Ben of Ben & Jerry’s Exposes the Motives Behind War With Russia & the Politicians That Sold Out

Summary

Summary of “Ben of Ben & Jerry’s Exposes the Motives Behind War With Russia & the Politicians That Sold Out” – The Tucker Carlson Show

Release Date: May 5, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, host Tucker Carlson engages in a profound conversation with Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. Known for his liberal activism, Cohen delves deep into the motivations behind the United States' involvement in international conflicts, particularly focusing on the war between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing on historical insights and personal experiences, Cohen challenges mainstream narratives and exposes the intricate ties between military actions and capitalist interests.

---

Ben Cohen’s Critique of US Military Policy

Smedley Butler’s Influence

Ben Cohen opens the discussion by referencing Smedley Darlington Butler, a highly decorated Marine General from World War I, and his seminal work, War is a Racket. Cohen highlights Butler’s disillusionment with how the military was utilized to serve corporate interests rather than national defense.

Ben Cohen [02:26]: "Smedley embodies what our military has been used for—serving Wall Street and big business, not the people."

US Military Interventions for Capitalist Interests

Cohen elaborates on Butler’s perspective, emphasizing how the US military interventions have historically benefitted American corporations at the expense of foreign nations. He cites Butler’s accounts of US actions in countries like Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba, underscoring the recurring pattern of military use for economic gains.

Ben Cohen [04:40]: "Butler was a major general who exposed how the US used its military as a tool for capitalist profiteering."

---

The Russia-Ukraine War: Root Causes and US Involvement

Broken Promises on NATO Expansion

Cohen argues that the roots of the Russia-Ukraine conflict lie in the US’s expansion of NATO eastward, which violated earlier assurances to Russia. He posits that this expansion was driven by lobbying from weapons manufacturers seeking profit, rather than genuine security concerns.

Ben Cohen [06:56]: "The US expanded NATO eastward against promises made to Russia, driven by weapon manufacturers lobbying Congress."

Provoking the Conflict

He contends that US foreign policy, driven by the military-industrial complex, has directly contributed to the escalation of tensions, leading to the current war.

Ben Cohen [18:09]: "Russia didn’t just decide to invade out of nowhere; our actions played a significant role in provoking this conflict."

---

US Military Spending vs. Domestic Needs

Prioritization of Defense Budget

Cohen critiques the disproportionate allocation of the US federal budget, where over half is directed to the Pentagon, leaving minimal funds for essential services like education, healthcare, and housing.

Ben Cohen [10:22]: "Over half of the federal discretionary budget goes to the Pentagon, starving vital domestic programs."

Influence of Defense Contractors

He exposes the influence of defense contractors in shaping government policies, arguing that their vested interests perpetuate excessive military spending.

Ben Cohen [14:03]: "Weapon manufacturers are effectively dictating foreign policy through lobbying and political donations."

---

Media’s Role in War Propaganda

Controlled Narratives

Cohen criticizes the US media for presenting a one-sided narrative that demonizes Russia without acknowledging the provocations stemming from US policies. He points out the lack of diverse perspectives, particularly the Russian viewpoint.

Ben Cohen [28:23]: "The US media controls the narrative, omitting Russia’s perspective and perpetuating a biased view of the conflict."

Censorship and Self-Editorializing

He shares his experience attempting to publish an ad in the New York Times that held the US accountable for provoking the war, only to have the headline altered to maintain the prevailing pro-war sentiment.

Ben Cohen [39:07]: "Our ad titled 'The US Provoked the War in Ukraine' was changed, silencing the truth about the conflict’s origins."

---

Prospects for Peace and Ceasefire

Advocacy for Ceasefire

Cohen passionately advocates for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, questioning the necessity of prolonged conflict that results in massive loss of life.

Ben Cohen [20:06]: "We need to stop killing each other and move directly to a negotiated settlement."

Critique of the Military-Industrial Complex

He reiterates his stance against the military-industrial complex, emphasizing that profit motives drive unnecessary wars.

Ben Cohen [21:20]: "The sole motivation behind these conflicts is profit from making more and more lethal weapons."

---

Ben Cohen’s New Initiatives: Common Sense Defense

Campaign for Public Opinion Shift

Cohen announces the launch of his campaign, initially named Common Sense Defense, aimed at shifting public opinion to prioritize domestic needs over excessive military spending. The campaign seeks to engage the public directly rather than relying on lobbying Congress, which he deems ineffective.

Ben Cohen [65:21]: "Common Sense Defense is our initiative to change public opinion on defense spending, focusing on what Americans truly need."

---

Conclusion

Ben Cohen’s conversation with Tucker Carlson presents a critical examination of US foreign policy, military spending, and media influence. By drawing on historical insights and exposing the entanglement between military actions and capitalist interests, Cohen calls for a reevaluation of national priorities. His advocacy for a ceasefire in Ukraine and a shift in defense spending underscores a vision for a more peaceful and economically balanced America.

Ben Cohen [58:09]: "Our country needs to measure its strength by how many people it can help, not how many it can kill."

This episode serves as a thought-provoking exploration of the underlying motives driving international conflicts and domestic policy, urging listeners to reconsider widely accepted narratives and advocate for substantial systemic changes.

---

Note: Advertisements and promotional segments have been excluded from this summary to focus solely on the substantive content of the conversation between Tucker Carlson and Ben Cohen.

