Welcome to today's podcast sponsored by Hillsdale College, All Things hilldalet Hillsdale dot ed or. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there, and of course I listen to the Hillsdale Dialogue, all of them at q for Hillsdale dot com or just Google, Apple, iTunes and Hillsdale. Welcome back. I'm to Hewett, joined now by Nebraska Senator deb Fisher. Senator Fisher is a member of the United States Senate's Armed Services Committee. Senator welcome.
Give us your assessment of the first ten days of the battle with Iran.
Hik you.
It's just great to be with you. First of all, I support the President and the administration's actions that they've.
Taken on a run.
This is a state sponsor of terrorism around the world. They are a threat to our country, so I think that the actions are being taken.
Have been good. First of all, we've been given briefings.
A number of times. We just had another classified briefing this morning on the Arm Services Committee about what's happening, how it's progressing. But the administration's been clear, as I said, on those military objectives, and that's to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.
It's also to destroy their.
Ballistic missile capability right now.
That short range and medium range.
Capabilities that those ballistic missiles have. But looking forward, it would be a year maybe two before Iran would have an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
That can't happen. That would put Europe in play for them. It would be.
Dangerous, and then it's just not hopskipping a jump until they would threaten the United States. So we need to take out those capabilities. And then the third one was to be able to destroy their navy, and we've seen a lot of accomplishment there. Over thirty forty ships have been taken out of action, and that's important due to the straits of hormouse and commerce. We need to make sure that that commerce can still travel safely through that area.
And by taking out their navy and taking out their ballistic missiles, that's going to help us to make that a safe passage once again.
Senna Fisher, your colleague, Sennor Blimenthal from Connecticut is a Democrat. He came down to talk to reporters today and said he'd been in a classified briefing and he believed we were preparing to send ground troops to Iran. I don't know where he got that. Have you heard that.
Senator Bloomenthal was in the same briefing that I was in, now, Hugh, I don't talk about what we discuss in classified briefings, but I can tell you that was.
Not my understanding, and I was.
There throughout the major part of the brief including Sender Blumenthal's questions that he asked, and I specifically asked some questions related to ground troops as well as we both known as your listeners know, the Department of War makes plans for many contingencies.
That are out there. We want that to happen.
We want to be able to have our military look at what the objectives are in any area to achieve and then what steps they would take, and then to practice on those. But it's up to the commander in chief. It's up to President Trump to determine when those plans or if those plans are ever going to be put
into practice. We saw that with Venezuela and learned later that that was a plan that had been in place for many years, as well as the Twelve Day War with Iran, when we did the bombing of their new clear facilities, So I think it I would never have phrased that the way that Senator Bluementhal tried to phrase it with the press.
Now, I'd like to move on to the cost. It's obviously large, and it's going to be getting larger and perhaps into the hundreds of billions. So usually in wartime and in time of a battle or a conflict, the United States Congress would vote a supplemental appropriation. I don't think the Democrats will support that. They're against this battle. I'm not even sure they want us to win this battle.
But what about using reconciliation? Senator? That would require the budget committees of both houses to agree on the top line, on a DoD line, on a and then come to your committee Committee of Authorization and then to appropriation. Is that a simple majority? Is that on the table?
You know?
I think we need to look at everything.
This is important that we are able to pass additional funding to cover the expenses that we're going to have in protecting our national security by taking out, as I mentioned earlier, number of the objectives that are that are listed in Iran that we need to take out. We'll see what happens the speaker. Speaker Johnson has talked about doing a reconciliation in the House. We'll see if if they're able to do that. I guess you, I still
have hopes that we can get a supplemental done. I think the more information that the Administration can give us here in the Senate, especially when we're trying to work through this, and then also in the House giving us that information so that we can have a better understanding of what you know they're they're doing moving forward. So
I still have some hope for a supplemental. I think there's different ways that we can put one together and maybe address other issues besides just looking at around itself.
Last question, Senator, I have not heard one Democrat unequivocally embrace the idea of winning, of having this regime which is a malign in evil presence and has been for
forty seven years. Fall have you heard any Democrat advocate for by whatever means it comes about popular revolution, a coup inside the regime itself at cracks, whether or not we kill every Mula that ever wants to be the supreme leader, I don't know how it is, But does any Democrat speak in terms of winning and what an unqualified good that would be for the world and for the people of Iran.
I haven't heard them say that. What I've heard from every.
Democrat is they always begin by saying, you know, we're glad the Alatola.
Was taken out. He was an evil man, he needed to be gone.
But and then they go on in a not in a supportive way for the actions that this administration is taken in addressing it. You know, we've seen forty seven years of Republican and Democrat administrations say that around is a threat to this country. They've killed hundreds of Americans,
they sponsor terrorists around the world. We are not safe because of the actions that they have and they were continuing to work on developing and enriching uranium, developing a nuclear weapon, continuing to work on their ballistic missiles and also get ICBM.
And yet we don't seem to hear that. I was going to.
Say full throat in support from Democrats, but any of support I agree from Democrats saying you know, this is this is necessary, this has to happen.
You know.
God bless our troops, God bless our commander in chief for stepping forward and finally taking action to remove this evil, horrible, threatening world, threatening a regime that only wanted to become more and more emboldened so they could blackmail the world.
It would be nice to hear one.
Democratic understand why they can't do that.
If you find one centator like Diogenes with a lamp, please let me know and I'll interview them. Just one, just one Democrat. Senator Deb Fisher from the Great Katy, Nebraska. Thank you, Senator. I'll be right back in America. Please stay tuned the Sail News channel to Salem Radio Network on our affiliated radio station. I'm he hewing Welcome back in America. I'm huge few at David M. Drucker as a senior political writer for The Dispatch in Washington, d
See David. I just spoke with Sender Deb Fisher of Nebraska, and I asked her if one Democrat, one Democrat had come out and unequivocally called for victory in the battle with Iran so that the Iranian people might be free, in the world a better place. And she said no, to her knowledge, have you heard even one Democrat call for victory.
