RFK throws down for Trump; Harris tries to alter rules for debate

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kelmead. All right, everyone. Hope you had a fantastic weekend. We're back in action today.

And a lot of people think, well, Brian, something's really going to go on leading to Labor Day. That's the old world. This is the new world where nothing stopped. And if you look at both campaigns, they are going full bore straight ahead.

Meanwhile, we are telling you, too, that today marks three years since the explosion at Abbey Gate that killed 13 and wounded dozens more, as well as killing thousands of Afghans. And it was a terror attack that was predicted. We didn't know when it was coming, who was going to do it, but we knew it was on its way. We're still unable to stop it. In a matter of moments, we'll talk to Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann about his reflections on that and, of course, Task Force Pineapple that took action to help our allies and Americans get out of there.

But until then, let's get to the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. We are feverishly to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal and ultimately to get to a broader circumstance of regional stability. And of course we think that a part of that is a credible path to a two-state solution. Really?

Two-state solution? Middle East, a ticking time bomb. Israel strikes Hezbollah and they respond. We spend billions with two carrier groups in the region on high alert as we wait for a window of retaliation, or at least Iran looks for that. All this on the third anniversary of the bombing at Abbey Gate.

Number two. It became clear to me that I did not have a path to victory. 16 months of censorship, of not being able to get on any network, really, except for Fox. Oh, I was blocked out from the networks. I was blocked out from the debate.

I had no path to victory. Then that's why he went to Trump. Why? Trump asked repeatedly.

Now he's got him. RFK Jr., the independent candidate, endorses Trump and his family attacks big time. They try to diminish it. And Trump looks to capitalize. How did he win the oldest of the famous family over?

All he did was try and try to sell, and they have a friendship. We examine the impact. Number one. Most quants say we have to win by three in the popular vote to win the Electoral College.

So when you see a poll, it says we two up.

Well, that's actually you're one down. Other thing is, Trump traditionally, when he's on the ballot, chronically underpoles. That is true. James Carville trying to pretend like he's the underdog when he's got all the press in his pocket. I'm talking about the Democrats do.

Campaign 2024. Both Trump and Harris have had their surges.

Now, may the best person and best party win the agendas, the strategy, and the push to get Kamala to pick a lane and a policy. But first things first, even though it's the Biden administration that made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, causing the epic fail, Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann, we're looking at a laying of a wreath at Arlington for the burial of three of those soldiers that lost their lives on that day. Your thought of the former president being there when he had nothing to do with that decision?

Well, I you know, I think that For me today, Brian, and thanks for having me on, is really man, it's hard. It's hard to see what these families are going through. It's hard to see what their teammates are going through. You know, as a guy who lost friends in that country, The way this went down at the end, it's really, it's a tough day. It's a tough day for the entire global war on terror community.

It is good to see a former president there who was involved in Afghanistan. I'll be interested to see if. Anyone from the administration is there? I haven't seen anything. I hope they do because that's going to be a real blow to our community if someone from the administration is not there in some capacity honoring this day.

So, Scott, not only did you serve in the military as a special operator, you also wrote the book, Operation Pineapple Express: The Incredible Story of a Group of Americans who undertook one last mission and honored a promise in Afghanistan because when you realized no one was getting anybody out and we just left, you put together a force to get our allies and Americans out. No one feels no one's ever given you guys the credit. They never reimbursed you for your time. The military never really helped you except for people allies on the inside. And that we've left billions of dollars of equipment behind.

Yeah, it's one of those things. It's hard to process. You know, I've had no trouble naming my next book that's coming out. Nobody's coming because that's what we felt like at that time.

Now, I want to be clear. What the warfighters on the ground did, Brian, in those final days, like it was epic.

Well, but you get everybody out of that. Absolutely. They're the heroes. But there were a lot of our allies who were showing up at these gates and they were standing there with everybody else. These were highly vetted individuals, special operators, intelligence people that we had trained for 20 years that needed to get out of that country, not just because it was a moral thing to do, but because they had information that if they were rolled up by the Russians or China, which they've been now, we knew that that was putting America at risk.

So we tried to present these individuals responsibly to the men and women at the gate. And that's what Pineapple Express was, along with these other groups. It was just an effort to get the most vulnerable, most highly vetted individuals out of the country in all that chaos.

So think about this. When they call back and the Taliban's on the move, they say, we're about to take Kabul. There's no security. security there. The message from McKenzie was we only want the airport.

Think about that decision, and the Taliban would provide the security. Keep in mind: who is unknown to that decision? President Biden. Who was the last one in the room? Kamala Harris.

How do we know? Listen, cut 50. President Biden always said that he wants you to be the last person in the room, particularly for big decisions, just as he was for President Obama. He just made a really big decision. Afghanistan.

Were you the last person in the room? Yes. And you feel comfortable. I do. What do you say to that?

Well, it's like I told Pete yesterday, it's really hard to process that because. It sounded so confident. And look, for me, this is an accountability issue. Her special one of her military advisors contacted me during the Pineapple Express work and asked us to help them get one of their favorite Afghans out of the country. This was the office of the vice president, calling a retired.

Green Beret playwright on his cell phone asking to get their guy out. And I documented this in the book, and we did work with others to help get him out. But the point was, this was the second ranking person in the United States military who said that, who was, I was in the room, I'm confident. And then she calls a bunch of volunteer veterans to get their guy out. And it is such an egregious moral injury.

on those that fought for 20 years to put that kind of burden. On people that had tried to put the war behind them. It's just to me, it's unspeakable. It's unconscious. It makes people just say, What did I fight for?

So I sacrificed my marriage, PTSD, my friends, my risk, my life. Yeah, a lot of people are asking that question now, Brian. And here's where I want to go with this: as we think and we reflect on Abbygate today, because that's the most important thing we should do, is just to remember. I don't see this as a day of politics. I see it as a day of remembrance, but we must hold people accountable and we must learn.

There is a document out right now called Know Thy Enemy about H. Kaya that's on Sean Ryan's newsletter. I'm going to send you a link, and I hope people will read it because there's information about what the Haqqani network has done around this attack, who's now the Minister of Interior of the Taliban. The terrorists. The terrorist bombing.

And who had a safe enclave in Pakistan. Yep, and has a $10 million bounty on his head still. And now he's a member of government. And now he's a member of government, issuing passports. travel documents to Anybody that wants to travel outside of Afghanistan, this guy was complicit in this bombing.

Sarah Adams' report on this is saying what the government won't say. And I really hope that people will read it and, more importantly, will make Afghanistan an election year issue because it is probably the most important thing we should be talking about, even though we've tried to turn the page on it. I would try to turn the page, but let's reflect on the decision-making because those people might be making future decisions. And I would argue that it's because of that weakness that we got the award in Ukraine, because of that weakness. And we have Hamas bolstered because of their decision to give billions of dollars to Iran and allow them to trade their oil, that we have unrest in the Middle East.

It has two of our striker groups outside, forced to go a ridiculous amount of time on mission when I think tripled the duration.

So here's a little of Frank McKenzie. He's the general in charge. He was, Joe Biden said, no general told me this government could collapse if we left. Come 53. General Mackenzie, do you share that assessment?

Senator, I do share that assessment. Did you ever present that opinion personally to President Biden? Again, I'm not going to be able to comment on those executive discussions. Did General Miller ever present that opinion personally to President Biden? I think it would be best to ask him.

I believe that his opinion was well heard. And this is what he's responding to: cut 52. My assessment was. back in the fall of twenty and remain consistent throughout that we should keep a steady state of $2,500, and it could bounce up to $3,500 maybe something like that, in order to move toward a negotiated gated solution. And then Frank Mackenzie agreed with that assessment and the President said, No, I want out.

Then we can't hold Bagram. They're going to have to let go of the prisons, who's ever in there. And then we'll just leave. And then the government has a huge army. I don't understand this, Scott.

We keep hearing how big their army was. What happened to their army?

Okay, so the army uh you know had Very little support. Remember, this army was only 20 years old. I'm assuming you're talking about the Afghan army. Yeah. It was only 20 years old.

I mean, and we built it in our own image, right? We built it where it was immensely dependent on contractors and surgical fires and air support and medevac.

Well, guess what? The Biden administration pulled all that support in June without any warning, right? When they were in the heat of the fight, and we had already pulled back from all operations.

So everything that they needed to prosecute the fight and that they had been developed over the years to use was gone, right? That's one thing. The second thing is this notion that they didn't fight, it's just not true. There was a lot of graft, a lot of corruption, a lot of desertion, but the Afghan commandos, the special operations, they carried 95% of the load and they fought to the last bullet. That narrative never got out there.

And the final thing I want to say on this that bothers me, and I've said it in my book, Pineapple Express, and I'll say it again. A lot of the veteran community is bothered by the fact that these generals that, after the fact, A year or two years later, in testimony, said, I tried to warn them. But nobody threw their stars on the table. And I'm sorry, but I mean, I looked at how General Mattis resigned in protest of how he felt about President Trump was handling international affairs. He put his stars on the table and he said, I can't do this in good conscience.

We always retain that option as senior officers when something runs against the moral fiber of what we're about to stand up for the guys and girls who are facing this moral injury, and nobody did it.

So, listen to this. I always thought the same thing because you know what would happen? It would have changed policies. It would have. I'm convinced.

Because you know why? Because he was very aware. Especially with certain generals that were anti-Trump. And if an anti-Trump general says you do this and I resign, that would give a signal to the whole country. What he's doing is totally asinine, which would be approved by absolutely no one.

So General Milley, who really ended up anti-Trump, who Trump appointed, by the way, I was asked, and I asked him too, but he was asked by Tom Cotton: when you knew this was wrong. And when you knew what was going to happen, why didn't you resign? Cut 55. I understand that you're the principal military advisor. If you advise, you don't decide, the president decides.

But if all this is true, General Milley, why haven't you resigned? Senator As a Senior military officer. Um Resigning is a really serious thing, and it's a political act if I'm resigning in protest. My job is to provide advice. My statutory responsibility is to provide legal advice or best military advice to the President, and that's my legal requirement.

That's what the law is. Um The President doesn't have to agree with that advice. He doesn't have to make those decisions. just because we're generals. And it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer.

to just resign because my advice is not taken advantage of. Yeah, it's really hard for me to I mean, I I I got similar responses. I absolutely would have. And I'm just going to say this now because I retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel several years back. I was selected for battalion command.

I turned down three commands in a row. which would have been a guaranteed promotion to colonel and moving on. And it was a lieutenant colonel. Yeah, I was lieutenant colonel at the time. And and because I just I could not move forward with where the where the military was going in Afghanistan and with the levels of just Career progression and zero defects in the military.

I wasn't good with it, and I knew I could do more on the outside than in the inside. I ended my career early. And it was not a political act of defiance, but this notion that you could spend 30-plus years in the military and you see what's going on, and the way that this is going down, this is an immoral act. We were trained and held to account for decades that you stand shoulder to shoulder with your allies. You do not leave them on the battlefield.

I have your back. And then the very people that held us to that standard were the ones that were making statements like that. And what they've done, in my assessment, is they have lost complete confidence of an entire generation of global war on terror veterans who once had faith in them. And what it's resulted in is three major things, and this is where I'm going this election year, is one, national security. Afghanistan has followed us home now.

