The Tucker Carlson Show - National Security Expert Elbridge Colby’s Advice to Trump on How to Avoid WWIII & Handle the CIA

Episode Date: November 10, 2024

Elbridge Colby is one of the very few experienced national security officials who actually agrees with Donald Trump. He’s likely to play a big role in the new administration. (00:00) The Steps Trump Needs to Take To Avoid WWIII (09:10) The Dangers of War With Iran (18:10) Why Is The Blob Pro-War? (24:52) We Need to Hold the CIA Accountable (32:49) What Should Trump Do About Russia and Ukraine? (48:50) The Pentagon’s Support for Foreign Wars Paid partnerships with: PreBorn Save babies and souls https://PreBorn.com/Tucker PureTalk https://PureTalk.com/Tucker Get 50% off first month Get the Hallow prayer app 3 months free https://Hallow.com/Tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nothing hits like playoff hockey. The road to the cup starts on FanDuel. Your home for live bets all playoffs long. With new features like live SGPs, build a parlay, any game, any period. Or stack multiple matchups onto one slip with Same Game Parlay Plus. What's better than playoff hockey? Overtime playoff hockey. Get more from the game with live overtime markets.

Download FanDuel today and get more playoff action with North America's number one sportsbook. Please play responsibly. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Welcome to the Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers

here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at TuckerCarlson.com. Here's the episode. We are now three days out from the election. There's a mad scramble, of course, in Washington for people to get positions of power in the new administration. Some of them are good people. Some of them are not. You are being widely discussed as potentially the next national security advisor or secretary of defense taking over DOD. I don't know what's going to happen. I'm fairly confident you'll play a large and meaningful role in this administration. You're never going to say any of that, but I thought that the audience might like some context for why we're having this conversation. I think you're one of the very few people with deep experience in national security who shares the president's priorities in national security, which is amazing. There aren't too many. You're, I would say, the leader of them. There's the context. What does this next administration need to do

in order to remain true to the president-elect's articulated positions on war and peace? Well, thank you, Tucker, and thank you very much, first off, for your confidence in me. It means a great deal. I don't make any... It's heartfelt. Well, I know, and that's why I'm deeply grateful and honored. And I clearly don't make any presumptions about any role for myself. But what I would say, and I mean this with all sincerity, is that I think the President of the United States, the President-elect, is exactly right that we stand on the possible precipice of World War III, and we need a fundamental change before we ram right into the iceberg. I mean, I think the election is over,

but this remains absolutely true, is that what I call the liberal primacist alliance, basically the kind of policies of President Biden and Vice President Harris aligned with the primacists, I call them, we could call them the neoconservatives, have led us to a situation in which we're overextended, we're on the brink of war in multiple theaters,

and we could lose them. And I really want peace. And more importantly, President Trump ran to his, you know, historic credit on an agenda, as he said of, you know, on his sort of victory speech, I don't start wars, I end them. Now, I think my view is that we have to have, how you actually get to peace is a difficult question.

And I had the honor of being on your show a few years ago when my book came out. And I remember, I don't know if you recall, but I said, I was thinking about your question to President Trump about why is it worth defending allies? And I gave that a lot of thought. And in a sense, my book is a response to that question. And I think you do need strength.

You do. But- Well, of course. And you need peace through strength. But that that term has become cheapened and distorted to become basically an excuse for an aggressive expansionist approach to foreign policy. But I think you do. You know, it's it's real meaning. And President Trump is, in a sense, going back to the great tradition of the Republican Party, the Weinberger doctrine, the Powell doctrine.rine, Nixon, Eisenhower, as Bob Dole used to put it.

These are Democrat wars. It used to be Democrats that started wars and Republicans that ended or avoided them. Eisenhower didn't go into Vietnam in 1954. He did not intervene in Hungary in 1956. Again, nobody thought he was a weak guy. So what needs to happen right now? Before you get into that,

I just think it might be helpful to describe where we are now, because a lot of Americans, I'm in this category, were so absorbed in the election that we may have lost touch with what you opened your remarks by noting, which is we're on the brink of war in multiple theaters. Just will you tell us where we are? Absolutely. Well, I think for the first time in basically 150 years, we are not clearly the world's largest economy. We compete for that with China and they are a far larger industrial power. Russia in purchasing power parity terms

is a very large economy with enormous industrial production capacity. So North Korea advancing its nuclear missile program. Russia is a larger manufacturing economy than a lot of us appreciated, I think. Yeah. I mean, despite a lot of boasting, they're still outproducing the North Atlantic Alliance, including the United States in artillery production, which is old technology by like a factor of two or three. Iran's two weeks from a nuclear weapon, according to Tony Blinken, and worse, these actors have come together. Now you will hear from the sort of primacists and liberals that that means that we have to fight them all at the same time. No, to the contrary, it means they are collaborating together precisely to tie us down and deplete us. And that's what's happened in the war in Ukraine,

where we have expended a tremendous amount of weapons, ditto in places like attacking the Houthis and so forth. At the same time, our defense industrial base has wildly atrophied from where it was 30 years ago. And this is why the agenda for re-industrialization is so important. But that's going to take a long time, as Senator Vance has pointed out. Meantime, China... Wait, so can I say it's not... I mean, I thought one of the justifications, the main justification for this wildly inflated Ukraine funding was that it was going to help re-establish America's industrial base. And in fact, one of the most kind of oft-used arguments by a lot of the advocates for the war in Ukraine was that we would sort of degrade the Russian military for a song and restore

our defense industrial base at the same time. Actually, more or less, the reverse has happened. The Russian military is larger, and this is, you know, General Cavoli, the SACEUR, has admitted this. The Russian military is larger. It's battle, you know, General Cavoli, the SACEUR has admitted this, the Russian military is larger, it's battle hardened. I mean, our military has not fought a peer adversary. Well, I mean, really since World War Two, but certainly since Vietnam, and Korea, the Russians have gone toe to toe with Ukrainians who are capable, and they have a revved up defense industry at the same time. So in a sense, we're worse. Meantime, the Europeans have basically been asleep at the switch, not going through with their defense buildup with a few noble

exceptions like Poland. And then you look at China, which is by far the most formidable challenger, 10 times the GDP of Russia. This administration, Tony Blinken has said, Xi Jinping has given the instructions to their military to be ready for a war over Taiwan by 2027. Frank Kendall, the Secretary of the Air Force in the Biden administration, said the other day that he thinks the Chinese military will say they're ready. We have to be ready for this. My view is we desperately want peace. The Chinese are going to look at us both in terms of our strength, but also in terms of our political commitments. And this is where I think President Trump has been exactly right, which is being willing to talk to President Xi Jinping, not insulting President Xi Jinping

and President Putin and others unnecessarily, not supporting things like Taiwan independence, and at the same time, being prepared to be strong. And this is where I think if we appoint or if people are put into positions of power who think that we can walk and chew gum and do everything and start wars in three different theaters at the same time,

not only will that be bad like it was in the Iraq war and often the same people, it will be far more catastrophic. Tucker, I don't think this is an exaggeration. I think we stand on the precipice of losing a major power war for the first time in our history. So people need to know what time it is.

And that really requires focusing on China with the purpose of peace, like we did in the Cold War, which was to say, we're going to be strong. We're not going to go over the line like Eisenhower did in 1950. He's not going to go into Hungary. We're not going to go to Czechoslovakia in 1968. But don't come across our line because you see it's not going to succeed for you. So I think we really stand at the crossroads. And I think President Trump has a mandate for peace. So don't, I just, as an American, whatever happens to me, I so hope that we don't end up with the same failed recipe

of starting wars all over the place or getting enmeshed in conflicts when we can't afford to do so and they're not in the interest of the American people. From a non-expert position, which is my position, just as someone who's watching kind of, there does seem to be broad recognition that whatever our objectives in Ukraine were, we didn't achieve them and we can't.