I'm trying to think here.
I think we may have heard some sentiments like that from possibly Josh Gotheimer in the House, Jared Moskowitz in the House. Possibly Democrats have mostly focused their comments not just on their opposition to the war generally, but their argument that the administration hasn't laid out a reasoning for why now, even though the Iranian threat they acknowledge exists.
You know, after Yosemite sam on all of its neighbors on day one of the battle, you would think it would be self evident. But they're thick, or they are ideologically incapable offending the hard left of their party. Here's a tougher question. Should Republicans in the House and the Senate come out and put their arms around this battle, say it was right to have been begun, and we
need to win it in a decisive fashion. I don't know what that looks like, but we need to win it in decisive fashion because they're going to own it, whether or not they want to own it. It's their party, it's their president, it's our president. Actually it's all Americans president, but it's their nominee who started it. So shouldn't they own it?
Well, from a political perspective, you're making a really good argument and I think most of them have been doing that. It's just that you know, there are you know, some dissident voices here, right. I mean, you know, as I've reported and as I've discussed repeatedly over the past twelve days or so, most Republican voters, including self identified MAGA voters,
are supportive of the president's action in Iran. But you do have some loud voices on the right among influencers and podcasters, a few politicians.
And some others who are.
Diametrically opposed to what the President's doing for all sorts of reasons. And so I think some Republicans maybe have treaded cautiously. I think some of them have been trying to figure out what they're wrapping their arms around because the administration hasn't been very forthcoming in its battle plan broadly speaking, the why now and what.
The ultimate goal is.
But what I've heard from Republican elected is mostly you is support or any or you know, at the very least open minded is but mostly support. So I think you're getting that, you know, I think you know, when you look at Democrats, just to get back to that point for.
A minute, that they have a fine find they have.
A tightrope to walk because you don't want to sound like you don't understand the threat from Iran.
That Iran has posted those over the last.
Nearly fifty years with a budding nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, their party, their voters are against the war, and American voters broadly when you look at Democrats and Independence against the war. So they don't have the same pressures that Republicans might.
But your overall point is.
An apt one, and that Republicans are going to own this whether they like it or not. So if they're not on board, unless they have a philosophical opposition to it, a principled opposition, you might as well speak up and speak out and before it.
That's my point. Deb Fisher, Nebraska, Tom Cotton Ark and saw they both been on the last two days. They are very much for winning, and they argue this is a malign regime. The world would be a much better place, and certainly the Iranian people would be better off in the Middle East, more secure and stable. The world would be better off if Iran's regime collapse tomorrow or indeed before nightfall today. But Republicans, I don't know, they're caught
up in process arguments. I don't hear it except individual interviews, and I think maybe Speaker Johnson I ought to go out there and say, thump the table a little bit. We're in favor of winning. Yeah.
Look again, from a political standpoint, I think you're onto something. I think part of the problem that Republicans may be having, if this is something you're picking up on, and I think you may be picking up on it more than me, is that they don't really know what the whole point is in terms of the why now. Look, I can make a very good case to you personally about why now in my opinion, right, I mean, I'm old enough to have watched Iran and it's a bad regime and it's bad actors and all of the.
State sponsored terrorism and everything.
Right, I can make a case that after fifty years, we've tried diplomacy, every president's tried it. It was an admirable attempt. We've done everything we could. And so maybe you disagree, but there are risks to doing nothing. There are risks
to continuing diplomacy, and so this is why now. I will tell you that outside of some occasional statements from Marco Rubio, the administration has not had a uniform, unified, really cogent argument for the why now and what the ultimate goal is, and it is so much different than.
The Bush administration leading into Iraq.
Now.
Notwithstanding, you know, most Americans have concluded the Iraq War was a mistake and we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, that administration made a unified, cogent argument for why they were going in and what the goals were and what they hoped to get out of that. And I think to the extent that you don't hear like a sort of unified Republican support for this thing is because they're all trying to figure out what they're supposed to be supporting.
I mean said that, I mean, I've detected a lot of support, but I think they're waiting to echo whatever the administration's rationale is, and they keep hearing different arguments on different days.
You know, that's a very well taken point. I think they ought to be supportive ex extraordinarily of winning and winning will be defined at a later date, but we'll know it when we see it sort of Supreme Court test, and it might be it might not be a white flag, David. It might be Larajani Dad Hamany two point zero, who's already in a Koma Dad. It might be the people of Iran back and I don't know what it's going
to look like. But the key is the inability of Iran to terrorize its neighbors and supply China with oil, and that basically it.
Well that's one version of it. But let me just play devil's advocate for a minute. We can look back on Iraq two thousand and three and what ultimately happened at the end of the day after the surge and all the blood and treasure that the US invested in that war, and say that we achieved an objective. We got rid of Zadam Hussein, We installed at least the quasi democratic government in there that was no longer a threat to the.
US or its neighbors.
That's all true, and yet most Americans will tell you, generally speaking, that war was a mistake.
We lost, We didn't accomplish anything.
I agree, but that's because Obama came in after the color fact.
But that that may be true. That may be true.
But my point here is Hugh to play devil's advocate, is that I don't think you can say, well, we'll know what winning looks like when we see it, because there could be a lot of follow on consequences to the war that we've you know, that we've initiated over the past twelve days. I just said, and I believe this. I can make a great case for doing it. What the objection should be and can be and why and why?
Now I'm just saying the administration hasn't done a good job of giving Republican something that she.
