The Young Turks - Nuclear Threats

Episode Date: March 22, 2022

Ukraine’s military said on Tuesday that residents should brace for more indiscriminate Russian shelling of critical infrastructure, as President Joe Biden issued one of his strongest warnings yet that Moscow is considering using chemical weapons. Lindsey Graham claimed that ‘Putin owns Biden,’ and he also called for a no-fly zone if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine. Sean Hannity said Iraq should pay America for U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq War. During the first day of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee if she aims to insert critical race theory into the country’s legal system. Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews https://youtu.be/-hq2B3uUAiM https://youtu.be/L4FXbKKe-xE https://youtu.be/iu5xFcK6EfM https://youtu.be/JZUT7nCo7_M https://youtu.be/E-dAu7t-f_s https://youtu.be/yTgZJSMQSi4 https://youtu.be/mjzKvXvZooE https://youtu.be/pDzXX1aIBzI Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, well, the young Turks, Jay Cougar, Anna Kasparry with you guys. We have a ridiculous show for you guys today. First of all, two of our hosts making news, not a big deal, doing amazing things impacting world, Bankrolla, Jordan Yule, you're gonna love those stories later. Second of all, we have a

story of the most toxic workplace in America. I mean, the quotes are insane from current employees, former employees, etc. It involves a sports team. So I had a really good one. So buckle up, brace for impact on that one. So amazing. So dumb ass comments from Trump, the whole enchiladas right here. But unfortunately, we start with potential World War III. as we have on many days today, but let alone the quotes from today involving certain weapons. Okay, now having said that, let's do some serious news. Let's start off with an update on Ukraine. That's where we'll discuss possible serious nuclear weapons.

So let's do it. In a recent speech, President Joe Biden decided to issue his strongest statements against Russia's unfounded claims that Ukraine was developing biological weapons with the help of the. United States. But in addition to saying that in his speech, he also mentioned something that had already been floated by other administration officials, a real concern about what Russians can do next now that Putin is backed into a corner. Let's watch. They're also suggesting that Ukraine has biological and chemical weapons in Ukraine. That's a clear sign he's considering using both of those. He's already used chemical weapons

in the past, and we should be careful of what's about to come. He knows there'll be severe consequences because of the United NATO front. Now, this is the first time that Biden has stated plainly that he's concerned about Vladimir Putin using chemical weapons. I think that it is a legitimate concern, considering the fact that Putin helped to cover up the chemical weapons attacks that Bashir al-Assad was doing against his own people in Syria. But I also want to talk a little bit. about why Putin might feel compelled to use nuclear weapons. BBC did some coverage of this, and I thought this portion of their coverage was really telling. Let's watch.

As the buildings fall and the rubble rises, the besiege population is moving underground, out of reach of conventional bombs and bullets. No amount of conventional hardware will have an impact. People can hide amongst the rubble. Ukrainian military can hide there, jump out with their anti-tank weapons and kill the vulnerable tanks. But if you use chemical weapons, that's not stopped by concrete walls and stuff. It seeks underground and kills people underground. And I contest it.

And you know, that's certainly an interesting explanation as to why Putin would feel compelled to use chemical weapons. And again, I don't put it, you know, I don't consider the use of chemical weapons for Putin to be some sort of hands-off thing. Like there's no way he would do it. I mean, he has shown, he has proven himself to be someone who's willing to put the lives of his own troops at risk. They have targeted, you know, nuclear power plants in Ukraine, knowing full well the damage that that would do, not just to Ukraine, but surrounding countries as well. So I don't put that as something that would be bought beyond what he'd be willing to do. But the question is, what should the United States do?

Lindsay Graham has an interesting answer to that. Before we get to it, though, Jank. Yeah, so that's, he's going to argue for overreaction, and that's why this is such a difficult question. But in terms of Russia, look, this is Putin's playbook. So context matters. If he'd never done this before, you'd say, well, I don't, you know, it's a little bit harder to tell.

But he has a very clear pattern. And same exact thing he did in Syria where he says, oh, the other side might have chemical weapons. Then he dropped chemical weapons. In that case, it was crystal clear. He dropped him from the sky. The people that he claimed were doing a false flag operation didn't even have planes. So it was absurd. So back then he had amateurs like Grayzone doing Putin propaganda here in America.

But now he has professionals like Tucker Carlson doing his propaganda. So that's why you've heard about these Ukrainian biological labs. Every country has these biological labs. Nearly every country has these biological labs. Canada has them. Nobody thinks anybody should invade Canada. It's obvious propaganda Tucker Carlson and the rest know it, but they're trying to help Putin with his messaging.

And it is just one of the sickest things I've ever seen. So when Putin says, oh, I am concerned about their biological or chemical weapons, history shows he's about to launch biological and chemical weapons. So everyone is right to be deeply concerned about what Putin's about what Putin's going to do next. Now the real question is, what does the United States and its allies do in response? Is it a so-called red line if Putin uses chemical weapons against Ukrainians?

