Pod Save the World - Why policing is better abroad

Episode Date: June 10, 2020

Tommy and Ben examine how other countries structure and run their police forces to see if there are policies or tactics the US can adopt to improve outcomes. New data suggests that claims of election fraud in Bolivia were wrong. Why the possibility of creating a Palestinian state is in jeopardy. The international movement to get rid of racist statues and monuments. Trump orders US troops out of Germany. Honor killings in Iran. Why John Bolton is sad. And then the Washington Post’s David Ignatius joins to talk about his new spy novel The Paladin, why Generals are abandoning Trump, General Flynn’s call with Russia and more.

Welcome back to POTS Save the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben, Ben, we got a great show today. We're going to talk a little bit about policing and look at some examples abroad about how policing works, what we can learn from other countries about their systems that might help us improve ours. We'll look into this new data that calls into question claims that there was electoral fraud in Bolivia last year. This is a very big deal. I'll talk about why a future Palestinian state looks even further away, why countries are building monuments to traders and wretched people, including right here in the United States, why U.S. troops are departing Germany, legal changes in Iran, and then our good old friend, John Bolton. Remember that guy? God, I miss him. I miss him. America misses him. America needs him now.

Yeah, America needs heroes like John Bolton. And then David Ignatius is going to join. He's from the Washington Post. He's going to talk about spies and generals turning on Trump and Mike Pompeo. So lots of great stuff. But Ben, before we get to that, we have a very big announcement from you. A lot of folks listening have heard about Crooked Media's Adopt-a-State program. If you have not heard of it, it is not too late to jump on board. A hundred thousand people plus have signed up. I did a training last week with over 16,000 people who joined us for this live first one-hour training session. It was incredible. Natasha Brown from Blackboarders Matter joined in like literally they tore the roof off the Zoom call. We almost broke Zoom. There were so many people on.

There's still time to join us. We have three more trainings coming up. We'll learn how to be a digital organizer, how you can get involved in this election. You'll hear from experts. John Favro is going to lead the next one this Thursday. But before that, we need to know what state you, Ben Rhodes, are adopting. Yeah, so this is tough, Tommy, but I'm going to go with Michigan. Kyle, please insert drum roll before that. Yeah, I mean, I know everybody's been waiting on this reveal. here. I mean, look, I get it. Like Arizona is kind of the hot new thing, you know. Michigan is like the backstop, the bedrock that we need here to get things done. Our amazing producer, Jordan Waller, will be happy about this. Also, an amazing state rep out in Michigan, Mari Manugan, who I got to

know, she interned for Samantha Power, a descendant of Armenian genocide survivors. In her 20, stepped up, flipped a seat, ran for the State House, made a very persuasive case that we need Gary Peters back in the Senate to have a shot at ditching Mitch McConnell. We got to win Michigan if we're going to win the White House back. And we can turn the State House blue as well. And I got to think about it, you know, there's a lot to like about Michigan. I was like a Fab Five guy, like way back in the day. Like, it's time to get back to that. I was, I couldn't believe it, Tommy, when I had to admit, in 2016, no state floored me more than Michigan. Me too. You know? And actually, I was on a helicopter on Marine One with Obama coming back from a Florida stop.

And he was going to get word, where's the last place that the Clinton people want him to go? And get the email and it's Michigan. And we're like, whoa. Wait a second. Not good. Like that was when it was like, we thought we'd be like North Carolina, right? Or something like that. We got to get Michigan back in the right column here.

So I'm going to help get that done. Yes. And by the way, the only thing you have to say to fire up Michigan. people is Ohio State sucks. That's all it takes, and they're ready to run through a brick roll. So I will tell you another reason. My father-in-law is from Michigan, went to Ann Arbor for undergrad, grad. It was the high, I mean, he was like diehard Michigan, passed away tragically. My sisters-in-law got like Michigan tattoos. Like I got some Michigan. It's a surprise to some of you all, but I've got some Michigan ties. I love that, man. I love that. It's personal. All politics is personal.

One other political aside, just as we start up here. So foreign policy is not always the focus of political campaigns, right? There's some rare exceptions. 2004, that presidential campaign was focused on the Iraq war with John Kerry and George Bush, but mostly they're about domestic issues. But we want to highlight a race that we think could have some pretty significant impact on U.S. foreign policy. And that is the primary against Elliott Engel in New York's 16th district.

So Engel is the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Like, I don't know about you, Ben, but I personally have been disappointed by his leadership and policy positions. He supported the Iraq War. He opposed the Iran nuclear deal. He opposed efforts to prevent the transfer of certain types of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So I would just encourage everyone to check out Jamal Bowman, whose angle's opponent in the Democratic primary. That race takes place on June 23rd. Bowman is a middle school principal. He's a progressive. He's exciting. He's cool. He's frankly, just more in touch with the district since he actually lives there. So just highly recommend folks check it out because I'm not saying that Bowman will become the new chair of the committee, but it means that we would have fresh blood in the house. Another member would take over that committee and it would be a big deal. Yeah. And he's a,

he's a pretty fascinating guy, Jamal Bowman. You know, I look, Elliot Engel is a very nice guy. I, yeah, just despite my briefings, I hope not because of them, he opposed the Iran nuclear deal. And like you say, he's taken a pretty conventional line. on issues related to Iran, Saudi, the Middle East generally. But I've said, Jamal Bowman is a very interesting guy in his own right. So people should go check that out. Check out his bio. You know, it's a part of this generational change that is happening in the caucus that can

be painful and difficult, but can also present new opportunities. So it's a race worth watching. Yeah, I totally agree. Really exciting candidate. Okay. So let's talk about international policing. So there's obviously been a lot of discussion lately about police. in the United States, their budgets, their tactics, like how militarize these forces have become.

And when you have institutions as firmly embedded it to the culture of society, I think it can be, it can be hard to imagine changing them. So we want to look abroad and talk about how police forces are structured internationally, just get a sense of like, what are the range of possibilities for how to do things differently or better? So the Washington Post had a good breakdown of some of these differences. And like, let's just start with guns. The average police officer in Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Britain, and Ireland are unarmed. And so obviously the U.S. is just a wash in guns, and that changes the broader dynamic. But Iceland has a relatively high level of gun ownership, and their officers still don't carry guns. So that's notable.

And also, you know, after the Christchurch massacre, New Zealand tested out having more armed response teams. And citizens just recently decided that, you know, we don't like this. Like they didn't feel safer. They didn't want more guns in the hands of police there. So it's just interesting that they can keep their population safe without guns. And then when it comes to using deadly force, European police officers have to meet a much higher standard than police in the U.S. to use deadly force. Most European countries also ban chokeholds. And the amount of training is another notable big difference.