Transcript

[Tucker Carlson]

The NBA 82 game grind is done and now the real fun begins. The NBA playoffs are here and DraftKings sportsbook has you covered as an official sports betting partner of the NBA. Make it a playoff run to remember with DraftKings. Download the DraftKings sportsbook app and use code Fieldgoal. That's code Fieldgoal for new customers to get $200 in bonus bets. When you bet just five bucks only on DraftKings, the crown is yours. Gambling problem. Call 1-800- gambler in New York, 877-8-HOPENY or text hopeny467-369 in Connecticut. Help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org Please play responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino and resort in Kansas, 21 and over. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void. In Ontario, new customers only. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see DKNG co Audio.

[Ben Cohen]

Ben Cohen moved to Vermont in 1977 and co founded an ice cream company that bears his name, Ben and Jerry's. They made great ice cream. They still do. Ben Cohen became famous for his liberal political activism. The ice cream was great. His political opinions were deeply offensive to most conservatives. Fast forward to 2022 and Ben Cohen was one of the only liberals in the United States come out against the war in Ukraine. It seems like a good moment to pause and reconsider whether some of Ben Cohen's views on war are maybe not insane. Maybe they're worth hearing. Here's Ben Cohen. So that you brought a book by Smedley Darlington Butler, the most decorated Marine in World War I. He's a Marine general. He won two medals of honor and he wrote a book called War is a Racket. And for some reason it's not the most famous book ever written in English, but it probably should be War. What, what is that? And why'd you bring it?

Well, I've been kind of inspired by this quote of his. I think he, he encapsulates what's been going on in terms of how our military has been used. And you know, he's been there, done.

That, that's for sure.

And I, and I, I think about it a lot in terms of, you know, all these refugees, immigrants that are trying to get to the US and why are they trying to get to the US A lot of times it's because the US at some point in history overthrew or invaded their government or well, let's. I'll tell you what Smedley says here. Can I quote, please? So he says, I spent 33 years and four months in active military service. And during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for big business for Wall street and the bankers. Butler wrote in 1955. Then he goes on, in short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for national City bank boys to collect revenues. I helped in the raping of a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927. I helped set it up so that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.

So this was a major general in the United States Marine Corps, the single most decorated Marine when he wrote that. And I think he's pretty much forgotten now.

Yeah.

And he was much maligned after he said that.

Yeah, very much.

I mean, so you think. I guess another way of saying you think that our military heroes are the most revered people in our country. You can't, you can't criticize a man who's received two Medals of Honor and yet he crossed the line and they hated him for that.

Yeah, but he told the truth.

So how is that relevant to right now?

I think that those actions that the US has done over the years back in his time and pretty much continues to do, to essentially run the world in a way that benefits the elites in the United States, ends up causing a lot of resentment, ends up being the cause of a lot of wars, ends up being the cause of a lot of immigration and people trying to flee countries that are economically or politically unlivable. And if you go back to the root causes, you find out that there were, you know, some great liberation struggles in these countries and the US was on the other side.

Yes. What's interesting is that Spendley. But General Butler wrote that, you know, years after he left the Marine Corps, he was a hero in World War I when we were, you know, working to stop the Kaiser. You know, many Americans killed to stop the Kaiser. No one even remembers what a Kaiser is. But that was a war. The First World War was a war for, for, for democracy and freedom. It didn't work, of course, but we're hearing the same slogans now with Ukraine. And, and as then a lot of really decent, you know, good hearted people with the right motives are buying it completely. It's not, it's not just warmongers who are in favor of these wars. It's like your next door neighbor who's a good person.

Yeah, I think that's really true. The way a lot of people see it is, you know, this little country, Ukraine, got invaded by this big giant Russia. But I think what you need to understand is what provoked that war and how it could have been prevented. You know, at, at the end of the Cold War, the US made promises to Russia that they're not going to expand NATO eastward. And then we proceeded to expand NATO eastward. As a matter of fact, you know, there was, the government was not going to do that until the weapons manufacturers set up this committee to expand NATO, which was essentially the CEOs of the weapons manufacturers lobbying Congress to expand NATO. So I mean, geez, if you're a weapons manufacturer and you expand NATO, they're going to buy a lot of your stuff.

Why would the. Well first let me ask, do you think it's a reasonable request by Russia not to have NATO expand to its borders?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in the same way that, you know, the United States says that what, there's our sphere of influence. Yes. You know, I remember learning about this in, was it elementary school or middle school? That the Monroe Doctrine. Yes.

It's our divine right from God to control our hemisphere.

To control our hemisphere. And it sounded crazy to me then. And you know, I can see making sure that there's not enemies right on your borders, but in terms of controlling the whole hemisphere, I don't buy it. And, and the US has now expanded its sphere of influence to include the entire world. I mean, it's amazing. We have military commands that cover every portion of the globe. And we have 800 military bases around the world. You know, when I was growing up, you know, I heard we had a bunch of overseas bases. I figured, you know, that's cool. You know, every country must have overseas bases. And then, you know, I find out that the country who has the next most overseas bases has like five. I mean, it's the US that is using its military power to control the world to. And the fact of the matter is that the United States is 5% of the world population. So having 5% dominate the world militarily, that doesn't sound Democratic to me.

No. And it doesn't sound like it helps the United States very much.

