Kind: captions
Language: en
it's a sad State of Affairs when our
some of the most influential voices in
our country will label someone a uh a
lover or supporter of dictators simply
because you're saying hey we shouldn't
be going to war there is another
way the following is a conversation with
Tuli gabard who was a longtime Democrat
including being the vice chair of the
Democratic National Committee she
endorsed Bernie in 2016 and Biden in
2020 she has been both loved and heavily
criticized for her independent thinking
and bold political stances especially on
topics of War and the
military-industrial complex she served
in the US military for many years
achieving the rank of Lieutenant Colonel
and now she's the author of a new book
called for love of
country this is Al Lex Freedman podcast
to to support it please check out our
sponsors in the description and now dear
friends here's Tulsi
gabard you've served in the US military
for many years achieving rank of
Lieutenant Colonel you were deployed in
Iraq in 2004 and 5 Kuwait in 2008 and9
what lessons about life and about
country have you learned from that
experience of War so many Central to
those Lessons Learned was having my eyes
open to the very real cost of
War you know of course I I served in a
medical unit uh during that first
deployment to Iraq it was 2005 during
the height of that war and uh
unfortunately we took a lot of
casualties we across the entire US
military uh my Brigade that I deployed
with was from the Hawaii National Guard
we had approximately 3,000 soldiers who
were operating in in four different
areas of Iraq and my first task every
day was to go through a list of every
injury combat related injury that had
occurred the day before in the country
and I went through that list Name by
name uh looking to see if any one of our
nearly 3,000 soldiers from Hawaii um had
been hurt in the line of duty and then
if seeing them on the list tracking them
down where were they were they getting
the care they needed would they be able
to get sufficient care to stay in
country and and return to duty did I
need to get them evacuated usually it
would be to military hospitals that at
that time were in lawn stool and
Ramstein in Germany and then from there
getting them to either uh Brook Army
Medical Center which is here in Texas
that specialized in Burn related
injuries or to Walter Reed and tracking
that them and their care until they were
finally um home with their
families and it never became a routine
task it never became
like okay cool check the list you know
kind of dot the eyes cross the teas it
it was that daily confrontation with the
reality of the cost of War uh friends of
mine were killed in
combat experiencing firsthand that High
human cost of War
caused me you know 20-some year old from
Hawaii I had had left my seat in the
state legislature to volunteer to deploy
with my brothers and sisters in in my
unit to Iraq and so recognize the cost
of War I think in two fundamental ways
number one is the high human cost of War
on our troops and on the people in the
country where this war was being waged
and also the cost on American
taxpayers seeing then back is again 2005
and recognizing
KBR halberton one of the biggest defense
Contracting companies then and I know
that they are still very much in that
business now uh Dick Cheney being
connected with that company at one point
or another but in our camp specifically
which was one of the larger ones in Iraq
at that
time there wasn't
anything that happened in our camp that
didn't have the KBR halberton logo
imprinted on it we had a big Shack
looking place where we ate our meals
they call it a dining facility a defac
in the military and they served four
meals a day they brought in and they
being KBR Halbert and they imported
workers in from places like Nepal and
Sri Lanka and the Philippines to come in
and cook food and work at this dining
facility um I got curious about how much
how much it cost us as taxpayers and so
I started asking around some of the
people and I think at that time it was
like well every time a soldier or a
service member walks through the door if
I were to go in for breakfast and grab a
banana and walk out that's an automatic
$35 per head per meal four times a day
thousands and thousands of people and
then we made friends you know there
there's a lot there's a pretty large
Filipino community in Hawaii a lot of
Filipino soldiers from Hawaii we made
friends with the Filipino workers who
were there they would often go in like
the back of the tents and set up their
own like rice cookers and cook their own
meals um which is where the real good
food was uh but just started talking to
them and getting to know them and ask
like hey how much do you get paid and on
average it was like oh I get paid like
500 bucks a month 500 bucks a month to
go and do this work of of either you
know cleaning out porta potties um
picking up trash the dining facility
doing laundry all of these different
tasks because um the military wanted
soldiers to be out doing things that
only soldiers could do understandable
but when I started putting you know two
and two together and knowing that this
company one company alone was making
trillions of dollars trillions of
dollars and yet
this Filipino mom is making 500 bucks a
month maybe getting one day off a week
maybe working 12 hours a day otherwise I
said how you know how long how often are
you able to go home uh to your family
well they let they'll let us go home a
couple of weeks every other year it was
it was an eye-opening experience that
growing up in Hawaii I had I frankly
hadn't given much thought to before um
but it's what led me ultimately coming
back from that first deployment there
was no way that I could go back to the
life that I had left behind and I knew
somehow someway I needed to find a way
to use those experiences to try to make
a positive impact to try to
influence those I mean frankly the
politicians who were making decisions to
go um and launch these regime change
Wars and and send our men and women in
uniform into war and and to what end
ultimately if we can just go back to
that list yeah so the list is just name
and injury name and injury name unit
potentially location if someone had
documented that and and their injury and
it's just pages and pages of that yeah
yeah and and I knew you know I I didn't
get to call home every day but when I
called home and talked to my
parents I felt um the tension in their
voice and you know they they didn't want
me to worry about anything at home and
so they were always like hey how are you
what can we send you and this and that
but you know it wasn't like I was
calling them from down the street and
saying hey how's it going let's let's go
have lunch or
whatever um and so I knew that the
reason for that tension was they were
terrified of getting a phone call
delivering the worst possible news and
that was what I thought of as I went
through that list of of how you know it
is the reality of War behind every one
of those names on that list was you know
a husband or a wife parents you know
Sons and Daughters family members uh who
had no idea what we were dealing with
really all they knew was what they saw
on the news and what my dad told me
later when I got
home after that deployment was that
every time they saw the news and they
saw a helicopter shot down or crashed or
some
IED uh they they held their breath until
they saw or heard the news of of who it
was or or what it was what can you say
about what the soldiers had to go
through physically and psychologically
when when they get
injured the physical um you know I mean
some some injuries appeared to be minor
upfront uh at that time traumatic brain
injury was not something that was talked
about much if at
all uh and so you know many had visible
wounds others are now what we know were
appeared like all right cool you checked
out but had invisible wounds those who
were
injured in a way that did not allow them
to get back to work found it emotionally
very difficult to be put on a plane and
evacuated out of there um feeling guilty
that they were leaving their friends
behind and
um not thinking about themselves or not
feeling bad for themselves but instead
feeling bad for being forced to be in a
position to
leave um you know for for soldiers it's
not of course we all have our own
political opinions on things but when it
comes right down to it in a war zone
it's about your friends it's about your
brothers and sisters that you're serving
alongside it's not about the politicians
or whatever insanity is going on in
Washington it's
about getting up and going out getting
the job done and coming back home
together I mean I I had friends of mine
who were from Hawaii who were from
American Samoa very culturally
tight-knit
Community who confided in me throughout
that you know year that we were there
some of the very infantry soldiers who
were going out on security patrols and
and doing raids every day um just some
of the
very traumatic experiences that they
went through no physical injury but um
creating a kind of emotional stress and
Trauma that as human beings they were
struggling in dealing
with um on a positive note you know I
Polynesian culture especially but but
also Asian culture and other cultures
around the world our guys found that as
they were shortly after we got there the
unit that we were replacing you know
were taking the guys out on patrol and
saying hey here's this Village here's
where we found friendlies or here's
where we know that there are insurgents
operating and they've got allies and
Lookouts and you know showing them the
lay of the land basically and what our
guys found was that as they were doing
these ride alongs they call it a left
seat right seat when you're coming in
and taking over um that there was there
was a bit of a a tense even adversarial
type of
relationship where uh on on the military
side there was an assumption of
Suspicion or lack of trust uh just with
the local local Iraqi people who lived
around the base that we were at and
without anybody telling them to
culturally our guys began trying to
build
relationships and um you know for Hawaii
and and Samoa and we had soldiers from
Guam and
Sian little things like you're riding
down in a hve you've got a gunner in the
turret with a 50 cal or a machine gun of
some sort little things like pointing
the muzzle to the sky as you're riding
through a town rather than pointing it
directly at where people are walking
down the street was a huge gesture of an
assumption of hey let's let's let's
actually talk and become friends we had
our guys riding down the street and
throwing shakas out to the to the local
people there uh breaking bread sharing
tea and building those relationships and
and again I served in a medical unit and
what we saw was uh a Down Ward shift in
um in casualties from the unit that had
been there before us simply because of