So the average police officer in the U.S. gets 19 months of training in Europe. it's closer to three years. I like this, Ben. In Japan, police forces are literally trained to use martial arts as part of the step in their escalation ladder before getting to lethal force or a gun. So that's pretty badass. So look, I don't mean to suggest that there is a quick fix, you know, that if we just adopted UK policing systems, that things would be fixed.

But, like, racism is a big part of our problem here in the U.S. In France, for example, like they have similar challenges with racially biased policing, young men of Arab and black African backgrounds are 20 times more likely to be randomly stopped by the police than the rest of the population. So we need to speak to these racial problems. But broadly speaking, here are some important stats just for context. These were published by Politico. Police in America killed 1,042 people last year. In Japan, police killed zero people. In the UK, police killed three people. According to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, the U.S. per capita rate of police shootings is seven times higher than that of Canada. So like a radically less violent

system is possible. And, you know, again, the elephant in the room is the 300 plus million guns just like floating around the U.S. But I do think that reform starts with understanding that there are better options out there and that we as citizens just have to demand changes and see a vision that's better. Yeah. And look, the underlying issue of racism is obviously what colors all of this and white supremacy. I think to your points about other countries and what's different about American policing and also what we can learn. First of all,

it's interesting how far-reaching consequences are of national security decisions. When I think of the worst week I had in the White House, it was in the summer of 2014, and I was like the staffer in Martha's Vineyard with President Obama. And the same week, you had the beheading of Jim Foley by ISIS. tragic beheading of an American journalist, Anne Ferguson was exploding after the killing of Michael Brown. And what's interesting,

I remember at the time thinking that how strange it is that what I was seeing kind of split screen was both related to the post-9-11 wars, right? Because the invasion of Iraq in its own way, you know, basically created ISIS, right? It was Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and then they became ISIS. and then the militarization of like the Ferguson police department. I mean, I just remember sitting there.

And I remember saying Obama because I had to go out to his house to talk about statements who was giving him. I had to write statements on Ferguson. And why on earth these people had, they looked like they were patrolling Baghdad. You know, that's a big problem. And it's this kind of, it is a weird consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because these huge surpluses are just sitting in government warehouses and, Police forces think it's cool to buy them.

And suddenly, you know, look, racism is the problem with what happened to George Floyd and Breon Taylor and some other people. It doesn't help that these guys are like equipped for fucking call of duty, you know, and they're in like armored vehicles and body armor. That's not necessary. And it also creates an incredibly, I don't know, unhealthy dynamic between the police and certainly when you have protests. So that's one thing comes to mind.

Other countries don't do that. They don't militarize, frankly, the countries that militarize police like that are the countries we don't want to be like. It's like China, you know? Russia. Yeah, certainly not Europe and Japan. The other thing is I remember talking to Obama a lot in those last couple of years about the fact that if you look at Europe and you look at how Europe looks at policing, some of these countries, you know, they look far more holistically at their social safety net. And how are we dealing with homelessness? How are we dealing with substance abuse?

how are we dealing with the range of factors that can kind of fuel crime and a dynamic and adversarial dynamic between police and citizens? And part of what Obama used to say sometimes to talk about how we're pushing too much on the police is we're kind of asking them to fill all these holes because government has cut all this funding for these other things, right? And so these European countries look holistically at how are we taking care of our citizens needs and how are we reducing violence and how are we reducing substance abuse. In the U.S., it's like we're going to cut the funding for all those things and just dump a bunch of money into the police.

And to look at it for the police perspective, you're almost asking them to be, you know, to fill all these different roles in the community. So I think we have to look at the policing example from European countries, but also, and this gets to the whole funding debate that's happening right now, like maybe some of that money that's like buying all this equipment for these police should go into addressing the factors that can lead towards healthier communities. Yeah, absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I mean, yeah, look, last week, we talked about it a bit. I mean, the image of Trump clearing Lafayette Square so that he could go do a photo op will never leave my brain. I think it's an indelible image that will define the Trump presidency.

Two things that spun out of that that I just wanted to flag for you in case you hadn't seen them. One, did you see that the White House is trying to put out that individuals linked, to Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro were inciting violence at these protests. Of course, they refused to provide any proof, but it got written up in all the Florida papers. I guess that was the goal. Oh, my God. That was the goal.

Like, it just, like, unbelievable. I mean, I didn't know that. I mean, I would, but like the irony, too, by the way of like, you know, their criticism of Maduro is, uh, has to do with violations of human rights. And they're, they're going to justify their own. violations of human rights here in Washington Sea across from the White House. But the Maduro's behind it? It could have been Maduro saying outside agitators did it.

Two, the Wall Street Journal, like right as we were coming in, reported that Trump was on the brink of firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper. And it was because Esper didn't want to use active duty troops to put down protests in D.C. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Millie, also opposed using active duty troops. But if Trump had fired Esper, he would have been. his fourth press sec-deaf to bite the dust. So, I mean, that sounds like as fraught a meeting as you could ever imagine in the Oval Office that day where they were deciding whether or not to call in

the military to, I don't know how much worse it could have gotten, but it seems like it would have gotten worse. Well, if you unpack the reports, right, which have the ring of truth, like Trump was randomly asking for like 10,000 troops to just be deployed around the country. I actually believe that these guys, Millie and Esper probably push back on that. But again, the problem with the whole dynamic, though, we've seen this with some of his other advisors, is that these guys think that, well, we prevented the absolute worst outcome, but we owe him one, so now we'll, like, walk out there for the photo op. You know what I mean?

Like, it seems like Trump, sometimes with these guys who are around him, like he asked for something totally crazy. They feel like they took a stand and said no. So they kind of meet him in the middle. and the middle is, you know, attacking with chemical agents, American peaceful protesters during a photo op. No, just say no, right? And you know what?

Fine. And resign. Quit, man. Quit. You're not really, you know what I mean? Like, we got an election coming up. Like, all bets are off anyway with Trump. Like, just quit and tell everybody what the hell this guy asked you to do rather than go

along with the photo op and then leak it out a few days later. Yeah. Okay. Interesting and instructive examples, I think, from abroad and just the ways we can think differently about policing. Ben, let's talk about Bolivia. So back in 2019, there was a hotly contested election in Bolivia. Then President Evo Morales ran for a fourth term. He ultimately claimed victory. But a number of groups, in particular the OAS, the organization of American states, pointed to voter irregularities

and made accusations of voter fraud, which in part led to massive protests, which led Morales, resigning after the head of the oblivion military, said he had to go. So they, He was under a ton of pressure, but Avo said, you know, there was no fraud. This is a coup. Now a new study has found, this is the New York Times, that a statistical analysis by the OAS that was a key part of their allegations of voter fraud was itself flawed. So specifically, there was a pause in the vote counting after this election for about a day. When it resumed, the vote showed Morales winning, right?

