Senator Mark Kelly on Ukraine Weapons, NATO & Iran | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS - The Team House

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hey, guys, welcome to another episode of A Geopology is
a very special one. Today we have Senator Mark Kelly
from Arizona with us. If you guys don't know him,
I mean you should if you listen to this show. Uh,
former naval officer, former NASA astronaut, and uh I believe
you're the senior senator from Arizona. Correct.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, so, and of course we're joined with McK molroy,
Jason Lyons and myself to meet you con tacos. We
have a lot going on. Uh, let's just rock into it.
I mean make mix sent over a bunch of questions
mixed so you can rip it rock and roll.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
If you want fall.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
Thank you very much for joining us, Senator. I believe
your junior senator is a former marine. Am I right about?

Speaker 3 (00:53):
Is? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (00:57):
Really really enjoyed serving with so we speak the same
language that you do.

Speaker 4 (01:03):
So I like to start with Ukraine, if that's all right.
Obviously a big topic right now, essentially starting from the
beginning and then moving up to the day, you know,
hindsight's twenty twenty. But I always thought that since we
had such good intelligence on the fact that Russia was
going to invade Ukraine that we would have been better

(01:23):
off telling President Putin, if you do, we're going to
support them one hundred percent, not to survive, but to win,
and made the decision theirs whether that we would be
providing them with F sixteen's and Abram tanks and high
mars and everything else. So, if there's any criticism I'd
have of the past administration would be that incremental approach

(01:45):
to approval on these key weapons systems and then jumping
into this administration, I would say my criticism ext anybody cares,
would be we wentn't even we went way further down,
and our support from Ukraine cutting off intelligence, cutting off
critical security assistance to a partner who would guaranteed security too,

(02:07):
back in the nineties at a time when they're completely
under assault. So Ukraine has agreed to our proposal. You know,
the ceasfire back in March, Russia has not. Russia has
escalated substantially. They're now producing around five thousand drones a

(02:27):
month and they're launching I think last night was the
second largest attack since the beginning of the invasion, and
they're going directly after civilians, right, infrastructure and civilians themselves.
So it does look like Senator that the administration has
gotten the message. We'll see that Russia has no interest
in a ceasefire and that it hopefully understands that it's

(02:50):
in our interests got charity to support Ukraine in defeating Russia.
So my thought, my question is where do you think
we should go from here, specifically when it comes to
the Sanctioning Russia Act, to the frozen funds that both
the United States and Europe and other allies have of

(03:11):
Russia around the world, and just generally, where do you
think we can go to get to a point where
Ukraine can actually win this because we all know they've
been fighting the fight for over three years. Most people
gave them three weeks and they're still in the fight.
But they really do rely on not just our European
NATO partners, but the United States specifically to be the

(03:32):
leader of the free Yeah, so what's your thoughts and
where we should go?

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Yeah, well, let me let me start back at the beginning,
because you mentioned, you know what happened back in I
guess February now twenty twenty two, when they invaded. We
knew they were going to invade, and as you know,
you know, guys that work in the agency were really
good at gathering intelligence, were somewhat good about predicting, like
what's going to happen maybe tomorrow or the next day.

(03:58):
I think predicting the future and how any conflict is
gonna unfold is really really hard.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
You know.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
We thought the Russians, We're gonna make it to Kiev
in a matter of days. They haven't gotten there in years.
We thought the Afghans it would take I think something
like nine months to take Kabul. It took nine days, right,
So sometimes predicting what's going to happen can be really

(04:26):
really challenging. And in the case of this conflict, yeah,
I mean we got it wrong. We thought the Russians
were going to perform much better on the battlefield. I
always had my questions about them. I've flown in space
with Russians on multiple occasions. I knew some of these
guys who've served in the Russian Air Force and just

(04:49):
their culture in their military. They're a different breed, you know,
They're not motivated like Americans are. You know, we are
all generally, I would say almost every American that works
the government is motivated by mission success, you want to
complete the job. That's like the top thing, top of
the list. That's not true for Russians, you know. For Russians,

(05:10):
it's probably how you're going to rip off your employer first,
what can you steal? And then maybe second after that
is just like the appearance that you're in charge or
maybe who to blame. I've seen that with the cosmonauts
and so, yeah, they've got cultural problems you talk about,

(05:31):
you know, maybe what we could have given them stuff early.
I think that's fair. I think that's a very fair observation.
I mean, if we knew then what we know now,
and if you're going to give them to pick them
rounds artillery rounds, the cluster munitions for one hundred and
fifty five millimeters artillery, which I advocated for, if you're

(05:52):
ever going to give it to them, you might as
well give it to them as early as possible. The
F sixteen's, which on the other hand, I thought was
going to be I thought would be a difficult ramp
up for them. It has proven to be difficult, and
I wanted to make sure they were ready before we
start shipping F six teams over to the Ukrainian Air

(06:13):
force that in the beginning of this conflict were in
no way ready to accept them and use them effectively
in any kind of operation. They've gotten a lot better.
We could talk about that some more later. Attackers rounds.
It took us a long time to get there. I
was an advocate of giving them attackers rounds and then

(06:35):
let them use them against military targets, even when those
targets were inside of Russia. Would have been better if
we would have done that quickly. But you know, you
can't put the ship back in the donkey right and
we're at a place now we can't go back in time.
I think we've got to be you know, flexible and

(07:00):
extremely motivated to help the Ukrainians because this fight is
not just about Russia and Ukraine. I mean this could
expand to Romania, where I was a couple of weeks ago,
the Baltics where I was last year, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
They all feel like they might be next. Poland thinks
it could be next, Finland thinks it could be next.