Wants, and I think they may be too afraid of Iraq, when in fact Iraq was a success and is a success. And thank God today I mis James not untill there. David M. Drucker follow my next free him at the Dispatch. I'll be right back. Americans America, I'm too cute. Joined by Brett Bair. He was the host of Special Reports, America's Newsman. Actually it's an anchor and you can watch them tonight at six pm on the Fox News Channel. Brett, welcome.
I'm trying to remember if you arrived in DC for Fox the week before or the week after nine to eleven? Was it before after?
On?
On?
Okay? So yeah, you've been there for nine to eleven. You've been there for two thousand and three, so two invasions Afghanistan and Ibrock. You were there for the Libyan operation under President Obama. You have covered Midnight Hammer, You've all the drones that all the presidents have used, and now you're covering this conflict. Is this the most partisan of all of those?
Yes, I'm pretty sure. I'm thinking back in the rolodex of my brain if there was as much of a split. No, I think this is the most partisan of all of them.
That's my assessment too. I just had on deb Fisher of Nebraska. She went to the same briefing as Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, and I think both have been on your program. And Senator Blumenthal came out and said, I'm afraid we're head towards ground trips in Iran. And she came out and said, I didn't hear that at all, but you wouldn't talk about what you did here. Is that just the new normal? Yeah?
I think people are hearing different things and the same briefing. We saw that with the drug boats off of Venezuela. We saw that with you know a number of things where senators from different parties here completely different things. This is, you know, I don't get a sense at all that there is a massive effort for ground troops in Iran.
In fact, I get the sense of exactly the opposite, that the President was signaling and trying to tell the markets and the oil companies and the American consumer at the gas pump that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, that our objectives are going to be met and we're going to work with whatever comes
out of Iran after that. So, you know, I took that as I'm going on the a trip with President Trump March twenty ninth, I think everything's going to be wrapped up with a bow before them in their eyes. As far as kinetic.
Action, Oh, that's the most aggressive timetable. I thought from a political standpoint, the President would have not later than the end of April and May maybe, but by June people begin to lock in their political understanding of the war. But you're saying before he sits down with g he wants to have a result that he can retail when he goes to sit down with you. By the way, on that trip, do you expect Jimmy Lai to come up?
I don't know if he's going to come up. You know, I would think that there'll be questions one hundred percent. But whether the President brings that up don't You don't know Behind closed doors he's got I think there's it's a consequential moment to go to China at this moment, in this environment, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't some big deal announced that we have yet to kind of put our head around me.
It is indeed, you're focusing on something that I hadn't focused on. I'm glad you did that. I can think of a lot of summits that have not been consequential, but for a US president and the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party to meet at this moment that Iran is in the balance is significant and China might need help. I really do think they might need oil. Brett, do you agree with that?
I do.
I mean, the.
Tie of Venezuela and taking that avenue off, the kind of whatever is going to happen with Ron and it's oil, the situation with Russia. I think that there is, you know, probably some kind of deal in the making that the President envisions with all of these things at play don't suffer, guest, excuse me that in that interim time over the next days, we could see some change in Cuba that because they're dealing with massive blackouts and protests almost every night now.
Asked to Cuba Brian kill me to ask me this on Sunday Night's program. What what I thought was coming? And I think revolution, kind of revolution is coming, but I also think it's not going to be one that we assist, but we will help with food ad because we're not going to let the Cuban people starve. Do you agree with me on that?
I do?
And I think that if you think of effectiveness embargoes effectively hurting the regime while letting business kind of bring in some release to give up, they're they're in the process of doing that. And we haven't covered it as much as I want to because we obviously are dealing with the action in Iran and other things. But I really think that there is a change that's that's happening. And he the presidents claims that Cuba's reaching out and talking to Marco.
Ruviw imint and what year it would be if Venezuela, like Cuba and Iran off flipped from being bad guys to wearing, if not white hats, at least hats that are somewhere around gray.
Uh.
But I want to go back to the politics. The other thing. I haven't seen a lot of Senator Cotton on this program, Senator Fisher on this program. They have been full throated in favor of winning. And the definition of winning is accordion and can be larger, it can be small, but they want to win, and they're not afraid to say that. Have you had Republicans on your show that we got to win, that this regime needs to fall.
You know, there's not a ton of people that are ready to say that. Lindsey Graham is obviously one that says it all the time. But I think that there is a scaling back of objectives. As far as what the US wants, what Israel wants is something different. If it happened, I think there'd be a lot of politicians who who said they think it's good for the world that that regime changed. But as far as US, the US being the catalyst for that, I think they can help, but not do it now.
Brett, there's something unusual going on. I've never seen it been doing this a long time. The President of the United States calls up reporters. It's like he has a darkboard and he throws it dark. And if it's said it's Brett Bahre or you Hewett, don't call him up. And he caught up Brian killed me on Sunday night. What is he doing? It's unusual, it's unprecedented, and I like it.
Yeah.
I mean, you talk about getting a message out, that's a way to do it. He sees somebody on TV, he sees somebody saying something, and he says, get me that number, and I'm going to call them. I've had you know, conversations obviously with President Trump for a number of years off the record. I think is the cadence in which he's calling reporters and anchors or they're calling him. A lot of people have his number now and he's answering.
He's called him three times. I got Jonathan Carl said he's called him three times.
Yeah, and I've called him, you know, wanting to know something. He'll pick up in the Oval office and he's I'm sitting here with Sixtair Rubio and Vice President's vance and you know, you're thinking, you're going to get a the answer machine and maybe somebody will call back. He picks up and he says, you know, hold on, Vice President's here, sectors here, and you know you feel like, well, I don't want to interrupt, you know, But he does pick up, and he wants to get his message out.
And he's doing it a different It's unusual.
I think it'd be tough to be Caroline Levitt hment.