that that basic human connection that
our guys sought to make and then
gradually finding like hey local you
know people who lived in the in the town
right next to us were saying hey you
guys should really somebody was digging
a big hole down this a mile down the
road you might want to bypass that or
check that out and finding weapons
cachets and IEDs improvised explosive
devices and other things uh that helped
save people's
lives on the cost side of things how is
it possible for a company like halberton
or others to get away with $40 bananas
or however much it was the overhead
costs look what they will claim is that
it's expensive to move Logistics through
a country at
War but they get away with it
ultimately um these in
Ane this insane war profiteering and
they're not alone obviously there are
other companies that this is their
business model they get away with it
because of their political
connections and the lobbyists that they
have the relationships they have with
politicians and ultimately what
President Eisenhower warned against with
that with regard to that cozy
relationship between Congress and even
what he called then the
military-industrial complex it's been
alive and well he warned us against it
and I would say it's thriving more now
uh than ever before how powerful is the
military-industrial comp complex is as a
thing is it a is it a machine that can
be slowed down can be stopped can be
reversed it can be it's powerful I don't
think you can overstate the powerful
nature of it because it it extends so
deeply within our
government uh it it it's not just those
in these specific big defense
Contracting companies that benefit from
it you look at the revolving door within
the Pentagon for example where you have
both high-ranking people who wear
military uniforms as well as those who
serve as high-ranking uh Department of
Defense civilians who are literally
working their way into a big payout when
they leave that job uh we see it with
our own Secretary of Defense now he
retired as a general officer went and
served on uh one of the boards for one
of the big defense contractors and then
now back as the Secretary of Defense we
see the same thing in congress with
members of Congress and Senior
professional staffers in Congress same
exact revolving door where you have
people whether they're writing contracts
for the Department of Defense for the
company that then wins the bid for that
contract and then going and working for
that company or those in Congress who
are writing policy
and doing exactly the same thing you
have been both a war hawk and a war Dove
at times so what is your philosophy on
when war is Justified and when it is not
war is Justified when it is in the best
interest of our national
security uh and when it is the last
resort when all diplomatic efforts have
been uh uh completed and
exhausted uh and war
is the last possible route that must be
taken to ensure the safety security and
freedom of the American people so that's
a highlevel uh beautiful ideal but
there's uh messy details so terrorism
for example yes the United States
involvement in the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan was in part the big umbrella
of the war on
terrorism so so you know when you decide
whether something's Justified or not and
whether something can be defeated or not
how hard is it is it even possible to
what degree is it possible to defeat
terrorism well first of all uh there's
part part of the problem of our foreign
policy has been how many conflicts Wars
military actions have been waged in the
name of this quote unquote war on
terrorism in the name of national secur
uh legislation like the Patriot Act that
violates civil liberties our civil
liberties and freedoms in the name of
the war on terrorism and National
Security when it's not justified and so
I'll use Afghanistan as an example I
support the initial mission that lifted
off shortly after the attack on 9911 the
islamist terrorist attack on 911 it was
a relatively small group of US military
launched to go after those Al-Qaeda
cells and Osama Bin Laden in the wake of
that
attack that is the mission that should
have been uh supported and focused on in
its execution instead as you know it
was attention was diverted very quickly
to uh the regime change war in Iraq um
that was waged on uh false pretenses and
the resources and focus was taken away
from that initial mission that went to
Afghanistan uh and the war in
Afghanistan blew up into something that
became about regime change and
governance and the Taliban and less
focus on Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden
and it became this thing that even
General officers had a hard time um
articulating what is the objective here
what are we trying to accomplish what
does winning look like what at what
point do we know it's time to exit and
get out and if you as as you look at
things like the you know the Afghanistan
files and others um the answers to these
simple and essential questions shifted
and changed over time over a very long
time uh similarly in in Iraq you know
the I I bought into a lot of what was
being sold by the administration and by
Democrats and Republicans and Congress
at the time and very quickly even as I
was on the ground there started to have
my eyes opened up into um how we had
been how we had been lied to
tremendously and how that protracted War
went on for a very very long time with
decisions being made that ultimately
served to strengthen uh terrorist groups
like Al-Qaeda the creation of Isis and
others uh really undermining our
national security interest in the
meantime understanding the enemy that
you are trying to defeat is essential to
being able to uh build a
strategy the the
Declaration um of President Biden for
example saying well the war on terror is
over the war on terror is over what does
that mean or the forever Wars are over
what does that actually mean um I served
uh I served on my last most recent
deployment in 2021 to East Africa and
Somalia where al-shabab is one of those
islamist terrorist groups that follows
the same ideology as Al-Qaeda Isis uh
Hamas and others this group has been
allowed to grow and be strengthened even
though they are one of the main groups
that provides funding to al-Qaeda in
that entire region so any president or
politician can declare a war to be over
but when you have uh an enemy like these
islamist terrorist groups
who are still intent on their goal and
their objective which is to ultimately
establish their Islamic caliphate and uh
you know destroy Israel and and
exterminate the Jewish people and and
basically destroy kill or convert anyone
who doesn't adhere to their
ideology uh that continues on and it it
they will only become stronger the
longer our leaders put their heads in
the sand and pretend like oh no this
doesn't exist
uh this kind of War this war
specifically is one that has to be waged
militarily and ideologically and the
ideological component to this which is
defeating their ideology with a superior
one is one that I pointed out in
Congress during the Obama
Administration
um we the collective we were failing at
the Obama Administration was failing at
because they were so afraid of being
labeled
islamophobes that they refused to
accurately identify the ideology driving
these terrorist groups and instead said
oh we are countering violent extremism
was the term that the Obama
Administration started to use and was
coined and and kind of mandated across
the US
government well you have to know again
you have to know the enemy that
threatens you and why they're doing what
they're doing if you have any hope of
actually uh preventing their attack both
militarily and as reing now with with
hamas's actions not only directly in the
assault on Israel but how they Hamas
achieved their objectives in spreading
their ideology around the world if you
look at the lessons learned
from the US involvement in Afghanistan
and in Iraq how do you fight terrorism
clearly understanding who they are and
where they are and why they're doing
what they're doing is essential first of
all
um and obviously there are different
groups different names they have morphed
and changed uh based on their local and
how they
operate uh building
relationships uh with people in other
countries both state leaders as well as
religious leaders and others who share
that same objective of defeating these
islamist terrorist in on both fronts and
and acting as a united front in taking
that action what that what exactly that
action looks like details on the ground
dictate that details about these
different groups will dictate that but
we've seen examples of this before and I
saw this in Somalia we we saw it uh in
some cases in Iraq where for example you
have um imams who
recognize the threat that these
terrorist groups posed to their own
people and their own communities and
exerting their influence in defeating
that um the terrorist islamist ideology
with their own teachings of Islam and
preaching peace amongst their people war
is ugly and it is messy uh it is also an
unfortunate reality of the world we live
in uh so while
I firmly believe that we must always
pursue peace I'm not a pacifist I'm a
realist
and recognize that uh where there are
these threats uh we must we must do what
we can to work towards that that safety
that security that freedom and peace
that that we all want if we look at the
perspective of Israel in the Israel Gaza
war going on
now what do you
do with the fact that a the death of a
civilian
serves as a
catalyst gives birth to hate potentially
generational hate so in Israel stated
goal of destroying Hamas they are
creating immeasurable hate what do you
do with that from a perspective of
Israel what is the correct action to
take in response to October 7th that's a
complex question with a complex answer I
think Israel's
approach has to be in in recognizing
that
delineation as far as possible and I
know it's tough when you
have um a terrorist group like Hamas
that is so interwoven within the
community of people in
Gaza but to recognize that there there
should be and there is a shared purpose
there for the Palestinian people
to be able to live free and in peace and
not under the oppression of this
terrorist group just as the people of
Israel would like to live in peace and
free from the threat of attack from a
terrorist group that wants to
exterminate them the complexities of
what's going on in Israeli politics is I
think a different conversation but also
one that is directly intertwined with
the answer to this question when you
have some people in the Israeli
government who don't want the
Palestinian people in Gaza at all and
want them to go and repatriate in other
countries uh I think that's a big
problem and that further
exacerbates this hatred and resentment
that um continues to grow there this is
a Generations long challenge
unfortunately of of uh the resentment
and tension that exists between many