(07:23):
And Putin's designs on Europe and his you know, willingness
to try to bring back the Soviet Empire is a
real thing. I am under no illusion that if he's
successful in Ukraine that he's going to stop, and I
don't think anybody should. But what do we you know,

(07:47):
what do we do now? I think we've got to
do a better job providing the munitions that the Ukrainians
need to defend themselves and ultimately push Russia out of
their country. And we can do better job of it.
What happened earlier in the week, cutting off security assistance,
the sect DEV, cutting it off, the White House not

(08:09):
knowing about it, not signing off on that decision is,
you know, shows a certain level of dysfunction. We've got
to get our shit together here and we've got to
be more forceful. You mentioned the sanctions, it's really a
tariff bill. I mean it's sanctions, but it raises tariffs

(08:32):
up to five for any country that buys Russia oil
and gas. I mean that's pointing, you know, basically at
two main countries, right China and India, who buy a
lot of oil and gas. If they want to continue
to do that, you're going to suffer some significant tariffs.
I in general have not supported this president's tariff policy,

(08:53):
but when tariffs are targeted for a very specific reason.
They can often make a lot of sense, and I
think this does make sense to get this legislation passed
and sign into law, to give the president another tool
to hit the Russians where it is going to really
hurt them, and that's in their pocketbook. I sit in

(09:17):
John McCain's, you know, Senate seat, and you know he
said once or maybe multiple times, I love the quote.
I'm going to use it here. John McCain used to
say that Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country,
and you know, that's what it is. And if we can,

(09:39):
if we can, you know, stop the revenue from their
giant gas station. You know, Putin's going to find himself
in a really challenging position. He's an unpredictable guy. We
don't know what that's going to lead to. But you
also mentioned the money that they have in Europe, and
I've been to that advocate of taking it. I mean,
just think about how this thing could unfold. We could

(10:02):
wind up. Let's say the Russians were to win and
take Ukraine. Russia's not getting that money back. Let's say
they lose and Ukraine is you know, mostly destroyed. They're
not getting the money back, so we might as well
use that revenue that those resources now to help to

(10:25):
help Ukraine in this war. You mentioned the Russians building
five thousand you know drones a month. Ukrainians are building
a lot of drones too. I've been to one of
these underground drone factories and it's quite remarkable. This one
factory was making two kins, two different kinds. One was

(10:46):
longer range obviously, that could range upwards of I think
over about one thousand miles with a pretty decent sized
payload if I remember correctly, maybe up to about I
don't know, like forty fifty kilograms. And they were cranking
these things out, you know, fast. But they are up

(11:09):
against a much larger country with more financial resources and
more manpower that they can continue to throw at this.
So we've got to do a better job helping them,
and I think there are some things we can we
can do.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
Jay, got anything?

Speaker 5 (11:28):
Yeah, yes, Snat, I just wanted to get your opinion
on as far as everything you just spoke about as NATO,
do you believe in your opinion that they have stepped
up or are stepping up to mind the gap, if
you know, to fill that gap, if you know god forbid,
we completely pull out, you know, our support of Ukraine.

(11:50):
Do you what are your what's your opinion on where
they're at right now?

Speaker 1 (11:53):
I think you know what they said about many of
the countries. I think Spain was an exception. But going
to five percent GDP on defense is it's a good step.
They've got to follow through. And spending it on defense,
in my view, doesn't mean you're going to build a
new highway between you know, Rome and Naples, right, that's

(12:14):
not defense. So where are they going to spend the money,
What systems are they going to purchase? So the details
really really matter in this. And I don't think it's
so much as a as a response to them feeling like,
you know, we're going to exit the arena. I think

(12:36):
it's more about the pressure. And you know, I think
it's fair to get the administration some credit here. And
they've been they've been you know, putting the pressure you know,
on them on this issue for a while now, and
it has had a positive effect.

Speaker 4 (12:52):
They have, and you have to give them credit for that.
And of course every president has right, Yeah, we.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
Always ask you know, Donald Trump asks a lot and
and and has made this an issue and they say
they're going to do five percent. Let's see, let's see
what actually happens. I'm cautiously optimistic, you know. I think
these folks realize that if Putin attacks a NATO country

(13:19):
and we wind up all of us collectively with an
Article five obligation to defend the Baltics or Poland, this
is going to get a lot more expensive and costly
in you know, treasure and lives very quickly.

Speaker 3 (13:34):
That's right.

Speaker 4 (13:35):
So either help the help Ukraine win, or potential that
the US gets dragged into a war.

Speaker 2 (13:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
I think it's just cheaper. I mean, I think it's
the cheaper and it's it's the it's the way to
do this that has the uh, you know, fewer downsides
for us and our.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Other senator question when Secretary of hegseets pause the up
and shipments that were already in Poland in other places
obviously unilaterally, how unprecedented is something like that?

Speaker 1 (14:11):
Well, I think in a conflict like this, you know,
major war in Europe between our ally and one of
our adversaries, it might be unprecedented. I have I haven't
gone back to look. I mean, I think at times,
you know, sect being the Secretary of Defense is a
really hard job. I voted against Pete Pete haggsp I

(14:33):
don't think he's equipped to do this. He wasn't when
we had his nomination hearing. I don't think he's equipped now.
Some of my Republican colleagues now feel the same way,
And some of them who voted for him said recently
if if the vote was today, they wouldn't vote for him.
I think at least one maybe maybe somebody else said

(14:53):
that as well. So I don't think he's, you know,
suited for this role. I think he would have been
a very effective Pentagon spokesperson. He's got the experience to
do that. He's really good in front of a camera.
He's good at answering questions. He is not equipped to
manage a nine hundred billion dollar a year enterprise, and

(15:17):
we're seeing, you know, some of the problems because he's
in this position. So, yeah, he did this and seemingly
without the knowledge of the White House, and it sends
a message to the Russians that you know, we're not
totally committed and that we are sort of in you know,

(15:41):
disarrayed between the relationship between the Pentagon and the White House.
And you know who's running the you know who's who's
running the show, who's the commander in chief, who's making
the big decisions. This is a really big decision. There
are a lot of decisions that the sect Deaf needs
to make on a daily basis that does not involve
the White House. This was not one of them.

Speaker 4 (16:01):
And Senator it brings up another point. At least, you
know when I was there, there was a process when
it came to policy decisions, right, So not just when
I was there, obviously, since we've made policy in the
United States right in the National Security Council's staff with
people from all agencies and National Security Advisor, decisions like

(16:22):
this were never were never made internal to the Pentagon,
you know, to cut off a partner during a conflict
with key defensive weapon systems. Right, So, what's your thought
on the fact that so many have been let go
of the NBC. There was a big burge there right now.
The Secretary of State is ostensibly also the National Security Advisor,

(16:45):
and from my perspective, that's impossible. It can't be in
two places at once. And then you'd actually have a
Secretary of Defense who would make this decisions about even
informing either the Secretary of State or obviously the President
of the United States. As a broader issue, certainly disagree
with cutting off aid to Ukraine, but as a broader issue,
when it comes to the status of policymaking inside the

(17:08):
executive branch, right now, what's your.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
Well SECTA also fired a couple of his senior people
and a couple others quit, So who is giving him
advice at this point? He doesn't have the staff he
needs to do this job if he was capable. And
when you consider the fact that, in my view, the
guy's not capable to do the job, and then he's

(17:31):
got a vacuum of leadership in the front office. He's
got some challenges he's going to face, and I think
things are going to get worse before they get better.
And I, you know, I think the President should let
him go and put somebody in there that has a
lifetime of experience or at least some more experience in

(17:56):
either like coming up with policy, executing policy experience. People
don't like the revolving door, but there's something to be
said for somebody who understands these systems. And you guys, know,
if you serve you know a short period of time
in the military in one area as a junior officer.