No, I think it. I think it's incredibly harmful to the United States. First of all, we're making a lot of enemies. People don't like us being the big bully on the Hill, telling all these other countries what to do. And it sucks a huge amount of money out of our country. It's stuff that can be used for things that people really want and need. You know, you could, we could have more affordable housing. We could, we could make it so that Pete. So that the American dream could actually still happen. That people could afford a house, that you can get a decent education and that you can get childcare, that it doesn't have to cost you so much money to go to college. I mean, these things can all be done. And, you know, most other developed countries are providing that for their citizens, but the US Chooses to spend. I mean, look at this. This is a chart of the federal discretionary budget. That's the amount of money that Congress has each year to allocate to the various departments. So the big red one on top, that gets over half, that's the Pentagon. And these little slivers are like, you know, usaid, the Education Department, the Health Department, Community Development, what, whatever else the. The country does. But in terms of stuff that would actually be helpful to people living in their daily lives, it's all sucked out by the Pentagon. You know, Martin Luther King gave this speech and he talked about the Pentagon being this huge demonic sucking tube that sucks out the, the lifeblood of things like housing, schools. You know, you're, you know, everybody's school budget is always, you know, in the red or, you know, can't raise enough money. Gotta. Gotta get rid of teachers or whomever.

But I think that's when they shot him, is when he said that the race stuff was fine. That was no problem. But it was true.

He.

It is true. It was. That was the end of his life.

He was assassinated. A year to the day after he.

Made that speech is a year to the day.

To the day.

April 4, 1967. He must have given that speech. Amazing. Wow, that's amazing. Yeah, he. It's one. You know, the people in charge, I am convinced, would like Americans to hate each other on the basis of race. They don't want you to talk about the banks.

I think that's really true.

I think it is true. Okay, so back To Ukraine. You said that there was a, an association of weapons manufacturers that were lobbying Congress to expand NATO. That seems, it seems a little bit crazy that weapons manufacturers would be allowed to dictate foreign policy because the conflict is so obvious.

Well, it's just money, as you know. So they're lobbying, they're, they're, they're giving political donations to the legislators. Legalize bribery. And yeah, it's definitely a conflict of interest.

So that the, the pie. If I were to look at the, if you didn't tell me what country that was and you said there's, here's a country that spends half of more than half of its entire discretionary budget on weapons and troops. I would imagine a small country surrounded by enemies. I would not imagine a continental sized country with totally, with independent resources, enough energy, enough food, doesn't really need anything that's separated from the rest of the world by the two biggest oceans. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense, actually.

No, it, it totally doesn't.

Has the US been invaded before by a foreign army? Since 1812?

I don't think so.

No. Yeah, it's a little weird.

Yeah. I mean, and they keep on justifying these huge expenditures by coming up with enemy after enemy after enemy. So, you know, first it was the Soviet Union. So the Soviet Union collapsed and I mean Gorbachev said at the time, we will deny you of an enemy. And you know, I assumed that the Pentagon budget was going to, you know, drop hugely because that was the whole justification for it. But what the Pentagon did was that they came up with what was called the two war scenario. So now instead of the Pentagon budget being structured to defeat the Soviet Union, now what they said is it needs to be structured to fight two medium sized wars in two different places at the same time. And what do you know that's going to cost just as much as we were spending on preparing to fight the Soviet Union.

Who are the wars going to be with?

Well, I think at the time there was the axes of evil. What was that? Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, probably another one.

Yeah, it's interesting because Russia collapses, the Soviet system collapses after seven years in 1991, the summer of 91. And I kind of assumed, I think everyone assumed that we would take the win. Like we were having this Cold War all these years and they collapsed. We won. And then we could be friends and move forward because there are no more Soviet Communists left. They're gone.

Right. And they wanted to be our friend. I mean, I, I was walking on the Arbot In Moscow, people were joyful and, and they were all wearing these pins that showed a US Flag crossed with a Soviet flag. They, they wanted to be friends.

Why didn't that happen?

Because our cold warriors, who, for their whole life, you know, fighting the Soviet Union, that's. That's what they were about. They wanted to continue the Cold War. They wanted to continue having, having Russia as this enemy.

So Fast forward to 2022, February, and the conflict in Ukraine starts. And we're told that this is just like, out of nowhere, like, who could have known? And Putin wants to expand the Russian border, you know, all the way to Vienna or all the way to London or who knows? But he's just an expansionist power. He's Hitler. And Ukraine is like the backstop against his expansionism. And we need to fight Russia. You're saying that that's not actually what happened.

Right. You know, starting with the end of the Cold War, there was a promise made to Russia that kind of, in exchange for, I think it was taking down the Wall in Germany, that we're not going to expand NATO eastward.

Yes.

And I think it was James Baker, the Secretary of State, that made that promise. And then we proceeded to expand it eastward. There was one tranche of countries, and Russia was up in arms, and they objected in the most strenuous language. But we, we did it. And then we added more countries a bunch of years later, and Russia was up in arms, objected in the most strenuous language. And, you know, there might have been a few more. And then there was a statement that Ukraine was going to become part of NATO, and Russia objected in the most strenuous language. And then Russia started gathering some troops on the border and again, said in the most strenuous language that we will not tolerate having Ukraine part of NATO. We want to negotiate. They sent overtures to the U.S. i think the U.S. did not respond. We ignore you if we don't like you. We don't talk to you if we don't like you. And, and then, and then they invaded. And, you know, I, I don't think they anticipated that they were going to end up in a proxy war with the United States. And, and what's crazy about it, what, what drives me crazy is that this is war.

[Tucker Carlson]

War.

[Ben Cohen]

I mean, we're, you know, I'm shooting my machine gun at you. You're dying. You're dead. Hundreds of thousands of people on both sides have died in this war. For what? I mean, eventually the war is going to be over and there's going to be some settlement and why can't we just skip to that stage?

Well, because you don't expend missiles doing that.

I really do think that's what it's about. That's what Smedley Butler came up with. Yeah, I mean you read the whole rest of his book and he says at the end, you know, I, you know, these anti war protesters, they're, they're really good people. But you're never gonna stop the, the military industrial congressional complex until you take the profit out of it. That's what's driving all this shit is the profit that these corporations are making on making weapons which are more and more lethal.