But yeah, last question, Senator Cotton gave a speech today about anti semitism in the influencer world on the right wing ecosphere. I don't know that we'll get picked up. I think it it's extraordinarily significant, not unlike William F. Buckley taking on the McCarthy Heights in the fifties. What do you think of Senator Cotton's remarks.
I think he's laying down a marker. I think it's a concern inside the Republican Party that there is. I mean, obviously, everybody's for a free speech and everybody's for expressing yourself, but it does seem to come from a point of view and some of those folks are getting incoming based on some of those influencers, and I think Tom Cotton is expressing the pushback.
Yeah, Center Cotton, good for him. Brett Bear always good to talk to you. We'll be watching tonight at six pm on the Fox News Channel, a special report gets going. Always watch it, America's anchorman. Thank you, Brett, Welcome back in America. Alex Gray is the CEO of American Global Strategies. In term one of Donald Trump, he was the Chief of Staff at the National Security Council. Alex Gray, welcome back.
Can you begin by telling us what you think whoever has your job in tom II is doing this week, because it's got to be wild. Yeah.
I can only imagine Hugh and having been there in some wild moments, I think this may top them all. Look, the biggest role that the National Security Council plays is making sure that the information from the interagency, from the intelligence community, from allies and partners gets disseminated through the chain of command to the president in an actionable way
that gives some policy options. And you have multiple simultaneous, somewhat interconnected crises going on, whether it's Cuba, Venezuela, obviously Iran, but then the Ripplan effects with China, the upcoming trip to China, the trade dynamics of that the Russia Ukraine
conflict and the interconnection with the Iran conflict. So what you're going to be dealing with in that role is this massive amount of incoming somewhat raw information that has to be taken, synthesized, put into some form of useful and actionable information, and then relate to decision makers up to the President, including Secretary slash National Security Advisor Rubio, in a way that they can make some sense out
of and turn into policy. And that is right now, that's going to be one heck of a.
Job, Alex Gray. I'll come back to the battle with they're on in a moment. But you did bring up the president's scheduled trip to China where he'll sit down with General Secretary Gi. We've had precedents like that before during the Cold War one when President Nixon another would sit down with Brashev or Joe and Lyon Mao. When you add really no idea what the purpose was? What do you think the purpose of this is?
Well, look, I think the purpose of this is to give us something approaching and equilibrium. I don't think there's any question that the President identifies China as the pacing threat as the consequential national security challenge of our time. But I think the President did identify something based on
what happened after Liberation Day. He identified that because of multiple administrations of both parties and their failure to prepare our industrial base and our supply chains and to take the proactive measures necessary, we don't have critical capacity in things like rare earths and critical minerals and other things that will give us the resilience and redundancy to sustain the type of long term competition we need to have
with China. And I think the President realizes that he has to buy us a little bit of time on the economic front, which obviously has broader strategic implications, but he's got to buy us a little bit of time to get our own house in order. You're seeing him taking really important steps to get those critical minerals and rare earths in fighting shape. But I think part of the purpose of the summit is to come in from a position of strength, which he very much has following
Venezuela and Iran. He made a little allusion to that earlier when he noted in a remark yesterday that we don't have the dependency on oil from the Middle East that the Chinese do. It was a very clear to me, a very clear jab at hi jimping about who has leverage.
But at the same time, going into this talk, these talks, the President has I think, has come to the realization that we have to at least get the US China relationship and something approaching equilibrium so he can take the time needed to get us prepared for the long term, which Hugh, I think we learned over the last year. We don't have the depth of resilience, particularly in the industrial base, that we need to have for success in the long term.
Well, I agree with that. I would like to see a supplemental that addresses that, or at least a second reconciliation that can pass on a majority vote that addresses funding. And the National Security Council will ever get involved with the omb's discussion about Department of War funding. Alex that part of the wrint over there.
To some extent. You know, when I was there, Ambassador O'Brien, the National Security Advisor, and Russ Vought then and now Director of O and B. They had a great relationship. They saw eye to eye on a lot of the big questions we faced, including rebuilding the Navy and the
building our space capabilities. I think there's a lot there should be a lot of interaction where NSC helps set you take the president's priorities and then turn with O and B turn those big strategic priorities into dollars and cents that can go to Congress and turn into resources.
Alex Gray, I know in Trump won, the National Security of Council helped President Trump put a focus on and a demand signal out for hypersonic missiles and other weapons of the New war, the war that we're watching right now, which is not a ground game, it is a standoff or standover if you're unthreatened. Do you think that the demand signal coming out of this battle is going to be more of that? Please?
Absolutely, Look, I don't think that we can have both of these things be true at the same time. On the one hand, we don't have sufficient munitions for what we need to do in the potential Taiwan straight into Pacific scenario. That's manifestly true. On the other hand, we can't allow ourselves to be hamstrung in other critical theaters just because previous administrations have failed to prepare the inventories and stockpiles that we need. Both of those statements can
be true, and I think they are the president. Frankly, the people who are making the argument that we don't have sufficient munitions to do what needs to be done in Iran, I think they're missing the bigger picture, which is that doing what needs to be done in Iran will, finally, if the President is successful, as I believe he will be, will free us up to be able to extricate ourselves from the Middle East finally, to eventually do the pivot
that Hillary Clinton prom is sixteen years ago. We will not be able to do that unless we can actually extricate ourselves from the Middle East. This action could let us do that, And it also, Hugh, I think reinforces the need to do a full peacetime mobilization, like it's nineteen thirty nine, nineteen forty to build the munitions in an industrial base for an Asia Pacific scenario, now long before it's actually needed.
You mentioned success in this mission. How do you define that outlex.