That operatives are here and they're planning another attack. Two, partnership. Who wants to be a partner with the United States right now? Who really wants to work with us in the world? We had a Ukrainian officer say to a Green Beret not long ago, and he said, Sir, I need you to trust me on this.

He said, Oh, like Afghanistan trusted you? And then the final one is just the readiness of our force. Look at how this has impacted the veteran population and what their kids are saying. They're not joining up now. Right.

Yeah, we're definitely strung out. And you know who's loving it? Our enemies: Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia, loving that we're gummed up in the Middle East and using a lot of assets and billions of dollars. Lieutenant Colonel Scottman, a few more minutes with him. Three years since the exposure at Abbey Gate.

Coming to you on a need-to-know basis because Mandy, you need to know. It's Brian Kilmead. Hey, it's Clay Travis. Join me for Outkick the Show as we dive deep into a mix of topics, new episodes available Monday to Friday on your favorite podcast platform, and watch directly on outkick.com forward slash watch. A radio show like no other.

It's Brian Killmead. Hey, we are back. A few more minutes with Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann, author of Operation Pineapple Express. Colonel, right now, you say we're giving Afghanistan millions of dollars, and you also believe the terrorists are here? Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Remember, there's a group of veterans who never hung up the phone with highly trained Afghan intelligence pros and special operators. We helped them save houses and everything else, and they're giving us information they don't feel comfortable giving our government. And so we've lost 98% of our intel, but those folks are talking to us, and they're saying that they are in the very late stages, they being ISIS, al-Qaeda, in the very late stages of another attack on the homeland, and that the operatives are likely already here coming across the border. But also, Siraj Haqani is the Minister of Interior. He issues passports.

Meanwhile, we are giving close to $80 million in humanitarian aid of taxpayer dollars to the Taliban for humanitarian aid, but also to target ISIS, if you can believe that. And so the veteran community John Sopkos of the Inspector General of the Afghan War said to Congress, and I paraphrase, I cannot guarantee the American people that we are not funding the next terror attack on America. And I mean, that's the inspector general. He's the inspector general who has investigated all of this. And the veteran community who are talking to these highly vetted individuals who are still there, including members of the resistance, the Afghanistan, they're telling us the same thing.

It's like I told Pete Hagseth, the dashboard isn't blinking red, like Congressman Waltz says. It's got smoke coming off of it right now, and nobody's paying attention to it. And it needs to be a central issue this year. You know, Sean Ryan and I put out a petition for people to sign to send to Congress, Congressman McCall, to ask Congress to stop funding the Taliban, right? Stop the funding.

three hundred thousand signatures from the global war on terror community. Nothing's happened. They say it's going to humanitarian aid. These people will starve. And some of it is, but the preponderance of it is going to terror groups in the country that are actively planning against us.

And what a blow that will be on the other side of this if we think nine eleven was bad. That we funded a terror attack against ourselves. How in the world that's even possible? But if you step back and just look at the data, look at what these veterans are telling us, we gotta start listening to them. I hope the politicians, both sides, will start listening to these veterans because they're not just disgruntled vets.

They are talking to the people that the three-letter agencies won't talk to. Wow, it's pretty amazing. I'm sure the average American will never tolerate giving $80 million to the Taliban twice a month. The other thing would be, you believe that the operatives that are here don't even know their mission yet. I believe that they've learned a lot.

They've learned how to compartmentalize. They've learned how to give last-minute instructions. I think you're going to see, instead of more of a World Trade Center spectacular type attack, what we're hearing is it's going to be much more like October 7, distributed horrorism in seven or eight places where we live, work, and play at the same time. The kind of systemic paralysis that you saw in Israel. And they trained in the very bases where we used to have in Afghanistan.

Wow. And you said they'll say it's an ISIS operation to give deniability to the Taliban. Very good chance that could happen, and that's what we're hearing from the resistance. Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann, commemorating three years since you had to put pineapple together in the Arlington Museum, they're laying wreaths. Thanks, Scott.

Thanks, Brian. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Killmead. It became clear to me that I did not have a path to victory. Um 16 miles of sensitivity.

not being able to get on any network really except for Fox. And I I had in fact When Ross Barot ran, in the 10 months that he ran, he had 34. Uh I appearances on the networks. I had two appearances in sixteen months. I was blocked out from the networks, I was blocked out from the debate, I had no path to victory.

Uh It doesn't seem like it's free speech, does it? It seems like you had a guy that's from a legendary family, the most famous family, Democratic family in America, who wanted to run for the nomination, like Pap Buchanan did against George H.W. Bush, like Bob Dole did, I think, for a while. I mean, you had Ted Kennedy. That's so interesting.

I just realized now. Ted Kennedy run against the sitting president, Jimmy Carter. Guess what? He was allowed to do it. They just did it.

Okay, we have primaries, that's it. But instead, you have all these political maneuvers to get rid of everyone except Dean Phillips, who said, I'll sacrifice my entire career. I'm a rich guy anyway. I'm a congressman from Minnesota, because this guy can't be president anymore.

Well, it turns out now everybody knows he can't be president anymore. He gets kicked out. The whole process gets circumvented. RFK is left out, goes independent, gets on 21 states, but they spend $100 million to stop him. Jonathan Charley joins us now, Constitutional Law Professor at GW, Fox News contributor and author of The Indispensable Right, Free Speech in the Age of Rage.

Jonathan, just your thoughts about where he had to go in order to get on the ballot and why he had to ultimately disband.

Well, it's an extraordinary thing to watch unfold. You have this party that says that democracy is on the ballot, and in fact, democracy will end unless you elect Kamala Haras. And yet, this is the party that not only tried to cleanse ballots of Republicans, not just Trump, there were calls to bar dozens of Republicans from ballots, but also when it came to their own primary, there was a concerted and largely successful effort to block. Third party candidates. And they did that after effectively forcing Kennedy out of the party.

And if they had not done that, if there had been a real primary, the president's diminishment would have been obvious and there could have been a real debate. It seems very unlikely that Harris could have come out of that primary. She has never done well with the American people overall. I mean, she was successful in California, but she's just very out of sync with most Americans.

So all of that was avoided, and the result was something that was clearly not very democratic. And that's what he's had. And just think about this. And, you know, Jimmy Carter, I'm sure, wasn't happy to see Ted Kennedy running against him, but he did. You know, Pat Buchanan did damage to H.

W. Bush, no doubt about it. Ronald Reagan decided to run against sitting President Gerald Ford. He was allowed to do it. But now you can manipulate the party and not only prevent people from running, you can actually move the whole primary.

So instead of being in New Hampshire, you were in South Carolina, and there was a battle there.

So it's almost as if they don't care about their own system.

Well, there's a certain contempt, I think, for the intelligence of the American voter that really comes out in all of this. You know, that you can keep on making this mantra, we're here to defend democracy and do everything you can to diminish it. including, of course, having a party that's in favor of censorship. But when you looked at the DNC, that really sort of became even more clear, where there was just this argument that if you if it's sort of a red pill, blue pill pitch, right, if you swallow the Harris candidacy, it will bring you joy. Yeah.

I wrote a column recently saying it was sort of like political PROZAC. If you could, if you just accept us, we'll give you joy. We won't give you any other specifics. But you will experience joy.

Now, whether that's going to be enough, we'll have to see. I'm pretty sure the American people will demand more. I just hope they usually did. The other thing I want to talk to you about is everyone's talking about when it comes to international news, a lot of it comes from Telegram. This owner of Telegram, Pavel Dourov, was arrested at a Paris airport due in court in the coming days as concerns over the EU free speech censorship heightened.

So are you should we all be worried about this? Yes, I did a column on my blog this morning on this. The American people should not be deceived or distracted by what's these European censors are saying. This has direct impact on them. They're using the DSA, the Digital Services Act, To move against this guy because they say he's not censoring his site.

And they're not just threatening him. After Musk, bought Twitter The first thing that Hillary Clinton apparently did is she went to Europe and said, use the DSA to force Musk. To resume censorship on Twitter.

So you had a former presidential candidate of the United States. asking Europeans to censor American citizens. And they, of course, did that. And just a week ago, EU threatened Musk. That if he that he needs to censor Political statements in the United States during this election, including potentially.

President Trump.

So this is a comprehensive effort using this DSA, which is a frightening attack. On free speech.

So it it you know, few people are sympathetic with a Russian billionaire. sitting in jail. But they should be because while they keep on talking about things like human trafficking and child porn, if you notice at the end of that list, is the fact that they object that he allows extreme viewpoints to be present on his site. They want censorship. And you believe that if you're Elon Musk I'd worry about where I'm traveling these days?

Yeah, and you know, Musk You know, I for all the critics that Musk has, I can tell you, and I write about this in my book, In The Indispensable Right, The the impact of Musk on free speech Is unbelievable. It may be his most lasting legacy. Really? He was the first. person Perhaps the only person that could stand up to this anti-free speech movement.

This was really the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. He was that object. And every other CEO just yielded in cringing obedience to this movement and to these European censors. Must the richest man in the world Said, town sand, I'm going to take down the censorship system at Twitter. And that has made him just public enemy number one.

for this anti-free speech movement. Yeah, I think so too. And exactly. And that even though he is the got the number one electric car in the world and he's got the he's the one rescuing our astronauts in space and putting capsules back and forth, we're no longer depending on the Russians thanks to his company, SpaceX. This administration despises him.

They can't live without them. But they'd love to get rid of them. And he knows they want it. That's why one of the main reasons he went to Trump. Yeah, I think that's right.

And the fact that the media, all of this, this whole campaign against Musk. started when he took down the censorship system at Twitter. And then the media, pundits and press, they have been unrelenting, targeting his revenue, targeting his companies. Suddenly, his cars were being attacked. And it's all because he's a free speech advocate.

He doesn't care what it is, and believe me, he's not the most right-wing guy in the world. He's issue to issue.

So, the other thing, in the big picture, when you watch what happened, even though you're waiting for the next court case with Trump, you're seeing how Biden went from, how dare you say that he's failing? Behind the scenes, he's a dynamo, to you're after that debate, you're out, you're finished, you're through. And then they told us this incompetent vice president that was people like Nancy Pelosi who were looking to kick off the ticket and Jamie Raskin. All of a sudden, she is the next coming of Obama and Margaret Thatcher. You're seeing this with a lack of scrutiny, a lack of curiosity about an interview.

You're concerned about this and what it means. What do you see as the big picture beyond Harris?

Well, one thing that I wrote in the New York Post that This is how Democrats make Republicans. You know, I come from a long-standing liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago. I worked for a long line. of Democrats, including the uncle of Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy. And this is how Democrats make Republicans.

You know, they, you know, they really crush people like Kennedy, they embrace censorship. They show this intolerance in the identity politics. And they are a perpetual motion machine. That just generates Republicans. And it's because they are excluding others.

So as Kennedy said, he said he basically said in what I thought was a really good speech. He said, I was chased from the party. He said, I'm not running towards anything. I'm running away from my own party. And this really should be a wake-up call for them.

I mean, yeah, it was a love fest in Chicago, but that's not. America. The people you're going to need to get. And a lot of people I know We're planning to vote for Kennedy. And how they do what they do now is a really good question.

But I think that the just trying to sell joy is not going to be enough. And they're losing a lot of longtime Democrats like Kennedy. Very interesting. Yeah. I don't know.

Joy is just all I need. That and the dishwashing liquids, those two things.