And so this was a question that Lindsey Graham apparently has been thinking about quite a bit as a darling of the defense industry. And here's what he has to say. He thinks escalation is the right way to go. Here's what I would say on your show to NATO. If there's a chemical weapons attack by the Russian military against the Ukrainian people, we should impose a no-fly zone immediately because that's breaking all the rules that we've established since World War II. If Putin explodes a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine, the radiation will affect most of Europe.

We should consider that attack on NATO itself. Now, Jank, it's fascinating because he's saying chemical weapons is the red line, we should implement a no-fly zone. But then he talks about the threat of nuclear war and doesn't really connect the dots. How, you know, essentially engaging directly with Russia, getting the United States troops and its allies to engage directly with Russia in that war would escalate a possible nuclear war. Yeah. So guys, this is the one time where I think maybe Trump is better than some people, right? And so anyone who watches T.RT knows I despise Donald Trump. I think he's a monster. I think he might end our democracy. How could you be worse? The only thing worse is someone who's taking a chance with killing all of us. So those are the neocons. There isn't any war disastrous enough or deadly enough or risky enough. So what the, If Putin uses chemical or biological weapons on Ukraine, it is a war crime of extraordinary proportions, which, by the way, he already did in Syria, except no one cared because of the different context, right?

So that's the kind of monster Putin is. But we should not return it in kind. You start a war with Russia. They obviously have no qualms using chemical and biological weapons. Now they're hinting at nuclear weapons. Not even hinting, not even hinting. The spokesperson for Vladimir Putin was asked by Christine Almanpur several times, multiple times. Are you guys willing to use nuclear weapons, or is that off the table?

And he would not take it off the table. They are threatening nuclear war. So anybody who has watched this show over the last couple of weeks knows we love the Ukrainians and their strong stand. We're 100% against the war of aggression that Putin launched. Having said that, having everyone on the planet die isn't going to help anybody, okay? So we've coined a phrase here. It's called Mining the Meteor. It's a reference to the movie Don't Look Up.

So the Lindsay Grams of the world, you think he cares about the Ukrainians like we do? No, no, he's just trying to start a war. Again, context matters. We told you about Putin's pattern. Lindsay Graham's pattern is war, war, war, war, war, war, war, why? Because he gets paid by defense contractors. He's one of the sickest people on the planet. But the reason we talk about mining the meteor, if you saw, don't look up, is because,

oh, you can make a lot of money from defense contractors, Lindsay Graham, and they could make billions in awards true. They made billions on top of billions in Iraq. And nearly a million civilians died in Iraq. Well, of course, Lindsey Kram doesn't care about that. he's a, he's one of the most vile creatures on the planet. Killing people for profit is Lindsay Graham and Neocon 101. But this time, it would kill the whole planet.

But he's thinking, I know, but I'm going to make a little bit more money before we all die. And so it is unbelievable. Look, we're asking you guys in a poll, which one's worse? And this one now, all of a sudden, this is a tough question. Look, honestly, in a lot of ways, it's always been a tough question because the neocons killing all those civilians in their wars of aggression have cost us so much. So who's worse, neocons or Trump? So neoconservatives like Lindsey Graham or Donald Trump.

Donald Trump would end democracy. Seems like you can't worse than that, get worse than that. But the neocons might end the planet. So go to tyt.com slash polls. We'll have the link down below too. Yeah, and I wanted to talk about, honestly, the likelihood of Russia resorting to this because apparently they've been building their arsenal of nuclear weapons that aren't as, they wouldn't kill as many people.

And that's a little terrifying because the theory is if they have these weaker nuclear weapons, well, maybe they'd be more likely to use them. And so the New York Times wrote about this. This tweet got a lot of attention. Experts say a new generation of less destructive nuclear arms may make the prospect of a nuclear strike less unthinkable than it once was. And look, read the entire piece. I didn't get the feeling that the New York Times was in any way trying to applaud these nuclear weapons or hint toward nuclear war. But they did give some interesting information about the development of

these types of nuclear weapons and how much of these weapons Russia has in its arsenal. So for instance, though such weapons are less destructive by Cold War standards, modern estimate show that the equivalent of half a Hiroshima bomb, if detonated in Midtown Manhattan, would kill or injure half a million people. I mean, that is unbelievable. That would be devastating. But that's considered the weaker nuclear weapon. That would be something that Putin would be more likely to use if things got to the point where Putin felt like he needed to resort to that in response to NATO or what the United States is doing. The New York Times also writes, no arms control treaties regulate the lesser warheads known

sometimes as tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons. So the nuclear superpowers make and deploy as many as they want. Russia has perhaps 2,000, according to Hans Christensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. The United States has roughly 100 in Europe, a number limited by domestic policy disputes and the political complexities of basing in Europe, a number of basing them among NATO allies. Europeans obviously don't want to have all these nuclear weapons in their countries. I want to say for good reason, but honestly, Jank, at this point, that theory of nuclear deterrence

makes a lot of sense. I mean, it's working right now on behalf of Vladimir Putin and Russia. Yeah, no, unfortunately, it's totally true. So, but we're all playing with fire. So for the moment being, it's true. And if you're Ukraine and you gave up your nuclear weapons in the 1990s based on what now appears to be complete BS safety assurances, you're really regretting that. And so we've seen non-nuclear countries like Iraq get wiped off the face of the earth.