Zelensky immediately comes out upon Trump's election and says, actually, I'm for peace. That does maybe seem like it's winding down. Who knows? I hope. But the noises are consistent with winding down. Yeah. But at the same time the very people who are pushing that war all of a sudden like very excited about a war with iran

yeah it's like they just seamlessly it's like oh ukraine whatever actually the real problem is iran and telling us that iran's trying to murder president trump etc etc so i don't know what's true i don't but um how would the united what would happen if we went to war with iran well i mean i think you know look iran's a bad regime we don't want to have a nuclear weapon we don't. But how would the United States, what would happen if we went to war with Iran? Well, I mean, I think, you know, look, Iran's a bad regime. We don't want to have a nuclear weapon. We don't want to support Israel. We don't want to be able to support groups attacking Israel, et cetera, et cetera. But like, haven't we learned the lesson over the last 25 years about the ill-advised nature of very significant conflicts in the Middle East that don't have clear goals and clear connection to American interests? Like, haven't we been like, didn't we run this experiment a

couple of times? And it's often like the exact same people calling for war with Iran who were involved in the past. And it's like, shouldn't there be some degree of accountability? Moreover, it's like a bad idea in itself. I mean, you know, like I was criticized in the bulwark by Eric Adelman, who is Dick Cheney's advisor and number three at the Pentagon under Bush. He said my ideas were iconoclastic. And I was like, thank you. I'm delighted that you think my ideas are iconoclastic. being you know intimately involved in the iraq war and then never apologizing i don't know there should be some international authority that requires contrition like a like a moral un where you don't get to say another word until you don ashes and sackcloth and apologize who among us isn't i'm certainly not uh inerrant i'm certainly not infallible but like at least show some you know it's like paul should go to the wall street journal a couple like a year ago gave a speech to ai treated the iraq war is like a mulligan's like, ah, I think that's like a big deal.

And obviously a lot of people got it, you know, had different views, et cetera. But it's like, it's kind of show the contrition, show the penance, show the learning. And so that I think is the other thing though, Tucker, is like, it's the same people who are calling for attacking Iran, who are also calling for escalating the war in Ukraine or even a no-fly zone, recognizing an independent Taiwan or getting in a war with China or attacking North Korea. It's like, if we do all those things,

we know objectively as a fact that our military is not capable of fighting more than one major war at a time. So even if you did want to, getting in multiple fights with people at the same time is just like foolhardy. And I mean, but the way I think about it is the Washington blob establishment can get us into wars and crises, but they can't fix the problem.

So it's really important right now. And it seems to me that, you know, just listening to President Trump and his historic victory, the decisive mandate he got, his leadership, his mandate, his agenda for peace from position of strength, use the military sparingly, but have it be strong. It's really important not to get enmeshed all over the place and either bleed ourselves out or a catastrophic multi-front loss. I think that's the last thing Donald Trump wants. Certainly seems that way. Right. I mean, the arc of his life is just so remarkable. The redemption that we just saw on Tuesday.

It's amazing. Without precedent, really, in American history. And so if you wanted to destroy his presidency, his second presidency, what's the one foolproof way to destroy it? No president has ever lost a great power war. Donald Trump has run to his enormous historic credit. He has been shot. He has had lawfare conducted against him. And he has had the bravery and the vision

and the persistence and the commitment at great personal physical cost, but also to his reputation, his family, et cetera, to stand up for these principles that the United States desperately needs. Putting Americans' interests first, peace, prosperity, et cetera, re-industrialization. Now is the time to put that into practice, whoever it is. I just, I can't stress how important that is. And if you're

thinking about a historical legacy, Joe Biden's going to leave a legacy that's terrible. I mean, for all the things, you mentioned the war in Ukraine. Two and a half years in, Julian Barnes, New York Times just reported that the intelligence community is reporting that the Ukrainians are losing, that it's not a stalemate. So after all that, after all the preaching, after all the moralism, the Ukrainians are losing the war and the Russians are making enormous progress. And we're unprepared. We're unprepared for a war with China. The Middle East is in the worst situation in years. We can't even stop the Houthis, like a third or fourth rate power, and we're not prepared. So they've left us on the precipice. They've put us on a, you know,

the Titanic is directing towards the iceberg. It's going to take a sharp turn. And the way I think about this, and when I worked at the Brown Underwork for President Trump in his first term, when we worked on the defense strategy to try to get us to prioritize, again, in my view, with the same logic, very consistent with what President Trump, I think, was trying to lay out. That was like, you know, we were a couple miles from the iceberg back then. Now we're like, right up, you know, we're a few thousand yards. And it's not easy to turn the Titanic. And if you turn the Titanic 90 degrees, people are going to fall out of their bunks. Chandeliers and beautiful, you know, plates are going to get broken of their bunks. Chandeliers and beautiful plates are going to get broken. But that's where we are. But that is the fault of what I call the liberal primacist

alliance. That is the fault of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the primacist sort of old school Republicans who, if they pursued that policy further, would lead us to catastrophe. Then how is it that, from what I can tell, pretty much every person in the running for the big national security jobs other than you is part of that alliance? And, you know, I know them all and I like some of them, a couple sitting U.S. senators who I think are really nice guys. But they're tools of the people you describe, like completely. There's kind of no doubt about it. How is it that there are so few people on the Republican side in national security with experience who agree with the presidential act who leads the party? So I've thought a lot about this because I've been fighting, as you kindly gesture,

in a sort of a lonely battle within the sort of blob to put us on, like, to me, what is common sense? Exactly. That's right. And yet, so few people do it. And why is that? It's so weird. And honestly, so much of your insight and commentaries, both on this show and your other podcast interviews and your shows, et cetera, because I think it's like,

I think there's a human sociological element. I mean, not to get, and one of the things that's kind of bizarre is that I think, like, today, people like us, we can learn a lot from the new left of the 60s and 70s. Like, there's something wrong with the establishment and the way the establishment... Now, I believe there's always an establishment. There's an establishment in Mao's China, but we need a better establishment. Well, that's it.

You know, you're a fan of Teddy Roosevelt, too. Like, the idea that, like, the establishment just does what it used to do is, like, no. The point is the establishment is supposed to serve the people, right? Of course. But I think there's an element, and I try to give credit because like yeah there's money and stuff but there's other ways of making money i think it's this psychic kind of like network benefit of being part of like essentially functionally an imperial capital yeah and everybody comes to you know this right they come to the capital i say you're so wise we need your leadership you're so you're so

moral and your vision and it happens in Congress where people come, they probably not thought about foreign policy that much. There are all these structures set up to kind of acculturate them. And again, like, I don't want to sound too new left, but like, you know, this is kind of what happens. And so you need, I think, a clear-eyed view of how to change and frankly, a willingness to buck the system. And this to me is like, and I'm certainly far from the only person to make this point. I think you have as well as like President Trump ran against the system. And that is so important because it's the system, the liberal primacist alliance in other things like trade and economics, et cetera, that need

to be a fundamental change. And already he's paid the price literally and shown the bravery and commitment to go through that. And so now it's about like capitalizing. And frankly, my hope is if that happened, a lot of these people, especially in the younger generations would follow. And I, forgive me for a little bit of patting myself on the back,

but I think it's an apropos comment. I was out at a thing a few months ago and this young guy came up, you know, strong guy, whatever. And he said, hey, you know, Mr. Colby, I'm going in the Marines, and I just want to say all the young Republicans love what you're saying. And I said to him, I was like, well, that's good, because all the old Republicans hate it. And he's like, yeah, that's the point. Boy, do they. Boy, do they. They do they. And that's like, to me, I always, I think of myself, I'm like the first,

not to, if this is, although, you know, there are people out there you wonder about, but like, this is, this is not like actually getting shot, but it's like, I'm trying to think about how do we protect Americans from not getting shot? Of course. Right? And so I think the young people can see it. You know, the young people who were like,

you know, who were not bought in to, you know, who have not been kind of acculturated, worked for ex-senator on this committee for 10 years and then went to that think tank and blah, blah, blah. I think, I think they, they, if you build it, they will come, but it's like the first echelon. We take a lot of, we take a lot of metaphorical flack, hopefully metaphorical. I just, and I won't go on about this, but I'm a little bit distressed by it, very distressed by it. But like someone like Mike Pompeo, I'll just say the name,

who I don't think is going to get a job in this administration. I would pray that he's not. I think he's a criminal. I've said that. Plotted to murder someone who hadn't even been charged with a crime. That's a criminal act. Should be arrested for that. That's my view.