Here's a fact of life you may not learn until you're older, but I'm going to tell you now, it's very hard to have a good time if you're wearing bad boots. In fact, it may be impossible. And that's why you need to covis. As a matter of fact, you don't just need them, you owe them to yourself. Tacova's makes western boots for everybody. Ranchers, real ranchers, lifelong cowboys, first time boot buyers and anyone in between. Every Tokova's boot is handcrafted, made by hand with over 200 meticulous steps for a broken in feel right out of the box. You don't have to compromise between looks and quality. You can have them both, whether it's a long day or a big night to. Kovas are built to last and impressed. You wouldn't believe the compliments people here get when they wear them out, which they do right now. Get 10% [e-mail] Tucker when you sign up for email and text alerts, that's 10% off at Tacova. T E C O V A S.com.

[Senator Roger Marshall]

Tucker Tucker says it best the credit card companies are ripping Americans off and enough is enough. This is Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our legislation, the Credit Card Competition act, would help end the Grip Visa and MasterCard have on us. Every time you use your credit card, they charge you a hidden fee called a swipe fee. And they've been raising it without even telling you. This hurts consumers and every small business owner. In fact, American families are paying $1,100 in hidden swipe fees each year. The Fees Visa and MasterCard Charge American are the highest in the world. Double Canada's and eight times more than Europe's. That's why I've taken action. But I need your help to help get this passed. I'm asking you to Call your senator today and demand they pass the Credit Card Competition Act.

[Ben Cohen]

Paid for by the Merchants Payments Coalition. Not authorized by any candidate or Candidates Committee.

Www.merrestancespaymentscoalition.com With the blue Cash Everyday card.

[Tucker Carlson]

It'S Easy to earn 3% cash back on groceries at U.S. supermarkets, U.S. online retail purchases and U.S. gas STAT. That's how we grow our family's little nest egg. Learn more@american express.com explore-bce terms and cash back cap apply.

[Ben Cohen]

So spend. Lee Butler. I know you know this. I think he first gave that speech 1935. Ish. And he was later kind of lumped in with bad people as somehow pro Nazi. You must be for Hitler. You know, it was like the worst slander you could level against somebody. And that's why he's forgotten. Now something very similar seems to be going on where if you say what you just said, you're pro Putin.

Yeah. Which is, I'm not pro Putin, I'm not pro Zelensky, I'm pro peace, I'm pro ceasefire. I'm pro. Stop killing each other.

So you've been that way. I mean, we're coming from different points of view, but we agree. I agree strong with everything you've said, but you're the one who's been saying the same thing for a long time. Like ever since, for the 40 years I've been eating your ice cream, which is fattening.

Sorry, I hate to say, thank you for consuming. You wear it well, you know, gotta stop eating that. You know, it is always, never trust a skinny ice cream and.

Excuse me. So I've been, I've been, you know, listening to your views on this for a long time and they haven't, they haven't changed. Do you think that your views have changed?

No, my, my view hasn't changed and Bernie's views certainly haven't changed. I've been listening to him for a long time. I tell you, it is the same freaking speech.

Yeah.

People say you should change your speech. He says, when the, when the country finally, finally acts in a, in a decent way, I'll change my speech.

So what? But Ukraine's feels a little different, like all of a sudden, you know, there were, there was always this persistent, enthusiastic anti war caucus on the left where you're coming from. Not quite mainstream Democrat, but sort of more old fashioned Democrat. They like evaporated. Maybe Chris Hedges. Jeff Sachs. Jeffrey Sachs. You like, where's everybody else?

Yeah, it really, it really split, I guess people. I mean, you're talking about People on the left. I guess we could talk about people on the left. I mean, anti war people in general.

Yeah, whatever. Left, right. I don't know.

Yeah, I think there's people like that on the left, right and Center.

That's 100 true. You're exactly right. And in fact, there are a lot of them on the right, whatever that is. I don't even. Those are fake categories at this point.

It really.

Well, let's say it was 1985. Okay. It was 40 years ago or 1988 when I lived in Burlington. That was considered like a lefty view.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so you're saying. Right, so, so some of that group is, you know, behind Ukraine, let's defend Ukraine. And some of that group is saying, no, we shouldn't be involved in this war. You know, I think the people who are saying, let's define, let's defend Ukraine, I can certainly understand it from their point of view. And their point of view is that Russia made an unprovoked invasion and Russia therefore started this war and they're trying to take over this country and we should defend that country. But people don't understand what led up to it. I mean, as a matter of fact, with the Eisenhower Media network, this group of retired admirals, generals and colonels, we took out a full page ad in the New York Times at the very beginning of that war calling for a ceasefire. And the headline of the ad was supposed to be, the US Provoked the war in Ukraine. And the New York Times would not allow us to run it as an ad. They would not allow us to use that headline.

Why? But it's an ad, right?

It doesn't seem right. But I mean, I. So that was on that thing. But I mean, in the run up to the.

Wait, wait, what? So this is another, like, I don't think North Korea has a propaganda initiative as comprehensive and aggressive as the one I saw after the Ukraine war started. Like, it was just like, you know, the New York Open was taking Russian names off the scoreboard, New York Times was edit. Editorializing in other people's advertisements. Like, what was that?

Yeah, war fever. I, I mean, the reality is that you, you can kind of control what the population thinks by the information that you give to them. So, you know, the US is propagandizing its own people. You know, every country does that. But, you know, there's a lot of sins of omission in terms of the news that that people get. And you never hear Russia's point of view. I mean, it's Amazing to me. You know, they wouldn't let us hear what Osama bin Laden was saying after, you know, 9, 11.

