Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Happy Tuesday always made it extra special because now it's
the time we get a Daniel Davis deep dive retired
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Always a distinct pleasure to have
you on the fifty five KRC Morning Show. Sir, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Thanks for having me. Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Always a treasure to be here. I appreciate that, and
I enjoy our conversations. Very enlightening and of course sometimes
a bit sobering, most notably for those folks who continue
to want to support Ukraine in the face of what
appears to be growing disaster.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I see.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
First sentence of this Russian forces conquer large Dontesk stronghold.
Russian Federation forces have unstoppable momentum in the Dawnask region,
with a string of victories and the noticeable weaking of
the Ukrainian defenses. One Swiss paper Noya Zich Zaeitung, the
military situation in eastern Ukraine has deteriorated sharply. Defense lines
(00:50):
have collapsed in various parts of the front. I struggle
to find really any good news for the Ukrainians at
this moment in time.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, there's not any. On the battlefield.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I can assure you that because concurrent with that information
there's also reports from the Ukraine side from their minister
I'm sorry, from their Forstar General Serski, the guy in
charge of their own forces, that they're saying, hey, we're
not recruiting enough people even to meet losses. So the
number of losses they have per month is not offset
(01:23):
by the new people coming in. And what that tells you,
aside from just that it's the numbers the net net
is shrinking, it also tells you that they every time
they get somebody with some experience, they get killed or
taken off the battlefield and they come in with the
fresh so they are constantly getting rid of all their experience.
At the same time, you also have new reports that
two additional brigades that newly formed brigades one was trained
(01:47):
in France and one seven hundred people fled the battlefield
before they even left and got to the front. Then
they had another one on one fifty seventh brigade just
this week also collapsed and went away before it even
got to the front. So there's two new formations of
the less than they're getting for replacements are falling apart.
(02:08):
And then they fired a lot of these committee, they
fired the ground forces commander for the Eastern Front.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You see, the wheels are literally.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Coming off, and the question is how much longer can
they continue to function as a coherent unit.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
And I don't think it's that much longer, Well that
much longer a months, weeks? How long is this gonna lae?
Speaker 1 (02:26):
I mean at some point that there's going to be
east an absolute collapse, and an absolute then I would
argue perhaps Russian victory across the board, or they're going
to be forced to sit down a negotiation table and
seed some of their land to get it resolved.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Well, that's exactly the issue here. So you have a
couple of different possibilities. One is like what happened to
the Germans in World War Two. They were just methodically
just pushed all the way to the west by the
Soviet Union and they just continued to crumble, but they
stayed at least coherent all the way through. The losses
got bigger, got the losses got faster toward the end,
(03:03):
but they just continued on until literally they just.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Cease to exist in Berlin.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Or you have what happened to the British and French
in May nineteen forty, where the Germans, then on the
positive side, broke through the lines, got in the back
of their defenses and then the whole thing just collapsed.
So overnight you had the entire army collapse. And so
either of those two things are possible. Both are bad
for Ukraine. Both are bad for Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Now with this, I would argue, anyxt maybe you should
call it this way. This positive momentum the Russians are
currently enjoying, does that suggest to you they're less likely
to want to sit down and negotiate a resolution of it.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Do you think they're just going to keep at it? Well,
this is the reality. They are definitely willing to have
a negotiated settlement. They have been emphatic about that from
the beginning. They're emphatic about it right now. But that's
not the same thing that may be in the mind
of Trump or his supporters, which is that they think
that they can negotiate a good deal at the current
line of contact that's going to be good for Zelensky
(04:04):
and good for Kiev. That's just not in the cards,
I'm afraid, Brian. What he's saying the Russian side is
saying we'll negotiate for all the land that we want,
which means land you haven't lost in battle yet, all
of the administrative orders of those four provinces, and if
they don't get those, and that of course that also
includes and plads that Zelensky has to go.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That's actually part of it.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
They said they won't sign a deal with him because
he's exceeded his mandate and they said he's not legitimate.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
We need you guys to have an election.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
So there's somebody that we can negotiate or sign a
deal with.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
And there has to.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Be, of course, a declaration of no NATO, no troops,
no peacekeeping troops, none of that stuff, or they'll just
keep fighting until they win it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
All right, And that's because they all the negotiation ships
on their side right now. Now, to those out there
that think this is a battle that's worth continuing to
wage and somehow magically Ukraine's going to be able to
bounce back and defend themselves, what do you perceive any
existential threat or other threat to NATO or the European
Union generally speaking, if Russia ends up taking over Ukraine completely.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
No, and that's what's been said, really from the outset
of this war from the West, if they keep saying,
oh my god, if.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
We don't stop him here, he'll come and roll here.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No, there's the Russians don't have the capacity in my view,
I mean, they don't even have the capacity if they
had the desire.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
They don't have the capacity.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
To launch into a war in you in NATO because
they know it doesn't even matter so much whether they're military.
