The Young Turks - Trump Cancels Taliban Negotiations

Episode Date: September 10, 2019

Trump has canceled secret negotiations with the Taliban at Camp David. Cenk Uygur, and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

Welcome to the Young Turks, I'm your host Anna Kasparian and Jank is out for the week. But we're gonna have a series of awesome panels and panelists, including today with David Dayan, the executive editor at American Prospect. I wanted to make sure I get that title right. Excellent. And Emma Viglin, our very own Emma Viglin, who will be here all week. You're gonna be on pretty much every show across the network this week. Yeah, no, I was working all weekend and now I'm stretching myself even thinner here.

It's a great time. That's how we do it at TYT. So make sure you check out Emma's reporting at RebelHQ, YouTube.com slash RebelHQ to watch some of her videos. We're actually gonna cover a few of the interviews that Emma conducted in New Hampshire, including one with Elizabeth Warren and another with Amy Klobuchar. She did get a little salty with you, I saw that. A little bit, just a little bit.

So I'm looking forward to that. And then later on in the show, we are going to have Alonzo Bowden and Jason Carter join us for hour two. We're also going to get into a discussion about Tulsi Gabbard's appearance on Dave Rubin's show. Before we get to that, though, we have some international news to cover, so let's get right to it. President Trump revealed in a series of bombshell tweets late Saturday that he planned to secretly meet with Taliban leaders and the president of Afghanistan Sunday at Camp David. Now, that meeting came as a surprise, and it was abruptly canceled, and we found out about that through a series of tweets that Trump put out. And I'm gonna go ahead and read

those tweets to you and give you some more details about what this meeting was supposed to be about. Trump tweets, unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and separately, the president of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Saturday. They were coming to the United States tonight. This is a tweet from Saturday night. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our, that killed one of our great soldiers and 11 other people. I immediately canceled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? I don't know, we should take a look at what's happening in Yemen.

They didn't, they didn't, they only made it worse, and then he continues to write if they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway, how many more decades are they willing to fight? Now, as we all know, Donald Trump has wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. And now that the 2020 election is quickly approaching, it's one of the, if he succeeds in it, it's one of the things he wants to point to as a success in his first term. However, as with anything, Trump tweets, what's happening behind the scenes is very different from what he's putting out there publicly. So we're gonna get into the details of why these negotiations really fell apart. But first, let me give you the background on how this meeting came about in the first place.

At some point during the meeting, the idea was floated to finalize the negotiations in Washington. Trump suggested that he would even invite President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan, whose government has not been party to these negotiation talks and get him to sign on. So I want to stop there for a second. So, the United States and the Taliban have been negotiating a peace deal without any type of involvement from the actual government of Afghanistan. And in the meantime, Trump is making concessions on behalf of the Afghan government as part of these negotiations.

So as soon as the Afghan government got involved, clearly there were some issues and there were disagreements about the concessions that Trump provided to the Taliban. that the Afghan government would release Taliban prisoners, which is not something that Afghanistan agreed to do. Now, in the days that followed, Trump embraced an even more remarkable idea. He would not only bring the Taliban to Washington, but to Camp David, the crown jewel of the American presidency. The leaders of a militant organization, and this is writing from the New York Times, deemed

terrorists by the United States, would be hosted in the mountain getaway. used for presidents, prime ministers, and kings just three days before the anniversary of September 11, 2001 attacks that led to the Afghan war. All right, so let's open this up for a discussion. I just want to say right off the bat, I am not one to say that you should never negotiate with so-called terrorists. We have negotiated with terrorists in the past. We're actually fighting a war for terrorists in Yemen right now.

So I'm not in the camp of, no, you should not negotiate with the Taliban. However, the way Trump wanted to do this and the way he wanted to bring the Taliban to Camp David, days prior to September 11th, I think was not a good idea to say the least. And the way the negotiations have gone down so far have been pretty bad, especially when he hasn't involved the Afghan government, and based on reporting, Trump wasn't even really involved in the negotiations himself until the very end, because he wanted that spectacle. Well, I mean, that's somewhat common, right? That you do this stuff at the staff level and then you bring the world leaders in at the end to close and seal the deal.

The real problem here is, I mean, let's take a step back. The Afghan government controls like four streets in Kabul, and that's about it. And if the Americans do, in fact, leave, which in my view, we should. The government is going to likely collapse. It's going to fall to the Taliban. No American president has been willing to take that risk. We thought maybe Trump was so desirous of saying, I brought the troops back and so uncaring of the fallout that he might. But no, he's not willing to do that either.

So apparently we're locked into Afghanistan for 100 years doing nothing of consequence. for stalling an inevitable solution or an inevitable consequence of our eventually leaving, if we ever do. But the Taliban and the Afghan government, despite how marginalized the Afghan government is, both want the United States troops to leave their nation. So if Trump and his team, if you're saying that, you know, it's more going to be on the lower levels that they're having these conversations, if they had a shred of competency, they would know that that is a common goal to bring those two groups together to have a conversation

if they actually wanted peace. The reality is that Trump acts impulsively, he sort of wants peace and has these anti-interventionist inclinations. But when it comes down to it, it's the establishment of the Republican Party that will always put a wall up in front of him. And he wants to be liked by his, you know, covert of people around him and by his supporters So much so that that's what's going to win out at the end of the day. And he's so easily swayed by who's the last person in the room.

So while that might be his initial instinct to be anti-interventionist, it's never going to get past the first step. And this is just another example of it. And it's frustrating because he could be the Trojan horse for us, people who love peace, who want us to get out of these forever wars and actually accomplish this goal because only a Republican can for the Republicans to accept it, and Democrats and liberals are principled enough to say, okay, we'll be fine with it, even if Trump does it. Yeah, I mean, it was the idea that if anyone could get away with this, it could be true.