So, Jonathan, there was a request from the Trump team not to be blocked by Alvin Bragg to postpone sentencing. When I brought this up to Trey Gowdy, he said the Trump team is crazy to want to postpone sentencing. It is rocket fuel for his popularity because they realize how unfair it is. Where does Jonathan Turley stand? Should they delay sentencing?

Would you have requested it? Yeah, Trey's point is a really Interesting one because that New York case just reminds people of the weaponization of the legal system. You know, when the other side is trying to sell joy, it's sort of hard to make that sale when you're trying to put your opponent in jail. And so. You know, I think that tr I I think that Trey has a good point here.

The problem is really sort of twofold. One is the unknown. Y I think it's unlikely that the judge would send him to jail. He might send him to something demeaning. Like community service, but it would be inconsistent with past cases that it sent him to jail.

The other thing is just the amount of time. it being pulled into New York and what comes after that. But I think Trey's got a good point. I think that there's arguments on both sides, but I think that there is an interest here in delaying it. One of the big questions for the judge remains.

How are you going to deal with the Supreme Court decision? And The immunity, the immunity and how it relates, right? Yeah, and I said all along, I think it's likely that he's going to. Uphold the conviction, but After the Supreme Court decision, I went back and looked at the trial where I sat to be part of that trial. I was actually sort of surprised at how much of the trial would fall into one of those categories of the Supreme Court.

It's not as easy as. It may seem. There was a lot of information there that, according to the Supreme Court, probably should not have been allowed at trial. And that's in addition to what I think are other reversible errors.

So I'm not too sure what this judge is going to do. I think that this judge. He's a one-man judge. He knows that he made reversible errors at the trial. And the other thing is, I think I discussed this with you not to get too bogged up.

This is the New York case for people listening around the country. This is with all the indictments, why they call him a convicted felon. But the judge now was asked to re-examine whether he should recuse himself because his daughter dealt directly with Kamela Harris, not Democrats in general. Camel Harris.

Now that she's the nominee, don't you, and he's the opponent, she's the opponent of Donald Trump.

Now, don't you think of it? He thought about it for two weeks and said, no, I don't think so. Yeah, and the thing is, you know, even if you say, look, technically he's allowed to make this decision, the question is. Was it right to do so? that it's clear that a large number of Americans lack confidence in the integrity of this system because of his familial relationship.

And I think any reasonable judge Would have said, you know what, this is a historic case. I shouldn't be in this. I should leave this to someone who doesn't have this baggage.

So I tend to be very critical of his decision. You know, in refusing to step aside, it's very, I'm very critical, but I'm disabusive in legal education. You're a deeper thinker, and you got that legal background. I'm just flabbergasted by the whole case. I was going to ask you something else: there's 70 million people who are convicted felons in this country, and they have an organization, and they asked with a statement: Can you stop saying convicted felon over and over again?

Because they're trying to get on with their lives. And if they did make a mistake or they're wrongly accused, that's separate. But for the rest of their lives, they're convicted felon. And when you keep diminishing Trump, you're hurting them. Have you heard this?

I have. And in California, there's actually has been efforts to bar the use of the term prisoner. And they have some rather long word like formally incarcerated individual or something like that. I, you know, the fact is that there are a very significant number of Americans that have these. F felony convictions.

And I think that it is important to keep in mind that many of these people have really turned their lives around. And there is a bias against people with criminal records. And that makes it difficult for them to get on with their lives. But we're not going to change the nomenclature. The fact is, someone was charged, someone was convicted.

And I think that once again, trying to change how people refer to things. is an unfortunate trend we've had in this country for years. Jonathan, I have to use Norman Claychare at Clencher. Is it Claychare? I have to say.

I have to use it in a sentence at some point later on today. That's my mission. I hope to use it. Jonathan, thanks so much. Good luck this semester.

Thanks, Brian. I appreciate it. And pick up his book, The Indispensable Right, Free Speech in the Age of Rage. Back in a moment. Expanding your knowledge base.

It's the Brian Kill Me Show. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. What's incredible is the party is so united that they have given her a pass effectively to reinvent herself, whole cloth, from her 2019 ill-fated bid for the presidency. Look, the convenient part about Kamala Harris's candidacy, and for that matter, Donald Trump's candidacy, neither of them are tethered to any deep philosophical policy.

No, no, no.

So, look, she knows she has to run to the political center, and she is doing that. And she's running from how she ran in 2019. And the party just wants to beat Trump.

So, of course, they're fine with that. They're not going to say a peep about it. But that's clearly what she's doing. Look, obviously, Democrats, John, won the summer, right? They had a near-death experience at the start of the summer.

We're going to Labor Day.

Now, Democrats are now on a chance to win the election, which they were not Trump won the spring. Not two months ago. But the only problem is, outside Trump hedging a little bit on his pro-life stance, Trump has been pretty clear since 2016. She is doing a 180 and she doesn't want to take any questions, and Democrats don't think she should. That's a huge issue.

Do you know any Republican that wouldn't say that Donald Trump should sit for an interview? Or do you think that Donald Trump at a million years would say, I'm not sitting for an interview? What she's doing now is totally unacceptable. She promises an interview by the end of the week. Question is, who do you think it would be?

I mean, would it be an influencer? Is it going to be Oprah? Was it going to be just a Rachel Maddow type interview? And then Donald Trump came out on Truth Social and said, I watched that ABC interview and at a different hour I'm going to play a lot of it with Tom Cotton and Donna Brazil and on the panel. And he says, Why would I if he just said, Why would I do a debate with these people?

George Stephanopoulos in the background, Donna Brazil sneaking in questions, a network president who's best friends with Kamala Harris. Why would I do an interview there? And in a way, I say that. I know. And when they're saying, well, you already committed to it.

You already committed to an interview with Joe Biden.

Now with you. And number two is now they don't want to kill the mics. They want to leave the mics open. The theory, the thing that Joe Biden had to have, that Donald Trump reluctantly committed to.

Now Trump says, I want to leave the mic. Yeah, kill my mic. It doesn't matter.

Now she says, no, no, I want his mic open. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian. In Kill Mead. Hi everyone, Brian Kilmead here.

Thanks so much for listening. Hope you had a fantastic weekend. I come to you from Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, nothing stopped. This is a week where, if you look at the calendar, get a year ahead of time, oh, this is a week I want to take off.

Well, maybe you do, and I understand that, but don't think the news is going to slow down. It is heating up. If you care about this campaign and most everyone I talk to, I can't go anywhere. You go to get pizza, you go to go to the gym. Everybody's talking about this as if they're in the campaigns.

That's how much it means to them, especially because all the rapid change in the DNC, the RNC, the assassination, and now you have the tactics and the execution of the candidates.

So, Julian Epstein is going to be with us in a matter of moments. Aria Lightstone served as the senior advisor to U.S. Ambassador David Friedman. Over in Israel. He's going to be with us too to tell us about the events over the weekend.

So let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. We are feverishly to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal and ultimately to get to a broader circumstance of regional stability. And of course, we think that a part of that is a credible path to a two-state solution. Yeah, good luck with that.

Middle East, a ticking time bomb. As Israel strikes Hezbollah, as they respond, we spend billions with two carrier striker groups in the region on high alert constantly. Iran waits for the window of retaliation. Did I mention the ceasefire talks with Hamas in Egypt? All this on the third anniversary of the bombing of Abbey Gate in Afghanistan.

Number two. It became clear to me that I did not have a path to victory. 16 months of censorship, of not being able to get on any network really, except for Fox. Oh, I was blocked out from the networks. I was blocked out from the debate.

I had no path to victory. That's true, and you're a Kennedy. Can you imagine if you were just another candidate, RFK Jr., the independent candidate endorses Trump and his family attacks? Yup, they attack Dems. The Dems attack, they try and diminish it, and Trump looks to capitalize.

How did he win the oldest of the famous family over? Well, he tried and stayed with it, and he got them. Number one. Most quants say we have to win by three in the popular vote to win Electoral College.

So when you see a poll that says we two up, well that's actually you're one down. Other thing is Trump traditionally, when he's on the ballot, chronically underpolls. James Carville is manipulating too. He wants everyone to think they're an underdog. Campaign 2024, both Trump and Harris have had their surges.

Now, may the best person win. May the best party win. The agendas, the strategy, and the push to get Kamala to pick a lane and a policy. After all, all of a sudden I'm seeing patriotism at the DNC. I'm seeing a pledge of a strong defense, a robust spending on the Pentagon.

What about the last three years? Your spending in the Pentagon has not matched the increase in inflation. Therefore, it's a decrease in spending. You're going to be tough on the border, tough on crime, really? You're going to be pro oil and gas?

You signed on the new Green Deal. We're all supposed to buy that without questioning that. And in fact, most people Cornell Belcher, another poster, a Democratic poster, don't he want you to bring that up. I think my next guest wants more than that from his candidate or no matter who it is or who she is, Julian Epstein, served as Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee and Staff Director of the House Oversight Committee for the Democrats for five years. Julian, welcome back.

Great. You have to feel good if you're a Democrat coming out of that convention. But what changes this week in your mind? I think hardball starts now. I don't feel so good about the convention.

I think all Democrats did. No. No, I think most of the Democrats did, but I don't. I think it was a Convention of unsurpassed vacuousness. I mean, I didn't hear.

anything that particularly working class voters could take to the bank. That anybody said during the convention. I think it was a, you know, it was a sort of campaign of joy. It's a campaign of personality. It really.

assumes that this Election will be based on Which candidate do you like better, which candidate you think has a better personality rather than on substance? And if it's a campaign of personality, I think. Whenever you Thank you.

Okay. I want you to hear what Summer Lee said. She's in Pennsylvania, a congresswoman there. She's very progressive. She's a squad member, and she didn't hear a lot of that.

So she was questioned about that by Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, cut 10. I know you are a progressive Democrat. Do you think that this pivot to the center? particularly on issues like the border and immigration and crime. Are they going to hurt support for the Harris-Wals ticket, or is it what's required?

So, I have to say, and I'd like to hope that we're able to do this. I have to disagree a bit. I think that we have data, we have polling, we have anecdotal evidence from Americans all over the country, but especially out in Pennsylvania in a swing state, where we're not actually asking for our candidates to run away from progressive ideals. We're asking them for them to run to them. That's just not true.

Do you think she believes that?

Well, I don't know. I didn't see a pivot to the center. I think a new housing entitlement and price controls is going very, very far left. I don't think the Democrats. I don't think the Democrats are pivoting to the Center on Immigration.

I actually think the Lankford legislation Was bad legislation. I wouldn't have voted for it. It would allow over 2 million migrants every year. I think it was at many, many holes. I'm losing your audio a little bit, but I when you come out and you say you're tough on crime.

When you come out and say you're going to enforce the border, when you emphasize your days as an AG that you claim were tough on the border. I and when you run from the fact that you were looking to tell everyone to contribute to a bail fund to get out the to bail out the rioters and the George Floyd riots, and now you don't even bring that up. When you talk about the fact you're going to have a robust defense and be the number one military in the world. That to me, they sound like Republic. It was a Republican situation.

When you come out and you talk about the spirit of America and they're chanting USA, I'm like, where did that come from with the Democrats? I'm not saying you're not patriotic. I'm saying as a party, they've used the flag as a trigger. Yeah, I think these are mostly empty slogans. I'm glad to hear the Republicans, I mean the Democrats saying that they're patriotic.

