Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
Michael Knowles
Folks, have you ever seen my show Bar Fight? Duke it out, usually with two libs at John Rich's Redneck Riviera in Nashville, live in front of a big audience. Well, this week we're gonna make the show 100% live, including live to you, the online audience. No delay, no censor button, no panic producer waving his arms in the corner. We're going live from Broadway in Nashville for a special war in Iran episode with anti Trump liberal guest Luke Beasley and anti war right winger Alex Stein. Watch Bar Fight with me. Michael Knowles, 9:00pm Eastern, exclusively on Daily Wire. Plus, did Marco Rubio just admit that Israel dragged us into war with Iran?
- [00:43]
Marco Rubio
The second question that been asked is why now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond to and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic and in fact, it bear to be true because in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter, had already been activated to launch. In fact, those had already been pre positioned. The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the president made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.
- [01:47]
Michael Knowles
There you have it. Israel forced our hand. Trump had no choice. And this has all been a game of catch up since Bibi Netanyahu laid down the law. That's what Rubio said, right? Well, not so fast. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. In non Iran related news, the Clintons were just deposed by the House Oversights Committee in Chappaqua. So this was under oath. And Bill Clinton seemed somewhat interested in the truth. He seemed to be giving truthful answers, including about President Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But even more than that, he seemed to be interested in those old pictures of him with the girls in the jacuzzis. He really, he lingered over those pictures, little smile on Old Bubba's face. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com knowles k w l E S It's that time again. Spring cleaning. And you know exactly where to begin. You go on ahead. You dust off that tired old wireless contract that's hiding in the back of your drawer, and you show at the door. You will feel lighter. And then you can freshen things up by switching to our sponsor, PureTalk, my wireless company, which gives you unlimited talk, text and plenty of data for 25 bucks a month. No contract, no cancellation fees, no overseas customer service. If you ever need help. This is awesome. And I know everyone thinks, well, there's got to be a catch. Maybe it's on bad cell towers or something, right? No, it's on the best cell towers. It is on the best cell towers that major carriers use. It's just PureTalk doesn't have all that infrastructure with like, you know, sales forces and stores and stuff like that. So they pass on the savings to you and they have American customer service and they support the things that you support. And you can even take it overseas and you get great phones and $25 a month. You can't beat it. I Love, love, love PureTalk. You will, too. It is time for you to make the Switch. Go to PureTalk.comKnowles you will save 50% off your first month. PureTalk.comKnowles Switch to a wireless company that shares your values. PureTalk, America's wireless company. Rubio seems to lay it out, doesn't he? This video is going viral all over social media. Rubio says, look, the reason we struck, the reason we launched a preemptive attack, is because we had very firm intelligence that Iran was going to attack us, our interests and our bases around the Middle East. And the reason Iran was going to attack us, the way that we know that that is the case, is because Israel was gonna attack Iran and Israel was gonna attack Iran whether we wanted them to or not. And Iran, we had the plans, we had the orders from the commanders. Iran was gonna punish us for what Israel did, even though we had no control over what Israel was gonna do. So in order to stave off the attack from Iran, in response to the attack, Israel, we had to launch an attack on Iran. So the conclusion is Israel dragged us into war with Iran. Right? That's the conclusion that people are drawing from the clip. And it's a totally understandable reaction. However, that little clip misses a lot of other context that Marco Rubio himself Actually gives. Here's the full context from Rubio. The US Was forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action. No, first.
- [05:29]
Marco Rubio
Well, I mean, two things I would say. Number one is, no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That's the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran, in about a year or a year and a half, would cross the line of immunity. Meaning they would have so many short range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage. Look at the damage they're doing now. And this is a weekend Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen, no matter what.