Israelis and many
Palestinians that can only be resolved
when there's strong leadership
representing both peoples who are are
able and willing to come together and
recognize that the only way forward is
to let the past be in the past and find
a way towards peace in the future how do
you think how do you hope the war in
Ukraine will end the only way that this
war ends is is to do exactly what we're
talking about there has to be a brokered
dialogue uh
and conversation about
peace that has to occur with
representatives from from Russia and
Ukraine um it's it is really truly
heartbreaking to see both how efforts
that began just weeks after Russia
invaded Ukraine to do exactly this were
thwarted uh by the Biden Harris
Administration and other Western Powers
has cost so many innocent people's lives
and this is where I get I get um I I
have friends in Ukraine I've been there
uh more than a few times I've enjoyed
and appreciated the time that I've I've
spent there I I when I hear from my
friends
about how afraid they are of their
husbands being conscript conscripted and
you know feeling like they have to hide
for fear of being yanked off the streets
the the their friends friends and family
members who've been killed in this
war the only way this ends is when both
sides come to the table and find an
agreement that neither side is going to
be completely happy with both sides
being forced to make some concessions
but one where um they will both walk
away and and this war can end what's the
role of uh the US president perhaps to
bring everybody to the table do you
think that the US President should sit
down with ziny and Putin together yes
yes in an Ideal World yes uh this this
should have happened long
ago uh the question of whether or not
President Biden is the right person to
do that at this time when uh all of the
statements and comments that they have
made the Biden Harris Administration has
made from the beginning of this
war essentially point to their objective
being to basically destroy Russia uh and
that's one of the reasons why they have
supported uh both the continuation of
this war for as long as it's lasted as
well as why they have thwarted efforts
towards
peace
uh whoever that most effective neutral
broker is um that that's the best person
uh to do this um the Biden Harris
Administration I think the the role that
they have to take is actually
encouraging
zilinski uh to sit down and begin this
process those kinds of engagements are
the most to me the most powerful
exercises of diplomacy that can't be
matched especially when our our
president's foremost role and
responsibility is to serve as
commander-in-chief and I wish that we
had leaders who were more willing to
engage because I think we'd we'd make a
lot more progress more quickly and to to
find areas both of mutual interest as
well as to help de deconflict and
deescalate um areas where there is
tension or disagreement or adversarial
interests well some of it is basic human
camaraderie like people call me naive
for this but sometimes just knowing that
there's a human on the other side even
like when it's in
private if you look at zalinsky and
Putin for
example
just humor both are very intelligent
witty at times even funny people yes
this is war time yes a lot of civilians
and soldiers are dying there's hate but
if you can look above it all and think
about the future of the countries the
flourishing of a people and the stopping
of the death of civilians and soldiers
then in that place you can have that
basic human connection I agree I don't
think that's naive at all and I think
there are so many examples through
history that point
to the power of that the real power in
that um in you know the Cuban Missile
Crisis how JFK had to literally find a
secret way to communicate with kushev to
try
to go around the backs of the military
commanders who were urging him to take
military action and instead find hey we
both ultimately want the same thing
neither of us wants to launch a
catastrophic nuclear war so let's figure
this out of course there's examples
throughout history you know leaders are
complicated people they're manipulative
people so you have like Hitler and
Chamberlain meeting and Chamberlain kind
of getting uh Hoodwinked by Hitler's
Charisma and being convinced that Hitler
doesn't have any interest in invading
and destroying the rest of the world so
you know you have to uh he smart
don't be
Hoodwinked um you've met you've been
criticized for this uh you've met with
syian President Bashar al-
Assad and uh as part of the campaign
when you running for president got
criticized for not calling him a war
criminal what's the right way to meet
and communicate with these kinds of
leaders we as as as I just stated we
need leaders who have the courage to
meet not just with allies but with
adversaries
in the pursuit of Peace in the pursuit
of
increased understanding uh if policies
are being made through the the lenses
and the barriers of
bureaucrats and the media and others who
have or may have their own
interests um our president a leader
can't make even members of Congress
can't make decisions with the kind of
Clarity that we the American people need
them to make I think that these kinds of
engagements
are weaponized and politicized as they
were against me um by those
who have their own interests whether it
be the military-industrial complex or in
Washington if you're not part of of the
official Narrative of the US government
um which was intent on a regime change
war in Syria then then you're an
outcast and uh it it was it was it was
unfortunate
because you know people people levied
all kinds of accusations and and you
know smears against me for going and and
having the audacity to go and and learn
more try to seek the truth in the hopes
of preventing more needless war and in
the hopes of preventing yet another
Quagmire and disastrous war in the
Middle East and simply for going and yes
meeting with Assad also meeting with
religious leaders in Syria also meeting
and talking with people on the streets
in of of Damascus talking with college
students talking with people from the
opposition party who who would like to
see Assad replaced
um you know talking with local just a
whole host of people over over the
course of a few days you know the the
accusation was of like oh she's she
loves
dictators it's a sad State of Affairs
when our some of the most influential
voices in our country will label someone
a uh a lover or supporter of dictators
simply because you're saying hey we
shouldn't be going to war there is way
and and I'm not alone in this you know
people who were against the war in Iraq
were L were given similar uh
labels um until it became you know
popular in our politics to have been
against the Iraq War we see the same
thing now with people like Tucker myself
and others who are saying um we should
not be waging this proxy war against
Russia via Ukraine and using the
Ukrainian people's lives in this war
well now all of a sudden you're a Putin
lover a Putin puppet or or whatever you
know the traitor treason all all of
these accusations that are used
ultimately by people who are not
interested in having a substantive
conversation about the truth about
looking at these these wars and
conflicts you know with a comprehensive
view on on exactly all the Dynamics that
are that are at play and and that's what
I found when I came back I I went
looking for went to Syria looking
forward to coming back and shedding
light on uh different perspectives
experiences and stories that I found
that would give people a more broad
understanding of of what was happening
in that country and what I found was
there was Zero interest in uh the
mainstream Media or in Congress in
hearing any other perspective other than
their own which was we need to launch
this regime change War through the use
of arming and equipping known terrorists
within Syria to overthrow the regime
without any idea uh without them stating
any uh realistic idea of who would take
control once Assad was
overthrown but the reality actually
being that no matter which opposition
group they might try to prop up they
would not have the power to withstand
the terrorist groups whose stated goal
it was to go and take over power uh from
Assad they had no interest in in trying
to gain true understanding and it it was
very disheartening it was very
disheartening and and a big lesson
learned about where where their
interests really uh were focused yeah
it's a
simplistic narrative template that's fit
into every single
situation um a lot of stuff is not
talked about in the Russia Ukraine war
one of the things that's not talked
about is okay so Putin is overthrown
then who do you think will come into
Power exactly one of the things I talk
about with arist stoich is that
Putin and he gets criticized for this
that Putin out of all the people that
might take power is the most liberal is
the most uh
dovish in fact every indication shows
that he really hates this war MH and and
so everybody that will step in if he
steps down or if he is overthrown is
just going to accelerate this this war
and the expansionism and the The Thirst
for Empire and all that kind of stuff
that the the US military industrial
complex will feed into so you have to
think about what the future holds and
what the different Power Players are and
what uh the level of corruption there is
and sort of the sort of the realistic
view of the situation versus the
idealistic view of the situation just on
that note real quick I think that was
exposed in broad daylight when
it appeared that you know the the former
head of the Vagner group was about to
try to to launch a coup and how that was
so celebrated even on uh you know like
MSNBC and Rachel mat and others touting
that this was somehow going to be a
great thing without looking at you know
who is this guy really what has he been
doing in different countries around the
world and what what would be his uh kind
of ruling philosophy and how that would
how that would differ or benefit
American interests or the interest of
security uh and peace but also the
interest of Ukraine and Russia and
Humanity overall just the flourishing of
Nations which is great for everybody in
collaborations with Nations I agree
friendly competition you know one of the
things I love about the 20th century is
the friendly sometimes not so friendly
competition between the Soviet Union and
the United States in in space in the
Space Race that's created something
incredible engineering and scientific
breakthroughs and all of this and also
made people dream about like reaching
out to the stars and yeah War destroys
all of that or damages it hopefully just
damages it hopefully it will the Phoenix
will rise
again uh well let me ask you about the
criticism you've mentioned uh of this
probably the most common criticism of
you that you love
Putin so just to linger on it what's
what do you think is the foundation of