And no, he's not willing to do it. And frankly, the Afghan government and the Taliban's concerns and wishes mean absolutely nothing to U.S. foreign policy in any fashion. Which is why we invaded there. Exactly. We've stayed there for decades. This is about an American president trying to save face, and unfortunately, he's going to continue to have Americans there who are still in harm's way, as those tweets show.

So I want to get to the Warhawks who surround him in his administration in just a second, but I do also want to give you some information about the soldier who died in the Taliban attack. As I mentioned earlier, 12 innocent people were killed. including a soldier who army sergeant first class Ellis Angel Barreto Ortiz. Now he was cited, his death was cited as the reason for why this meeting didn't happen and why the negotiations fell apart. But in reality, these Taliban attacks have never subsided. Like they've continued, more American military have died as a result of these attacks.

What really happened is there were so many disagreements and there was so much chaos in the middle of these negotiations, that it just kind of fell apart. And my interpretation of this is that the administration is now pointing to this particular Taliban attack for their reason to kind of leave the negotiation behind at the moment. Definitely. They claim that they want to continue negotiating, but we'll see. Now I want to go to Mike Pompeo because Pompeo's rhetoric here perfectly demonstrates and illustrates what you guys are talking about, the kind of hawkishness that you can expect from

someone like Pompeo, and to an even greater degree, John Bolton. Take a look. We're not going to withdraw our forces without making sure we achieve President Trump's twin objectives. Any reduction in our forces will be based on actual conditions, not commitments, but actual conditions on the ground. Well, given that conditions appear to be worsening, is- That's not, Chuck, that's not true. You don't believe, okay. I don't believe that's true. If you're the Taliban conditions have been worsening, and they're about to get worse. What is, okay, you say about to get worse? So you're going to, does this mean we are going to increase the military activity against the Taliban?

We're going to make sure that everyone in the region understands that America will always protect its national security interests. I'll leave to the Department of Defense to talk about specifics. But no one should underestimate President Trump's commitment to achieving those goals. So it's just clear who surrounds Donald Trump. So you guys are right in that he has these inclinations, he has this feeling that, hey, voters are sick of these forever wars, they want to get out. But when you surround yourself with the likes of John Bolton, who's even more hawkish than Pompeo is in this administration specifically, well, you're gonna have some issues.

And I wanted to give you some details about what they were negotiating, what were the terms of the deal as they stood. The deal called for a gradual withdrawal of the remaining 14,000 American troops over 16. months, with about 5,000 of them leaving within 135 days. In return, the Taliban would provide counterterrorism assurances to ease American fears of a repeat September 11th from Afghan soil. But I mean, even in that case, do you trust the Taliban to avoid another terrorist attack? I mean, I wouldn't trust them.

I would take the proper national security measures to make sure that an attack like that doesn't happen in the future, but- Well, but I mean, that is the doom loop of this militarized policy that we've continued to see. We can't leave because what would happen if we leave? Well, I want to leave, don't get me wrong, I want to leave, but like this whole notion that like they're gonna promise that they're not gonna do any, they're not gonna be naughty anymore, of course, they're gonna, throughout these negotiations, they've continued

with their attacks. But I mean, nothing in that says we're not going to take over the government and rule the country. I mean, they could not harbor a terrorist and still subjugate women and do everything that the Taliban was doing and controlling Afghanistan, which was not great situation for the Afghan people. It wasn't. I mean, but- And frankly, though, that's their business. I mean, we've invaded this. I agree. Yeah, like, I'm obviously sympathetic to the plight of women and all of these individuals who have to suffer under these authoritarian governments, these religious governments that are being run by maniacs.

I mean, but we fund one in Saudi Arabia. So the fact that we're showing this false concern about, oh, what happens if the Taliban actually gains official control as opposed to just 90% control of Afghanistan is absurd. So we're doing all of this in bad faith, and that's what's frustrating. about this conversation. Yeah, I wanna leave you with one final bit of information on this, Graphic 11. The senior Taliban leader on Sunday said that Trump was fooling himself to think that he could bring the Taliban and President Ashraf ghani together at Camp David because we do not recognize

the Stoge government in Kabul. So there were deep disagreements during these negotiations. The way that the Trump administration is trying to spin it, as if everything was hung They had agreed on everything, everything was fine, it was just that one final terrorist attack that they did that changed everything is just a lie. They hadn't really come to an agreement, there were still deep differences, and that doesn't mean that you should avoid pulling out of Afghanistan, but you should know what the facts are and how the negotiations really went.

And let's just note for the millions time that if Obama invited the Taliban to camp David. Right. Like the entire country would explode? Yeah, I mean seriously. Let's get to that now. You're ready? Oh, fine.

Oh, I'm ready. All right. Following news that Donald Trump canceled a meeting with Taliban leaders at Camp David only days before 9-11, some of his old tweets toward Barack Obama have resurfaced for good cause. Now, Trump was very critical toward Obama when it came to. negotiating with terrorists. And I want to read some of those tweets to you. This is a tweet from January 13th of 2012.

Trump had tweeted, while Barack Obama is slashing the military, he's also negotiating with our sworn enemy, the Taliban, who facilitated 9-11. That wasn't the only tweet. There were several of them. I'm not even gonna read all of them to you, but one other one- Slashing the military, like in an alley, like shiving them. Not even including the budget part. Barack Obama is sweetening his offer to the Taliban, and then he said, read the art of the deal.