- [06:01]
Michael Knowles
Very important context here, because if you only saw the first clip, you would say, I don't know, you would interpret it as Rubio saying, look, guys, we didn't want to go to war with Iran. We didn't want to strike them, but these Israelis made us do it. And we had no option because we were going to get blamed for their attack. So we had to do it, but we didn't want to. They made us do it. But then Rubio in the very same press conference, makes clear that is not what he means. He says, no, no, no, we were gonna do this eventually. We were gonna do this sometime over the course of the next year. Iran was already getting much stronger. They were going to have crossed the threshold of immunity, meaning they would have been immune to our attacks in the future. Now some people are hearing this and they're saying, well, hold on, hold on, hold on. Last summer you guys said that you completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program. So how can you tell me that they would be close to the threshold of immunity to six months later? That doesn't make any sense. Either you were lying then or you're lying now. But that's not what Rubio said. You have to pay attention to exactly what the administration is saying. They are giving you answers. They are making a coherent argument. Some people don't want to hear it, though. He said that the advancements in their missile systems would have been too great a year or a year and a half from now, and that would have given them immunity. Not the advancement in their nuclear program, the advancement in their regular conventional missile systems. The regular and conventional missile systems, which of course exist in no small part to protect the nuclear program that they had already made clear. They planned to develop. Again, this is not, you know, reading between the lines. Like Saddam Hussein, 20 years ago, the Iranians were not exactly holding the ball or hiding the ball. Rather, on their nuclear intentions, they have been consistent for decades that they want a nuclear weapon, or rather that they want a nuclear program that they insist will only be used for civilian use. And there I think we can read it at least a little tiny bit between the lines and understand that they clearly want a nuclear weapon. So that was the issue. Rubio says, no, no, no, we were always gonna do this at some point. However, the fact that the Israelis were going to go in means that this was the time to do it. Now, couple ways to read this. You could either read this just on its face and say, okay, yeah, I guess the Israelis were gonna do it and that kind of forced our hand. We were probably gonna do it anyway, but that's why we did it right now. Or you can maybe read a little more political cover in this because I think the way that a lot of people are interpreting this statement, they think that Netanyahu called up and said, hey buddy. Hey Abibi Trump. Listen, bro, we're going in tomorrow. So you can, you want, but you're gonna get punished for what we do, but we're doing it tomorrow. Sorry, peace. I don't think that's really what happened here. And the reason I don't think that's what happened is we have been gradually but severely building up our military assets outside of Iran for two months now. So the notion that Israel gave us the heads up and said, hey, look, we're going in, do what you want, do what you want. You're gonna get punished for what we're doing, but do what you want, but we're going in on Saturday. It obviously wasn't just that. Cuz that wouldn't explain the massive and gradual military buildup in the Gulf for the past two months now. One explanation for this is that it flies a little bit of political cover for the administration. We'll get to more on that in a second. However, clearly this was the intention of the administration and there are a lot of people out there, including Trump supporters, especially the online class, you know, the podcaster class of Trump supporters who say this is ridiculous. We were told no new wars. We certainly wouldn't go to war with Iran. This is a complete betrayal by President Trump and by the whole administration of MAGA and America. First, where did. If we had known that America was gonna go to war with Iran, we never would have voted for them. Especially if we had known that we weren't even gonna choose to go to war, we were gonna get, gonna get dragged into war by Israel. We were gonna have to back up one of their attack. We would not have voted for Trump. He's a liar. This is a betrayal. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm not even gonna focus on. President Trump has been clear for 10 years that he's not gonna let Iran get a nuclear weapon and that he's gonna oppose Iran. And he made pretty clear he doesn't like that they kept trying to kill him. But let's go even deeper into the administration. What about the Vice President? People are accusing J.D. vance of hypocrisy here, of lying, deception, hiding the ball. Let me rewind to the vice presidential debate in October of 2024 when JD Vance was asked this exact question and he gave this excellent answer.
- [10:57]
JD Vance
Now, you asked about a preemptive strike, Margaret, and I want to answer the question. Look, it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. And we should support our allies wherever they are when they're fighting the bad guys. I think that's the right approach to take with the Israel question.
- [11:12]
Michael Knowles
Whether you agree with this, whether you don't agree with this, you cannot accuse the Trump administration of flip flopping here. You cannot accuse the Trump administration of hiding the ball or deceiving voters. They promised to do exactly what they are doing now. The thing that they have been very clearly telegraphing for the past two months with the military buildup in the Gulf. Now, what about this kind of a strike? Some people would say, okay, well, it's one thing to strike Iran, but it's another to launch this massive offensive that could destabilize the regime and topple the top head of the regime. And surely they were hiding the ball on that. Right? Right. Let's go back to July of 2024 with the Vice President.
- [11:59]
JD Vance
The most important part, I think, of the Trump doctrine and foreign policy is you don't commit America's troops unless you really have to. But when you do, you punch and you punch hard. I think that's the way that you respect America's brave men and women who are serving. Now, let me say something about when you say that.
- [12:14]
Michael Knowles
Does that like, for example, how President Trump beat the Caliphate with overwhelming force and it was done pretty fast.
- [12:20]
JD Vance
How President Trump beat the caliphate, beat isis, which people said literally couldn't be done, and he did it in a matter of months. But also Iran, Sean, a lot of People recognize that we need to do something with Iran, but not these weak little bombing runs. If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard. And that's what he did when he took out Soleimani, by the way. That action people said that it would lead to broader war. It actually brought peace. It actually checked the Iranians and slowed them down a little bit.
