3/3/26: Scott Horton Unloads On Iran War, MSM Pro-War Propaganda, Kat Abughazaleh On Iran and Ukraine

This is an iHeart podcast.

Guaranteed Human.

Discover a spectacular island destination

with crystal blue seas, endless sunshine,

and the cool Bahamian breeze.

Bahamar, located in Nassau Bahamas,

offers your choice of three luxury hotels,

the richly refined rosewood, the playfully hip SLS,

and a stylishly modern grand riot.

With over 45 restaurants, bars, and lounges,

Bahamar serves up delicious dining

from world-renowned shops,

like Daniel Ballude and Marcus Ann Wilson.

Nightlife venues like the new John Batista Jazz Club,

and the Caribbean's most luxurious casino.

At Bahamar, you'll find every pleasure under the sun,

and one of the kind experiences for the entire family,

like Bahabay, our 15-acre lush tropical water park,

interactive wildlife experiences,

including our daily flamingo parade,

world-class golf, tennis, spa, and so much more.

Visit bahamar.com today and discover a vacation destination

where memories are made for a lifetime.

Bahamar, life spectacular.

Support for the show comes from public,

the investing platform for those who take it seriously.

On public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio

of stock, bonds, options, crypto,

and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea

into an investable index with AI.

It all starts with your prompt,

from renewable energy companies with high free cash flow

to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue

over 20% year over year.

You can literally type any prompt

and put the AI to work.

It screens thousands of stocks,

builds a one-of-a-kind index,

and lets you backtest it against the S&P 500.

Then, you can invest in a few clicks.

Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities,

completely customizable,

and based on your thesis, not someone else's.

Go to public.com slash podcast,

and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio.

That's public.com slash podcast,

paid for by public investing,

brokerage services by open to the public investing ink,

member Finra and SIPC,

advisory services by public advisors LLC,

SEC registered advisor.

Generated assets is an interactive analysis tool.

Output is for informational purposes only,

and is not an investment recommendation or advice,

complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures.

You're listening to a podcast.

So you're doing something else too,

like maybe scrolling home listings on Redfin,

saving places you like without thinking you'll get them,

because that's what house hunting has become.

But Redfin isn't built for endless browsing.

It's built to help you find and own a home.

Redfin agents close twice as many deals

as other agents, which means when you find a place you love,

you've got a real shot at getting it.

Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses.

Get started at redfin.com.

Own the dream.

Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role

in this election,

and we are so excited about what that means

for the future of the show.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives

from the left and the right

that simply does not exist anywhere else.

So if that is something that's important to you,

please go to breakingpoints.com,

become a member today,

and you'll get access to our full shows,

unedited, ad-free,

and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future

of independent news media,

and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com.

Joining us now is Scott Horton,

he's the director of the Libertarian Institute

and the author of Proboke Scott.

It's good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you both very much for having me.

Well, obviously,

and we have so much to talk about,

you are, of course, an expert really on the history

of a lot of the claims here,

but you're also an expert on NATO.

We were actually very curious for your take here,

as we watch the next frontier of this war evolve.

So we've got the US and Israel at war with Iran.

You've got Iran attacking much of the Gulf,

but now you have Israel also trying to set the terms

for the potential destruction of NATO,

saying that they may even attack Turkey.

Let's take a listen here to Neftali Bennett,

the former Prime Minister of Israel, get your reaction.

Turkish threat is emerging.

I want to be very clear.

Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria,

are seeking influence elsewhere

and everywhere throughout the region.

And from here, I warn Turkey is the new Iran.

Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous,

and he seeks to encircle Israel.

We can't close our eyes again.

And while some senior Israelis were on Qatar's payroll,

Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster,

that is growing and eventually might become as dangerous

as the one created by Iran.

Turkey and Qatar are gaining influence not only in Syria,

but also in Gaza, through the front door, and everyone

and trying to create a new choke ring.

Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us

and establish a hostile Sunni access with nuclear Pakistan.

So Scott, if this war continues to drag on,

they're potentially maybe attacking Turkey,

which would probably be the dissolution of NATO itself.

Your reaction, both to that clip, into the entire situation.

Well, first of all, I have to say that Neftali Bennett

is the cause of September 11th for people who don't know.

In 1996, Neftali Bennett called in an artillery strike

on a UN shelter in Khan 11 on and killed 108 women and children

and bin Laden went off all about that

in his first declaration of war in 1996.

And when Muhammad Ata and his best friend Ramsey bin Al Sheev

read bin Laden's declaration of war

and his declaration, they need to get revenge

for the Khan of massacre and Operation grapes of wrath.

That was what made Muhammad Ata, the lead hijacker

of September 11th, decide to join al-Qaeda.

And so literally, it was that man's murder

of innocent women and children

that caused those two towers full of 3,000 innocent men

and women to be brought down on September 11th.

So don't anyone ever forget that about Neftali Bennett.

And then he will be Prime Minister of Israel again,

almost certainly.

And then as far as NATO goes, we should leave NATO.

We should abandon Israel faster than we should abandon

Turkey just so there's no confusion there.

But it's understandable that the Israelis

are upset with the Turks.

After they helped, the Turks help Al-Qaeda take over Syria.

Well, now they don't have the botus to balance against Turkey

anymore.

Who could have thought that there would

have been repercussions from helping Al-Qaeda

sack the botus?

And is it true that Turkey and Qatar

backed the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region?

Yes, absolutely.

It was a tradition started by the British and the Americans

through the Saudis.

They created the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place.

Everybody read Devils Game by Robert Dreyfus

is an excellent book on the background, all of that.

But is that the kind of thing that could be solved

with diplomacy by the American super duper power?

Yes, obviously, if that's what we were trying to do.

But if the Israelis have a strategy that says,

let's go ahead and pick a fight with the Turks,

well, then common sense and reason and diplomatic

possibility are basically irrelevant.

They get what they want, evidently.

I wanted to ask you, Scott, about the role

that religious rhetoric and fanaticism plays in stoking

these conflicts in advance or just after Trump

started this war.

There was this bizarre CNN piece where

they were talking about how the date was chosen

because of its connection to the poor and holiday

and something to do with Amalek.

We've got BB out talking about Amalek again,

similar rhetoric to what we heard in connection

with the genocide in Gaza.

And then there's this report from independent journalist

Jonathan Larsen this morning.

I don't know if you've seen this yet, where he's found

that US troops were told the Iran War is for Armageddon

and the return of Jesus.

I'll read you a little bit from this piece.

A combat unit commander told non-commissioned officers

at a briefing Monday that the Iran War is part of God's plan

that President Donald Trump was anointed by Jesus

to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon

and mark his return to Earth.

According to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer

from Saturday morning through Monday night,

more than 110 similar complaints about commanders

in every branch of the military had been logged

by the military religious freedom foundation.

And just as one more example, of course,

we all listen to that interview

between Mike Huckabee, Christian Zionist and Tucker Carlson

where he said, yeah, I'm good with the Greater Israel Project

because he sees that as fulfillment of a biblical prophecy.

It's completely crazy.

I mean, I don't know.

Makes you wish that the skull and bones of Piscopelians

would come back, you know.

These, look, you know, what can I say?

I can't really argue religious doctrine with people

because I don't really have one.

But I think there, in my lifetime,

there's been a broad spectrum of people

who believe in the Bible and religion,

but who don't take, you know, biblical prophecy

as their mandate to implement as American foreign policy

is completely nuts that you would have

not just, you know, Republican voters whipped into line

with this kind of crap,

but that you would have actual policies

based on this that you would have leaders

of the military who were actually caught up in this stuff.

And, you know, it's people's religion.

It's not like you can just convince them that,

oh, that's just superstition or that's one part

of the Bible where you shouldn't be guessing at

or whatever.

It's the most important thing in the world to them

and everybody believes their own interpretation of it

with, you know, whatever degree of blind faith,

it's pretty hard to shake anyone out of that belief

that like actually, you know, maybe this is just a line of crap

and your particular beliefs about what's happening now

and the near future in biblical prophecies

really no more credible than David Kuresh

or any other end times prophecy going on.

But this is a big deal inside the military

and I know especially in the US Air Force,

there's an activist named Mikey Weinstein,

obviously a Jewish activist going back to the W Bush years

who complained very heavily about this kind of end times

apocalyptic belief systems at the very height

of the leadership of the US Air Force

where these are the guys in charge

of delivering the H bombs and they are really caught up

in like biblical prophecy that, yeah, maybe this is meant to be.

