← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the no Spin News weekend edition in California. I feel sorry for you guys. So the national average of gasoline in California, the Golden State, the biggest state in the country, is $5.20 national average, even after all the carnage in Iran, $3.48. Now there's a study from the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, which is a good school of business, says by the end of this year U California is going to pay $8 a gallon for gas. Why? Because of Cap and Invest, which is a state law requiring oil companies to go through amazing amount of hoops to market their product because it's a polluter. So the Marshall School says get ready in California for $8 a gallon. So you know. Joining us now from Arlington, Virginia is E.J. antoni, who's a senior fellow at Unleash Prosperity. That's Stephen Moore's economic group and he's also a chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. All right, so United States Americans are going to experience economic pain, correct?
- [01:28]
B
Yeah, absolutely, Bill, and thank you so much for having me. Look, the unfortunate reality here is that energy affects everything we do and everything we buy. This is part of the reason why inflation was so painful under the Biden years. It was because of their war on reliable American energy. And one of the big problems we're facing now, Bill, is that although we are using less oil in a lot of our day to day use, for example, millions of Americans now have electric vehicles so they're not spending anything on gasoline. The problem is that as time has gone on, we spend much more on, on energy for non energy uses. I can give you one example. American farmers buy most of their synthetic fertilizer from Europe. And that fertilizer, the primary ingredient is urea. It's derived from natural gas. So they take natural gas in a lab, they chemically alter it and that's how you get that. Again, the main ingredient for synthetic fertilizer. Well, what's going on right now with natural gas prices in Europe, they've basically doubled. That is going to impose a dramatically higher input cost on American farmers even though domestic prices for energy have not actually moved that much since the start of this, this war in Iran.
- [02:45]
A
So again, those linkage all over the place helps Putin because Putin's got oil to sell and there's a lot of embargo on that. So. But believe me, they'll break the embargo. The countries will if they're desperate for oil. Food prices are the ones that Americans are complaining about the most. We can expect those food prices to rise. The question is how much.
- [03:10]
B
Right, Exactly. Bill, you're spot on. And I'm so glad you brought up Putin, because unfortunately, this is one of the saddest things about this whole conflict right now. Putin really is the big winner because he, in a lot of ways, is the marginal producer and he's one of those. Russia is one of those nations where higher energy prices right now help not hurt because they are such a large net exporter. So these higher prices, unfortunately, in the short term, are literally funding his war machine against the Ukraine. And sadly, even though so many countries in Europe are giving aid to Ukraine, they. They are giving more to Russia in the form of those energy purchases, and they need them.
- [03:55]
A
Now, the United States has an advantage because we are control of Venezuelan oil content. All right. And we have a robust domestic production because that's what President Trump did when he first got in, pull the regulations off. Do we have enough oil here to keep prices under control?
- [04:19]
B
Bill, the problem is that combination. Do we have enough oil? Yes, but at what price, in other words? Because, look, we have rolled back a lot of Biden era regulations. That's true, but there's a long way to go. In other words, there is still such a high regulatory cost in this country that there's a lot of oil production that simply isn't profitable at 60, 80 or even $100 a barrel.
- [04:41]
A
But.
- [04:42]
B
But crank it up to 120, 130, and all of a sudden all of these wells become profitable. So, yes, we have enough oil, but the question is at what price? The other thing, and I'm so glad you brought up Venezuela, we do have that. One of the problems with sources like Venezuela, though, although it is a very large supply of oil, it's also the quality of oil here. Taking Iranian crude off the market is a big problem because because of the high quality, oftentimes refiners will actually buy light, sweet crude so that they can blend it with heavy sour crude to make it easier to process. So by taking the most valuable crude off the market, it hurts more than taking two or three times as much of the less valuable crude off the market.
- [05:29]
A
Now, the Trump people say that when the conflict ends with Iran, that the prices will all come back down to where they were before the war. Do you believe that?
- [05:42]
B
I believed it on Friday, before the weekend. The reason that all changed on the weekend is because all of a sudden we saw these strikes against Iranian oil infrastructure, and then Iran returned the favor and started striking other oil infrastructure in the area. So now it's not just a matter of, of turning the pumps on and off, which is a multi week process. To be clear, you don't turn on and off oil infrastructure like you do a light switch. It takes weeks or months, but now you're talking in some cases years because you have to literally rebuild what was just blown up over the weekend. So unfortunately, again, after the developments of this weekend, I'm not nearly as confident we'll be able to return Mideast oil production to where it was before the conflict.