I noticed.

I mean, they don't let us hear what the people in China are saying. I mean, I, you know, I, so I, I dug around. A friend of mine sent me, you know, a speech by the Defense Minister of, of China. And he's saying we're, we're not looking to be enemies with the US we're looking to develop our country and grow and we can peacefully coexist together. The world is big enough for both of the US but the explicit policy of the United States, if you read these, I mean, I don't know, what the hell is this ice cream guy doing reading these national security documents? I don't know. But anyhow, I read them and it is the policy of the US to maintain hegemony, and I didn't know what that word meant, but it's the policy of the US that if any country begins to develop economically or socially toward the level that the US Is at, that country is by definition an enemy. The policy of the US is that we must have full spectrum dominance. And why should 5% of the world control what's going on in the world? The Eisenhower Institute, Eisenhower Media Network.

Media Network, My apologies. So I've never heard of it.

Yeah, I didn't think you had.

Well, I just want to pay attention. Most people. No. Well, it just, no, it, I'm admitting that both because I want to be honest, but also because it tells you a lot. So this was a group you were involved in that had flag officers and had, you know, generals, admirals, other officers.

Right.

Worked at the Pentagon, worked in the military.

Right.

And I've never heard of it. That's kind of interesting. What was their, what, what kind of people were in it? What was the goal?

Well, originally during the Cold War and after, there was the center for Defense Information, which was a home for retired high level military officers that were critical of the Pentagon. And that organization kind of fell on hard times and kind of twittered away. So myself and a veteran, Danny Serson, decided to start up the Eisenhower Media Network as a home for higher level former military people to use their credibility on the issue of critiquing the Pentagon. Because what usually happens when you critique the Pentagon is that you don't have the, the credentials. You know, you say that, well, the Pentagon is doing this weird thing or that screwed up thing and you know, and then the, and then the Pentagon, you know, general gets up there in uniform with all his medals and stuff and says, you know, those guys have no idea what they're talking about. I'm, I'm the military expert. So the idea of Eisenhower Media Network is to have those military experts that can support a different point of view than what the Pentagon is putting.

What kind of response have you had from the media?

You know, those guys are in the media sometimes, but they're certainly not in the media, despite our efforts as much as the former high level military guys that are now being paid by weapons manufacturers. I mean, so they're brought on these TV shows, TV talk shows, as experts and they're never identified as in the employ of essentially war profiteers.

Is that that's actually happened, that I speak the truth?

I shit you not.

I mean, that's disgusting.

Yes, sir.

Huh. I've known a number of them, of course, because I worked at a TV channel. I worked at a bunch of TV channels with a bunch of retired military officers, you know, on the air, letting their expertise to this or that. And some of them are impressive. Some of them are utterly fraudulent and stupid. Well, I'm thinking of one in particular, doesn't know anything. I don't know how he was a general, but. Sorry, I didn't realize they were being paid. Yeah, by defense contractors to do that. That's really.

And, and, and it's not revealed.

Well, I didn't know.

I mean, and I know them. You're right. Right.

Huh. So who was in the Eisenhower Media Network or is in it? What kind of people?

Larry Wilkerson. He was a former assistant to Colin Powell.

I remember him well.

Matt Ho, Dennis Fritz was, he was the head of Space Force actually, for a while.

Are these older guys, younger guys?

We have a range, yes, I'm happy to say.

How hard is it for them to join a group like that? Because it seems like one of the structural problems is that, you know, if you're a one star and you fail to make two star, you just like seamlessly move over to the defense industry to a weapons manufacturer. There's like a place for you.

Yeah. I mean, especially for the guys with even more stars.

Exactly. Right. So the higher you go, the more you make when you leave. So the incentive doesn't end with your military service. You get paid after you leave.

Exactly. And you get paid by the corporations whose contracts you were supposedly supervising when you were in uniform.

So when you were making ice cream, would you ever allow a contract set up like that to exist in your company?

Never, never. I mean, the, the conflicts of interest that go on in terms of our government are, you know, would be illegal in a publicly held corporation.

They'd be illegal.

Yeah.

It, yeah, I'm just, I'm asking these questions, dumb questions because I, I feel like I'm maybe missing something. So it must. So the guys who are, have signed up, the retired officers who signed up for the Eisenhower Media project are turning down a lot of money in order to do that.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Huh. And what's their view, would you say? Like what do they believe that these conflicts are driven by profit?

Well, they're, they're driven by profit. Sometimes they're driven by politicians not wanting to appear so called weak on defense.

Right.

And the only way we judge whether a politician is weak on defense or not is how much money they are willing to give to the Pentagon. So you have two politicians that are running for election and usually they're trying to out compete the other guy in terms of who's willing to raise the Pentagon budget. Because I'm strong on defense. So this is like the one area of bipartisan agreement. Let's give more and more money to the Pentagon. And you know, there's this other aspect of so called political engineering that you know, earlier, you know, I don't know, back in the 90s, I guess, you know, military contractors would, these weapons manufacturers would deliberately spread out the jobs for a particular weapon system in as many congressional districts as possible. And so you know that, that creates jobs and you know, the politician from that area that, that's what they, you know, that gives them a lot of credit. Of course I brought jobs to my district and so, you know, for say the F35, you know, it's probably made in over 400, you know, congressional districts. And you know, if you say some, you know, if you try to say this is a shitty airplane, which, you know, John McCain said it was the worst thing he ever saw. You can't stop it because they've politically engineered it. And so if you, I don't know, it's kind of how it works.