They're conventional military could defeat the West, and probably in
the Baltics they could because the Russian army is now
because we didn't end this early. Instead of the about
one million it was in February twenty twenty two, it's
now it's one point five million active duty troops now,
(05:47):
troops that are sustained, they're trained, they've got the lot
of combat experience, and their industrial capacity behind them is
like a juggernaut. But they understand that if they go
into NATO now, then you have Article five issues in
three nuclear powers on the other side that could come
into play, and Russia's not gonna want to say, hey,
we fought this whole war to get security on our
(06:09):
western flank and then we're going to take action that
almost certainly would precipitate a nuclear response from the other side.
They're not going to do that because it's not in
their interest to do so, not because we have to
trust them or anything else, it's just not in their interest.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So if we bring.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
This to an end, then all this stuff gets off
the table, and there's this ugly business of reconstruction and
world that's gonna go. It's going to linger for a generation.
But better to start that now than later on.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
With even more death.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Yeah, I mean, and I just have to observe it's
taking Russia this long to get as far as they
did in one single country. So compare that exactly the
entire might of the United States and the entire NATO countries.
So I concur with your assessment on that as much
tea leaf reading as we can do pivoting over your
I like, generally speaking, Pete Heegsas's message, which is we
(06:58):
are going to establish a military fighting force. Donald Trump's
not an executive order getting rid of DEI and I
have no idea what that has to do with killing
people and breaking things, But I have a more optimistic
positive view of the direction of America's military With Pete
Pete Hegsath at the realm and the getting rid of
DEI what's your perception on that one?
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Yeah, you know, in the like the eleventh hour, just
before the vote was taken, there was a number there
was senate debate and some of those who were against
him were saying, look, there was why do you have
to go up to this guy that's never been in
charge of a big company. H He wasn't a general,
so he wasn't in charge of a lot of troops.
He was only a major and that was relatively low
level in terms of the hierarchy of the army. And
(07:38):
they said, why wouldn't you go after somebody that that's
in the Republican Party, that's like has been, you know,
in all of these kinds of categories. And they said,
you know, like Mark Esper or like James Mattis. You know,
those are the guys they had these past ninety eight
to two, etc. And I'm liking, Okay, that's the last
thing that we need right now. Those are status quo
guys that don't want to change anything, that were very unsuccess.
(08:00):
You may remember James Mattison actually left office and because
he had a tantrum that Trump wanted to withdraw our
troops from Syria, so he resigned over that.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
So he pushed back.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Not only would he not support the president, he didn't
have the foresight to see that that's not in America's interest, right,
that's not the person. We need, somebody from the status
quo who's been in the defense industry and all this
kind of stuff. We need somebody with some fresh thinking.
Now Hegseith doesn't come in with a great view. I mean,
he's got some genuine skeletons in his closet and that
has to be considered.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
But his focus and what he's saying.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Anyway, and I give him. I'm going to give him
the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance
to say if he's going to action with his words.
He says he wants to reform the military. Wants to
bring the warrior ethos back, which as the warfighter that
excites me. He wants to bring high standards back in
one standard for everybody.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
You either meet it or you move out.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
The bottom line is what is going to make the
army stronger or the military stronger?