(18:18):
That does not make you qualified to be the Secretary
of Defense. And I don't think anybody has is going
to check every box. I don't think you can find
a person out there that does that. But you want
somebody that he at least checks a few of them.
And so you combine the situation at the Pentagon with

(18:40):
what is going on at the State Department, which you
alluded to is Marco Rubio, who I believe is a
capable professional, but nobody is capable of being the Secretary
of Defense and the National Security Advisor at the same time.
And now he's going to lay off maybe up to
two or three thousand State Department professionals who we need

(19:05):
to manage these relationships with our allies and our adversaries.
And who knows who's going to be gone.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
We don't know yet.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
We're going to find out here in a couple of days.
Unrelated to National Defense, you have the President just said
the Secretary of Transportation is also going to be the
NATHA administrator. Makes no sense. NASA has a twenty percent
budget cut. They got to figure out who goes what
programs to shut down, and they're going to have a

(19:36):
guy there that's part time. So you know, I just see,
you know, one thing after the next is making the
management and the cohesiveness and the effectiveness of our national
security apparatus. It's starting to phrase significantly, and I really

(19:58):
worry about at some point does the whole thing crumble?
And I you know, we're gonna, you know, in my
in my job in the Senate, we're going to keep
trying to you know, hold the administration accountable and uh,
you know, meet with we We had the D and
I in in front of the Intelligence Committee this week.

Speaker 3 (20:22):
I think with all the stuff going on out.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
There and all the problems, i'd say that hearing I
felt actually went pretty well. But there's a lot, I mean,
there's a lot that we are trying to deal with
in the United States Senate, uh, and the House and
the administration has made this more challenging.

Speaker 4 (20:44):
So speaking of crumbling, if I could just add to that,
because it's a good it's a good segue. And I mentioned,
you know, we're I'm in a group of veterans. It
does you know, humanitarian enablement around the world. With the
demise of us AI D Uh, it seems to me
that we have kind of tossed away a lot of
American soft power which is going to be immediately filled

(21:08):
by our most significant adversaries, specifically China and the Beltan initiative,
you know, Russia to the extent with their military diplomacy,
if you will. What's your thoughts on how this, Because
now it's under the State Department, and there's some friends
that I had in the State Department many over the years,
it would have agreed with that. Actually certainly not agree

(21:32):
with eliminating the USA itself and the capacity of what
it does well. Right, So, feeding people that are starving
should be a moral I think obligation to any country
in the United States has been I think exceptional at
that until right now, and then developing countries so they
don't become, you know, this NonStop need for international aid.

(21:58):
I would agree with some of the criticism that a
little far off track at times on what they're funding,
but their core mission I think I would hope most
Americans agree with. So now that it seems to have
been gone and I don't know of the actual plan
to restart it even under the State Department. What's your
thoughts on what that does at large to the US's

(22:19):
influence overseas at a time. And you also mentioned, Senator,
we're having purges in the State Department, right, what does
that do to US soft power? Is that where is
diplomacy and this you know, aid and development part of
the US foreign policy apparatus going to go from here?
And what's the consequences if we don't get it back

(22:41):
on track.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
Well, I think the soft power is as important as
the hard power. Jim Madis recognized that, you know, I
think I said this earlier that it's for fund the
State Department or got to buy more ammunition.

Speaker 3 (22:55):
The soft power, you.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
Know, stops some conflicts from started. You know, Starving people,
you know, want to leave, want to migrate, you wind
up with significant problems with worldwide migration. We don't want
to see kids dying. I've been in refugee camps in
the Congo where there are starving children. There is nothing

(23:19):
worse than a starving kid and what parents having to
watch their children start to death. Or remember seeing one
kid who was seriously malnourished and I remember saying to
the he it was a unise or un physician. Well
that's great. The kids here. You guys have food for

(23:39):
the kid. Kid's going to be fine. And the doctor said,
not that kid. That kid's going to die. And it
was like a three or four year old. Too late.
I mean, at some point it doesn't matter if you
get to the you know, the food assistance. For some
some children it's just too late. And now others will
serve because of the generosity of the United States of America,

(24:03):
and we've always been that country to try to help people,
and it's in our best interest to do it. I
was talking to Cindy McCain on the train up to
New York.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
City the other day.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
We both happen to be on the same train, and
this is John McCain's life. And she's now the head
of the World Food Program for the UN, and she's
having to make decisions about which kids die and which
get food because her budget was cut because we ended

(24:36):
this assistance through USAID, so her budget went down like
forty percent and most of her budget goes to buy
food for children, and she's having to make these horrible decisions.
Did the kids in Sudan die, Did the kids in
Gaza die, or the kids in Afghanistan or in other
places in the world. We didn't have to do this.

(24:57):
I mean I get it that. Yeah, there was things
that you SI aid We're finding that was just dumb.
I mean, Sesame Street and Bagdad. Did we have to
do that now? But food assistants and pep Bar. Last
year I went with you know, some of my other
fellow senators, Linda Graham, Martin Heinrich, Kris van holland a

(25:20):
couple others. We went down to South Africa to take
a close look at pep bar houses working. Pep Bar
was George Bush's program, the President's Emergency Plan for Age Relief.
That program started under President Bush forty three w stayed

(25:41):
the lives of like twenty five million people. And we
provide just medication, pretty simple medication called PREP and there's
one called PEP And if you come in and you
ask for an HIV test, they know you, you know
you're maybe susceptible.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
You on this medication.