You know, a little plug for his book. So it goes on and on. Look, what I found fascinating was the damage control we saw from Mike Pompeo the morning after Trump had tweeted about the meeting falling apart. And so let's go to the first video. Here he is speaking to Jake Tapper, and Jake Tapper asks him, what if this was Obama? I can't help but think that if a Democratic president had talked about having the Taliban come to Camp David to negotiate a peace process that was not already a done deal, that you

as a congressman, as a soldier, as a veteran, as a West Point graduate, that you would be rather upset. Yeah, Jake, you're just wrong about that. I've been fully supportive of this effort. The direction that we have taken at the State Department, the effort President Trump has given us guidance to go deliver on us something I think is important, it's valuable. I think the timing is just right. We'd made enormous progress.

I know who the Taliban are, and I know who al-Qaeda is. And I've seen that U.N. report. I will tell you that they describe the al-Qaeda leadership as being happy about the conditions. Afghanistan. Well, a lot of them are in their graves. And so make no mistake about it. We will continue to punish. We will continue to pound.

We will continue to fight. We'll continue to protect the American people. We will never construct a deal. If I was worried about Barack Obama and President Obama, it was because he was prepared to leave without ensuring that we're we can protect America. This administration will never do that. So that last statement perfectly summarizes one of the reasons why Trump is going to stay in Afghanistan. I mean, that is the kind of influence that surrounds him in the White House. And at the same time, come on, let's keep it real. We know the situation would be very different. The response from someone like Pompeo

would be very different toward Obama, if Obama were doing the exact same thing that Trump is trying to do. But when you say that this is the group that surrounds Trump, it's frankly the group, that surrounds both parties. In terms of the blob, what is sometimes known as the blob, which is the sort of diplomatic and intelligence and military communities within Washington, they have the same mindset that Pompeo just said right there. We can't leave until we've secured the zone. But we have nothing to do to be able to do that.

So we're just not going to leave. We're just going to punish and pound them. Punish and pound them. Because it's gotten us very far. And using a soldier's death as an excuse is actually kind of offensive to the memory of that soldier because it has nothing to do with one tragic event. It has everything to do with the foreign policy mentality of the United States in a bipartisan fashion.

And it does wrong to the memory of the soldier to say that he was the reason or his death was the reason that we're saying. Right, and you know, Obama got elected and there were all sorts of promises when it came to changing foreign policy, changing the course of foreign policy in America. But in reality, Obama expanded Bush era foreign policy, drone strikes increased under him. Our civil liberties continue to be violated under the Obama administration. So you're absolutely right. And there is this notion that if you don't play ball with the military industrial complex,

especially if you're a Democrat, you're weak on national security. And that is, I mean, think about it, that is a criticism that's perpetuated by the right wing, and Democrats just fall right into it. It's because they're terrified of the military industrial complex, that huge apparatus that you're talking about, which is even more influential in Washington than I think people realize. And what's fascinating to me about how Jake Tapper framed that question is he started it off the exact right way.

Isn't there hypocrisy? Would you not be extremely critical if this was President Obama? But then he goes, as a soldier, as a veteran, as a West Point graduate, as if there's something wrong with diplomacy with the Taliban. And that's what's frustrating about the entire media coverage of it. They are anti-peace consistently, and they are anti-diplomacy consistently. That's a bias you see on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN repeatedly. They want belligerents.

They were so orgasmic about when Trump dropped that mother of all bombs in Afghanistan. And they're silent, radio silent, that Trump, within the first year, I think, in office, already surpassed Obama in drone strike civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq. So this is just increasing, increasing and increasing, and unless we have someone who's a radical in the right sense in office, it's not going to change because the power of the presidency in this regard has gotten completely out of control. And while you thought that Trump might be someone who would reject the sort of establishment consequences of this, because his intellectual curiosity only extends to cable news, if cable

news is reinforcing what you just said in terms of putting forward a belligerent. pro-intervention anti-peace mindset, then that's the feedback that he gets, the only feedback that he gets while he's sitting in bed. You know, it is interesting, though, because if I recall correctly, back when Obama was president, and when he did want to do these negotiations, and when he was getting criticized from the right wing for being part of these talks, of course, Fox News criticized him, but MSNBC was kind to him, CNN was relatively kind to him. They were a lot more in favor of working with and negotiating with so-called terrorists under

the Obama administration. But when it comes to Trump, it's amazing to see how those very same cable news hosts change tune, right? Where all of a sudden they're the ones who are like, no, you shouldn't be negotiating with terrorists, this is offensive, this is terrible. But you shouldn't change your perspective on these peace deals, depending on who the president is at that moment. And one other thing I wanted to give Trump credit for in a weird way, there are moments where

he pushes through the pressures of the military industrial complex. Remember, he was about to do an airstrike on Iran. And he called it off last minute. I mean, and the reason why he called it off last minute is because he went with his instinct and realized, okay, Pompeo's pressuring me to do this. Bolton's pressuring me to do this. This is not the right way to go about it. And so luckily, that wildcard component of Donald Trump worked to our favor in that case.

But yeah, he is surrounded by people, much like Democratic candidates in the past, by people who want to push for perpetual war, who want us in Afghanistan, and pretend as if there's some solution in sight when really there isn't. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we are going to go to Emma Viglin's interviews. You asked Elizabeth Warren about defense spending. And I want to see what she had to say. So we have that for you and more when we come back.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought

you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered,

and entertained all at the same time. Welcome back to TYT. I want to read a few member comments for you. Theater goddess says, can we do a TYT yes campaign to get Emma's spa day? What am I chopped liver? Like I'm not included in the equation or an afternoon in one of those rooms where you just break stuff. I want that.