Speaker 1 (08:56):
And that is the right focus. Well, and I think
that will assist in large measure to get more people
interested in enlisting, because I think all this woke ideology
has really turned off a lot of very patriotic young
people who otherwise might have signed up to serve their country.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah, I totally agree, that's that's part of what the
what the at least what they're saying. I looked at
one of the executive orders that talked about the de
I stuff, and they're not saying they don't want any
more equality or you know, opportunity anything like that. They're
not saying this is against anyone. They're just saying they
don't want something that basically gives quotas and saying that
(09:33):
you have to have a certain amount of these categories
in higher positions, because now then you're you're elevating people
based on a criteria other than merits, other than do
they deserve it or not. And the focus is not
on making the military stronger, it's on making sure it
meets DEI stuff, which is not the same thing. And
so I want to make sure I hope they don't
go too far with that where they you know, it
(09:55):
goes back to where people are pushed down or certain
groups are minimized, and they don't get a fair shot.
We don't want that, but we do want merit based promotions.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah, you're I mean, sexuality has nothing to do with it.
You have the appropriate merit and skill sets to do
any given job. So I'm with you on that all
day long. And briefly, let's pivot over to Tulsi Gabbard
National Intelligence. She's somewhat controversial. I know that she was
in favor of Edward Snowden, wanted him pardon, and I
person don't have an issue with that. I think the
world is a better place for knowing what we know
(10:25):
after the snowed and release, but also previously against reauthorization
of FIZA section seven oh two, which I have judged
a Polaitano on every Wednesday, and boy, that's something that
he just finds absolutely an offense to the Fourth Amendment.
But she's flipped her position on that and now is
in favor of it. What's your take on Tulsa Gabbard. Yeah,
let's look at that part first. That's not accurate.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
That's what's being characterized in some parts of the media
that she flipped on it.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
She did not flip on it.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
When you look bad, I've had I featured this on
my show. When you look at what she said at
the time she was against seven oh two, it was
just seven oh two. She expressly said as a member
of Congress when she voted against it was that we said,
we need some of these provisions for our national security
and our intelligence service definitely needed, but we need protections
and reform so that we don't get into the Fourth
(11:14):
Amendment parts.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
She has said nothing different than that.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Now, what she has said in recent days was that
there has been some changes that lessened her concerns about
the Fourth Amendment part, but that keeps the issues for
the security part.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
So she didn't flip.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
But she has so many enemies, Brian, I'm telling you
because she is gonna faithfully say whatever the intelligence says,
that's what gets put before the President of the United States.
The deep I had to take to say deep stake
the establishment. They don't want somebody like Gabbard in there.
They want somebody in there like themselves that's gonna give
what kind of They're gonna pick and choose what kind
(11:49):
of intelligence goes to the president that fosters the.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Opinion that, well, you have to use military force.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
They all they do is They want somebody that's like them,
that's gonna keep saying force for force, military, military. They
don't want somebody that may say, hey, sir, intelligence says this,
so we actually don't need to use military power here.
We can use other instruments of national military power. She
is gonna faithfully do that. She's been consistent from the front,
and she is always focused on what's good for America.
(12:15):
I think she may be the best pick on the cabinet.
How about that? Coming through loud and clear on that one.
Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You can find his podcast online.
Just search Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You run right into
it and you can always tune in every Tuesday at
the bottom of the eight o'clock hour for another edition
of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. Always great talk with you, sir.