Speaker 1 (26:01):
Well, we stop paying for the medication. And what is
happening right now is I think the number is I
think about every week in Sub Saharan African Africa, you
wind up with about a thousand kids being born HIV
positive because of this a thousand children. I mean, the

(26:22):
epidemic of AIDS is going to explode in Sub Saharan Africa. Now, yeah,
we stop doing this. Chinese are like, what can we
do to help? You know, they want to become the
partner of these other countries. And I know there's people
out there, there might be people watching the podcast. I

(26:42):
see this stuff online that say, well, we shouldn't be
us taxpayer money shouldn't be you know, feeding children around
the world. We should be spending that money here. Ultimately,
especially over a long period of time, a more stable world,
a more stable planet, is in the best interest of

(27:04):
all of us, including every single US taxpayer, if we
can prevent a conflict from happening, or stabilize a certain
part of the world, provide some food, make sure you
don't have millions of people dying in Sub Saharan Africa,
and the instability that causes that in the long term
benefits us. The world is a volatile and chaotic and

(27:29):
dangerous place, and we the United States, as the leaders
of the pre world and leading all of our allied countries,
we've done a pretty effective job. You know, we don't
get everything right. I get it, and in programs like
USA AID. You know there's waste, let's clean up the waste,

(27:52):
and if there's fraud, let's prosecute people. Look by shutting
the entire thing down. I think there are I don't
know what the estimate is on the numbers, but I
imagine there are tens of thousands of children around the
world that have died because of the decisions that this
administration has.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
I think that's a fair point, and I think you
made a really good point. In addition to being just
the right thing to do, it's in our own interest.
Without this, we're going to have mass unregulated migration, which
obviously people don't want to see, and we're going to
have the new form of some diseases that are going
to pop up and almost instantaneously spread around the world.
Nothing's contained anymore, right, So that's it's Those are I

(28:35):
think two really good points when it comes to why
it's in our interest, in addition to the fact that
it's just I think moral obligation for countries that have
the amount of wealth we actually do.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Yeah, Senator, Like I guess we can kind of dovetail
this a little bit into what's going on in the
Middle East, like broader, specifically Gaza. What's happening there, Whether
it's gonna be there's gonna be a ceasefire, there's not.
I mean, there's been a ton of back and forth
in the press going on. Obviously it's still on the

(29:13):
holding pattern more or less. What do you make of
just the entire situation between Israel and Hamas and what's
happening in Gaza.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
Well, it's tragic. I mean, the whole thing going all
the way back to October, a year and a half ago.
October November. He was November seventh, Is that right? October seven?
I was there a week later, meeting with family members
and hostages, some of which are now to see some released,

(29:44):
meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know, his staff, the
head of shin Bat and Massade, and their secretary of Defense,
and and the entire situation is you know, true magic.
You know, I think Israel has a like any country

(30:04):
has a right to defend itself. And what Hamas did
on that day was just horrific, and they have a
right to, you know, do their best to try to
eliminate this threat. And I'd say the threat is not
yet eliminated. At the same time, the people of Palestine
who are not members of Hamas, right, they're every Palestinian

(30:28):
in there is not Hamas. They're not all terrorists. A
lot of them are kids have suffered, you know, significantly
because of this conflict, and at times there were things
that the Israelis were doing that I did not support.
Naval gunfire is one of them. Incredibly inaccurate, right, it's

(30:49):
like dropping dumb bombs. You know, I've always advocated for
giving them precision guided muniitius to you know, be more accurate.
But Hamas doesn't make it easy.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
You know.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
It put these you know I've seen video and images
and you know they put you know, rocket launchers, you
know in the half basements of schools. You know, you
got like half of the basements underground and you got
windows you know kind of at the top. Load them
up with these you know, rocket launchers launching you know,

(31:21):
unguided rockets you know into uh into Tel Aviv, many
of which are intercepted, but not all of them. And
it's killing Israelies and they're under threat, and they have
a right to you know, go after you know, these targets.
But you know there's been some of the stuff that's
been rather rather sloppy. You know, I fought in the

(31:42):
First Gulf War. There were times that we dropped so
I dropped unguided munitions. Uh you know, when there were
when it was really important to be accurate. We didn't
have jade m kits then, but we had laser guided
bombs and uh you we'd lay the target, usually from
the airplane I was flying, but sometimes from the ground,

(32:05):
and you know, we hit where we're aiming at. And
that's not always been the case here. So I think
the Israelis need to continue to evaluate their operations to
try to eliminate as much as possible civilian casualties. I
want to see this thing come to an end. I
think the Israelis do too, but they're also still focused on,

(32:29):
you know what the long term threat from Hamas is,
so hopefully we'll get to a ceasefire. I think there's
appetite in the region. I've had this discussion with NBS.
I think there's app an appetite here for governments to
get together and fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I think

(32:53):
they're going to want some kind of security assistance from US.
During the first Trump administration, the Abraham Accords was a
rather positive thing. I think we can expand upon that.
And the big threat you know in the Middle East
is the Iranians still is despite what happened two weeks ago.

(33:15):
Iran is the threat. They are the coordinator, they're the
band leader of terrorism throughout the region. They coordinate the Huthis,
Hesba lah A Moss militias in Iraq, and they've been
set back on their heels a little bit, maybe a
lot as we get more intelligence, well a better idea

(33:40):
as the weeks and months pass, what the situation is
with them. You know, these rallies give them a ton
of credit. I mean, it is a lot of our technology.
But fine, F thirty five's freely over basically, you know,
more than half of the country. Pretty incredible and with

(34:00):
out you know, having to deal with any surface there
missile raps really because they destroyed most of them.

Speaker 5 (34:05):
And you know, this.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
Airplane is you know, very capable, low, very low signature.

Speaker 3 (34:12):
I was.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
I was flying a rather sophisticated F thirty five simulator
a couple of weeks ago against some Chinese fighters in
a simulator the Joint Simulation Environment at Pax River. And
it's a magic plane. I'll tell you I was in
a real airplane in F sixteen about a year and
a half ago, flying against an F thirty five doing

(34:34):
some ACM against an F thirty five, which F thirty
five doesn't do great in a turn against an F sixteen.
But it is invisible. I mean, I couldnot see this
thing when I can visually see it, couldn't pick it
up on radar. It is really something, and I think
this is the first conflict that we really saw the
power of this platform. The Israelis flying there.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
F thirty five is over.

Speaker 4 (34:59):
I ran, it's right, it's like two days they had
air dominance, right, yeah, forty eight hours. Yeah, And I
would have to say some of that had to do
with the good work of Massad on the ground, with
some pretty impressive covert operations.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
You are absolutely right, Nick, I mean we can't talk
about them on the pot on this podcast, but yes,
some pretty incredible stuff.

Speaker 2 (35:26):
Saturate, I got a question about the rebuilding of Gaza,
hopefully when there is a ceasefire and that makes sense
for everybody. Do you think Israel should kick into that
fund to rebuild it Gaza?

