TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

Saddam Hussein is believed to be actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and removing his regime would have positive effects on the region. However, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has a history of baseless claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. In a recent speech, he used props and a PowerPoint presentation to falsely accuse Iran of hiding a secret nuclear weapons program. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal. Many experts, including former inspector Robert Kelly, dismissed Netanyahu's claims as unfounded and childish, pointing out that his evidence was cartoonish and unreliable.

We should stop apologizing for supporting Israel as it is the best investment we make. If Israel didn't exist, the United States would have to create it to protect its interests in the region. It should be clear that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.

The speaker argues that Israel is not permanently isolated and can break out of a siege despite claims to the contrary. They note that some actors have halted shipments of weapon components, yet assert that Israel is capable of producing weapons and that intelligence and weapon systems are shared with the United States. The speaker expresses gratitude for bipartisan support in military matters for Israel, both in historical times and today, and emphasizes that this support persists across political boundaries. They highlight the ubiquity of Israeli-made goods, pointing out that many everyday items—cell phones, medicines, foods, including cherry tomatoes—are produced in Israel, illustrating a tangible contribution to global products. The speaker acknowledges that Israel can make things and cherishes the continuity of American support, vowing to work to ensure that support continues on both sides of the aisle. Further, the speaker asserts that Israel will eventually achieve the independence it needs so that Western European nations, which they say might deny Israel, will not succeed. They claim the capability to break the siege and to become independent of external restrictions or pressure. The passage ends with an incomplete thought: “And the last thing,” suggesting there was more to be said.

Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, as demonstrated by the attack on Israel. The speaker was in the situation room with President Biden, monitoring the attack and ensuring the protection of US personnel. The speaker supports President Biden's order for the US military to shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. Initial indications are that Israel, with US assistance, defeated the attack. Joint defenses were effective, saving many innocent lives. The speaker will ensure Israel can defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist militias, and their commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Iran is a threat to American personnel, interests, and innocent civilians. The US will take action to defend against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists and will work with allies to disrupt Iran's aggressive behavior and hold them accountable.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO were removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. The practical question is not if Iraq's regime should be removed, but when. When asked if the U.S. should launch preemptive attacks on other nations, the answer is yes. Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, and Libya is also rapidly trying to build an atomic bomb. These three nations must be stopped to halt Iran's conquest, subjugation, and terror. Everyone stands with Israel.

Israel is a critical ally and vital for their existence. Supporting them is important, especially with replenishing their defense systems like the Iron Dome. Our assistance helped them defend against recent attacks. This support is crucial, and most Americans understand its significance. Translation: Supporting Israel is crucial for their survival, especially with replenishing their defense systems like the Iron Dome. Our assistance helped them defend against recent attacks, and most Americans recognize the importance of this support.

A big part of the reason why Netanyahu even still to this day doesn't have to kowtow to The United States is because he understands the leverage he has. He understands that he is the wall that protects The United States and the Western allies from Iran. And it makes it so that we can spend our money on something else, and he spends his money and his lives protecting the rest of us against Iran.