I think the President has three operational metrics that I think are sound, and Frankly, if you listen to General Kaine, it sounds like We're very close to meeting those metrics. So it's destruction of the terrorist proxies, the nuclear program, and the missile program. I think those are three very
very important operational metrics that we're tracking. I think the strategic question is, can we do something in a modified form analogous to what happened with Delcy Rodgrie in Venezuela, where you can use the operational success to have impact and influence on the next leadership of Iran such that they will change behavior enough to bias the time to finally stop this twenty five year whack a mole game we play with Iran where we are constantly going back
into the Middle East in some form to deal with their malign behavior. We have to have enough of a change. This doesn't mean we have to choose leadership. We doesn't mean we have to choose the government of Iran, but it means we have to have enough influence in suasion over that government so that we can eventually make the full pivot to the Indo Pacific that I think most of us agree eventually has.
To be done.
Alex greg CEO of American and Global Strategy for Chief of Staff at the National Security Council during the first term at President Trump, thank you for joining me. Don't go anywhere, America. I'm coming right back. I got lots more of the tape, and again I may play again, Chairman a Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Kine. Summary of the metrics. Thus, far more than fifty ships of the Iranian Navy are now at the bottom, and we're not even getting started on the ships. Stay tuned in America.
I'm here. I'm joined now by Rich Lowry of National View. Rich, do you think the President or the Republicans are making the case for the battle with Iran in sufficiently moral terms? Not a strategic and technical, but moral terms? Well, not really.
I don't think there's been enough of the case made.
It would be much better if there's a big case made beforehand instead, In part because they had the target of opportunity hitting the eye toll right at the outset, there.
Wasn't much of the case made at all.
Right, it was an afterthought in the State of the Union, maybe a passing reference at Many minute ninety or something, in part because they wanted to maintain the.
Element of surprise.
But I think they've been behind the eight ball in terms of making the case public case for this Hue literally from the beginning.
Now, I would like Secretary Ruby to do that because he is a set piece speaker. The president is better in an exchange. By the way, what do you make I asked quit bare this earlier. I've been covering politics for thirty five years. I have never seen a chief executive call this many reporters or accept their call.
Have you, No, it's extraordinary, but this has always been. He's just extremely accessible. He wasn't the first term.
He has been in the second term. And he'll pretty much call anyone who call him.
Went back, who attempts to call him. I had an incident in the first term, or I hadn't talked to him. You know, we weren't huge Trump fans. Obviously that that primary said, there's some after effects of that. And I just called the switchboard one night, the White House switchboard, and.
He called me back the next day.
And I told Lindsay Graham about this, and Graham said, yeah, he's the most successful person in Washington. And Graham said, when he was having trouble getting Pompeio on the phone, he'd called Trump to call to.
Get Pompeio to call him back. So this is just as typical of Hope.
Well, Lindsey Graham is actually Centator Cotton very consistent. Lindsay Graham is very consistent. They want to win. Today, Senator Cotton and Senator Cruz held an anti Semitism function in which they invoked your predecessor Bill Buckley as having driven the anti Semites out of the Republican Party in the fifties. They also drove out the Birchers, who were more expansive in their hatreds than just anti Semitism. What do you
make of that? I think it's long overdue, and all honor to Jefferson, as Lincoln said, all honor to Cotton and Cruise.
Yeah, this is actually a nast review events.
I didn't know that that we did.
Yeah, that we did this morning in conjunction with the RJC, and they're both excellent.
Banks.
Centator Banks was there as well and very good. But Cruz just really has this bowen in his teeth.
Now.
He's just not going to let it go. He just said, I'm in director world with Tucker Carlson. I think he's corrupting our movement and our party, and I'm not going.
To stand for it. So he really came to play this morm Well.
Cotton came to play. But Cotton lives by the rule I do, which is, don't give publicity to people who want publicity. And I've done that for twenty five years on this program. And I don't bring up fringe actors, and unfortunately, our anti Semitic influencers to use Tom Cotton's air quotes already get enough clicks. Rich Lowry, how much of a problem do you think it is really in the Republican Party, because I don't think it's really a problem in the Republican Party.
Well, it depends on how you define the Republican Party.
Are there senators and members of Congress who are anti Semites openly or secretly? No?
Oh wait, but there are three? There are three?
Well, okay, all right, But is it a huge problem among elected officials. No, but I think they Young Republicans, especially young males, are increasingly slay this way. And Manhattan Institute study last December and the last year indicated this is the case. You hear about it anecdotally all the time I went to the University of Virginia.
I was just talking to a friend the other day.
His daughter goes to UVA and she came to him recently and said, I'm not going to a college Republican meeting ever again.
He's like, why, you know, college republicanly uba? What could go wrong?
To forget what issue was being discussed at a meeting? But the guys in front of her muttering, Oh, it's a jewice, It's a juiceful, and I think it is. It is more prevalent than you'd like among young guys.
That alarms me. I've been teaching Launston's at Chaman University for twenty five years and thirty years. Actually I started teaching before I started doing the National Show. I started the National Show in two thousand. I started teaching in ninety five. And I've never met a conservative who's any nice I might in the classroom, not once. So I'm alarmed because VA is high end. Those are smart kids. What do you think the university had to do about that? Well?
I don't.
I don't think that it's the university's purviewed to, you know, I don't. They're not teaching anti Semitic content as far as as far as I know, and they're not, you know, they're not Columbia. They're they're left at center. I think I think this is being done by conservative right wing influencers.
You know, I am going to suggest that if I found it on Chapman University, and I have not, I would urge everyone there to hold the rally or not the rally. The event you did today, how many people spoke today, how many people came, and what was the coverage of it.
It was a good crowd we did at the Museum of the Bible, A couple hundred people there. It was just a morning event or about from nine am to one pm, but packed with the.
Great great speakers. Three three.
I mentioned Leo Parrell, others, David Azerat, they're familiar with him. He's a Mitsdale, a little more new right than we are, but brilliant based case. He's making the base case for Israel in a really compelling way.