Speaker 1 (35:37):
You know, I think if I think it's in Israel's
best interest to do what it can, what it can afford,
to try to bring stability to the to the region
and to the Palestinians.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
Yeah, I would, I would.

Speaker 1 (35:53):
I would like to see them involved in it. You know,
I think, you know, we might be involved. The Saudis certainly,
and the Emerald These are you know, certainly options. I've
had this discussion with MBS, you know, one on one
in a tent in the middle of Saudi Arabia, and
you know, he see he seemed rather open to it.

(36:13):
But I do think I think there would be some
upside for the Israelis to do that.

Speaker 2 (36:24):
Would MBS be open to uh sending a couple, you know,
ten twenty thousand guys there for security assistants as well,
or just write a check?

Speaker 1 (36:33):
I you know, if we had a security agreement that
included the Saudis, Israel, amaradis US, Yeah, I think there's
all kinds of options that that the Saudis would be
open to. I mean, did you ever think, like if
you went back like five or ten years ago, did

(36:54):
you ever think that the Saudis would intercept missiles shop
by the Huthis at the Israelis? I mean, that's something
I never thought we'd see. And they, you know, they
they do it. Their relationship with you know, Israel is
I mean, it's it's it's solid for a number of reasons.
It's always could be better. But I think we I

(37:18):
think there is a lot of room to right now
to dramatically improve the security situation for US and our
allies in the Middle East.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
Absolutely, And he makes a good point, Senator, because ultimately
Israel is not going to leave a gaza where Hamas
has any real influence or ability of course to strike
it again. So there has to be some security presence
that replaces the idea for them to withdraw it doesn't.

(37:52):
There seems to be a lot of comments, obviously from
countries in the region, but there's not a lot of
solutions that I see popping up about Okay, so who's
going to train you know, a vetted, trusted Palestinian for so,
who's gonna send it an intermediate multinational force?

Speaker 1 (38:07):
Because the answer is just m yeah. I mean sometimes
people think, well, maybe it's the PA, the Palestinian authority
that that does it, but I I don't know, I mean,
that's probably not the not the right answer. But but
the you know, I say, I think there's an opportunity
here for this to be a better, more secure Middle East.

(38:28):
There's also the possibility this, the whole thing goes off
the rails on us in a in a way none
of us.

Speaker 3 (38:34):
Wanted it and we want to avoid.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
And that's the Iranians, you know, racing to get a
nuclear weapon. That's the big that's that's the big unknown
and the big risk here. And we may not know
right the I A A they've been tossed. That's where

(38:57):
we got a lot of our insight, not all of it,
but that's where a lot of our insight came from.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
So that.

Speaker 4 (39:05):
So on that note to kind of go back a
bit and then catch up. So when I was in
the Pentagon and we were talking about the potential withdrawal
of the US from the JCPOA, the Pentagon was actually
against it. Not that we thought it was a great bill,
but we thought that the criticism, you know, it didn't
address the proxy support sports terrorist organizations, It didn't support

(39:28):
a lot of the didn't address a lot of the
ballistic missile concerns right the delivery system. Our position was,
you're right, it didn't, So why don't we just sanction
them for doing that instead of getting out of the
actual bill that keeps them at three point sixty seven
percent enrichment. Obviously, we didn't win that argument. My point
being is we got out of it. They've now got

(39:50):
up to sixty percent since we withdrew as. I'm sure
you know you need ninety percent to basically get weapons grade,
and then you got to get a detonation mechanism and
all that. But essentially and then our proxy force operations
went through the roof, right, I mean that's since then
they attacked Israel Hamas, they've attacked you know, the hoofies

(40:13):
have let loose, But we are we are Hindsight's twenty twenty,
so going forward, I would commend the administration for taking
that strike. I thought it was the right time because
of what you already said Israel. It had essentially done
a lot of the heavy work, not taking anything away
from the guys in the B two, but the biggest

(40:36):
issue for that operation was the air defense, right, and
they had eliminated it. So but I give them a
lot of credit for taking that pretty bold step, and
I do think it had significant and you would know
more I don't not the government anymore significant damage against
the facilities. But what are we going to need to
do to ensure because Iran has told us a hundred

(40:59):
times until once, if you attack our nuclear facilities, we
will go toward a nuclear weapon, We will try to
acquire a nuclear weapons. So I think we need to
take them for their word and assume that's what they're
trying to do. So is this going to be a
need for constant strikes to degrade their capability? Should we
really try to entice them into a JCPOA Part two

(41:23):
that is more restrictions on them. What's your thoughts on
where we go from here? Because I don't think to
your point, this is over. I don't think this is
a one and done event and that we can just
put that on you.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Well, one thing I would disagree with you a little
bit on is I don't think we were at the
point where we had to do the beat you strike
on the day we did it, or even on the week,
or maybe even on the month that month, And it
probably could have waited and we could have tried to
exhaust all diplomatic options before we come in with a

(41:57):
big hammer. Now, the big hammer was they're effected. I'll
give him that didn't do what the president did when
he went to the podium the night of the strike.
I thought that was a mistake. I think it's always
a mistake for a president to before he's got the
intelligence to say stuff like that. I mean, you shouldn't
do that, And it put them in a bad position.

(42:18):
So now they've got to defend the president's words against
the actual intelligence. I will say, those guys hit the target,
I mean, and GBU fifty seven pretty big hammer, effective,
very effective weapon designed for this, I mean, for these targets,

(42:43):
and from what we can tell, it did serious damage,
significant damage. But we don't know how much U two
thirty five is remaining where it is, and you know,
only time's going to tell. As we get more intelligence
from you know, we can gather what Masad can gather.

(43:04):
At some point we'll have a better idea about how
long it will take them to reconstitute and enrichment capability. Now,
if they decide to race to get a nuclear weapon,
they will take that program completely black and they'll try
to make sure we have no insight into it. So
that's the risk we took by doing this, and only

(43:27):
time is going to tell. I mean, if they develop
a nuclear weapon, I think you can clearly say, well,
that was a mistake. If they don't and they've come
to the table, maybe you could say, well that was
probably the right thing to do at the right time.
And I think only time is going to be able
to tell. We'll get more updated intelligence. I think right
now we continue to stress to them, like, you can

(43:51):
have a peaceful nuclear power capability. We will help you
with this, but you have to abandon the enrichment of uranium.
And you've got to give it all up, you know,
anything that's more than you know, less than four percent,
you've got to give it up. And you got it.
You can't do this anymore.