That's more Anna's speed. I'll take the spa. I like both, but you're right. I like breaking stuff. I think she earned a vacation. I agree. Market geek says the U.S. military and CIA have killed many people, many times down through the decades to strengthen a negotiating position.

It's a common practice and it's absurd to imply that the U.S. is above such tactic. Totally agree. And Megan writes, Trump wants to get friendly with the bad guys and bypassed government. I am shocked, shocked I say. Next you'll tell me that he just makes up things as he goes. In this case, I think that he does have the power to make these deals. His administration does have the power to do it. It's frustrating when he takes money that's been appropriated by Congress for things like,

let's say, FEMA to fund his border wall. That's when his executive actions I think are super questionable. And a few TYT lives, Al Belzo says, in my opinion, Trump talking to the Taliban days before is another publicity stunt to distract from his corruption. Well, don't you worry, we are going to talk about his corruption in Hour 2 today. We're specifically going to talk about an Air Force investigation into members of the military staying at his properties in Scotland. So he's just- They are beautiful.

That's what he tells me. I mean, if he says it, it must be true. The members of the Air Force are beautiful. I agree with you. All right. Just want to remind you all, if you're looking for a place to keep your money, That's ethical, look into Aspiration. Aspiration is a financial institution that will not invest your money in fossil fuel companies

or any other type of corporation that does dirty things. So go to Aspiration.com slash TYT to open up an account. And by the way, TYT will be doing a rally in Houston this week. So if you are interested in going to our Houston rally, you can join Jank Yugar and TYT Army Director Alison Hartson to meet other. their supporters and talk about how you can build power in our community. This is all happening next Thursday, September 12th at 2 p.m. Central Time. So you will meet at Hotel Alessandria in downtown Houston.

And then finally, tomorrow, Emma, and I'm worried about this, you and I are gonna do postgame AMA. Why are you worried about this? I don't, because people get hostile sometimes. Not, not, anyway, there's all sorts of like stuff flying around on Twitter and it's frustrating to constantly have to debunk it. But tomorrow's post game is a special Ask Me Anything featuring myself and Emma, TYT members and YouTube channel members can submit their questions via the chat and using the AMA hashtag.

Everyone is able to watch. It'll go live at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Again, this is on Tuesday, go to tyt.com slash live to watch. All right, let's get to the rest of the news. Our very own Emma Viglin went to New Hampshire and interviewed a couple of candidates, including Elizabeth Warren. Now the question that she's going to ask Elizabeth Warren is incredibly important because it has to do with something that many progressives have been wondering about.

Why is it that Warren has consistently voted in favor of increasing defense spending? Take a look. You have focused a lot on progressive domestic policy. You also voted for a military budget increase in 2017. How does that square with your progressive politics when we're talking about foreign? policy. If the question is, do I think we should have the military budget? The answer is yes. And I'm now on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I've had this fight over and over. But there's another part to it too. We need to stop the control over our defense budget

that's exercised by the giant defense industry. This is what corruption is all about. putting lobbyists in charge of our government agencies, a lobbyist, further lobbyist in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, this is the heart of corruption. And the moment has come to call it out and to fight back. So unfortunately, she didn't really answer the question. I mean, she listed all the issues with increasing military spending, but she didn't really explain why she voted for it. I want to give you more details on how she voted in 2017.

So in 2017, Warren authorized $700 billion in defense funds. It included $640 billion for the Pentagon and an additional $60 billion for military operations in countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This bill increased military spending by $80 billion, which far surpassed the increase requested by Donald Trump, which was $54 billion. Yeah, and it should be noted that she was one of the overwhelming. majority of senators who voted for this. So I believe it's around 90 senators or something like that.

Bernie voted against it. Kirsten Gillibrand also voted against it in her kind of ploy for the presidency, where she voted against everything that Donald Trump did. But not to take away from it, it was a really good vote. But yeah, Elizabeth Warren, when she's extremely left or really progressive on these domestic policies, and she's leading the way in many ways, there's a huge question mark when it comes to her foreign policy. and I wanted to ask her about it, and she dodged the question.

There's really no way around it. And I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that in Massachusetts, there is a large defense industry there. So like Connecticut or New Jersey, where pharmaceuticals are really big, and so you see someone like Cory Booker voting against the bill that says, you know, we'll bring drugs over from Canada to make them cheaper. Elizabeth Warren is from a state where Raytheon is one of the biggest employers of her constituents. So it's a really, really big industry in Massachusetts, and I think that's reflected

in her votes. That's why she didn't answer my question if I'm speculating on it. And if it was a long-form interview, I would have followed up with her on it. But these press gaggaggles, everyone's screaming over each other to try to get a question. It's amazing that she actually did answer mine because she was the only front-runner that spoke to us. I'm talking about, or spoke to the press. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders didn't speak to the press gaggle. She did. So the room was packed. I couldn't even believe I got the question in the first place. But yeah. Well, Emma, as a corporate show, I'm curious, what persuaded you to ask her that tough question? Actually, her campaign sent me a check and said, ask us this question because I have the prepared answer for that.

We're obviously kidding. But I will say, her answer to you was very different from the answer she gave the press in her justification for voting to increase defense spending earlier. I want to give you those quotes. She said, the defense bill has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation, and I was glad to join that tradition. This NDAA will make a real positive impact on the lives of Americans. And then she also said, I apologize, that was the quote that I wanted to read to you. So she was much more flowery in her language toward it earlier.