Well, the base case for Israel is that the most powerful ally we have in the world, that's a nuclear power and not afraid to project force. Got nothing to do with her being Jewish. Tell me Rich when you do the editors next, will you be talking about this, because I would love to hear more about this event.
Yeah, we just recorded. We did not talk much about this.
I mentioned it, but we're focused to first and foremost on ran For understandable reasons.
This is to you.
You know, it's a different one for Trump.
Almost everything else he's done has been a one off anti its campaign a little different, but still just an air campaign against guerrilla force.
This is a much more difficult challenge. Is important that he prevailed.
And last question, Rich, I want more Republicans to talk in terms of winning a victory.
Now.
I don't know what victory looks like, whether the regime has to collapse or whether they just have to cry uncle or go delsy and then I want cubit of fault. But I think they had to talk about winning and changing the world because Trump is changing the world. Has anyone besides Cotton dead Fisher did it on the show today? Anyone else talk about that? We got a minute.
No, not as much as they should. I think Walter Russell made a good case in the Journald this morning.
That victory is basically, can you open the straits before moves even when the regime is still hostile, showing that they don't have control of it, or are they backing you off because.
You can't reopen it. I think that's a key indicator.
Well said as always Rich Lowry, host of the Editors podcast for National Review, editor in chief of National Review, and the host of The McCarthy Report. Don't forget that because it's always entertaining, except for the New York baseball bias that is in evidence and soon will be overwhelming like kudzuu as the season gets close to the beginning. Thank you, Rich. Don't go an here where America. I'll be right back on the uq AT show. Welcome back
in America. Have Bethany Mandel is the co founder of the Wars, which you can find at the mom Wars dot substat dot com, co author of Stolen Youth and It's better to be Lucky than Smart. In the last hour, I played Senator Cotton and Senator Cruz talking about anti Semitism among quote influencers on the right. Then Rich Lowry in the last segment, explained to me that National Review had both put on this great, big show at the Museum of the Bible today about anti Semotism on the
so called influencers of the right segment. And then Bethany Mandel shows up It was supposed to be on yesterday, but I had to come on today because of me. Bethany, you were there today, tell us about it.
I was there, That's why I'm wearing makeup and address. It all worked out for the best.
It was.
It was a really incredible event. I was really impressed with NR for doing it. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas spoke and I'm forgetting his name Begaret on Good Morning Trick, Thank you.
I was.
I was on the radio with Larry O'Connor this morning at five and sorry, well little Rundown fumes today and he explained sort of the connection with Buckley standing athwart history and saying stop when it came to anti Semitism in his day, and it felt like that moment today with NR.
It was really well timed.
It was a beautiful event, and I thought everyone should go listen to Ted Cruz's entire speech. There was a couple of funny parts in there that you're going to see a lot of clips, but it's really worth sitting down and spending the fifteen twenty minutes on listening the whole speech because it was incredible and it was.
A really important, pivotal moment.
I think, Bethany, you and I were at the rally for Israel in the aftermath of ten seven, when hundreds of thousands of people from all over the United States went to the mall, and since that time Israel has been taking a pounding online. But I never confused the online world with the real world. I don't believe it is a problem among elected Republicans anti Semitism, do you.
I don't think it's a problem among elected Republicans. I do think it's a problem among Republicans writ large, including the staff in a lot of these offices, including the interns at a lot of these offices. The kerfuffle that happened at Heritage didn't come out of nowhere.
I think that. I mean Cruz.
I think it was Cruz said, you know, this is a problem in Hill offices, with interns, you name it. This is not just an online problem. If you look at polling data about how young evangelicals feel about Israel, it's as bad as black liberals.
You know, that is very disconcerting. But I would put this word out to the people who run internships on the Hill, like I have an intern here on The hu Huitt Show and I always have. I've got probably how many interns that we had Duyne over the course of twenty five years, seventy five. If someone came in here and was anti Israel, anti Zionists, and certainly anti Smic, they would not be here for the next day. They'd be fired, and it would be with reason, because it's irrational,
and I can't have irrational people. Do you think that word is out?
No, I mean I think I don't think that there should be a litmus test for people being you know, pro Israel or whatever. But the problem for anti Semitism, and and a lot of people hide their anti Semitism with oh, I'm just an anti Zionist, is that they're stupid. And a lot of people are stupid, especially as you go younger and younger, and a lot of them are uneducated, not just stupid, but also uneducated about the tenets of their faith. And so you see a lot of the
trad bros who proclaim that they're Catholic. This is Tucker Carlson's latest guest, the Carrie, the woman from the Sorry like a Catholic?
Can we be as a Roman Catholic? Don't no Catholic? But she she calls herself a Catholic, but then she doesn't know anything about John Paul the Second or Benedict. Even Francis, who was bad on everything, got this sort of right.
She's brand new, she's brand new, and she doesn't understand anything about Catholicism.
My mother was Catholic. I probably understand more about Catholicism than she does. Right, But this is this is the problem.
These are people that walk around saying Christ is King, but don't understand anything that anything that you you just spent thirty seconds talking about it. It's all Chinese to them. And so this is a real problem of people just not understanding what do we believe as conservatives, what do they believe as Catholics, And that ignorance is manifesting in their anti Semitism.
And I will I will add to this for my Catholic listener, Cardinal Koopich, if you're listening, I'm online right now in Chicago, if you're listening, take it back. You don't know anything about just war doctrine. I doubt you've ever studied it. You may have picked up Augustine once and put it right back down. But he's saying this is not a just war and in fact that it's classic Augustinian just war doctrine. But we got a cardinal in Chicago who's just like an old seventies liberal hippie
my age, and it didn't get it. They're ignorant. It really does upset me when people holding themselves out as authorities on in church doctrine don't even know church doctrine. And coming out of a Catholic family, you know what I'm talking about. In the speaker's lineup today, you're at the Museum of the Bible. By the way, can we give a shout out to the MOB for hosting.