this criticism well I'll tell you when
it
began you know I had my first day in
Congress uh was January 3rd 2013 I
believe it was the 3rd fourth fifth
somewhere around there and my last day
was January 3rd
2021 um I had been given my experience
of of serving as a soldier in in the
Middle East
and the motivation that that really
drove me to run for Congress in the
first place I served on the Foreign
Affairs committee and the armed services
committee for almost eight years the
eight years that I was there uh with my
drive and motivation to to actually be
in a position to challenge the influence
of the military industrial complex to
try to prevent us from needlessly going
to
war and so you know the likes of Hillary
Clinton and the cabal of war mongers in
Washington they weren't fans of of mine
to say the least I can't say it was a
total surprise but it was disheartening
nonetheless that the very day that I
announced my candidacy uh that I was
running for president which was in
February
2019 as I the hour that the hour that I
walked up onto that stage to announce my
candidacy it was in Hawaii and I gave my
announcement speech NBC News published a
hit piece that planted the seeds of
Suspicion in voters Minds that somehow I
was a darling of Putin and Russia and
and whatever it was baseless all of it
baseless and that that
continued um like a a steady drum beat
throughout my
candidacy but that really was escalated
when in a podcast with David Axel Rod
Hillary Clinton said oh well the
Russians are grooming
her and uh this is not um
[Music]
I mean this this came from a very
influential person yeah she was the
former Secretary of State former US
senator former first lady someone
who wielded and continues to wield a lot
of power in the Democratic party and
amongst
voters and that that took it to a whole
new level what is the basis for this
nothing it is it is a tired yet
Dependable Playbook that is used not
only by people like Hillary Clinton but
also people like Mitt Romney and others
to try to smear
discredit and destroy the reputations of
people who have the audacity to uh
question their objectives as they call
for one war or another uh or have the
the audacity to say that this is not in
the best interest of peace or in our
country and our our national security
they keep going back to this Playbook as
they do today because again they're not
willing to debate the substance of one
position versus another which is what we
should have if people feel so strongly
that we should be going and waging this
war that war okay great go make your
case to the American people go stand on
the floor of the United States house and
actually have this debate allow those
who are saying no this is not a good
idea to also stand fre and make that
argument instead they they resort to uh
the kind of name calling that tells
voters hey you can't trust this person
or anything that they say uh we myself
and some of my other colleagues got the
same treatment when we tried to pass
legislation in Congress that would have
taken out Provisions from the Patriot
Act that are most egregiously violating
our fourth amendment rights and civil
liberties uh authorities that have allow
our government to illegally surveil
Americans without a warrant and as we
did
so we called traitors we were called uh
we had other members of Congress on the
house floor saying that if you pass this
legislation you will be responsible for
another 911 style attack on our
soil um these are all distraction
tactics to to try to divert our
attention away from what's actually
happening and instead just tell voters
hey you can't you can't trust these
people obviously this has happened to
Trump it's happened to Bobby Kennedy
it's happened to people like Rand Paul
and others there was a small group but a
growing number um at least I'm on the
Republican side at this point people who
are are actually willing to stand up and
um and challenge the military industrial
complex challenge the warmongers in both
parties well people on the left have
challenged the the warmongers as well
throughout the the
the last few decades less so recently I
agree with you but less so recently and
this is one of the reasons why I left
the Democratic party um one of the
foremost reasons uh I I devote uh an
entire chapter to this issue um in my
book uh for love of country what leave
the Democrat Party behind going into the
the the detail of some of the things
we've talked about about my own
experiences about what I have learned
along the way but also how you know even
in the last year two years um certainly
under this Administration people who I
worked with in Congress who were
Democrats Dependable voices for civil
liberties Dependable
voices speaking out against the insanity
of people who wanted to wage war for the
sake of
War
um they're largely silent now and
unfortunately within the Dem Democratic
party in Washington there is no room for
debate that if you challenge the Biden
administration's position on foreign
policy you you're going to get you're
going to hear about it and um what we
have seen is that that's exactly what's
happened and people have retracted
statements or just Fallen silent or
whatever the case may be this debate
that should be existent within both
parties on the Democrat side
unfortunately
um it just doesn't exist anymore there
seems to be some kind of mass hysteria
over the war in Ukraine it was strange
to uh to watch that the Nuance aspect of
the
discussion was lost very quickly it was
uh Putin bad right it was a war between
good and evil right and in that if you
bring up any kind of nuance discussion
of like how do we actually achieve peace
in the
situation you're immediately put on the
side of evil yeah which is pretty sick
when you think about it I mean it's you
know the cynical view is of course it's
the uh the military industrial complex
machine the the war profiteers just
driving this kind of conversation yeah
you know I hope that's not I hope they
don't have that much power I hope they
just have incentives and they push
people and they kind of use People's
Natural desire to divide the world into
to Good and Evil and fight for the side
of good uh you know people
just uh have a natural proclivity for
that and that's a good thing that we
want to fight for the side of good but
then that gets captured and manipulated
yeah yes I admire your your
hopefulness I am I am hopeful also um
because of the
goodness in people and the naturally
compassionate nature of people
um however I will tell you from
firsthand experience that what we talk
about is the National Security State and
the military industrial
complex um this cabal of war mongers
that extends not only within government
but outside of
government um extends to many powerful
media Outlets um they are incredibly
powerful and don't have any qualms at
destroying those who try to get in the
way of their power and they've got a lot
of
tools they've got a lot of tools to do
that which I which I I think is why
President Eisenhower chose to include
this in his farewell address as a
warning because the
only recourse the only real power that
has the ability to destroy them and
stand up against them is a free people
living in a free Society
exercising the rights that we have
enshrined in the Constitution and Bill
of
Rights I just talked to any Jacobs and
she wrote a book on nuclear war a
scenario of how a nuclear war will
happen second by second minute by minute
I apologize if it happens how it would
happen it's terrifying yeah it it's
terrifying how easy it is to start that
one person can start it first of all and
then there's no way to stop it even
potentially with tactical nuclear
weapons that it would it just the the
Machinery of it how clueless everybody
is combined with the Machinery of it
it's just impossible to stop and it just
between rushing that the United States
especially and then all of a sudden you
have nuclear winter and 5 billion people
are dead yeah uh and they they die
through just essentially torture uh
slowly how do we avoid that how do we
avoid a nuclear war how do we that's
something that you talk about and think
about how do we avoid this kind of
escalation of a hot
War I think the most essential thing
first of all
is understanding exactly what you have
just
detailed we are in this very strange and
absurd time where we have Talking Heads
and so-called pundits on TV we have
politicians we have people who are
talking about a nuclear war as though it
is a war that can be won period and a
war that um can be
waged somehow without that risk of
escalation to the point of destruction
of human
civilization and and so they talk about
this as though it's just another war and
especially as they talk about the use of
tactical nuclear weapons oh well this is
just this is small and we think it'll
send a message without actually
escalating uh to the point
where we are dealing with with the kind
of Destruction uh that we witnessed uh
in World War
II uh that's a dangerous thing when it
becomes like normalized as you know well
we've got this new missile that'll go
and it's targeted and it's strategic and
it'll only harm this quote unquote
military Target uh Ronald Reagan was
100% correct when he said you know a
nuclear war cannot be won and should
never be waged it was true then and it's
true now no matter how much these guys
who are producing these weapons or those
who are benefiting from that industry
try to tell us oh no it'll it'll never
happen um so to me that that's that's an
important first first step to to
continue to inform and educate and sound
the alarms to people don't don't buy
this crap because it's not true and I I
look forward to listening to to your
podcast but the PSA that was put out by
New York City's emergency management
office about what to do in the event of
a nuclear attack you would find it funny
if it wasn't so deeply disturbing how
they created did this public service
announcement they distributed it
everywhere across the city on the
internet I think it was on the radio
where you had a woman who appeared to be
um an actor coming in and saying hey um
in the event of when the big one
hits here's what you should do focus on
doing these three things and I'm
paraphrasing but I encourage you to to
watch it I'm paraphrasing but she
said get inside
stay inside and stay
tuned that that was it and you know get
inside go away from the windows stay
inside don't go outside until you get
the all clear and stay tuned follow our
account on Instagram right and Twitter
and at the very end of of this this
short
PSA she said uh her her closing words
were weave we've got this mhm and it was
so disturbing in that it was so
completely out of touch with
reality um it creates this kind of false
sense of security that okay well it's
kind of like here's what you do when a
tornado hits or when a big storm hits
and and categorizing the big one a
nuclear attack within that same kind of
preparedness that you would want people