This is how we force Jesus to come back

as we start a world war, maybe even a nuclear war,

the end of the world because that's what's supposed to happen.

That's God's plan is for us to cause this terrible chaos.

When, you know, anyone could tell you,

I mean, I just happen to grow up around Christians

and I know it says in there that nobody knows the day

or the time and all of this.

You're just supposed to wait around for the second coming.

You're not supposed to try to make it happen

but I've known people like this in my life too.

You know, I'm from Texas,

there's a lot of baptists around here

and various strains of evangelicals

and I have known people who are just absolutely convicted

beyond any certainty that you see right here

where it says one day, well, one day means 500 years

and 500 years means I'm gonna get raptured up in the thing

and whatever and there are people who are,

they're so into it and there's no way to reason with them.

The idea that they would be really having this much influence

on how policy is carried out is absolutely terrifying.

I mean, I don't know what's to say.

I grew up around the very same people, Scott,

not that far from where you live.

We also wanted to take advantage of your expertise

on the nuclear issues.

So the vice president, JD Vance took to the airwaves yesterday.

He said this is all about Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

All they want is for this military campaign

for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon.

Now, remember the Secretary of State

and the Secretary of Defense have said,

actually this is about a missile shield

for that nuclear weapon.

This BB Netanyahu said this is about immunity from strike,

AKA we have to take out their immunity

from the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

By the way, meanwhile, let's put this D3 up here on the screen.

Satellite imagery currently indicates

that there has been an apparent attack

on the Iranian nuclear site,

but only a limited in terms of the amount of attack.

How credulous do you take this,

to credulous this explanation?

This is all about nuclear weapons.

Oh, they're simply lying.

It's a completely bogus pretext for war.

I mean, in fact, last summer they really did essentially

obliterate Iran's nuclear program.

They took the Fordo Natanz and Isfahan facilities

completely offline.

And Fordo and Natanz is where they are

enriching uranium hexafluora gas to a higher percent U-235.

And Isfahan is the conversion facility

where you can take metal to gas and back to metal again.

Well, without that, I mean, they're essentially just shut down.

There's a new report by a group called ISIS Online.

There's just David Albright.

He's a little bit sketchy, but this seems credible enough

where they have their satellite pictures show

there's absolutely nothing going on at Fordo and Natanz

or Isfahan at all.

They've sealed all the entrances with dirt and the rest.

There's a place called Pickaxe Mountain

where supposedly they're doing some preliminary tunnel

digging or whatever.

They have essentially zero operating cascades

anywhere in the country.

So Trump and Netanyahu, they really did call the IOTO

as buff last June and essentially decimated his program.

And then we know from the negotiations in Oman

that the Iranians were essentially negotiating

from that position of weakness and knew it.

They said, you know what?

We'll give you Obama deal times 100.

We'll have a full moratorium on enrichment

for up to three to five years, for between three to five years.

And even then, we'll enrich only up to 1.5%.

We'll take any stockpile of uranium that we have

and we'll send that to the United States,

not even to Russia or France,

but to the United States to hold onto the stockpile

and transform any enrichment that they do enriched

to fuel rods and send back.

And they promised no sunset provisions.

So anything that that was one of the big complaints

about the GCPOA was all the sunsets

that these things expire in five or 10 years.

So they were climbing way down the ladder as far as,

they were only the barest face saving on the ability

to continue to maintain a civilian nuclear energy program

at all.

And then, I think that's probably why they launched the war,

right, is this is the reporting that Netanyahu came to town

and said, don't let these negotiations get in the way

of starting the war.

We're doing this.

The negotiations are only a pretext.

And this seems likely that they decided

to launch the war when they did

because the Iranians were too willing to compromise.

And Whitcoff was about to come home with an acceptable deal

and they couldn't have that.

And let me ask you my last question for you on that.

We've been talking about the extraordinary comments

from Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying,

hey, there wasn't imminent threat

because Israel was going to attack Iran

with us or without us.

And that was going to create a risk of Iran attacking

our bases and service members in the region.

So rather than saying to Israel, hey, don't do that.

And you know, you're going to be the repercussions

if you do a client state, vassal state of ours.

Instead, they said, I guess we're going to get roped

into this war with Iran.

I mean, how do you make sense of this?

Why is the option of constraining Israel

just seemingly completely off the table

and out of sight for these people?

Yeah, I'm not sure how much I'd buy that.

I mean, clearly Netanyahu's roped Donald Trump

into doing this by hook or crook one way or the other.

I'm not so sure I'd buy the narrative that he said,

look, I'm going to do it without you.

And I might use nukes and I'm going to provoke attacks

against American bases.

So you might as well come with me and gave Trump no choice.

That sounds to me like public relations from the White House.

I appreciate them blaming Israel

because they do deserve a lot of the blame.

But Trump is the man in that chair behind that desk.

Trying to wash their hands of the consequences and say,

they made us do it effectively.

And remember, there was that story in political,

just what, one or two days before the war launched.

I guess it came out on what Thursday before the war

that they were talking with the Israelis about

maybe having the Israelis start the war

in order to provoke Iran into hitting US bases

so that they could tell the American people,

well, see they hit our bases, we have to do this.

So if they were floating that as a way,

as a sort of end run around the American people

on a backdoor way into getting into the war on Thursday

from the White House's side, they were floating that.

And it sounds to me like they were perfectly

in coordination on this.

So they decided to do this together.

So if that rationale is out the window

and I also am a little bit skeptical of it

to be honest with you, then what is the motivation for Trump

who, you know, we have a whole compilation

of Trump and our kid, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard

and Steven Miller and JD Vance.

Although, oh, we'd never go to war with Iran blah, blah, blah.

What is the rationale for this large now regional war?

What is the rationale for the timing?

You know, what do you think did lead to this?

If it wasn't, you know, some combination

of Donald Trump being compromised and Israeli threats.

Right, it didn't funny that that's even a question.

We don't know why the president launched

this completely unnecessary, unprovoked aggressive war.

And we got to like sit here and suss it out

through the tea leaves.

Did they have video of him raping a child?

Is that what it is that beneath all those Epstein redactions

is Donald Trump actually committing felonies

or do they, maybe nothing to do with Epstein?

Maybe they've just been tapping his phone

like they did a Bill Clinton.

Remember they tried to blackmail Bill Clinton

with Monica Lewinsky before that story ever leaked

that we want you to release Jonathan Pollard

and he almost did it.

It said that the top ranks of the CIA

were all gonna resign over it

and cause a huge controversy.

But they went to Bill Clinton and said,

we got proof you're cheating on your wife, pal.

They had no problem trying to blackmail the president then.

So it could be that.

It also could be that just Donald Trump

is good friends with Netanyahu.

He's always, you know, his son-in-law Jared Kushner,

obviously always speaks from the Lecude point of view.

He doesn't know anything else about it.

He doesn't know any Palestinians or any Iranians.

He knows any Iranians.

They're monarchist expat types, right?

He doesn't know anyone to tell him

a real contrary point of view on these things.

I think is a big part of it.

And then, you know, people would always say,

oh, Donald Trump, he's so uncouth.

You know, he's not from Manhattan, he's from Queens

and he's kind of like, don't get me wrong.

He's obviously born very rich,

but he has that sort of uncouth working class way

of talking or whatever.

And they were afraid.

Remember they'd say, I think he's an anti-Semite.

He one time used the word Jew outside of a reverential tone

or whatever, you know, we're afraid.

I'm like, okay, if there really is any of that,

kind of like Donald Trump era sort of racism

that he grew up in as a New Yorker in that time or whatever,

there potentially could be a little bit of that.

I don't see that certainly as far as Jews go,

but even if that was true,

well, how much lower must he consider Arabs then?

If that's what a kind of menal racist he is.

If he thinks, you know, he looks down on Jews

or other minorities at all, the Palestinians,

they're A-rabs, they're camel jockeys and sand and words

and whatever, he's just do it then what he wants.

The same way they created Israel in the first place.

Yeah, a bunch of Arabs have to be removed, but so what?

It's like talking about removing livestock

or something like that.

It doesn't affect them morally or whatever.