I mean, let's just try to explain what that all is about. So the NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. Since I believe in 1954, that bill has passed every single year. It authorizes defense spending for the particular year. There are many years where the other bills, they don't pass, they go into a continuing resolution, they get, you know, an omnibus package. The defense bill passes every single year. And how does that work?

Every congressional district has some subset of some part or some weapon that is manufactured in that district where jobs in that district are dependent upon that industry. And that's how they corral everybody to vote for this bill every year. It also usually has pay increases for the troops, and you don't want to have to face an attack ad that says you voted against the troops getting more money, our troops in the battlefield. So that's how that bill works. Now, yeah, go ahead. I do want to talk a little bit about the pay increases for troops because I think this goes

back to the failure in democratic messaging. So if you're a genuine progressive and you have a problem with, you know, half of our discretionary spending going toward the military, then why can't you specifically point to the fact that that these increases in defense spending don't really trickle down to our soldiers. I mean, it's, you just show them the number. Like, why are Democrats afraid to do press conferences? You go, you go, I'm cutting the defense spending in half, I'm cutting it by a third, but I'm giving the troops a 50% pay raise.

Thank you. It's over, it's over, the conversation's over, but they don't want to, because these industries are so ubiquitous and they're such a huge part of our everyday life that's been the theme of the show so far. how the military industrial complex has infected both parties, and only a crazy person like Donald Trump thinks to bucket, but he doesn't even go through with it because, you know, when you have, he doesn't have the power to fall through with it, follow through with it, because it is so powerful all across the board.

Well, let me just add, though, one thing, because what she did say, what Senator Warren did say with you, is she pivoted to the corruption angle, and it is the fact that every defense secretary under Trump is either a long-time executive lobbyist or board member on one of the big five defense contractors. Mattis just went back to join the board of General Dynamics. Patrick Shanahan, who was his replacement, was a longtime executive at Boeing, and Mark Esper, who's the current defense secretary, was a Raytheon lobbyist. And Warren actually hit him very hard for that in the hearings that were held for him.

Warren was at the forefront of this scandal around a company called Transdine, which is a defense contractor that makes sole source parts for planes. So it's like little widgets in that. And they charge like a thousand percent markups for these little widgets. And in the cost of an $8 billion aircraft, you don't really hear about it or think about it. But they're making millions and tens of millions of dollars in profits. She, along with Rokana, were the ones who went to the defense secretary, inspector general, and said there's obvious markup problems going on here.

It's the only one that has the, they're the only one that's held apart. It's a way to essentially, you know, trap the defense department into buying these things. And the IG, the inspector general, did a report, found that there were $16 million in overcharges over a short period of time. The oversight committee held a hearing on this and got Transdine to give back. that money. That's amazing. So, you know, I mean, the corruption angle is not a bad angle to play.

It's her best angle. It's her best angle. And I'm thrilled that every debate, she says corruption, corruption, campaign finance reform, she does it better than Bernie Sanders, who should be saying it way more. Yeah, I agree with you on that. Right? But she didn't answer my question. I'm not trying to apologize.

No, no. I'm not the corporate chill in this. Right, right. Except you are. But 99 times out of 100, Elizabeth Warren is fighting against corporate crime. I'm just asking why this won in a hundred time, it was a little questionable. So this is the frustrating thing for me when it comes to Elizabeth Warren, because on one hand, when it comes to certain domestic economic policies, she brings the goods.

And her plans are definitely progressive, they're impressive, and very detail oriented. The fact that she managed to accomplish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before she was even a senator is incredible. She applied enough pressure on the Obama administration to get that done. But at the same time, she leaves much to be desired when it comes to her foreign policy. Her past statements when it comes to Israel have been incredibly hawkish, especially toward the Palestinians. She needs to clear those things up.

And the way that she answered that question, while I applaud her for bringing up the issue of corruption over and over again, she does it during the debate, she does it at campaign rallies, She did it in that answer, she needs to at least take ownership of past mistakes and talk about how she plans to pivot toward a more progressive policy moving forward because there are progressives who are iffy on her due to her past votes, due to her past statements, and I think that it's important for her to stop skirting that issue. I feel like she's been neglecting it. I think the second part is the important part of that.

I think the question, the good question would be, you know, what is your ideal budget look like. Now, you know, 90 people voted for this budget, whether she voted for it against it that was going to pass. But what does your budget look like? And she's put out a plan about the Defense Department that really only focuses on that corruption angle. She says, you know, no lobbyists will hold major positions within the Defense Department and things of that nature. But what is the, what does it look like? What can we withstand? You know, do we actually need to spend $700 billion on defense right now, more than the top 10 next country's combined or not?

I mean, so what are the hard numbers? I mean, I think those are the things that she deserves to be pressed on. Absolutely. And your point, Anna, I just think just to button it up is great, is, yeah, we know that her instincts are extremely progressive, but there have been question marks and blotches in the past. And instead of pivoting all the time around them, just address them. It would be so much clearer for all of us.

Absolutely. And then we can move forward. We got to take a break. When we come back, we're going to do a deep dive into Tulsi Gabbard's appearance on Dave Rubin's show. They got into so many different topics, including gun control, open borders, all sorts of stuff. We're going to discuss ideas when we return. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices.

But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to expressvpn.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today.