- [12:46]
Michael Knowles
We'll get into what is exactly happening right now. We'll get into the calculation whether it was a wise move to do this, to do it now, to do. We'll get in. I just want to clear the air though, for a moment because there's so much confusion among the right wing, chattering pundit class. If you are surprised by President Trump's actions, by the administration's actions in Iran, that's on you. You were not paying attention. They told you they were gonna do this repeatedly in great detail and then they telegraphed the buildup for the past two months in the Gulf. So it's one thing to say, well, I, you know, I, I just hoped they wouldn't do it. I hope they were just kidding. I thought that was a bad idea. Okay, but please do not accuse this administration of hypocrisy, of contradicting itself, of flip flopping, of being led around by a collar or something. They were totally clear. This is what they campaigned on. And if you voted for them and you didn't have cotton in your ears, this is what you voted for. Now, what we could still wonder is, was this action in Iran? Iran, do we say it? Iran is how I grew up saying it. But then Barack Obama made us have to get all cosmopolitan. Iran, whatever you want to call it, pretty soon we'll be calling it Persia again. Was this just about the US And Israel? First question, was this just about Israel? Second question, was this just about the US And Israel? Actually, there seem to be more interests at stake even beyond those two countries. First though, I want to tell you about Equip foods. Go to equipfoods.com michaelnols you guys have heard me talk about our sponsor Equip's prime bars in the past. Equip is all about making healthy habits simple and sustainable with their delicious clean grass fed beef prime bar. It is the first of its kind, Grass fed beef protein bar with only real ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide. 20 grams of clean protein. Most protein bars are loaded with sugar and ingredients you cannot even pronounce. Equip is changing that. Starting today, our listeners will receive an exclusive discount on prime bar which has become our team's favorite protein bar in the market with 20 grams of protein in every bar. Made with just 11 clean ingredients including collagen, beef tallow, Colostrum, naturally sweetened with dates and honey, delivers 20 grams of that grass fed beef protein without the bloat. Free from whey, seed oils, gluten and artificial additives. They've got these great flavors, chocolate, mixed berry, peanut butter and churro. Strongly recommend especially the chocolate and the peanut butter. These bars are dessert worthy, clean protein without the junk. I love this stuff in part because I hate protein bars and these fix all the problems of protein bars. Go to equipfoods.com michaelnols all one word use code Michael Knowles at checkout that's M I C H A E L K N A W L E S. Get 25% off one time purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time. Equipfoods.com Michael Knowles Use code Michael Knowles at checkout. One of the questions that comes up, especially in our dealings with Israel, which, you know, as I've pointed out, it's a troublesome province. It's been a troublesome province since the Roman Empire. You know, a lot of controversies and things pop off there. It's something about that part of the world. But you say, okay, well, is it only about the Americans and the Israelis? Is this an issue of the Christians and the Jews versus the whole Muslim world? I don't quite think so. Here is the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin salman, talking to 60 Minutes about the Ayatollah of Iran. You've been rivals for centuries. At its heart. What is this rift about? Is it a battle for Islam?
- [16:34]
Mohammed bin Salman
Iran is not a rival to Saudi Arabia. Its army is not among the top five armies in the Muslim world. The Saudi economy is larger than the Iranian economy. Iran is far from being equal to Saudi Arabia.
- [16:46]
Michael Knowles
But I've seen that you called the Ayatollah Khamenei the new Hitler of the Middle East.
- [16:52]
Mohammed bin Salman
Absolutely.
- [16:53]
Michael Knowles
Why?
- [16:56]
Mohammed bin Salman
Because he wants to expand. He wants to create his own project in the Middle east. Very much like Hitler who wanted to expand. At the time, many countries around the world and in Europe did not realize how dangerous Hitler was until what happened, happened. I don't want to see the same events happening in the Middle East.
- [17:12]
Michael Knowles
Does Saudi Arabia need nuclear weapons to counter Iran?
- [17:17]
Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb. But without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.
- [17:27]
Michael Knowles
So, you know, look it is very simple. Iran sucks, is totally terrible. We hate them. We've been enemies for a long time. They are weak and they are poor, and we hate their guts. Also. The leader of Iran is Hitler. He is Hitler. He wants to expand. He is a threat to the entire region and maybe to the whole world. And by the way, if he gets what he says that he wants, we're going to have nuclear proliferation throughout the entire region. But, you know, do whatever you want, America. It is. No, it's totally up to you. You do whatever you want. I'm just telling you, this guy, he is Hitler. And we will get a nuclear weapon if he gets a nuclear weapon. And the whole world will go up in smoke. But, you know, but do whatever you want. Oh, by the way, he's also really weak, and you could totally take him out really easy, you know, but, like, do whatever you want. I don't know my Saudi. My Arabian accent needs a little bit of work. But we see the point here. Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudis obviously were in favor of this action in Iran. And so regardless of whatever you think of this action, we cannot reduce it to some nonsense that you're seeing floating all around social media that this was haphazard, this was shooting from the hip. This wasn't shooting from the hip. President Trump has been planning this for years. This wasn't just the tail wagging the dog. Sometimes Israel does have too much influence in our foreign policy. But here it's reductive to say this is just the Israelis who wanted this, and we got dragged kicking and screaming. You have another key American ally, the Saudis, who are clearly pushing for this. You now have other Gulf states involved, and you have Trump pushing for it for a long time. Whether or not you agree with the strike on Iran, this was an example of grand strategy. And this was the point of my show yesterday. I broke out that clip and it started to go a little bit viral because, I don't know, people just don't want to give Trump the credit. And to me, it's so obvious if in the first term, one of your crowning achievements is the Abraham Accords, which bring about a little bit of a detente between some of the Arab Muslim states in the Gulf and Israel, which is widely viewed in the Middle east as an outgrowth of the American empire, and they generally have not gotten along very well. If you can bring them together in opposition to Iran, and then you reify that more abstract coalition with missiles, now that Iran miscalculated and started firing on the Gulf states, including Kuwait, including Saudi Arabia, including Oman. So you get the Gulf states, really practically in a kind of military alliance with Israel and the United States to oppose Iran, you are reshaping the world order. No coincidence that hours after the attacks on Iran, Russia picks up the phone. Russia says, you know what? We're not gonna defend our client state in Iran. We're not gonna defend them, whatever. And they even make some jokes about it. According to some reports, they say, well, look, in Israel, a lot of people speak Russian, okay? We're not gonna get involved. We don't wanna go again, don't wor it. We're gonna hang the Ayatollah out to dry. And by the way, those security guarantees you wanted in Ukraine, okay, you got them. Just back off, okay? China obviously on the back foot because the United States has just taken control of almost 20% of oil that goes to China from Venezuela and Iran. All of a sudden, you are seeing a reshifting of the world order in a way that, at least in theory, President Trump believes will benefit America. It will achieve his grand strategic objective, which he has not been deceptive about, he hasn't been shy about it, is to make America great again. That's clearly the theory. There is plenty of room for skepticism of this particular strike, but what there's not really room for is ignorance or deception or self deception or fooling yourself that this was an accident or just a fumble. This has been the plan for a very, very long time. Trump has been clear about it. I said yesterday, putting all my cards on the table, I said, had I been on the National Security Council, no one invited me, but had I been on the National Security Council with only the information that was public, I'm not privy to classified information. We're starting to get some information that the government apparently had with regard to orders from commanders about how and attacks from Israel and this and that. So the picture's starting to get clear. But I said, if I only had the publicly available information on Friday, I would have advocated strenuously against an attack on Iran, because I would have done the calculation. I would have said, I don't think that the costs are worth the potential benefits. I don't think the risk calculation pans out as we begin to learn more information about these unknowns, the efficiency with which we could conduct such a war. That's information that really the government is privy to, not so much the public. And as we learn more about the timeline and threats posed by Iran, then that calculation could change. But the key here is that is a calculation from within, not the isolationist, which is even in itself a term of derision. Not from the isolationist box of foreign policy, not from the hawk neocon, bomb every country in the world to spread abstract ideals form of foreign policy. It's that middle box, the one that says we're gonna pursue our interests in a pragmatic and prudent way. We're going to make sure that we pursue material interests and we're going to take serious calculation of balances of power around the world. It's a little more realistic, it's a little more classical. That's what's going on. And reasonable minds could disagree, especially when people have different levels of information about whether or not the strike is a good idea or not. But in terms of the end strat, the grand strategy, I don't think there's much, much room for disagreement. Okay. Two other comments are going viral on this, one from Democrat Senator Mark Warner, the other from House Speaker Mike Johnson, that are leading some people to think this was a big bungle or we got bullied into this or the administration is compromised or not thinking. And we'll get into those comments in just a moment. First, I want to tell you about lean. Go to takelean.com, enter Knowles K N A W L E S this episode is sponsored by Brickhouse Nutrition. You've probably heard about those weight loss injections that everyone's been talking about for good reason. President Trump calls them the fat shot. Well, the results can be pretty incredible. They work by helping regulate blood sugar and keeping your appetite in check. But here's the thing. Not everyone wants to deal with weekly injections, especially when you start hearing about some of the side effects that can come with them. That is where Lean comes in. It's a weight loss supplement developed by doctors, and people are seeing some really impressive results. The ingredients in Lean are backed by research showing that they can help lower blood sugar, turn stored fat into energy, and reduce those constant cravings and hunger pangs that make dieting so hard. One important thing to know, Lean is not just designed for someone who wants to drop a couple pounds. The doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition specifically formulated it for people struggling to lose 10 pounds or more. Multiple producers at the Daily Wire, multiple employees at the Daily Wire have tried lean. They've been so impressed with how effective it is in such a short period of time. Let's get you started. 20% off free rush shipping so you can add lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Go to takelean.com, enter knowles for your discount. That is promo code knowles K N A W l e s@takelean.com Mark Warner, Democrat Senator has this to say about the operation said before.
- [25:15]
Mark Warner
I've said now there was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory. Israel is a great ally of America. I stand firmly with Israel. But I believe at the end of the day, when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm's way, when we have American casualties and expectations of
- [26:03]
Michael Knowles
more,
- [26:05]
Mark Warner
there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests.