I think that's long overdue. I don't know how the Democrats are going to pay for enhanced defense. We don't have anything what we need to in terms of defense spending. We produce one submarine a year. Chinese are producing 26 a year.

I don't see anything in the Democratic agenda that takes that problem seriously. And I don't see anything other than empty rhetoric in terms of the pivot to the center. When Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ran, they made very, very clear pivots to the center. Bill Clinton, 100,000 cops on the street, end welfare as we know it. Barack Obama went to Rick Warren's church and said, you know, traditional marriage.

He is in traditional marriage. He didn't. He opposed marriage. There were Yeah. Oh no.

I think your Skype is letting us down. It's freezing up a little bit. If you're watching, Julian went on Skype because we wanted to give a video feel. I mean, this is like a television show as well as a radio show. In fact, Aria Lightstone is also going to be on Skype, but sometimes it jams up.

And I don't know if you have me back, Julian, but in terms of where we go from here, if you were advising. Kamala Harris, and she's got to pick one interviewer. They said. Her representative told Howie Kurtz she's going to do one interview by the end of the week. Who would you pick?

Knowing that you want her to do well. And also, knowing that it's got to be one that's going to benefit her, which is real questions. I I would pick one of the networks probably. I mean, I think she should pick Fox because I think that would show uh courage and and and and belief that she's able to handle a tough situation. But I think any one of the networks, but I don't think she should do one.

I think she should do multiple. I think There are two things that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both did. One, they explicitly pivoted to the center. Two was they went out in front of the media regularly on an ongoing basis to showcase their mastery on the issues. And I think one interview was not going to cut it.

The idea that she can hide. And duck the media for several months, or just do one or two interviews, I think is foolish because what it does is it sends a message that. vulnerable. But she's not both. Yeah.

Freezing up again. I want you to hear Douglas Murray. He was on with me on One Nation. And I love people from the outside perspective. He's been traveling the globe, going to the war of stops while writing columns and doing forums.

This is what he said that what he noticed that such so dramatic Was so dramatically different. Cut sixteen. A woman who was. Appointed by Joe Biden was chosen because of her characteristics, by the way. And they've made this such an unsayable thing, but you have to say it anyway.

Biden said he was going to select a black woman as his Veep. And he did. And there are lots of competent black women in the country, but he decided, instead of deciding, I will just choose the most talented person irrespective of their characteristics, he said, I'm going to choose from among 7% of the population because it has to be a black woman. And, you know, Carla Harris hasn't done a great job by any means as Veep. But they couldn't stop her, again, because of her characteristics, they couldn't stop her for running for and possibly getting the most important job in the world.

It's amazing. That's a fact. Just says it, we know what everyone thought about, or we know, and I played this on One Nation going into that segment. We played Nancy Pelosi On with Jay Tapper Saying basically he should pick somebody else. Jamie Raskin or Nancy Plus with Anderson Cooper, she would not say that she was a good running mate for Joe Biden.

Jamie Raskin, the same thing, should pick somebody else. Elizabeth Warren questioned the same thing. These are Democrats.

Now all of a sudden they go, she's unbelievable. They still gave Jamie Raskin a slap to speak. They, of course, Elizabeth Warren had her in tears because they clapped for her. She's not used to that. People are looking at her work and there was no reason to clap.

But let's go back to Julian. Julian, your thought about that, that people are trying to remake what her image was as vice president three weeks ago. Yeah, I'm a big fan of Doug Murray, too. I think he's a brilliant guy. Look, this is the reason why it's a mistake for her to hide from the media.

There are Democrats that are on record, starting with the President himself. The President said she's a work in progress. You go back to her own staff. There are numerous reports of her own staff saying she was disorganized, never prepared for For the day. You go back to when she was a prosecutor, they said she was a photo op prosecutor.

There's tons of stuff that are on the record from Democrats, from the left, the left media talking about all of her soliloquies to nowhere.

So when you have that as the background, and when she sort of ducks the media, the news media continues to hide. All you're doing is building momentum for when that storyline changes.

So I think she's one slip away from a major paradigm shift here. I do too. You know, one thing about Trump, he's speaking for an hour. They'll grab one thing that he says is unorthodox and they'll make that the theme, and they'll say he's getting off track and he's disjointed, he can't find his footing. I think he just did that simpletons who are not watching him.

There are certain things that Trump will always do that's different, and some will end up working out in the long term, some will hurt him. But right now, the controversial thing on the right is he's kind of backing away from the pure pro-life stance. And that's upsetting people like Lindsey Graham, who is very in touch with people like Tony Perkins, who are very pro-life groups that are not as enthusiastic about the Trump team. That's a legitimate question. Question, but the other stuff, Trump got attacked over 400 times.

Uh over the last few weeks.

So he and it was personal, by the way. Personal. including by Barack Obama, classless.

So, when he goes back at Obama, they're like, oh, listen, let's stay above board. I want him to stay above board. But you can understand where it's like, excuse me, did they just hit me 400 times? Most of which was Project 2025 that I'm not even subscribing to? Julian, thanks so much.

We'll catch up to you again. 1-866-408-7669. But I'm going to come back. I'm going to leave some time on the other side to get some calls. 1-866-408-7669.

I do want to talk about the Middle East, and I just want to emphasize we're not forgetting about the 13 men and one woman who lost their lives at Abbey Gate three years ago today. There was a laying of a wreath, and former President Trump showed up at Arlington for the burial of three. To lay Reese on the three that are buried at Arlington that lost their lives that day. No sign of Joe Biden. He's at Rehoboth.

Covering this election year like no other. It's Brian Kilmead. Radio that makes you think this is the Brian Kill Me Show. Right now, it's a race again. It's very similar to the race before the disastrous Biden debate.

Trump was winning back then, and then he looked like he was going to just dominate that race, and even I thought. Win the popular vote.

Now things have changed. We are in a very close race now. Either side can win. There are a lot of people out there, believe it or not, that haven't made up their mind.

So this is going to be a very important stretch for both candidates, and the debate could make the difference. Right. What's interesting is they point to George H.W. Bush, who was down by 17. He was vice president at the time, and Dukakis was the guy up 17.

And what George H.W. Bush did is further define exactly who Dukakis is while sprinting out in front and using his credentials.

Now you have a vice president that's running from the fact, running from the fact that she's vice president. And George H.W. Bush was like, look, I'm part of the Reagan administration. I had eight great years.

So just embrace this is so bizarre. She's not even admitting that she's vice president. She wants for us to forget what she said in the past and won't change it only through unnamed surrogates. Brian in Clarion, Pennsylvania. Hey, Brian, that was Bob Cusack, by the way, of the Hill.

Hey, Brian, I like your name and I like your radio show. Thank you. I just wanted to comment. You were talking about Lindsey Graham and the pro-abortion platform. I'm hoping that Lindsey Graham and his ilk keep their mouths shut until after the election.

He already cost us the midterms by proposing a national abortion on a national ban on abortion when the Supreme Court put it back into the state's hands. Maybe that's why Trump's not focusing on it. People don't know. Where do you stand? We don't know who your last name is.

Are you pro-life? Are you pro-choice? What are you doing? I'm pro-life and I'm pro-Trump. And I'm a gay man.

I'm happily married. And I'm sick of the LGBTQ platform. We are patriots. We love our country. And I hope Lindsey Graham keeps his mouth shut until after the election.

Well, here's the thing. It's not going away. And you have Trump on the stump saying, I put it to the states. But when certain states go to zero weeks, like Texas, or six weeks to like Florida, and what happened in Ohio, people get a lot of Republicans are not, or a lot of it, it mobilizes a lot of people and it changes the result of that red wave. That's fully the reason why it didn't happen.

It wasn't because people thought better of Joe Biden.

So they're trying to find a solution.

So he says, why don't we go to Europe's weeks? Europe says 15 weeks. After that, 70% of the country do not believe that you should have an abortion.

So why not go to the consensus?

Well, they should focus on the state level then. That's who the Supreme Court put the control of the abortion question. It's up to the people of the states And that's where it should be.

So we don't it's not a national platform. It's a state platform. And Lindsey Graham and the pro life people should focus on the state issues, the state races, if they want to get anywhere on abortion. Go get him, Brian. Alex in Brooklyn, real quick, Alex.

Hey, good morning, Brian. Thanks, thank you, Nicole. Obviously, a debate is only going to help Donald Trump, and I think that's why we're seeing Kamalax trying to change the rules. Because I think, number one, she's trying to get out of doing a debate because it would only hurt her. And also, because we always knew that crowds helped Trump, and also his interruptions were always perfect during the debates.

But with Joe Biden in that debate, we saw that Trump is even better when he has his two minutes uninterrupted and isn't distracting himself and being busy interrupting the other candidate because he gets to stick to his points and the facts. And I think Kamala Harris wants the unmuted microphones now because she doesn't want Trump to expose her and have those two minutes where he's going to talk about the facts because she wants every time he brings something up about it, he should not back off on that, Alex. If he wants those mics killed, those are the rules that were in place. That's exactly what should happen. Thank you.

Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. I thought it was a great move. Look at the preemptive strike was very, very important. Because if they had launched the strike, they'd be Hezbollah into Israel with thousands of missiles and they were talking thousands.

what would have happened with the loss of lives of Israelis and also the facilities, it would have pushed the Israelis into a doctrine they call Dahiya. And what Dahiya is called disproportionate response. And you I think what they did, they prevented uh the next or the third Israeli-Lebanese war, and that is smart. And and because of that, I think it's kind of reset the battlefield there. And it's uh it's important they did it.

I think they did it quite well. The attacks will continue. They're they're just diminishing the ability of Hezbollah to attack. Right, and that was General Kellogg, who is a close confidant of the president, former president, who worked in his organization, his administration. And what he's referring to is that Israel launched on Saturday night, Saturday night our time, 100 fighter jets, roughly 200 targets, preemptive attack blowing up in southern Lebanon, everything they could, because they had word that the big retaliation, long expected, long awaited, was about to take place.

Hezbollah did come back and launch about 300 missiles and drones, but most of them were knocked out of the sky, one of which knocked out of the sky, killed somebody with the debris.

Meanwhile, we have the Abraham Lincoln Strike Group, supposed to replace the Theodore Roosevelt Strike Group, aircraft carrier, but they both are now in the region. We also have a guided missile submarine. The guided missiles on board that submarine that could strike if needed anywhere. Those submarines can also carry Navy SEALs, which probably is more lethal.

Meanwhile, on the other side, in Egypt, Hamas. Israel. and others are representing some type of trying to get some type of ceasefire deal done. Where should it lead? Where is it leading?

Aria Lightstone served as senior advisor to U. S. Ambassador David Friedman for four years. Aria, welcome back. Your thoughts about the preemptive strike of Israel.

But I think it was an incredible strike. I just don't think it was enough. Uh Hezbollah intended to launch over six thousand missiles that could have, if partially successful, Killed tens of thousands of Israeli civilians.

So it was successful, but that threat is still there tomorrow. They say that that was their retaliation, that they're very happy. Hezbollah is happy with it. Do you think they are? I think that they have discovered that the ability to succeed without other entities striking at the same time, not the Houthis, but Iran directly, I think is going to be limited.