Speaker 3 (44:09):
And and we.

Speaker 1 (44:11):
Got to keep pushing them. But I'll tell you this,
if if we find out that they get to the
point where they're getting really really close to actually having
a functioning, you know, weapon, and we got it, we
got to we I think this president or any other
president would be in the right to take action. Again,

(44:33):
we can't let the Iranians get a nuclear weapon. They're
unlike other countries. I mean, they have said they you know,
they want to wipe Israel off.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
The map.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
I mean, even the North Koreans don't say stuff like this,
but the situation this has put a lot of other
countries in right now, would they rather be North Korea?
Would they rather be i Ran? You know some countries
would rather be North Korea right now, have a capability
and you know, have a nuclear weapons, ca a building,
a delivery system, right they don't want to be the Iranians.

(45:03):
So I just think overall this has put the world
in a really really challenging time. Are we going to
accelerate and before we know it, we're going to wake
up one morning and there's going to be twenty countries
with nuclear weapons. That's going to be a really dangerous
place and it's going to be hard to for US
and others to just navigate it.

Speaker 4 (45:25):
That's the center sp what happened. If Iran got a
nuclear weapon, right, it would be it would be nuclear
arms race. There's no way Saudi in any country that
can actually afford it, are just going to let Iran
have a nuclear weapon and they're going to be defenseless.
So this is this is a big broad consequences too.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
Yes, Saudi's Emiratis, you know they I was in when
I was in Romania. I was at a Agis, a
short site in southern Romania. The only reason that thing
exists is to protect Europe from a nuclear weapon launched
by the Iranians. That's it. You know, it's not there

(46:03):
for Russia. There's another one in Poland. It's there for
the Iranian you know threat the Iranians. You know, they
think anybody who is not a Shia Muslim should be
you know, converted or dead, including Sunnis, including the Saudis.
I mean, the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia. It's not

(46:24):
you know, some people might I mean if you went
out on the street and randomly asked an American, they
might say, well, it's Israel. It's not Israel, it's the Iranians.

Speaker 5 (46:32):
Senator, yeah, really quick, staying in that in the region
and capabilities, What are your thoughts on the recent I
want to believe it was a bill that was introduced.
I don't know where it's gotten to possibly give Israel
their own B two's to take on Iran. I think.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
There was two congressmen, two congressmen in the House, both
a Democrat and a Republican.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
I mean, who you know these knuckleheads names who are
these guys I can find it is it's ridiculous. I mean,
we're not gonna We're not going to do that. I mean,
I'm gonna look into it next week, and you know, see,
maybe I need to pick up the phone and call
these guys and say, what do you What are you
guys thinking?

Speaker 4 (47:24):
I mean, we're not I think one of their congressmen
from New York, aren't they?

Speaker 2 (47:29):
Well, once from excuse me from New Jersey. Okay, so
one is from New York. Not great. I'm from New York.
Senator Jersey Bill, I think you could.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
I grew up in.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
It's called the bunker Buster Act that was proposed to
give the B two bombers and bunker Buster bombs to Israel.
Sponsors of the bill, acorned to New York Posts and
Washington examer includes Representative Josh Gothheimer from Democrat from New
Jersey and Michae Lawler, Republican from New York.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Yeah, well, I know I know them both. I know
Josh pretty well. I know lawl or two. Josh just
ran for governor New Jersey, lost in the primary to
mikey Cheryl. I'll have a talk with Josh. We're not
that's that's not that's that's a ridiculous idea. We're not
going to give anybody B two bombers, a strategic bomber

(48:21):
that could fly halfway around the world and drop bombs.
I mean, that's a capability we need to keep for ourselves.
Chinese don't have it, Russians don't have it. You know,
they're bear and you know Blackjack bombers cannot do what
the B two can do. And by the way, we're
building the replacement for the B two right now to
be twenty one. That's one that is you know, for

(48:44):
a number of reasons, it's even more capable than the
B two. You know, when when needed to support an
ally the right moment, for the right reason, We've got
trained pilots and we can put those planes into action.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Exactly so in a broader question, Centator, especially since you're
on the Armed Services Committee Future of Warfare. Right So,
I've been out of the business for a while when
I talked to my friends and they are absolutely blown
away by the level and the speed of which technology
is changing the face of the battlefield. Bottom line, drones, cheap, innovative,

(49:31):
lethal as hell, blowing up, you know, sixteen million dollars
tanks with you know, twenty thousand or less you know
worth of drones.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Where do you.

Speaker 4 (49:43):
See us going? Are we Are we in the right
position that we're balancing, you know, our big ticket items,
the legacy type stuff, you know, aircraft carriers, which obviously
get a lot of flack nowadays, and you might have
something to say about that. But with this also trying
to keep up with what a friend called the post

(50:04):
heroic era of military operation, and what he means by
that is there aren't going to be people involved. Right,
We're going to see the first wave of drones. We're
going to see house care clearings and compound clearings with
nothing but drones, which is already getting close to that.
Where do you think one this is going? And then,
as your role as a as a member of the

(50:27):
Senate Armed Services Committee kind of looking at the future
of American national security, are we in the right place?
Obviously we're spending a lot of money at one point
one trillion now with the supplemental and all that.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
Yeah, But are we.

Speaker 4 (50:41):
Spending it on the right in the right way?

Speaker 1 (50:44):
I guess is my So let me let me start
by saying, as a naval aviator.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
You know, guy threw up the aircraft carrier.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
Got like seventy five carrier landings and a lot of
flight time. I feel very fortunate to having lived between
Orville and Wilbur and whoever that last pilot is, and
that last guy, that last fighter pilot. It's possible that
person's borned already today. Probably not, but they're coming. You know.