But even if you don't believe that, he's been anti-Trump for eight years, worked against Trump, and he's a crazed neocon. And he's still being talked about and promoted. Again, I don't think he's going to get the job, but promoted to run the national security establishment in the United States. How can that even happen? Well, look, I mean, I think it's if I were advising President Trump, I would say, especially now that the mandate has happened. Yes. Why pick some anybody who's not aligned with what you're trying to do? I mean, I saw the last ad that President Trump ran. I mean, it was a stirring ad like and it won. Who is in that ad? You, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Vivek and Vice President-elect Vance. That is the mandate, you know. So so like my hope is that he will own that. And that is the way for that's the way for peace. And there's going to be debates about various policies and how to emphasize this or that. But why go back, especially in a situation where as successful as the first term is, the situation that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are leaving President Trump in January is, I cannot stress how dangerous it is. And he's right. I mean, the way that President Trump, again, has commendably talked about the risk of nuclear

war. I worked on nuclear issues a lot. My kind of starting point a lot was like working on nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy and arms control. I worked on arms control with the Russians. We should be afraid of these things. You know, salutary fear, not like an, you know, unmanning fear, if you will. Right. But like a salutary fear, you know, the beginning of wisdom is fear or whatever the Bible says to that effect. I should know that, but it's true, right? Is understanding and calibrating. And to me, one of the like touch grass kind of things about a lot of the people who are calling for like no fly zones in over Ukraine and intervening against the Russians and escalating and allowing U.S. weapons to be overtly used to attack Moscow and Russian strategic forces sites like that. That is that is obviously crazy. It's like time time out. Like, that is obviously...

There are many Republicans. In fact, some of the... That's why I think that the arguments within the Republican Party in some ways are fiercer because my hope, Tucker, and I think this is something you've been, you know, on for a while,

but it's like the Democrats are like, they're sort of inherently out of position right now. Like, where is the left? Where are the people who are like anti-war? Where are the people who are like anti-war? Where are the people who say the CIA is not above reproach or the FBI is not above reproach? Who are the people, you know, right mills or whatever, the power elite and all this

stuff. Those people have those movements have to come back. And I think that that's something where, especially given the mandate that President Trump has been has, that hope, I mean, you know, whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, the fact that he said, like, we're out of position. You know, and others are saying they're out of position. My hope is that Democrats will go back, in a sense, to the kind of arguments that I'm making that I think you could have heard a Democrat make 10 minutes ago. Right. Or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Hey, we've got to be able to talk to our opponents. We have to have a strong military, but not get into unnecessary wars.

That's just common sense. That's for sure. Do you remember when Democrats used to refer to abortion as something that should be safe, legal, and rare? Well, they've changed their view on that. It went from a right to a sacrament. This isn't the pro-choice movement you may remember from 30 years ago. This is something much darker. And that's why we have joined forces with Preborn. They're a sponsor

of the show and of our speaking tour to do something about it. It's the largest pro-life organization in the United States. And they are doing what they should do, which is speaking up against this atrocity, Killing babies after birth? No one seems to have the bravery to call that wrong, which it is, but Preborn is calling it out. Their networks of clinics are positioned in the highest abortion areas in the country, and they've rescued 300,000 babies.

When a woman considering an abortion searches to end her baby's life, Preborn is there. The power of ultrasound combined with the love of God doubles the baby's life, pre-born is there. The power of ultrasound, combined with the love of God, doubles the baby's chance of being born. A single ultrasound costs $28. Five ultrasounds are $140. Giving women the information they need to make the decision that many of them actually want to make to have a baby. Any gift will help, and all gifts are tax-deductible. To donate securely, go to preborn.com slash tucker or call pound 250 on your phone, and when asked, use the word baby.

No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. Whether it's a family member, friend, or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets.

From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. You mentioned CIA. Now is probably a good time to address it. Your last name is Colby. That is familiar. That's a familiar name. Anyone knows the history of the Central Intelligence Agency? Your grandfather ran it, William Colby.

And so there are two interesting things. One is, I'm sure this will set off just explosions of theorizing on the internet. So what is your view of CIA? How is, that's why, I think that's why your family's in Washington, because you're... Yeah, well, actually my great-grandfather

was a career army officer, so I come from a kind of a national security background. I mean, my dad, not so much. But, you know, look, my view on the intelligence community, and I worked on this stuff myself when I was kind of early in my career, although on the commission that looked at why Iraq intelligence is wrong. I didn't agree with my grandfather for everything. With everything, I didn't know him super well. I mean, I know a lot about how he approached things and how he, you know, his record and so forth. One thing where I do really agree with him, and where his legal training and the fact that actually, as Jim Schlesinger said, he was the first liberal to become director of central intelligence was that he thought and I agree with him that you need a CIA, you need a national security establishment, but it's not above reproach, and it needs to be accountable. And that's what he, you know, the interesting thing about him, and, you know, just to stress

that I don't take any credit for it, like I'm just telling, just because you asked me, but, you know, he was in World War II. He was then a field guy. He was in Europe and then he was in Vietnam for a long time. And then he kind of ended up

as director by happenstance, as these things sometimes do, during Watergate. And so, and he had not been really involved. He wasn't one of the inside club of like, you know, I see you got Dick Helms' book, The Man Who Kept the Secrets. He was the kind of ultimate insider,

Washington operator kind of. My grandfather was out, unlike me, I'm more of a, you know, DC type, policy type. But I think he came in and he said, there's a chance that, I mean, remember this, the Democrats at the time, the congressional class of 1974, very left wing. A lot of them were thinking, let's just get rid of this place. Let's get rid of the intelligence community. And his view is like, that's not good for our country, but it's

not good that they're spying on Americans. You know, I've gotten debates on some of these on Twitter sometimes about like whether the American government is funding some of the stuff, you know, in Europe or whatever, NATO, blah, blah, blah, that's reverberating back into the American political system. It's like, yeah, it's happened before, you know, right? For a long time. For a long time. So it's like, it's not unreasonable. And by the way, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And by the way, who were some of the people who were opposed at that time? Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, you know, they were opposed to any kind of Henry Kissinger,

any kind of accountability for the intelligence community. And so that's how I look at it. I think there's a real need for accountability also in the professional military. What is this going on with four-star officers recently retired who have no political vetting? They haven't been elected dog catcher, weighing in on extremely sensitive points on American calling one of the presidential candidates a fascist. That is wildly inappropriate. There needs to be a fundamental change. First of all, it's wrong. Second of all, it's not consistent with our constitutional order. Remember that our founding fathers who had gone through the revolution, who had fought a war against a great power and won, they were like, the nasty politics is a feature. Alexander Hamilton and

Thomas Jefferson talking about each other's mother, fine. Standing military, uh-uh. We only built a serious standing military. American military officers wore civilian clothes into the Pentagon as late as World War II, maybe even after. So we have come, this is since 1947 or since World War II, basically. And I think we need it given what's happening, but it needs to be accountable. The third point I would make about this group is like, where do they get off? Like, has our military been successful? Have our political military goals been achieved over the last 25 years? You know, call me when you win a war. Yeah, if you're like, if you're Joydizer, and by the way, that's most of that guilt goes

towards the liberal primacist alliance, the politicians who did it, yes. But also the war leaders who, you know, for instance, H.R. McMaster wrote a book called Dereliction of Duty about how the generals in Vietnam did not tell Lyndon Johnson they couldn't successfully prosecute that war. Okay, I agree with you. How is the senior military done? So I think some humility, getting back to basics, and staying out of politics is really needed. It's infuriating. It does challenge like the idea of our constitutional order. I agree completely, but it's also ominous. So when you read that the Pentagon now has a new policy where the direction of civilian leadership, they can kill Americans in the United States. What is that? I mean, Look, there's a lot of things

that need to be taken a look at where like we have gotten, especially after 9-11, where it's just metastasized, right? Where we need to ask ourselves, what is the right? And I think you've done this like commendably where you're saying, look, you know,