So if Netanyahu says to Trump, man,

this could be big and fun and you'll go down in history,

Bill Krista will compare you to Theodore Roosevelt

and you'll be great and whatever,

then that could be very tempting to Donald Trump.

You know, it could be all of the above, right?

Yeah.

Something big, something that, you know,

he wants to build this giant arch in Washington.

So he's remembered as the guy who built the giant arch,

you know, like he wants to do something.

Scott, as always, man, thank you for joining us.

Appreciate you.

Absolutely.

Thank you both.

Wildlife sanctuary, world-class golf course,

and so much more.

Visit BahaMar.com today.

Support for the show comes from public,

the investing platform for those who take it seriously.

On public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio

of stock, bonds, options, crypto, and now generated assets,

which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index

with AI.

It all starts with your prompt.

From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow

to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue

over 20% year over year,

you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work.

It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one-of-a-kind index,

and lets you backtest it against the S&P 500.

Then you can invest in a few clicks.

Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities,

completely customizable, and based on your thesis,

not someone else's.

Go to public.com slash podcast,

and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio.

That's public.com slash podcast, paid for by public investing,

brokerage services by open to the public investing ink,

member FINRA and SIPC, advisory services

by public advisors LLC, SEC registered advisor.

Generated assets is an interactive analysis tool.

Output is for informational purposes only,

and is not an investment recommendation or advice.

Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures.

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty,

the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel

Cindy Crawford.

It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin.

Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skincare simple,

and it's loved by millions of women.

It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types,

and it's designed to work as a complete skincare system.

Leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished.

I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen,

which contains all five of her best-selling products,

including the amazing youth activating melanchero.

This next generation serum has the power

of melancholy stem cell technology.

It's melancholy stem cells encapsulated for freshness

and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction

in the appearance of wrinkles.

With thousands of glowing five star reviews,

why not give it a try?

Subscribe today and you can get the amazing

Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95.

That includes our introductory five-piece system,

free gifts, free shipping and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

All of that available at MeaningfulBeauty.com.

All right, guys, we wanted Carbano will space to take a look

at the overwhelming pro-war media propaganda diet

that the American people are being force fed right now.

Let's start with CNN, Dana Bash,

with some interesting guests here.

Let's take a listen.

This is a Berlin Wall moment.

Just tear this wall down.

Then America will be safe without Islamic Republic.

I love America.

I love Iran.

No, Sagar, many people are saying that CNN

is set to get worse under the Ellison control.

And I do have confidence that Barry will figure out how,

but it's gonna take some creativity based on what I've seen

on that network in the, you know,

after this war was launched.

Look, no disrespect to this, maybe.

Actually, I don't say that before.

Yeah, actually, no, disrespect.

Like, here's the deal.

You know, this woman, I get it.

She's Iranian expat.

She wants freedom for her country.

I'm like very limited somewhat sympathetic.

My country is not a vessel for you to achieve your ambitions.

It knows, I forget.

I think Bronco said this.

America is the only country on earth,

which has immigrants that come to it to get it to bomb

their own country.

It's the only place.

I've also said this generally about diaspora.

And I really mean this.

The diaspora are often some of the least informed people,

most biased and out of touch about what's going on back home.

I said that about myself.

Do not ask me about what's going on in India.

I don't know.

I'm from Brian, Texas, okay?

I barely know what's going on in my own country.

Let alone to reflect the beliefs

of one billion people who live across the world.

It's ridiculous.

And yet, Treetoparcy was telling us this morning

that BBC ran an article with three people in Iran,

or a soundbiter, whatever, three people in Iran,

where they're like, we're so happy to be bombed,

as if that's the only view inside of the country.

CNN is trying to project the same thing,

Berlin Wall moment.

No, it's not, it's a catastrophe for the people in Iran.

Maybe it'll end up good,

but in the immediate term,

there's at least over 1,000 people

who are confirmed to be killed,

including a much a little school children.

Not to mention all of the other people killed across,

the region as a result of this embroiling conflict.

We don't sit here, good cheer up and down.

We don't even know what's going to come next.

You're probably cheering on your own civil war

and destruction of your own country.

It's disgusting.

You know, the people to talk to you really would,

hey, let's talk to the Iraqis about.

Yeah, no, you're right.

Let's talk to the Afghans.

Let's talk to the people of Libya.

Let's talk to them about, you know,

I'm probably some of them had some hopes and aspirations

when someone did.

Yeah, we saw some cheering.

Yeah, when we came in, et cetera.

How did that go for you?

I think that would be an interesting revelatory

to see from our news networks.

Let me go ahead and skip over to MSNOW with Rachel Maddow.

And this was a very interesting segment here

because she goes out of her way.

And look, I think that it's true that

some of the Gulf country, Saudi Arabia in particular,

I mean, there is a rivalry there with Iran, right?

And there was reporting that Saudi Arabia

was also pushing Trump alongside Israel

to get into this war with Iran.

But let's be very clear.

I mean, it's very clear who the primary mover is here, right?

It's Israel.

I mean, you can listen to the Secretary of State.

You can listen to Netanyahu,

talking about how he's tried in president after president

to get someone to do this.

And finally, you got Donald Trump too.

You can listen to him talk about how this is a fulfillment

of a 40-year fantasy that he has held.

And so Rachel, kind of cleverly,

decides to orbit a race that aspect

and instead focus in on these Gulf countries,

which are now inflames and being attacked

and running out of interceptors and being stonewalled

by the United States for any sort of replacements,

let's take a listen to a little bit of that.

Who benefits?

Who wants Iran bombed off the map and for their own reasons?

Who are Iran's rivals and enemies?

Parenially, it's the Gulf Arab states,

countries like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates

and Qatar.

And of course, you remember the Saudis

who stuffed another $2 billion into the pockets

of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

They said, don't worry, Jared,

we'll never again work for the U.S. government.

He's never coming back to Washington.

So it's okay that he's taken all this money

from the Saudis now.

We will never have to worry about having somebody

involved in U.S. policy

who has also just been given billions of dollars

by Saudi Arabia, apparently for no reason.

Well, that was the explanation when he took all that money

from the Saudis at the end of Trump's first term.

And now today, who has been leading the negotiations

on behalf of the United States government with Iran

before we just started this war with them today?

I mean, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio

was in St. Kits this week.

It wasn't him.

No, it was Jared Kushner.

And I think this will be the, you know,

the MSNBC line from a lot of the host

because this allows them to be anti-war

and is much easier to pick on,

like the politics of picking on Saudi Arabia

and look, they deserve it, like critical.

Saudi Arabia as well.

The politics of that are much easier

than focusing your eye on it.

What about the word Israel?

Israel, can we all say it?

The Secretary of State said it.

Can we say it?

Israel is the primary mover of this conflict.

Why am I, this makes me feel crazy.

And look, we expect bullshit from Fox,

but in a time of opposition,

the way that you channel that opposition,

like with CNN, where like it's like that

Mark Warner initial, they're like,

well, but we need to hear a case from the president

and the war and he needs a strat,

it's like, no, there's no strategy.

This whole thing is bullshit.

It's over.

This is bad.

They can't, like, look, we saw this during Iraq,

you know, with the MSNBC and all that light

in the initial years of the war

before eventually discovering the Keith Overman opposition,

but we don't want to get to that point.

Let's just not get there in the first place.

I will at least give the politicians credit

they're ahead of like the media in this case.

Mark Warner and Ruben Gaiego,

you know, these are like centrist as they come.

Gaiego, I love there.

Gaiego is definitely trying to make a pivot.

He's just endorsed Grand Planner as well.

But yeah, I mean, they,

even they though are like, this is Israel's war.

They're calling them, they're like,

we're being walked around on a leash.

I mean, this is like four Channs, you know,

Zaga posting from like five years ago.

You know what I mean?

I know.

It is crazy to hear Mark Warner in particular

when I heard him talking about like Israel dragging us

from where it was like, wow.

I could never have imagined.

You know, to your point, let's actually play a Fox News clip

because just rest assured, Fox News has been

embarrassingly slavishly pro war building up to the war

in the war now, whitewashing everything that's going on.

I mean, just absolute shameful cheerleaders.

And this moment from Britt Hume,

this is a E7 guy that I'm queuing up here

is particularly extraordinary because he's like,

oh, I think the Democrats are caught in a bind

because this war is so popular.