(51:14):
Eventually we will get to the point where we can
do but we can now with man fighters with unmanned systems.
I don't think we're there yet, and I think it's
there's a lot of lessons we have learned from what
has gone on between Russia and Ukraine, and a lot

(51:35):
of innovation on the battlefield that we've seen, and it's
helped us plan ahead for future warfare. But I think
it's also important that we keep in mind if it
was our fight against the Russians in Europe, it would
not look the same as the Ukrainians against the Russians.
We would have very early on worked really hard to

(51:58):
suppress the enemy air offenses to get air superiority. I
think you'd see something more like Israel around if it
was our fight in the Eastern part of Ukraine. So
I don't think you know what, remember when Elon must
say we should get rid of the F thirty five, Well,

(52:19):
in hindsight, that book's pretty ridiculous. I said at the time,
that's ridiculous, we shouldn't get rid of the F thirty five.
And after closely looking at the problem in the Western
Pacific against the Chinese, I think it's the right thing
right now to continue and build and get the F
forty seven. We need an asymmetric capability to penetrate the

(52:41):
a too AD bubble, the anti axis aerial denial bubble
that the Chinese have created in the Western Pacific. And
unless you have complete control over the electromat magnetic spectrum,
complete control, and you have artificial intelligence that we don't
have today, you're not going to do this with unmanned
systems against that kind of threat. The nice thing about

(53:04):
the guy in the box is when things go to
shit and they really start to fall apart, you got
a dude in there that can figure it out and
still like maybe get the bombs on the target. And
we need that, and I think we're going to need
that for maybe another decade or two, but eventually we'll

(53:25):
see more unmanned systems now the drone thing. Are we
doing what we need to do? I think we are.
We have the Army has a program called Project Replicator
to get us to where where we can get up
to being able to build like twenty thousand drones in
a year. I think that might be the number. Do
we need to build twenty thousand drones in a month? No,

(53:47):
because in a conflict where we might need those drones
five years from now, the technology five years from now
is going to be so much better. We're not going
to want five year old drones, right, We're gonna want
the newest thing with the latest stuff and the latest
munitions and the latest artificial intelligence and electron electronic warfare capabilities.

(54:08):
That's what we're going to want now. Talking about our budget,
it's challenging to figure out where to spend The money
depends on the threat, right, and we have pivoted to well,
let's be prepared if we ever had to go to
war with China, and that's a little bit different than Russia.

(54:30):
You know what's you've got to figure out what's the
you know, marine corps an army, and how do their
roles change? The marine Corps, you guys, are marines designed
to be amphibious force. But for the last twenty years
the Marine Corps basically been a ground army. So how
do we get back to the amphibious capability that the
Marine Corps you know, once has. So we have to

(54:51):
build anthhips. It's a big thing by Dan Sullivan, Senator
from Alaska's often talking about the anthips, and we need
to build more anthips. But we also need longer range
missiles and some hypersonic missile capability. I often have to
remind my colleagues in the Senate that because they get

(55:13):
sometimes wrapped around this idea of these hypersonic missiles that
they have and we don't have, and their missiles go
faster than ours. There's a little bit to be said
for that, but the bottom line is the thing that
matters the most is the probability of killing the target,
the piece of k of the weapon system. So we've
got to make some hard decisions. Sometimes I think we're

(55:36):
doing things that we shouldn't be doing. You know, one
of my big pet peeves is we were marching along
with this administration. It started in Trump one to build
a tactical nuclear weapon. The slick them sea launch cruise missile,
a nuclear version for Virginia class submarines. The Virginia class

(55:59):
sub marine's the best submarine in the world. And if
we wind up in a conflict with China in the
Western Pacific, we're going to need every torpedo that we
can possibly cram into that submarine with a high probability
that we're going to use the entire magazine. And if
you load it up with a few nukes and you
got to put the marines on board to guard them
maybe like we normally do, and you're still probably not

(56:20):
going to use the tactical nuclear weapon. So it's going
to reduce the capability of the submarine. So there's an
example of a program I would like to see go away.
So when we do the like we just have the
markup of the Defense bill and we're in there trying
to figure out some of these like you know, where
should our priorities be. It's all about priorities, and you know,

(56:45):
there's there's often hard decisions to make, and we don't
have an unlimited defense budget. We've got a big defense
budget part of the time. I think, I mean, when
you consider the debt load we're operating under. We should
figure out how to constrain the spending sum and get
rid of programs that we clearly don't need. I could

(57:06):
probably come up with a list of stuff we could
just you know, toss out the four of us and
maybe a couple of your buddies and a couple of
my buddies. We could go through on like an afternoon
and talk about some things and say, well, we probably
don't need that, we don't need that. Why don't we
toss these out? Why don't we? But that's not how
Congress works. And then you have all the defense lobbyists

(57:26):
out there, so we've got challenges ahead, confident we can
get through this. And then you know, ultimately, what I
would like to see is somebody who's you know, bought
in combat. You guys have been involved in these kind
of things. Is we got to We've got to make choices,
you know, they're in the best interest of our country

(57:47):
and our allies to some extent, and also try to
stay out of conflicts. I don't want to see us
going to war against China. We go to war against China,
there's no winner.

Speaker 4 (57:59):
It's like a knife fight. Everybody's a loser.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
Everybody's a loser. Yeah, everybody's center.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
I have a question about the defense budget that was
just passed. Was there anything in there allocated towards like
base security and stuff like that, because we saw what
happened with Operation Spider Web and stuff like that, where
you know, an enemy with a lot less means and
resources was able to cause of you know, tens of
billions of dollars worth of damage irreplaceable damage too, right, Like,

(58:26):
how are they going to replace those bombers and those uh,
oh my god, the ones with the satellite dish on
the top?

Speaker 5 (58:34):
I can't remember.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
A wax.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
Yes, yeah, yeah. I mean we're especially when with regards
to drone technology, which is you know, just all over
the place. So we're trying to invest more money and
counter U A S systems and we and we are.
We have these systems already, it's just uh, you know

(59:01):
a matter of making them more capable and to be
able to deal with the swarms of drones. That's when
it gets really challenging. Might need to deal with a
big like microwave system that can you know, point a
big direction, you flip a switch and electronics are fried.
So we're we're working on things like this.

Speaker 5 (59:22):
Senator, Sorry, oh sorry, senator. I know, uh well, these
guys know, I'm a huge aviation military aviation geeks, so
all this is really uh really awesome. So you just
mentioned a wax airborne early warning and control. Uh, I'm

(59:42):
sure you're familiar with the E seven platform that the
Pentagon was is now looking to cancel. Do you think
that that's a mistake.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
It's not something I'm tracking closely with regards to the capability.

Speaker 3 (59:59):
You know, the I think you bring it up, I'm
gonna look look.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
Into it, and we need an early you know warning,
you know system. We need a big picture of the
you know, the air picture is you know, incredibly important
in any conflict. You know, some of that stuff we're
trying to we're figuring out how to do different ways
so that factors into their decision. We're also looking at

(01:00:26):
the you know, the wedge tail from the Australians. But yeah,
that's something I haven't been tracking closely enough, but I should.

Speaker 3 (01:00:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:00:37):
From what I well, from what I've read, air Force
is looking as an option to the E seven was
using five E two Hawky's, which I know you're familiar with. Uh, yeah,
I think the D is the latest. Am I right
on that?