And everyone thought that was suspicious. The OAS said they observed, quote, an inexplicable change, quote, that drastically modifies the fate of the election. There was like a jump in voting or change in voting patterns. That statement escalated the protests that ultimately pushed him out of power. It obviously led to a narrative that he had sold in this election. But this new study claims that the OAS used bad data and flawed statistical techniques. That study still has to be peer reviewed. And it's worth noting that there are a whole bunch of other reasons why observers said,

that vote was not free and fair. Here's an example. Avo Morales used a ruling from Bolivia's constitutional court to get around term limits. So there were supposed to be two-year term limits. He put forward a referendum trying to get Bolivian voters to agree to getting doing away with the term limits. Voters rejected those, but he used this end run through the constitutional court to do it and ignored the 2016 referendum. So that's obviously bad. But that does not mean the OAS didn't screw up big time here if this new data is right. And so seven months later, Bolivia has no elected government and things are very, very bad there. So Ben, I just wanted to know what you made of this study. And, you know, a lot of people think that the OAS is a flawed institution to begin with,

that it's overwhelmingly pro-American. Do you think they can recover from this and still be a useful organization if they so fundamentally fucked up this election? That was what my first reaction to this was, this is devastating to the OAS, right? Because the thing that they've always been up against is that, oh, this is just an extension of American imperialism in the region. The OAS is too chummy with the U.S. Frankly, you know, you and I've seen the OAS headquarters is like right across the street from the White House. It's not the best look, you know? No. And, and, you know, this kind of thing, right, is, could not be more in line with that, you know. I mean, it's not quite as bad as like, a couple of ex-green berets trying to overthrow Maduro,

but it's like in the same category, right? So pretty bad. So pretty bad. So I think it's a just huge blow to them. And then also it's like this, there was already a stalemate in Bolivia. Look, this is just going to be devastating for that because I look, and I have to say, like, I feel pretty, you know, burned by, not that like I'm the one who matters here, but like, why wouldn't, you know, it was plausible, certainly that the, the,

the OAS would report this fraud. It seemed like, you know, that could have explained it. And if there was that fraud, then, you know, that does raise questions. But now it's pretty clear that this is like a right-wing coup. And also, by the way, since getting in, this government has, like, completely, you know, been the worst version of, like, a right-wing military government that is seeking to wipe out indigenous power in Bolivia. and kind of rub everybody's face in it. It's like a worst case scenario because now Avo's supporters are going to say,

see, we told you this was a coup, and OAS, the instrument of the Americans was complicit in it, so they're going to dig in, the people in power dug in, and I worry about how does Bolivia get out of this. It's important to note, as you mentioned, like, Avo's no saint here, like continuing to extend his term, the manner in which, you know, he did that felt like,

like an end run around the Constitution to not just some like right wing people but to some people even in his own party right so you know everybody comes out of this with a little bit of dirt on them but i mean to me um you know this this is a huge story and one that kind of confirms the worst suspicions about what might have taken place here uh in terms of wanting to dislodge you know eva morales at all costs yeah it is just uh if this is true it's an excuse And the devastation to the indigenous population in Bolivia is just enormous and unfixable at this point, it seems. Well, because they're pissed because, like, you know, Avo came in and he was, like, clearly he was trying to, you know, say what you will about him. He was empowering a community that had been screwed for all Bolivian history.

That was a good thing that he did, right? And, you know, as he stayed in power, like all these guys, he becomes more corrupt, he extends his terms. Like, that's a problem with to deal with it. here's the problem with Tommy, like the way in which you would try to deal with it is through organizations like the OAS, you know, that's where you can have dialogue about human rights. That's who you want to be able to monitor elections, right? And so if you really care about things like democracy, undermining the credibility of one of the institutions that can do those things for you, that can monitor elections that can raise concerns about human rights,

that's just going to set everything back here. Yeah, truly. Okay, speaking of new right-wing governments, let's just talk about Bibi Netanyahu for one minute. So over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Nintanaou said he planned to annex West Bank settlements starting on July 1st, which is the earliest date allowed under the terms of the deal he cut with his former opponent, Benny Gans, to form the new coalition government. But Ben, in a sign of just how terrible Trump's Middle East peace proposal was, Bibi has to take a phased approach. So he's going to initially annex 3% of West Bank territories.

It's like 132 settlements. and then it'll annex the rest of the roughly 30% of Palestinian territory at a later date because he and the Trump team are still literally like working on the exact map they will draw to like steal that territory to annex that territory. And so BB reportedly said that he doesn't even agree that the rest of the territory that's supposed to be for a Palestinian state will constitute one. So he's not even agreeing to statehood yet. So in other words, like he's not ready to say they'll stop occupying that term.

or stop trying to claim it. Netanyahu is facing pressure from settlers who think that the Trump plan actually doesn't give them enough control on Saturday. There is opposition to this plan on Saturday, several thousand Israelis in Tel Aviv protested against annexation. Bernie Sanders actually addressed them by video, and he said the following, quote, it has never been more important to stand up for justice and to fight for the future we all deserve. It's up to all of us to stand up to authoritarian leaders and to build a peaceful future for every Palestinian and every Israeli. Shout out to Bernie Sanders for moral clarity there. Ben, I know I bring this issue up a lot. And I don't mean to repeat our conversations or bore listeners. But I'm very alarmed that there's

this very small window of time for the world to take notice, to organize, to put pressure on relevant political leaders and just otherwise act. Because, yes, Biden could unwind a lot of these Trump policies, but you could still end up in a situation where the starting point for negotiation, about borders of a Palestinian state is like de facto only 70% of the starting place today. And the territory is just shrinking and being negotiated down and down and down to basically nothing. And so that's why I'm obsessed with this. Yeah. I mean, I guess the only new twist I put on this, right, is that, you know, we've all been

forced to consider, think about our own communities, our own country. Some of this extends abroad, right? I mean, we're focused on a Black Lives Matter movement here. Like, do Brown Lives Matter in American Farm Policy? You know, think about our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, right? Think about the value we assign to an Israeli life versus a Palestinian life. Think of the language that were even settlements. These are people literally against international law.

displacing other people from their homes to take away their territory. Ask yourself whether the U.S. policy would be different if those people were white. It's just a different and uncomfortable way to think about it. And I say this is someone who comes from a Jewish background and strongly supports, obviously, Israel's need to exist. But as it gets to this question of the West Bank in Gaza, I think we just take a step back and think of the prism through which a lot of people are looking at our own society in the current moment and apply it to our foreign policy. And I think you will find a lot of the same discomfort as you consider why it is we seem to value some human beings less than others. Yeah, I think that's a really important way to think about things and try to have some perspective. Okay, here is a positive story, at least half of it is.