Meanwhile, look at literally every poll

and you will see the way that people

are completely disgusted with what is being done

in their name.

This is E7, let's take a listen to that.

The public reaction is likely to be favorable.

And I think these Democrats are kind of trapped

because they exist in a party whose membership overwhelmingly

despises Donald Trump.

It's been called Trump derangement syndrome

and there's something to that.

And the result is that these Democrats

with rare exceptions, John Federman today, of course,

the one we just heard from are opposed to this

because they feel they must be.

That they feel their job in life

is to resist and oppose Donald Trump

in every way, almost no matter what he does.

So I think that accounts for the political reaction

on the Democratic side here.

Now, over time, those who are critical may feel vindicated

if things start to go barely.

But if they don't, they're going to be stuck with this.

These cases is going to, you know,

the public is going to react very favorably to them.

This is the same guy who sold the Iraq War in early time.

Why should we be so surprised?

I literally used to watch this guy

when I was a bit like a child in grade school

doing the exact same stuff.

Nothing has changed.

Absolutely nothing has changed.

And look, if anything, I want to give America credit

because despite all this BS,

they're still against the poor.

Imagine that.

This is like a boomer trap,

but the rest of the country is living

in a totally different reality.

I mean, I'm not just fluffing us,

but yesterday was literally the biggest day

in the history of our show.

I think this is why.

I almost look, you know,

you don't want to be too self-referential.

I'm like, it's very nice if the show is popular,

but you'll watch the cable news like I was yesterday

waiting for Trump to speak.

And I was like, oh, this is why, right?

Because it's just Brett McGurk.

Brett McGurk was on Stephen Colbert yesterday.

Oh my God.

Yes, so Libs, give him up.

All right, Colbert is bad.

Sorry, unironically.

Like that was Stephen Colbert's special guest.

If you don't know who that is,

former, he worked for multiple administrations.

He's pro-war, you know, he's anti.

He was driving the pro-genocide tree.

Exactly.

Underline.

Like, you know, one of these typical blob politicians

who's just been around the block.

One of the most failed politicians,

like one of the most failed US policymakers,

probably in decades.

But continues to fail up and have the round.

Exactly.

And he's the one who's on CNN all the time.

Now he's on Stephen Colbert.

I mean, this is the level of propaganda

that we're all dealing with.

It's craziness.

Let's put E6 up on the screen.

This is Scott Jennings, who's, of course,

the resident Republican over at CNN.

So he's got two sirens here.

He says, senior Trump administration officials

tell me that credible intelligence

indicated a Ron planned preemptive missile strikes

against US military targets in the region

and against civilian targets as well,

failure to act what a resulted in mass US casualties.

Yeah.

So, you know, this is really credible information

when senior officials rather than, like,

you know, briefing Congress or, like,

planning this with a credible media source,

leak it to Scott Jennings so that he can tweet it out.

And sure enough, immediately, you had everyone

from Ted Cruz, you know, the military,

the people themselves who went and briefed Congress saying,

yeah, no, this is, this is not true.

There were no preemptive attacks.

And now, of course, we've got Marco Rubio

laying out this new tale about how, well, technically,

there's sort of more preemptive attacks

if Israel struck them first, which we thought

they were going to strike them first.

And that put us at risk.

I guess that's their definition of, you know,

preemptive that we're preempting Israel

putting our troops in danger is the new story.

Is CNN going to have this guy on again?

I mean, look at this.

I mean, CNN lies all the time on their airwaves

and they just keep having them back, having them back.

It's all theater.

It's all game, you know, to all of these people.

If you get a story, like, here's the thing,

you're going to have any opinion that you want.

Literally any, I don't care.

I'll never say that you shouldn't be allowed on the air.

But that is literally bullshit whenever it comes.

And it's a laundered propaganda from the government.

Does CNN have any standards to allow this up on their air?

Because he is doing this under their auspices,

repeating these types of talking points.

And so again, it's not an opinion.

This is a literal fact that he's trying to presuppose

onto the minds of the American public,

which is a complete lie, a complete lie.

If someone like came on our program

and just like routinely, like, we would not have

back someone on the air who's just trying to lie

to our audience all the time.

Why, what is the purpose of that?

Like, it's not a game.

It's not fun.

Yeah, they like the, you know, they like the fights.

They like the debates.

They like that, that circus.

And so we'll fight in debate if we think there's a purpose to it.

But this is literally a purpose for the actual, like, you know,

supposed entertainment value.

But this is the ultimate reduction of the mainstream media,

where even war and peace lives, where lives are at stake.

The lives of American service members, Iranians,

Israelis, Americans living in the entire Gulf,

even that is reduced to entertainment.

This is, this is why I hate these people so, so much.

It's, by the way, speaking of hate, Van Jones, Mr. Reesable.

Here's Mr. Reesable, Van Jones, sing in the praises

of Reza Pallavi, the fail son,

who will be the next monarch of Iran.

Take a listen.

Recently, you saw millions of people come out of their homes

protesting demanding a new regime.

They were chanting the name of Reza Pallavi.

Who is Reza Pallavi?

He is actually the son of someone who's known as the Shah of Iran.

He doesn't want to come home as a ruler like his father.

He wants to come home as a healer.

He wants to come home as what's called a transitional figure

to give the people of Iran a fair chance

to come up with a new government for themselves

that is based not on theocracy like they have right now,

or a monarchy like they had under his father,

but a true democracy.

But why should you care about Reza Pallavi?

If Iran were suddenly to be ruled by someone

who believes in democracy, believes in rule of law,

believes in women's rights, believes in fairness to everyone,

suddenly the entire region of the Middle East

changes overnight.

And the Iranian people get a chance to step forward

as partners to the world again.

Yeah, this is what counts now for good analysis.

They were chanting his name maybe some people were,

maybe a few Masad people in the crowd were, for sure.

This guy has no support out of Los Angeles

and here in Georgetown and Potomac, Maryland, where he is.

Did you know that Trump say something about him?

Yeah, even he, he was like, yeah,

he doesn't have that much support except, you know, it's true.

That's true.

And then that lady with the Afro who's on TV,

that's it, those are the only people, right?

Whoever, it's ridiculous.

And this is like, honestly, Ahmed Chalabi had more of a chance

of leading Iraq than this guy does of leading Iran.

A democratic transition phase.

I mean, you know, this guy has not even said one word

about any of the people he supposedly wants to lead.

Who are dead?

Not one word.

So he's gonna lead them?

Oh, yeah.

Okay, I'm sure that's gonna work out.

One thing that really, in two years, leaders

to their, you know, potential subjects

is when they cheer for their country to get bombed

and their people to get killed

and don't even express regret about it when it happens.

That's something that I find really

in deers a potential leader to their people.

And yeah, I mean, you know, and you love the propaganda,

like he fails to mention how the Shaw came into power

and why it was a monarchy.

The fact that we overthrew their actual democratic,

we elected leader Mosadek and installed the shans to the Shaw.

So I mean, there is no legitimacy here whatsoever.

And, you know, apparently in the Trump regime knows that,

but somehow Van Jones, who used to somehow be a Maoist,

I mean, this man's transition to whatever this is,

it's just crazy, total cell out at this point.

And yeah, well, yeah, you can take a little something

called Bayzo's Prize.

Google, Bayzo's Prize, what do you get?

100 million?

Yeah, okay.

Interesting.

Discover a spectacular island destination

with crystal blue seas, endless sunshine

and the cool Bahamian breeze.

Bahamar, located in Nassau Bahamas,

offers your choice of three luxury hotels,

the richly refined rosewood, the playfully hip SLS,

and the stylishly modern grandtiet.

With over 45 restaurants, bars and lounges,

Bahamar serves up delicious dining from world-renowned shops,

like Daniel Ballude and Marcus Ann Wilson.

Nightlife venues like the new Jean-Baptiste Jazz Club

and the Caribbean's most luxurious casino.

At Bahamar, you'll find every pleasure under the sun

and one of a kind experiences for the entire family,

like Bahamar Bay, our 15-acre lush tropical water park,

interactive wildlife experiences,

including our daily flamingo parade,

world-class golf, tennis, spa, and so much more.

Visit bahamar.com today and discover a vacation destination

where memories are made for a lifetime.

Bahamar, life spectacular.

Support for the show comes from public,

the investing platform for those who take it seriously.