- [06:27]
A
But can't Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states fill the gap that Iran has because they are not going to be able to produce as much oil. I think OPEC could fill that gap.
- [06:42]
B
No, to a certain extent, Bill, absolutely. Yes. There is a lot of excess production capacity right now. And so you could fill the bulk of that missing. Of that missing production. Absolutely. That's a very, very good point. The question just becomes how extensive is the damage going to be before Iran cries uncle here, look, we're, you know, we're basically, if you want to think of it In World War II terms, we're already in 1945. It is very clear the Allies are going to win, not the Axis. The question then becomes can the Axis inflict enough damage that the Allies give up beforehand? And that was really the mentality that Germany and that Japan had.
- [07:23]
A
Sure. That's the weapon they have now is the economy. Final question. The President is supposed to meet with Xi and China and Beijing in April and China is dependent on Iranian oil and they'll buy from Putin and they'll make that up. But I expect an oil deal where our country sends oil to China. I think that's going to be part of any equation that that happens over in Beijing.
- [07:55]
B
Yeah, Bill, it's a great, great point and it would certainly be very, very advantageous for the United States if we could start being that marginal producer instead of bad actors like Iran or like Russia. If the United States. And again, this is going to require rolling back more of those regulations if the United States could be that marginal producer and, and now we have China over a barrel as opposed to what was the situation just a few weeks ago where China is buying so much from Iran and buying it under the table at a discount that it really, really benefits the ccp.
- [08:29]
A
But China has not said a word. So I know there's stuff in play there that we don't know about. Mr. Antoni, thanks very much. Very good interview and I hope you'll come back. You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. Okay. Quinnipiac poll, it's not a great poll, but it's out and very simple. This is 1,002 registered voters. Would you support sending ground troops into Iran? Support 20% Oppose 74% by party 37% of Republicans would oppose the 52. So the majority of the Republican Party would not support that. Democrats only 3% would support 95% opposed. Independents 19% support 75%. So that is not going. I'd just be stunned. That would be such a self inflicted wound if President Trump did that. All right, joining us now from Washington is the guy right in the middle of all of this, Senator Tommy Tuberville from Alabama is on the Armed Services Committee, which is in play right now to interview Hegseth and Rubio. So number one, have you talked to your Democratic colleagues about kind of the blackmail? We're going to shut everything down in the Senate unless you do what we want. Have you spoken to them?
- [09:56]
C
Well, Bill, thanks for having me on. But for six years that I've been up here from a football coach to a, a United States senator, I've never seen a group of people like the Democrats that hate President Trump or our country so much that they would do anything to harm our country. And again, you just had a couple of people on that. I don't know where these people come from. I mean, if Donald Trump said the world was all green, they disagree with him. I mean, just everything in the world that he does. Now, at the end of the day on harmed Services Committee, most of us in there, including some of the Democrats, we all understand because we've been well briefed on what's going on in Iran. And it's hard to con to say that these people would be against it. But they listen very well, they ask great questions. And are they on the same side as President Trump? Probably not. But they understand the significance of the safety of what President Trump is trying to do and trying to take Iran down a notch before these evil people would shoot off of nuclear weapons. So it's a very interesting time up here, Bill. We're not getting anything done other than President Trump executive ordering doing anything in terms of going after Venezuela, after Iran. I've been all for it because I've, I've said all, I've seen all the briefings, all the classified stuff. He had to do this. He had no doubt. Now, as you just said, ground troops, I don't think that's going to happen. But you never say never. At the end of the day, because you don't know how they're going to react along the next few weeks.
- [11:35]
A
No, I mean, I'm not talking military strategy here, as you know, Senator, I'm talking the perception of the American people that if you did that, you would lose the country. The only Democratic senator that spoken in favor of this action is Fetterman of Pennsylvania, while the others may be listening respectfully in your committee. And I believe you. They're afraid, I believe, to speak out and say, you know what, based on the classified information that we've seen, this was the right tactic to take. You have to neutralize a dangerous regime like this. Why do you think they're all afraid to say that?