So over the weekend, there was a series of protests in the UK in solidarity with the protests here in the U.S. People were also protesting racial injustices in Britain, including racial disparities in the impact from the coronavirus, police brutality, incarceration levels. And so at a protest in Bristol, England, protesters ripped down the statue of a man named Edward Colston, then rolled it down the street, and then they hucked the thing in the river. And even the authorities were like, you know what, that guy was a piece of shit. So like, whatever, who cares? So this guy, Colton, this is like a historically evil person. He got rich off of slavery. He transported tens of thousands of human beings from West Africa to the Caribbean.

It is horrifying to think that there was a statue of this man in the first place. I hope they melt it down and like, I don't know, do anything with it. But Ben, you know, this moment of hope coincides with yet another lurch forward in the U.S. in the debate over getting rid of Confederate statues and monuments. So just this week, the Pentagon said they were open to stripping the names of Confederate generals off of U.S. Army bases. The Marine Corps has already banned Confederate symbols. But Fort Hood is the largest U.S. military installation in the world, and it's named

after a man who fought for the Confederacy. It's one of 10, 10 army installations named after Confederate generals. And so, like, I hope senior military leaders in this country will unequivocally say that celebrating individuals who supported slavery and committed treason against our country is wrong. I do not think it's hyperbole to suggest that this would, that we'd all be offended if someone put up a statue of a prominent Nazi official on a U.S. base, right? Like, it's clearly wrong. And the good news is that between when I started writing up this section and when I walked in here, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs came out and said he support. talking about these changes. The Navy is going to move to ban Confederate symbols in public spaces. So long, long, long overdue changes. But I'm glad it is forcing this conversation.

Yeah. And because I think, you know, it's like the same thing with the statute debate. First of all, like, what was the intent of naming all these things after Confederates? You know, I mean, the intent, you know, I think was pretty clear, like, you know, an effort not only to kind of rehabilitate the idea of the Confederacy, right, which was an entire. enterprise devoted to slavery and white supremacy. But, you know, also, I think probably to send a message in these communities. It's no coincidence that these facilities are largely in Confederate states, you know. And also, like, it's part of a broader issue. Like, you know, like a lot of American institutions, Tommy, like, I couldn't help notice. And I used to, you know, President Obama

used to talk to me about this. You'd go out to, you know, a base visit with Obama or something. And, you know, the crowd, very diverse. A lot of black and brown faces at the, you know, enlisted level of the military. You move up the officer corps into the generals. There's very few black and brown faces. The institution of the U.S. military, while quite diverse writ large, has a lot of work to do to diversify its upper ranks. I mean, just think about all the generals we're just even talking about. I mean, obviously, Colin Powell's in the mix, but, you know, Mattis and Kelly and McMaster, and, I mean, that's the kind of, you know, it's white men.

Now, Obama tried, you know, made some progress in elevating general officers, you know, who represent, you know, the diversity of America more. But so part of this discussion, I think, is about both, obviously, the history and the, frankly, the need to just to expunge this Confederate nostalgia, but also how does the U.S. military as an institution that really does look like America? You know, how does it stay true to that? And how does its leadership and it's, you know, who it honors represent that? Because how would you like to be a black private, you know, at Fort Hood? You know, what does that say to you about your value relative to, like, your fellow soldier, you know? Yeah, some dead traitors looming over you. Helene Cooper, who is a fantastic Pentagon reporter for the New York Times, had a great piece

about that lack of diversity within the military. That's worth reading is a couple weeks ago. Speaking of the U.S. military, last week it leaked out that President Trump has decided to remove 9,500 U.S. troops from Germany. So that would take the U.S. troop level there from about 34,500 to a cap of 25,000. The White House insisted that this decision was the result of a process run. with the military leadership, and it was not Trump just, you know, lashing out, trying to punish Germany and Chancellor Angela Merkel for stiffing him on the G7 that, like we talked about

last week. But Reuters reported that that's just not true, that national security officials and all components of the government were blindsided by this announcement, and that the Pentagon still hadn't received a formal order to withdraw these guys as of Monday. So Germany hosts about half of U.S. troops that we have in Europe. Ben, can you just sort of explain to folks, like, why we have nearly 35,000 troops in Germany to begin with? Like, what are they doing there? And what did you make of this decision? Like, who do you think would be happy and who do you think will be nervous about this move? Well, look, there's, you know, obviously it dates back to the Cold War, right? And this is like the anchor of our broader true presence in Europe, you know,

and Germany is right in the center of Europe. And so, you know, there's, you know, the heart of the transatlantic alliance, the heart of the alliance from the United States and Europe, you know, is this U.S. German relationship, this troop presence in Germany is emblematic of that. I will say that in government, though, what you also learn is this is a hub for what we do everywhere, you know, so like the troops who are flowing out to Afghanistan or Iraq, like they're going through Germany, you know, people medevac, you know, it's a huge hub for global activity.

extending into the Middle East, into Eastern Europe, into the Mediterranean. So there's a lot, they're not just sitting there. You know, there's there's air bases, there's, you know, there's army. So to me, what was really alarming about this, the way it came out, look, is there some incremental reduction that could be planned in concert with Germany and our NATO allies that could slightly reduce the troop presence, like probably. But that's not what this feels like. You know, this does feel like Trump, you know,

just he doesn't like NATO, he doesn't like Angela Merkel. She hasn't gone along with some of the things he wanted to do. It has very much the feel of him just kind of wanting to stick it to Angela Merkel. And I worry, frankly, over the next few months, you know, Trump's made all kinds of comments about U.S. troops in South Korea and Japan. You know, is he just going to start, like, pulling U.S. troops out of allied countries as some kind of weird election year America first kind of thing in ways it'll be very destabilizing because your question, who's happy about this?