It's my pleasure. I'll look forward to another one next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
See you next week, Brian. Have a great week.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
It's a forty coun eighty forty one, I fifty have
krcdtalk station and we're gonna learn about cervical cancer. It
is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month. One of the great doctors
for my cancer doctors OHC is going to join the
program next and enlighten us about that what we need
to look for and watch out for.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Stick around, I hope you can.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
This is fifty five karc an iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Are you dreaming of a smile that is as brilliant
as it is natural
KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Happy Tuesday always made it extra special because now it's
the time we get a Daniel Davis deep dive retired
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Always a distinct pleasure to have
you on the fifty five KRC Morning Show. Sir, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Thanks for having me. Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Always a treasure to be here. I appreciate that, and
I enjoy our conversations. Very enlightening and of course sometimes
a bit sobering, most notably for those folks who continue
to want to support Ukraine in the face of what
appears to be growing disaster.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I see.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
First sentence of this Russian forces conquer large Dontesk stronghold.
Russian Federation forces have unstoppable momentum in the Dawnask region,
with a string of victories and the noticeable weaking of
the Ukrainian defenses. One Swiss paper Noya Zich Zaeitung, the
military situation in eastern Ukraine has deteriorated sharply. Defense lines
(00:50):
have collapsed in various parts of the front. I struggle
to find really any good news for the Ukrainians at
this moment in time.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, there's not any. On the battlefield.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I can assure you that because concurrent with that information
there's also reports from the Ukraine side from their minister
I'm sorry, from their Forstar General Serski, the guy in
charge of their own forces, that they're saying, hey, we're
not recruiting enough people even to meet losses. So the
number of losses they have per month is not offset
(01:23):
by the new people coming in. And what that tells you,
aside from just that it's the numbers the net net
is shrinking, it also tells you that they every time
they get somebody with some experience, they get killed or
taken off the battlefield and they come in with the
fresh so they are constantly getting rid of all their experience.
At the same time, you also have new reports that
two additional brigades that newly formed brigades one was trained
(01:47):
in France and one seven hundred people fled the battlefield
before they even left and got to the front. Then
they had another one on one fifty seventh brigade just
this week also collapsed and went away before it even
got to the front. So there's two new formations of
the less than they're getting for replacements are falling apart.
(02:08):
And then they fired a lot of these committee, they
fired the ground forces commander for the Eastern Front.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You see, the wheels are literally.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Coming off, and the question is how much longer can
they continue to function as a coherent unit.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
And I don't think it's that much longer, Well that
much longer a months, weeks? How long is this gonna lae?
Speaker 1 (02:26):
I mean at some point that there's going to be
east an absolute collapse, and an absolute then I would
argue perhaps Russian victory across the board, or they're going
to be forced to sit down a negotiation table and
seed some of their land to get it resolved.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Well, that's exactly the issue here. So you have a
couple of different possibilities. One is like what happened to
the Germans in World War Two. They were just methodically
just pushed all the way to the west by the
Soviet Union and they just continued to crumble, but they
stayed at least coherent all the way through. The losses
got bigger, got the losses got faster toward the end,
(03:03):
but they just continued on until literally they just.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Cease to exist in Berlin.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Or you have what happened to the British and French
in May nineteen forty, where the Germans, then on the
positive side, broke through the lines, got in the back
of their defenses and then the whole thing just collapsed.
So overnight you had the entire army collapse. And so
either of those two things are possible. Both are bad
for Ukraine. Both are bad for Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Now with this, I would argue, anyxt maybe you should
call it this way. This positive momentum the Russians are
currently enjoying, does that suggest to you they're less likely
to want to sit down and negotiate a resolution of it.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Do you think they're just going to keep at it? Well,
this is the reality. They are definitely willing to have
a negotiated settlement. They have been emphatic about that from
the beginning. They're emphatic about it right now. But that's
not the same thing that may be in the mind
of Trump or his supporters, which is that they think
that they can negotiate a good deal at the current
line of contact that's going to be good for Zelensky
(04:04):
and good for Kiev. That's just not in the cards,
I'm afraid, Brian. What he's saying the Russian side is
saying we'll negotiate for all the land that we want,
which means land you haven't lost in battle yet, all
of the administrative orders of those four provinces, and if
they don't get those, and that of course that also
includes and plads that Zelensky has to go.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That's actually part of it.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
They said they won't sign a deal with him because
he's exceeded his mandate and they said he's not legitimate.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
We need you guys to have an election.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
So there's somebody that we can negotiate or sign a
deal with.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
And there has to.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Be, of course, a declaration of no NATO, no troops,
no peacekeeping troops, none of that stuff, or they'll just
keep fighting until they win it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
All right, And that's because they all the negotiation ships
on their side right now. Now, to those out there
that think this is a battle that's worth continuing to
wage and somehow magically Ukraine's going to be able to
bounce back and defend themselves, what do you perceive any
existential threat or other threat to NATO or the European
Union generally speaking, if Russia ends up taking over Ukraine completely.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
No, and that's what's been said, really from the outset
of this war from the West, if they keep saying,
oh my god, if.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
We don't stop him here, he'll come and roll here.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No, there's the Russians don't have the capacity in my view,
I mean, they don't even have the capacity if they
had the desire.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
They don't have the capacity.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
To launch into a war in you in NATO because
they know it doesn't even matter so much whether they're military.