And then if you're a nuclear country, you're untouchable. So, I mean, we can give a 100, well, we can actually give about 10 examples. Those are the nuclear countries. And so it creates an incentive to go nuclear, not to use the nukes, but to build the nukes. But I hate that incentive because at some point, you're going to get a madman who's going to launch them. It's just a matter of time if it keeps getting spread out across the country. And right now, I mean, there's a certain percentage chance that. that we're already at that madman.

You know, I hope to God it isn't Vladimir Putin, but this talk of, you know, using nukes and keeping that option on the table is about as scary a moment as we have had in our lifetimes. Well, if that doesn't scare you, perhaps this next story will. I want to talk a little bit, a little bit about Dmitri Peskov,

who is Putin's spokesperson, some pretty terrifying statements from him. Vladimir Putin's press secretary was asked repeatedly, whether Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons against the United States, NATO allies, or even in Ukraine. And the way he refused to answer the question clearly at first was concerning. But stay tuned for the second video where things get even worse. Let's watch the first. I need to ask you this, because the world is afraid, and I want to know whether Putin

intends the world to be afraid. the nuclear option. Would he use it? President Putin intends to make the world listen to and understand our concerns. We've been trying to convey our concerns to the world, to Europe, to the United States, for a couple of decades, but no one would listen to us. And before it is too late, it was a decision to launch a special operation, military operation, to get rid of entire Russia that was created next to our borders.

What? To get rid of Russia? Anti-Russia. Because Ukraine, actually, Ukraine started to be, it was formed by the Western countries, anti-Russia. Okay. This is the problem. So there he is repeating honestly, some pretty ridiculous concerns that Ukraine was, I don't know, going to do away with Russia, invade Russia. There was no indication that was going to happen. We've talked about

NATO and how Putin claimed that NATO expanding to its borders with Ukraine, joining NATO is a security risk or security threat in his eyes. But what was interesting there was his unwillingness to directly answer the question and how he immediately went to, Putin wants the world to listen to what we have to say. Yes, so we're going to get to the nukes in a second, and that's the most important part. But real quick on this, guys, look, I know that's going to be on Tucker Carlson tomorrow night and on many of these fake left programs, etc. The same exact talking points will be repeated, parroted by them.

I don't want a single one of you believing this nonsense of Ukraine invading Russia. I mean, who's really? Please, please tell me that no one's that stupid. There is no biological chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Ukraine is one of the very few countries in the history of the world that actively gave up its nuclear weapons. There was no remote chance that Ukraine was going to go into Russia in any way, shape or form. In fact, Russia took Crimea from Ukraine, and Ukraine still didn't even come close to threatening to go into Russia proper, let alone taking back Crimea. All of this is completely made up.

It's 100% Russian propaganda. I understand what they're saying about the expansion of NATO. But let me add one more thing to that. So we told you that, hey, NATO didn't need to go all the way up and surround Russia. It was, NATO was supposed to protect America, Europe, and our allies. But by getting so close to Russia, it's being slightly counterproductive. Okay. Now, that is a reasonable point of view.

On the other hand, if you think that NATO was going to invade Russia, you're cuckoo for cocoa puffs. 100%. No one thinks that. There's not one shred of evidence of that. And they shouldn't be overly aggressive and they shouldn't intimidate, threaten or anyone. Okay. Having said that, there was a zero percent chance. NATO was. And guys, it's not because NATO is altruistic or America's altruistic. America picks on countries that it knows it can decimate like Iraq and Yemen and, you know, Somalia and Vietnam. And we even lose those wars. We lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam, et cetera. America doesn't go. pick on militarily people its own size like Russia and China. So no, we were NATO, guys, what is like there's so many conspiracy theories out there. There's only one thing that explains everything. The money, it's that simple. And America is not, is gonna make money, at least some oil companies and bankers, et cetera,

are gonna make money in defense contractors by invading a smaller country like Iraq. But they're going to make less money if they start a nuclear war. Easy to understand. So all of this is total propaganda. It's important you know that before we show you the next clip. Well, since he refused to answer the question about whether Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, he was asked a second time. And this is where his answer was extremely concerning. So let's watch.

I want to ask you again, is President Putin? Because again, the Finnish president said to me that when he asked Putin directly about this, because President Putin has laid that card on the table. President Putin said that if anybody tries to stop him, very bad things will happen. And I want to know whether you are convinced or confident that your boss will not use that option. Well, we have a concept of domestic security.