- [12:15]
C
Well, I think they're afraid to say it because it's going to give President Trump an opportunity to have a. A plus on his side of the aisle, and they don't want to give President Trump credit for anything.
- [12:25]
A
Again, every Democrat in the Senate that, you know, there's not one or two that would say, put their country first and rise above the partisan politics. Nobody.
- [12:36]
C
Nope. Nope. Because Chuck Schumer runs that floor with a. With a iron stick, and they follow him like a bunch of ducks following each other in the line. Ever since I've been here, that's happened. Now, Fetterman has come out because he's. He's big for the Israelis, and that's the reason that he's on the side of President Trump on this invasion, because he understands the significance of what Iran could do to Israel if they had a nuclear weapon. That's the only way this is working out. But again, they would not vote for anything if, even if they thought it would really help the American people. The Democrats aren't going to vote against it because of the hate for Donald J. Trump.
- [13:15]
A
And Schumer used to be a rational person, but now he's 100% partisan person. Am I wrong on that?
- [13:21]
C
No, you're exactly right. But they all fall. Barack Hussein Obama, he's the one running the show here. And ever since I've been.
- [13:29]
A
How do you know that, though? How do you know Obama's involved?
- [13:32]
C
Well, just. Just because of being up here for four years and seeing Joe Biden and the people that were making all the decisions for him. We knew that all the people that were making those decisions had worked for Barack Obama in his previous tenure as being president. And you can't tell me that they weren't conversing together with the people that were implanted in Joe Biden's administration. They all worked for But Obama didn't
- [13:56]
A
want Iran to be empowered. He tried to make deals, they broke the deals. And Biden was ridiculous in handing over the billions of dollars that he did. And that didn't work. Okay. Now I don't want you to give away any national security secrets, but the dissenters of this say, look, President Trump bombed Iran's nuclear facility in June and supposedly that just set them back and wiped them out. The capacity to develop a nuclear bomb went away because of that action. Now, the administration, the Trump administration said no. Fox News is now streaming live on Fox 1. When it matters most, turn to the voices you trust. We go beyond the headlines, bringing you
- [14:47]
B
the stories you won't hear anywhere else.
- [14:49]
A
Live coverage, sharp analysis, real perspective at
- [14:54]
B
home or on the go.
- [14:55]
A
Stay connected when it counts. Stream Fox News on Fox 1 download today. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [15:23]
C
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms@mint mobile.com they still
- [15:36]
A
have a capacity to develop this bomb. Where how did that happen? We didn't get everything.
- [15:45]
C
Well, they were enriching uranium. But here's one of the reasons that President Trump went in. They were building ballistic missiles right and left. It wasn't as it was about nuclear weapons, it was about that. But it was also about the ballistic missiles that they were building that could reach far and near and they were very, very accurate. And so that's one of the reasons that we win at this time. Of course, you know, you, you look at a situation that how weak they were, we knew they were weak. We knew they were struggling in a lot of areas. President Trump had put him in a bad situation when it come to, it come to having a lot of loyal people on the ground in Iran, he was killing his people right and left. Now we know that for a fact. Tens of thousands of people were laid down. Their life was, was, was spared because they were not loyal to the Khomeini. So President Trump put all that together and said, enough's enough. We're going to do this. We're going to go in with Israel, we're going to make a statement and they have made that statement. And again also there's another thing there. The, the oil that they have, they were, they were given cheap oil to China and it was, it was situation like Venezuela, we cut off Venezuela, we cut off China, Iran's oil, then they have a tough time. But again, it all goes back to one thing. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, President Trump would not, have, would not have done this.
- [17:08]
A
All right, so the delivery system of the nukes, but as far as you know, and you would know their nuclear weapons development is imminent. That they're going to have a nuke to put on the ballistic missile to fire into Tel Aviv.
- [17:28]
C
Exactly, exactly.
- [17:29]
A
Okay, so it's still a little, it's still a ways away from that happening. So.
- [17:35]
C
But you go in there, Bill, when they're, when they're weaker, okay, wait, don't wait until they're stronger. Go in there when they're weak, they're as weak as they've ever been. And it was a perfect timing because they didn't think this would happen so quick after the strike back in, in June. So it was a perfect time to do this. Well orchestrated. And again, you know, you got to look out for the people that, that are also your allies and it was about Israel also.