I mean, not to, you know, sound like the MSNBC contributor that I am, but fucking Vladimir Putin is the only guy who's happy about. Like literally the only, you know, the world leader who, like, the Europeans will be like, oh, here's another sign of America abandoning us. Here's another sign that NATO is increasingly less relevant. Here's another sign that we can't really count on the Americans anymore. We have to kind of figure things out for ourselves. Vimer Putin's looking at this and is like, this is great. He's been trying to pick off European countries for years now. He's been trying to like pull Eastern European countries back under Russia's influence as well. He's been trying, frankly, to, you know, there's a pipeline to Germany that makes Germany and parts of Europe

more dependent on Russian oil and gas. Like, this is all to his liking and benefit. And I don't really see what's in it for the U.S. I just don't see, there's no national security reason to do this, put it that way. Yeah, and it's just worth noting that like this stuff is so complicated logistically that it might not even

save us money. I mean, we might have to ask to put troops somewhere else. Like you might have to build them installation in Poland, for example, that will cost more money. It will harm readiness. It's unlikely that this will

incentivize the Germans to spend more on their own domestic security forces, which has been Trump's hobby horse since day one and Twitter troll Rick and Reynolds hobby horse since day one. It just seems likely to make the population hate him even more. Yeah, and there's a basic contradiction here, which is that Trump talks about wanting to save money and at the same time he brags about how much he's increased the fucking Pentagon budget. Right. Like it doesn't, it's not on the level. It is not an on the level argument. If you wanted to save money, then don't spend a trillion dollars on new nuclear weapons. At the same time that he's, what, he thinks he's cut in cost by removing some troops

from Germany. And like you say, it's not clear to me that this really does cut that much cost. At the same time, he's doing that. He's got like an arms control guy saying, we want to spend Russia and China in oblivion, and he's probably about to run for president bragging about how much money he's poured into the Pentagon budget. So, and I hate to say, like, but like sometimes with Trump, like your worst suspicions are the ones that are affirmed when the stuff comes out. And the worst suspicion is that he doesn't

care about Europe. And he's happy to leave it as a much more wide open playing field for Putin to mess around. Like, that's probably what's happened here. You know, like, let's face it. Like, we can twist ourselves and knots trying to assign some, like, logic under what Trump does. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the one that's right. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's right, too. A couple more quick thing. So on Sunday, Iran passed its first law protecting children from emotional or physical abuse or abandonment. And that move came in response to a just awful story about a teenage girl who was beheaded by her own father because she had run off with her boyfriend. Her name was Romina Ashrafi in this incident, which is a truly horrific practice called an honor killing. And so this bill to

protect children had been sitting in Iran's parliament for a years waiting to get passed, waiting to get moved. And this story shocked the nation. It highlighted the horrible treatment and lack of legal protections for women and children in Iran. But, you know, Iran is still, you know, has not passed legislation protecting them from emotional, sexual, or physical abuse for women, despite domestic violence being just an epidemic in Iran. So, you know, Ben, we criticize U.S. policy towards Iran a lot. But this story speaks to how screwed up the Iranian legal system is. And so I guess my question for you is, do you think there are avenues that currently exist for listeners or countries like the U.S. to put pressure on places like Iran that mistreat

women, mistreat children in this grotesque ways? Yeah. And there's these problems. I mean, problems is not a strong enough word, these horrific instances of honor killings and in some other places like Pakistan. You know, I think honestly, like right now, um, um, I've been thinking about this a lot like everybody else in the last couple of weeks. You know what to put the most pressure on regimes like this? What's happening in our streets right now? Because that's part of what happened here is people in Iran were like, you know what, fuck this. Like we are fed up with this, you know.

And what's going to be more impactful if the world sees like a justice movement in the U.S. build and build and get more diverse and frankly ultimately kick down. Trump out of the White House and change this country, that's going to do more than any U.S. foreign policy probably could. Now, what should the U.S. do? Again, what we should do is, you know, not just kind of beat Iran over the head with this issue bilaterally, but this is why we should be at, like, the U.N. Human Rights Council. This is why we should be engaged, you know, multilaterally to be raising these issues.

that we're against this kind of stuff everywhere, you know, and we're against in Iran, but like that we're holding Iran to account in multilateral fora on these issues. So it's not perceived as just part of the extension of the blood feud between the U.S. and Iran. Like that, I'd like to see that kind of approach again where we're looking to spotlight human rights issues to make progress on them to like, you know, for countries that do want to do the right thing, to help them figure out, okay, what's an engagement? example of someone who's effectively gotten rid of these practices and can you learn from that. Like, that's the work that the U.S. has to get back to doing so that these things are not just seen

as, like, issues that we raise only with Iran and, you know, Venezuela. Like, what the Iranian regime is done to women is grotesque, you know. And Iranian women are some of the toughest, most brilliant. I mean, like, there's so much talent there, you know. And as in Saudi, you know, like these countries would look so different if, if women had full and equal participation in national economic and political life. Like that should be what the U.S. stands for everywhere. Yeah. A huge horrible story and a huge opportunity cost for these countries to treat women in this way is, you know.

Totally. It was hard to read. But I'm glad at least this law passed. I hope it has some teeth to it. Last thing I had for you, Ben, was remember John Bolton, mustache guy, loves wars. Yeah, speaking of Iran, like, you know, crying into his mustache. Yeah, he likes to tell the truth. Didn't get that word.

If you pay him to speak to your CEO for him, he'll tell you some secrets. So he wrote a book about his time of the White House. The publication of that book has been held up for like almost six months by a review of whether or not it contained classified information. It's clear that Trump just like doesn't want it to come out. He's worried it's damning. So Bolton is reportedly going to just publish. the thing later this month. According to the Washington Post, theoretically, Bolton could lose his

security clearance or have to forego the profits from the book if he goes ahead and publishes without the okay. So, Ben, like, I don't know who to root for here since they both suck, both sides are. But most importantly, do you think we should try to book Bolton on the show for his rollout? You know, I mean, I think he would do it, right? Because he's that kind of, well, I don't know. I mean. He likes to fight. You like to fight, right? Like, I, you know, I don't want to go along with the grift here. I mean, because here's what pisses me off about Bolton. Like, you know what would have been really relevant to hear what's in this book?

During the impeachment inquiry. Like, like, and frankly, Bolden missed his moment, right? Because, like, if the blockbuster stuff in this book is all about Ukraine, like, nobody is really going to give a shit about that now. Like, what are we going to do about it? We've had a freaking pandemic and a depression and in horrific police violence since then. You know, Bolden, you should have spoken up when you had the shot there to actually make a difference. Like, that's what I find.

So, you know, like, I like the idea of everybody who has something to say about Trump saying it between now and the election. I don't like the idea of how this guy just tries to profit off of it. I will say, Tommy, like, if there really is classified stuff in this book, he's not going to see any money from it. It's not just a Trump thing. This happened, you know, I remember the book, No Easy Day? Yep. Like a Navy seal who was on a bin Laden raid, just went and wrote a book without, you know, any consideration of classification or review. And I think what ended up happening that guy is even though it was a blockbuster runaway bestseller,

like he didn't see a dollar because the government sued blocked the... I think he had to give $6.6 million to the government. Yeah. So it'd be pretty ironic if Bolden comes out, tries his big grift, the book sells a lot, Trump loses, and then under a Biden administration, John Bolton's proceeds have to go to the U.S. government. That may be how this story should end. I'd be cool, Daddy.