And I think that they've discovered that Israel will take a meaningful preemptive strike. But don't think that this is over by any stretch of imagination. They'll just come at it from a different angle. We have billions of dollars spent for these aircraft carriers to stay there, and the men and women have been overextended. Again, we're staying away from the South China Sea because of that, not able to help the Philippines or have a presence there because of that.

They love costing us money, and Iran knows that. Oh, they love it. They're playing the long game. And not only that, we're paying Iran for this. We've taken off our sanctions.

President Trump said so clearly, giving them over $200 billion of sanction relief. And that money is used to sustain their long game, so it drains us further.

So not only do we have money going out, To Iran, but we have money going out to sustain our soldiers, our brave men and women who are there without a mission. They've been shot at. This is underreported. How many American bases have been targeted since October 7th? And what have we, as Americans, done in order to generate some form of deterrence?

And the answer is almost nothing. I doubt ya.

So far, we have done almost nothing. There's no deterrence factor. Here's Jake Sullivan talking about what he hopes to accomplish with the ceasefire. And guess how listen to how it ends. They still think they're on target to do something with Hamas, Cut forty two.

We are feverishly Working in Cairo, as we speak, with our team and the teams of the other mediators, as well as with the Israelis, to get to a ceasefire and hostage deal. along the framework that President Biden laid out to get calm between Israel and along that border between Israel and Lebanon, and ultimately to get to a broader circumstance of regional stability. And of course, we think that a part of that is a credible path to a two-state solution for the Palestinian people as well. Your thoughts I've been on your show for six minutes and got a chance to hear Keith Kellogg and Jake Sullivan. And that is what 2024 is about from a foreign policy perspective.

You have a general who understands how to lead, and you've got Jake Sullivan, who I'm not positive has ever won anything in his entire life. And that's what he wants to do. He wants to capitulate. He wants Israel to capitulate. And they want to push to a ceasefire.

That way they can go ahead and try to win an election to appease their Hamas base. But if you remember, it's the same exact Jake Sullivan that one year ago. This year, one year ago, this calendar year, that proclaimed after the maritime deal that I and Amos Haqsty negotiated on the Lebanese border, that there would be no more tensions between Lebanon and Israel because it was such a great deal. And I remember David Friedman responded to him via X at that point in time, this was a garbage deal. And he responded, you don't know what we know.

And the answer is, it's not true. Friedman sat in the room. I sat in the room with Friedman. We know exactly what they knew. We knew it was a garbage deal.

They still pursued the deal, just like the ceasefire deal, if they're successful in doing it, will also be some form of capitulation because that's what these guys know how to do. Sinoir wants in these negotiations, he's now running in every way, military and diplomatic wing of Hamas, if there is one. And he says, I want to make sure you will commit to not killing me. And they also want to make sure that the IDF is lifted out of the Philadelphia corridor, which is the border between Gaza and Egypt. I don't think either one of those that Israel would agree to, do you?

Certainly, they should not agree to withdrawing from the border between Gaza and Egypt. Israel has discovered over 100 tunnels, many of them, not like three of them, many of them, large enough for trucks to be able to drive in and out of, which is how the resupply has gone on. For all of these years, for the infrastructure that Hamas has built, whether Israel agrees to kill Sinoar or doesn't agree to kill Samoar, I think that's a side point. The ability to allow Hamas to rearm and to pop out of a tunnel and say, we survived, we're victorious, that cannot happen.

Well, if he d if he survives, he's victorious.

So he's got to be killed, don't you think? I think that's also true. The stories today in the media have been that he's surviving dressing as a woman, walking around the marketplace of the streets of Gaza. In their culture, that's about as humiliating as it gets.

So I think the fact that they can't arm themselves, the fact that they can't control any other additional military components, Israel will find a way for him to meet his end, whether it's now or later. I don't care what they agreed to on that specific issue. Here's who Michael Herzak played. He's the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., CUT 45. He was on Face the Nation.

The reality is that we're not obliged to leave the Philadelphia corridor at this phase. We are reducing our forces there. We had constructive talks in Egypt a few days ago. We are well coordinated with the U.S. administration.

We are waiting for Hamas to see if they are in the game.

So Can you read between the lines? What do your sources say? Yeah, we're waiting for Hamas. What does that mean we're waiting for Hamas and we're well coordinated with the U.S. administration?

Neither of these things make sense. Why is there a problem in Lebanon today? There was an agreement over 10 years ago that international forces would go ahead and keep southern Lebanon free of terrorism. That failed, not partially, it failed to the tune of 200,000 rockets pointed at Israel. That was the failure.

That was brokered by the United States of America. That same United States of America policy wants now broker an international peacekeeping force on the Gaza-Egypt border. Fool me once, fool me twice. This doesn't make any sense. It's a lose-lose situation.

Yeah, I guess so.

So you have a situation where I guess it's cost a lot of money. These guys are doing multiple tours, but if there is hope, and you know more Palestinians already than I know. I have a well now. If there is hope that the majority of Palestinians do want to have a chance of living in peace, they will never know it as long as Hamas is a force. And they'll pr you know, the Israelis probably know.

the people they can deal with on the right. But if you even leave a semblance, they they're thugs, they're terrorists, they're mobsters. They will kill your family if you show any acquiescence towards a two-state solution. Yeah, you're absolutely correct about that. Look, there's a Middle East over here where you can decide in between Saudi, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain that has demonstrated that their population can succeed in anything they put their minds to.

And I certainly group Israel in that. And that's what the Abraham Accords were all about, something I was deeply involved with. And then you have the people who purely just want to go backwards and take advantage of their citizens. Why is the leadership of Hamas worth billions of dollars? It's not because they're sitting on oil.

It's not because they're sitting on gas, because they're a mob family that benefits by raping and pillaging its own people. And until the West figures that out and calls that out specifically, it will happen over and over and over again. The Palestinian people deserve a better chance, but not at all if Hamas still exists there.

So when people come out and say there would be a peace deal, but Netanyahu knows once there's a peace deal, he's going to they have an election, he's going to lose and that'll be it. He's extending the war for that reason. I think that's a horrendous thing to say about somebody, that you allow your soldiers to fight so you can have another year or two in office. Yeah, it's amongst one of the most horrendous things that I've heard anybody say in all of politics. Look, is Prime Minister Netanyahu correct?

Is he wrong? I don't know the answer to any of those questions. I do know that he's not responsible for having taken these people hostage, and he is trying as hard as possible to be able to bring them home. To blame anybody but Hamas for the deaths of any of the Israelis or any of the Palestinians is a misplace of blame. And certainly to blame anybody other than Hamas for the deaths and the injuries to the hostages is a misplacement of blame.

And the United States of America should be doing a far better job supporting our ally and the leadership of that ally, Benjamin Netanyahu. Don't you think it would do be a lot of help if our president actually did something? He went from the beaches of California to the beaches of Delaware, and we have a vice president. That's running for president.

So, who is home to do this stuff and to pressure? Aria Lightstone, thanks so much. Thank you, Brian. All right. When we come back, your call is 1-866-408-7669.

We'll talk about this. We'll talk about the Middle East if you want. We'll also talk about the impact of RFK. People are all over the boards on this. I firmly believe it is going to help, and I love that he's going to be on the stump.

Next, I want to see Tulsi Gabbard out there. I want to see Elise Stefanik out there. I want to see Sarah Huckabee Sanders out there talking about what he's like behind the scenes and things he likes to do. Don't move. Brian Kilmead Show.

Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. More to know, sponsored by Previgen. Previgin is the most recommended memory support brand by pharmacists. If the actor knows he has three hot rounds in his gun, and he knows that, like, I'm gonna do a scene, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And he knows he's got three hot rounds as he's doing the scene.

And then at this point, bam, bam, bam. And then he's gonna continue on and say a few more things. If one of the rounds doesn't go off while he does his bam bam bam, then he should like cut the scene and say, guys, uh one of the rounds didn't go off, I think I'm still holding a hot gun here.

So that is a Quint Tarantino sitting down on Bill Maher's podcast, and the two got into the rush shooting where Bill called it a BS. The prosecutors charged Alec. It also said they shared a slightly different view, saying it's 90% on the armorer, Hannah, but the rest of the blame lies with Alec. Tarantino says he thinks actors should check their weapons, making sure there's not a bullet in the barrel, other issues with the weapons while using it on the scene.

So you should check it, and the armor should check it.

Okay. Worth noting, SAG AFTER, the union representing all working actors, previously put out statements making it clear they don't feel it's an actor's responsibility to check weapons. Manslaughter charge leveled against Baldwin was dismissed by a judge.

So what do you think about that? That was a great question to ask him, though, isn't it? Absolutely. Interesting to hear the director's take on it, which goes against what the union says. Like, you know, there is some responsibility on the actor to pay attention.

The other thing that adds to it, he's executive producer, so he has a lot to do with it. Evidently, he cheaped out on everything. You know, put these guys in hotels hours away. They never wanted to go back to hotels. They'd sit around, try to entertain themselves with shooting contests and games.

But What can I tell you? My thing is, if you're Alec Boldwood, why would you like to do something... that stress stresses you so much. Do a budget film that you can afford. Right?

I mean don't do it where you're torturing actors Unless he had a really loved the script and thought it was great. I mean, who knows? I mean, everything's been dropped at this point, though, too. It's just. It's interesting.

It's still out there. We're still fascinated by it, but it doesn't matter anymore. All right, next in sports, double duty for Danny Jansen, playing for both teams in the same game in a chance of baseball history. Red Sox catcher is enjoying the odd slice of baseball history. He's preparing to become the first major league player to appear in the same game for both teams.

Jansen was in the lineup for the Toronto Blue Jays when they faced Boston for June 26th. The game was suspended because of rain and scheduled to be made up on Monday. In the meantime, he was traded to Boston. The Red Sox Alex Core, their manager, said he will put Jansen in the lineup when the game resumes. Isn't that fun?

Oh, that's fantastic. Jansen was at the plate with a runner on first and one strike in the count when the umpires called out the TARPs for the finale of the Boston series against the Blue Jays. The game will be resumed at that point as part of a day-night double header. That's weird and yet fun. I mean, what are the odds with all that lining up for that to happen?

I know. That's why it almost never happened.

Next, Boeing's rescue by rival SpaceX is embarrassing, according to some Boeing people. The legacy company needing aid from an upstart rival is Harley. Welcome news in the Arrows. Space community because of the problems with Boeing Star Allina spacecraft. The two astronauts who rode to the International Space Station on a Boeing jet, on a Boeing rocket, will have to come back on a SpaceX rocket.

I heard they didn't have the right space suits. They had to get new spacesuits. They hate, don't they? Don't they hate Elon Musk? Eric, you were into space, right?

Don't they not like Elon Musk there because he doesn't have a rocket background? No, I don't think that they hate him. I think that they just kind of put themselves in a corner relying on Boeing as the only way back. Yeah, he says it's not good for Boeing, says a professor of Emory-Riddle Aeronautics University. What a year they're having.

Next. Get this. Australia's right to disconnect law takes effect.

So, Australian employees now have the right to ignore their bosses outside working hours thanks to a new law which enshrines the right to disconnect. Here are the facts. What does the law say? Employers will still be able to contact their workers.

However, staff now have the right not to respond. This means an employee can refuse to monitor, read or respond, and contacts from an employer or a third party, such as a client. How do you feel about this? I mean, I think it makes sense, assuming that the person is actually logged in and working on the hours they're supposed to be working. They're 9 to 5 and they're actually working from 9 to 5.