I was here on this position here and I'm same thing. We're like, you know, but look at the costs and people like, you know, who were, we would say on the old new left would have said, oh my God, this is going to be abused. And people like us were like, don't worry about it. And now they were right. So let's take a new look at that. Again, I think we need to have the capabilities. Former CIA leaders implying that President Trump was a Russian agent is a wild abuse of the trust because it's a special trust with classified information and special authorities. And it's almost like a religious obligation where there needs to be a self-discipline and an understanding that there's certain things you can't do, you know. And that's been deeply violated. And I think, frankly, Republicans agree that a lot of Democrats or independents or whatever

voted for President Trump. They've delivered a verdict on this issue. So I think you need people who have that balance, which to me is the American way is to say, look, the people have spoken. This stuff got out of got out of hand and we need to have a balance, but we need to preserve what we need for our security. What do you do in Ukraine? Well, one is I hope the president is successful and leans forward on his plan to end the war. And I just say, I don't know what that is, but nobody knew what Dwight Eisenhower was talking about in 1952. Nobody knew what Richard Nixon was talking about in 1968. And nobody knew what Ronald Reagan was talking about in 1988. You already see indications that players, including President Putin, might be changing, and the Ukrainians for that matter.

So I hope there's a basis. What exactly that looks like, I don't think, you know, you're not going to, like, liberate Crimea, right? That's obvious. And the war's not going well. I think that's step one. And I think the Europeans need to, I mean, this is something I've been banging on. It's just so common sense. And by the way, you want to talk about who's helping.

Biden and Harris, you know, will go to Europe and say, you want to talk about who's helping. Biden and Harris, you know, would go to Europe and say, you don't need to worry about anything. But so would kind of primacist type Republicans. They would go to Europe and say, don't worry, we can do everything. We're leading. They didn't do the Europeans any favors. They didn't do the Ukrainians any favors, let alone, you know, anybody else, let alone the American people, because they promised things they couldn't deliver. And this is something where, you know, and I said this, I was, Ross doubt that we had an interview right before the election, the New York Times, you know, where I get, oh, isn't it, and Ross didn't say this, but it was sort of like questioning the morality of what President Trump's saying. I don't think there's been a stronger case, a more important time for foreign policy that is more moral than what you see, which is

the moralism, which is all intention. You see it on the left from Tony Blinken, just saying, oh, the Ukrainians are fighting for freedom, so we need to do X, Y, Z, and then failing. The way I think about it is like, no, we need a foreign policy that's more like, how does a parent think about the responsibility of the child? Or let's say you're on the board of an orphanage. You know, you might have a really good guy. He goes to church every Sunday. He's like, you know, but never cheats at cards or whatever, but he sucks at handling the money. You know, you're going to hire a guy who's actually going to take care of the orphans. And that is, and to me that's-

Well, by the way, if all the orphans die, it doesn't matter how much you love them. Exactly. Or claim that you do. You don't actually love them. Well, of course you don't. Because the purpose of a system is its effect. And what's the effect of the war in Ukraine is to depopulate Ukraine and now to allow foreigners, including many Americans,

including BlackRock, to buy the soil of Ukraine. I mean, it's certainly not, whatever this has happened has definitely not been beneficial. Well, the Ukrainians just lost Ukraine, but not to the Russians, but through the encouragement

of the Biden administration. That's my view of it. But how close do you think we have come to a nuclear exchange with Russia during the last two months? in later 2022 is very, very concerning. I think it was quite real. And the people who were blithe and insouciant about it, I think is incredibly irresponsible and should not be near serious decisions. Who are those people? Well, I think you see this kind of liberal premises. There's a lot of people who signed the no-fly zone or who made comments on Twitter or otherwise around that time and have said since, have said, oh, you know, lift all the restrictions on the employment of U.S. forces. And by the way, what's very clear is a lot of these people, if given the opportunity,

if they thought the political environment would bear it, would support direct intervention. Which, if we go to war with the Russians directly, the Russians are very prepared to use nuclear weapons. So we have to be realistic about what that entails. What does that entail? Well, I mean, I think the Russians, one thing about Putin that's important, and again, like you don't have to like the person to understand that we need to take this guy seriously, right? Is he, you know, as he assumed power and took over from Yeltsin, which in the Russian mind was a catastrophically disastrous period, one of the first things

Putin invested in was the recapitalization of the Russian nuclear forces. And the way Putin talks about Russian nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy indicates that he has a quite sophisticated understanding of nuclear strategy. And of course, you know, a lot of it is speculation because thank God they've only been used once or twice. But it says to me this guy's credible and he has an idea of how to use them. You don't start by blowing up Washington, D.C. You start potentially with something like battlefield use, selective strikes against things like places in Europe or more peripheral targets, but it can go up there, and then you manipulate risk. And if weapons are used in that way, you can see millions of people. I mean, and we have almost no defense against. That's why I think President Trump, for instance, having a better shield would be great. But right now, we're pretty much denuded.

I just don't understand. I mean, I guess it's kind of late in the game to whine about it, but we provided, you know, a missile defense shield to another country, but we don't have one. Like, how did that happen? I don't know. I mean, I think that's something that we can work on. I mean, it's technically very difficult, but I think having something better than what we have now. We're always bragging about, you know, the sophisticated use of our defensive missile technology abroad.

Like, did it occur to nobody that the purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the United States? Well, it is. And by the way, up until the ABM Treaty was signed in the late 60s, you would go around American cities, and there would be Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules, nuclear-tipped missile defense interceptors and other kinds, NORAD and all these kinds of things. So I think having a stronger defense of the American homeland makes sense. And also, like, you know, people talk about the American military being used, you know, in relation to Mexico.

It's like, well, I think Mexico is like, you know, and the immigration issue is very, very complicated and everything. But like, you know, the American military is to defend the United States. Right. So like that should be, you know, so to me, the core missions of the American military that really need to be focused on is defense of the homeland, preventing China from becoming the hegemonic power in Asia, because I think we'll never re-industrialize, we'll never be autonomous and be what America needs to be if China dominates Asia. But I hope and think we can do that without a war, working with others that pull their own weight. And then having an ability to make sure that we don't have a replication of 9-11.

Some of that is like being smarter about how we use our military. But I think some of it is, you know, you got to keep tabs out there. And then I think it's like about supporting, you know, people say Trump is anti-ally. I think that's totally wrong. It's just a different model of allies. That's obviously a is much closer to the cold war model. And B is common sense is like Trump is anti-ally. So,

um, our, of course, most important ally in Europe is Germany, which is totally, and we just destroyed. And so, but by the way, we had a direct hand. This is not speculation. I'm willing to say it's fact, in blowing up Nord Stream. So, I know we're blaming the Ukrainians, but, like, we did that. I'm just going to say that. No, that's not true. It is true. So, how exactly do we get to launch an act of industrial terrorism against our closest NATO ally? How is that allyship? Well, the thing that's weird, and this gets, I think, also into the context of like,

who benefits, you know, Cui Bono, right? Is like, so since the Ukraine war broke out, the European economy, and particularly the German economy, has been like in free fall. So there's this kind of cute argument for a while that we had somehow like benefited from Europe sucking air after the Ukraine war broke out. I've heard many people say that. And it's like, well, no, no, wait, hold on. Our point, if you go back to like Dwight Eisenhower and like common sense is like, no, we want them to stand on our two feet. Like I don't get a rise out of lording it over the Europeans. This is sort of this mindset that like, well, this is still fundamentally a European country. This was a European colony. So Europe is basically allied with the United States on a very

fundamental level, or certainly has been for 250 years. So destroying Europe, well, right, with some exceptions, but in general. You fight with the people closest to you. Well, that's right. But I mean, like, Christian Europe, right? It's basically our ally. And destroying Western Europe, which I think we've done, how does that help us? I don't understand.