On public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio

of stock, bonds, options, crypto,

and now generated assets, which allow you to turn any idea

into an investable index with AI.

It all starts with your prompt,

from renewable energy companies with high free cash flow

to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue

over 20% year over year.

You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work.

It screens thousands of stocks,

builds a one-of-a-kind index,

and lets you back-test it against the S&P 500.

Then, you can invest in a few clicks.

Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities,

completely customizable and based on your thesis,

not someone else's.

Go to public.com slash podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus

when you transfer your portfolio.

That's public.com slash podcast, paid for by public investing,

brokerage services by open to the public investing ink,

member Finra and SIPC.

Advisory services by public advisors LLC, SEC registered advisor.

Generated assets is an interactive analysis tool.

Output is for informational purposes only

and is not an investment recommendation or advice.

Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures.

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty.

The famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford.

It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin.

Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skincare simple

and it's loved by millions of women.

It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types

and it's designed to work as a complete skincare system,

leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth, and nourished.

I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen,

which contains all five of her best-selling products,

including the amazing youth-activating melon serum.

This next generation serum has the power

of melon leaf stem cell technology.

It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness

and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction

in the appearance of wrinkles.

With thousands of glowing five star reviews,

why not give it a try?

Subscribe today and you can get the amazing Meaningful Beauty

system for just $49.95.

That includes our introductory five-piece system,

free gifts, free shipping, and a 60-day money back guarantee.

All of that available at MeaningfulBeauty.com.

All right, guys, so this morning,

we are talking to Illinois Congressional candidate

for the ninth congressional district, Kat Abuguzella.

She is running in a Democratic primary right now

and we wanted to talk to her specifically about foreign policy.

Kat, welcome, great to see you.

Great to see you too.

Yeah, of course.

So just to give people a little bit of context

and backstory here, Ryan was able to get his hands

on an email that had been sent from a campaign advisor to you

who I understand is no longer with the team,

that represented a number of your views

that people had questions about

because they found some of those views relatively surprising.

So we figured rather than trying to parse second hand

from an advisor who's no longer with the team anymore,

we would just speak to you directly about these things.

So glad to have you today.

Thanks so much.

Yeah, of course.

So I actually wanted to start with an issue

that wasn't in that letter.

We'll get to the letter in a minute,

but that is top of mind for people, which is the Iran War.

So the first question is just,

what do you think about the Iran War?

Do you support or oppose it and why?

I absolutely oppose it.

This was completely unprovoked.

And as we saw in reporting this morning,

Pete Hexeth is trying to paint this as a Christian war

with one commander even telling his squad

that this is to bring Jesus back through the Armageddon.

This is a violation of international law.

It's disgusting.

And it's on Congress to pass a war power's resolution.

This is also another impeachable offense for Trump.

Absolutely opposed it.

And I'm just couldn't be more disgusted.

So, Kat, let's go through some of the email to get your,

to get your sense on where you agreed with Ben Mermell,

the National Security Advisor,

and where you disagreed with them.

But first of all, is it true that he's no longer

with the campaign and was it, was it this email,

was it something else?

Like what's, if he's no longer with the campaign,

what, what was the decision there?

Yeah, let's start with Ben.

So Ben was helping us write some policy

on everything from animal rights

to our free and sovereign Palestine page.

He actually offered to resign the second,

the story broke because we have two weeks to election day

and he didn't want the story to be about him.

He wanted to support the campaign

and it was a mutual decision.

Mainly because this was communication

that was not passed by the campaign.

It was not approved by the campaign.

I would not have used such aggressive language

and there were some characterizations in there

that I actively disagree with.

But I also take Umbridge with some of the characterizations

I've seen of Ben and I do want to clear this up right now.

First off, I have seen people try to pay him as anti-Palestine

and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Ben actually grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family

and has lost many of his personal relationships,

his family, his friends, his community

for standing up for Palestinian dignity.

He and I have spent hours articulating our right

to return policy, which of course is very personal

to myself and my family because we're Palestinian.

He has consistently actually when he was at the GW encampment.

I was also at the GW encampment.

He was characterized as attending a pro-Israel counter protest

there, both the encampment and the counter protestors

were extremely close together.

I know he spoke to some of the hostages family,

but I think that it's very disingenuous

and also unfair to characterize him as an anti-Palestine

considering what he has risked in his own personal life

to stand up for Palestinian human rights.

The main issue for his departure

is the lack of communication with the campaign.

We also were made aware of human fighting HSI,

which is a part of ICE to speak to a group that he was in.

I very much disagree with that.

I know that his perspective at that time was like,

well, it's not like the bad part of ICE.

It's an investigation wing.

And I think that he now realizes that ICE has been bad

since it's been created.

And hopefully he wouldn't make that decision again,

but I do have a problem with it.

Gotcha.

So let's again to the letter then a little bit.

You said you disagreed with some of the framing

or some of the language in the letter.

Could you just be a little bit specific about that?

And we can just put as an example,

put G1 up on the screen as an example

of some of the language in the letter.

It described you as firmly an interventionist

and it also said you won't stop until Russia's

made to pay for its crimes among other policy

characterizations.

But what was some of the language in there

that you felt was not reflective of the views that you hold?

Well, those two quotes specifically

are probably where I'd start.

One stop until Russia's made to pay for its crimes,

scenes vague and aggressive.

But firmly an interventionist,

I would very much disagree with.

First off, I would not describe myself

as an interventionist when it comes to Ukraine

and when it comes to anywhere in the world,

including the United States' own actions.

I am anti-war of aggression, anti-invasion,

anti-crimes against humanity.

And I think one thing that email didn't capture

is how we need to exhaust all diplomatic options

for humane foreign policy and that any sort of military aid

would be an absolute last resort.

Also not captured there is talking about how paying

for arms to Ukraine to protect itself from invasion

should be paid for through seizing

Russian oligarch assets, which has been a proposed solution

in countries in Europe.

And is one, I believe, that we should act here.

But what I really want to lead with is humane foreign policy.

I'm endorsed by peace action, which

is the world's largest grassroots peace network.

I firmly believe that in my ideal United States,

we are leading with public diplomacy.

We are ensuring the re-institution,

also expansion of USAID and issuing reparations

to the global south, especially in the focus

of infrastructure and renewable energy.

These are things that I think we should be focusing on.

And deterrence is its own subjects,

but I do not describe myself as an interventionist.

The two main things that people picked up on here

were the Russia-Ukraine policy and then China-Taiwan.

I mean, let's do, let's do Russia-Ukraine first.

So rather than get into what the email says is your policy,

let's tell us what your policy is.

Do you believe that, as the memo says,

that the US should arm Ukraine until basically every square

foot of Ukrainian land is taken back from Russia?

How do you see this ending?

Yeah, I mean, I want to be realistic here.

I'm not sure that there is a world right now

where Ukraine gets every square foot of land

that Russia has illegally seized.

But there is a way that we can get Ukraine to a position

where they have equal footing or an advantage

at the bargaining table.

I mean, part of the reason that this has been so costly

for both states and for every state

that is siding with either one is that there wasn't firm

enough policy to demonstrate that this would be a costly affair,

both in human life and in dollars.

So the effort of arming Ukraine needs to be rooted

in the idea of getting to an negotiating table

where they are able to fight for their own self-determination

and then also politically recognizing

illegally seized land as still part of Ukraine.

So one specific question there, early in the war,

there's reports that Ukraine and Russia

were actually pretty close to a deal.

And that deal would have involved, you know,

Russia taking some land, you know, Crimea,

probably parts of Eastern Ukraine.

And the US and the UK intervened to stop that diplomacy

and to continue the war.

So do you think that was the right move for the US

to intervene at that point and continue arming Ukraine

and sort of block that potential diplomatic solution?

Do you think that was the right decision

or do you think that that was the wrong call at that point?

I mean, personally, I think that historically appeasement

has not been shown to be an effective solution to invasion,

but I also firmly, like when it comes to foreign policy,

my leading principle is the idea of self-determination.

And I think in that moment it should have been up

to the people of Ukraine to decide where they wanted

to reach AP steel.

But once again, that's leading in self-determination.

I'm not sure the exact call I would have made in that moment

because frankly, I'm not under bombings right now.

And it's much different when you are in that position.