- [26:12]
Michael Knowles
This guy's such a slick politician. Such a slick politician. Cuz what he says, if you're not paying close attention, it seems kind of persuasive. And yet let's examine all the points that he just brought up. He says there was no imminent threat to America. So he's contradicting Rubio here. And more to the point, he's contradicting the reality that already unfolded because Rubio's argument is not that Iran was going to attack us just out of the blue. Rubio's argument was Israel is going to attack whether we want to or not. And Iran is going to punish us for Israel's attack, even if we're not involved in Israel's attack. Because Iran makes no distinction between Israel and the United States and views Israel as an American colony, part of the American empire. Now, we know that immediately upon the attack from Israel, we know that the Iranians hit American interests. So right off the bat, what Warner's saying is not true. He's using slippery language, but it's not true. Yeah, I guess they didn't hit Detroit, but they did hit American interests. We have interests all over the world. We're the global empire. Next up, he says, look, there was a threat to Israel, but there was no threat to America. Okay, There was a threat to Israel and we should not conflate Israeli and American interests as if they're identical. That I totally agree with. I think every reasonable person other than the hawkiest, most NEO Connie war hawks in the world would agree with that. But is that what's going on here? No, we were just talking about. The threat to Americans was in Kuwait. The threat to Americans was in all of our bases, all of our personnel, all of our interests around the Gulf. That's what Iran hit. They also hit Israel, but those are two different things. And then he goes in. So he says, basically, Israel dragged us into war. These guys, they've hypnotized the Trump administration. They, they have dragged us into war. Trump has no agency. It's all Netanyahu dragging him around by a dog collar. But look, I totally stand by our great ally Israel. Oh, Israel's such a great ally. And this gives away the game with what Warner's doing here. Cause on the one hand he says these tricky Jews are dragging us around and they're killing our boys and they're, you know, they're just recklessly putting us into danger. But they're also a great ally. Well, you gotta pick one, buddy. Which one? Hold on. You've made just completely contradictory arguments now. Why? Because what Warner is doing here clearly is not giving a sober assessment of the situation. He's lying about what happened from the very get go. What he is doing, and it's very clever, is he is exploiting a fissure on the right. He knows that the Israel issue, much as it is a fissure on the left. You have the kind of pro Israel establishment Dems and then you have the anti Israel Democrat base marching around with Greta Thunberg in the Palestine. Kefiyeh, much as you have that fissure on the left, you also have that fissure on the right. Now the debate on the right is a little bit more balanced and nuanced. It's not all Greta Thunberg. It's not all free, free Palestine from the river to the sea. There's a little eccentricity to it, but it's traditionally been more of a sober debate over how much influence should Israel have on our foreign policy. What are the benefits of the Israel alliance? How much money should we give Israel if we give them any money at all? You know, these are all totally open for debate. That debate has gotten a lot hotter. It's become a lot more radical and Warner is trying to exploit that while still carving out both sides of the issue. Oh yeah, dirty, rotten, filthy Israel is just dragging us into war and trying to get all our boys killed. But they're a great ally. We really love them. They're a great ally. We stand with them. I stand with them. I'm Mark Warner, am the strongest supporter of Israel, the nefarious devil state that keeps dragging our boys into war. I stand with Israel. Hold on. A little schizophrenic there, Mark, wouldn't you say so? That's one of the statements going around. It's well done from a purely cynical political Perspective, it's getting the job done. The various propagandists, both partisan domestically, but also around the world, are sending that clip around. So he did a good job, not in conveying the truth, but he did a good job in advancing his political team. Now, the second clip that's going around is House Speaker Mike Johnson describing why this operation in Iran was not, as it appears, I think, to most people, an offensive operation, but was, in fact, a defensive operation.
- [30:42]
Mike Johnson
To me, the most critical point is that this was a defensive measure, a defensive operation. And why is that? I took some notes, and this is not classified, so I'll tell you what I think is important. Israel was determined to act in their own defense here, with or without American support.
- [31:01]
Michael Knowles
Why?
- [31:01]
Mike Johnson
Because Israel faced what they deemed to be an existential threat. Iran was building missiles at a radical in a rapid clip to the point where our allies in the region could not keep up. As you know, Iran has long vowed to take out Israel, wipe it off the map, and they have long seen that as a critical threat to their very existence. Because Israel was determined to act with or without the US Our commander in chief and the administration and the officials I just named had a very difficult decision to make. They had to evaluate the threats to the US to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond.