That one percent?
I am a paid member. This is not a plug that I'm not an influencer for them. I'm a paid member because I wanted to go to their play of Joseph and it was fifteen percent off if you were a member, and so I finally bit the bullet and joined. We've been I don't know, probably half a dozen times. It is spectacular and speaking specifically to the Jews, it is even though it's built by Evangelical Christians. I know the woman that helped supply all of the Jewish artifacts,
she is amazing. She works with passages on Christian tours to Israel. But she's Jewish.
Her name is Rifka. Amazing. I could not speak more highly of the Museum of the Bible.
I can speak about the Greens because I know the Greens, and both the Green Senior and the Greens Junior, who poured all their fortune into the mob and they're fabulous people. And they've had to return some artifacts whenever some artifacts have been determined to have been inappropriately acquired, and they do so willingly and joyously. But it's a great museum. It's near the mall, but a lot of people won't find it, and then it'll be a little bit stunned.
Because the Rembrandt room over at the National Portrait Gallery is free, I mean the National Gallery of Art. You know, you know in there and sit among the rem Brands for free. And Dan Da Vinci MLB is not free. But you're saying, if you live in the area, join as a member.
They have great homeschool events too. That's another reason we joined. And they also I'm this is actually a road trip that I'm taking with my kids next year. They have the Arc Encounter in Kentucky where they've built a life size Noah's Arc and we are going to go next year.
Good for you. Don't don't miss Dollywood. Let me go back to the war. How do your friends in Israel feel it's going.
I think that they feel like it's going well.
The exhaustion is an otherworldly I was actually going to send you an Instagram video that one of my friends made of her making dinner, and she planned on making fajitas. That way she could stop and start if she had to run to the into the shelter. Her kids have been home for ten days straight and they don't want to go outside in case there's a siren and they have to run.
It's exhausting. It's really, really deeply exhausting.
Is she on optimist that it will be over soon in terms of the sirens?
I don't think anyone is, honestly, And I also wanted to plug. I mentioned you on my mom Wars podcast. I had Lahav l Harkov from Jewish Insider and we talked about you.
Oh oh, I have to go and listen. I hope it's a nice thing. But the mom Wars dot sup back. She's a fine reporter. How long has she been doing this?
Yes, she's fantastic. I'm probably twenty years Yeah.
She is a very very fine reporter and I turned to her as well as a meet Sagala vibredda Ger. You don't have to send me your contact information so I can have her on so. Bethany last question we got less than a minute. Do you think President Trump has been clear enough in deciding in telegraphing what victory looks like.
I am not super keen on criticizing him, but no, I don't. I feel like we've heard a lot of different answers about when this war is over and what that metric is. I think that they've achieved something really incredible with real minimal losses on the Americans part. And that being said, I wonder what the endgame is here, and I think he hasn't really clearly articulated.
That it should be the incapacitation of the regime worth the lives of at least seven Americans one hundred and twenty wounded and dead Israeli than our golf Arab allies. The cost must beating quots of the game, and the game must be the increpencient incapacitation of the regime. Bethany Mandel can be followed on exp Bethany Seandark and you should and the mom Wars, God Subtacks dot Com. Stay tuned me. You've heard me talk a lot about Consumer Cellular.
How you can switch your carrier save money without the sacrifice. That's because Consumer Cellular uses the same towers as major carriers. Make the switch today and get twenty five dollars off at Consumer Cellular dot Com slash you if you're over fifty, get one line of unlimited talk, text and data for thirty five dollars, plus an additional five dollars per month off for the first five months. When you visit Consumer Cellular dot Com slash shoe, use the promo code Q
twenty five. Consumer Cellular ranks number one for network coverage and consumer satisfaction. According to ACSL, You'll be working with an actual human being when you switch base right here in the US, so get one line of unlimited talk, textan data for only thirty five dollars per month, plus an additional five dollars off per month for the first five months. Think of all the money you will save.
Go to Consumer Sular dot Com slash shoe promo QUE twenty five or call one eight hundred and four to one one forty four fifty four consumer cellular dot com slash shoe. Clean water is not complicated, but it is essential. Without it, public health suffer, education declines, economic stability well it weakens if it doesn't collapse. Across Latin America and the Caribbean, families are facing that reality of unclean water. Every day. Mothers walk miles for clean wine. Children are
exposed to preventable diseases because they haven't got it. Communities are held back by the absence of basic clean water access. But strategic compassion changes outcomes. Through food for the poor, your gift provides safe and living water, improving house strengthening communities, and supporting gospel centered transformation through trusted local partnerships. There's
a measurable impact with lasting results. Your gift to fifty dollars ensures two people have safe and living water, or four one hundred dollars a family of four will be transformed for a year. I hope you act. Text Hewitt Hgwitt, that's Hewet Hwitt to five to one five fifty five. That's Hewett to fifty one five five five, or visit hewit dot com right now and click on the blue giving living water banner at the top to provide living water today and thank you.
I love my classes.
A crazy teacher you wear start.
What does President Trump mean? I'm calling on our telepath James Lylynx as in James Lynx dot substact dot com to a bit of translation forth crescin staff for those of us old enough to remember, Carson.
What does he mean?
Jane? Last night the war's almost over. Then last night we got a long way to go? And then this morning Peteg says that weeks what's going on here?
What bad messaging? You just not consistent messaging.
When he says the war's almost over, I don't know exactly what he means because there still is the government in.
Place and the bad guys.
So then, you know, I'll trust access to say we got a long way to go, because that prepares people for the ineditable.
That prepares people for long sustained campaigns.