I don't think it should be the United States

and any other country's role to force any country

to decide what decision to make in its own self-determination.

So the war has lasted longer than World War I at this point.

It has created a generational crisis of demography

for Ukraine, as I'm sure you've seen.

If there are countless videos going around

of basically gangs of Ukrainian government officials

like snatching fairly elderly people off the street,

pushing them into vans, driving them to the front.

A lot of Ukrainian men have left for other parts of Europe.

If it's that difficult for the Ukrainian government

to force its own people to go to the front lines

and die in this war, why do we believe

that we should then continue pushing them

to go there?

Doesn't that say something about their lack of interest

in pursuing this war?

If they have to be forced at gunpoint to go die for this?

And so Russia also has suffered many tens of thousands,

probably perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Why does at what point does it become a cost

that is like acceptable to the United States?

What you said, you want them to bear a cost

so that they don't do it again.

Haven't they born that cost at this point

or what would the cost be?

I'm sorry, I don't know when I said that.

I was mentioning that this war has been costly

and that's I think the aspect of everything that you said

shows that war is hell.

I think it should be up to the Ukrainian people

and whether it is a referendum or whether it is

negotiating from their leadership to decide

what deal they want to make to end this war.

But once again, invasion is not okay.

It's not okay when the United States does it.

It's not okay when the U.K. people express that sense

of self-determination.

There aren't elections.

And when they are asked to go to the front lines,

they resist.

That's part of the problem, ensuring that there are ways

to have like, I know that war is difficult,

but I do think that there is more role

for democracy to play here.

But at the same time, I just need to stress

that invasion and wars of aggression are not okay.

It's not okay when the U.S. does it.

It's not okay when Russia does it.

And appeasement historically is not the answer

or the instant salve to an invader

as we'd like to hope it would be.

And then how do you balance us and this will tie

into your Taiwan policy?

How do you balance those principles

of natural self-determination and opposing wars of aggression

with concern that, for example, and you can tell me

whether this is your policy or not,

by providing long-range weaponry to Ukraine,

allowing them to strike within Russia,

increasing involvement in what is clearly like a proxy war

with the U.S. directly involved on the side of Ukraine,

that you're courting this direct engagement

between two nuclear powers,

which obviously in the nuclear age,

we have to take extraordinarily seriously.

So how do you balance those principles

that you hold with a concern about an escalatory spiral

that could lead into chaos and disaster?

Yeah, I think that this is one of those issues

that in our modern diplomatic age,

it's like there's no black and white.

But I think the main thing here is that Putin

doesn't just want to stop with part of Ukraine.

That is not his plan.

He will continue to take more and more.

We saw this after 2014,

the fact that he invaded Ukraine once again

in a war of aggression shows that his goal is not just

for one piece of the country or even just that country.

We risk even greater conflict,

not just between as like a proxy war,

which I, in my own values,

I don't want to see or I would not want to support Ukraine

in that respect,

but in a way of self-determination.

But it would be, in that case,

you would have even more countries

that are directly drawn into this conflict,

raising the stakes of possible nuclear war

or possible conflict between superpowers.

I also think, you know,

for me, nuclear disarmament is a huge priority

and something that I would want to champion in Congress,

especially in a post-Trump world.

On the question of 2014,

do you think the US played a role in instigating

by pushing NATO closer and closer,

the support for active support for the made on,

uprising, what role in response?

Because I think that goes to the question

of American intervention and its virtues.

I totally get what you're saying, Ryan.

But personally, I think the point is moot

once you're invading another country,

once you are violating that sovereignty.

It's, there is no equivocating on whether that's okay

or not, no matter what the United States

or any other country is doing.

Invasion is a line that we need to draw.

All right, let's talk then a little bit

about your policy on Taiwan

and again, rather than, you know,

quoting from the letter from the advisor,

I'll just let you, you know, have the floor here

of how you think that the US should approach Taiwan and China.

I really appreciate that crystal genuinely.

And I also want to stress for anyone and not just you, Ryan,

if you want to reach out to us,

I don't use Twitter anymore.

The best way to contact us is through our press accounts

or any of the other social media accounts that we're on.

So for comment, would really appreciate that in the future.

Regarding Taiwan, though,

look, the Republicans want to use China as some bogeyman,

and I don't think it has to be that way.

You know, we are in a globalized world.

I am not an isolationist,

but I want us to get to a point

where China can be a partner with us in trade and innovation.

I also have to balance that with the commitment

that I have to self-determination

and to promises that we have made in the past.

Regarding Taiwan, I think one thing this email didn't get clear

was the fact that any sort of military aid to Taiwan

is an absolute last resort,

not just after diplomatic options have been exhausted,

but after we exhaust the diplomatic options after that.

We need to be reinvesting and diplomacy

between Taiwan and China,

between Taiwan and the US and the US and China.

Additionally, we need to be politically

adhering to the one China policy.

If the Taiwanese people pass a referendum

saying they want reunification with China,

I'm absolutely supportive of that.

That is their choice.

But once again, invasion is where we draw the line.

Even then, I don't support boots on the ground in Taiwan.

I support specifically in a defensive stance

for Taiwan to be able to protect itself from invasion

to ensure that there is a cost

by trying to invade this country.

But I also want to stress here

that military aid should be conditional.

And I don't care if it's Taiwan or Mexico.

If we are providing military aid to a country,

we need to ensure it's conditional

that crimes against humanity

are not being systematically committed

using our weapons paid for by our tax dollars.

Additionally, I also want to stress

that military aid is expensive.

I also think we should be slashing the Pentagon's budget

and that we should be closing

many of our military bases overseas.

This is a massive cost

and we also need to be investigating companies

and contractors in the military industrial complex

that have essentially robbed the taxpayers

of our money for their own profit.

So the current policy towards Taiwan

is known as you've talked about strategic ambiguity.

Where you don't, the US won't say

whether or not they're gonna come in

and actively defend in the case of Chinese assault on Taiwan.

Do you believe, as the memo says,

and I believe that you've said elsewhere,

but just get it directly from you.

Do you believe that policy should be altered?

Here's the thing, if we had a president

who wasn't a complete madman, like a complete psychopath,

I would say let's not even touch it.

If we had a president, AOC here,

who was able to balance these things at one time,

I would say absolutely this is the policy to go with,

but we don't have that.

We have a guy who's waging a Christian war

with Israel against Iran with zero provocation.

We need to ensure that we are codifying

major actions that we will need to take

regardless of the president under this administration,

especially because no one in the United States,

China, any other country in the world has any idea

what would happen if China does invade Taiwan.

Under this president, it could be wiping your hands clean

and saying I'm good, he could try to nuke it.

We have no idea, by codifying a response,

we can ensure that there is that deterrence

for more diplomatic solutions, which once again,

is the main thing, the last thing I want is war with China.

But Trump is a madman and we have no idea his response

to anything on the foreign or domestic stage.

This is why I even, I mean,

it's controversial to broach the subject at all,

but why I did so.

So the just just just one quick follow us.

So just to make sure I understand what you're saying.

So so because Trump is a madman,

we want to codify that the US will definitely respond

militarily if China moves on.

Will provide military aid to Taiwan

if asked to defend itself from an invasion,

that military aid, of course, being conditional.

And aid means shipping weapons or to aid means actively

participating in and it's shipping weapons.

I know in the past I have said aid in intercepting missiles

at the beginning of an invasion.

I think that is on the table,

but we should not have US troops deployed on Taiwanese soil.

Discover a spectacular island destination

with crystal blue seas, endless sunshine

and the cool Bahamian breeze, Bahamar.

Located in NASA, Bahamas offers your choice

of three luxury hotels,

over 45 fine dining in nightlife venues,

John Batista, all new jazz club,

the Caribbean's most luxurious casino,

and one of the kind experiences for the entire family,

like our 15-acre tropical water park,

wildlife sanctuaries, world-class golf course,

and so much more.

Visit Bahamar.com today.

Support for the show comes from public,

the investing platform for those who take it seriously.

On public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio

of stock, bonds, options, crypto,

and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea

into an investable index with AI.

It all starts with your prompt,

from renewable energy companies with high free cash flow

to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue

over 20% year over year.

You can literally type any prompt

and put the AI to work.

It screens thousands of stocks,

builds a one-of-a-kind index,

and lets you backtest it against the S&P 500.

Then, you can invest in a few clicks.

Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities,

completely customizable and based on your thesis,

not someone else's, go to public.com slash podcast,

and earn an uncapped 1% bonus

when you transfer your portfolio.

That's public.com slash podcast,

paid for by public investing,

brokerage services by open to the public investing ink,

member FINRA and SIPC,

advisory services by public advisors LLC,

SEC registered advisor.

Generated assets is an interactive analysis tool.

Output is for informational purposes only

and is not an investment recommendation or advice.

Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures.

Ryan Reynolds here from int mobile.

I don't know if you knew this,

but anyone can get the same premium wireless

for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying.

It's not just for celebrities,

so do like I did,

and have one of your assistance assistants

switch you to Mint Mobile today.

I'm told it's super easy to do at MintMobile.com slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan,

equivalent to $15 per month required,

intro rate for three months only,

then full price plan options available,

taxes and fees extra,

fee full terms at MintMobile.com.

Obviously the concern is that if you move away

from strategic ambiguity,

which is meant to be,

I don't know what we do.

To enforcing this hard line

and saying, you know, we will respond,

we will defund Taiwan,

that that would in fact provoke a direct conflict with China.

And again, gets to the, you know,

the same concern about a direct conflict with Russia.

Obviously, nuclear armed super power,

incredibly capable at this point

in terms of their military and technology.

So what gives you the confidence

that drawing that harder line

is not going to actually escalate the conflict with China?

And frankly, Biden did this in his last administration.

He mentioned that we need to be questioning

where we stand on strategic ambiguity

and the response that China had was some angry op-eds

on the mainland,

but did not spark a full invasion into Taiwan.

So on a more kind of philosophical level

to get to the heart of your foreign policy approach,

you do have a very deep and intuitive understanding

of the problems with the military industrial complex

and also its willingness to like assist

in a genocide in Gaza.

I'm just curious, how did you develop this comfort

with using, you know, US military support intervention

and US sanctions around the world?

Like where one would expect like for somebody

who has seen what the US is capable of

when it intervenes either through sanctions policy

or militarily, you'd say, you know what,

we just need to roll this back.

So where does the comfort come from?

I wouldn't describe it as comfort at all.

I mean, my own family was expelled from Palestine in 1948

and there are still many of my family members

that don't have full civil or legal rights

that have been killed as a result of this genocide.

It's not something that I take any comfort in

but I also think we need to be realistic

in the right to self-determination,

which I think is something that I hope you all understand.

I'm very personally invested and passionate about

but I want to do everything we possibly can

to lead with humane foreign policy.

Under Trump, these are safeguards against him

and not knowing what his response would be

but I ideally would like to not have to use them at all.

One of the, you know, I studied international affairs

actually focused on security policy,

like I really focused on atrocity, genocide

and extremism in school.

And one of my biggest passions,

one of my favorite courses

and one of the things that I've studied the most

is the value of public diplomacy

of cultural exchange, of investing in infrastructure,

of the need to have trade between all of these countries

and the globalized world that we have now.

That is what I want our foreign policy to be.

I want to be rolling back military bases abroad.

I want to be cutting the Pentagon's budget.

We need to be investing in housing,

groceries and healthcare here.

We need not just a martial plan

but a new new deal for our federal government

that includes mass employment,

that includes building more housing,

that focuses instead of bombs

on actually helping folks here.

But we also will have to deal with the fact

that we are pariahs on the global stage.

We need to recognize,

I think one of the issues here

when we're talking about this is,

I mean what I say,

and that's not something you see a lot in politics,

especially when it comes to military aid.

I feel very passionate about sovereignty

and I feel very passionate about human rights.

And that is part of why I am running for Congress

in the first place.

I want to not just end the genocide in Gaza

and in the West Bank,

but also be working towards establishing Palestinian statehood

and also ensuring that any solution there

is negotiated by the people actually living there

and not dictated by the United States.

These are all principles that can,

when it comes to military aid,

when it comes to public diplomacy,

when it comes to reparations for the global south,

it can be difficult to hold them

in especially with the United States history

of intervention and imperialism to hold them together

and to understand how they contradict

and also understand how they're more complicated

than we would like to portray them.

But that is also part of the reason

that I want to help elect more progressives

across the country.

So we don't have representatives

that are beholden to the military industrial complex

and we can look at these issues with clear eyes

and also express disagreements

and try to find the best path forward.

It just seems that the two values

are somewhat in conflict.

The value of rolling back the bases overseas

and checking the military industrial complex

and reclaiming some of that funding

so that instead of having austerity

for social programs,

we have austerity for the Pentagon.

Seems to be in conflict with the instinct

to intervene in all of these border disputes.

And one other thing that I'll put there too

is obviously we talk about Ukraine and Taiwan a lot

because those are the places where the empire

has the most interests and is interested

in checking these geopolitical rivals in particular.

But there are dozens of border disputes

around the world right now.

So also what is the limiting principle

for where you would want the military engage

where you would want us intervening potentially covertly?

How do you reel that in

if that's the underlying principle?

First off, I don't support covert CIA coups

and I think this is something that we also need to ensure

that we are holding people accountable for,

that we are investigating these types of interventions

that we have made.

These are things that I think we should be saying publicly

and above board or at least discussing publicly

and above board because that lack of transparency

when it comes to any sort of intervention

has been limited in the past.

And when it comes to these two issues in particular,

not only have we made a commitment,

actually full stop, we have made a commitment.

And I also want to stress that any sort of aid

to these two states has to come with consent from those states.

You're absolutely right, Crystal,

of like these are geopolitical rivals.

But it also means that when they are doing an imperialism,

when they are invading another country,

they aren't necessarily in the right

just because they're not the United States.

Yes, these are two very hot button topics

that involve two of our biggest geopolitical rivals,

but they are also two commitments that we have made.

And when it comes to invasion,

if we have made that commitment,

we should absolutely stand by it

with the consent of those countries

and not putting our troops on the ground.

But first off, exhausting every diplomatic option beforehand.

Are there any models for intervention,

either diplomatic or military that you would uplift

as like this is how it should be done?

And this was actually effective

at producing self-determination in the country

where it was brought to?

I'm actually gonna go a little bit aside from that question

to one of my favorite examples of public diplomacy

that when I first heard the first half of this,

I was like, I don't know about that.

And then by the end of it was on board with,

so bear with me here.

My, one of my professors was APAO

in a Middle Eastern country,

a public affairs officer.

And during Ramadan,

this was I believe in like 2014, early 2010s,

they worked with a local film group

to create a TV series about the realities

of being an ISIS bride,

of being a woman recruited to ISIS

and the horror of I think all of us can agree

that women undergo when they are recruited by ISIS.

It was largely paid for with a coalition of dollars

but also pushed by the American government.

But it was had complete control by the filmmakers

who were local, that filmed it, wrote it, distributed,

and it was aired during Ramadan.

The next year, ISIS recruitment of women went down

by like 75%.

That is I think a, yes, it is a small example,

but an example of actually beneficial US involvement

in diplomacy, but also actively working towards a goal.

Of course, that is much smaller than providing military aid

or trying to negotiate border disputes.

But this is the type of public diplomacy

and humane foreign policy that I think we should be leading with

by putting it in the hands of the people

that actually live there, of the leaders

who are actually there, of addressing the issues

that they actually want to address.

And not saying we are the cops that are dictating

what you have to do, but instead of asking, look,

especially as we're going to have to make a lot of,

we're gonna have to be on like a 20 year apology

to her after this presidency.

And after the last 100 years of American foreign policy,

of we have immense resources

and these are actual issues on the ground.

And if we are going to be involved in this globalized world,

how do you want us to be involved?

And in terms of a military intervention or action,

is there a model that, you know, that you would point to

that is sort of reflective of the values that you support?

I mean, unfortunately, the war that I can think

that the United States was on the right of is World War II,

and I can point to the fact that appeasement didn't work,

but that working with and arming countries

that did fight against infusion was successful,

but it did have a massive toll,

which is why we need to have a firmer commitment

to international law, international laws

that didn't exist until after that war.

And ensuring that we are truly trying

to follow those principles, laws that, by the way,

are created by both the United States and the Soviet Union.

But the truth is, over the last hundred years,

the only consistency we've really seen

is across the board, the effects of imperialism

and the model for fascism on the global scale,

targeting visible minorities, queer people,

educational institutions,

and trying to silo a population within its borders

while targeting another population.