Fine if you don't respond until you come back at 9. But if you. Technically, in our business, it would be death for us. But yeah. Brian wouldn't.

You do it in on 9 to 5. Yeah, we don't do 9 to 5. No. But a lot of his text messages, not necessarily a document. You know, you got to respond to it.

Was such and such happening? I need a day off, or did you talk to this client? It's well, that's where I think every industry is so different, though, right?

Some industries, it's really all you're legislating this now. If I don't have, you could fire me, and I'm going to say why, because I didn't answer your text. But the thing is, you'll never prove it, you'll never say that. But it's a good message. If you're a boss, hey listen, I don't mean to bother you after five.

Maybe people will be a little bit more considerate. Or they'll maybe now put more of a demand: like, hey, not get to this one you can. Like, I need this by the end of the day because I know after five o'clock, you're not going to be responding to me. Oh, that's a good point, too.

Next, a brave Ruth that had a jersey. 1932, he wore it in game three where he called the shot over the fence because he was being badgered by the Cubs dugout.

So he pointed over the wall and he hit it right over the wall. That's how the legend goes. No footage back then, but they do show him pointing, which you think is it. Bottom line is, it's one of the most famous games ever. Ruth, the most famous player ever.

His jersey on that day, somehow they realized this is it. went for twenty four point one two million dollars.

So that is the highest anything's ever sold for. The previous was a nineteen fifty two Topps card, a Mickey Mano card, one of the holy crails for collectors. No, it's incredible. And I heard somewhere this morning, sold like 10 years ago, the Team Jersey for like 2 million, and now they're auctioning it off again.

So it's really gone up in value. It was a good investment. All right, how about this? A vacation stunner: 29% of young travelers think relaxing is a waste of time. The study conducted by Talker Research for Apple Vacations polled 2,000 Americans across different age groups.

Garner are the days when relaxation was the universal goal. With Gen X and baby boomers still prioritize unwinding, younger travelers have different ideas. Gen Z and millennials are more focused on creating memorable experiences during their trips. 29% of those who don't prioritize relaxation view it as a waste of time, with millennials leading the sentiment by 30%. I'm with the next generation.

Because I do not like sitting around more than a day. Yeah, you sitting around is you go crazy. Eric? Same. Same.

Okay, good. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Killmead. Hi, one, Brian Kilmedia. Hope you had a fantastic weekend.

We're back in action now. Man, is air action. And I know a lot of you still looked at this week in your calendar and said, well, that'll be a dead week. Because it's Labor Day. It's in September.

The kids are ready to go back to school in many cases, and the campaigns will be slow. Nothing really starts till after.

Well, that was before the most atypical campaign in history with the swapping out of Joe Biden, who they told us he was fine. No one believed it. And then Democrats finally had it to admit it. And they bring in a vice president that is totally unaccomplished, that was looked at negatively by her own party. And now we don't know what she stands for, but we're supposed to think she's half Indira Gandhi, half Margaret Thatcher, and half Barack Obama.

I guess that's a lot of halves. But we don't buy that. I don't buy that. But having said that, that's what's going to be the sprint.

Meanwhile, the underpinnings of all this is what's happening internationally. And what's happening internationally over the weekend, we watched as in a preemptive strike, the IDF bombed 200 sites with 100. Fighter jets. Hezbler responded back, and now we're in the middle of peace talks. And we see Ukraine moving into Russia.

And a lot of people see that a lot of our energies are in and around the Middle East with two aircraft fighter groups in the region costing us billions of dollars. With me right now, a guy who knows all this backwards and forwards. He is General H.R. McMaster, former National Security Advisor for Donald Trump and author of a brand new book. It's out tomorrow, right, General?

Yes, it is, yeah. Out tomorrow. Three-star general, at war with ourselves, my tour of duty in the Trump White House, and also is at the Hoover Institute and is a historian. General, great to see you in person for the first time. Hey, Brad, great to be with you.

Infinite amount of respect for you. I'm through. one hundred and sixty two pages, a three hundred and sixty eight page book. I started plow plowing through. It just gave me great context and reminded me of where the world was when you took over, when Trump took over.

Yeah, Brian, I I'll tell you, what I wanted to do is tell readers what it was like, you know, what it was like to serve in the Trump White House, what it was like to be part of a year in which we administered some very significant and long overdue correctives to foreign policy And to national security. All right, first off, have you had a chance to, because you're on your book tour now. To look at what the preemptive strike was in Lebanon. From what you could see, the Israelis, a preemptive strike. I mean, no one denies that they were about to have a massive strike on population centers in Israel, right?

Right, absolutely, absolutely.

So what they were doing is looking for intelligence indicators of one of these large rocket attacks. I think it's important for everyone to understand that these are like 150,000 rockets that the Iranians have helped the Hezbollah amass over many years.

Some of these are precision rockets now. And you know where they put them? They put them under people's houses. They put them in places that you would think would be a protected site. But it's not protected anymore, obviously, once it becomes a military facility.

But they saw indicators of preparations for a massive simultaneous launch, and they did what they needed to do. Missile defense is great. You got to be able to shoot down the arrows coming at you, but you also have to be able to kill the archer. Great. Thanks for doing it for the civilians out there listening.

The problem is these killer drones. Yeah. And the drones are getting through. And there's a big worry to keep up with the technology. How much has been pioneered in the Ukraine battlefield?

A lot.

So it's unbelievable what's happened in Ukraine in terms of the ubiquity of these drones. And these are the first-person view drones, some of them, which you see really used very heavily in Ukraine. But also what you're seeing now is the advent of swarm technology, where these drones can almost cooperate with one another. The next iteration in the future is going to be computing power at the edge and the ability for these drones to fight through kind of electromagnetic warfare. But there are countermeasures being developed too, Brian.

And this is what's important about the Ukraine fight and learning lessons from it. Is there's a lot of new technology in counter-drone warfare as well, which involves jamming. It involves kinetic capabilities or shooting them down. But you've got to be able to shoot them down cheaper. You can't fire like a Patriot missile at every Iranian drone.

We were doing it in the Red Sea, right? With the Houthis? With the Houthis, we actually, you know, the Houthis are making us go through a good bit of our arsenal in terms of counter-missile defense. I mean, a friend of mine who is very familiar with that operation called each of these incidents in the Bob El Mandev, you know, in the Red Sea area, a diving catch. These have been diving catches, is what he's called them.

And so, you know, what really bothers me is a degree to which, at least in the beginning, we were very constrained about going after the Houthis directly with offensive targeting. What you want to do is you want to destroy these missiles before they ever get launched. The problem is when you start an administration and decide that Saudi Arabia is a pariah nation and demand that they stop bombing the. The Houthi rebels in an effort in deference to Iran. When you start like that, I guess people have egos and realize, well, we screwed that up.

They removed him from the terrorist list. Yeah, it was just terrible, huge reversal of what our right in at war with ourselves. One of the paragraphs in the postscript is that a lot of the value of Donald Trump's policies only became apparent to many Americans after the Biden administration reversed those policies, and especially in the Middle East, especially vis-a-vis Iran. When Trump put into place, and I think it's worth going back to a speech that President Trump gave in September 2017. It's worth rereading it because he lays out what is the problem with Iran.

What are we going to do about it? And he talks about really over time, the only way that we're going to, the Iranian people are going to have a better life and people in the Middle East are going to have a better life if there's a change in the nature of the Iranian government such that it ceases its permanent hostility to the United States, you know, the great Satan. You know, Israel, who they call the cancerous boil, And then their Arab neighbors as well. I mean, they have so much blood on their hands, and they've created so much human suffering in the Middle East. Just look at the Syrian civil war.

Half the Syrian population is dead, wounded, or displaced. And where were the college protests about that, Brian? None. And here's the thing, the Alawites are Shia, right? Most of that country is Sunni.

They were so brutal on the protesters when they wanted a degree of, I guess, equality or say in their government, they beat them down to the point where it rallied the terrorists and other Sunni groups to maybe go at them, which caused the Shia Iranians to get involved. And the Russians said, I'll help because I would like to keep our only port in the area, and that is our one ally. And next thing you know, during the Obama years, we now have Russia back in the Middle East the first time since the 70s. Absolutely. So what you're alluding to is like, you know, the and describing clearly is the cycle of sectarian violence, right, between Sunnis and Shias.

And this is what Iran wants. Iran wants that cycle of violence to continue. Because that's how they keep the Arab world perpetually weak and how they extend their hegemonic influence in the region, try to build a land bridge to the Mediterranean. They're trying to put a proxy army on the border of Israel to destroy Israel. And they've done it.

And you know what the Biden administration did is actually the Obama administration did, is they invited the Russians into the middle of that. With the unenforced red line in Syria after the mass murder attacks using chemical weapons in 2013, 2014. Then they invited the Russians to come in to verify the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons, which, of course, they never did. Then Russia gets Assad up off the mat. I mean, Assad was getting the crap knocked out of him by the resistance in Syria.

And then now, what Russia does in the Middle East is they play the role of both arsonist and fireman. They're pouring fuel on the fires in the Middle East and then saying, oh, but we can help be part of the solution. I did not know the degree in which the Saudis and Iranians were rivals until the WikiLeaks of Hillary Clinton's emails. And you saw the Saudis reaching out to us.

Well, you show some strength against Iran. We need your help. But they weren't saying that publicly. You knew that, like, you would know this stuff. Yeah, and this is.

You were fighting war, that you're in the war at the time. Right. And this is where President Trump took advantage of that dynamic. Do you remember when he took the trip, and I read about this in a book, you know, when he was going to Saudi Arabia, people are like, what the hell is Donald Trump doing? Going to Saudi Arabia.

Right. To his first visit, his very first visit abroad. And it was brilliant because he went to the center of the world's three greatest religions, right? He went to, you know, he went to, or the people of the book, of the time of Abraham, right? You have, you have.

You have, you know, he went to Saudi Arabia, then he then he went to Jerusalem, and then he went to Rome. And you know, and in if you look at his speeches again in that period of time. He set out a vision for bringing the Arab world and the Israelis together. And people thought that was crazy. But he did it in the Abraham Accords.

One by one. Absolutely. Saudi was next. Yeah, and the people who did it, who don't get enough credit, were Jerry Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. Those two guys did a fantastic job with that.

Over the Trump administration. And everybody at the beginning were just dismissive of the whole idea. And then, again, this is another area where you see the reversal of Trump policies. And the supplication to the Iranians during the Biden administration to try to resurrect that flawed, fundamentally flawed Iran nuclear deal. And in doing that, as you mentioned earlier, they undesignated the Houthis as a terrorist organization.

Then they didn't enforce the sanctions that were put in place during the Trump years. Talk about to sell their oil when China's buying it. Yeah, absolutely.

So they'll get billions of dollars, but the people of Iran hate their government. They hate their government. And we realize that even in 2018. Of course, there have been a series of protests after that, after Massa Amini's murder, because she wasn't wearing her headscarf, and then the protests across the country, across Iran that we've seen in recent years. But I remember in 2018, when I was still in the job as national security advisor, the Iranian people were chanting, the problem is not America, the problem is right here.