And, well, it's public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used. So if it is an existinal threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept. I think that was pretty clear. Nuclear weapons are definitely on the table for Russia. So what we saw from Putin, where he's alerting nuclear authorities to be on the ready, all of that stuff, it wasn't just posturing. And that is why calls for a no-fly zone in Ukraine is incredibly belligerent and irresponsible. I understand the empathy, I understand the very human need to want to protect innocent civilians who are being killed right now, who are being targeted, whose homes are being destroyed.

I totally understand that. But you have to take a step back and think about it logically, think about it rationally. What are the consequences of engaging militarily and directly with Russia? And the consequences could be dire, especially when you're talking about a guy who definitely has nuclear weapons on the table. Yeah, so there's a couple of different possibilities here. So normally the nukes are supposed to be the other side is launched. We're all going to die.

Let's murder all their civilians as well. Now that's already as horrific as scenario as you can imagine, and that is the best case scenario for news, for using news, justifying the use of news, that he's saying, well, it would have to be an existential threat. Okay, well, I just described the existential threat, right? So, but in his opinion, as he said earlier in the interview, he thinks Ukraine is going to invade Russia, and hence that might be an existential threat. threat to Russia. Well, okay, is that true? Of course, it's not true. It's absurd. But what matters is what's in their heads. Right. And so, and I don't mean genuinely, I mean just as an excuse, right? So you can tell what Putin's going to do based on the excuses that he uses. So when he says the other side has biological and chemical weapon, stop. Do you know how fast you were going?

I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie. naked gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly dog. Chili dog, not included. The naked gun. Tickets on sale now.

August 1st. He's about to drop biological and chemical weapons. We've seen it over and over again, right? So when he says, I am worried about an existential threat to me, hence I might have to use my nukes. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. So, look, I just hope there are rational people in Russia that do not let him do it.

Remember, at the end of Trump's term, our top military commanders basically took control the nukes and called other countries and assured them that the lunatic in charge here would not be allowed to fire the nukes. We do not appear to have similar checks and balances in the Russian system. Definitely not. I mean, yes, our democracy has been chipped away at over decades. But in Russia, I mean, you now have Vladimir Putin putting his own, you know, spy agents on house arrest because the war isn't going the way that he wanted it to go.

He feels that they gave him flawed intel. But remember, he's also the guy who surrounds himself with yes men. And if anyone dares to go against what he believes or dares to disagree with him or give him information he doesn't like, he immediately talks them down. There's consequences for them. So it's a lose-lose situation. There's no one standing up to Putin in Russia. The only silver lining in that spy agents being arrested story is, there's a second reason why he's putting people under house arrest, because he's worried they're going to turn on him.

So if he's worried about that, he's probably heard rumblings from oligarchs and other powerful people in Russia saying, how much are we going to bleed here, both literally and then symbolically in terms of money before we get rid of this guy. He's a danger to the whole world, and he's certainly a danger to the money of the oligarchs, which is usually the most important factor. And by the way, if you're wondering, well, what is Biden doing? We've talked about the sanctions that he had already implemented. He has taken a trip to Europe where he is speaking to allies about implementing additional economic sanctions against Russia. In addition to holding countries that help Russia evade those sanctions accountable. And of course, they have their eyes set on China in that regard. So we'll see how that all plays out.

But I think so far his measured response to this has been responsible. Yeah, and last thing, I know I have thick skin because I got to do the news every day and every day there's something depressing in the news. And this is depressing as it gets. But I want everybody to just look, if you're not in politics, there's nothing you could do. Don't start sitting at home worried that the nuke's going to drop on your head any second. Live your life, okay, but make sure that we're all doing the right and responsible. thing as a country. And so far, and this is exactly why you have to have competent people in

office. Biden, I think, is a disaster in domestic policy, but he has handled this pretty much brilliantly. And that's why you don't elect clowns into office because of dangerous situations like this. And he has walked the line just right where he has not been provocative, not done to the no-fly zone that could start a war, but at the same time hurt him so bad with the sanctions that the oligarchs might take care of business in Russia on their own. Now, the jury's still out, but so far, it has been nearly excellent leadership. So let's stay the course here in that regard and hope for the best. When we come back from the break, we'll go to Sean Hannity, who believes that Iraqis actually owe us reparations for invading them. I'm not even kidding. We'll get to

that story and more when we come back. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. A lot more stories. We move forward. All right. Sean Hannity suggested that Iraqis owe us, the United States, despite all the damage that we caused by preemptively invading its country and causing a war that lasted for years and killed tens of thousands, if not more civilians. We'll get to that in a minute. But let's hear what Tucker Carlson's argument is here.

Sean Hannity's. I'm sorry, same thing, not same thing. Sean Hannity's, let's watch. I'm not even sure that Zelensky will survive this. I think we're at a tipping point. Right now they need the weapons. We can negotiate them paying us back later, but we should pursue it. I still think we should pursue it with Iraq, if you want my frank opinion.