So we are kind of on uncharted territory here,

and I think it's on us, not just as the United States,

but as a planet, to be committing to the values

that we believe in, trying something new.

There's an argument, I'm sure you've seen it,

and curious for take on it,

that kind of hawkish wing of the US security establishment

over-learned the lesson of World War II,

and now tries to frame all diplomacy as appeasement,

that any diplomacy with somebody that you consider

to be adversarial is by then definition appeasement,

and will lead to then worse things.

So we actually have to confront,

confrontation has to be the lead.

What's your, I'm sure you've heard that argument,

what's your counter to it?

I think it's a dumb argument, frankly.

Like I said, a lot of American politicians on both sides

want to paint China as a boogie man,

and I think that we can be using deterrence,

not just as a way to stop an invasion of Taiwan,

but also as a stopgap to build diplomatic relations

between the US and China.

We live in a globalized world,

and we have to act like it.

We have to be encouraging more trade relationships.

We have to be encouraging investment, infrastructure,

and renewable energy.

We have to be collaborating on innovation.

And maybe that sounds polyanna-ish,

but I don't care.

I think that this is the future of our world.

If we want to have any chance of surviving climate change,

if we want to have any chance of surviving,

we're not enduring a thermonuclear war,

that collaboration and diplomacy is essential,

and you'll have to do it with countries you like

and countries you don't like.

And I think that specific argument that you mentioned,

especially by war hawks, is frankly kind of idiotic.

Just, I would just go back to the example of Ukraine,

because I think it illustrates some of the difficult choices here,

where, you know, very early on,

there was a diplomatic effort,

and we know kind of the contours

of what that deal would have looked like.

And it is a much better deal

than what would likely be on the table for Ukraine today.

And it obviously comes four years before.

We've had this mass, you know, death and destruction

and the loss effectively of an entire generation,

if not two generations of Ukrainian men,

and heavy battlefield losses.

So, you know, how do you think about weighing

and balancing the fact that there's no doubt, right?

In a lot of ways, it would have been an unjust outcome

at that point in time,

because Russia would have taken some territory

based on that invasion.

Nevertheless, it would be a superior outcome

to what is likely to be achievable at this point.

Once again, I think that in that instance,

it should have been up to Ukraine

and not pressure by other countries outside of Ukraine.

This is an argument of sovereignty, in my opinion,

and if that is what the country of Ukraine chooses to do

and what they have negotiated,

that should be their prerogative.

And the United States is not Ukraine.

I'm not sure if you all have heard this.

We are not Ukraine,

and it should be up to that country

to be able to decide its future.

So, APAC has apparently been coming after you, Kat.

Ryan, maybe you should set this up,

because you know the details of who exactly this APAC

affiliated super PAC Chicago Progressive Partnership is.

Yeah, this seems like a new one.

Originally, they were doing,

well, they had two in there, affordable Chicago now.

Ironically, APAC biting mom Donnie's kind of

affordability message,

and then they had one elect Chicago women.

Now they call it ECW,

because it's already so toxic.

So immediately their fake PAC had took on a level of

toxicity that they had to alter up?

It was docs.

Yeah, so they're coming after you for positions

you held in high school, am I?

Yeah, so are we reading that right?

Yeah, hold on, let me describe this ad to y'all.

So I grew up like Reagan Republican,

because my mom was a white Texan,

and my dad was like,

assimilation's great.

And so when I was about 15,

I started questioning whether Ronald Reagan

was right about everything.

He was wrong pretty much about everything.

And Trump had just announced his presidency around then.

And so I was like, maybe Marco Rubio is the answer,

which anyways, I wrote an op-ed in my high school paper,

which is now defunct by the way.

I got it shut down for writing a story

on students cheating,

and the Alumni Association didn't like that.

But they quoted this paper twice in an ad

to try to paint me as a secret Republican,

literally my high school paper.

Additionally, they have,

they used AI to like give me Mar-a-Lago face

on a pin next to Marco Rubio's face.

It's really incredible stuff.

It also, the entire thing is like,

who is Cat Abacusale?

We don't know.

As if there aren't thousands of pages

of my own reporting and federal indictments

to let people know,

but genuinely made me laugh out loud.

So you've been on a journey since then.

So talk about how you wound up where you are now,

because I think we have G6 here.

I think along the way on this journey,

you were a bit enamored of Pete Buttigieg.

Yeah, you had high hopes for Pete.

High hopes for Pete.

And high hopes for Pete's for Pete, yeah.

What was it about the Buttigieg campaign

that attracted you then?

And is that where you are politically now?

Or would you, if today's Cat was back

in the 2020 presidential election,

would you support a different?

I would be supporting Bernie Sanders.

So I grew up in this like,

fiscally conservative household.

And then we moved and where we moved to

was much less segregated by income

than where I'd originally grown up.

So I was about 15 and one of my friends

who absolutely brilliant, so much smarter

and more talented than me couldn't go to college.

She wanted to be a doctor and she couldn't go to college.

She still hasn't,

because she had to help take care of her family.

And it was like that puncture that I needed

to break this conservative sphere I was in,

where I was like, but you did everything right.

You did the bootstrap, so you got the scholarship.

Like, what do you mean you can't go to college?

So that was when I started questioning things

by the end of the 2016 election.

I was canvassing for Hillary Gated some voter registration drives

and I was like, I'm a Democrat now.

And then throughout college,

I started to go more and more to the left,

specifically focusing on atrocity, genocide,

and extremism because there was also this idea,

my parents also came on this journey with me,

of a lot of our values didn't align with this party

that we said we were a part of.

Like at no point during my childhood,

I feel like I couldn't do something

just because I was a woman.

I was very passionate about Palestinian sovereignty

since I was a little kid.

I actually got put in, I couldn't go to recess one day

because I corrected my fifth grade teacher on settlements.

But in college, I just started kind of,

I was coming to this idea of like, well, you know,

we need the guy that will appeal to everyone.

And I thought I actually wrote a paper in my senior year

where I was like, people to judge

is the thought cast out a candidate.

Like you can just get it at a bar and it's fine.

But yeah, by 2020, I graduated, I had gone to school

to either become a foreign service officer

or to work for like a legacy media outlet.

And I graduated into May 2020

and I was very disenchanted with both our government

and legacy media, which is why I started looking

for jobs that align more with my values.

In the, by the time of like January 2020,

I was very much in Bernie's camp

and I wished that in 2016,

I could have been a part of that too,

even though I was 16, 17 years old.

But really covering the far right

and seeing how ineffective Democrats have been

in addressing the threat of the far right

has been essential in shaping my worldview.

Like we told them about January 6th before it happened.

We told them about where the DEI, CRT,

anti-transpanic would lead.

We told them about how attacking encampments

under the guise of protecting students

from anti-semitism was actually

aligning with people spreading the Great Replacement theory.

And they didn't listen.

And so that's why I decided to run for Congress

because I wanted someone in Congress

who understood the far right.

And I do.

And lastly, Kat, just tell people,

when is the primary, how's the campaign going

and how can they support you

if they're so inclined down the stretch?

If I've redeemed myself at all in this interview,

you can find our website capriolanoi.com.

That's cat with a K.

Our primary day is March 17th.

Early voting has already started all over the district.

The ninth district of Illinois goes from Uptown, Chicago,

up to Evanston, West Tuskegee,

and then all the way to Crystal Lake in Algonquin.

It is Jerry Mander to Hell.

It looks like Maryland, ono's epic.

But we would love your help

so you can join our discord discord.gg slash cat for Illinois.

You can phone bank from anywhere.

You can door knock it for local.

We could really use your help

of the three viable candidates in this race.

I am the only one who was not met with

or submitted a position paper to APAC.

I was the first one to call for impeachment.

And we are the only campaign in this entire race

of 16 candidates that is funded

by majority model or donations.

Well, we really appreciate you doing the interview

and just clarifying where you stand.

I don't think you needed redemption,

but people just want to know,

okay, you know, what are your views?

No, absolutely.

I mean, like I'm joking when I say that,

but like the main thing is just like look,

we can disagree on these,

but I always want to be clear about where I stand.

Since I was a little kid,

my belief has been you have to stick to your morals

even to your own detriment,

or even if it pisses someone off.

So this is where I stand