- [18:02]
A
Okay. But it doesn't look like the Persian people are going to be able to rise up and overthrow that government. So the number we hear, and you can confirm this number, if you can, is 30,000 protesters were murdered by the regime in Tehran. And now the people are frightened that they're going to be murdered. So there is no uprising in coordination with the bombing of that country. Do I have that right?
- [18:35]
C
Yeah, 30,000 plus. And then of course you would hope that they'd have regime change of somebody that would be more of like the people that.
- [18:44]
A
Is that possible? Low Senator, Is it possible that the people will rise up? Because that would make our lives here in America a lot easier, wouldn't it?
- [18:54]
C
Oh, it'd be, it really make it a lot easier. But you never know when you do this, you go in there and you see these pictures on television. You don't, you don't know what the propaganda is. You know, you see all these people out in the streets and, and we've seen this in other countries too. They're behind the scenes. Tell them. You get out there with the sign. You get out there and chant this or that. You got to remember there's what, 90 million people in Iran and There's a lot of people, there's a lot of land there. It's the biggest, bigger than Texas, bigger than Alaska. So there's a lot more people there than you would think. It's just the people in charge were able to, to pull off this and I guess get Khomeini's son elected. But my understanding too, that he's had a few health problems himself the past couple of weeks.
- [19:38]
A
Well, he'll have more if they never find out where he is. How do you see this playing out? I mean, I'm not big on speculation on this program. We're fact based. But you're a guy who has access to an awful lot of information. How do you see this playing out? Keeping in mind that the American people really don't have the heart to suffer economically. I mean, we just don't, we're a soft nation. We don't want to suffer for something, you know, 5,000 miles away. So how do you see it playing out?
- [20:10]
C
Well, first of all, you know, we, Bill, in your, in my lifetime, we hadn't won a lot of wars since World War II, especially ones that go longer and longer. Vietnam, for instance, we supposedly won in Iraq, but there wasn't even a fight there. You know, we went in for false causes because of weapons of mass destruction. But that being said, President Trump's not going to be over there that long. He's not that type of person. Now, I will tell you this, and he's, he said this publicly, all hell is getting ready to rain on Iran the next few weeks because he wants this to end and he's going to get it to the point where he thinks it might have a regime change or put them in a situation where they never can, can recoup from what we have destroyed. So, you know, things are going to pick up. It is just, that's the way it is. And again, President Trump went in there, he didn't, he wasn't going, he wasn't going in there. As I, I will say half ass, he's going all in. And I've talked to the sector of war, I've talked to General Kane. This is something that they've been planning for a while. And if they were going to do it, they were going to do it the right way. But this is not going to be a long drawn out war that's not going to happen.
- [21:19]
A
All right, so just summing up, there has to be some kind of change in the Iranian government in order for this to end, correct?
- [21:30]
C
Well, yeah, there has to be Some kind of change in direction again. What direction do you take though? If we destroy everything that they, they've
- [21:38]
A
got in, but you got to go, got to make sure that the tankers can go in and out. You know, an interesting aside, China hasn't said a word about this publicly. I mean, they issued some kind of mealy mouth statement, but you would think they'd be more bellicose in supporting Iran. They haven't been, which tells me that they were tipped off and they don't want to disrupt the conference that begins at the end of the month when President Trump goes to Beijing. I don't know if you're aware of this, Senator, but I was in Beijing speaking to the government there in May, not on President Trump's behalf as a journalist. They invited me and they want to make a deal with the usa, but they're kind of just sitting this thing out, as is Putin. He's not doing anything. So Iran's pretty much alone right now. And if US And Israel can basically decapitate all of their ability to wage war, I guess that would be considered a victory. Last word.
- [22:36]
C
Yeah, I think you're exactly right. I think, I think Russia and China both are going to sit back and see how far this goes. Again, President Trump wants to make a statement here. We do have to get the straits opened up for oil and gas to go, go in and out. That will happen in the very near future. But again, I just can't believe that this regime, after losing all their top leaders, maybe even their second team leaders, that they're not trying to make some kind of deal because they're, they've got a death wish here because President Trump is not going to stop the bombing. It's going to keep going and they're not going to have anything to work with. You hate it for the Iranian people that want some kind of freedom. But this group continues to hang on. I think what you'll see in the very near future will open the straits up. China and Russia is not going to say a word because when they get the straits opened up, it's going to probably help China a little bit with, with their oil and gas and they'll be a little bit more calm in that area. But it all goes back to one other group, Israel. How much more do they want? Are they going to send in ground troops?