And I think they should provide funding for every American soldier killed over them. there. Right. But I, but there's a certain urgency, there's a certain urgency that they, they need this equipment yesterday because Joe Biden was sleeping when Putin was building up his troops and weaponry on, on the east side, eastern coast of Ukraine. All right. So just to further contextualize that, he's having a conversation about Ukraine. The caller was concerned about the debt in the United States and how much money we're spending on assisting the Ukrainians. And Sean Hannity's argument is, look, we can have them pay us back later. But that reminds me, when are we going to get the Iraqis to pay us back?

And so I just want to ask him for what? I mean, he mentioned American soldiers, who I feel terrible for because they were deployed in a preemptive war. over weapons of mass destruction that clearly did not exist. Okay, so they lost their lives over, you know, what the Bush administration was pursuing. They conducted all sorts of war crimes, and you want to talk about people who died. Why don't we take a look at the number of civilians who died during the Iraq war? So this is from Statista, and they looked at data. And look, when it comes to civilian deaths, it's very difficult to pin down exact numbers.

In fact, these numbers are very likely to be underestimits. Significantly so. Significantly so. But it breaks down the number of civilian deaths every single year dating back to 2003. And you look at 2014, 20,218 civilians died in Iraq as a result of the war that we did, the war we conducted invading Iraq under false pretenses. And to like sit there and say, Iraqis owe us, it just blows my mind that he can make that argument with a straight face. So it's exhausting dealing with disingenuous talk show hosts.

So I know everybody thinks the other guy is wrong and you're right and everybody has their strong opinions. And so people can say, well, you guys are talk show host too. But for God's sake, we try to bring facts, right? And we try to be fair. So for how are we more fair than Hannity? Other than this one being super obvious, right? Well, look, we criticized Biden's foreign policy in the past. He voted for the Iraq war.

It was a terrible mistake. He was in the Obama administration. They did those drone strikes that killed civilians. In fact, they killed American civilians with those drone strikes. Now, Fox News went crazy about Benghazi because they thought they could blame Obama for it. But they didn't mind when Obama was killing American citizens without any due process at all because they like the vicious killings that our military does. So you can tell we're not like, oh, yeah, rah-rah Democrats or rah-rah U.S. military.

Hell no, right? But when Hannity says first about the Biden was asleep while the Russians were building up their troops at the Ukrainian border. I mean, come on. Guys. So look, I've criticized Biden now at this point thousands of times. But what the hell was he supposed to do about the military buildup? Was he supposed to preemptively attack Russia? He's done crippling sanctions while not starting a nuclear war.

What else do you want the guy to do? Oh, he should have done something. And by the way, he wasn't at all sleeping. In fact, when Biden was warning about Russia over and over, and we were even skeptical, right? And Fox News was like, oh, yeah, trying to change the topic from COVID. Oh, trying to change the topic from your low poll numbers. Biden's talking about Russia for no reason. Now they turn around because they're liars.

They turn around, same guys go, can you believe he wasn't doing enough, right? So now to Iraq. By the way, no no commentary whatsoever in regard to Donald Trump withholding $400 billion, I believe it was, in military aid. Or no, million dollars, $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in return for the announcement of a sham investigation into the Biden's. Yeah. Right, no announcement on that. You want to talk about asleep. We want to talk about not doing enough.

The Ukrainians are like, hey, the Russians might invade. Can you guys help us? And Trump's like, oh, yeah, what are you going to do for my political career? I want you to investigate my opponent's son, okay? Otherwise, you can all go die. Hey, Sean, are you talking about that? No, you're not talking about that because you're an obvious liar. You're an obvious propagandist.

All right, now to Iraq. Look, that is the most conservative estimate I've seen, the numbers we showed you. It's about, the lowest number I've ever seen is about 150,200,000 civilians dead. The highest number I've seen is about a million civilians dead. You know you've killed a lot of civilians when you've lost track of them by the hundreds of thousands. That's right. Okay, so, hey, Iraq should compensate us for our war of aggression, where we went in and murdered hundreds of thousands of their civilians so that we could put a puppet government in

who will make sure that American oil companies get all the contracts. So who gets searched? We don't even get the oil. No, the corrupt oil companies that gave to the corrupt politicians, they get the oil, they get the profit. All those dead civilians, all on Hannity's head, the neo-conservatives' heads, they did that. But, Sean, if we're going to use your logic, I know logic is a thing you despise.

But if we're going to use your logic, okay, they owe us for the tens of thousands of our boys killed. By the way, you actually owe us, Sean. You're the one who started that war. For pushing for the war? Why does the Fox News that clearly push for that war owe the families of the dead American soldiers? You owe them, Sean. What do you give your goddamn salary up for starting that war?