to have in the event of of a natural a
natural disaster of some
sort uh and and it is reflective of the
carelessness with which people in our
government um that careless attitude
that people in our government have
towards nuclear war and a nuclear attack
even as they set us up for
failure in pushing us to the closer and
closer to the brink of a nuclear war
occurring whether it be an intentional
attack or as we saw during the last Cold
War one
that could be launched
unintentionally uh we you know how many
near misses were there uh during during
the last Cold War uh I saw this
documentary called the man who saved the
world and it was some like
midlevel officer who happened to be on
duty and who didn't do what he was told
in in uh launching the the nuclear
missiles because of what they thought
was an incoming attack and I it turned
out to be a complete mistake or misread
on the radar but that's what we're
facing but by the way there's so many
things to say there but one of the
things that an Annie Jacobson details is
just how organized the Machinery of all
this is where the humans involved don't
have to think they just follow orders
there's a very clear set of steps you
take and there there's very few places
where you can inject your humanity and
be like wait a minute what's the big
picture of this the only
person that can think is the president
of the United States the president of
United States gets six minutes after the
warning the early warning system
says whether it's false or not says that
there we believe that there's been a
nuclear uh weapon launched you have six
minutes before you can make the decision
of launch back
initiate and to me that's what I'm uh
voting based on right in the current
situation you really have to see that as
one of the most important aspects I
agree of the United States president is
who do you trust in those six minutes to
sit
there and I'm not really sure looking at
Biden and
Trump
boy I don't know but I do know that I
would like somebody somebody who's
thinking independently and not part of
the
Machinery of
warmongers that that's really I mean
it's I don't want to make it sound
cynical or dramatic but sometimes in
such scary situations in such dramatic
situations you kind of follow the
momentum yes when the right thing to do
the right thing for a leader to do is
to step back and look of all human
history yeah and and don't and ignore
all the people in the room that are like
saying stuff because most likely what
they're going to be saying is war Monger
type of things yes that's one of the the
things why I also get criticized for I
still think zalin is a hero for staying
in Kiev everybody was telling him to
flee it was all the information was
telling basically saying this the the
the world's second biggest military is
like
coming at Kiev it's just dumb on all
fronts to stay in Kiev but that's what a
great leader does is ignores everybody
and stays yeah screw it I'm going to die
for my country I'm going to die as a
leader and that's the right thing for a
leaders to do it's sad
that I mean that to me that's what we
should expect of our leaders yes is
exactly that and it's sad that that uh
having a leader in that position I
fulfill their responsibility and the
oath that they take is seen as a heroic
act when we should like that's that
that's your job that's what we elect our
leaders uh to do and yet so many so many
have failed but to your to your point
um it's not cynical at all to to know
that in those rooms especially in these
moments of Crisis unfortunately there
are the predominant prevailing opinion
um of this warmongering establishment
that's not specific to one party is the
knee-jerk reaction which is to go to war
or to execute an act of
War um and and this is this
is you know one of the biggest costs of
this
establishment um destroying the
reputations of and smearing and trying
to cancel and censor those who are
voices of peace or just those who take a
contrarian position and say well hey why
don't we just pause for a moment and
actually think this through why don't we
talk through what happens if we take
this course of action what happens if we
go down a different path let's actually
be thoughtful about uh what our options
are for a b and c and then make the
decision in a thoughtful manner based on
that even even advocating for that is
seen as as a kind of heresy in in the
warmongering establishment in Washington
and the cost of this um the cost of of
their retaliation against those who are
reasonable voices who look at the world
as it is not some fantasy that they wish
existed is in those rooms during those
critical moments people will even if
they know in their heart or their mind
that this could end really
badly they their instinct is to self-
censor and not speak up because they
don't want to experience the Wrath and
eye whether whether it be coming from
fourstar generals or you know the
secretaries of state or defense or these
high ranking people in positions of
power and influence they don't want to
be the one guy in the room who's just
like uh Hey guys let's just take a
breath and actually think this through
what will happen not just in the
immediate response of this action that
you're advocating for but what are all
of the other people uh other actors
stakeholders in the world how will they
respond and then how will we respond to
them how will they respond to us
actually go through this exercise of in
the military this this is commonly
referred to as you know what are the
second third fourth order of effects
that will occur as a result of pursuing
a specific course of action it's it's
weird how difficult it is to be that
that person in the room it requires
courage yeah but which is sad but it
requires courage but why why why does it
require like even just to ask okay we've
been in in Afghanistan and Iraq for this
number of years what's the exit plan
right just bring that up like every day
at a meeting yeah like what what's the
Exit Plan it's it's strange that that
gets criticized well war in Iraq and so
on but I just remember there was this
pressure you can't quite criticize or
like ask dumb questions about wait what
why are we going into Iraq again like
but they're not dumb questions right you
in retrospect you're like oh they're not
dumb questions at all but actually
required a lot of courage to ask them
while still working within the
institution it's easier if you're like
an activist from the outside saying no
war this kind of stuff but within the
institution in the position of power to
ask the questions like maybe let's not
yeah it's it's seems really difficult
the same the same kind of thing in the
war in Ukraine and just any kind of
military involvement again I guess the
cynical interpretation is that it's the
military-industrial complex that
permeates yes
the just the halls of power it does and
what is behind uh the
military-industrial complex and there
are different examples of this you can
look at the pharmaceutical industry as
well there's a huge amount of money and
a huge amount of power uh that that
wields Trump tremendous influence over
members of Congress um you know there
are different examples of this uh you
know across different sectors of our
society but but I think the
military-industrial complex over time
has proven itself to be um the most the
most powerful and influential and that's
what is behind it is is this is why they
uh try to destroy anyone who dares to
ask the most obvious questions uh is
because it is about power and wielding
power well the cool thing about United
States presidents they have the power to
say f you to the to everybody in the
room I think it just seems like they
don't quite take that power like you
really people say like yeah the US
president doesn't have that much power I
don't know about that just like if you
look at the law especially in military
when when you're talking about war and
and the military they have a lot of
power yes so they they can they can fire
everybody like yes they have a lot of
power they can stop Wars they can start
wars they have a lot of power the
position of the presidency certainly
does
unfortunately we have people too often
who assume the
presidency from a position of weakness
because they're afraid of losing power
sure and so they make those calculated
decisions not based on
what is right um or for the right
reasons but
instead driven by fear of loss of power
and loss of of influence and that's
where especially given all that we are
facing we need leaders in the presidency
and in Congress who have courage to be
that voice in the room to ask about um
um to remain mindful of and rooted in
the
Constitution to even as we are seeing
this legislation being build as the
anti- Tik Tock
bill that's really um not about Tik Tok
it's about freedom of speech can you
actually explain that Bill yes this is
another I guess the bottom line up front
is this is another piece of
legislation being um expedited through
Congress with strong bipartisan
support in the name of National Security
interests that is essentially a power
grab um and an assault on freedom and
liberty and uh I'll I'll just say this
in I think probably like the top three
the top three things that they're not
they're not actually telling us that's
in the bill um freedom of speech it's
our ability to be able ble to express
ourselves whether it be in person on a
podcast on a social media platform uh in
a newspaper whatever the platform may
be this
legislation gives the executive the
power to decide which platforms are AC
are acceptable for us to be able to use
Tik Tok itself the words Tik Tok is not
in actually in the bill but it gives the
the power to the president to decide
who is a foreign adversary
single-handedly no no consultation with
or agreement from members of Congress or
anyone else uh it actually gives the
power uh to a cabinet secretary to
designate who is a foreign adversary and
if a social media platform is uh has at
least
20% uh ownership in a social media
platform uh that platform may be banned
from doing business in America
essentially um but it's not just a
foreign State actor that could be named
as a foreign adversary it also includes
a line in the legislation that if let's
say a person has at least 25% uh
financial interest or ownership in a
social media platform uh they're an
American
citizen uh who may be working or living
in some other country uh or working or
living here but doing business with
other countries if the executive branch
of our government decides that this
individual is under the influence of or
controlled by someone that they deem a
foreign adversary then that platform uh
must not do business in America uh and
that person obviously even an American
citizen um is banned
from conducting that business must they
must divest
essentially so when you look at and and
this is where there's been a lot of chat
around this when you look at Elon Musk
