The President's Daily Brief - Special Weekend Edition: PDB Mail Bag

Episode Date: February 17, 2024

In this special edition of The President's Daily Brief, Mike Baker dives into the PDB mail bag to answer your burning questions.   Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief.   Email: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to a special weekend edition of the President's Daily Brief. I'm your host, Mike Baker. Let's get briefed. Now, since taking over hosting duties here at the PDB back in September of last year, I've received thousands of messages and emails from you, the most excellent PDB listeners. Now, honestly, and this is completely objective on my part, but I think the PDB has the most informed listeners in the podcast universe. Now, while I obviously can't respond to all of them, I wanted to take this opportunity to shine a spotlight on some of your comments and answer some of the questions that you've sent my way. All right, let's get started. This first question comes from Jacob, who writes, At what point do we prioritize national security above foreign aid? I understand your argument that funding the war in Ukraine is helping national security against Russian expansion, but at the same time, it appears that we're intentionally ignoring the other elephant in the room, which is the Chinese military and economic expansion. That's a big

elephant. Arguing that lawmakers shouldn't hold up Ukraine aid due to border reform or Middle East aid seems to be a very narrow view of our overall national security. I know there's a question in here somewhere, Jacob. He continues to take an analogy from history. It's like sinking all your funding into the Maginot line, only to ignore the Belgian lowlands. Wow. Hmm, aren't you a historian? and then he finishes off by saying, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the question. All right, well, first of all, thanks very much, Jacob. And well done for you, referencing the Maginot Line. While it does seem that the U.S. government at times is incapable of multitasking,

usually that's because they are just frankly terrible at communicating and explaining to the American people what they are doing and why, right? Given the media's singular focus on Ukraine at times, you can be forgiven, for thinking that Ukraine is the only issue of concern for the government. But the reality is, thankfully different. And the military and intel community in particular are very focused on a variety of crisis and concerns. And chief among them, as you correctly pointed out, is the Chinese regime and it's increasingly boisterous and aggressive behavior on the world stage. All right, this next one comes from Matt, and he writes, how exactly would Putin occupy and hold Kyiv and why? If U.S.

occupation, Soviet occupation for that matter, of Afghanistan, showed that occupiers have the hardest time pacifying the locals and establishing supply lines, why the blue hell would Putin want to occupy Ukraine and take Kiev? It would make no sense. Please explain why you keep saying he'd be in Ukraine if we cut off the aid. Why not just stop at the NEPA river and leave Ukraine a rump state? All right, well, thanks, Matt, and good use of the term blue hell. Putin has said repeat.

over the years that the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union, and he means it. He's been trying to rebuild the former empire in some fashion for years. Now, the analogy with Afghanistan that you've made is it's not quite on target. I get why you're saying it, but it's not quite on target. We're talking about the U.S. and the former Soviet Union trying to oversee a vastly different culture, an Islamic society made up of warring tribes without any real connection to what the U.S. or frankly the Soviets brought to the table. Putin essentially looks at the Ukraine as a part of Russia that never should have been considered a separate country.

So would it be difficult to establish and maintain control over the entire country? Well, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not his objective. Hitler imagined he could overrun and enslave all of Russia back in 1941. Like despots and dictators, they don't use the same logic train as others. All right, let's go to Gerald. He's a fellow Boisian. Now, that's the awkward term that we use for people from or living in Boise, Idaho. So the Boisian says, I've heard a lot of talk about us attacking Iran for supporting the terrorist groups that are attacking us. I was wondering what your take is on the difference between us attacking Iran for their support of these groups versus Russia potentially attacking us or our interests for supporting Ukraine. I'm retired from the U.S. Army and am as patriotic as they come, Gerald says. But I can see how this could be used by Russia to drag us further into that conflict.

All right, first of all, thanks very much, Gerald, for your service. And second, you're living in Boise. So remember, don't forget to stop by the stagecoach there in Boise. It's America's finest bar and old school steakhouse. Now on to your question. Both Russia and Iran are the aggressors. Russia is an invading military. So the U.S., NATO, and EU have come to the east.

of a country attempting to push back an invading army. Iran is the aggressor in using its various proxy groups to pursue its key objectives of becoming the leading player in the Middle East, removing the U.S. from the Middle East, and destroying Israel. So if your question is, is there a difference between us responding to Iran for their use of terrorism via proxy groups to destabilize the Middle East and attack our personnel facilities, and Russia attacking U.S. interest for coming to the aid of Ukraine, which Russia has invaded, well, yeah, I'd say the U.S. is on the right side of both equations. Our next email comes from Paul from Los Angeles, California. He says, Mike, you're a great American.

My buddies and I never miss an episode. Thank you for what you do. Question for you. If you were a betting man, what are the odds? We would actually grow some balls and hit Iran directly during Biden's final year in office. Well, first of all, Paul, I like to cut of your jib. Clearly, you're a judge of character and of podcasts. If Iran doesn't reign in their proxy groups and cease the constant missile and drone attacks on U.S. and allied personnel and facilities, I'd say the Biden administration will have no choice but to engage in a more direct effort at deterrence. And that would mean striking directly at Iranian interests. Now, that could mean enacting much more stringent sanctions on the regime, depriving them of revenue, much like what happened during the previous administration. Or it could

mean targeting infrastructure or key military facilities, or it could mean both. This one comes from listener Rick, who writes, I don't want to sound like a jerk. Always, always be on the lookout. When someone starts a sentence or a conversation by saying, I don't want to sound like a jerk. Anyway, Rick continues, but why do you have to say Iranian-backed about everything before you speak about it? Is it a talking point you're given by someone or what?