- [31:47]
Michael Knowles
Okay, this is unlike what Warner was saying. This is a pretty good argument, though it's counterintuitive for a lot of people. Now, look, we launched the first bombs, so doesn't that mean this was an offensive action rather than a defensive action? Well, Rubio is providing some cover here, and Rubio is saying, well, hold on. We knew that Israel was going to strike, and we knew with as much certainty as one can possibly know in war. We knew the orders had been given that we would be attacked as a result of that strike, and we knew the strike was going to happen. Therefore, our attacking Iran was a defensive measure, not an offensive measure. Show me the flaw in that argument. Unless you just don't believe Rubio, unless you don't believe the intelligence, which is, okay, fair enough. But then we can't even have an argument. We're not even beginning from the same epistemological basis. Unless you just say, no, la, la, la, I don't believe you. There's no flaw in the argument. So what Warner is doing is exploiting a fissure on the right. What Johnson is doing is observing a fact that gives the administration political cover here. If this is an urgent, imminent defensive action, it gives the admin A lot more cover, legal and political. Totally right. Okay, one last point before we get to Bill Clinton talking about sitting in the hot tub with girls and Jeffrey Epstein. There's this question that's come about. Is this a just war? Is the strike on Iran, the ongoing strikes on Iran, are they an example of a just war? And some people throw out the idea of international law. Some people throw out the idea of the jus gentium. Some people throw out the idea that there is an such thing as justice in war. Some people are hardcore pacifists or peaceniks or whatever. Again, I refer you, if you are tempted to be a pacifist on the grounds of Christianity, I strongly urge you to read, at the very least, C.S. lewis's excellent 20th century essay about why he is not a pacifist, why Christians should not be pacifists. But in any case, there's a long standing tradition going back to Cicero, going back to the pagans, but developed throughout the history of Christendom and maybe perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas, the common doctor and the angelic doctor, which says that some wars are justified, but they have to be justified on certain grounds. And so just looking at this action here, we'll pull out a handful of the principles that go along with just war and we'll see if this qualifies. It has to be the last resort. Diplomatic negotiation has to be exhausted. Now, we've been negotiating with Iran for a very long time and there are gonna be people who tell you after 47 years of negotiations and recently after six months of negotiations following a massive bombing on the nuclear program, very intensive negotiat. And after many, many years of top level American to Iranian negotiations, there will be people who look you in the face and tell you we were this close to a deal. If we only had a couple more weeks, we would have gotten a deal with the Iranians. I think most people, though, looking at the history of the last 47 years and especially of the last six months, will tell you we, the United States, and especially Donald Trump, did everything that they could to negotiate and diplomacy failed. The second qualification for a just war is it has to be waged by legitimate authority. I know some libs still don't want to acknowledge that Trump won the election in 2016 and 2024. Maybe 2020, but at least 2024. But it's a legitimate authority. The US government is a legitimate authority. President Trump is legitimately the president. Number three, it has to redress an injury. Iran has killed roughly 1,000 of our soldiers over the past 47 years, over the course of the regime. This goes back to the 1980s, but you especially saw this. Well, actually, it goes back to the very founding of the Islamic regime in Iran, because the Islamic regime in Iran began by taking American hostages. But then you had the Beirut barracks bombings in the 80s. You had hundreds of US soldiers killed by Iran in the global war on terror. And Iran was killing U.S. troops, three U.S. troops, just two years ago. So this is ongoing. Clearly, there's an injury to redress, to say nothing of the threat to the global order, that the Iranian weapons program posed a reasonable chance of success. Yeah. Okay. This one reasonable minds can differ on because they might say, well, the situation in Iran is gonna spin out of control and it's gonna wind up worse than it was when we started. But I think looking at the United States military, the strongest military force ever in the history of the world, along with the amazing diplomatic breakthroughs of President Trump because of the Abraham Accords, because of his good relationships with the Gulf states, I think you'd have to say, at the very least, they have a reasonable chance of success. The goal is to reestablish peace. Obviously, that's the case. President Trump is a business guy, and he's a New Yorker business guy, and he knows that blood is bad for business. President Trump, I think, has demonstrated over both terms that he wants to reestablish peace proportionality, that the goods to be achieved have to be reasonable to the risks that you're taking. Again, reasonable minds can disagree on this. I think there's a good case that it is. And then finally, number seven, you have to discriminate between combatants and non combatants, which the United States does and ironically, which Iran does not do, because Iran had one foot in the international order, one foot outside of the international order, and Iran was the largest state sponsor of terror. So a terrorism, which, of course, does not distinguish between combatants and non combatants, between soldiers and civilians, and which targets civilians to achieve political ends. Seems to me. What am I? I'm not a. I'm not an academic of any sort. I'm not a moral philosopher. I'm not a theologian. However, just as a simple layman, looking at the political situation, seems like there's a decent case for justice in this strike. Okay, speaking of morality, I want to get to Bill Clinton, deposed under oath. Not that. Not that speaking under oath has always meant that much to Bill Clinton, but we will get his take on Epstein. What was he doing in that hot tub with those little chickies? What did President Trump know about Jeffrey Epstein? What does Clinton know about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? We'll get to that momentarily. First, though, my favorite comment yesterday from pyro5263 says, Breaking district judge overturns Khamenei's death. That's true. It's really. It's unfortunate, you know, and I'm sure it'll go up to the Supreme Court. But, yeah, according to the mainstream media, I'm sure there's an article about this somewhere. A district court judge has brought Khamenei back to life, said Trump had no right to kill him. So, anyway, Bill Clinton deposed by the House Oversight Committee. My favorite clip from the whole deposition, from the whole testimony. President Trump, sorry. President Clinton answers the questions of these congressmen. It was James Comer. It was Nancy Mace, I think Anna Paulina Luna. And then he's sitting there looking at the pictures that they hand to him. Some of these girls. Bubba in the hot tub, hanging out with Jeffrey. And he just lingers like he's taking a trip down memory lane. Do we have the clip? Look at him. Look at. His mouth is open. He's almost salivating. The lawyer goes and takes the pictures, and he grabs him back. Hold on a second here. Oh, there she is. Look at him. Look. You couldn't make this up. Eyebrows go up, smile on his face. Oh, hey there. That's right. Mr. President, we have Blondie. Five minutes remaining in the majority's first hour. Five minutes. I'm gonna need a little bit longer with these pigs. Questions related to the crimes committed by Mr. Epstein and Ms. Matthew.