for example well you already have people
in the Biden Administration even
President Biden himself implying that
Elon musk's activities need to be
investigated well he is someone with
Tesla who does business in a lot of
countries including China and therefore
he must be investigated it is is not at
all a stretch of imagination to say that
X could be the next platform that the
executive branch decides nope we've
designated this person to be a foreign
adversary and therefore his business
interest cannot be allowed uh for this
social media platform cannot be allowed
to to exist um we've seen this already
with people accusing him and ex of uh
interfering in our elections uh again
it's ironic that it's it's coming from
the Democratic party that they are
claiming that a guy who has said himself
he's committed to free speech and is
allowing free speech on his platform and
is not allowing the federal government
to manipulate his platform by deeming
which accounts are okay to to uh you
know post their content and which
accounts are not because of
disinformation or whatever they claim it
to be it's it's not an accident that the
social media platforms that have been
proven
to take action at the behest of the
federal government and the White House
to censor certain voices they are not
included with or being targeted at all
uh in this legislation or or outside of
it yet other platforms that are not um
cooperating or
collaborating uh somehow are so the
underlying issue here this is this is
being sold as Tik Tock and National
Security But ultimately even as Ron Paul
said this is this is uh legislation
that's the greatest assault on Liberty
since the Patriot Act was passed yeah
it's quite dark that this just a grab of
power it is I mean this doesn't it's not
just with Elon it's probably with Zuck
uh with W with with Facebook Instagram
WhatsApp it puts pressure it's not just
about banning but it puts pressure to
for them to kind of moderate Behavior
yes which is a slippery
slope of course it's a beautiful dance
of power because you don't want tech
companies to have too much power
either or individuals at the top of
those tech companies have too much power
but then do you want that power in the
hands of government no the the history
of this nation is is a fascinatingly
effective uh Journey towards the balance
of power and it seem like this this
sneaky little thing as much as I hate
Tik Tok on all fronts my brain rots
every time I use Tik Tok I know it's
also like the the the National Security
dangers of China and so on but it's just
like tick Tok man just I just I don't
it's um it's so addicting it's so
addicting so when I first saw this Tik
Tok bill I was like yes not FR but then
they got me the Trojan Horse got me no
they all I mean they all and you know
and this is like the social dilemma
doent I think exposed a lot that this
there there is so much
um there's so much that these algorithms
do in these various social media
platforms um that that's problematic uh
to say the least uh data security and
privacy is a serious issue um the these
are serious things and so let's have a
conversation about these serious things
uh and and cease these attempts Ms to
try to have our government try to tell
us what we are and aren't allowed to see
you know where we are and aren't allowed
to say what we want to say that's really
what it comes down to yeah more and more
trust people to uh whenever social media
companies do bullshitty things for the
people to make documentaries about it to
discover for great journalists to do
great journalism right and find the
flaws and the hypocrisy and the like uh
call for transparency all those kinds of
things I don't trust in in most cases
government regulation of technology
companies because they seem to be really
out of touch they one they want Power
yeah they're really intimidated by the
power that the tech companies have and
two they don't seem to get at the
technology at all so they're they're
like hindering Innovation and they're
just greedy for power and those are not
bad combination it's a back combination
the the the thing here too though is I
this extends far beyond
um social media companies you know this
is a very specific example but it's one
example of many how um those who are
greedy for power uh are are continuing
to try to find ways to tell us how to
live our lives um they are increasingly
trying to tell us uh again what we're
allowed to to see and hear whether it be
social media companies or what show
shows up in our in in a Google search
engine for example and if they're not
finding a willing and compliant social
media company or big tech company then
they are looking for ways to to reach
their hand into those tech companies um
and force compliance but you know in the
age of disinformation
misinformation um hate speech all of all
of the the excuses that are
given for government I e directly or
indirectly through big Tech to try to
censor certain
voices it really um undermines the truth
which is the way to
defeat bad speech um is with better
speech and more speech whether it's hate
speech or or things that you might be
offended by or things that you might
disagree with the answer is not to have
some entity with the power of censorship
and being the quote unquote authority to
decide what is good speech and
acceptable and what is bad speech and
unacceptable it's what you said let's
let's encourage this debate and and you
know encourage people who are inspired
by like no man I saw this thing or this
thing is happening and it's pissing me
off so I'm going to I'm going to I'm
going to bring a superior argument I'm
going to show what the right way is and
and gosh what this is what our Founders
envisioned for us as a society in this
country country and we would be so much
stronger with a more engaged people and
a more informed people um if if we had
this and had it supported do do you
think uh what are the chances that the
Tik Tok ban bill
passes the way that it passed through
the House of Representatives with such
an overwhelming bipartisan support and
so quickly and President Biden saying
that if it comes across his desk he'll
sign it um I thought it would pass
through very quickly I'm I'm only
slightly encouraged by the fact that the
Senate at least appears to be saying hey
there are serious Free Speech concerns
around this bill serious civil liberties
concerns around this bill we need to do
our due
diligence um I'm I'm I I Won't Say I'm
cautiously optimistic because I
understand how that place works but
their pause at least gives people the
opportunity to continue to kind of sound
the alarm and uh for people to call
their senators and express their their
concerns with this that they are very
real valid concerns yeah this is really
messed up just in case we didn't make it
clear I think this is really really big
danger if this thing passes uh even if
you hate Elon Musk or your whatever this
is really really really dangerous if the
government gets say over the
platforms on which we communicate with
each other that's a huge problem and and
there's a section in there as well just
just kind of the last piece on this is
if you if you use a VPN and you try to
use a VPN to access this you could have
problems with the law and you take that
a step further and say well how would
they
know there's a surveillance aspect to
that so so once you start peeling back
the layers of this really toxic
onion it it it leads it really leads
serious ly to a pretty dark um and
dangerous and oppressive
place you were a longtime Democrat you
were the vice chair of the Democratic
National Committee until you resigned in
2016 to to endorse Bernie I should say I
love Bernie I I loved him before he was
cool all right anyway uh can you can can
you go through what happened in that
situation yeah uh and uh with the
Democratic National Committee and with
Bernie and why you resigned as a vice
chair of the the Democratic National
Committee one of the things that the
rules of the DNC required was that
officers of the DNC of which we were as
I think there were five or six of us who
were Vice chairs at the
time um you have to remain neutral in a
Democratic primary uh so you're not as a
party supposed to be tipping the scales
in any direction for any candidate um
during a primary
election and so I had no I had no um
plans to get involved in any and for any
candidate or against any candidate
during that Primary in just the hopes of
like all right we got to make sure that
this is a fair and balanced primary so
that voters have uh the best opportunity
to vote for the candidate if they're
choosing uh I saw a couple of things
pretty quickly number one is that the
chair of the DNC at the time was a woman
named Debbie werman Schultz a
congresswoman out of
Florida and
she she made very serious decisions
unilaterally um that many times we found
out about via tweet or press release um
that that showed she was tilting the
scales in the favor of Hillary Clinton
in that 2016
primary the other thing that I saw was
how
the mainstream media and those who are
supposed to be in a position to be
neutral Arbiters to facilitate
facilitate debates and forums and
conversations so that voters can be best
informed in who they want to vote for uh
we're calling Hillary Clinton the most
qualified person ever to run for
president in the history of our country
because of the positions that she had
held as Secretary of State as a US
senator as first lady and yet they
glossed over those titles without ever
holding her asking questions even or
holding her to account for her record
especially in the area of foreign policy
the job she was running for was to be
commander-in-chief to be the president
of United
States that responsibility to serve as
commander-in-chief is the foremost
responsibility of president has it's
it's it's essentially the one area where
the president can unilat make
decisions uh
without without education healthare
immigration Congress has to actually
pass legislation president can come
through and say hey here's the policies
that I want here's legislation that I'll
propose but th those changes can't be
made without Congress um working with
Congress to pass them so she was she was
essentially being let off the hook for
her record as an American as a soldier
as a veteran uh that was big problem for
me and so I made the decision to resign
as Vice chair of the
DNC uh so that I could endorse Bernie
Sanders who largely at heart I believe
is a
non-interventionist um he he hasn't
focused a lot on foreign policy uh it's
not it's not at the heart of what his
Focus has been for decades but but he
was certainly far more of a
non-interventionist than Hillary Clinton
who has shown through her record to be
the queen of war mongers in
Washington um I wanted to be in a
position where I would have a platform
to inform
voters about her record so that they
could make that decision for themselves
so that they could see hey in this area