So when you tried to put this ad in the New York Times or did put the ad but with a different headline by the way, what'd they change the headline to?

I don't remember.

But something that didn't tell the truth about how this war started.

Yeah, well, the, the, the body did. Yeah, the body. The body, yeah.

They're assuming most people read the headline.

Right. Yeah, right, right.

Nobody was saying anything like that then. I mean.

That's right.

I know, I was saying it got In a lot of trouble for it.

All. Right.

Yeah, it just seemed obvious to me. But, but very few people were saying anything like that. What kind of response did you get from people? You know.

Mostly positive. And, and, and there were a bunch that disagreed. You know, I, I actually have. My, My wife was born in Kyrgyzstan, which is one of the countries that the u. That, that the Soviet Union had kind of taken over. She's never lived in Russia, but she's a Russian speaker.

Yes.

And she lost some friends because of the stand that I took against that war in, In Ukraine.

Really? Because they were offended.

Yeah, yeah. That, you know, I, I think for, for countries that live you, you know, that are located around the borders of the Soviet Union, countries that had been invaded by the Soviet Union and mistreated. Right. They are really down on Russia.

For sure. They are.

And, and they're very down on, on socialism and they're very down on. And they, and they believe, you know, they have a history. They've. They've been invaded and they're scared that, you know, that they're going to get invaded. And, you know, and, you know, their feeling is, you know, if we just let Russia go and have its way with Ukraine, that, you know, they're going to be next.

Of course.

And I, I don't, I don't think there's any truth to that. I, I think, you know, clearly Putin is not doing very well. You know, invading one country. I don't think he's looking to go. No, invade another one.

He already runs the biggest country in the world, so. Yeah, no, I, I agree with that. It's not, you know, praise of Putin to note that there's no evidence he, he wants territorial expansion at all. Were there any politicians. So that was like in the first few months after the war started that you said this.

Yeah.

Were there any politicians who were saying anything like that that you saw?

That's interesting, because a lot. I don't, I don't really remember any politicians being on our side.

No. Including ones you knew personally and had supported in the past? They weren't saying that.

Yeah, yeah.

So that raises the qu. And some of those politicians, because you've always been against war since for the 40 years I paid attention, you were supporting anti war politicians, but they made an exception for Ukraine.

Yeah, that's true.

What I noticed. What was that about?

Maybe because there was, there was so much public kind of empathy for, for the people in Ukraine. I, and, and I think that a lot of it has to do with what, what information do people have.

Yes.

The, the only information people had is Russia came in and, and invaded with its army.

Yes.

And they didn't hear what happened before, what led up to it, and they didn't think about, you know, which this ad that we ran did. What would the US do if, if there were Russian missiles lined up along the Mexican border aimed at the U.S. i mean, it's, it is the same situation.

Of course it is.

And I've got no question that the US would invade and get rid of them.

Of course we'd be occupying Tijuana right now.

Yeah.

And I can see why, by the way, you don't want other people's missiles aimed from your border. That's pretty close.

Yeah. Yeah.

You don't want to think something bad's going to happen, but you got to take precautions in case it does. And that's why you insure your car and your phone and of course, your house. But what about your life? What about your family's future? Do you have life insurance? You might not because it's expensive and it's hard to deal with. It's hard to get. And that's what PolicyGenius does. It makes it easy and cheap and you're able to give your loved ones peace of mind where you two exit unexpectedly. So use Policygenius to find life insurance policies that start for just 270 bucks a year, in exchange for which your family gets a million dollars in coverage. $276 a year. Million dollars in coverage. So that's a very easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future. How does it work? Well, Policy Genius combines digital tools with expertise. Actual licensed agents who you speak to directly. You don't waste hours sitting around on hold. You talk to people right away. You get your options clearly, concisely, and then you get along with your. Your life. So you can check life insurance off your to do list with Policy Genius. It's super fast. You head to policygenius.com Tucker click the link in the description to compare various life insurance quotes for free from top companies and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com Tucker Interesting. So did you have access to information other people didn't?

Well, because you said that.

I mean, most people had this view because they didn't know better, because they didn't have access to other perspectives, to the truth, to the history of this. What were you reading that they weren't?

I, I just been following the issue over time since, since the fall of the, you know, since the end of the Cold War. Yes. You know, so I, yeah, so I, I, where do I get the information? Well, this, the stuff about the committee to expand NATO that was in the mainstream press.

But you already had the framework for understanding this because you've been paying attention to this issue.

Yeah. And, and you know, you think about, you know, most people, it's kind of a luxury to, to have the time to pay attention to an issue like this. I mean, most people are, you know, focused on the day to day.

Yeah.

You know, just trying to get through the day. And you know, the messages that you get are essentially the messages that the government wants you to get.

Man, I, that was not the way it was supposed to work.

No, it wasn't. We were supposed to have freedom of the press. But I mean, even, even when they're, I guess even when there was a free press, it, it was still very controlled. I mean, so I say there was a free press, not, not that free. You know, there's the, I, I think a lot of times the press is self censoring.

Yes. I don't know how can you have a democracy without access, Free access to information.

Yeah, I don't think you can. I mean now, you know, with the Internet, I mean you could say that there is free access, but you really need to kind of dig and you know, you get a very different perspective if you read the news in the US versus if you read the news in some other country in the world, you know, talking about the same situation. So we get a US centric view.

U. S. Government centric.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know, I don't personally know anyone who's volunteering to fight Russia in Ukraine. I don't personally know anybody. I've never met anybody outside of D.C. who wants another Middle Eastern war. So in other words, the priorities of the government bear no resemblance the priorities of the population.