They're conventional military could defeat the West, and probably in
the Baltics they could because the Russian army is now
because we didn't end this early. Instead of the about
one million it was in February twenty twenty two, it's
now it's one point five million active duty troops now,
(05:47):
troops that are sustained, they're trained, they've got the lot
of combat experience, and their industrial capacity behind them is
like a juggernaut. But they understand that if they go
into NATO now, then you have Article five issues in
three nuclear powers on the other side that could come
into play, and Russia's not gonna want to say, hey,
we fought this whole war to get security on our
(06:09):
western flank and then we're going to take action that
almost certainly would precipitate a nuclear response from the other side.
They're not going to do that because it's not in
their interest to do so, not because we have to
trust them or anything else, it's just not in their interest.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So if we bring.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
This to an end, then all this stuff gets off
the table, and there's this ugly business of reconstruction and
world that's gonna go. It's going to linger for a generation.
But better to start that now than later on.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
With even more death.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Yeah, I mean, and I just have to observe it's
taking Russia this long to get as far as they
did in one single country. So compare that exactly the
entire might of the United States and the entire NATO countries.
So I concur with your assessment on that as much
tea leaf reading as we can do pivoting over your
I like, generally speaking, Pete Heegsas's message, which is we
(06:58):
are going to establish a military fighting force. Donald Trump's
not an executive order getting rid of DEI and I
have no idea what that has to do with killing
people and breaking things, But I have a more optimistic
positive view of the direction of America's military With Pete
Pete Hegsath at the realm and the getting rid of
DEI what's your perception on that one?
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Yeah, you know, in the like the eleventh hour, just
before the vote was taken, there was a number there
was senate debate and some of those who were against
him were saying, look, there was why do you have
to go up to this guy that's never been in
charge of a big company. H He wasn't a general,
so he wasn't in charge of a lot of troops.
He was only a major and that was relatively low
level in terms of the hierarchy of the army. And
(07:38):
they said, why wouldn't you go after somebody that that's
in the Republican Party, that's like has been, you know,
in all of these kinds of categories. And they said,
you know, like Mark Esper or like James Mattis. You know,
those are the guys they had these past ninety eight
to two, etc. And I'm liking, Okay, that's the last
thing that we need right now. Those are status quo
guys that don't want to change anything, that were very unsuccess.
(08:00):
You may remember James Mattison actually left office and because
he had a tantrum that Trump wanted to withdraw our
troops from Syria, so he resigned over that.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
So he pushed back.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Not only would he not support the president, he didn't
have the foresight to see that that's not in America's interest, right,
that's not the person. We need, somebody from the status
quo who's been in the defense industry and all this
kind of stuff. We need somebody with some fresh thinking.
Now Hegseith doesn't come in with a great view. I mean,
he's got some genuine skeletons in his closet and that
has to be considered.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
But his focus and what he's saying.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Anyway, and I give him. I'm going to give him
the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance
to say if he's going to action with his words.
He says he wants to reform the military. Wants to
bring the warrior ethos back, which as the warfighter that
excites me. He wants to bring high standards back in
one standard for everybody.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
You either meet it or you move out.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
The bottom line is what is going to make the
army stronger or the military stronger?