- [23:39]
A
They won't do that. Netanyahu will do pretty much what Trump tells them to do do. Just my opinion, Senator, but I kind of know a lot about this kind of stuff anyway. Look, Keep us posted. You're a great guest and we really appreciate you taking the time. I think you brought more clarity to this than any other person I've seen on television. So thank you very much for helping us out tonight.
- [24:02]
C
Thank you.
- [24:04]
A
This is the no Spin News, weekend edition. In 1938, Hitler could have been stopped. It wasn't stopped. All right? 20 million dead, at least. At least in Europe and, you know, millions more displaced. Civil war. A million dead, okay, could have been stopped. This is all preventive action which was not taken. But we're dealing with the Catholic Church now that even doesn't understand history or ignores it because I think I've made the most powerful case you can make that if you got a dangerous nation. Now we have nukes involved. Hitler didn't have nukes. Believe me, he would have used them if he did. Putin has nukes, which is why we can't preempt Putin. That's why we can't do it. Okay, but you can't, according to the Catholic Church, have a preventative war. And that's a memoir, Spring in another point of view, which we of course, always do. Here joining From Columbia, South Carolina, is Dr. Christopher Tollefson. He is the director for the center of American Civic Leadership at the University of South Carolina. Where am I going wrong here, Dr.
- [25:23]
D
Early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over $120.
- [25:34]
C
Rise and shine.
- [25:36]
D
Everest Savings $141. Select homes only.
- [25:39]
C
The New York Post has been delivering impactful headlines for over two centuries. And every weekday morning, I'll bring them straight to you. I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Post. Cast from Washington to Wall Street. If it matters to you, you'll hear it here. And it wouldn't be the Post without the stories other outlets like to ignore. So ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast, listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [26:05]
D
Well, that's a good question, Bill. You make a number of important points. I think there's an important difference in what the church teaches between what it calls preemption, what we could call preemption within the just war tradition and prevention. So force use of force is permitted in just war theory in order to prevent what the church considers to be an imminent attack where there's an intention to do harm to one's country. And preparations are underway and one could think of that as preventative because it can certainly take place before the actual hostilities commence on the part of the country that is preparing to aggress against one's own country. I think the Church distinguishes between that and what it calls prevention in part by a scope of time, but.
- [26:49]
A
Right.
- [26:49]
D
Prevention is taking action before the hostilities are imminent, before there's actually an attack that is being planned and about to go underway. It's being undertaken with the anticipation that such an attack might happen in the future, but without evidence that it is about to happen right now and that there are steps that we can take to prevent this particular attack. So I think the Church is making this distinction. It doesn't require you to wait until the hostilities are actually underway.
- [27:17]
A
Right.
- [27:17]
D
If you see that they're forthcoming, then it's entirely reasonable for you to undertake them. But I think in the interests of peace and fairness and with an eye to the destruction that contemporary warfare can cost or cause, the Church teaches that prevention undertaken or understood as a longer term prospect and project.
- [27:35]
A
But look, Hitler was in a danger to the world in 1938. Okay? And right now the Church is making the argument that Iran's not a danger to the world. And I'm saying it is a danger to the world. 30,000 dead. I mean, does the Church overlook that? Did they not know that? How can you justify allowing a Nation to kill 30,000 people in two weeks?
- [28:02]
D
Well, I don't think the Church does justify that.
- [28:05]
A
I think even the statement it can
- [28:08]
D
guarantee Iran is a terrible nation, It's a terrible country that's being ruled by, by, by terrible people. It's guilty of grave crimes and injustices.
- [28:17]
A
I think it's important, but we don't want to do anything about it. You know, rhetoric is one thing and action is another. Look, both the Pope and the government
- [28:27]
D
of the time have been to do something about that.
- [28:29]
A
Do you think now that's why I support the action?
- [28:34]
D
Those 30,000 people though, right.
- [28:35]
A
It's too late, but there'll be another 50,000. Okay.
- [28:40]
D
If that would be the reason to prevent it.