- Speaker 0: Since Israel began strikes on Gaza after Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, it has targeted residential buildings. The UN says nearly 200,000 structures have been destroyed or damaged. With so many fleeing attacks, Palestinians packed into makeshift shelters, many of them UN run schools, but they were not safe. More than 1,000 schools have been bombed, and Israel has destroyed most of Gaza's hospitals, including Al Shifa, where more than 400 Palestinians were killed in a raid in March 2024. - Speaker 1: We make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve got a lot of them. And we’ve given a lot to Israel, frankly. And I mean, Bibi would call me so many times, can you get me this weapon, that weapon, that weapon. Some of them I never heard of, baby, and I made them. But we’d get them here, wouldn’t we? And they are the best. They are the best. And you but you used them well. It also takes people that know how to use them, and you obviously used them very well. But so many that Israel became strong and powerful, which ultimately led to peace. That’s what led to peace. So as we celebrate today, let us remember how this nightmare of depravity and death all began. - Speaker 2: In 1948, when the land of Palestine was officially stolen and given to a group of rabid Zionists who murdered over 10,000 Palestinians. This crime against humanity was decided as early as 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, the British Crown, and Lord Rothschild of the Rothschild banking dynasty, otherwise known as the Bank of England, who when it’s all said and done, will have control over hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Palestinian oil and gas reserves. As Michael Roverero famously said, all wars are bankers’ wars. According to Benjamin Franklin, the primary catalyst for the American Revolution was the Bank of England’s Currency Act. After the revolution, a value based economy with no interest being paid to any central bank was created. But it didn’t last long. The first bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 and favored foreign stockholders over Americans. The charter ended in January 1811 followed by the war of eighteen twelve and the establishment of the second bank of the United States in 1816, which gave more power to the Bank of England. Andrew Jackson successfully killed the bank’s renewal and shortly after became the first US president targeted for assassination when Richard Lawrence drew pistols on him outside The US capital, but misfired. Laws were passed in the early eighteen sixties for the US government to issue its own currency in a value based economy as opposed to the debt based system imposed by central banks. According to an 1864 edition of the London Times, this would have made America the wealthiest nation of the world. The article warned that if a government creates its own money, it will be without debt. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world and therefore must be destroyed. In 1865, president Lincoln was assassinated, and the economy was quickly phased back to the central bank’s debt enslavement model. In 1913, the tyrannical Federal Reserve Bank and federal income tax was born. The two world wars brought Germany under the heel of the central banking cartel. Western banking institutions financed the Bolshevik revolution. In 2000, Iraq stopped selling its oil and Federal Reserve notes. In 2003, Iraq was illegally invaded by The United States and dollar based oil sales were reinstated. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi’s gold dinar currency was making the nation rich. In 2011, The US invaded and reverted Libya’s oil sales to dollars. The Bank for International Settlements recently proposed efforts under the guise of anti money laundering that would provide scores to tokens and digital wallets including stablecoins. Digital ID, social credit scores, and a carbon tax is what the bankers are up to now. And everything else is a distraction. Today’s war is mostly psychological, and it’s being waged upon you. Greg Reese reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreiss.substack.com.

The speaker addresses U.S. policy in the Middle East and the posture of those who support Israel, arguing strongly that supporters in the United States should cease apologizing for backing Israel. They assert there is no need for an apology, declaring, “There’s no apology to be made.” This stance frames the U.S. relationship with Israel as clear-cut and essential, offering a provocative justification for continued support. In advocating for unwavering backing, the speaker characterizes U.S. support for Israel as a decisive measure, calling it “the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make.” This claim positions aid to Israel as a strategic expenditure with substantial returns in terms of regional influence and security interests, suggesting that the economic commitment yields significant strategic benefits for the United States in the Middle East. Building on this assertion, the speaker presents a hypothetical scenario to underscore the perceived indispensability of Israel to American interests. They state, “Were there not an Israel, The United States Of America would have to invent an Israel.” This statement implies that, in the absence of an existing state in the region aligned with U.S. interests, Washington would face the dilemma of creating a state in order to protect those interests, highlighting the perceived necessity of having a stable, allied presence in the area. Further reinforcing the argument, the speaker repeats the notion of necessity with a direct formulation: “The United States would have to go out and invent an Israel.” This reiteration emphasizes the belief that Israel serves a critical role in safeguarding American regional objectives, to the extent that its existence is considered indispensable enough to warrant creation if it did not already exist. Across these points, the core message is a vehement defense of sustained U.S. support for Israel, framed as both morally clear (no apology) and practically essential (a valuable investment with strategic weight). The speaker combines a repudiation of criticism with a hypothetical justification for the centrality of Israel to American policy in the Middle East, asserting that Israel’s existence or creation is tied to protecting United States interests in the region.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel is not total and that allies spy on each other, including domestically. Speaker 1, identifying as conservative, says this is expected because people act in their rational self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 presses on the issue of spying, asking why an American lawmaker wouldn't tell a client state that spying on the U.S. is not allowed. Speaker 0 expresses that it is weird not to say that, but Speaker 1 seems unable to.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US doesn't dictate to any country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room.

America united its resources to hunt down and eliminate Al Qaeda. The speaker's message to Israel is straightforward: prioritize the mission to hunt down Hamas, regardless of the cost.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

The speaker questions the number of nuclear weapons Iran and Israel possess. They admit to having no knowledge of Israel's nuclear weapons despite being in the government. The speaker denies discussing Israel's nuclear program and dismisses the importance of the issue. They mention that experts estimate Israel's nuclear weapons to be between 84 and 100. The speaker acknowledges the hypocrisy of Israel having a secret nuclear program while criticizing others in the region.

The speaker states that Israel produces incredible weapons and shares them with the United States, and also produces intel that is invaluable for the United States. They reference the five I’s and note there is a sixth eye: Israel. This sixth eye is described as a very powerful eye, and it is said that Israel shares its intelligence with American intelligence services, contributing to a very strong bond between the countries. The bond is described as not only a bond of values and of their shared Judeo-Christian civilization, but also a war of civilization against the barbarians that they are fighting. In addition to shared values, the speaker emphasizes a bond of utility and great success, stating that the partnership is very, very strong, though challenged from time to time. The speaker urges the listener to talk to people in higher places in the Pentagon, implying that if one spoke with those who share intelligence or weapon systems, they would discover that they appreciate enormously what America gives to Israel, and they appreciate what Israel gives to America.