In the meantime, enjoy this free second. Hey guys, welcome back. I want to read a few member comments. Tommy Too Strong says, Emma asks a clear question, then Warren says if the question is. No, that wasn't the question. The question was the one Emma asked, so disappointing. And look, I actually wanna just quickly button up the conversation we're having during the break. Because I said during the break, if Warren has progressive,

economic policies, you can't separate that from military spending and foreign policy, right? We have so much, I mean, it's a finite amount of resources, and we're wasting so much when it comes to military spending. So my point is, I mean, I don't know where she really- Well, I mean, in 2016, Bernie Sanders had progressive economic policies, and he didn't talk a lot about foreign policy, and when When he did, he kind of lined up behind Barack Obama. And then he got Matthew Duss, who is his foreign policy expert, who is very progressive and

is an excellent high, probably the best hire that he made since 2016. And now he is a far more coherent figure on foreign policy. So I mean, sometimes that's what happens. Like you get on the big stage and you didn't have to, you know, as a senator, you can focus on your issues. They tell you to. Focus on your core issues, and that's how you'll get ahead in the Senate. And also guys, like, Bernie dodges too.

So like, she dodge, but Bernie dodges too, everyone dodges. It was a bad one. I know, but I get it, I get it, but I mean, think about, he's voted against increasing the military budget, right? On this issue, there's no contest, there's no contest. There is no contest, and also, like, there have been numerous opportunities to comment on foreign policy events that are occurring right now, like the issue in Kashmir. That Bernie had a very concise, clear message when it came to that issue.

What's happening in Brazil with Jaya Bolsonaro and Lula de Silva, who's a political prisoner. Right. I mean, Bernie has, he's proven himself to have the right instincts when it comes to these issues. Maybe you're right, maybe this new advisor is really helping push him in the right direction. But even if you look at his past votes and you look at the way he's treated defense spending, there's been a difference there. I don't think it's so much the advisor. It's a change of emphasis.

You know, I mean, in 2016, he recognized that this was something he needed to, you know, to emphasize much more. And he has. And so hopefully Warren will do that too. Yep. All right, well, let's move on to a candidate who I don't suspect will get anywhere, but nonetheless. Way to lead into. I know, I know, I'm terrible.

Amy stands out there are going to be all over you. I went, so I did a deep dive on Yang's UBI on no filter today, so I'm looking forward to the harassment on Twitter on that. Oh, I have so many thoughts on that. I know, I know. But anyway, let's just, hopefully the Amy Klobuchar stands don't actually exist. We'll see. There's got to be at least 2%.

Emma Viglin spoke to Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire, and the topic of progressivism came up. Take a look. Senator, I spoke to some of your supporters outside, and they really like that you were a more moderate candidate compared to the other ones. But with the Green New Deal with Medicare for all, these issues polling so well with the Democratic constituency, how do you plan on overcoming that and winning this primary? Okay. So I consider myself a progressive in one important way. I like to make progress. I am the candidate that you'll see on that debate stage that has passed over. 100 bills as a senator with as the lead Democrat in just the last few years, including 34 since Donald Trump has been president. And I've done that by looking for common ground where I can on things like drug shortages, and then standing my ground where I should. And so I do believe I may be more moderate in tone than some of the people running for office, but I am betting that

people don't want the loudest voice anymore. They've had that right now. That's the guy in the White House. All right. Thoughts. Progressive, moderate in tone. That wasn't what I was trying to talk to her about, but what I found so fascinating is I was trying to like phrase it in a way that, okay, this is your identity, this is your lane, your supporters like this about you, because when I spoke to them, they like that about

her. They said she doesn't shoot for the moon and do unrealistic things. She knows how to get things done. she's popular in her home state, and we can go to that clip. But why not embrace that if you're, that's why your supporters like you? Well, I know why. It's the same reason why a candidate like Kamala Harris will go on the debate stage and raise her hand when it comes to getting rid of private insurers for Medicare for all,

and then go on cable news and say, no, no, no, that's not what I meant, that's not what I meant. Like they want to play this both sides game between the centrists and the progressives. They know that these progressive policies are polling well. Well, I mean, look, two of the frontrunners are progressive candidates who are running on bold progressive domestic policies. And so with, you know, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, they want to wear that badge of progressivism, but then turn around and say, no, but progressives are promising you things that they could never accomplish, right? It's just, it's interesting how they try to use both messages when it's most convenient for them. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll try to toot the horn of the prospect.

So next week, we finish our issue, and the core package in that issue is all the things that you can do as president without passing legislation in Congress. And this is what really distinguishes people who actually want to make progress with people like Amy Klobuchar who want to make incremental change through, you know, working in a bipartisan in fashion. There are so many. We identified 30 different meaningful actions that the next president can take in all sorts from environment to banking policy to actually canceling student debt. You can do that. Without passing legislation, you can do it right now. Through using the Higher Education Act, something called Compromise and Settlement Authority.

You can license prescription drugs, take them away from the drug companies, and license them to generic competitors right now without any kind of legislative impact. And, you know, I feel like that's where the rubber meets the road here. If you're progressive because you want to make progress, I got 30 ways that you can make progress, a whole lot of it, without needing to get Mr. McConnell's say so. So, you know, I think I think that's really where we're going to see the distinctions between the candidates, and I wish that the debates would talk more about those things and legislation. Oh, fascinating. Okay, well, you know what, you make a good point, but I will say, I feel like over the

last few election cycles, there was very little discussion about policy, so it's nice to see more of an emphasis on policy. No question. And it tells you people's work. worldview, right? It tells you how they see the world, and that's very important than president. And her worldview is she's a pro-moderate. Promerate, yeah.

Progressive modern? I don't know. Well, looking forward to reading that piece, that's fascinating. It's a whole package. We actually got 10 subject matter experts and reporters writing 10 different pieces about all these different things. See, you know how to plug your work, I can't figure out. That sounds super interesting.