- [28:45]
A
Look, let's stay in a real world here. The Church, the rhetoric is, oh, you know, we don't want this. We want dialogue, we want the people to be heard, but we don't want it. But if you try to do something about it, which is what's underway now by the United States and Israel, by knocking out Iran's military capacity to kill people, which is what we're doing, we're not going to support that. It doesn't make any sense at all. It makes no sense at all what they're doing. So on one hand, they want to say, oh, we hate this, but we don't want to do anything about it. Come on, Doc.
- [29:25]
D
So I think one important way to look at this is in terms of what the Church thinks of as the first principle at stake in international relations and also in domestic relations and thinking about the common good. And that is its particular understanding of peace and the nature of peace. So peace isn't just the absence of war. It's not just the cessation of hostilities. It's what the Church calls the tranquility of order, which requires an order and harmony of the wills of the various participants. That's a really tall order when you're dealing with a country like Iran and its leaders. But the Church is always keeping that in mind as the state of affairs.
- [30:00]
A
That, again, it's theoretical. It's theoretical. Look, these are people, these theocrats in Tehran, the two ayatollahs. And I hope you read my book, Confronting Evil. You should let you know, sign it to your class. I mean, these people will kill you for being gay. They throw gay people up buildings. Okay, so I don't understand the sympathy for the Devil here, because when the Pope says something, people pay attention. You know, a lot of cynics don't, but I do. I respect the Vatican. I respect the quest for peace, and I understand my religion very, very well. They're wrong here. It's just wrong. Last word. Sure.
- [30:48]
D
So the Church teaches, as you put up on your slide, that there needs to be a right intention, and that right intention needs to be an intention towards peace. How is that, for instance, compatible with a requirement of unconditional surrender, which the President has said is a requirement? Here, that looks like a requirement of subjugation. It looks like a requirement of humiliation. It doesn't look like it's consistent with a desire, ultimately, for the kind of peace that the Church is talking about. And that's the kind of consideration about these hostilities, about this particular war, that I think is raising the concerns of Catholics.
- [31:20]
A
Okay, but you have to disarm the murderer. And that's what's going on now. And that's what the Pope and Cardinal McElroy will not support. And that's the fact. Hey, Doctor. Very good debate, and we really appreciate your time coming on. I think that was one of our best segments we've done. Thank you very much. You're listening to the NOSPA News Weekend Edition. The Democratic Party is Now lining up against the war, as you know, and there was a vote. I'm going to go over this again. We've already reported, but it's very interesting. Last week in the House, it was symbolic legislation said, quote, whereas, according to Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grassi, Iran has amassed a large stockpile of uranium and continues to block access to undeclared sites in Iran affiliated with their big ambitious nuclear program. Now, therefore, it's resolved. House of Representatives declared a policy of the United States that Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism, unquote. 53 Democrats voted against that resolution. One of them is a guy I like very much. He's a stand up guy, all right? He comes in, he answers the questions, unlike a lot of his cohorts who run for the hills. Will Khanna is a congressman in California. He joins us now from Washington. So I said nice things about you because I believe those things, but I was very surprised that you voted against this resolution. Very surprised.
- [33:05]
E
Here's the thing, Bill, and I appreciate it, the kind, kind words in your, your fairness. First of all, Iran is a terrorist state. The IRGC is a terrorist organization. They have killed their own civilians, thousands of them. They have supported Hezbollah and Hamas. So why did I vote against the resolution? Because one of the whereas clauses said that Iran posed a direct and imminent threat, as I read it, to the United States. And I fundamentally don't believe that to be true. And so.
- [33:36]
A
Let me stop you right there. Let me stop you right there. If the United States doesn't take action to destroy their nuclear capability, all right, they are going to develop the weapon. They say that. The foreign minister of Iran says we're going to do it. You don't think that's an imminent threat against the United States? Even if they didn't hit us with the weapon, if they hit anybody on the planet, the whole planet's thrown into chaos and thousands of people die. That's not an imminent threat.
- [34:17]
E
I do believe that it should be United States policy for Iran not to get the bomb. My view, and we disagree on this, probably, is that the JCPOA that Obama negotiated had sufficiently stopped their enrichment. Now, it didn't do enough in terms of their ballistic missiles and we could have renegotiated and strengthened it to include missiles, but you had, not only that, you had Donald Trump strike six months ago by his own account, saying he obliterated a lot of the nuclear capability. So I just, I do not believe that at this moment this war was worthwhile. Losing seven service members, over 100 casualties, injuries, the price of gas that it is the billion dollars a day. I believe there could have been diplomatic efforts that continue to prevent them from getting the nuclear bomb.
- [35:12]
A
If I thought it was for Obama and it didn't work for Biden. They tried to bribe the mullahs by giving them billions of dollars in unfrozen money. You know that. And they told John Kerry, the secretary, to say, no, no, no, we'll stop. We're not going to enrich our unanim to the weapons group grade. And now the U.N. you don't have to believe Trump. The U.N. is saying, hey, they're very close to having weapons grade uranium enrichment and it could happen within weeks. That's what the UN says. And you're still sitting there in California going, I don't see it as an imminent threat.
- [35:51]
E
But Bill, what about President Trump, that six months ago he said we obliterated all of it?
- [35:58]
A
I'm not in business to defend President Trump's rhetoric. What he did in June, last June was he knocked out their primary facility where they were making the nuclear weapons. But there are satellite facilities, as you know. You know that. Okay. And that's where we're going now. Not only in the nuke area, but the strategy is to obliterate all offensive capability from Iran because they're killers, they're murderers. So you've got to, you've got to neutralize them down to pistols so they can't do the carnage they've been doing for 39 years. You got to stop it. And you say you don't want to stop it by calling a terrorist nation. Come on.
- [36:45]
E
Well, they are a terrorist nation. I have no problem calling them a terrorist nation.
- [36:47]
A
But you voted against the resolution because
- [36:50]
E
of the whereas clauses where it said it was an imminent threat, where we respectfully disagree, or that, you know, I don't believe it was an imminent threat. If there was a clear resolution saying it's a terrorist state. Of course it's a terrorist state. But Bill, what do you think so far we've accomplished? I'm hoping that we'll accomplish more. I believe the war is wrong. But we've replaced Khamenei, who was 86 year old, with Khamenei Jr. Who was 56 year old, who is a more of a hard liner.
- [37:15]
A
It doesn't look at this moment like the regime is going to change what it looks like. And you know, I have access to the high levels of power in the United States. What it looks like is that the bombing will continue to obliterate Iran's offensive capabilities. That will take another week or so. Already today there is a report. I cannot verify the report. I'll be in the White House next Tuesday. I'll be able to verify a lot more after I go there. But there's a report today that the Mueller Jr. Has said to we want now to talk. So the Iranians obviously are getting the hell kicked out of them and this is a threat to them and they wouldn't be in power if they didn't kill 30,000 of their own countrymen. Okay. And so they'll probably open talks and then Trump will impose what he wants. Now, whether Iran accepts that or not, I think they will because they really don't have much of a choice now, you know, talk that cliche is bombing them back to the stone age. That's what they're doing. And that is not a bad policy. I'll give you the last word.
- [38:34]
E
The question is, you know, what are we going to happen when we have a new president? Are they going to go bomb again when they start to develop the weapons?
- [38:43]
A
With what?
- [38:44]
E
Well, I think the public reporting, because I don't want to speak about anything classified that I've seen is that they can rebuild this stuff in a couple years. And you know, I think that's a question that Donald Trump or the administration needs to answer. What comes next? And first of all, the question should be clear to the American people. If this is not a regime change war, you should make that clear. If this is just to degrade Iran's capability, my view is it wasn't imminent. It still wasn't at the right moment in terms of our lives lost. But then, now that we've done it, and I have great admiration and respect for the service members and their families who bore the ultimate sacrifice, we should at least make sure that their sacrifices in vain and that there's some plan that they two years, three years from now we don't have the same conversation about what are we going to do.
- [39:32]
A
We're going to have a different president in less than three years. So. So that's up to that person. You know, look, when they defeated Hitler, they got another problem with Stalin. But that doesn't mean you don't defeat Hitler. Hey, Congressman, it's always good talking with you. And again, I'll reiterate that you're a stand up guy and you should tell your peers, you know, the conversations that we have are worthy people need to hear both sides. And when you run and hide or just go on MSNBC because they kiss your butt. That does nobody any good. But you are an exception and we appreciate it very much. Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no Spin news, visit bill o'reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.