But if you're talking about it in terms of dead for dead and compensation, then America owes way, way more to Iraq than Iraq owes to us. I mean, we were guilty of war crimes in Iraq. I mean, do you guys not remember the whole reason why Chelsea Manning was imprisoned, was placed in solitary confinement? It was because of the Apache helicopter leak, which featured our soldiers targeting and killing civilians. Okay, this was in Baghdad. You have a group of men in this Baghdad Square. And not only are they targeting them specifically, they're laughing as a lot of people.

they're doing it. Two journalists died. And I'm gonna give you more details in just a minute. But I want you to watch portions of that video that was leaked by WikiLeaks because this is what our troops were doing in Iraq. And for Sean Haney to turn around and say, oh, the Iraqis owe us, they should pay us reparations, is unbelievable. Let's watch. Keep shoot. Keep shoot. Bushmaster, two things. We need to move time now.

All right, we just engaged all eight individuals. A bunch of bodies laying there. Sorry, we got about eight individuals. Yeah, we got one guy crawling around down there. But yeah, we could have different. More shoot, some more. Every single person who died was a civilian. As I mentioned, two journalists also died.

I believe they were both from Reuters. And when first responders showed up, they also shot at the first responders. That's what U.S. troops were doing in Baghdad. This is in July of 2007. By the way, part of the reason that we arrested Chelsea Manning and then tortured her while she was in prison is because she also released the actual number of civilians we had killed up until that point. And the number was much higher than America was admitting publicly. They knew behind the scenes their own numbers showed the number was astronomically higher.

So Chelsea Manning told us the truth about the war. And by the way, who, yes, at the end, the very, very bitter end, Obama parted her and finally let her out of prison. But yes, it was the Obama administration that stuffed her in prison and that tortured her. So this is bipartisan brutality. And Sean Hannity says, well, for all that brutality that we did, we should have made more money off of it. That's the sick people that work at Fox News. All right, we got to take a break. But when we come back, we'll get into the second day of hearings for Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Jackson.

And unsurprisingly, conservatives decided to turn it into a. ridiculous culture war circus where they're just posturing for the midterms. We've got that and more coming right up. All right back on CYT, Chankanana, with you guys forward. Well, it's the second day of Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson. So let's talk about that. Judge Kentonji Brown Jackson is doing a pretty great job fielding design. of disastrous questions from GOP lawmakers during her Senate confirmation hearings.

She is Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court. And what really stood out was how she responded to the dishonest attacks by Senator Josh Holly, the unfounded claims that she was, quote, soft on crime when it came to individuals who were found guilty of possession of child porn. Now, Senator Dick Durbin had brought that issue up in the context of the hearings, and And, you know, and by the way, go back to our older video where we actually talked about how Holly specifically took her out of context to make it appear as though, you know, she was saying things that she wasn't actually saying. But nonetheless, she got an opportunity to address this with a lengthier answer. Here's what she had to say. Are some of the most difficult cases that a judge has to deal with because we're talking about pictures of sex abuse of children.

We're talking about graphic descriptions that judges have to read and consider when they decide how to sentence in these cases. And there's a statute that tells judges what they're supposed to do. The statute says, calculate the guidelines, but also look at various aspects of this offense and impose a sentence that is, quote, sufficient, but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment. And in every case, when I am dealing with something like this, it is important to me to make sure that the children's perspective, the children's voices are represented in my sentencings. And I think she really did a great job in answering that question, you know, prior to Dick Durbin bringing that up. There were a number of conservatives, including a former federal

prosecutor who came out and condemned Josh Hawley for making these dishonest attacks against Judge Jackson. And of course, there was a lot of analysis proving, showing the receipts of how Holly specifically took her out of context. As she was quoting a witness to ask a question about what the witness had said, Holly made it appear as though she had made the statement herself. But of course, he didn't apologize for taking her out of context even after he had been confronted about that by reporters. But it wasn't just the way she answered that question, Jank. She's, from what I've seen so far, she's done a wonderful job in, you know, and it's difficult to do. I don't know how she does it. She responds to these GOP lawmakers and their dishonest attacks

and how they're using this for political theater, for the midterms. She somehow manages to answer with grace, with intelligence, with, she's amazing. I'm actually incredibly impressed with how she's handling all of this. Yeah, so I'm going to start with something really funny. I love intelligent people. So we're so used to listening to Dumm's. 100%. You're like the right wing idiots, fake left idiots, just the world is filled with idiots and liars, right?

So she's a breath of fresh air. So when she comes up and says the right things logically and says it in a clearly brilliant way, I'm like, oh, thank God. And how she goes out of her way to avoid answering questions that are specifically meant to politicize what's going down. You know, it's not for the GOP, this is not about confirming a Supreme Court justice. This is about political theater for their own means for the upcoming midterm elections. I mean, as we've talked about multiple times on the show before, all they've got is the culture war. And as you're about to see from multiple other videos featuring multiple other Republicans, all they do is dive in deeper with their culture war narratives.