Speaker 1 (01:00:53):
I believe the D is much more capable than the
E two C, which is the one that was, you know,
flying out the aircraft carrier when I was doing that stuff. Yeah, yeah,
it's it's pretty capable. The radar appears to work well,
which didn't always on the E two C.

Speaker 4 (01:01:13):
So you did bring up China, which we remiss for
not bringing up one of our most significant adversaries. But
what I would say to my friends who focus almost
exclusively on the threat to China, and I'm not saying
that they're wrong in that, but that it's all connected.
So I like to hear your thoughts on this because
we're constantly hearing shift everything to the end of Pacific.

(01:01:34):
It's you know, the Europeans can deal with Russia's My
argument is, look, if we let Russia beat Ukraine, the
chances of something bad happening into Pacific, the potential blockade
or invasion of Taiwan goes up significantly because it shows
that were a really shitty partner. Yeah, and that we

(01:01:56):
want to come when that you know, when it actually
comes down to it, you can't rely on so every
time you say that you're basically enhancing the very threat
that you claim to be the most I'm gonna get
a lot of craft for this, but this is what
I hear almost every day. So I'd like to hear
your thoughts from again the committees are on and the
positions you're in Washington when it comes to the interconnectedness,

(01:02:18):
because I do think China and Russia, all things is connected,
but from us to all the threats that we face,
you know, to not just US, but our allies around
the world in this case, Japan and South Korea for example.

Speaker 1 (01:02:31):
Yeah, Well, after Russia, Ukraine and US, the country that's
looking at this more closely than any other country than
whoever the fifth country might be, and it might be
North Korea because they've got troops fighting there now and
are benefiting from this is it. But it's China. I mean,
China is watching everything that goes on as much information

(01:02:52):
as they can get. They've got think tanks throughout you know, China,
that's you know, valuating you know options. What does this mean?
What does it mean for the United States commitment to
sovereignty in Taiwan, or at least a commitment to abide
by our agreement that we you know, made decades ago,

(01:03:15):
which means we don't recognize them as a you know country.
There's one China. We don't say what China that is
uh and we provide some security assistance. That's been the plan,
and it's been rather ambiguous, and I think it should
stay that way. But if we abandon the Ukrainians and

(01:03:35):
let the alliance that we built fall apart, they're going
to think, well, they're not going to be able to
hold an alliance together in the Western Pacific between you know, us,
the Australians, the you know, the South Koreans, the Japanese
that that that would in time would come apart too.
So I think it would then make it maybe more

(01:03:56):
likely for them to take a run at Taiwan. I
don't think it's inevitable that in twenty twenty seven that
the Chinese attack Taiwan and try to you know, repatriate
the whole country. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen.
I think the best way to keep it from happening

(01:04:18):
is for us to show resolve in other places, including
in you praying that we're not going to give up
on an ally of ours. And we can build an
incredibly strong coalition that the Russians can't break. I think
that sends a really strong message. So I think, Mick,

(01:04:40):
you're right that this stuff is interconnected. And I think
a lot of ways that you know, people going about
their daily lives don't even pay attention to or understand,
and they shouldn't really have to. You know, we should
be able to, you know, run an effective enough op.

(01:05:00):
It's been challenging over the last several months, but you
know as a US government that we can hold these
things together, hold our alliances together, support our friends, counter
our foes, and do it in a way that is,
you know, somewhat affordable to the American taxpayer.

Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
Yeah, he's got anything else.

Speaker 4 (01:05:21):
If we're well done, I got one more thing, please,
we're all wrapping up. So every once in a while, Senator,
I try to impose some Irish American propaganda in here.
So I figured I had to do it today with
the Kelly so and I just checked these numbers. The
Irish American population is about nine percent of the US,
according to.

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
More Irish and the United States than in Ireland.

Speaker 4 (01:05:45):
That's right, a lot thirty two million. I believe in Irish.
What percentage of the Medal of Honors from the United
States from the beginning to now has gone to an
Irish American?

Speaker 1 (01:06:01):
But because you're because you're aswer's going to be high, right,
because you're asking the question, it's high. I'm going to
say thirty percent.

Speaker 4 (01:06:13):
Jay, what's your guy?

Speaker 5 (01:06:15):
Yeah, I was gonna say about twenty five percent.

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
Okay, d.

Speaker 4 (01:06:21):
Fifty eight percent, Jesus fifty eight percent. So senter use
that next se Patty's Day speech you're asked to get.
It's a fact. You can look it up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
Those Irish they're bad asses.

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
As we always has to drop in some proper Irish again,
it's next genetic.

Speaker 4 (01:06:37):
I can't help it. What's told to me about valor awards?
Great initiative, questionable judgment.

Speaker 1 (01:06:47):
That's funny. Well, guys, I enjoyed being on. Look forward
to coming back. Keep doing what you're doing. They hear
good things. I'll start I'll start listening. I haven't listened before,
but I I think I'll tune in now.

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Goods very much are we? We got an extra subscriber
right there you go, which is great. Senator thanks a
lot of Senator Mark Kelly. Of course, I don't think
you need a plug for anything. You can go check
him out at Capitol Hill. He's out there fighting the
good fight.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
Thank you, Thanks guys, appreciate it, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
Thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:07:19):
Hey, guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to
you for a moment about how you can support the show.
If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like
to get a little bit more involved and help us
continue to do this, you can check out our Patreon
It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for
five dollars a month, you can get access to all
of these episodes of The Teamhouse ad free. The same

(01:07:42):
goes with our affiliated podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn,
Jason Lyons mcmulroy. That one you will also get all
of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel
and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon
members are literally what has helped this company and this
small business survive, especially during our early years, and you

(01:08:05):
are what continues to help this thing going even as
we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we
really appreciate all of you, guys. There's going to be
a link down in the description to that Patreon page,
and there is also going to be a link to
our new merch shop, so if you guys want to
go and get some Teamhouse merchandise. We got stickers and

(01:08:27):
we also have patches, and I should mention if you
sign up for Patreon at ten dollars a month, we
will mail you this patch as well, so we really
appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch
shop and additionally, they got t shirts up there, water bottles,
a tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff, so

(01:08:49):
please go and check them out and support the show.
We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.

All Episodes

Senator Mark Kelly on Ukraine Weapons, NATO & Iran | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Senator Mark Kelly on Ukraine Weapons, NATO & Iran | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS