Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
The United States is at war or are we? The administration can't decide. On the one hand, we're not at war because they didn't get a declaration. On the other hand, Pete Hegseth says this is a war. In any case, the antiwar president has launched regime change. The Ayatollah Khamenei is dead. American troops have already been killed. And Trump casually says that's the way it is and there will be more US Troops kill, killed. Now, meanwhile, the so called regime change operation is being characterized five different ways, depending on which legal problem they're trying to solve. And as if that were not enough, we've got reports that war plans were being bragged about out loud in a D.C. restaurant hours before the bombs fell. Remember when Tulsi Gabbard warned us about unconstitutional war powers when it wasn't Trump as president? Well, both Tulsi's old statements and Ted Cruz's new ones really undercut the legality and the purpose of what is happening in Iran. And now the question becomes, what is the plan and who is really in control here? All of that and more. Today, The anti war president and winner of the FIFA Peace Enterprise inaugural, of course, has done the unthinkable. Or has he? The United States is now at war with Iran, or are we? Is it a special military operation? Is it simply a political assassination? Is it actually a war? And if it is a war, is it a legal one? What on earth is happening to American foreign policy? I'm going to break it all down for you, going to give you my thoughts. And I think it's important to start with the Ayatollah was a terrible theocratic leader. No one is denying that. If you were simply to say, I mean, listen, 90 plus million people in Iran under the brutal oppression of this theocratic regime, it's hard to find more appropriate people to want deposed. Very difficult. The Ayatollah would be at the top of the list. But what we have to ask are really three questions and we're going to go through these here. Number one, was this legal? Number two, is it advisable for the United States to be doing it? And number three, even if you're fine with the United States doing it, is Trump the guy we want running the thing, given his corruption? So let's come back to that. A lot of different news headlines dropping over the weekend. The United States and Israel now, with the help of the UK apparently, which is going to allow the US to launch missiles from their territory, launched attacks on Iran on a number of sites and early rumors were ultimately confirmed that the Ayatollah Khamenei was killed. The supreme leader of Iran, Iranians mostly rejoicing. That's true. And I don't think that we need to pretend as though the average Iranian is really angry about this. Iranians, especially young Iranians, of which there are many, have been to the degree that they are comfortable, expressing dissatisfaction and disgust for a very long time with this theocratic regiment. Iran now is retaliating. Iran attacking Europe, Iran attacking Israel, Iran attacking Dubai. There are fears of potential sleeper cells in the United States. And Iran has made very clear that all bets are now off and they will be doing what they can to target Americans, American troops, the United States. And so whatever we think about the attack carried out against Iran, we also have to consider what are the follow on effects going to be. And is the average American in the United States safer or more at risk? Is the average American abroad safer or more at risk? That's number one. Secondly, we then look at Russia's response. Russia has now said, well, Donald Trump has untied our hands, suggesting that any restraint Russia was exhibiting now goes away because they feel as though the United States has crossed some kind of red line. And now whether it is in shared defense of Iran or for whatever other reason or for Russia's ambitions in Ukraine, that their hands are now untied. We also have reporting that the Saudi crown prince was secretly in favor of this attack and lobbying for it. And this is something that I got a lot of emails from folks in the audience sort of confused, saying, you know, David, it seems as though there are other countries in the region that are actually happy about this, despite being what we call Muslim countries. And that is absolutely true. And again, this is all I'm just trying to give you the most factual assessment possible here. It doesn't make the attack right or wrong. And we're going to get into that in a moment. We are. It is there are some countries in the Middle east that despite having shared religion with Iran, sort of, because remember that not all of these predominantly Muslim countries adhere to the same teachings or the same sects of Islam. And that's a relevant story. The Saudis, for example, have great interest in stability in the region and therefore they see Iran for what it is, which is a sort of tinderbox ready to explode and in a very economically damaging way. You need only look at the stock market, which opened very down. Now it's up a little bit. It's unclear where it'll end up. But futures down hundreds of points, oil markets thrown into chaos. You need only look at that to understand, wow, the Emiratis, the Saudis. There are a lot of countries in that region that see Iran as a similar threat to that which the United States, the uk, Israel and other allies side. Okay, so that's the sort of framework and set up for this. Now, I think that there is a lot to be gleaned here from listening to some Iranian Americans. And one of them is friend of the show, Congresswoman Yaseen Ansari, who put out a tweet that I think in three paragraphs really well explains a lot of what the stakes are here. Let's put that up on the screen. She wrote, quote, khamenei was the epitome of evil. For decades, he oversaw the torture, imprisonment and murder of countless Iranians who dared to demand freedom. American blood is on his hands as well. No one should mourn him, and his death is a relief. But removing one man does not dismantle a brutal regime. Military force alone will not secure a democratic future for the Iranian people. And it risks putting US Troops in further danger if there is no serious plan for what comes next. An action of this magnitude demands strategy, clarity, and a credible path forward. She finishes by saying, I want nothing more than a free Iran and safety and security for innocent Iranians. That requires more than force. It requires seriousness, accountability, and a real plan to support the Iranian people in determining their own future. So there is a lot there, and I think that that is very well said. Let's go through this in layers. I wanted the Iranian regime out. That is a terrible regime of human rights abuse, theocratic extremism. It is nasty stuff by any sense of the word. And maybe you are in category one, which is you are happy that the Ayatollah is out. But then the question becomes, 86 year old Ayatollah known succession planning had been done, does killing the Ayatollah really end the regime? I worry that the answer is it doesn't. The next question is, well, what about the US Doing regime change? Many in my audience will say, ayatollah out, that's phenomenal. But I don't want the United States being involved in regime change. And part of the reason why maybe that the United States being involved in regime change has gone so horribly wrong for so long and it kind of sort of seems to be illegal. But maybe you actually say, hey, you know what, I'm for the greater good and I am okay with the United States being involved in regime change. Right. So we're going with the. If even if you believe, if you believe that the ayatollah out is good, and if you have no problem with the United States being involved in regime change in Iran because you believe it is for the greater good, do you really want the United States under Trump managing that regime change? Trump, where everything is self serving, mismanaged, run by a cadre of clown car tools like Pete Hegseth and others, and done for his own benefit, for his own enrichment, for the enrichment of his family and his friends. And that's where you have to say that this is. Even if you are willing to say, I don't really, I'm not. They assassinated the Ayatollah. I'm okay with that. The US Is involved in regime change. I'm okay with that. I would still argue that Trump being the one running it, even if you've passed all of those initial thresholds I just mentioned, is an absolute disaster. And by the way, Trump doesn't give a damn about the service members that have already been killed. Trump says there will be more and that's the way it is. And that's what I want to talk about next. Hours ago, Donald Trump confirmed that three US Service members are dead and many injured and that there will likely be more due to his decision to strike Iran. That's the way it is, Donald Trump said. No visible hesitation, no sense of gravity or responsibility. He got a note not to go to Vietnam for bone spurs. So everybody who's there must want to be there, right? It's just an inevitability. Let's watch the clip. By the way, since this video, a fourth American service member is believed dead. Let's take a look.
- [10:42]
Pete Hegseth
Earlier today, CENTCOM shared the news that three US Military service members have been killed in action. As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives. We pray for the full recovery of the wounded.
- [11:07]
David Pakman
And you can tell he just is passionately connected to what's happening there. He really feels the grief and our
- [11:15]
Pete Hegseth
immense love and eternal gratitude to the families of the fallen. And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That's the way it is, likely be
- [11:27]
David Pakman
more, but we'll do it the way it is.
- [11:29]
Pete Hegseth
Everything possible where that won't be the case. But America will avenge their deaths and deliver the most punishing blow to the terrorists who have waged war against basically civilization. They have waged war against civilization. Itself.
- [11:48]
David Pakman
There you go. I think it's important to remember that this guy ran as the antiwar president and he is now saying to the country, based on my decision, we've taken some casualties and more of your sons and daughters are going to die. And of course, if he knows that there will be more deaths, he, he must have some sense of the longer term mission, some sense of what the objectives are, some sense of what is going to happen. We've been told that this is going to go about four weeks, but more of your sons and daughters are going to die. That's the way it is is not exactly defensive language here. It's we are doing stuff and it is going to become a real problem. Now, I don't think it's merely symbolic that Donald Trump issued these orders not from the Situation room in the White House, but from a room at his beach club in Mar a Lago, which, by the way, there were photographs of how this sort of thing really needs to be run, if not from the White House situation Room, from a skiff, a properly protected facility. And that includes a lot of different technology. There are pictures of Trump sitting there running this operation to the extent that he's running anything. And there are sort of like, just like black tarps, the kind you would use for sound deadening or to set up like a little backstage area at a concert for performers or something like that. That is not a secure information facility. Those concerns, J.D. vance was the one in D.C. sitting in the Situation Room as Donald Trump was in Mar a Lago. And the big story is that Donald Trump, despite claiming to be the antiwar president, despite warning us about how killery was, would start four wars if she won in 2016 and how Biden would start many wars if he won in 2020, and how Kamala Harris was going to start endless wars if she won in 2024. It is Donald Trump who's really quick hair trigger to send troops into harm's way. Bone spurs, of course, kept him out of Vietnam, but when he says that that's the way it is, it really sounds like he views the troops as disposable, or at least that this is very clearly a fair trade. We're going to get a few more of our troops killed. But I like what we're doing. I think what we're doing is really good. He told us this wouldn't happen under his watch. He said he was the only one that was going to keep us out of these sorts of engagements and conflict. And if you're just going we're going to, we're going to lose more people. Don't you at least owe us a clear explanation of the strategy and the exit plans? We don't now I know the magazine Go David. Are you asking Trump for to give you the exact dates and places where he's. No, but I am saying that we should be clear with the American people about what is the goal. How will we determine when that goal has been accomplished and how many casualties are going to reverse the promise of no new wars and I won't get people killed. And what we are pointing towards right now as the losses are starting to mount, a lot of injuries as of this moment, I believe four deaths. There have to be political consequences here. If the anti war president. How could the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize really do this if he continues to push forward with this with no real explanation and no explanation of a trajectory. I want to hear from you about this. Leave me a comment on YouTube. Leave me a comment on Instagram. Send me an email info@david pakman.com do you think that deposing the Ayatollah is is a good thing regardless of the illegality or the incompetence of Trump running this? Where are you on each different element of it? And make sure you hit that subscribe button on YouTube. We have blown through 3.5 million subscribers. We're heading to 4 with your help. If you felt the Internet getting colder and creepier, more propaganda, more surveillance, you are not imagining it. The big social platforms are optimizing for control. That's why I'm excited to tell you about our sponsor Haven Social. Protecting users and creators from manipulation and surveillance. Haven is building an image and video based social media operating in the Instagram and YouTube lane that supports both short form clips and long form landscape video. But when you post on Haven, they will automatically make it harder for facial recognition systems to identify you. They will poison your images so that the AI scrapers can't learn from your content. Haven is also fighting exploitative algorithms with a clearer transparent recommendation system and a reverse chronological feed so you see posts in order. Unlike the big tech social media platforms, Haven is about building a space outside of that control, protecting your privacy, giving people a place to share and stay informed. And Haven also will make it easy to transfer your posts and reconnect with followers. So switching platforms doesn't mean starting from scratch. You can support Haven's Kickstarter at David pakman.com/haven social. The link is in the description. If you're trying to Get Away from Cigarettes or vaping One of the first practical questions is what you replace them with, especially if you're not ready to eliminate nicotine immediately, check out our sponsor Zipix Nicotine Toothpicks. Zipix uses quality plant derived nicotine with a very short list of ingredients. It gives you another option for managing nicotine with no smoke or vapor. Zipix comes in six flavors. There's two or three milligram options lets you control the nicotine as compared to a cigarette or vape. They're also easy to use throughout the day and in places where smoking or vaping isn't allowed to or it would require you to step out conspicuously for a cigarette, which can cause other problems. Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 toothpicks if you're reducing nicotine altogether or don't even use it at all. If you're tired of cigarettes or vaping, try Zipix Nicotine TOOTHPICKS and get 10% off your first order with code PAKMAN@ZIPPIXTOOTHPICKS.COM the link is in the description you must be 21 or older to order. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. The David Pakman show continues to be an audience supported program. I invite you and would be flattered to have your support. The best way to support the work that we do is to get yourself a membership@join pacman.com our two newest members who I want to recognize and thank today are Kathy Hildebrandt and Kylan Flannery. Thanks to Kathy and Kylan, you can read about membership, think about membership, consider membership, shake up a Magic 8 ball with regard to membership and at the end of the day sign up@join pacman.com we do an extra show every day for our members. A guy who has no business whatsoever being the Secretary of Defense is now getting to play real life war with other people's lives at risk. His name is Pete Hegseth. He's the Secretary of Defense. The anti war President Trump has renamed him the Secretary of War. What says peace more than renaming the Department of Defending Yourself the Department of War? Pete Hegseth did not inspire confidence when answering questions about the Iran war or special military operation or whatever they are trying to call it, including are there boots on the ground in Iran? And the question that was coming of course was might there be? And Pete Hegseth goes, we're not going to talk about that. Which is very, very far from a no.
- [20:05]
Pete Hegseth
Are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran? No, but we're not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do. I think it's one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or others should tell the American people this. And our, and our enemies, by the way, here's exactly what we'll do.
- [20:24]
David Pakman
And of course no one is asking for that. This is what's called answering a question that was not asked.
- [20:29]
Pete Hegseth
How long we'll go, here's exactly how far we'll go, here's what we're willing to do and not do. It's foolishness. And so President Trump ensures that our enemies understand we'll go as far as we need to go to advanced American interests. But we're not dumb about it. You don't have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years. We've proven that you can achieve objectives that advance American interests without being foolish about it. Now, will we be bold about it? Are we willing to be decisive about it?
- [20:56]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [20:56]
Pete Hegseth
Do we put months and months of planning into what kind of effects we want to achieve? Absolutely. But going forward, why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody, what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective? We fight to win. We fight to achieve the objectives the President of the United States has laid out.
- [21:16]
David Pakman
The problem is we have no clue what those objectives are. And I don't think Trump has any idea what those objectives are. Now, they have gone back and forth about whether this is a war. And the reason that this is so relevant is that if this is a war, then it was done without congressional authorization, which is a classic from American presidents going to war without congressional authorization or an authorization for military force. And the excuses are often, well, I'm doing it under some previous authorization, or this isn't really a war, or this was so urgent we couldn't go to Congress or whatever the case may be. And so a lot of this has been, Trump didn't need to go to Congress because this is not a war. Well, here is Pete Hegseth in mentioning that there are going to be casualties. He says war is hell. Presumably he's referring to this. So it is a war, right, Pete?
- [22:08]
Pete Hegseth
America, regardless of what so called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course classified effects, all on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives. As the President warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties.
- [22:45]
David Pakman
Right.
- [22:46]
Pete Hegseth
War is hell and always will be.
- [22:49]
David Pakman
War is hell, AKA this is a war. Why else would you say war is hell if this isn't a war? Right, except that they spent days saying, no, no, no, this is not a war. This is a special military operation. This is a surgical strike that will never include anything that we could possibly call a war. Now, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also mentions this is not a regime change war, except as we try to figure out what is this about. One of the few things Trump has said is that this is about regime change. Why are the President and the Secretary of Defense so out of sync on what this is?
- [23:30]
Pete Hegseth
Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear black male ambitions. Let me say that again. A conventional shield for their nuclear black male ambitions. Our bases, our people, our allies, all in their crosshairs. Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb. It almost worked under Obama and his terrible deal, but not under this president. Turns out the regime who chanted death to America and death to Israel was gifted. Death from America and death from Israel. This is not a so called regime change war. But the regime sure did change.
- [24:22]
David Pakman
Yeah, except it kind of didn't because the succession planning had already been done. So. So this is not a war. But Pete Hegseth says war is hell, so I guess it is. He says this is not a regime change war, except Trump says that it is. What is going on with these people? Well, incompetence seems to be the name of the game. Trump gets the benefit of being told that by Pete Hegseth that he can retain his anti war credentials because he didn't start the war. That's another one. The war was started by Iran. Trump is just here to finish it. Therefore he is really anti war brothers
- [25:01]
Pete Hegseth
butchered by Iranian backed roadside bombs and well armed militias. Thousands of our own. We didn't start this war, but under President Trump we are finishing it right there.
- [25:15]
David Pakman
So this is another. Imagine that Trump's going to be able to end another war. I mean if it feels so stupid. Everything is backwards. When this is all set, my prediction is this will go another three to four weeks, which is what they've said. And then at the end of it, Trump will go, I just ended another war. And we'll say, wait, didn't you start one? And by the way, I thought it wasn't a war. Is it a War, isn't it? Well, it is if I end it, but not if I started. And what he will argue is that Iran started the war with their threats and what he says is the development of nuclear weapons, which, by the way, we supposedly obliterated just a few months ago, but I guess we didn't really obliterate them that badly. And then Trump will go, hey, you know what? I ended a war. And we'll say, so it was a war. And he'll go, yeah, but not when I started. It is clearly what they're planning. These are pathetic, pathetic people. Now, one of the generals agrees with Trump and Hegseth, we are going to lose more American troops. That's the way it is, says Donald Trump.
- [26:13]
Pete Hegseth
So let me start with a few details. First, to be clear, as the Secretary said, this is not a single overnight operation. The military objectives at CENTCOM and the Joint Force have been tasked with will take some time to achieve.
- [26:29]
David Pakman
Will anyone ever tell us what those goals are so we know what we're doing?
- [26:32]
Pete Hegseth
And in some cases will be difficult and gritty work. We expect to take additional losses, and as always, we will work to minimize US Losses. But as the Secretary said, this is major combat operations.
- [26:48]
David Pakman
Oh, so it is. Now we've got. So it's a major combat operations. War is hell. But it's not a war. If it's a legal question, if it's a. Let's look big and tough question. Yes, it's a war. If it's a legal question, it's not. Hmm. And then finally, Pete Hegseth wrapping this up with what every good government briefing needs as we are getting our troops killed. A little bit of religion, a little bit of prayer. Does this make anybody feel better?
- [27:15]
Pete Hegseth
We are warriors trained to kill the enemy and break their will. History is watching. Be the force you swore an oath to be. Focused, disciplined, lethal, and unbreakable. We will finish this on America first conditions of President Trump's choosing, nobody else's. As it should be. And know this, above all, President Trump and I have your back. Always. Through fire, through criticism, through fake news, through everything. We unleash you because you are the best, most powerful, most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen. May almighty God watch over you and his providential arms of protection extend over you. Godspeed, warriors, and keep going.
- [28:14]
David Pakman
Well, I feel much better about this now. Now that I heard that declaration from Pete Hegseth, I feel much better. It is hard to think of a more incompetent group of people to be carrying this out and so if you, like me, despise extremist theocracies and, and viewed the Ayatollah as a dark force on this planet, which I did, we still have to ask the question, should the United States be doing this? And if so, is Pete Hegseth, Fox News host, the guy who should be in charge? Dear God, I don't know why, what you're going to think of this, but it is one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen. We have video now of attorney Mark Garagos appearing on TMZ with Harvey Levin. And this was before the bombing of Iran started. Garagos Skypes in to his podcast with Harvey Levin from Joe Stone Crab in Washington, D.C. phenomenal restaurant, by the way, but that's a different story. And says that there were people in there saying the US Is bombing Iran that night. Understand that if this is true, this is signal gate on steroids. This is people in the know. Presumably Trump administration officials at a restaurant loudly bragging, we're going to bomb Iran. Can you imagine? Here is lawyer mark Garagos at 3:45pm Eastern on Friday. Okay, this is before the bombing. Listen to this. Where are you?
- [30:01]
Pete Hegseth
Washington D.C. joe Skunk Crab.
- [30:04]
David Pakman
Could you have picked a more crowded restaurant?
- [30:06]
Pete Hegseth
Now, in fact, if I were to tell you what I was overhearing at the next table, you die. Oh, I think I'm going to ask you that. Okay, here we go.
- [30:14]
David Pakman
You're in Washington, D.C. you could have gone to a million places to do a podcast where it was calm and you choose Joe Stone Crab.
- [30:24]
Pete Hegseth
Correct, by the way.
- [30:25]
Ted Cruz
Do you know why?
- [30:26]
Pete Hegseth
Because I actually was going to leave, but the conversation that I was overhearing on the next table over was so fascinating, I couldn't leave. Oh, spell it, spell it. I, I think things are happening by the time this drops in Iran is what. I'll leave it at that. You're kidding me. Somebody. Somebody from the government was next to you. I'm just going to leave it at that. No, no, no. By the way, my meal is getting cold.
- [31:00]
David Pakman
I don't care.
- [31:01]
Pete Hegseth
I'll buy you another meal. I'll buy you another meal. What did they say?
- [31:07]
Ted Cruz
That.
- [31:07]
Pete Hegseth
That today is the day Friday is. We're sitting here.
- [31:12]
David Pakman
Are you serious?
- [31:14]
Pete Hegseth
I just literally just heard you at the end the next fable, so I'll leave it at that. Holy crap. Now. Wild. It's wild. Where the times were leaving. Living in.
- [31:27]
David Pakman
Oh, my God.
- [31:28]
Pete Hegseth
I'll see you next week, Harvey. Thank you. Bye, Mark. Bye. Bye.
- [31:33]
David Pakman
Wow. Can you imagine? Reportedly, there were People in there singing, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb. Iran in the restaurant. This was all happening loud enough for Mark Garagos to hear it. Who else heard it? It's Washington, D.C. there are intelligence operatives of all kinds everywhere, some friendly, some not so friendly. This was 3:45pm Eastern. Now, why is that relevant? The bombing of Iraq, Iran, the strikes were announced nearly 12 hours later at 2:30am from Mar A Lago. If it is true that there were people in the know, presumably from the Trump administration, we don't know whether that means White House or Department of Defense or what if it is true that they were inside Joe Stonecrab talking about this, this, it is a catastrophic operational security failure. Now, we don't know whether this, I'm guessing if it was Steven Miller, Mark Garagos would have recognized him, although maybe he recognized the person and didn't want to say who it was. But we don't really know whether these were government officials or contractors or staffers of some kind or what. This can cost lives. I mean, Trump said we're going to lose more people. Trump announced the killing of four of three troops. Then we know as of this moment that I'm recording, there have been four troops killed. Maybe by the time this publishes in an hour and a half, we turn it around pretty quickly, maybe there will be more killed. Loose limp lips sink ships. You know that phrase, they can really cost lives as well. And it's not theoretical because American service members were killed in this operation. Now, there are a lot of different reasons why people can end up with loose lips about things which they should keep their mouth shut. Sometimes it's they're incompetent or they're arrogant. They don't think it's going to have any consequences or whatever there. I mean, this is completely speculative, but sometimes you also have people deliberately leaking things for different reasons now going and singing and screaming about it at Joe stone crab in D.C. i don't know that is really the right way to screw up the operation if that's your goal. But we are continuing to see a theme which is deeply irresponsible people in the know about very serious stuff. You've got incompetent people running the show and incompetent people around the show. And we've got Signal Gate and we've got signal gate 2.0 and people who don't even qualify for security clearances. The FBI told don't even give them, don't even do an investigation. I'm making the decision as president. They get a clearance people who have no business near sensitive information of any kind regularly in positions not only of decision making, power and awareness, but in positions where they can screw everything up. Whatever your thoughts are about the operation in Iran, it is only worse if information that is supposed to be secret is yelled out in at Joe's Stone Crab. Even if it's stone crab season and you're all hopped up on that sweet, sweet crab, it is still not a reason to be yelling about this stuff. And I don't even know that Mark Garagos realized the gravity of what he was saying there. I haven't seen much reporting about this. Hopefully there will be more Identity theft and targeted scams often start long before the breach. When bits of your personal life, addresses, emails, relatives, your work history are scattered around the Internet on these data broker sites and that information is sold or reused, our sponsor Incogni will get that stuff removed for you. Not from just a single type of website. They will work to take down your personal information wherever it shows up online, shrinking the pool of info that bad actors rely on. Incogni automatically handles removals from hundreds of known sites, but their unlimited plan goes even further with custom removals where if you find your info anywhere, paste the link to Incogni and they will get to work removing that for you. This matters because a single overlooked listing can be enough for a scammer to impersonate you or even open accounts in your name. Incogni's data removal process is independently verified by Deloitte, which adds a layer of trust. You can get 60% off when you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description Remember when Tulsi Gabbard was right about stuff? Now I think I should mention the caveat that no one cared about what she was saying in 2019 or in 2020. Like no one was going. Nobody who really was thinking critically was going to Tulsi Gabbard for foreign policy analysis in 2019 and 2020. But it is fascinating that she was actually right about the sophistry and misguided nature of the approach to Iran and the Middle east that many had. And she kind of did preemptively blow the whistle on what she is now standing idly by as Donald Trump bombs Iran. Here are three clips I'm going to play for you. First, one is from 2020. We'll look at one from 2019 and then we'll look from one. Look at one also from 2019. Here is Tulsi Gabbard with a critique of what Donald Trump did to Iran during his first term. And it really kind of applies today as well. Take a look at this.
- [37:10]
Tulsi Gabbard
That's exactly what Trump did. He conducted and committed an act of war without congressional authority, seriously escalating the situation with Iran. And so now we're at a point of it's not a matter of, well, are we going to have a war with Iran? We are in a war with Iran right now. So the real issue is, are we going to allow this war to continue to escalate and if so, for how
- [37:39]
David Pakman
long and to achieve what objective, phenomenal questions. She was talking about this in 2020, not there were some people wrongly claiming these are new videos. You can tell just Tulsi looks completely different. These are clearly older videos. But the questions she's asking are absolutely perfect questions. Not calling this a war doesn't change that this is a war. Understanding what the point of what we're doing is is critically important. This is now open game for an escalation from Iran. Now, as I said at the beginning, and I find it necessary to include it in every clip because I don't want to. You know, people online were already saying, oh, what, David, are you grieving the Ayatollah? I am an anti authoritarian and I do not like theocratic regimes. I have been a critic of Hugo Chavez and subsequently Nicolas Maduro. I've been a critic of the Iranian regime, Kim Jong Un, Putin, Orban, previously Duterte. I am against all of these authoritarian lunatics. I don't believe that this is how the people are best served. And it is objectively better for those people to leave now, whether it's the US's role or job to get them to leave or to pick successors or get involved in regime change. Those are very different questions. But the questions and parameters that Tulsi lays out, what are the objectives? How long is it going to take? How many people are going to die? What are the risks to Americans from these escalations? Those are very good questions. Here's another one from Tulsi Gabbard even earlier. This is from 2019, telling Donald Trump. Trump wasn't listening. Nobody was really listening to this stuff. But telling Trump that his Iran strategy is both ill advised and shortsighted, probably true because of Trump's incompetence. And yet she is now in charge. She's the Director of National Intelligence. Has her view changed or is she shutting her mouth because there's no space for dissent?
- [39:35]
Tulsi Gabbard
President Trump, your Iran strategy has been ill advised and very short sighted. Yeah, you need to change course now and get back into the Iran nuclear agreement before it's too late. Set aside your pride, set aside your political calculations for the good of our country. Just do the right thing.
- [39:54]
David Pakman
There you go. And then finally from 2019, Tulsi Gabbard, focusing in on the lack, excuse me, the lack of congressional authorization. It is Congress's responsibility to declare war. And simply saying that this is a special military operation doesn't really change. And of course, Donald Trump did not seek such approval from Congress. Here's Tulsi.
- [40:20]
Tulsi Gabbard
We have presidents in both parties for too long who've completely ignored Congress's constitutional responsibility to declare war. I've introduced legislation called the no more Presidential wars act because the president should only be sending our troops into harm's way, really, as a response to a direct threat. Otherwise, Congress is the one that has to bear that responsibility. And it's a great responsibility to declare war, to authorize use of military force. The influence of the foreign policy establishment and the defense industry in Washington is growing great. And when we look at both Republican and Democrat presidents, you can see how their policies really, as it relates to the military and foreign policy, haven't really shifted, regardless of who's in the Oval Office. Why is that? We look at who's surrounding them, who are they listening to, who's sitting in their cabinet. So if you have a president who goes in who lacks the experience and conviction about these issues and the need to provide real leadership, then they end up getting influenced by those around them. This is why I took the opportunity In November of 2016, two weeks after Trump got elected, to go in and talk to him. Because my hope was, hey, maybe I can come in, share the truth and the reality of what's going on in Syria, my experience in Iraq, the need to end these regime change wars, to not listen to these chicken hawks in Washington from both parties. Before he started surrounding himself with people like John Bolton, that was my hope in meeting with him. And unfortunately, he chose to surround himself with those people who are pushing us closer and closer to war. Now.
- [41:56]
David Pakman
Yeah, listen, I don't play these clips because we were all listening to Tulsi for foreign policy analysis back in 2019 and 2020. We weren't. It's just that her warning is suddenly extraordinarily relevant and prescient. And she is in this administration. She is the Director of National Intelligence right now. She has described and defined what Trump did as an act of war without congressional authority. She's right about that. She was. She was talking about what he did in the first term, but it applies here as well. She says this is effectively a war with Iran. And she is right. She asked a lot of key questions, like, what is the duration of this going to be? What objective are we going to look at to determine when it is mission accomplished? And, of course, Congress is supposed to declare these acts of war, not the president, and simply doing it, but not calling it a war. The game Trump and Hegseth are playing is as long as we don't declare it a war, then it's not really a war. But of course, that's not really the way things work. And then there's the bigger question that obviously troops shouldn't be sent into harm's way unless it's a response to a direct threat. If we obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities just a few months ago, how have they been rebuilt so much that now it is a direct threat to the United States? That doesn't make sense. And if it would have been reckless to escalate back in 2019 and 2020, when Tulsi Gabbard was making these claims, how is it not extraordinarily reckless right now? And I say this as someone that despised the Ayatollah. And really, it's a tragedy how many Iranians quietly oppose that regime, especially young Iranians, and they deserve a shot at better governance. But war powers matter, and it can't just depend on who's in office. So the core question here remains unanswered. What is the goal? What is the plan? Who authorized it? You don't need to give us the tactics exactly that you're going to use, but what is the framework so that the American, American people can decide this is something we support or something we don't? And by and large, most of the American people do not support this. Ted Cruz said the quiet part out loud. Trump is not going to like this one. This might piss off Trump so much that he goes and calls Ted's wife ugly again, which he did, of course, back in 2016. Ted Cruz was interviewed on Face the Nation yesterday. He said he has not seen any indication that the Iranians have again gotten close to getting nuclear weapons. Remember that we were told by Trump that they obliterated the nuclear capabilities of Iran over the summer, and yet now we are told the justification, even though maybe it's death to America, chance and other stuff. Big picture, we were told, well, they are getting close again. So did we obliterate it or not, back in July, Ted Cruz just goes, I've seen no evidence of that. This undercuts 90% of the justification for this.
- [45:07]
Tulsi Gabbard
You tell us now if you believe that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program. One of the top arms control, arms control experts out there, David Albright, has written there should be an immediate priority on rapid response operations to secure Iran's nuclear stockpiles.
- [45:25]
Pete Hegseth
Right now.
- [45:26]
Tulsi Gabbard
Can you assure the public that it will be secured? And if so, who is doing it if there are no Israeli or US Forces on the ground?
- [45:35]
Ted Cruz
So there is no doubt that a year ago Iran had an active and ongoing nuclear weapons program. We took out the vast majority of that at the end of the 12
- [45:45]
Tulsi Gabbard
Day War, where that US intelligence assessment was not made public, if that is what was brief to you.
- [45:51]
Ted Cruz
We took out, we launched targeted bombs at the end of the 12 Day War where we dropped the equivalent of about a third.
- [45:59]
David Pakman
Oh, so it was a war. Fascinating.
- [46:01]
Ted Cruz
Of a nuclear weapon on those underground facilities, facilities like Fordo, which is built into the base of a mountain, the bunker buster bombs we used. Israel doesn't have those bombs. No other country has those bombs. We took them out last year. The Iranians were still hell bent on rebuilding them. And one of the things we are doing right now is taking out their missiles. In particular the southern missile belt. Right now, Iran is building roughly 100 missiles a month. They are actively building missiles to threaten their neighbors.
- [46:36]
David Pakman
They're firing some of them right now
- [46:37]
Tulsi Gabbard
at their neighbors, at our allies.
- [46:40]
Ted Cruz
They're illustrating powerfully they're attacking virtually every Arab neighbor that surrounds them. They are firing missiles that it's almost like they want to illustrate to the world just how maligned they are.
- [46:52]
Tulsi Gabbard
But in terms of containing the risk. Who's securing the nuclear material that you say still exists within Iran? Who's doing that?
- [47:00]
Ted Cruz
Look, the quantity of nuclear material. I didn't say one, any thing, one way or another on that. What I said is they were building nuclear weapons a year ago.
- [47:09]
David Pakman
And you'll see that Ted gets backed into a corner.
- [47:12]
Ted Cruz
Bombing took that out. They also had an ongoing desire to rebuild them. I don't have present day intelligence on what progress they had made towards rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities. I have no indication that they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons because our bombing was devastating. And Margaret, that's one of the reasons I urged President Trump. Now is the time. You know, dictatorships survive because they're perceived as invulnerable. And in this instance, Iran decisively lost the 12 day war that weakened the regime and set up with the president is doing. Now.
- [47:54]
David Pakman
Think about that. Think about that. This is, first of all, Ted Cruz saying, I've seen no indication that they are close to getting a nuclear weapon. That destroys the core rationale for some of doing this. But you might be confused because Ted Cruz then goes, the fact that we did obliterate their nuclear capabilities over the summer is why I encourage the President to do this. So consider that either way, this made sense. According to this logic, if you believe that they were, again, they had resuscitated their nuclear weapons program after Trump obliterated it over the summer, well, they're getting close to a weapon again, we've got to go in. But Ted Cruz has come up with a different argument, which is, no, their nuclear program was obliterated. That's why this was the time to go in to do regime change and to do more, because we know they don't have the nukes because we destroyed them over the summer. Now, the only problem with that is that our best assessment of where their program was over the summer was not we could retaliate with a nuke. If you come in here, it was never that Ted Cruz wants you to believe. No, now, they couldn't nuke us, so now was the time to go in there. They couldn't nuke this over the summer. These were much more nascent nuclear research programs even. Even at that time. So then you kind of have to go, well, if Iran wasn't close to a bomb, what was the imminent threat? And what was the reason that we had to go in right now? Because Trump said, this is necessary, this is urgent, this is. This is defensive in a sense. And then Cruz goes, I've seen no evidence that they were close, but they were building missiles. They were building missiles. So have. Is this a regime change war over a hypothetical that's years away? This is not a Democrat who said it. This is Ted Cruz. And if even Ted Cruz is not backing this narrative about imminent weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, etcetera, that's politically a real problem here. Now we then get to questions like, was the intelligence exaggerated? Was it misrepresented? Was it ignored? Is this not really about that and it's about something else? And if the nuclear threat has collapsed, this looks very discretionary and not defensive, which then gets us back to, if this isn't defensive, it undercuts the explanation for why a president would have to simply act without getting approval from Congress. Because it was urgent and defensive, we can't slow things down. Well, it's not sounding like it was defensive, at least not according to Ted Cruz. So we are increasingly in a political pickle here. And it seems as though, and I'm going to talk about this later, it seems as though to a great degree, even a lot of Republicans who don't like the Ayatollah are not pleased with what's going on. Remember to subscribe to the audio podcast. It is free. It's on Apple Podcasts, it's on Spotify, it's anywhere you get your podcast. We do a full hour every day. It's free. Follow and rate the podcast. Appreciate it.
- [51:03]
Pete Hegseth
The David Pakman staring at your screen.
- [51:07]
David Pakman
Take a break. Get free items with TikTok slash and free pick items. Share a link and watch the price drop to zero. Download TikTok search slash free Start slashing now. Show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member@join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com it is becoming extraordinarily obvious to me at this point that Donald Trump is going to try something to either or both cancel and or manipulate the midterm elections that are now just eight months away. It seems obvious from everything that Trump is saying. It seems obvious from everything that Trump is doing. He would love to cancel them. If he can't, he would love to delay the midterms, and if he can't, he would love to manipulate them so that the results are what he decides rather than what reflects the will of the people. Now, I want to be really clear so people don't think I'm saying this will happen. I am not claiming Trump can easily do it. I am not saying that the federal government even can cancel elections that are ultimately run by the states. What I'm saying is Trump would absolutely do it if he believed he could get away with it. And part of that is creating the right political conditions to claim that it's necessary. And that's what Donald Trump is doing right now. Now, over the weekend, I had a bunch of conversations with friends who were saying, what do you think about Trump using this Iran situation to cancel the midterm elections? I don't think that that's going to happen. I don't, I don't think anyone would even fall for we can't have elections in Georgia because Trump's bombing Iran. Put aside for a moment that Trump says the Iran stuff is going to last for four weeks. Put aside for a moment a lot of other different things. I just don't think Trump would try to use Iran as a justification for why we. We can't have elections, I think is extremely unlikely. Domestic chaos, on the other hand, I think is way more likely to be the reason why Donald Trump says we've got a delay or we've got to cancel or at least I need to put my masked goons at every polling place. There are a few problems with that, and I've explained these before. States ultimately run their own elections. There isn't a magic switch where the president has canceled elections in. It's important to remember that when a state runs its election, there are sometimes there. There's governors on the ballot, sometimes there's state representatives, there's state senators, and also people are casting votes for their members of Congress and senators in addition to that. But it doesn't really make sense that because the president in D.C. says something, people in Montana can't decide which state reps or state senators they want representing them. Doesn't make sense. States run their own elections. And so we then have to kind of think about what is more likely. It's difficult to just straight up cancel an election constitutionally. It's messy. The logistics are chaotic and kind of unclear, and it's very legally explosive. That has never stopped Donald Trump from trying to do things he's not allowed to do. And so we have to think a little more deeply about what is the likely path that he would take. First of all, creating or amplifying unrest sort of as just like a scaffolding for an environment in which maybe he can get away with it. If there is chaos in the streets, if there are mass protests, if he scales up the immigration crackdowns or deploys federal troops, declares emergencies over different things in different states, all those little blips on the map can help paint a bigger picture. That would be potentially an environment in which Trump can make some kind of an argument then using that unrest to claim that the elections are under threat. If they happen right, law and order is under threat. It's lawless out on the streets of our cities. States can't guarantee that the election will be safe, never mind of accurate. And so we've got to do something here. And then maybe comes the idea of, well, what about a temporary postponement? Let's. For security reasons, of course, we need to delay when these elections happen. That would probably go to court very Quickly. And there are a lot of good lawyers that are ready to try to stop that from happening. The courts would probably block that cancellation. But the attempt and then it going to court and people waiting to see what the court says. And I apologize, I hit my mic because I'm so passionate about this, the court chaos, the attempt and then the court decision, that will destabilize trust in the process to a degree as well. And so we think back to January 6, 2021, which is now more than five years ago. Incredibly, that was an attempt to overturn an election after losing. That is one sort of psychological barrier that has to be breached in order to potentially be successful there. If you can't overturn it after the fact, you would say, well, maybe we can deal with it as it's going on. Let's try to cancel it. If you can't cancel it, then you might go to, well, let's try to manipulate it. And manipulation can take a lot of different forms. It could be federal interference because we need to maintain election integrity. It might be putting pressure on state officials, which Trump has tried, and then looking at who are the secretaries of state in these different states, are they loyal to Trump and to maga? Maybe we can replace them. Maybe we can push the governor to replace them. What about legal warfare, last minute rule changes, ballot challenges, voter roll purges? Let's get as many people as we can off of these voter rolls. That's another approach that they could take. They can also take an administrative approach, which is let's shrink the number of polling locations in hostile areas. Let's aggressively reject signatures and let's just bury them in legal requests for recounts. That is sort of like informational warfare connected with interference and manipulation. We probably will hear Trump claim fraud in advance. That's a classic. We probably will see the administration telling friendly candidates declare victory early and right away, tell supporters that the losses are illegitimate. And so I'm sure Trump would love to cancel the midterms or delay them, especially as it looks like he's going to get crushed. But he doesn't really need to do the cancellation thing. If you can create enough confusion and disruption in enough critical swing districts, you might accomplish your goal. Now, a lot of Democrats are assuming that the elections will are going to happen completely. Normally, I believe the elections will happen, but I don't think it's going to be completely normal. And this is what Democrats in the left really need to be ready for. I'm not predicting a clean midterms canceled. I do believe the Elections will happen, but I'm worried about the incremental erosion that goes a little further and a little further and a little further, because this is how authoritarianism tends to arrive. Rather than tanks bulldozing polling places, it's some masked ICE agents here and a few secretaries of state there that are going to mess with stuff and pulling a few million people off of the voter rolls there. And then where a lot of people might end up is, well, he can't legally cancel the election. But is this level of chaos and threat, threat and fear, worth me pushing through to go out and vote? Maybe I'll just stay home, which is exactly what they want us to do, which is why we're not going to do it. We're going to have a lot more coverage about this between now and November. All right, this is going to be a tough one, but I encourage you to stick with me before writing me a furious hate email. Just stick with me. Many of you know that for a long time, a lot of those furious MAGA hate mails that I get are written atrociously. I know we joke about, oh, they put in the wrong your Y o u r e vs y o u r. Okay? Or there's a specific grammar error. What I'm talking about is that a lot of the hate mail I get from MAGA people is almost completely unintelligible as English. People who are writing to me, they love Trump, they hate me. Their emails are some of the worst English language I have ever, ever seen. I started doing a little experiment over the last month. When those emails have been coming in, we write back and we go, hey, thanks for your message. Just curious, what's your, what's your native language? What's your first language? And invariably people write back and they go, english, I'm an American, it's the only language I speak. So I said to myself, can it really be that this many Americans can barely write? And of course, if they can barely write, they can barely read. Could that really be possible? It can't be. Well, then I did the research and it turns out that only about 1% of the adult population can't read. Like truly illiterate. It's only 1% of the population. I'm not hearing from them because they can't read or write. So they wouldn't be able to write to me. Okay, but then look at this. 20 to 23% of the adult population, that's almost a quarter quarter of adults are what is called semi literate. Now, sometimes this is called functionally illiterate. There's a bunch of assessments, one from NA L, another from the OECD program on adult competency, and what they find is that roughly between 1/5 and 1/4 of American adults read below the sixth grade level. You, if, if you can only read below the sixth grade level, you can handle simple, little short texts, no parking on a sign. Plus you get to recognize the sign and you understand what it says. But you can't read and understand a complex document. You can't read and properly understand a form you have to fill out or instructions. There are around 50 million American adults who are semi literate. Now, what is the relevance to politics and to what we're talking about? Reading and writing is fundamental to being able to think about things deeply. If you can't see a few paragraphs of text and parse it and really think through the subject matter, or if you can't follow a multistep argument, if long form text is confusing to you, you're at a massive disadvantage in a modern democracy. Now, before the angry emails come in, this is not exclusively partizan. Of course, there are liberals and leftists who struggle with literacy as well. This is not a only Trump voters can't read kind of thing. But when I look at the most furious MAGA hate mail that I get, barely intelligible, no structure, random capitalization, sentences that collapse halfway through. And then I look at the literacy data, it's hard not to notice something about one in five American adults read and therefore write below a sixth grade level. That's tens of millions of people that struggle with relatively basic stuff. What kind of messaging works best in that environment? A detailed health care proposal or the election was stolen. They're poisoning the blood of our country. They're coming for you. China's coming for you. Short, repetitive, emotional, and simple. Remember that Trump speaks at a fourth grade level. Linguists have measured this. Short sentences, very heavy repetition, basic vocabulary. Now, maybe that's because of Trump's cognitive decline, maybe it isn't. But we've seen Trump speak more and more simply over the years. It is effective at the end of the day in a country where tens of millions of people struggle to read above a sixth grade level. And so if complex policy is hard to process, you're not evaluating a tax plan. You're just reacting to identity. I have a tax plan for you, says Trump. Cool. Sounds good. Sounds strong. He sounds like he's on my side. I'll go for it. So this is really not about calling people dumb. This is a structural vulnerability. When literacy declines, slogans are much more effective than substance. And when nuance is difficult, anybody who can sound really certain, even if they're false, if they're making false claims, is going to win. And if reading is tough for you, the emotional salience of what whoever tells you is going to be much more powerful. The In a semi literate informational ecosystem where memes and algorithms are having so much influence, the fact that one in five, almost one in four adults can barely read becomes really powerful electorally. I don't think you can have a healthy democracy when one in five adults struggles to read into a middle school level. I think that's a national crisis. Tell me what you think. I this isn't to make anybody upset. It's just the data. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We will talk about the cost of Trump's war in Iran, we will talk about Bill Clinton's Epstein testimony, and we will talk about Bernie's new billionaire tax. All of that and more on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com I will see you then.