on this issue which is incredibly
important there is a clear contrast
between these two candidates running in
the Democratic primary uh and that's
what drove my decision to to resign and
to endorse Bernie Sanders and that's
what I went on to do throughout the rest
of that primary election what do you
like most about
Bernie the positive you know what I like
most about him is is he is who he is
yeah unapologetically so uh both in
personality but also in um in in what he
advocates for uh and what he's advocated
for for a long time so you know you can
agree or disag agree with his positions
but
um he is who he
is like I said you were a longtime
Democrat you went for president in 2020
as a Democrat now you're an independent
and you an excellent book describing
your
journey ideologically philosophically
through that why did you choose to leave
the Democratic
Party
in the book I go
into um a number of the central reasons
why I made that choice uh but
fundamental to them um is that the
Democratic party has become a party uh
that is opposed to Freedom that is
opposed to the central and foundational
principles um that exist within our
founding documents
and that serve as the identity of of who
we are as Americans and what this
country is supposed to be
about uh it has become a party that is
um controlled by this elitist cabal of
War mongers who are driven uh who are
driving forward this this quote unquote
woke agenda um and we see it through
their uh racializing of everything we
see this through their defund the police
um Mission we see this through their
open border policies we see this through
uh how in their education policy they
are failing our kids uh and how they are
pushing um this
narrative that ultimately is a rejection
of objective
Truth uh the fact that it's a question
up for debate about whether or not well
actually it's not a question Up For
Debate for them they are they are
actively pushing for
[Music]
um you know boys who identify as girls
to compete against girls in sports uh
changing our language so that the word
woman the identity of being a woman is
is essentially being erased from our
society
and it is it is the height of hypocrisy
and frankly an act of hatred towards
women that they are so intent on doing
this and ironic that it's coming from
the party that for so long Proclaim
Proclaim themselves to be the greatest
feminists and the most pro-woman party
in the country I go into detail around
each of these issues and more um in in
the book but you will see as we go
through each of these issues fundamental
and foundational to every one of them is
that sadly the Democratic party has
become a party that is so consumed by
their desire for power this insatiable
hunger for power that they are willing
to
destroy um they are willing to destroy
our Republic our democracy our
freedom just so that they can try to
hold on to to power and gain more power
so these are just different mechanisms
for power the identity of politics and
the warmongering are related to each
other in that their mechanisms to attain
more power yes you know you you're
making it sound like only the the
Democratic party are full of power
hungry people so to you you know the
Republican party I don't know if you've
met those folks but some of them a
couple of them are also in love with
power and are you know at times to some
degree politicians in general are
corrupt uh sometimes within the legal
Bond sometimes slightly outside the
legal bounds and so to you to what
degree is sort of the democratic part is
worse than the Republican party so I
don't want to paint a picture of like
this kind of beautiful vision of the
Republican party that that they're
somehow not power hungry yeah I'm I'm
glad you I'm glad you brought this up
you know the book the book details why
after 20 or so years uh as a member of
the democratic party I decided to leave
uh but also and and it goes through my
experiences and and things that I have
seen and learned along the way but I
also point out exactly that fact in the
book but from the from the very
beginning with the prologue is we should
not be naive to think that this only
exists within the Democratic party there
are very serious problems within both of
our political parties uh specifically
coming from politicians who are driven
by this desire for power and who are so
afraid of losing that power that they're
willing to do whatever they feel they
need to do which centers around taking
away our freedom because the more free
we are to make our own decisions even if
they may end up being the wrong
decisions but to learn from those things
and know that we've got to live with the
consequences that the the beauty and
messiness of what a free society looks
like they're so afraid of us because
they see us as the people and our
freedom as the central threat to their
ability to remain in power uh I think
the difference that we're seeing
today is that
unfortunately um we talked about this a
little bit how the Democratic party has
become a party where you must walk in
lock step with the leadership of that
party or risk uh or risk being faced
with um you know your reputation being
destroyed and smeared and and all of
these different attacks and the reason
why they do that is to to put people
like me and Bobby Kennedy and others up
as an example of saying hey if you step
out of line if you challenge us this is
what we're going to do to you the
Republican party has also done that and
they also have
um politicians and leaders who are more
interested in in feeding you know the
thriving system in the Washington
establishment uh but we're also seeing
that um the Republican party also has
some voices and I would say increasing
voices of people and I would put Donald
Trump in this category who are
challenging the quote unquote Norms of
the Republican party that are
represented by people like Nikki Haley
or Mike Pence for example um you know
the Republican party is is not a
monolithic entity and you know it means
different things to different people and
that's where I think the real challenge
in this next election is
less um it's really less about one
political party over another and it's
more
about our opportunity as voters to
select leaders uh first of all to fire
those who are against freedom and who
are uh War mongers who by their Essence
are willing to take away our freedom in
the name of National Security and vote
for people nobody's perfect we shouldn't
hold anybody up on a pestal but vote for
those who um who are committed to the
Constitution and who hold those values
that represent the interests of the
people I'm not aan fan of this choice
but here we are Biden versus
Trump so let me ask you uh sort of a
challenging question of pros and cons
can you can you give me pros and cons of
each what's the biggest strength and
biggest limitation of let's say
Biden um this is a tough this is a tough
question I I've known I've known uh
President Biden for a lot of years um I
knew his son Bo who served at the na in
the National Guard the same time that I
did
um I I consider Joe Biden a friend he is
someone over the years that I've talked
to and shared laughs with and uh spent
time with in different
situations the positive
characteristics that Drew me to Joe
Biden of the
past they are not represented in how he
has led as
president and you know I'll let the
pundits theorize as to how that is or
why that is but the truth that I I know
exists which points to his his
weakness is that um instead of listening
to his better
Angels uh he has
Instead at every turn if if you go back
and you you know I I look back to his
inauguration speech where he promised to
be a president for all Americans and you
know during his campaign promise to be
the uniter in Chief to bring a country
together that was deeply divided that
that's the Joe Biden that I've known for
many years a guy who has uh you know
worked with different people with
different backgrounds and different
political views but
but tried to find at at different points
in time a way to a way to work
together at every turn he has done the
exact opposite of what he spoke about
during his inauguration speech and has
left
us as the American people today more
divided uh less secure both from an
economic standpoint as well as a
national security or Safety and Security
standpoint and less free as a society
and as a
people so the biggest criticism would be
divide he divided us continueed the
division that's been um that's been
there who who do you be the greatest
uniter like to me over the past few
decades to me Obama you've been very
critical Obama on the foreign policy
side on many fronts but to
me that guy did really good maybe some
people say just rhetoric but I think
rhetoric matters when you're president I
think he was uh out of all the
presidents we had is probably the most
most effective uniter of the people
would that be fair to say during his
campaign um yes I think that his message
resonated with so many people across
generations and across you know
different views different backgrounds to
where you know people cried on the night
that he was elected because they felt so
hopeful um I I talk to people and I know
people who set aside their entire lives
to work on his campaign to be a part of
this this hope and change mission that
he laid out um that that would bring us
together uh you know some of some of um
the people that I know personally they
gave up their lives during the campaign
and after he won they went to Washington
DC uh because they wanted to be able to
do the work that they had that he had
laid out and continue to be a part of
this mission that they expected would
extend beyond the
campaign and they've expressed to me
personally how heartbroken they were
because so quickly after he was elected
instead of bringing in a new generation
of fresh leadership that was not a part
of the Washington establishment he
instead immediately chose to surround
himself with people who were more of the
same old same old who were as
essentially part of part of the
problem and many of his actions after
that
um proved that fear and that broken
heart that brokenheartedness that they
felt to be true and and I'll mention one
example related to civil liberties that
we talked about uh he was someone as a
US senator who um gave some pretty
powerful speeches on the senate floor
about his concerns with Patriot Act his
concerns with surveillance from the NSA
his concerns with uh a violation of our
fourth amendment rights and civil
liberties but when as president he was
confronted with leaked information about
this surveillance occurring under those
authorities in his presidency he cided
uh he took the side of the National
Security State and did not take action
uh to write the wrongs that he correct
irly pointed out as Senator and during
his campaign for the presidency which is
unfortunate because he really did build
this um unifying momentum uh throughout