I mean, do you think they've been hammering them now, day and night for how long and how much can they have left?
Well, you know plenty. It's a matter of launchers.
As you read today that they just nailed a launcher and it seemed to be an odd thing to note and hawk because we were told that a lot of the launching were put out of business early on.
I mean, so consistent messaging would be better.
But I'm less concerned about that than more concerned about the efficacy of the entire operation.
Aren't you?
And I'm with you on that. Now, what I would really love to see is the Republicans put their arms around winning. Have they done that?
Yes?
Yeah, No, I don't think so, don't.
I haven't gotten a full throated pushed back to what the Democrats are saying.
I did enjoy Bill Maher pointing out.
To Camp number who was Cory book, Adam Schiff reading Adam Shif read it right, a line about the statements of the war powers and all the rest of it, and Shift said it was just totally vague. Totally vague is what Obama said. We all know that the presidents claim these powers for themselves, and the war powers is dodgy and the rest of it. But yes, I would like to see a full throated pushback because I don't think the anti.
War message is getting traction at this point.
I think the only people who are really spun up about it are the ones who'd be inclined to be spun.
Up about it anyway.
But yes, better messaging would be great, but again, you know, messaging is one thing, the actual operation.
Is the other.
Yeah, and let's put the war to one side, because now you know are experts on what's going on. But I think we know how to communicate the Republicans.
Speak for yourself.
I know, I know we're actually we played risk. No, I really do think Republicans are going to get stuck with the war, whether or not they wanted the war. So they should put their arms around the war and say we want Iran to be free, and it would be a good thing. It would be a great thing for the world if Iran was free. How hard is it to say that it isn't.
But it's not just it would be a great thing. It will be a great thing.
That's the thing, not say, well, you know, in some ideal world we'd like ironic it will be free.
To go forward to the.
Positive messages to what this is all about.
But again, how many times have we been told that we don't want forever wars, want nation building and all the rest of it. Hard to talk about the endpoint of this, which is Iran welcomed back into the international community without sounding as if you're nation building, without sounding as if it's the same regime change thing we've heard before. And unfortunately in this part it's true. We do want regime change. We may have to do some nation building
in the sense that you know, arrange it. I think Trump said, not a shot. No, he hasn't been there. It's got to be somebody from the inside. I mean that indicates the sort of thinking and strategy about what
happens after we hope the mole regime collapses. But yes, get around it, embrace it as a thing that America does and shows two things, one the power of the American military and two the fact that we can be a force for good in this country, which according to a survey of the last week, something like eighty four percent of Republicans believe that the US is a force for good. Is something like, I don't know, it's like thirty six percent of Democrats believe to.
So so make that out there.
Put that out there.
People are amazed by what they've seen, but eventually they get tired of air footage of tomahawks going into windows and want something more behind this.
We want the people back out in the streets, not getting killed this time. Now I want to go to next week. I want to anticipate a week from now. Cuba is out of everything. They're more out of everything than I am. After the White's been gone for two weeks. I got nothing in here in the house if there's because I don't shot. Cubans can't shop. There's nothing there. So we're going to get demands made on America to feed Cuba. I think we will feed Cuba, but I
don't think we out of fuel Cuba. What do you think?
Well, are you saying that Mexico hasn't been supplying you with food when your wife was up for a fortnight notes tisk, I think Mexican. I think Mexican supplies to Cuba have been curtailed.
And what I've heard there are intimations that think that the US.
Administration will help Cuba through this difficult patch, which is interesting because instead of trying to make it brittle and crack and fall and then you have chaos, it's it's is they're attempting to manage a leverage bio.
To ease Yes, should we do that?
I think we should because if it's all contingent when the end of the cast for a regime and the downfall of communism, because then we will have shown three different ways in which the new doctrine works. One the guys go in in the middle of the night with supersonic special weapons and turn everybody into jelly and take the head of the state and put him in another country Venezuela. Two overwhelming show of force Shakana and Iran.
And three let's all sit down to the table and talk about how you're going to be out of power in a month or so. So yeah, I mean, those are three different approaches to instability and troublesome regimes.
But yeah, they here the name Diaz, Carnal or Carnal Diaz, I can't remember. He's just another he's not named Castro. But there's still Rangel still alive. I don't know if he's right combinant. Do we need to escort him off the island, along with maybe thirty thousand of their ultra security people to whomever will take them.
Yes, I would like to do it in two ways. One question about the fuel. I don't know if we give them fuel, but food is a good thing.
To do.
But when it comes to getting them off, I would not put them on a seven forty seven and ship them over here. I would actually just make sure that they got to the coast of Cuba and were required to leave by rickety boats. That would be That would be poetic justice. What's more, not just wicked rickety boats
or fifty seven mercury. Reason that they've somehow managed to float, but know that they will be met on the other side in Florida by the friends and the families of everybody who is dispossessed by the cast or magime.
Ideally, that's what I'd like to see happened.
Now. The three countries Nzuela, let Iran in Cuba, you know, are Ukrainian, you know the big We have one minute. Which country will recover quick ast if it's freed?
Interesting?
I think I won want to say Ukraine because they've got a lot of stuff that people want, which surprises people.
It's like what they got just grain, they you know, they got lots of stuff.
They have neon, they have rare earth and the rest of it, and you great as a smart capable place that I think could bounce back. And they've been free for a while. Venezuela has been, like Cuba has been, has been slumping under the burden of bad governments for a long time, so it may be a while to shake that out of the system.
Iran.
Who knows.
That's the big question, isn't it, And we're going to find out.
I think it's going to be Cuba only because of the proximity two and the incredible energy and well made and accumulated in the United States going back into Cuba big time. But lit'll see, and we'll check in with Lilacs otherwise noted Cruscan next week. Follow him at Change Lilacs dot subsect dot com.