In the Middle East, it's time to stop apologizing for supporting Israel. There's no need for apologies because supporting Israel is a valuable investment. The United States sees Israel as essential for protecting its interests in the region. In fact, the United States would even create Israel if it didn't exist.

Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, with support from Russia and other countries. He no longer needs large reactors, as he can produce the necessary materials in hidden centrifuges. Inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites. While it is unclear when he will attack Israel, it is not difficult for him to deceive inspectors and hide his activities. The application of power is crucial in winning the war on terrorism, and the more victories we achieve, the easier the next one becomes. The choice to target Iraq is the right one, as Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons would have immediate and dangerous consequences.

The US aims to prevent Saddam Hussein from using nuclear or chemical weapons on other countries. Despite his denial, he is believed to possess such weapons. The speaker mentions the devastating death toll of half a million children, surpassing that of Hiroshima. They question whether the cost of war is justified. Speaker 0 acknowledges the difficulty of the decision but believes the price is worth it. They argue that it is a moral obligation to protect the American people, military, and neighboring countries from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

This is about the security of our world and the United States of America.

"Israel is isolated." "Israel can't break out of the season." "We will." "Yes, we can." "We're pretty good at producing weapons." "We share intelligence with The United States." "A good chunk of your intel and our weapon systems." "We are tremendously appreciative of the bipartisan support in military matters to Israel in previous years and today as well." "You're holding a piece of Israel right there." "it's an Israeli product as there are so many other things." "This serves the betterment of for the betterment of all mankind and womankind." "We can make things." "We cherish the fact that we have the constancy of American support despite the attempts to erode it, and we'll continue to work to make sure that that continues on both sides of the aisle." "But equally, we will eventually create the independence that we need so those in Western Europe who think they can deny us things will not succeed." "We can break this siege, and we will."

Speaker 0 argues that feeding their enemy is unprecedented in history and rejects the notion that it is consistent with Jewish morality, saying, “that isn’t” Jewish morality. He recalls October 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, when Henry Kissinger instituted an arms embargo against them, and explains that “an a four Skyhawk was parked at Telenorf Air Base with some interesting weapons under its wings,” and that they told the Americans to “take your eye in the sky and take a good look at the airplane that’s on that runway.” He continues that the next day “the airlift started to the to Israel,” describing an arms airlift, and notes that they “threatened their We threatened to use unconventional weapons,” and that they indicated, “So in other words, we threatened their We threatened to use unconventional weapons. I’ll leave it at that.” He asserts a policy stance: “is this what you’re want us to threaten now?,” and responds, “I said, absolutely. Except this time, I want us to go forward with it if necessary. If they think we’re bluffing, we go forward with it.” He states that, regarding existential threats, “as far as I’m concerned, when we are faced with an existential threat, we have the right to use any and all weapons in our disposal to eliminate that existential threat.” The speaker then contends that many people “don’t know anything about nuclear weapons at all. What they are, how they can be used,” and expresses fatigue with euphemisms, declaring, “I’m tired of using euphemisms. I’m tired of saying, well, we have something, you know, in the basement, but we won’t be the first to introduce, nuclear weapons in The Middle East. It’s enough already.” In sum, Speaker 0 highlights a historical precedent of threatening and delivering arms to counter existential threats, asserts the right to use any and all weapons if needed, and calls out the lack of public understanding and reluctance to acknowledge the potential introduction of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Investing $3 billion in Israel is the best decision we make. We shouldn't apologize for supporting Israel in this body. It's a crucial investment for the United States. In fact, if Israel didn't exist, the US would have to create it to safeguard its interests in the Middle East.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that while intelligence is shared between the U.S. and Israel, it is likely not all intelligence. They also assume that allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and vice versa. Speaker 1 states that conservatives recognize people act in their own self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 won't say that Israel is not allowed to spy on the U.S. and that they don't want to be spied on.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that Mossad likely doesn't share all intelligence with the U.S., just as the U.S. doesn't share everything with them, but emphasizes it's a close alliance. Speaker 1 assumes all allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and attributes this to people acting in their rational self-interest. When asked if it's in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president, Speaker 1 states it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because the U.S. gets huge benefits from it. While acknowledging the spying takes place, Speaker 1 does not express disapproval, but rather focuses on the benefits of the alliance.