I love it. What is it out? Probably going to be out in a couple weeks. It's for the fall issue of the American Prospect. Love it. All right, I'm actually going to switch gears now and go to Tulsi Gabbard's interview on the Rubin report. Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently made an appearance on Dave Rubin's YouTube show. And I just want to note, he's not really a progressive or a liberal.

He kind of comes at things from a more libertarian perspective. So it's fascinating to see how he frames questions about various political issues and how she answers. answers to them. Now we're gonna start off with a clip about how much Tulsi Gabbard loves the country. Take a look. I had Glenn back in here a couple of days ago and he said, he didn't even know that you were coming on because this just happened in the last day or so. But what he said was I disagree with Tulsi on almost everything, but it's very obvious

that she loves this country. And I think one of the things that's happening for sort of mainstream liberals, let's say not progressive, but sort of old school liberals, and then pretty much everything. everyone on the right is they're watching the candidates, the Democratic candidates. And there's this sense that they don't really love the country. Like they really think it's so fundamentally broken or wrong or historically awful or some version of that. But that doesn't come across with you.

I'm not even a question. I'm just handed you something. I am unabashed in my love for our country. It's what's motivated in all these major decisions that I've made with what I want to do with my life. And I retweeted one of your last tweets, which was a. you know, like a 30-second clip where you talk about freedom and liberty and things like that. I love all those words. But those words now have been really associated with the right and not with Democrats.

Do you find it odd that, I mean, right in there, there's a giant American flag in my control room and all of those things. And I've got the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in there. Like, do you find it odd that it seems that the Democrats aren't embracing those things? There's a weird running from them. I'm disheartened by it. because of all of those who have sacrificed for our freedoms. A lot of different things to touch on there, but the framing of Rubin's question is the top issue for me, because the way he framed that was, progressives don't love America, do you agree?

She basically said yes. And yeah, she took the bait. And remember, she's positioning herself as a progressive candidate. Positioning is a good word for it. Physicianing is the correct word for it, because you look at her voting record, you look at a lot of other issues, including other snippets from this interview, which we're going to show you later. And she might talk to talk when it's convenient.

She certainly doesn't walk the walk, and she does not challenge Rubin on his right wing, anti-progressive framing in a lot of these questions. Yeah. And by the way, so loving a country just means never critiquing it, never criticizing it, and showing a blind love and, you know, like just a blind loyalty to it no matter what. Like it's a fascinating way of putting things. Like you can love the country, you can be loyal to the country, but you can have issues with how it's run.

You can have issues with the history of the country. We're not allowed to find, you know, the genocide of Native Americans questionable in this country's history. We're not allowed to talk about slavery, we're not allowed to talk about, you know, what it was like before the civil rights era, we're not allowed to talk about what it's like now for a lot of people in disenfranchised groups. I don't even know what he's talking about. He's got a flag.

He's got a flag. But like, I mean, to be fair to her in this instance, I don't know what he's talking about that distinguishes her as loving the country more in this right wing framing than the other candidates. Like what's specifically about her? The fact that she's a veteran, Pete Buttigieg, I can't talk to me, Pete Buttigieg is a veteran. So what's the difference here? The difference is that she kind of plays.

both sides when it comes to these kinds of issues. And so when we're talking about progressivism, I don't think it's progressive to not endorse Medicare for all or be a co-sponsor of it when it's first introduced and then sign on to it later when it becomes a presidential talking point. You're planning a run in 2018 and you sign on in 2016. And then your supporters go online and say Elizabeth Warren's the hack when she was a co-sponsor right away.

So that's very fascinating to me. But keep going. What's your name? Anna. Oh, damn. Throwing me under the bus. I'm sorry. I'm so tired.

Well, okay, David, did you want to comment on this before we move on to the next clip? I'm too busy reading the big giant blow-up constitution in the control room. See, we love the country. We do. We love it. We have a giant American flag behind us. So, all right, well, let's move on to the next topic at hand. And this has to do with immigration.

And again, pay close attention to how Dave Rubin frames the question and how Tulsi Gabbard answers. So immigration, I think there's a general sense that the candidates, The Democrats are basically trying to outdo each other for open borders, something like that. A, do you think that's a fair way to start the question, and B, where do you sit on that? I don't support open borders. Without secure borders, we don't really have a country. I think there's a few things that we've got to do when we're talking about immigration reform. One is we've got to have secure borders. This is not Trump's wall from sea to shining sea. It's about seeing, again, what makes sense.

I look at things from practical objective-oriented standpoint. I'm a soldier, so I look at what's our objective? Secure the borders. In some places it may make the most sense to have a wall or some kind of physical barrier in place, and other places it won't make sense. So you use technology and use all the other tools that we have ultimately to accomplish that objective of security at the borders. Wait, let me pause you there.

So is the problem though just from that starting point, which seems so obvious. I think the average person watching this is going, of course, countries exist because there There are borders. But even that starting point, you're gonna get people that are further to left. Are you going, well, there's some level of racism or xenophobia there or, I mean, that's what you, there's always that subtext to this conversation. Which is, I think it's a big problem. Further to the left abuse, so she's not positioning herself as left on this issue.