I don't think that it's, I mean, the interesting thing about that is, I mean, you know, obviously we're, you know, settled, you know, originally by Europeans. Now we have people coming from all over the world, et cetera. But the thing is actually, if you look back at our early history, we stayed out of Europe. Oh, I know. And we were actually more involved in the Western hemisphere, particularly the, you know, Caribbean and Asia, actually. So people say, oh, you know, you never, we're never going to get focused on Asia. I don't think that's true. Who opened the black ships? The black ships opened Japan.

Exactly. People were trading in a lot of the early American fortunes, you know, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem. That was China, right? People trading in Canton, sometimes with opium. You know, and then like Samoa, Hawaii, et cetera. So I'm not saying, like, we have a strong interest in Europe. Philippines. The Philippines, of course. Thank you.

In fact, my great-grandfatherfather we were talking about our families like i um he was a an army officer in the interwar period and he was stationed at the american there was like a concession in china not china's proudest period but you know that we were we were present so what that what i think that means to me is a couple things one um if you actually go back to american history at our best and really kind of, you know, the first kind of, really until 1989, we did pretty well with the exception,

I think, to things like Vietnam and stuff like that. But it was pretty hard-nosed. Like you go back to Washington's farewell address, Hamilton, et cetera. It's like, we're looking after number one. So this idea that America first is somehow inconsistent.

It's like, by the way, a republic is supposed to be in the interests of everybody, right? Like that's the definition. So when people say Trump is transactional or whatever, I'm like, good, right? He's like the CEO of America and the board is saying, hey, look after our interests, right? That's actually what you want. And then on Europe, it's like, we don't actually benefit. I mean, it's been a disaster. I think objectively, the policy over the last two and a half years in particular has been a total disaster. Germany is in real economic straits. The Ukrainians are losing the war.

They haven't built up their military. But, you know, hey, Joe Biden got a medal from Olaf Scholz, who's probably going to be out of a job as well. I hope so. In a few months. I hope so. For their sake. I mean, I don't believe in like intervening. Apparently, the Europeans, Scholz himself, feel free to intervene in our politics. Schultz endorsed Biden.

Do your job. I was at the Republican convention as you were a couple months ago, and I was getting lectured by a few members of the Bundestag, the German Congress equivalent, conservatives, putative conservatives. And they were like, why can't you do what Reagan did? And I said, you know what? There's some problems with that, et cetera, like debt to GDP, our military. How about you start out by spending as much on defense as the American people do? Like, why don't our, like that, that to me is like what president Trump and against the whole foreign policy establishment. Why? Because the foreign policy establishment likes the dependency model. Of course, they like the welfare model in the United States. They want people in

public housing. Right. And that's what I've said to the Europeans. And it's part of my message to the Europeans is like, hey, it's not just your fault. I'm not just castigating you as responsible you are. It's also our fault, especially our establishment. But if you look at the message from the American people, it's we don't want more of that establishment. And that's, again, why it's so important to have the right policies and vision. Well, we've got the vision. The question now is implementation. So the problems for the president-elect are the same as they were in the first administration, I would say. How do you staff this thing with people who are aligned with you? Right.

And how do you keep the people who presently occupy every position of power, who operate the levers of power, how do you keep them from wrecking the project secretly? Yeah. And the thing that's different is that the international situation that he's being left with is truly dire. And so there's no room for, you know, kind of like, you know, sort of delay or... There's no...

Look, I'm sorry. I don't want to start attacking people, but I just know everybody as I know you do. Well, finally. They have... No, no. I mean, the people who want these jobs in the Trump, the second Trump administration. And there's no they act like it's 1985.

Like, that's the thing. They have not updated their files. These are the dumbest people I think I've ever met on this. Yes. In the debate when he said depends. Why shouldn't he be secretary of state? I think the fake would be an amazing, amazing. I mean, he's there.

He was out hustling for the president. You know, he's... I mean, we all say we know what time it is, but he, like, delivered these memorable lines against Pence in that debate. And then he debated John Bolton, I think, at VMI. And it was just like... It was a very human point.

I saw the segment where he's just like, you grew up... And this is being generous, honestly, to John Bolton, frankly, which is why I admired Vivek on that point. But he said, you grew up in the era admired Vivek on that point, but is said, you grew up in the era of Apollo 11. You know, and I grew up in the era

and he's younger than I am, the global financial crisis, Iraq, failed wars, you know, increasingly fractious society, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it's like, you know, nobody, there's a friend of mine who was interviewed in one of these stories

about the new right and so forth. And he said, nobody under the age of 30, I know is a conservative, treats the neoconservative idea with anything but derision and scorn something like that and it was just like i'm confident where things are heading but we don't have time because if china like and and i'm not a fanatic on china right like my view on china is and i think the chinese understand this my view is we need to be strong but we also need like in the cold war there's like a line and there's we don't cross it and we need to be strong, but we also need, like in the Cold War, there's like a line and there's we don't cross it.

And we need to be able to decouple the thing, you know, reindustrialize things. Lighthizer and Navarro and so on are talking about, which is bring back industry, have more autonomy. But at the same time, you know, there's a line, but we're not going to go and regime change. There are people who served in the first Trump administration who were talking about regime change in China, who were talking about primacy over China, like dominating China. Like that is so dangerous. And often they're the same people who are supporting, you know, total support of Ukraine, which is like makes zero sense, like zero sense. Right. So my view is you got to do the things you're talking about, but you've also got to say we got to, and you know, Senator Vance has made, Vice President-elect Vance

has made these points very well. Reindustrialization is critical, but it's going to take some time. In the meantime, given that the Biden team has used up so much of our weaponry and so forth, we got to husband what we have.

And again, to me, that is with the purpose of not getting into wars. So every year when Apple releases the overpriced new iPhone, the big carriers play the same old game. Sign up now, next two years, some big cellular contract,

get a free iPhone. Well, what do you give up in return? A lot. Don't fall for it this time. Choose PureTalk. With PureTalk, you get great savings on the new iPhone 16 and you still get an affordable data plan that fits your needs on America's most dependable 5G network.

Stop falling into the same trap and paying for unlimited data that you're probably not going to use. Pay for what you use. With PureTalk, for just $25 a month, you get unlimited talk, text, and 5GB of data. That's more than enough for most people. If it's not enough for you, you can buy more. But it probably is, so why pay for something you're not going to use? With PureTalk, you don't have to. It's proudly veteran-led and its entire customer service team is right here in the United States,

the country that you live in. So everyone can understand each other pretty well and they're responsive. No contract, no cancellation fees, 30-day money-back guarantee, Pure Talk is easy to switch to. The average family saves almost a thousand bucks a year when they switch. Try it. Go to puretalk.com slash tucker and you'll save an additional 50% off your very first month. That's puretalk.com slash tucker. Switch your cell service to a company you can be proud to do business with. At Desjardins Insurance, we know that when you're a building contractor, your company's foundation needs to be strong. That's why our agents go the extra mile to understand your business and provide tailored solutions for all its unique needs. You put your heart into your company, so we put our heart into

making sure it's protected. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Desjardins.com slash business coverage. This episode is brought to you by DAZN. For the first time ever, the 32 best soccer clubs from across the world are coming together to decide who the undisputed champions of the world are in the FIFA Club World Cup. The world's best players, Messi, Haaland, Kane, and more are all taking part. And you can watch every match for free on DAZN starting on June 14th and running until July 13th. Sign up now at DAZN.com slash FIFA.