Just curious, thanks. Well, that's a very good question from the Iranian-backed Rick. Actually, I insert that note often before mentioning Hamas, the Houthis, Hasbullah, or others, because I believe it's important to draw attention to the ultimate source of much of the instability and chaos currently happening in the Middle East. It's really as simple as that. All right, I'll be right back with more of your questions and comments after a quick break. How many discounts does USA Auto Insurance Offense?

Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount? New vehicle discount. Storage discount. Legacy-Rour discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Welcome back to this special weekend edition of the President's Daily Brief. Let's jump right back in with a question from a listener named Tyler.

Now, Tyler is asking about the recent bombing that killed dozens of people in Iran. He asks, why would ISIS attack the citizens of Iran? Iran. It seems like Iran and ISIS have very similar goals and common enemies. Why would ISIS use the memorial anniversary event of Qasem Soleimani, who was killed by the U.S., to kill innocent civilians who may have similar beliefs as they do? Thanks for your time, and thanks for keeping us informed. Well, Tyler, thanks very much. The best part about hosting the PDB, aside from the snacks and martini bar in the green room, is being able to play a small part in helping folks be informed on world events. Now with your question, I don't want to oversimplify, but ISIS is a Sunni entity, while the Iranian

regime is Shia. The two branches of Islam have a long and brutal history of violence against each other. ISIS has blamed Soleimani in the past for killing many of their fighters, and he actually played a key role for Iran in commanding Shiite militias controlled by the IRC that targeted ISIS. So in fact, ISIS attack on that memorial event that made sense, and they were also, frankly, looking to kill as many Shiye Muslims as possible. This next one is from Elliot. He's writing in from Neptune Beach, Florida, and he writes, Dear Mike. Oh, that's nice, dear Mike. I've been a listener ever since seeing you on Gutfeld on Fox News. I appreciate your succinct take on what's going on. My question is this. Considering the mess we're seeing around the world right now, is there a specific. point in time that you feel American foreign policy really started going downhill.

Okay, well, I hope all's well in Neptune Beach, Elliot. It's a bit of a leading question that you ask. I don't know that I'd say U.S. foreign policy is going downhill. That makes it sound like it's just headed to the bottom. It's more like it ebbs and flows based on each administration. The U.S. has high points, and they've got lows. And I try not to be overly pessimistic, because luckily, each administration only gets a maximum of eight years to really muck things up. All right, I got a couple of messages similar to this next one. This comes from Greg in Vesalia, California. He writes, Mike.

You mentioned on the Tuesday, January 30th episode, that's very specific, that maybe the PDB might be the longest running program, beating out cats, Hamilton, and the dog and pony show done by Congress and their feckless impeachment attempt with Mayorkas. That's true. A lot of research shows that I believe the PDB has now run longer than Katz or Hamilton, and that research may be completely flawed. All right, Greg continues, then you went to commercial, and none other than Adam Schiff comes on to talk about why you should vote for him. I was doing the grocery shopping while listening, and, well, when I heard his voice in my earphone, it was soon followed by the public address in the store saying, clean up on aisle 7 as I blew chunks of my lunch all over the club soda and ginger ale shelves. I guess you'll take anyone's money, he says, so long as it's green. I will say that taking too many ads for people like Schiff could impact negatively your longest-running ambitions. Well, Greg, first of all, I'm glad you had the good sense not to lose your lunch on the tonic water shelf. Gin and tonics with a lime are a precious commodity and you wouldn't want to sell you a key ingredient.

It's important to note here that the PDB doesn't actually choose the ads, right? that's a decision for the various podcast platforms. We do have some terrific sponsors, I mean, really great sponsors. But I get why you have a visceral reaction to political ads. And by the way, stand by for some breaking news about an ad-free subscription version of the BDB. All right, I want to get one last email lit. And that's from Andre, who's writing from Monmouth, New Jersey. Andre asks, are there any interesting anecdotes that you can share with us from your days with the CIA? or is it all very hush-hush? Okay, Andre, well, first of all, I'm surprised that you know the term hush-hush. That's a technical spy term used inside the CIA. Listen, I was very fortunate during my time

with the outfit to engage in some very interesting, challenging, and at times entertaining activities and operations, and to work with some of the finest people I'll ever meet. The folks in the company work in the shadows, usually without recognition or overt praise. and often at the pointy tip of the spear. It was a great ride, and I will always be grateful that they gave me that chance. So I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes you've got to keep your pile shut. It's, as we say in the espionage business, hush, hush. All right, I just want to thank all of the listeners who send comments and questions.

You can always reach us at PDB at thefirsttv.com, and send us a note. Let us know if you'd like mailbag episodes like this to be a regular feature. That's all the time we've got for now. I'm Mike Baker, and I'll be back on Monday. Until then, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.