his campaign what do you think that is
why is it so hard as a president to kind
of act on the on the Promises of the
campaign but also just I mean his speech
his basically anti-war speech that
really resonated to me the fact that he
was against the war in Iraq I believe
early
and that that was a huge point of
distinction between him and Hillary
Clinton probably one of the biggest why
is it so hard when you step into the
office of president to sort of act on
your
ideals I think it goes back to what we
talked about a little bit which is you
know what are what are you driven by and
what are you afraid of and if you are
concerned for um whether or not you can
get real
eled um who's going to fund that
re-election effort uh who's going to
fund the Presidential Library and your
legacy that will
follow there there have been some
documented examples around how he
promised to crack down on big Pharma but
when push came to shove his Department
of Justice campaign funding was
threatened and uh they chose not to take
action even when they had a very very
strong case to make uh this was with
regard to the opioid crisis in the
country and and you know this this just
goes back to the heart of why it's so
essential that we have leaders who who
have courage and who are focused
on doing what we elect them to do and
who are
resistant uh to the love of money and
power
yes it's hard and we are human we are
fallible we are flawed by nature and
I'll go into kind of the the next one
you asked about Trump the weakness side
and the lessons that I hope have been
learned from 2016 for him and his team
is you you have to be in a position
where you are surrounding
yourselves with other people of Courage
who aren't just thinking about their
next political job or their next job
getting a cable news contract or looking
for fame themselves or looking at how
they can monetize their position for
their whatever their next financial
interest might be but people of Courage
who know what they're up against to to
really seriously clean house across the
federal government and the corruption
and rot that is so deeply entrenched
uh in order to truly be
effective uh and if he is
reelected uh that that is that is my
hope that he sees that he's learned from
what went wrong in 2016 that you know he
went in you know W with a largely
non-interventionist more uh focused on
peace agenda and yet he surrounded
himself with people who are at the heart
of the warmongers in Washington and who
directly uh went against the the
policies that he advocated for uh on the
strength side I think it's
it's it's easy to point out because it's
also what um has caused him to be
so uh attacked in ways that we haven't
seen before certainly not in my
lifetime by uh by the Democrats by the
bid an
Administration uh not only in now but
you know something that started back in
in 2016 when he was a a candidate he's a
guy who you know by all measures has
been successful in his own life and
because of that he's not coming in with
this desire to pleasee Washington that
many other politicians have and because
he is so willing to challenge the quote
unquote
norms and these are not Norms that serve
the interest of the American people
these are norms that serve the interests
of the most powerful um he is he is a
direct threat uh and so that attitude
and that mindset of not coming in with
the kind of caution that too many
politicians come in with of wanting to
be the popular one at the parties or
whatever it is that they want uh that
that is the strength that he brings yeah
I just had a conversation with Dana
White and he he's good friends with
Trump and he talks to the fact that he
seems to be
resistant to the attacks is some aspect
of that is just the psychology of being
able to withstand the attacks that that
are there in in the political game and
that can break people like you just
don't want the headaches so to withstand
the attacks is tough and something about
his psychology
allows for for that I mean I guess a
question for you also in your own
psychology you've been attacked quite a
bit we've mentioned some of that sort of
misrepresentations and um how do you
deal with that by yourself like how do
you not become cynical or or uh
overcompensate the other direction that
kind of
stuff it really stems from having a
clear sense of purpose I never saw you
know I I've served in state government
I've served on our city council in
Honolulu and served in Congress uh
but at no time have I have I seen this
as a quote unquote political career um I
don't have that ladder climbing ambition
that a lot of politicians have my sense
of purpose is deeply rooted in
my my dedication and and my desire in my
life to be pleasing to God and to live a
life of service and what better way to
be pleasing to God than to try to do my
best to work for the well-being of God's
children being rooted in
that has made it so that as the attacks
are coming from different directions
even as people who I was friends with uh
former colleagues of mine uh others even
family members even as they have turned
away or become attackers against me
themselves because of different reasons
related to
politics um of course it's it's a sad
thing especially when it's someone that
you know you know personally and have
had a personal friendship or
relationship with but I don't live my
life trying to
please uh politicians or please the
people who show up on TV
or or anyone else as long as I am doing
my best to be pleasing to God that is
where I draw my happiness from and my
fulfillment and contentment and strength
so you you've spoken about the value of
religious faith in your life of your
Hindu faith and seeing the Bava as a
spiritual guide so what role does faith
in God play in your life it's everything
it is Central to who I
am um what inspires me what motivates me
where I find strength where I find peace
where I
find shelter and where I find
happiness and this has been a
constant
um
throughout you know times of challenge
times of Darkness times of heartbreak
times of
happiness in in
um always feeling very
secure in knowing that God's
unconditional love is ever
present and no matter what else is
happening in my life um that God is my
best
friend
and remaining centered and
grounded um in always remembering that
and meditating upon that
truth is um that's everything to me the
interesting thing
about the Hindu god is how
welcoming the religion is of other
religions just it's true how accepting
it is it's so in that way in many ways
it's one of the most beautiful religions
on Earth so like who who do you think
God is to you
like in in in the specifically the texts
but also you
personally what does he
represent uh so for for Hinduism it's
also God can be many there's also like a
aspect where there's a it's it's like a
part of all of us there's like a uniting
thing not a singular figure outside of
us I think one of the things that's most
commonly misunderstood about Hinduism uh
that people don't know is that that
Hinduism is truly a monotheistic
religion that there is one God and he
goes by many names that describe his
different qualities and
characteristics and and as you pointed
out Hinduism is um uniquely of a
non-sectarian spiritual practice
essentially um it's it's not a quote
unquote religion that you convert into
or you leave behind or or whatever the
case may
be uh Bhagavad Gita a central scripture
and text um that comes from India
literally means song of God and the
principles that that um are conveyed
throughout the Bhagavad Gita are
applicable to all of us uh they are
Timeless truths that whether you
consider yourself Christian or Catholic
or uh you know Muslim or Jewish or Hindu
um
these these truths uh are are Eternal
and and relevant through all time uh so
for us as as kids growing up
um we we learned from and had bedtime
stories that came from both the Bhagavad
Gita and the New Testament uh my dad was
raised Catholic my mom was raised
Episcopalian and both of them were
attracted to the Bhagavad Gita as they
were in their own lives searching for a
more personal relationship with God than
they had been able to find elsewhere in
their own spiritual
Journeys and
and that's
where the application of of you know
there there teachings in the badita for
example that talk about Bak yoga Baki
yoga essentially translates into uh
dedicating your life um striving to
develop a loving relationship with God
uh Karma Yoga there's a a chapter in the
Bhagavad Gita that speaks about Karma
Yoga karma is a word that has become a
part of the you know both Karma and yoga
have become very common
terms uh but what it really means is
um trying to dedicate your actions in
life that have in a way that have a
positive impact on others being of
service to others and so for me growing
up uh I never really understood as a kid
the idea of sectarianism of one religion
battling against another because I knew
and understood and experienced
um that uh the the real meaning of
religion was love for God no matter what
name you worship Him by or or how you
worship uh that that is the real meaning
of religion and the application of that
in in your life is is
um you know you ask how do I see God in
a personal way I see I I know that God
is my best friend God is my Confidant
when I am struggling with with a problem
in my life or you know during those
Quiet Moments by
myself um where I am anxious or I'm
sad I turn to God for uh that Solace uh
for that Clarity for that strength to
both know what the right thing to do is
and the strength to act
accordingly uh and and to constantly
strive um to further develop that very
personal loving relationship with
God tulsy this was an honor to finally
meet you to talk to you this was amazing
thank you thank you Lex it's so
wonderful to be here thank you for the
opportunity thanks for listening to this
conversation with Tulsi gabard to
support this podcast please check out
our sponsors in the description and now
let me leave you with some words from
Dwight D Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell
address
a vital element in keeping the peace is
our military establishment our arms must
be Mighty ready for instant action so
that no potential aggressor may be
tempted to risk his own
destruction American makers of
plowshares could with time and as
required make swords as well but now we
can no longer risk emergency
improvisation of National Defense we
have been compelled to create a per
perent ornaments industry of vast
proportions this conjunction of immense
military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American
experience yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications in the
councils of government we must guard
against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence whether sought or unsought by
the military industrial
complex the potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist thank you for listening and hope
to see you next
time