That's D-A-Z-N dot com slash FIFA. How could Four Stars, how could the leadership of the Pentagon support this? So my, you know, it's interesting. I think, again, maybe I'm too optimistic, but like, you know, I deal with, you know, I dealt with a lot of Four Stars when I was there. When you worked at the Pentagon? When I worked at the Pentagon, because the thing about my job, I was like a sort of, my formal title was a little bit kind of middle, upper middle tier, but basically I was running the strategy. So I had a lot of exposure. I was kind of operating above my, the sort of normal was running the strategy. So I had a lot of exposure. I was kind of operating above my, the sort of normal level.

So I had, I got a lot of experience and I've stayed in touch with these people. I watch, I watch them. Here's the thing. And, you know, there's a good, Kissinger I don't think was that great of a statesman, but I think he was a brilliant writer and sort of observer.

He said something like big strategic shifts don't take place just by acts of virtuosity. They reflect underlying trends. And I think you talk to people in the military, and I keep in touch a lot. They know. What I'm saying is like common sense for military people. They know our readiness is down. They know our defense industrial base is in trouble.

They know the Chinese are moving like gangbusters. They know the Russians aren't a joke. They know we can't afford to get into another big Middle Eastern war. So if you show at the top level clarity and courage as president trump has in charting the direction and he has people under him who are genuinely trying to put that into place i think if you build it they will come and here's the other thing bear in mind that since 2008 um the democrats have been in control almost the whole time and under before that it was the iraq war group so a lot of the people who've made it to the top of a very flat pyramid they know

they know how to, like, here's the thing about the military. And you look at people like John Kelly being out there, you know, moralizing and calling President Trump a fascist, which is like absurd and appropriate and terrible on its face. But it's also like the military, we should respect military service. I certainly do, especially, you know, people in combat and so forth. But, you know, the military, there's careerism, there's promotion, people looking after their own interests, et cetera. The people at the top of the pyramid often are people who have satisfied the criteria for promotion and selection. That's fine. You know, people respond to incentives, but it is the most ruthless selection process. And bear in mind,

talk about the Republic, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps predate the Constitution. So, these are very deeply embedded institutions. live their entire adult lives and then if they get to be a four-star so you just got like again going to like a new left thing you look at it sociologically you're like this is going to have some pathologies obviously it's a really important institution but you gotta like but i think at the end of the day this is gonna have some pathologies nicely but there there are people in there who want to do the right thing you know or or they can be motivated to do the right thing that's fantastic people in the military and if they're rewarded for it they will go they will

get because a lot of the guys who would have wanted to do that they cash out as a colonel or a navy captain or a one star you know but if we if we if we put the the president trump and his team i should say they they put the right incentives i think i think i think it'll get better i must say it's just having spent my life in dc and just running into them a lot or living near them it was always so noticeable i met so many bright energetic wise i would say colonels yeah but far few you know i can think of one marine two-star i Marine General, who I thought was so impressive. I'll even say his name, Vinnie Colonese. Wonderful man.

But, you know, didn't meet a lot of other flag officers that I thought were anything other than politicians. I think, I think. I'm sure they exist. I think real, I'll put it this way. Most of the real, there's some brilliant defense guys. I'll mention a Democrat I have a lot of respect for. Bob Work, who served in the Pentagon, is a great guy. He was a Marine colonel, retired. Andrew Krepenovich, who was another brilliant guy, an Army guy, they cash out at that level because that's what the selection is for. It's not to say that the other people aren't smart, but like the people that, you know, there's- Well, it's so noticeable. And there's a mismatch between how people think like, oh, you know, he has four stars,

ergo he's like a strategic genius. No, no, that's not how the selection process works. You know what I mean? Like they're promoted for like running a large, a corps, an army corps, you know, or a fleet. That's different than, that's fine, but let's,

let's understand what we're dealing with. But shouldn't the process, isn't the point of promotion to, you know, winnow out the, the less capable

and elevate the most capable? Well, it depends on what you're selecting for. Well, I guess that's it. But I think, hey, how about selecting for winning?

You know? Yeah, hey. Like, I think that, as. But I think, hey, how about selecting for winning? You know? Yeah, hey. How about that? As opposed to, like, you know, kind of, like, playing the game and saying the right things. And, you know, we don't know. That's the other thing about, like, you know, I love the meme of Mark Milley and Eisenhower and their chests. It's incredible. You know, it's just, you could it's just it's just you could speak for

10 hours and i watched millie in that famous now famous hearing talking about weight rage i thought this is a guy who doesn't have any idea what he's talking about he's saying words he thinks he's supposed to say doesn't seem terribly bright he seems weak above all he seems like the product of a bureaucracy to me which probably shouldn't surprise me. And I think there's, and again, to this pathology point, you know, like if you read McMaster's memoirs, for instance, he's almost kind of lecturing the American people about their need to like double defense spending and stay in Afghanistan until the second coming. And it's like, it's that touch grass kind of thing where like you don't have political accountability, like direct, I mean, for instance, not only they're not elected, but people who are civilian appointees go through political vetting. So they have a kind of indirect political accountability, you know, where they elect you have to demonstrate loyalty and you of through the back door, importing some of those things. But so, so you get to this point where you think that you're like,

well, I'm speaking in front of a large group of people because I'm a four-star general. And it's like, actually, you really have no standing to talk about that issue at all, you know, because that's a, that's a, that's a domestic issue that you like, don't have any political finger feel for. And you're supposed to be much more careful and modest about that. They have no moral authority, right, to speak about anything like that because they have no authority apart from that granted them by the president. Yeah, exactly. Because we have civilian control and the president's authority comes from voters. Right. And by the way, and if somebody has authority, it's like the Audie Murphy guy, the guy, the guys that you talking to who are like

out there in the field, Fallujah or whatever, they have authority, you know, but I'm always like, you know, another guy, Frank McKenzie, who's out there a lot, who's constantly hammering, you know, these points. And I was like, well, he was the CENTCOM commander when the Afghanistan withdrawal happened. And he didn't put his stars on the, you know, if he thought there was a better way, why didn't he put his stars on the table? So like, why are you like, okay. I mean, I personally support the Afghanistan withdrawal. I believe President Trump still does, but it said that it's done

terribly. Not which I think is clear, but it's like, you know, you could, you could say Dwight Eisenhower had a kind of moral authority, but the other thing about

Dwight Eisenhower, I mean, he was actually a smart guy, but if you look at like his Guildhall speech, I don't know if you remember this, but like the, unlike MacArthur,

for instance, he had a real feel for the American people, civilian army, you know, like they were, to me, that's, I try to have that mindset about like, I don't want people to get torn limb from limb in a war with China that we could avoid, let alone another, like, or evaporized in a nuclear explosion with Russia. Of course, that means you don't just like do whatever they want, duh,

but you've got to like calibrate that balance, always thinking about, as President Trump has said, going back to like, what's in the concrete interest of the American people? You've referred repeatedly to a potential war with China. I assume that would be over Taiwan. I think, yes, I think Taiwan would be the focal point, but what I think is very scary about the Chinese,

and I don't think the Chinese are behaving in it. Frankly, apply the way like you were in washington from the period after the collapse of the soviet union right or a little bit after right but like no i was there i was there that day you're there did okay oh right exactly i know you've talked about this if you apply the same kind of behavior that we exhibited over the the 25 say 20 years after that and you apply that model to a china that is not constrained that's very scary right like so we just have to apply the same model to them because again to me it's like a conservative and i don't think so i know exactly what you're saying but maybe that's too subtle yeah we explain precisely what you're saying we went from being in the 1980s, you had

the Weinberger Doctrine of President Reagan, and Reagan almost getting impeached because he was trying to help just a proxy group with the Contras, because people were so afraid of getting in another Vietnam. And the biggest thing that he would do would have meetings with the Soviet premier on nuclear weapons, because

people were like, this could happen, and I really don't want it to happen, right? Fast forward 15 years, and we're invading Iraq. And as you recall, the people who were biggest fans of invading Iraq, the plan was also to go after probably Syria and Iran and so forth, informally or not. I worked for those people at the time. Okay, so you know. So, I mean, that was not, that was just the starting point. Oh, I'm aware. So, and the way-

That was the new American century. The way I interpret that is you're going to have people like that because we're human beings and that's how we socialize or whatever. And if there's no constraint, no, you would have been like sent to the loony bin in 1982.