And it's not about, hey, we're curious. What is her genuine answer on this? It's more about posturing for their constituents. 100%. So look, remember when. the right wing was questioning her qualifications. I mean, come on, listen to her. On the other side, you have guys like Louis Gomer who are like, I think Obama is going to recastute the Ottoman Empire, like total morons, right? And she's sitting here having to deal with these people when she's obviously

brilliant. No, let's compare apples to apples, okay? It wasn't that long ago that Brett Kavanaugh had his confirmation hearings. Just go back and watch that where he's, I mean, he's combative, he's angry, he's accusing lawmakers of all sorts of things. I mean, he's talking about how much he likes beer, he's talking about his friends who have like weird nicknames, like it's just night and day comparison. And it's amazing to see the right wing, people like Charlie Kirk point to her and claim that she got to where she is because of affirmative action. She didn't really earn it. She's not really that smart. It's just, it's exactly what you would expect from someone like Charlie Kirk.

Yeah. And to the most important point here, I'm never going to let it go. There was a speech that Chuck Schumer gave where he just like gently criticized the Republicans. Mansion helped the Republicans make a big deal out of it like Schumer had insults their mother or something. And they were just shocked and chagrin. But what did the Republicans do on the other side? They're constantly accusing the left of being child killers, child molesters to child porn. And based on nothing, nothing. And they're like, oh, you're walking by me today on a Wednesday.

Child, fill in the blank, molester, porn, killer, drinker of blood, et cetera. And Democrats sit there and play patty cakes with them. Now, the other side is monsters and liars. They just, these are, that's not my opinion. I can have an opinion on the tax rate. But we're showing you facts. Hawley definitely lied. And he did it on purpose.

He's a terrible, immoral person. All to pander to QAnon conspiracy theorists. It's pretty gross. Well, let's move on to Lindsay Graham, who has decided to use these hearings as a way to settle old scores. On a scale of one to ten, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion? You know, I go to church probably three times a year, so that speaks poorly of me. or do you attend church regularly? Well, Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way

just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views. Well, how would you feel if a senator up here said your faith, a dogma lives loudly within you and that's of concern? How would you feel if somebody up here on our side said, you know, you attend church too much for me or your faith is a little bit different to me, and they would suggest that it would affect your decision. So there you have Senator Lindsay Graham essentially trying to make a point about the treatment of Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed in like three seconds. Let's just keep it real. Okay. Yeah, and Amy Coney Barrett is an occult. Okay, fine, you're allowed to be in a cult. It's a free country.

No, but more importantly, Jake, it's not just about her being religious, right? In the case of Amy Coney Barrett, being confirmed as the third Trump nominee, her religious beliefs do serve as a potential concern, a worry that women across the country may have about their reproductive rights being, you know, rolled back. Yeah, and part of the cults, ideology is that the woman must defer to their, to her husband for any opinion. Well, she's a Supreme Court justice. Is she going to ask her husband every single time? Because that is what you, okay, fine, you say I'm offensive. It's not a cult. It's a sect of a

religion. Okay, fine. But that sect says you must ask your husband what to do every time. So does she believe that or doesn't she believe that is a relevant question. If she's a normal religious person, that doesn't really believe any of the texts, then let it go, let it go, right? But here bringing it up is obviously like, oh yeah, they questioned our person's religion just because she was in a cult that said she had to lend out her brain to her husband and was going to vote based on her religious beliefs to take away all of your rights of privacy. Just because they question, oh yeah, I'm going to question you. What's your faith? Just please stop. You're embarrassing.

of Amy Coney Barrett, just to give you another example of how well Judge Jackson is handling these questions, she just knows how to frame things in a way that makes it difficult for the right wing to attack her. So for instance, and this is a tweet by the Associated Press, asked about her views on court packing. Jackson modeled her answer on that of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who declined to weigh in on the idea. Quote, I agree with Justice Barrett, she said. Judges should not be speaking to political issues. Yeah, I just want consistency. I don't mind anybody asking about any of these questions.

By the way, if it turns out Judge Jackson has some kooky beliefs and that she's going to let those beliefs, religious beliefs, guide her decisions, then I would be concerned, okay? But if Barrett's not going to answer the questions and Clarence Thomas, who 100% uses religion in his decisions, doesn't answer the questions, she certainly shouldn't answer the questions. And you know, it is interesting to see how every Republican, you know, in the Judiciary Committee who's asking these questions, they all have their own culture war lane, okay?

With Lindsey Graham, it's settling old scores. He loves to do that, especially when it comes to these hearings. With, you know, Tom Cotton, he decided to focus on immigration. And then you have people like Marsha Blackburn, who is obsessed with every culture war issue, particularly critical race theory. So let's go to her opening statement to Judge Jackson during this hearing. You once wrote that every judge has, and I quote, personal hidden agendas, end quote, then influence how they decide cases. So I can only wonder, what's your hidden agenda? Is it to let violent criminals, cop killers and child predators back to the streets?

