the constituents and talk to them about what's happening in Washington, D.C., and to see just a lack of that conversation happening. You know, the lack of ways in which the American people get information about what's happening internationally, I don't think that, you know, just a, you know, just a

some press briefings and engagements from that front in sort of the normal political channels is enough. I think there's a lot more that we should be doing. And I think it's important that a member of Congress takes it upon themselves. And that's certainly something that I want to do, both as a, if I'm able to, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, to play that role within Congress, but bring that information out to the American people in as many different ways as we can. Well, look, that's a great note to end on. Thanks for joining us. And for those you're out there, looking for people to support. You know, Andy's in the third district in New Jersey there.

It's a true toss-up. The kind of seat that if it flips, it can make a big difference in the direction of the country. So a great place to spend your time, your calls, you're knocking on doors, your contributions. And we're just grateful that you got in the ring there, Andy. And good luck in the next home stretch here. Great. Thanks a lot, Ben, for having me. So thanks for listening.

That was three really exciting candidates who make me feel better. about both who we have running the Democratic Party and our chances in November and the Congress that we'll have in place. Tommy will be back next week, so you can hear him. I will be back at some point and excited to continue this conversation going. And don't forget to tune in to HBO, Fridays at 11 for the next couple weeks, to see the guys as they continue to try to fire people up on the road here to the midterms. And remember, get out there and vote in many of your state's early voting is underway. So thanks for listening.