If you're like, oh, let's invade Iraq, 2003. If you said we shouldn't invade Iraq, you were like, even if you were Brent Scowcroft, you were castigated. Oh, yeah. So, and never rehabilitated, by the way. Interesting. Well, I have, I mean, I don't agree with him on everything, but I, I mean, that's sort of mindset. I agree, but I'm just saying, no, exactly. Yeah. It wasn't like, you know, Brent Scowcroft got rich or more respect. I mean, he said those things, you know, to his own

detriment. Yeah. And I, just on the China things, you know, to his own detriment. Yeah. And just on the China thing, what I would say is they care a lot about Taiwan, but I think it's very clear they're building a military to go beyond Taiwan. They're building a basing architecture

to go well beyond Taiwan. I think that's, in a sense, almost indisputable. And I think they have interests to go beyond Taiwan. This is what worries me is I actually fear, ironically, that China is living out the Leninist theory of imperialism,

which is they need captive export markets for their overproduction. And of course, they need natural resources and other things to import. And so they have a rational incentive to what the Japanese created, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Every empire, formal or informal,

is, not everyone, but like a lot of them start out as basically commercial zones. Of course. And that's what I worry about. And again, the good news is I think we can negotiate with China about that. That's why I think President Trump's,

against a lot of criticism, his willingness to be open to negotiating a deal with President Xi is good because we don't have an implacable hostility or rivalry. We don't have to change. I hate communism, but like, that's up to them. And the last thing I want is Americans dying, trying to impose our form of government on them.

Hopefully that's pretty, you know, controversial. But I think if we just, you know, Taiwan's a tough issue because the point I've been making, and I've gotten some flack from, again, good quarters from the Wall Street Journal last couple of months, is like, I've been saying we should focus on defending Taiwan

and they need to step up. They haven't done it and we haven't prioritized it. So I think Taiwan is on the knife's edge right now. Now, I think we want to avoid a war over that if we possibly can. And President Trump has said, an attack on Taiwan isn't going to happen under my watch. So I think it is absolutely

incumbent upon whoever is working for him to make sure that doesn't happen, combining a strong shield with a rational defensive policy and kind of political message to China that convinces them that, look, you're better off with peace. The Wall Street Journal attacked you? Yeah. So they... How long will the wall street journal kind of be considered the preeminent place where quote conservative intellectuals explain their views i think they're in i think they're actually in trouble honestly i i i you know i read them but they are so far out of whack i mean so on my on the national security foreign policy issues they are total premises that they at this in the same breath, often they'll say our military is in terrible shape, but we need to have

aggressive policies in like four different theaters. It makes no sense. It's incoherent, right? On, you know, they're, they're way out of step on the conservative Republican views on like trade where like Lighthizer and Navarro and the president are, uh, they, they can't stand, you know, they've been repeatedly criticized people like you, like Vice President Vance. So I feel like I'm honored to be in this company. So it's sort of like, you know, obviously they reflect a certain part of the, you know, American population, which is sort of, you know, wealthier professionals who are probably more socially liberal, the Acela Corridor, New York, etc. But I think a lot of people read them because they matter, right? But at some point you get so far out of whack that you actually become a liability, you know, and they were big

backers of Nikki Haley and so forth. So, you know, I think we need, but then with the rise of new media, I mean, you're, you've been a pioneer in this, but others, you know, and, and Elon and what he's done with X and, um, uh, you know, and David Sachs and these kinds of people, I think there's hope that like, not only is it not going to matter as much, but it may become less and less relevant. It seems like the Drudge report to me, you know, you have in your mind that this, no, I mean, Drudge went from,

well, Drudge was of course sold to left-wingers. They've never admitted that, but I believe that's true. But the Wall Street Journal in some sense has been also, I mean, they don't, I don't know, people who imagine the Wall Street Journal in some sense has been also I mean they don't I don't know people who imagine the Wall Street Journal is conservative or sort of like haven't been paying attention it's like the socially liberal fiscal conservative and they were like mocking President Trump

in the interview I thought that was pretty lame and kind of gross it's a really dishonest newspaper and I'm rooting for its demise I just want to say that I hope it can get reformed you're right we've seen enough institutions. I just want to say that. I mean that. I hope it could get reformed. You're right. No, you're totally right. We've seen enough institutions destroyed. I just, I do think it's really a garbage newspaper and I wish more people realized that.

I can't control myself. All right. Out of control. So when do you think it'll be clear, like, who's administering Trump's foreign policy? I mean, I just, I honestly don't know. I mean, it's obviously up to him. But, you know, what I would say is I hope he makes, you know, picks people who will implement the vision that he ran on and that, you know, uh and others have supported him so ably about i i just as sincerely as an american i mean even if i'm not part of it or i'm dog catcher or whatever i mean that i think if honestly if if the primacist types who could get us into multiple wars get in there you're gonna have to get to a more realistic foreign policy eventually well they'll destroy trump they Just to be clear, people like Pompeo, whom I know personally, hate Trump. They hate Trump. And, you know, I don't care what he says or Lindsey Graham says, oh, he's so great. You know, they suck up to him

on Fox News, but they hate him and they're working to undermine him. And they did throughout his four years in office and the four years that followed they undermined him because they hate him so i i just hope that there is a new generation in the republican party of people who maybe aren't even ideological but just put exactly common sense yeah america's interest is the whole point of our government i think there is a new generation people in their 20s and 30s i'm very hopeful i mean i talked to a lot of. What I'm worried about is I don't think there's any, I mean, you maybe like, and, and, well, Trump is like an exception, but you know, you look at a guy like a vice president Vance, he's only, I think 40. Yes. You know, a lot of the best senators, you know, are, are much younger. Yes. You look at Eric Schmidt, uh, Eric Schmidt is amazing. Jim Banks, you know, younger guys,

like, you know, and the problem is people just naturally like, well, we need somebody who's 65 or whatever. And it's sort of like, but I think it's even worse than what you're suggesting because like, you know, let's say we get in a big Middle Eastern war. And you have people who are talking about an independent Taiwan or regime change in China or regime change in Russia. And we get bogged down. Why wouldn't the Chinese attack? Like, just, I mean, thinking about, apply how we behave to the project for new American century style thinking

and just think that those people will be in the ascendancy in Beijing. The way I think about it, Tucker, is like, we're like a heavyweight boxer and China's another heavyweight boxer. Russia's like a middleweight and maybe North Korea and Iran are like, you know, welterweights or featherweights or whatever.

Those guys can, they can tear you out and China can call us to a match at any time, at any time. And if we're not ready, that is like terrible, you know? And so at that point, we would have to put a more realistic foreign policy. But my view, and this is, I think, a real point to the kind of people who read the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. The point that I would make to them is, if we go down this path of aggressive policies in three or four different theaters of the world without the backing, we will end up bloodied and bruised. We will have catastrophic defeat. Lots of Americans will be killed. And the American people may very well say, I'm done. I'm done. This is, you know, all the rules based on national order. This is what it led to.