I'd have to go to like USAID or something. institution you hated, maybe the UN. Maybe the U.S. government can donate the proceeds to Bolton's book to purchase humanitarian goods for the Iranian people. I love it. I love it. Well, listen, we know John listens. Send us an embargoed, send us an embargoed copy. We'll let you know if you're, if you get an invite to the show. But until then, speaking of of great authors, not terrible ones like John Bolton, when we come back, we have my conversation with the Washington Post, David Ignatius. We're going to talk spies. We're going to talk generals.

We talk about Mike Pompeo, our favorite person. So stick around for that. I am thrilled to be joined by David Ignatius, one of the great columnists at the Washington Post, and a prolific author of fantastic spy novels, including a new one called The Paladin. It came out earlier this month. Are we able to get them in stores? Are they all sold out still? So it's tough.

You know, it's tough giving them a stock. I think your listeners probably could find, find some at their local independent bookstore or that great big giant owned by the guy who likes to invest in newspapers. Yes, yes, yes, I've heard of him. Beezis or something like that. Let's start with the spy novel because I personally have found that immersing yourself in a spy novel has been a great way to actually make my brain detach from the COVID reality

around us. And so I'm excited to talk with you about, you know, this revolted. against Trump by military leaders and General Flynn and all that stuff. But, you know, tell me about the Paladin. Tell us what it's about and why folks should read it. And also, since you cover the CIA so closely, since you know all these intelligence chiefs, how much does that bleed into your fiction writing? So the Paladin is a story of a CIA officer named Michael Dunn, who was assigned to penetrate a quasi-journalistic, quasi-hacker organization. in Italy run by an American.

CI wants to be inside of it because this organization is doing things with computers that they just don't understand. Deep fakes that allow them to create not fake news but fake events. So they order him to get inside of this. He suspects that it's illegal and it is. And he is indicted and convicted. The book opens with him being sentenced to a year in prison for what he's done. So a lot of the book is his attempt to understand, first, what were these people doing with their technology?

Second, who set him up? Why was he sent on this mission? And then finally, to take revenge against the people who put him in this disastrous situation, whereas his whole life, his marriage, his family is destroyed. And I guess, Tommy, I feel like we're in a world now where the truth feels so manipulable, so easily bent that we're all struggling as a hero this novel is to figure out what is true, who is trying to deceive me and why. You ask how much of this is drawn from my journalism.

I've been covering the CIA for more than 40 years, and the answer is a lot. I see things in the world as a reporter that I just want to unpack. I don't want to have to answer the questions in 750 words that are the column. I want to let it be. I want to let it lay out as full and rich, rich as it is in life. So my fictionist now my 11th novel has allowed me to do that. And I just, you know, I hate to give it up. When I was young, I thought, man, you have to choose. You got to be one of the other. I never did. And I'm glad I did it. I love it. I mean, look, you know, Le Carre, right? I'm sure he drew constantly from real life events that he lived or experienced.

if you read about Kim Philby or what's the great book, The Spy and the Trader that's about this Russian double agent that penetrated the British services. Everything you're describing in the novel feels like it could be real and happening right now. So LeCarray almost invented the language that is now the language of espionage. People never used to refer to moles in the CIA or in British intelligence until LeCoree thought of that name. to describe the penetration agent who've gotten inside MI6, much the way Philby had. And all of the kind of characters, the atmospherics of his novels, I feel we all feel as readers if we've been inside Moscow Center with Carla, the Russian spymaster. We remember Toby Esther Haas and all these characters. I always thought it must be difficult to be an MI6 agent after Lookeray wrote all these books

because everybody's image of what a spy is is George Smiley and all these people. I mean, what about the sort of poor real-life versions? Yeah, right, yeah. Jim Angleton is probably a whole lot less interesting once you read a whole bunch of novels about the better versions. So it's a strange but true fact that when I'm starting as a journalist in my late 20s, I called up James Angleton. I was just starting to cover the CIA.

It was like 1979. This bizarre voice answered on his answering me, we are not in at present. I left a message and he called me back. And so I used to go have lunches with James Angleton, this completely scary CIA dude, you know, for I must have had, you know, six or eight lunches with him.

And, you know, it was quite an education. when I tell that to people when I'm interviewing CI officers, you know, yeah, actually, I met Anglin, like their jaws dropped because at the agency, you know, you didn't, CIA officers didn't get to meet him. What was he doing talking to a young journalist? Yeah, he was a big time, totally paranoid, a counterintelligence guy, right? For listeners who don't know. He, James Aitlin ran CI counterintelligence for, gosh, more than 20, 25 years. He was a close friend of Kim Filby. Kim Filby, the famous British spy, turned out to be a Russian defector. And he was haunted by that. To the end of his life, it was something that he used to talk about when we would have lunches. He was a fascinating, bizarre character. He would sip Mai Tai cocktails out of a straw, smoked Virginia Slims, hold him like this.

You couldn't invent a character like this. But when I say haunted, I mean it. He still thought there was this conspiracy. that had misled and to see the CIA to the day he died. Wow. See, look, like I said, I mean, my brain is already somewhere else. My head is in the paladin. I am not sitting in my home where I haven't left for like three months. Let's talk about some of your fantastic reporting for a second. So you reported that President Trump came closer to ordering active duty military troops

to intervene against protesters in D.C. than almost anyone understood. what do you think held him back? So I think he was ready to do it. I think that he was, what held him back was the feeling that General Millie, the chairman of the joint chiefs who made the terrible mistake that fateful Monday of going out in public in his camouflage uniform and walking around D.C., a terrible image. But behind the scenes, my reporting is he was convinced and had been arguing to the president for by that point three or four days. It would be a terrible mistake to send in the military. It's not necessary. The National Guard is sufficient.

And what these military officers fear above anything else, you know, Tommy from your time in the White House is the military getting politicized. They hate it. It's an all volunteer army. They feel like they're professionals. The idea that they would be called out to put down civilian protest in the United States, that they would be seen to be taking sides. I think just that they hated it. So I think the Pentagon was very strongly against it.