Speaker 1 (08:56):
And that is the right focus. Well, and I think
that will assist in large measure to get more people
interested in enlisting, because I think all this woke ideology
has really turned off a lot of very patriotic young
people who otherwise might have signed up to serve their country.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah, I totally agree, that's that's part of what the
what the at least what they're saying. I looked at
one of the executive orders that talked about the de
I stuff, and they're not saying they don't want any
more equality or you know, opportunity anything like that. They're
not saying this is against anyone. They're just saying they
don't want something that basically gives quotas and saying that
(09:33):
you have to have a certain amount of these categories
in higher positions, because now then you're you're elevating people
based on a criteria other than merits, other than do
they deserve it or not. And the focus is not
on making the military stronger, it's on making sure it
meets DEI stuff, which is not the same thing. And
so I want to make sure I hope they don't
go too far with that where they you know, it
(09:55):
goes back to where people are pushed down or certain
groups are minimized, and they don't get a fair shot.
We don't want that, but we do want merit based promotions.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah, you're I mean, sexuality has nothing to do with it.
You have the appropriate merit and skill sets to do
any given job. So I'm with you on that all
day long. And briefly, let's pivot over to Tulsi Gabbard
National Intelligence. She's somewhat controversial. I know that she was
in favor of Edward Snowden, wanted him pardon, and I
person don't have an issue with that. I think the
world is a better place for knowing what we know
(10:25):
after the snowed and release, but also previously against reauthorization
of FIZA section seven oh two, which I have judged
a Polaitano on every Wednesday, and boy, that's something that
he just finds absolutely an offense to the Fourth Amendment.
But she's flipped her position on that and now is
in favor of it. What's your take on Tulsa Gabbard. Yeah,
let's look at that part first. That's not accurate.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
That's what's being characterized in some parts of the media
that she flipped on it.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
She did not flip on it.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
When you look bad, I've had I featured this on
my show. When you look at what she said at
the time she was against seven oh two, it was
just seven oh two. She expressly said as a member
of Congress when she voted against it was that we said,
we need some of these provisions for our national security
and our intelligence service definitely needed, but we need protections
and reform so that we don't get into the Fourth
(11:14):
Amendment parts.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
She has said nothing different than that.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Now, what she has said in recent days was that
there has been some changes that lessened her concerns about
the Fourth Amendment part, but that keeps the issues for
the security part.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
So she didn't flip.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
But she has so many enemies, Brian, I'm telling you
because she is gonna faithfully say whatever the intelligence says,
that's what gets put before the President of the United States.
The deep I had to take to say deep stake
the establishment. They don't want somebody like Gabbard in there.
They want somebody in there like themselves that's gonna give
what kind of They're gonna pick and choose what kind
(11:49):
of intelligence goes to the president that fosters the.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Opinion that, well, you have to use military force.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
They all they do is They want somebody that's like them,
that's gonna keep saying force for force, military, military. They
don't want somebody that may say, hey, sir, intelligence says this,
so we actually don't need to use military power here.
We can use other instruments of national military power. She
is gonna faithfully do that. She's been consistent from the front,
and she is always focused on what's good for America.
(12:15):
I think she may be the best pick on the cabinet.
How about that? Coming through loud and clear on that one.
Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You can find his podcast online.
Just search Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You run right into
it and you can always tune in every Tuesday at
the bottom of the eight o'clock hour for another edition
of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive. Always great talk with you, sir.
It's my pleasure. I'll look forward to another one next Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
See you next week, Brian. Have a great week.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
It's a forty coun eighty forty one, I fifty have
krcdtalk station and we're gonna learn about cervical cancer. It
is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month. One of the great doctors
for my cancer doctors OHC is going to join the
program next and enlighten us about that what we need
to look for and watch out for.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Stick around, I hope you can.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
This is fifty five karc an iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Are you dreaming of a smile that is as brilliant
as it is natural
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.