That was one of the chants of the protesters. And so I think it's important that we should for us to impose sanctions on Iran, but we should give the theocratic corrupt dictatorship in Tehran full credit. For destroying the Iranian country. Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.: And it's just like when you look at what's going on with the mosque, fundamentally, you're the expert, General McMaster, but every time they talk about civilian deaths, They should say who's responsible. Absolutely.

The people that perpetrated October 7th and then go into the tunnels and let their people die. That's their tactic. Let civilians die and public opinion turn on the Israelis. Why is that not defined in the higher echelons of the White House?

Well, and I mean, they're not only using people as human shields, but as you're stating, they want to get as many Palestinians killed as possible. If you look at Sidwar's statements, he's basically said that we've got to be able to do it. We've been riding this opportunity. We want to create martyrs, is what he says. And now just think about what he's done to victimize the people of Gaza over many years, right, since they took over.

But the line's been blurred by an administration that is worried about, or maybe sincerely, worried about this huge Palestinian sympathy, support that's on this country's in these college campuses, which I don't want to get too far off your book, but is actually within it. It's being financed by the outside. The unrest in America is being pushed and pulled by forces. On the outside, why is there not a Department of Justice investigation into who is propping up and paying these protesters? Yeah, I think Columbia, and all these Harvards, all these schools.

Yeah, I think there should be. And of course, I'm not saying that we should worry about innocent Palestinian lives. We should ask the Israelis, hey, apply firepower in a decisive way, but continue to take steps to apply that firepower discrimination. But then you've also got to realize, how about all these tunnels and everything underneath Gaza? How many of those are available for the Palestinian people to take shelter?

None, because they're used as part of Hamas's terrorist network. And so you've got to place blame on, hey, and I heard you play the clip of Jake Sullivan about making progress toward a two-state solution. The the destruction of Hamas Is a precondition for any progress toward a Tuesday solution because Hamas says that they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. That doesn't sound like an organization who's signing up for a Tuesday solution. No, I gotta read between the lines for that.

I want to come back and discuss too, because today is three years since the explosion at Abbey Gate, they killed 13 great Americans, 12 men and one woman, and there was a laying of the wreath down in Arlington. Not a word from the White House.

Now, I know it's not a proud day. They shouldn't be proud of it. But how do you not acknowledge that?

Well they they haven't acknowledged at all what I what I call the the stain of twenty twenty one in August twenty twenty one. And it's it's something we're going to pay for. Of course those thirteen servicemen and women paid with their lives. And of course we should put the blame on al-Qaeda, on the Taliban. But what were they telling us at the time?

Remember they told us these big lies about the Taliban? That the Taliban would share power. How did that work out? The Taliban would treat the Afghan people, and especially Afghan women, better. And the third thing they told us, though, is that there's this bold line right between the Taliban and other jihadist terrorist organizations.

That was a fabrication. What we had done is we had created the enemy we would prefer to fight instead of the real enemy. And so now, Brian, you have 65 or so al-Qaeda and ISIS or ISIS-related terrorist sites that we know of in Afghanistan. You have, you know, Sarash Akhani is the Minister of Interior, one of the most heinous terrorists in the world. He's the guy issuing passports to people.

You have now a state, a terrorist state, that is a huge threat to the world. And it's the worst possible scenario. And you tackle that in your book about Afghanistan. The president said, I want to get out of there. Just like Obama says, I want to get out of there.

Biden got out of there totally irresponsibly and then tried to blame you guys, not you, but you were out by then. Tried to blame the previous administration for the deal that was in place. A lot to discuss. The good news is the general is here for an hour. His book is fantastic.

You really need a perspective on this because you're about to vote in a few months. At war with ourselves, my tour of duty in the Trump White House, General H.R. McMaster, here for a while. Don't move. Brian Killmead show.

It's Brian Killmead. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. My assessment was uh back in the fall of twenty and remain consistent throughout that we should keep a steady state of $2,500, and it could bounce up to $3,500 maybe something like that in order to move toward a negotiated gated solution. Right.

So that was his recommendation. That was General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in front of Congress. General sitting right next to him, General Frank McKenzie, CUP 53. General McKenzie, do you share that assessment? Senator, I do share that assessment.

Did you ever present that opinion personally to President Biden? Again, I'm not going to be able to comment on those executive discussions. Did General Miller ever present that opinion personally to President Biden? I think it would be best to ask him. I believe that his opinion was well heard.

So when you saw what's happening, the series of events what the Bidens had agreed to, General H. R. McMasters got a brand new book out. It's out officially tomorrow, At War With Ourselves, my tour of duty in the Trump White House. General, did you say this is going to happen?

This is going to fall apart? Would you have wreck would you have seen this thing too? Absolutely. I mean, you know, I'll tell you, you could tell what was going to happen earlier in the year when once, you know, once President Biden gave the military a date and a number.

Okay, what that did is it compelled the military to shut uh you know to sh to shut the airfield down, Bagram Air Base, and then it puts you in a position where you have to do this evacuation, you know, right out of Kabul airport. And Brian, I'll tell you, I mean, I Made sure that the President of the White House knew from my perspective. I wrote in a letter. Uh, earlier in 2021, and said, unless we do these six things, it's going to be an unmitigated disaster in Afghanistan. And you knew to hold on to Bagram, and you knew where Pakistan is, you knew where China is, you knew where Russia is, you knew how vital that place built by the Soviets, right?

How vital that was to hold on to that, right? And then once you go down below a certain level, you can't secure the place. And I think, you know, how does it make sense, Brian, in any world? To evacuate the military before you evacuate civilians. I mean, that's what the.

Trump's already said that. And it was like a ready-made hostage situation. Do you think Trump would have done the same thing? I don't know. I don't know.

Of course, in the book, I write a lot about, I think, the courageous decision the president makes, the sound decision. I think President Trump put into place the only. reasoned, sustainable approach to Afghanistan that we had in the whole course of that war. And this was in August of twenty seventeen. He gave a fantastic speech where he lays out a whole different approach, like no time line anymore.

It's going to be the Afghans bearing the brunt of the fight, but we're going to do everything we can to support them. He took a fundamentally different approach to Pakistan, which was supporting our enemies and we're providing them with aid and assistance. President Trump stopped that.

So he put into place a fundamental shift in what we called the South Asia strategy, but included the war in Afghanistan. But in the book, I do criticize him, from my perspective, for going back on that, for not being able to stick with that decision.

Now, what happened? I just don't think Kalazav did a great job. No, it was terrible.

So essentially, I think it was a surrender. I mean, I don't know how Oscar put it, you know, but I'll tell you why I believe it wouldn't have happened with Trump. And it plays, it comes to a theme of one of your books about his personality: H.R. McMaster, Morning Moment. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead. I understand that you're the principal military advisor. If you advise, you don't decide, the president decides. But if all this is true, General Milley, why haven't you resigned? Sir.

There's a Senior military officer. Um Resigning is a really serious thing, and it's a political act if I'm resigning in protest. My job is to provide advice. My statutory responsibility is to provide legal advice or best military advice to the President, and that's my legal requirement. That's what the law is.

Um The President doesn't have to agree with that advice. He doesn't have to make those decisions. just because we're generals. And it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer. To just resign because my advice is not taken.

Well, that's uh General Milley saying that's why he didn't put his four stars on the table and resign. But I believe, uh H.R. McMaster, General H.R. McMaster, he has four, you have three, that if he had threatened to do that, he would not have pulled out of Afghanistan because General Milley was someone who took on Trump at the end. And here he is praising Biden.

And if he used his political cachet and said, You do this, it's going to collapse. Here are my stars. General, I believe that they wouldn't have left the way he left. He would have been forced to listen to him and maybe leave 2,500 there. Yeah, hey, Brian, you might be right about that, but here's the other thing to consider: hey, you don't want generals to make policy, right?

Nobody elects generals, right?

So what you want is you want the American people to hold the president. No, that doesn't matter. No, but yeah. I mean, well, I know he was a civilian at the time, but he left when Trump says I'm pulling out of Syria. Mattis goes, I quit.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, I think there, you know, I think there are other factors that were involved with that decision, too. But hey, I just got to tell you, I mean, what's really important is what Millie said: his job is to give best military advice, right? That's his job. Not to cross the line from best advice to like making policy. And you know, I really made the right move in your mind?

Well, I mean, it's his decision, right? It's his personal decision. I would not take exception to it because it's not his job to make policy. It's his job because you don't want generals to make policy, right? I mean, you want generals out of the out of, you know.

Out of that chain because they're not held accountable. Nobody elects generals, right?

You want your elected officials to make the policy decisions. Point taken, you're the one who spent decades in the military and you're the general. I'm not. But, Brian, I wrote a book largely about this called Derelition of Duty, about how and why Vietnam became an American war. Which makes me want to read this book makes me want to read that book.

When Ego's going to vow. This is what I said. This is the reason. You've characterized Trump well from your perspective. You thought that in some ways he's insecure, in some ways he's overconfident.

I believe that he knew the optics of what could have happened to Afghanistan if H.R. McMaster or Bolton at the time got in his ear or Johnson got in his ear, Robert O'Brien, rather, gotten his ear and said Mr. President of Afghanistan is falling. It's falling right now. They're on the march.

The Afghanistan army is collapsing. He would not have allowed that because it would have been a severe loss for him and America on his term. He never would have recovered. He would have started bombing Borador right there before he hit Kabul.

Well, I could see that for sure. And really, what happened, what happened in the path to the disaster of August of 2021, if you think about what we did, step A was negotiating with the Taliban without the Afghan government present, right? That was a slap in the face of the Afghan government. But then what you had after that is a series of decisions to withhold support from Afghans, air support, logistics support, intelligence support. And you know what happened around that time?

This is now in twenty twenty one. You have the Taliban going around to all of the Afghan officials and corps commanders, military commanders, and saying, hey, here's the deal. Either you accommodate with me when I give you the signal, or I kill you and I kill your whole family. And so, what kills me, Brian, is either. Even, okay, even the Obama administration, when they got out of Iraq completely, they didn't negotiate with al-Qaeda and Iraq.

What the hell were we doing talking to Mola Bardar? And that was when you guys decided to do it with the Trump team. And then what I would often hear, it was across multiple administrations, the Trump administration and the Biden administration, I would hear people complain about President Ashraf Ghani. And I would just say, hey, do you prefer Haibatullah Akanzada? You know, the terrorist who's in charge of Afghanistan now?

I mean, what are you talking about? Afghanistan's not perfect. It's not going to be Denmark. But we have a very small number of troops who are helping the Afghans bear the brunt of the fight against modern-day barbarians. But every day you guys were there was one more day where a generation grew up, knew how to read.

Women were treated with respect. They were able to hold positions.

So every day was gaining. That's how I would have characterized it with the American people. And there was no in your book, just talking about the dynamics. We know what happened with General Flynn. He's out, and he got screwed.

They never should have left the FFO. No, he did get screwed. Honestly, man. I felt so bad for him to do it. Nothing to do with him.

He's in his family. But you come over and you open up with a resignation, and President Trump says to you, we agree with 90%. And let's just send friends. And this is not a vendetta book. No.

But you bring me inside the administration. And Madison Kelly did not respect you like they should have. They worked together to undermine you. They were constantly critical of you. They wanted you to resign as general.

They wanted you to retire. Yeah. And that was starting of the tension.