- [39:39]
Bill Clinton
Sorry.
- [39:40]
Michael Knowles
He's not looking at him. Sorry, I can't. My mind was on something. Could you repeat the question, please? Could you just. Some are wondering if Bill Clinton has lost a step. You know, Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, the guy is super duper smart, very intelligent guy. Slick Willy. Manages to sneak out of an impeachment conviction by questioning the meaning of the word is. He's pretty. But I kind of see this more as the DGAF phase of Bill Clinton. Jokes come up about this. Like, why did Jeffrey Epstein say you liked young girls? I've never had any interest in underage girls. I didn't say underage, Mr. President. I said young. Mm. Well, yeah, not that either, you know, is an intern young. That was one of the questions. And Clinton just goes, yes, I guess you'd say that, wouldn't you? What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do for Bill Clinton? And by the way, because he's just laying it all out on the table, including salivating over these pictures from the good old days with Jeffrey. Bill Clinton has this to say about Trump's relationship with Epstein.
- [40:55]
Bill Clinton
I hate this, but because I don't believe I should inject anything, but I do not want to leave the impression, since there was no follow up question, he never, the president never, this is 20 something years ago, never said anything to me to make me think he was involved in anything improper with regard to have seen either. He just didn't. That's the truth. You know, as I said earlier, the only conversation I had with President Trump about this was in the early 2000s. And I have no information that he did anything wrong. I just want it all out there. I want everybody to get it all out there and let everybody see where we are.
- [41:52]
Michael Knowles
Look, I didn't, I mean, look, I hate the guy and he's terrible and everything, but it just didn't, he didn't do anything wrong. What I love here is I guess some libs, some of the people who are still contending against all facts that there's a smoking gun about Trump in the Epstein files. There obviously isn't. If there had been, Biden would have used it. They were trying to prosecute him four different ways. They were trying to kick him off ballots. They justified killing him. I think they would have used it if they had a smoking gun from the Epstein falls. But Clinton here, I think this is DGAF Clinton, he's not trying to hide turning his intern into a human humidor. He's not trying to hide any of his past predilections and vices. He's sitting there reminiscing nostalgic over these old photos with Jeffrey and then he comes out, he goes, look, I'm just, I'll be real with you. I don't. Trump didn't really do anything bad with Jeffrey. I don't, Look, I don't. We talked about it like one time and Buddy didn't love it. Dems destroyed. Worth it. It was worth it, the whole deposition just to get that line. There are also some videos going around of Hillary Clinton just losing her mind and shrieking like a succubus from hell in the deposition. Maybe we'll have time to get to that tomorrow. We're running a little short on time and I do wanna get to one last point. Vindicating, actually the administration and the conservative policies that we've seen over the last year, even as some people go a little weak in the need this has nothing to do with Iran. This has nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. This is in Charlotte, North Carolina, where a driver has just gone viral for trying to run over a cop. Shit, boss. Don't need no commentary. Crazy. Look at that. For those of you who are just listening right now, this is not even a light little tap. You know, this is a guy accelerating, but it's not a huge car. It's just a little sedan. Thank God. I think the cop is okay. He rolls off the hood of the car. But this is a reminder that for weeks we were told. Well, we were told conflicting stories. We were told that the ICE officers executed a poor, innocent protester in Minneapolis through the driver's side window. And then when we saw that the bullet went through the windshield, we heard, okay, well, the ICE officer executed a poor protester just sitting in her car, minding her own business. Then when we saw the car was moving, we were told, well, no, they executed a poor protester for trying to flee a cop. Again, don't try to flee a cop. But then we actually got the video, and we saw that the wheel was turned to face the cop. So then we were told, well, the cop executed a poor protester because her wheel was briefly turned facing him. And then we got the full story, which is she hit the cop with her suv. She hit the cop, and he shot her. And his shot was absolutely the correct thing to do. The person entirely responsible for that woman's death was that woman. And the cop was totally justified. It's sad, but it was totally justified. And now when we see other incidents like this, I mean, thank God that cop was alive. He didn't get totally run over by the car. He easily could have been killed. Part of. And the cop would have been totally justified to shoot that guy, too. Part of inflicting punishment is not just justice. I mean, justice is part of it. And, you know, I guess that is the most important part of inflicting punishment on somebody through our criminal justice system and through our law enforcement officers. But another important part of inflicting punishment is establishing and reaffirming standards. Part of what was so sad about that lady in Minnesota getting shot after