And secondly, if you were an actual progressive and you went on that show, you would bulk at the notion that Democrats are in favor of open borders. No one has said that ever. And any person that's going to go on a right wing talk show and listen to that talking point who identifies as someone who's on the left has to just sweep that away right away and say that's not what we're talking about here. But no, she agrees with the framing and perhaps that's because she voted present on a Republican bill that said we have to support our ICE officers and make sure that we don't abolish

ice when people like Beto O'Rourke voted against that. So when we're having a conversation about progressive policy when it comes to, we're to Tulsi Gabbard, there's red flag after red flag after red flag. And look, I thought that her resigning from the DNC was really brave and I really supported her anti-interventionist foreign policy until I took a further look and realized that a lot of it is based in dislike of Muslim people. And that's evident in her vote to ban Syrian refugees from coming to the United States. evident in the fact that she was the only Democrat in Congress who was willing to go

see Benjamin Netanyahu speak before Congress in his disdain for the Iran nuclear deal. And imagine if Elizabeth Warren did that, seriously? Oh, I mean, we know that there's a double standard when it comes to the individuals who support Tulsi Gabbard. There are certain things that she can do that they will overlook, they don't care, right? It's totally fine. But if any other candidate, including Warren or even Bernie Sanders, had voted the same way, the reaction would be different.

Can you imagine if Elizabeth Warren had voted in favor of a resolution condemning the BDS movement? I mean, we wouldn't stop hearing about it, right? And by the way, that would be legitimate criticism. We would criticize her for that. But I want to move on to one other thing, because you're right, the way that that question was framed was progressives want open borders. And Rubin, if you listen carefully, specifically asks, is that a fair way to frame the question? And she's like, yeah, I think that's fair.

And then she moves on. Okay, well, name one candidate in the Democratic Party who has said that they want open borders. In fact, Bernie Sanders unequivocally said that he does not support open borders. So it's just fascinating how she allowed that smear to just go by when there isn't a specific example of an individual running for president right now on the Democratic side who wants open borders. Oh, you guys got this. You're good.

All right, well, I want to go to walk. I feel like you've done some work. We might have done some research. It's frustrating to see the, a little bit of work. Like the, you know, just like the very careful way everyone treats this one particular candidate. First of all, no candidate is above criticism, not a single one, right? Bernie Sanders votes the wrong way, we're going to call him out. Elizabeth Warren, the way she answered your question on defense spending, skirted the issue.

We did a story criticizing her on that. because that's the fair and honest way to cover these stories, pretending as if Tulsi Gabbard is a progressive is ridiculous to me. And I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna like pretend like I'm buying into it. Are there some progressive issues that she's, you know, signed on to here and there? Sure. But if you look at her overall record, you cannot tell me that she's a progressive. When she's rubbing shoulders with Narendra Modi, who turned the other way as thousands of Muslims were raped and murdered in the Gujarat riots is, I mean, come on. Or going to fundraisers hosted by right wing Israeli groups when yet again, what's it

called? Christians for Israel. Okay, we're still having a conversation about the progressivism. And it's because other progressive talk show hosts or pundits online are afraid of the Tulsi Gabbard fans. I'm not afraid of you guys, I'm not afraid of you guys. I'm gonna call it like it is, and sorry, I'm gonna dive into the internet pit, and it's fun for me because I want to call things like they are.

RIP, here mentions. Yeah, I don't care anymore, it's fun. But it's not even about, look, people are going to get upset when you criticize their candidate one way or the other, right? And it is what it is, but it's not going to stop us from doing our job. So let me continue doing our job by going to the next video. And this has to do with gun control. Take a look.

Ask her about guns. You gotta ask her about guns because the general feeling, you know, they want their guns, basically. So can you just sort of lay out your position? Yeah, I think that I stand up for Second Amendment rights. I don't think it conflicts with the need. I feel we also need to have sensible gun safety regulation. I think that the fact that we have not seen any kind of legislation pass for a very long time is because on one side you have people who say there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever on guns and who can own them and on the other side you have folks who are saying that they

want to repeal the Second Amendment and they want to get rid of guns completely and take everyone's guns away and you have those two extremes on both sides kind of pointing their arrows at each other with no real real substantive dialogue and conversation happening with that entire space in the middle where we recognize that there's no conflict between uphold holding our Second Amendment rights while also making sure that these guns are not put into the hands of those who would seek to do incredible harm to other people. So what would be a sensible law that isn't passed already? Because that it always seems to come down to that.

Well, the background checks. Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's one that we just passed with some bipartisan support from the House. It's sitting in the Senate now waiting for movement. When you hear things like the city of San Francisco designating the NRA terrorist organization, Do you think that's helping or hurting? I don't think. I think that further deepens the divide.

So what stood out to me in that answer was her statement about the House legislation on gun control sitting in the Senate waiting for movement. That is a great opportunity as a so-called progressive candidate. As a Democratic candidate, you don't even have to be a progressive, to call out Mitch McConnell for blocking votes on that type of legislation. But she's very careful to avoid criticizing members of the right. If you listen to the entirety of that interview, she tries to play both sides. She talks about bipartisanship.

She talks about working together and finding common ground. It's very Obama-esque. It's very Obama-esque, and we all know what happens when Democrats talk about bipartisanship. It means concession after concession after concession. We need bold change. That's why there is this surge of progressivism within the Democratic Party. That's the reason why she's latched onto that label to help her, even though it hasn't really worked so far, because her record speaks for itself.

But in reality, look, talk is talk. If you're gonna claim to be a progressive, you can't sit there and pretend as though there are Democratic candidates who are trying to take all the guns away. No one has advocated for that. No one on the left is said- Amendment. She just accepted that framing. Right.

It's just, I'm not even necessarily saying she's a bad person. I'm saying she's a blank slate and she's not a progressive. Like she's just like going with the Rubin framing. Throughout the entire interview. So if you have strong progressive principles, you're not going to do that. And she doesn't have them. All right, that does that for hour one. David Dayen, Emma Viglin, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you. And when we come back, Alonzo Bowden and Jason Carter will join me for our two. 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.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jan Huger, and I'll see you soon.