Yes, there are, there are well, well, well done, rigorous studies on that issue that, you know, you, you look at the, the line of what do regular old people in the country want versus what does the country do? And they're not congruent very much. Then you look at the line of what do the elites want, what do the really wealthy people and corporations want and what does the country do? And it's much more aligned.

So on Ukraine, your position, I'll just be totally blunt, is like totally unfashionable. It's like the least fashionable position you could ever take in.

I was never really a fashion maven.

But this Is, this is anti fashion. This is like, this is a way to get called really pretty slanderous names. It's a way to break up friendships. As you said, your wife lost friends over this. So it's like, why, why would you do that? Why not just sit this one out?

Do I want. Well, I don't know. It's, it's about standing up for what you believe in. I mean, I'm for a ceasefire. You know, you would think most people would be in favor of a ceasefire. I mean, we don't want to keep on killing people. I'm not, I'm not a Putin supporter, I'm not a Zelensky supporter. I'm a supporter of not, not killing each other and not using our resources to, to, to have actual wars, to supply weapons for wars or to settle our problems through, through that means. I mean, I, I, it just. Why can't we cut to the chase and assume the war's over and have, have a negotiated settlement? Why do we have to kill a few hundred thousand mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters in, in the process?

There's also a sense in which there's like a suicidal impulse at work here because for most of three years we were closer than we've ever been to a nuclear conflict. Like an exchange of nuclear warheads where the most of the Earth's population dies. That's factually true, I think, and I think planners, the Pentagon understood that and they press forward anyway. Do you think that the average American understands how close we have been to nuclear war?

No, I think, I think they've heard that we've been close, but they don't have the details.

Why, why do you think that people who plan these things and push these things don't seem to care about the risk of annihilating everyone on the planet?

I think most people involved in the process are not, are playing little roles in the process. They're just trying to do their small part. Well.

Yes.

And they're not, you know, they're, they're not looking at the, at the, at the bigger picture.

I think that's exactly right. They're just cogs. Yeah, but the machine itself is moving towards something awful. But they don't have that picture. They just know their role.

Yeah.

Huh. Who do you, you said there are no politicians who are saying what you believe is there. Who, whose opinion on this do you respect on the Rush Ukraine question?

Larry Wilkerson, Jeff Sachs.

Yes.

I guess those are the, those are the two that come to mind.

Given that you, I Think we're right about Russia, Ukraine. Clearly, there have been a ceasefire in the spring of 2022. You know, probably a million people would still be alive and Ukraine wouldn't be destroyed, and we'd still be in the same place. So, like, why didn't we do that? Given that you called that correctly, I think. Where do you think we're going on Iran?

It sounds like we're kind of headed toward war.

Why do you think that is?

Well, I. There seems to be some kind of strange relationship between Israel and the US Where, I don't know. Israel now has the US Supplying weapons for its genocide. And. And what I'm told is that Israel wants some concept of Greater Israel. I mean, I don't really know much about that.

Do you think the US Faces a threat from Iran?

No, I don't. No. I think that's absurd. I think, you know, Iran has a Pentagon budget. Well, not a Pentagon. Their military budget is like $7 billion. Our Pentagon budget is darn close to a trillion. So I. I don't think that. I mean, what, is Iran gonna invade the US? I. I don't think so.

Why? You sold your company. It was bought by Unilever, I think, like, 25 years ago.

Yeah.

Did you consider buying a vineyard?

No.

No.

How about you?

No, I can't afford a vineyard. I don't even drink, so kind of out of the vineyard business. But why did you decide to spend the last 25 years on the issue of war?

It's more on the issue of kind of the. The spirit and the soul of our country. You know, there was a pope who said that even if the weapons are never used, the arms race kills the poor by causing them to starve. I'm amazed at how much money the United States has. We have a shitload of money.

Is that a technical assessment?

Yeah, We. We have enough money to solve health problems for people in our country and all over the world. We have enough to end hunger in our country and all over the world. We have enough to get rid of lead poisoning. The gargantuan ness of the amounts of money that we have. You can't fathom it. And we're choosing to spend it on creating more and better ways to kill more and more people. It's such an incredible waste. It's. You know, I. I believe that we are all interconnected. As we help others, we actually help ourselves. And all this money that's going into the Pentagon is sucking money out of things that people really want and need. It could be improving your Your libraries, your schools, your. Your sports arenas. It could be paying for college for your kids, trade school for your kids. You have a better car. I mean, what is it that. What do people want? It's not more weapons.

No, it's not.

And our country needs to start measuring its strength by how many people it can help as opposed to how many people it can kill. And I would say it would actually make our country more secure.

Okay, so it's time for an intervention. All your loved ones are here. We're here to tell you it is time to stop overpaying for your phone. Verizon, AT&T T Mobile. There's a way better way to do this. It's called PureTalk. PureTalk is a wireless company created by Americans for Americans. It offers reliable coverage, excellent service, and it's the smart way to cut costs without giving up quality. Qualifying plans start at just 35 bucks a month. You get unlimited talk text, 15 gigs of data, a mobile hotspot on the most dependable 5G network in the United States. And if you join today, they throw in a Samsung Galaxy for free. Actually, for free. There's no weird hidden fees or charges that you don't see at first legitimately free. No dollars. So do yourself a favor. Cut your cell phone bill in half. At least with Pure Talk. Go to PureTalk.comtucker to claim your free Galaxy Samsung phone with a qualifying plan. We can tell you it's a good deal and you'll be happy you did it. You saw people, you know, just as recently as a few months ago say we actually benefit from sending billions to Ukraine because that money goes first through American companies.