hitting the cop with her SUV is that she didn't realize that was going to happen. She didn't realize that was the consequence of her actions. Her lesbian partner started shrieking, why did the gun have bullets in it? The lesbian partner didn't, who was encouraging the woman to be out there and to be provoking the cops. The lesbian partner didn't realize that guns have bullets in them. And you might say, well, yeah, she's a crazy lady. Yeah, she's ignorant. Well, no, not, yeah, sure. But also, we have been living for years and years now in a political society that does not punish criminals, that lets criminals off the hook, that often doesn't arrest them. When we arrest them, we let them out of jail immediately. We let rioters run roughshod and kill dozens of people and destroy property. We let them attack cops and we don't do anything about it. So then when President Trump comes in, when a conservative administration comes in and says, hey, cops, hey, federal officers, we got your back, the rioters, the anarchists, they don't know what to do. Just the ordinary libs who are living under these standards, they don't know what to do. And part of enforcing the law is re establishing those standards so that people don't put themselves in those bad situations in the first place. Part of the mass deportations, part of the major show force to deport these people, some of it is to get those specific people out. But a lot of it is to tell the other illegals here, you gotta go, leave now or we're gonna come get you. Which is why you had now, according to multiple sources, mass self deportations last year, probably more self deportations than formal government deportations. Part of that message is to tell the illegal aliens who are at our southern border right now, don't come in. You're not going to get away with it. This is part of what's going on in Iran. The United States as an empire has been declining for at least 25 years, and probably more than that. We have been declining and our adversaries have been gaining. We were the sole global hegemon after the Cold war, for the 90s up until 9 11. And then after 9 11, things started to go a little squirrely. And you saw China start to rise in part because of stupid decisions by politicians in the United States that Trump explicitly ran against, like letting China into the World Trade Organization by going soft on Russia. Not playing Russia properly. As we saw under Obama and as we saw under Biden, Trump played Russia pretty well. Russia did not aggress under Trump's watch. Russia did go invade and further invade countries under Bush, under Obama and under Biden, but not under Trump. You saw these powers start to threaten the United States, start to threaten dollar hegemony, start to threaten our military assets, start to threaten our interests around the world, start to move into places like Africa and the Middle east and Latin America, move into Places like Venezuela. And what Trump has done here and what he campaigned on is it's a gamble, but it's a grand strategy. He's saying no more. We're going to reset the standards. We're gonna reset the whole world order. And we're gonna do so in a way that benefits America and at least gives us a chance of being great again. Because right now we're on a steep slope to decline. Will this work? We don't know. We don't know if the Iran Gambit was a smart one. No one can. Anyone who's telling you they know how this is gonna turn out right now is just making it up. We do know that Putin offered security guarantees in Ukraine hours after the strike on Iran. We do know that China has to come up with 20% of its oil right now. We do know that this has flexed American power again. And it has put our adversaries on the back foot. And that's the sort of thing if you want to be strong and you want to be great again, that's the sort of thing you do have to do. We can all argue over how we do it and when we do it and this way or that way, but that's the thing you have to do domestically and on the world stage. Okay, today's Tee Hee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member, use code knowlescanner WLAS at checkout for two months, free on all annual plans. Tomorrow we make war.
- [50:07]
Mark Warner
I think it's a desperate plan and foolish.
- [50:13]
Michael Knowles
I would save my people from destruction. So should you. Snu Faith is glad in his judgment.
- [50:19]
Bill Clinton
He's waiting on a miracle.
- [50:21]
Michael Knowles
And why do you tell me this? Because I think you can give him one. I lead you into victory, Uther. The men of Britain will proclaim me me king. He seeks our deliverance from God when he could so easily just give it to us with his own hands. Not long ago, you offered me the Fisher King sword. I've always believed you were meant to be High King. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield for Britain? How are we to drive out 15,000 Saxon with only two and a half thousand men? Today,
- [51:12]
Bill Clinton
Britain dies.
- [51:19]
Michael Knowles
The Pendragon cycle Rise of the Merlin now streaming only on Daily Wire.
- [51:24]
Dr. Horton Representative
Plus, your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities in Ellensburg and throughout the Greater Seattle area. Dr. Horton has the right home for you at Dr. Horton we're still building with flexible living spaces, smart home technology and two and three car garages. More communities and more homes available every day. Find your new home in Ellensburg now ready@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.