Title: \"Epstein Was an Access Agent for Mossad\"
Show: TMJ News Network
Date: 2025-12-15
URL: https://youtu.be/Eyt8t7fVjlE
Duration: 38:00

---

[00:00] I've long believed that Epstein was uh what's called an access agent of the Israeli Mossad. It it makes zero sense that he would have anything to do with the CIA. The CIA is not interested in this kind of thing. He has no access to foreign classified information. You're the leader of the Mossad and you want to know what American former presidents are saying, what British royal family members are saying, what the richest men in the world are saying. You're not going to recruit them, right? You recruit a guy who does have access to

[00:30] them and over massages being given by 15 and 16 year old girls and plenty of alcohol, maybe a little coke. The reason we haven't seen it laid out for the American people to see is that very heavy hitters of both major political parties are involved. >> And welcome to another episode on TMJ's political current podcast. When people hear the CIA, they often think covert operations, classified files, secret

[01:01] missions, and everything we see go down in Hollywood movies. But CIA whistleblower John Kuryaku, who I have on today, says the real power isn't in what governments do, but what they convince people like you and I to believe. Because from Iran and Syria to Venezuela and Iraq, US intelligence has helped shape war narratives, regime change operations, and decades of policy. All while the media often focuses on a completely irrelevant set of details and misses the bigger picture. So today with John, we're not

[01:32] just going to rehash the same headlines. We're going to discuss how exactly those narratives are built from the inside, who they benefit, and why the truth, the real truth, never really makes it out. John obviously needs no introduction. He has definitely paid the price for what he has said as a whistleblower. And so, you definitely don't want to miss this conversation. John, thank you so much for joining us

[02:04] on TMJ News. It's wonderful to have you on. And today, I want to actually cover lots of topics. I'm going to start off with the Epstein files. We're going to get into America and Israel, as well as America's foreign policy in the Middle East. But before I get into all that good stuff, all the complicated, you know, conversations, I want to actually start off on a personal note. something that I know for many of us on this side, the perception that we have about the CIA and what it really means is really shaped only by what we see from movies, from you know, Hollywood movies, this

[02:34] perception that it's all about secrets and secret operations. Um, but I know you've said previously that the real power here is in shaping what people think they know. Can you tell us what's really part of that CIA influence, the CIA deception, if you will, that the public most misunderstands? >> Wow, that's a tough question. That's a tough question because it's I think it's different for for each person. And it's different for each group of people in

[03:05] that I I'll tell you the one thing that bothers me the most that angers me the most is I'll go on a podcast or it doesn't have to be me. can be any it could be Ray McGovern, Ed Snowden, it could be anybody. And there is always one in the comment section who writes, "Once CIA, always CIA." Like they have some epiphany or something,

[03:36] >> right? That is the most intellectually lazy, stupid, thoughtless position that anybody could take, especially when talking about a whistleblower. And I'm not talking about just myself. I'm talking about, like I said, Ray McGovern, Ed Snowden, I could Josh Schulty, I could name a half a dozen other people. Um, so there's this idea that once you're in

[04:08] the CIA that you're somehow never allowed to leave. Where did that come from? What did they base that on? There are a lot of very stupid people out there. There are a lot of very easily manipulated people out there. The CIA knows that and takes advantage of it because it causes splits in the anti-CIA populace. So the CIA will will do a lot of different things uh to to capitalize on

[04:39] on that stupidity that is so common out there. Uh they will work with Hollywood to make sure that everything that comes out of Hollywood is pro-CIA. They will make themselves look like Supermen, like they are everywhere. They're in every aspect of our lives and there's nothing we can do about it. That's true. And I I'm sorry. It's true that they that they try to do it. It's not true that they're everywhere.

[05:10] They're omnisient. They're omnipotent. Quite the opposite is true. It's that if you look at literally every major global development since the CIA was founded in 1947, it's either gotten it wrong analytically or it's missed it alto together. And I mean everything from the B Berlin wall being built to 911 and the the Russian invasion of

[05:43] uh Ukraine and everything in between. They've just gotten literally everything wrong. So I think that's probably the the big one. They know that a lot of people are just plain stupid. They know that people are easily manipulated. And so they set out to manipulate them. >> Right. And and you're mentioning obviously that this perception exists among the public that the CIA and oftentimes in in global discourse when it comes to this CIA and MSAD are often

[06:15] mentioned together that you know organizations like the CIA and MSAD are untouchable. They you know as you just mentioned have influence on pretty much every aspect of your life. I heard, you know, there was a clip that many people started sharing recently that, you know, the CIA even can influence, you know, turning on and off your TV at home and listening to your conversations and stuff like that. So, >> is that perception true or is it is it not? >> Oh, no. They very much can do that. Th this was all laid out. It's funny to me that this clip that you're talking about has taken on a second life because that