Right? I. I've heard politicians say that. Yeah, this is great, man. We're. We're. We're employing our people. We're. We're keeping our weapons production lines humming, and we're degrading the military of our enemy, Russia. And it is such sacrilegious reasoning. You need to think about our spirit and our soul, what it means to be an American. You know, right now, what it means to be American is that we are the world's largest arms exporter. We have the largest military in the world. We support the slaughter of people in Gaza. If somebody protests the slaughter of people in Gaza, we arrest them. What does our country stand for? I don't know. I mean, people say the budget is a moral document. See where you're. See where you're spending your money, and that's what your values are. It hurts me to say that the values of our country seem to be military domination. Well, that's it.

The impulse that drives this is money. Right. People want money. So you're an interesting person to ask since, you know, you, you didn't grow up rich. You've had times when you're poor, then you got rich selling the best ice cream there is. So you've kind of seen the money thing from both ends. Do you think that people put too much emphasis on money?

Well, part of what got me interested in this issue is that, you know, you talk about these large numbers, like 300 million, 500 million, a billion, a hundred billion, 800 billion. Nobody has any idea what the size of that is. It's. It's just like more money than you could ever imagine.

Yeah, I have no perspective at all on that.

And, and so when Ben and Jerry's was sold, it had it. It came up to a level of $300 million in sales. And so I started having a feeling for how much money that is. And then I realized that three times that, that's about a billion. And so I vaguely got a handle on what quantity that is. And, you know, a billion is an unfathomably large number. If you counted every second since you were born, you would be 32 years old before you'd lived. A billion seconds. It is a lot of seconds. And that's just 1 billion. So the Pentagon budget is now a trillion. A thousand billion. You know, when you in Pentagon speak. Well, I don't know, it's a few aircraft carriers. It's another fighter jet, generation of fighter jets, whatever, whatever. But in regular speak, here's a good example. I wrote it down because I thought you might be asking. There was recently a fighter jet that, that fell off an aircraft carrier. So it was a $70 million fighter jet. So, you know, that sounds kind of dramatic that, you know, $70 million fighter jet fell off an aircraft carrier. But if you think about the Pentagon budget as a box of Cheerios, that $70 billion would be 1/10 of 1 Cheerio, which is enough money, if you take it out of the Pentagon, to build two new hospitals in West Virginia. So what's crumbs to the Pentagon can. Can really provide some real stuff that we need here in the U.S.

Why? Why? I mean, so you're describing a system that like, basically can't be changed because I don't know.

No, I'm in the process of changing it.

Okay, so you think that democratic levers still work. Non. Democratic system?

Well, I think that the only lever that works is public opinion. So I'm in the process of starting up a campaign which is called Common Sense Defense at the moment. We're going to get a flashier name later, but right now it's Common Sense Defense.

That's pretty flashy.

Thank you. Common Sense Defense. Yeah. Be. Be a nice change. And it is a campaign that's aimed just directly at the public. We're not trying to lobby Congress. We're not trying to influence that. We're trying to change public opinion in terms of what we want our government to be spending its money on, or at least not spending its money on excessive weapons. Yeah. So, yeah, I believe, I believe that the, the thing that can change it. And, you know, and this is from my experience of my time going around lobbying on Congress, in. On Capitol Hill about this issue. You know, I think that's hopeless. I mean, I think all we can.

Do is we think it's hopeless to lobby the Congress.

Yeah. You know, hopeless for a guy who's not handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Did. What was your experience? You actually went to Washington and talked.

I went to Washington, I talked to those politicians. You know, they smile and they say nice things and they take a picture and then they, and then they just vote and rubber stamp whatever Pentagon bill comes in because they don't want their opponent to call them weak on defense.

So there were none that you would trust?

I wouldn't say that. You know, I think, I think there's a guy, you know, there's. There. No, I wouldn't say there's none. I mean, I think there's. I don't know, 20, 30.

Yeah. Do you think that part of the problem with the Ukraine war was Trump was against it, and that made it hard for people who hated Trump to say, I'm against it, too.

I wasn't, I don't really know about that. I mean, I didn't, I wasn't conscious of that myself. I mean, I know that, you know, for, I know. I know that for some Democrats, you know, anything that Trump supports, they don't.

Yeah.

But I'm not aware of that as being an issue with. Re. Related to the Ukraine war.

You were saying that you think there's something sacrilegious about basic. And economy on weapons.

Yeah, I really do.

So are, are you driven by your spiritual beliefs?

I'm mostly driven by, you know, just, just, just a concern for people. I mean, I, I don't. In terms of a spiritual belief. I mean, I, I don't practice of religion. I was born a Jew. I love Jesus Christ, I think the words that he said are wonderful, are amazing. And you know, I'm kind of distressed that a lot of organized Christian religions are not really, I don't know, abiding by the words of Jesus Christ.

I am too.

I'm, I'm friends with a guy named Shane Claiborne who's a, a theologian and he, you know, a Christian, well, he calls himself a red letter Christian and he's got a group called Red Letter Christians. There's other theologians.

Red letters refer to the red letters in the New Testament connoting Jesus's words.

Exactly. And you know, he lives and works in a, in an inner city Philadelphia in a really low, low income area and he's, you know, that's his work, he's, he's working to help people there. But yeah, I, I, I think if, if we could follow the words of Jesus Christ and, and take, you know, think about the Sermon on the Mount and, you know, take his word seriously, we wouldn't be doing the stuff we're currently doing.

No, I don't know if I can improve on that. Ben Cohen, thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Tucker.

We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor. Hit follow and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news things that actually matter. Telling the truth, always. You will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell. We appreciate it. Thanks for watching.