Well, I think the way I try to explain it from an empathetic point of view, right, from their point of view. And what it came down to is that I think we had fundamentally different motivations. I mean, I was there to help the elected president determine his own policy approaches, make his own decisions. And I think that some members of the administration, you know, they thought that President Trump was a danger to be contained. Everybody knows Kelly felt that way, and everybody knows Mattis felt that way.

And I'll tell you, not only is I think that the wrong approach, because obviously, again, nobody elected them, right? You're actually, I think, undermining the Constitution to a degree if you are obstructing the elected president's decisions. I mean, it's okay if you don't agree with them. I mean, in my experience, President Trump wasn't doing anything illegal, right? But he was doing things that cut against the foreign policy conventional wisdom, which, in my view, having served so many years overseas and seen the nonsense that came out of Washington, I was happy for him to disrupt those foreign policies.

You said a lot of Trump's instincts were really good, and you were open to saying, okay, that's not conventional, but maybe it'll work. Because you're a student. As much as you're a war fighter, you're also a student and a historian. I'd studied the presidency, I had written about the Johnson presidency, I had taught national security and American military history.

So I had this perspective that I knew a lot of these tensions that I was encountering, they weren't unprecedented, right? That every president I knew brings his own background to the job, his own personality and character. And the bottom line for me was the American people elected Donald Trump. I mean, Brian, and I had never even voted. I know listeners might think that's crazy, but I took the oath of service at age 17 on the plane at West Point, the parade ground at West Point.

And I followed George Marshall's example to keep that bold line between partisan politics and the military. And I never had even voted. President Trump was the sixth commander-in-chief under whom I'd served in uniform, and I considered it a privilege to do it every day. And you also thought it was an emergency for us to reconfigure our national foreign policy because it was nothing but weakness. Russia began to get emboldened.

China obviously has not stopped. The emergence of Iran, there was a good guy. Guys, bad guys, the best of a bad situation was Saudi Arabia. You saw a way to bring back some order in the world, and you were upset that the Russians were back in the Middle East, and that we're starting, China is beginning to rattle everyone's cage in the Pacific, and we needed to show some strength and somebody that would spend on the military. Yeah, one of the stories I tell in the book, Brian, is on my first second full day on the job.

I had an all-hands meeting. With the National Security Council staff, and I shared with them that assessment. You know, that the balance of power in the world had shifted profoundly against the United States in large measure because we had vacated key arenas of competition. And you know what, Brian? If you're not on the field, you're going to get your ass kicked, right?

So a lot of what we did and tried to help President Trump do, and what President Trump did is re-entered arenas of competition that we had vacated under flawed assumptions about the post-Cold War world. And if it wasn't for this Russian undercurrent, which the Mueller report did an effective job of showing that it was all BS, you write in the book, Hillary Clinton paid for that dossier that caused all this unrest and made your job so much harder. And it made the president's job harder. How are we supposed to even try to have a strategy with Russia when you're actually projecting things that they didn't even do in some cases? Right.

It created kind of a sense of beleaguerment, you know. And what I read about in the book is how that empowered some people, right? We mentioned, hey, some people come into administration, they're there to help the elected president get that elected president multiple options. Other people see the president as a danger, you know, but there's a third group of people who try to manipulate decisions consistent with their agenda, not the president's agenda. And that sense of beleagerment allows people around a president to create kind of a bunker mentality, you know, to say, hey, you can't trust anybody.

You can only trust me. And there were some of those figures in the administration that I think got inside the president's head and took advantage of the hostility of the majority of the media, as well as the Mueller investigation and these false accusations of collusion with the president. I'll give you an example.

So Tillerson says, hey, Mr. President, I got the ambassador and Lavrov. Why don't we bring Vidam to the White House? What a dumb move for the optics reason, anyway. And they say that Trump at that time gave top secret information from the Israelis to about, I think something about the Saudis, to Russia.

Right. You had to come in and go, No, it's absolutely nothing happened. Right. For the record, he did not ask to see the Russians. Right, that was set up by his Secretary of State, who was recommended by the greatest, one of the greatest people you ever met, Condoleezza Rice.

Right? So that was. That meeting set up, next thing you know, he's finally got his meeting with Russia where he was, I don't think it was smart, but he came out and said, Comey's the problem. We want to start a fresh relationship. And Comey made up this story, and we're going to be done with it.

Right, right.

So then that ended up being this huge story, this huge distraction.

Well, it was, you know, it was just an example. It's one of the examples in the book that I give of how people who are against Trump often, their behavior is far worse than what people don't like about Donald Trump. I mean, the reaction to President Trump creates more problems in the area of national security. That's why the title is like, at war with ourselves. We need to get over this.

What happened in that meeting, Brian, is the president did not divulge any kind of intelligence source. I was in the damn meeting. And by the way, the president didn't even know what the hell the source of the intelligence was because he didn't really need to know. It never even came up in conversation.

So what happened is somebody got a readout of that meeting. And leapt to the conclusion, and then they leaked it. And they leaked it to the Washington Post.

So it's in the newspaper. That's a far worse leak. And by the way, That intelligence was already shared with the Russians because it was a counter-terrorist intelligence report, and we routinely share that with the Russians.

So, yeah, it's just so frustrating. The other thing you point out to get some context: people say, well, a chaotic administration. You point out, too, during the first two years of the Reagan administration, they were constantly at war with each other. James Baker and Deaver, I think if I remember, was a faction against another faction. George W.

Bush had this prestigious Donald Rumsfeld, second term around, at war with Colin Powell. Right. Right? Okay, so you had the conformity, you had the establishment. They're always at war.

It's only Casper Weinberg who was a problem. And when George Schultz first took over as secretary of, as I'm reading this book at Beirut, he didn't do a great job telegraphing what was happening in Lebanon. I don't think Reagan did a great job initially, in retrospect, about understanding the problem. He was very disappointed in the no response, right, to what would become later Hezbollah's bombing. This was a Shimala.

That Iran was supporting in 1983. Right. It kills 241 American Marines, the largest loss of life since Iwo Jima for the Marine Corps. And then we left. And who was taking notes?

A guy named Osama Bin Laden was like, okay, I know the playbook now. And guess one of the guys who was the architect of that bombing, the Israelis took out three weeks ago. In Beirut, exactly. And, you know, which I think was pretty poignant, because remember, Prime Minister Netanyahu, during his talk to Congress, he said, we are fighting our common enemy. Our enemy is your enemy.

He's true. And then, of course, the IDF strikes against this guy who was behind a bombing that killed 241 of our servicemen. General McMaster wrote a fantastic book. It's out tomorrow. Download it today or order it today.

Get it this week. Out war with ourselves, my tour of duty in the Trump White House. Couple more minutes on the other end with General McMaster. Really enjoyed this, General. Don't move.

All right. Learning something new every day on the Brian Kill Me Show. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Kilmead. Hey, welcome back.

H.R. McMasters here. He's got a brand new book out. It's out tomorrow, Out War With Ourselves. My tour of duty in the White House.

He's over at the Hoover Institute, too. Can you imagine having someone with this type of experience, a three-star general teaching a class who graduated from West Point? In 84.

So you are older than me.

So, General, I'm from. Hey, we've got our 40th Reunion coming up. You do? Wow, I can't believe it. And what's striking to me, okay, where you get a sense of what they call the long gray line at West Point, is the 40th Reunion when I graduated from West Point were World War II veterans, class in 1944 who went right to war.

So it gives you a sense of what we call at West Point the long gray line. Just don't worry. How do you feel about Civil War generals being taken off? Yeah, I'm see, I'm okay with it, Brian. And the reason is, I think with these monuments and so forth, you have to look at two things: when was it put up and why was it put up?

And I think what happened is right after World War I, when a lot of black veterans were coming back to the United States, there was a real kind of new Jim Crow movement that put up a lot of these monuments, like, hey, you know, make sure you know your place again.

So I think, you know, I think it's good. I mean, I commanded Fort Benning, Georgia. What was Fort Benning is now Fort Moore, Georgia. The guy that Benning was named after, you know, never really was even in the military. You know, he was just a local guy there, and now it's named for a fantastic officer and his wife.

who is who we know from the the the book We Were Soldiers Once and Young and the movie.

So anyway, I think that's a great point. But when you have Nixon talk about reconciliation and no revenge, I thought, man, is that the wrong message? But if you put up a, you know, if you're putting up for people who fought in the South, it's a it's an intellectual discussion. It shouldn't be an emotional discussion. But you're right, if it was put up in the 40s to reinforce segregation, that's absolutely another story.

So the one thing that comes out with this is some of the infighting that really hurt.

So I look at General Kellogg, who's a friend of Lieutenant General Kellogg, who's a friend of the show, but he did not like the fact that you got this job. And he went out of it. You write in his book, he went out of his way to undermine you. Yeah, well, you know, I I think that it was unfortunate, Brian. I mean, what I tried to do is is have a good working relationship with with everybody.

And I you know, and I hope the tone in the book and it is not positive. Yeah, it wasn't yeah, it wasn't to sca settle any scores or, you know, I you know, I'll tell you, I My editor's a great guy, you know, but I think he wanted it to be like a, at one point he said, a warning. I said, no, I'm not warning anybody. This is to inform people, just to tell the story from my perspective. Do you think he'd be a better president the second time, Trump?

I would hope so, yeah. I mean, one of the reasons that I, you know, I'm critical of the president at times in this book. President Trump, at times, in this book, is because, you know, like all of us, we should learn from our experiences. and and try to you know try to understand you know where the pitfalls are. And how we can avoid them.

Well, I think that's one of the keys. And one is Steve Bannon. It's a problem. Right. Well, you know, I think what I tried to do with President Trump is not exclude anybody's voice, right?

The whole idea in running our National Security Council process and National Security Council staff process was to give him access to a broad range of perspectives, you know, but the best analysis and multiple options so he could make his own decisions. One of the chapter titles is called Guarding His Independence of Judgment. I wasn't there to try to manipulate President Trump in certain decisions. I was there to help him make his own decisions and put into place his own policy. And you're just pretty amazed, like, when you talk about Mar-a-Lago and meeting President Xi there, how he liked to talk to Trump and have his own invention of history.

How like, you know, it was the century, that lost century that they had where they were abused by everyone, and it basically blames America for it. We had nothing to do with it. Right. And doesn't even mention World War II, the great role we had in liberating them from Japan. That's right.

It's the Chinese, you know, the century of humiliation narrative. It's a warped view of history, and that's what he was trying to get President Trump to buy in on. And it didn't work. I mean, President Trump saw through it. And you were starting to make some progress.

And you talked about China had one vision of us, and it was win-win. They win twice. That's right. That's what win-win means from the Chinese Communist Party, is that they win twice. And President Trump, I think, put into place, and I'll write this in the book, the most significant shift in U.S.

foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. And that's a shift from cooperation and engagement with China under the belief that they're going to liberalize our economy and their form of governance and play by the rules to a policy of competition. Right. He had a lot of great instincts, and you talk about it, how you helped. At war with ourselves, pick it up.

General H.R. McMaster, it's been a thrill. Thanks so much for the time. Thanks, Brian. Congratulations.

Thank you. It's time to take the quiz. Five questions, five minutes a day, five days a week. Take the quiz every weekday at thequiz.fox, and then listen to the quiz podcast to find out how you did. Play, share, and of course, listen to the quiz at thequiz.fox.

Listen to the show at free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcast, Amazon Music with your Prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Mm-hmm.