I think Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, not always the most forthright defense secretary for sure. I think he also opposed it. I think they were buying for time, hoping as often as the case that Trump's rants would not turn into orders. And in this case, they didn't. But I think it was, it was a close call that the military did bring units up to Washington, D.C. The 82nd Airborne Division, where most elite army units was brought from Fort Bragg, I believe, to Fort Belvoir, south of Washington. The first infantry regiment or the so-called old gar, I forget which number it is, was mobile.

at Fort Meyer to prepare to go in, to go on the streets. So that's how close we came. And when you look back as terrible as these events have been, if it had gone that next step, you know, you have a situation where you could have had, I'd say this, but you could have had an American Tiananmen. You could have had a situation where American active duty military were being called on to put down a citizen protest.

Just incredible to think about. So there are a lot of reasons. I think one of them is that the military itself, led by General Millie, really didn't want to do this. Yeah. Well, and look, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that in recent weeks you've seen a number of senior military officials publicly condemned Trump, Colin Powell, General Natis, the former White House chief of staff, General Kelly. Do you have a sense of what the tipping point was? Was it the images on the street that we saw last week?

I think the tipping point, what was that imagery in a sense that the military, military was very close, as I said in the column you cited, closer than most people realized, but these former four stars did understand it. It was very close to being drawn into this super divisive political moment, being drawn into quelling citizen protests over what a lot of our military leaders, it felt was just, you know, they feel this issue of police brutality. Military is one of our, you know, more successfully integrated, things in American life. So you had, among other things, a lot of African-American military

officers and senior enlisted people beginning to speak out, beginning to make statements. And I think the senior leadership was aware of that, was aware that too. Yeah. Speaking of former generals, so last week we finally saw these declassified transcripts of calls between formal national security advisor, General Flynn, and Russian, then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kisliak. What do you think we learned from those transcripts? And do you think they give us any insight into DOJ's decision to drop charges against Flynn? To me, Tommy, the transcripts when they were released made the decision by Attorney General Barr and his Justice Department to effectively drop the case, even more mystifying.

When you read what Flynn actually was saying to Kislyak, just to set it up for your listeners. On the day that President Obama finally retaliated against this Russian assault on our political system, December the 29th, President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, but most of all of them were probably doing intelligence work. On that day, the National Security Advisor designate for the new administration called the Russian ambassador, the leader of this country's operations in the U.S., and basically reassured him that if he just waited, that a new team would come in and, you know, let's talk about this,

let's calm things down, let's not escalate. You know, he essentially spoke to this issue of the sanctions that had been ordered that that very day in a way that was trying to separate him and the new administration from what President Obama had done on behalf of the United States. This was not a political action. Our country was attacked. People need to understand that. We were attacked by a very deliberate across-the-board covert action designed to destabilize our politics. So when the details of the conversation came out, as somebody who has been involved in covering the story from the beginning, I found them disturbing. And I also understood why Flynn and the people around him from the very beginning, from the moment I first published this story on January 12, 2017,

describing the Flynn-Kissliak calls, why they were so determined to suppress the fact that these calls had taken place and that they discussed the sanctions that Obama had imposed. I wonder why had they lied about it? Why had they made such a point, why did they lie to Vice President Pence? Why had they allowed Pence to go on TV and say false things about this? And when you read the transcript, it becomes a little clearer why they were so determined to suppress it. Yeah, I agree. It was hard to see it all spelled out like that. But I mean, I'm glad I declassified it. I wasn't thrilled with then DNI, Rick Grinnell running around declassifying on names of people who may or may not have unmasked Trump administration officials that seemed a touch inappropriate, but I did, I was glad to finally read the transcripts

themselves. You know, I thought it was, it was, it was useful to have to have that out. The, you know, the, in a sense, the public finally in the November elections is going to have a chance to express what it, what it thinks about all this behavior. And we've had the Mueller investigation. We've had congressional committees looking at it. We had impeachment, uh, investment. investigation, vote, acquittal. Now the public gets to weigh in. My column be out probably by the time your folks are hearing this, but it's about the question that's coming at us, just straight on, which is, is this election in November going to have a legitimate outcome, or is it going to be challenged? You can already see President Trump seeming to lay the groundwork for challenging it. People are going to have to vote by absentee ballot with the, pandemic. My dad is 99 years old. He should not go to a polling place November, but he wants to vote. So what's going to be? How does he vote? How does everybody vote except, you know, by using mail and absentee voting to an unusual extent? And Trump has been trying to argue that that's

going to be fraud. It's going to be illegitimate. So I think we need to see that coming at us, begin thinking now, how we prevent it, how we prevent this crucial election from, you know, like being vaporized. Think of what the Russians and Chinese will do to add uncertainty and division as we go to the polls. There will be a lot of right in or absentee mail-in votes. It'll take a week to count. Can you imagine what's going to be like? But in a week from November 3 election day to November 10 when you'll have all those votes

count, what's that going to be like? A nightmare. So we need to get ready for it. Yeah. I totally agree with you. It gives me anxiety literally every day. So I'm going to take you back in time for a minute, about 2012, 2013, and just be a pain in the ass like I used to be when I was a spokesman in the White House. You were a helpful paying ass.

But I ask you about Mike Pompeo's Madison dinners. So quick background for a listener. So NBC reported this story out that Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, his wife, they've hosted roughly two dozen dinner parties at the State Department during his tenure. So taxpayers foot the bill for these dinner parties. they estimated it was in the six figures for all of them. So, you know, 29% of guests were sort of CEOs, business types, 25% were media folks, mostly conservative media, 30% worked in politics or government, and then 14% were diplomats or foreign officials. So no Democrats, no Democratic elected officials were invited. NBC reported that internally there were some officials at state,

worry that the dinners could just be a way for Pompeo to cultivate a donor base or build political support if he ran for Senate or president. You went to one of those dinners and wrote a column that, you know, look, in the world of Trump scandals, this was not a big deal. And I just wanted to press you on that a little bit because I do agree with your broader point that it's good to build relationships. You want the ambassador to Germany to know the Senate foreign relations chairman and build relationships with the media or get ideas from the private sector. But what I found egregious about Pompeo's conduct generally, I think, is just just how few diplomats were invited as compared to like the CEO of Chick-fil-A being there

or like the naked political value of inviting the governor of New Hampshire, which he also did. And I just, you know, it struck me as maybe part of an erosion of norms where hatch act violations were once a big deal. And now you have Pompeo doing these dinners, took three trips to Kansas. He's making his second visit to Iowa this year, I believe. So he's not a subtle guy, which was sort of my takeaway from the stories. Nobody has ever accused Pompeo of being subtle. Yeah.