Forget about it. And that, if you want to save it, if you want to save something, like I think mine is like the reform rather than the radical upheaval. Mine is like, hey, no, I believe in the post-war. I just don't believe in the post-1989

absurd hubris going around. The people, yeah, we can, the Cold War, and I keep going back to it, but it's just like. I just don't believe in the post-1989 absurd hubris going around. The people, yeah, we can, the Cold War, and I keep going back to it, but just like, I just, because like, you know, Senator McConnell will talk about Eisenhower all the time, and I'm like, dude, Eisenhower thought that if there were U.S. troops in Europe at the end of the 1950s, it was a failure. He's the one who came up with the Uncle Sucker line, not President Trump. So you want to talk about the Cold War legacy. We were pretty ruthless. You know, the Germans attacked us, or excuse me, this sounds like John Belushi. The Japanese attacked us in 1941, and we let the Soviets do the bulk of the fighting. And we put Germany first. Why? Because, and I'm glad as a descendant of people who are in the European theater of operations,

I'm glad that the Soviets, but George Shultz, when he went and dealt with his counterpart, he went, he visited, he wrote about this very movingly. He went to the cemetery in Leningrad, and he offered a somber salute. And I had the honor to meet Schultz a couple times. And this was not a, you know, he had strong views and so forth. But I think you can respect that, you know, and understand that we can be hard-nosed and look at your opponents and say, we don't want a war. We've told you before about Halo. It is a great app that I am proud to say I use,

my whole family uses. It's for daily prayer and Christian meditation and it's transformative. So with everything happening in the world right now, it is essential to ground yourself. This is not some quack cure. This is the oldest and most reliable cure in history. It's prayer. Ground yourself in prayer and scripture every single day. That is a prerequisite for

staying sane and healthy and maybe for doing better eternally. So if you're busy on the road, headed to kids sports, there's always time to pray and reflect alone or as a family, but it's hard to be organized about it. Building a foundation of prayer is going to be absolutely critical as we head into November, praying that God's will is done in this country and that peace and healing come to us here in the United States and around the world. Christianity obviously is under attack everywhere. That's not an accident. Why is Christianity, the most peaceful of all religions, under attack everywhere. That's not an accident. Why is Christianity, the most peaceful of all religions, under attack globally? Did you see the opening of the Paris Olympics? There's a reason,

because the battle is not temporal. It's taking place in the unseen world. It's a spiritual battle, obviously. So try Halo. Get three months completely free at Halo. That's halo.com slash Tucker. If there's ever a time to get spiritually in tune and ground yourself in prayer, it's now. Halo will help. Personally and strongly and totally sincerely recommended. Halo.com slash Tucker. Introducing TurboTax Business. A brand new way to file your own T2 return. All while getting help from an expert who actually knows small businesses.

Got a tattoo studio? Toy store? Tiny but mighty taco stand? We've got someone who gets small business taxes inside and out. Experts are standing by to help and review while you file, so you know your return's done right. Intuit TurboTax Business. New from TurboTax Canada.

Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax.ca slash business tax. The new BMO VI Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO VI Porter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bmo.com slash VIPorter to learn more. What happened to all the Bush people? You were here for that.

Not just President Bush and his family, pretty clear for Kamala Harris, but all the people who staff that administration, do all of them still buy those ideas, those 20-year-old ideas, or have any come around to your position? It's a great question because I know a lot of them. It's like you. I like a lot of them, you know, and some of them know. I admire some. I don't admire others. And people are going, you know, a lot of them put flags in the ground with the foolish and inappropriate never Trump letters in 2016. And they're kind of, so their hands are a bit tied. So I don't know how they would behave in a vacuum. I think you see sort of various stages of grief. I mean, various people kind of adapting in different ways or not adapting. Some people are kind of like unreconstructed. Some are kind of like resigned to where things are going. You know what's funny about the Bush? I mean, you remember this better than I do,

but I remember like Bush ran on a more humble foreign policy. I know. You know, I mean, actually what Trump's saying is not that radically different from the kind of Bush vibe, which was against the crusading progressivism of Bill Clinton. Now he ended up totally abandoning that, unfortunately, to his eternal discredit. And in a sense, he was a progressive. He was armed progressivism. Bill Kristol is, let's fight the end of history, you know, basically, which is like, that's not

in any way. And I mean, conservative, I'm not like Angela dancing on the head of a pin. It's not common sense, right? But I think a lot of those people, it's probably, it's going to be hard to incorporate them. You know, there's sort of two, and sociologically, again, they're invested in the old model. And so I think we're going to need,

the trouble is that all the credentialing has been on that side. All of it. Almost all of it. I mean, I'm not to make anything myself, but like I'm a rare, and I was teetering on the, maybe passing over to the edge of respectability

or whatever the mainstream is, you know, for years. And, you know, I think what I find though, encouraging Tucker is I, and this is where, I mean- Wait, can I say say you went to groton and harvard right yeah okay yes well so are you the only person in the world who went to groton and harvard who voted for donald trump you know i don't think so actually my groton harvard roommate was indicating i think there are a few others i mean i you know but i mean okay so you you got me i i you know people say this sometimes i think they say it about you too it's like oh you're

from the elite background how can you not support the elite? And I'm always like, the elite is supposed to work for the public interest. And by the way, that was the model. Teddy Roosevelt was behind the founding of Groton School, which I went there. I have very fond memories. A lot of people who are associated with that hate Donald Trump and everything. I proudly support him. But I think the whole point is to serve, you know, service is perfect freedom the idea is public service is putting the interests of the public ahead and so i to be honest i find the current establishment i look at morning joe or something and i'm like this is not what america deserves okay so i have the same perspective and i would see more brought the identical perspective and i would say that nobody reforms um the system who doesn't understand the system. Yeah. You're always going to have it.

Teddy Roosevelt saved capital in the United States. And he was hated by his peers. By restraining the monopolies. Exactly. And the only reason he was able to do that was because he was pushing back against his own class. He understood them. Right.

Right. So, no, I'm not attacking you for going to Harvard. I'm rather saying, I think it's essential that you understand J.D. Vance hated Trump, went to Yale Law School, started going up to the Aspen Institute to speak in the summer, found the people there so repulsive that he has become their nightmare. Exactly. Because he knows who they are. Right. He had dinner with David Brooks many times. Exactly. So anyway. Totally. Totally. And I think like, and I think like that's,

you know, I love this, this clip of Maggie Goodlander getting called out by this, you know, it should be challenged if you're, like, anybody should be subject to challenge. And that's what's so great about like X and podcasts.

Did Maggie Goodlander win? I'm embarrassed. I think so. I'm not sure. And I'm like not picking on her particularly, but like, you know, there's a fair point. But I mean, my view is,

and it's apropos, because the other woman I think wasn't i think she's her family's from china but you know even under mao i mean the ultimate uh egalitarian system there is an establishment there is an elite right and of course xi jinping is a product of that elite dogs create hierarchies you're always gonna have a hierarchy so the question is not do you have a ruling class you're getting a ruling class is it it good? Do you have a good ruling class? Exactly. Or do you have Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken? That's the best we got. And here's the other thing, you know, and I don't want to cry too much of a river here, but like they are the establishment and they act in like a sociologically conservative way. They're all going to leave office and they're all going to get great jobs on wall street and they're all going to go to law firms and whatever. And it's the people who are taking on the establishment and are taking

the slings and arrows, and hopefully metaphorically alone. But to me, that's the point. That's what you're supposed to do. If you, you know, as the Bible says, to whom much is given of whom much is expected. I strongly agree with that. And I think you're a model of that, honestly, and I'm not just saying that. Well, no, but I really believe in that. And I'm just so offended by the mediocrity and selfishness and stupidity of our ruling class that I just can't. And I don't care if they kill me. I will never stop feeling that way. And that's your incredibly courageous.

Bridge Colby, I am rooting for you fervently. I just wanted to make sure everyone knows who you are and what you think. This process is taking place privately as it has to, but I also think that people who voted for Trump because they want a calmer world, they don't want the United States or him to be destroyed in wars.

I think they should know what's going on. So I hope this provides a little sunlight. Thank you very much, my friend. Bless you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to TuckerCarlson.com to see everything that we have made. The complete library.