Is it to restrict parental rights and expand government's reach into our schools and our private family decisions? Is it to support the radical left's attempt to pack the Supreme Court? You have praised the 1619 project, which argues the U.S. is a fundamentally racist country, and you have made clear that you believe judges must consider critical race theory when deciding how to sentence criminal defendants. Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system? Yeah, that accusation that she believes that critical race theory should be mandatory is ridiculous. That was a lie, completely made up.

And I just, I do find it fascinating that she started her statement by a key. accusing or questioning whether Judge Jackson would enable criminality. Gee, I wonder why she starts with that line of questioning. Yeah, no, that was about the most racist question I've ever heard. But look at the disparity in the two sides. I mean, she starts the question with, are you going to let child predators and killers into all of our houses? Come on. I mean, look, right wing, aren't you embarrassed by your politicians?

No, they're not. They love it. They love it. Because they're, what do you want me to say about you guys? You want me to say that you're smart? How could you not see what a fraud of a question that is? Look, our side is pathetic. We're honest about our side.

They lay down for you guys. They're a welcome, Matt, for you to step all over. Feinstein had the information about Kavanaugh wasn't even going to release it, even though she's a Democrat. Ryan Grimm at the Intercept and also at TYT is the one that broke the story. Otherwise, she was never going to release the terrible information on Kavanaugh. Because our side is a goddamn doormat, right? If the Democrats had asked a question, though, in this fantastical world where the two sides are equal.

And, you know, Brett Kavanaugh comes in and they say, is it true that you're going to let murderers and child rapists into everyone's house? I'd be like, what the hell are you asking that question? That's insane. That's an insane question. Why would you ask that, right? But Republican voters look at that and go, well, yeah, that sounds really good. I bet that's what's going to happen. I know, but, Jank, Republican voters consume nonstop fear content, fear mongering, content. And unlike the left, where honestly, there's constant debate amongst us over little

minute things, constantly, constantly jabbing at each other. On the right, it's not like that. On the right, they have a uniform message on every media platform. Everything is orchestrated. Everything is clear in regard to what they're fear mongering about at the same time. And so look, their program, the voters are programmed to think that these are legitimate things to be fearful about. And it's because of the propaganda, it's incredibly powerful. I'm not making excuses for it, but when you ask, do they not see how stupid these questions are? Do they not see how ridiculous this is? My answer to that is no, they don't see it because they live in a different bubble. They're in a different filter bubble. They're consuming completely different news,

and they don't know what the reality is. Imagine sitting there watching TV where you're being told over and over again that the immigrants are going to come to kill you, right? That there's this underground child predator sex ring and, you know, Democrats are part of it or they're covering up for it. If that's all you're consuming, you're going to listen to that line of questioning by Marsha Blackburn and think she's an American hero. Also, a lot of the Republican voters are racist. So when they see a black person, they go, oh, well, of course she's going to allow the killers out and et cetera, right? And then you get to the critical race theory stuff. She just makes up that she thinks every decision, you say that every, you say

that every decision should be decided based on critical race theory. Of course she never said that, right? They're unbelievable, right? But what is to them what critical race theory means is? Now, I guess you're going to take into account what somebody's race is, huh? And so when we arrest black people for the same crime that white people do at the same rate, which is marijuana possession, and we arrest black people at four times the rate, I guess you're going to say that has something to do with race, right?

Critical race theory. Yeah, it's just, they just, they hate black people. They do, and they say it in every sentence. Well, look, if you have guilt in your heart in regard to how people of color have been treated in this country, how black people have been treated in this country, if you say things in your household that make it abundantly clear that you aren't so friendly to African Americans in America, you're probably not going to want your kid to learn about how wrong that is in school. You're not going to want your kid to come home and judge you. So they're terrified of their own kids learning the

truth about American history. Critical race theory, again, we've said it a billion times, has become a catch-all for Republicans. Critical race theory is something very specific, and it's taught at a graduate level. But again, it's been a catch-all. And to my point earlier, Jank, about how consistent right wing media is and how they're all on message at the same time. Here's a tweet from the GOP Twitter account where they have a photo of Judge Jackson next to KBJ and they crossed it and put CRT. Of course, that's her initials and CRT is critical race theory. So they're saying basically look at her. She's black.

Who cares what she actually said about? critical race theory. Who cares what critical race theory actually is? She's black. We don't like black people. We say critical race theory is teaching the truth about racism in America. Since we're all racist, we don't want you to teach that truth. So vote against her. So look, we've said this many times, but we don't mind teaching the actual history of racism in this country. You know why? Because we don't take it personally. We didn't do it. We're not racist. It's something that happened. By the way, a lot of good things happened in our history too, but you should teach the good and the bad. Do you know why? Because they're facts. The other side looks at him

goes, oh my God, they're talking about me. They caught me. They're talking about me. Don't teach it. Don't teach it. You reveal yourself. All right. That does it for our first hour. We're going to take a break. And when we come back, lots of great second hour stories, including what Jank has dubbed the most toxic workplace in America. Come right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.