So what I said in that column was that I think that we need to calibrate our outrage meter. I mean, I'm not saying that these dinners are, you know, above question. And the guest list, as you say, you know, isn't what what you dream of. But I thought I should just tell readers. I was invited to one. I get invited to dinners at embassies too often. I spent so many nights at events like this. And it is part of, I feel, part of my job to go out and listen to people and, you know, ask questions, hear what people are saying.

And so I have written very critically about Mike Pompeo. I had written, after I was invited to this dinner, I slammed him in a column that said that I thought he'd just completely abandoned and betrayed the people who worked for him. So as I said in a column, I called one of his senior aides and said, look, you know, if it's uncomfortable for the Secretary of State to have me there, I'll understand. Nobody should have to have dinner with somebody who's been as critical as I just have been. The answer came back, no, no, it's okay. And, you know, it was a civil event, a civil discussion. I was asked what I thought, and I said, I, you know, I've been in this room so many times for events that are like this. And if I've learned one thing, it's that our foreign policy is successful and it's bipartisan, that, you know, it's successful when people in the media are able to cover the department freely.

I've been doing this. It's ridiculous how long I've been doing this, but, you know, since the late 70s, early 80s. So, you know, I do think that there's a benefit. I ended up slamming Pompeo again after the dinner, even more sharply, saying that he basically had an anger management problem going back to Kansas and finding out that back in 2014, when he was running for Congress, his Republican primary opponent was handing out stickers that said, Mike bullied me. He was, this is 2014.

It's six years ago. yet so you know I don't I don't really think that I I've pulled my punches on Pompeo but but I just you know I the point I wanted to make was you know we need to be careful about treating everything you know like the ultimate you know outrage if we don't calibrate you don't save our fire for the things that really are fundamental assaults on our country I think I think making a mistake yeah look I think I think think you're right. My last question for you, and if folks want to pause here to purchase the Paladin, now's a great time. It's always a great time. It's always a great time. So here's, I think, a much more important issue than a bunch of dinners, which is the former State Department Inspector General said he was bullied by other department officials because he was examining potential misconduct within the department. And specifically, was told not to pursue an investigation into whether the State Department and the administration had illegally sold arms to Saudi Arabia.

Do you think that the relevant committees are really digging into this? Because historically, there have been some senators on both sides who really care about inspectors general and who have read presidents a riot act and demanded accountability. But I was not thrilled to see the other day that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has given up on trying to get Pompeo to testify, although maybe that's COVID-related. I'm not sure. So I share your view that accountability,

the idea that oversight by Congress of government activities and oversight by inspectors general of government activities is collapsing, it is just, it's shocking. There are lots of examples, one that particularly disturbing, me is that the intelligence community, which historically has every year given a threat assessment in public so that the country can understand what our intelligence agencies really are worried about. And then members of Congress can ask questions about that. They are so scared of the White House.

They're so scared of this public accountability that they pleaded with Congress. Don't make us do this. Can we do it in private? So they did in private. Trump and Pompeo, Chuck, inspectors general out the window, and they get away with it. And I wrote recently, Trump, whose business experience is largely running a privately held company, the Trump organization. It is not accountable to shareholders. It doesn't have to disclose a lot of its results.

Trump acts like he owns this place. he acts like the U.S. government is a private business it is. He can do what he wants. And I cannot, you know, people, not just, you know, you and me and our listeners, but, you know, Pete, the whole country needs to think. How we feel about that? I mean, are we okay with that? Because we get a chance to, you know, make our own choices in November. Yeah, we sure do. David, it was so great to talk with you. My producer, Michael Martinez, read The Paladin in like two sittings. So there's a lot of folks who are, fans of the book here. It is next up on my Kindle. It is a thrill to talk to you, as always. Keep up the great reporting. And thank you. Thanks, Tommy. Thanks for having me. Thanks again to David Anacius for joining the show. Ben, I wanted to ask you before we go, have you seen the show Space Force on Netflix? No, Steve Carell, right? I mean, is it good? Somehow they wrote like a VEEP style show about the Space Force. And I read somewhere that Netflix actually beat the government to the punch and got a bunch of Space Force trademarks before they did, which seems like an odd

national security loophole that somebody should close. But yeah, I watched like four or five episodes. Like, there's some funny moments. It's silly. It's dumb. I kind of like it. It's a nice relief or relief from the current, you know, pandemic moment. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just meandering around the Anthony Bourdain back catalog. I've made my way back. I'm in no reservations land now, too. I'm not even parts unknown. I banged out Romania, Laos, Thailand. Like, I'm just, you know, all the greatest hits there. So that's the comfort food I'm going for these days. I miss him very much. It's also really fun to watch those old ones. You can see him getting better and better at doing this show. Totally. Totally. Totally interesting, actually. And our, you know,

best friend of the pod, Jason Resign is a fascinating guy to talk to about this because he went on the Bordane Iran episode. But if you go back to what's so interesting is if you, go back to the early no reservation stuff. It's just a cool guy traveling around and eating stuff and talking about food. And there's this kind of gradual, well, then let's bring in the history of the place. And then let's bring in the culture. And then by the time it's at CNN, it's like very political, you know. But I remember talking to his producer, right?

Because we did the Bourdain thing. And, you know, I set up the Bordane thing in Vietnam. With Obama. And so I got to be friends. His team was so great. I mean, the wonderful, wonderful woman named Sandy Zvaig, who's the senior producer. And she made this point that, like, what Bourdain basically figured out is if you go someplace, once you have a meal with someone and you've shown that you appreciate their culture and you're interested in them,

then it's so much easier to have a tough political conversation. And I thought it was such an interesting insight. Like, you know, if you turn up in Israel or the West Bank and you just start asking people, so what do you think about the settlements? Like, you're going to get a certain kind of answer. If you show up, you have a meal, you ask. about the history of the food and blah blah blah and then you're like oh yeah and what's up with you know and i just that very simple insight i mean there's so many other things to say about bourdain

but like you can see him kind of figure that out like oh wait i can find a way into these places through food they can then allow for a much bigger conversation so it is cool to see that progression yeah i really miss that those shows it's a big void it's a two-year anniversary basically of his death this month so yeah huge void yeah tragic uh well that is it for our show everyone uh you know If you need something great to watch, go back and watch some old Bordane episodes or read his books, which are fantastic, dude. Kitchen Conventional is an amazing read. Totally.

Anyway, that's all we got this week. Thanks for tuning in. Ben's adopting Michigan. Huge news. Go blue. Go blue. Go blue. Sorry, Mike O'Neill.

Yeah, sorry, Mike O'Neill. Pottae of the World is a product of crooked media. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Chris Basil. Kyle Seiglin is our sound engineer. Special thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmelkonian, and Milo Kim, who film and share our episodes as videos every week.