[06:46] information was released in 2017 by Josh Schulty. Um, well, Josh Schulty sent it to Wikileaks and Wikileaks released it. It was part of what's called the Vault 7 revelations. Uh, so yeah, it's very much true that the CIA can can turn on your smart TV without it looking like it's on. They can turn the speaker into a microphone and they can listen to everything that goes on in that room. All the while you are thinking that the TV is off. >> Interesting. I mean, that's that's

[07:17] that's quite horrific to be honest with you, especially for Americans who, you know, and this conversation becomes sensitive for people I know who are particularly vocal online about their political views. That's often something they're scared about is, you know, I am, you know, going to be either stopped at the airport or have everything checked or, you know, the CI there's like a there's a running joke that's like, you know, your special designated CIA agent just like watching every move you do. So, that's definitely a perception that's there. But I guess the reason why, you know, I asked this question

[07:48] from you is as someone who's been there, it seems to me almost as though there's lots of misunderstandings people do have. But um the the bigger question here that I want to get into is the Epstein situation. And the reason I want to start with that is not just because it's something people are are talking about and there's lots of misconceptions about it, but also because we know that when there's cases that involve high-profile people or global figures, as you mentioned, the CIA is generally involved because, hey, these are, you know, these are top shots. So why do you think then with this case in specific

[08:19] with the Epstein situation, there was such a lack of institutional curiosity about it for so long? I really believe that there that there was I wouldn't call it a lack of institutional curiosity so much as I would call it the deep state's efforts to squaltch it. I've long believed that Epstein was uh what's

[08:51] called an access agent of the Israeli MSAD. Um, people point it makes zero sense that he would have anything to do with the CIA. The CIA is not interested in this kind of thing. He has no access to foreign classified information. There's no way. There hasn't even been any credible accusations that he was involved with the CIA. The FBI, however, is different. But even that makes far less sense than the Israelis. What an access agent is is, let's say

[09:23] you're a foreign intelligence service. Let's say you're you're the Mossad. You're the leader of the Mossad and you want to know what American former presidents are saying, what British royal family members are saying, what the richest men in the world are saying about some issue or some person or some idea or whatever. You're not going to recruit them, right? You're not going to be able to say, "Hey, I'll give you $1,000 a month if you report to me in a hotel room in Cairo every month." That's not going to happen. So, you do the next best thing. You recruit a guy who does

[09:55] have access to them and over massages being given by 15 and 16 year old girls and plenty of alcohol, maybe a little coke, you get those answers and you pass it back to the Mossad which may or may not ever use it for something. Maybe there's a blackmail in uh operation underway. Maybe there's not. Maybe they're just putting it in file. So, I think that's what we've seen here. The reason why we haven't seen it go viral,

[10:26] the reason we haven't seen it laid out for the American people to see is that very heavy hitters of both major political parties are involved. You know, you've got both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. You have uh Prince Andrew and Bill Gates. I who isn't involved? you know, Alan Dersowitz is there getting massages and half of the the most important insiders in American politics and economics. And

[10:57] I think that because they're very powerful and they're very wealthy and they have friends in very high places, they've been able to keep this as quiet as possible. >> 100%. And and I know you also touched upon how agencies often times tend to protect institutions >> um rather than than justice. Do you see evidence of that in this situation? What essentially what do you think is really being protected here and why is it being protected to this degree? >> Honestly, I think the FBI is being protected because the FBI has an

[11:28] enormous division called the counter intelligence division. The job of every single person in the counter intelligence division is to find spies on American soil and to root out moles that may have been placed inside the American government. But we've always had this hands-off attitude toward the Israelis. We all know the Israelis are spying on us. They have hundreds of spies arrayed across America, mostly stealing defense secrets.

[11:59] So why hasn't the FBI gone gone after them? And assuming that Epstein was an Israeli operation, that would account for the fact that they've tried to keep this quiet because they would have to protect the FBI from people like you or me accusing the FBI of being asleep at the switch. I think that's what it is. >> So would you say that's the bigger story then? Because one, you know, one thing we also know is the media at least often times tends to fixate on all the wrong

[12:32] details when it comes to this stuff. And and I know it's a different situation, but I often think about, you know, Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction narrative that was kind of really hammered in the media going after, you know, very >> specific details of like what were these weapons? You know, what were these? And then later on it comes out, okay, that wasn't even the right detail to focus on. There were no WMDs. And now the question becomes, so the bigger question that the media at least was missing was how come this was even happening? Why was the justification for war being made

[13:03] and what was the purpose of it? So, it's this example of we're missing that bigger story. Would you say Israel is that bigger story in this situation? >> I would. I've been speaking out over the last 6 to 12 months, I guess, about um the fact that the Israelis spy on the United States. And I've been speaking out in favor of Palestinian human rights. there's a terrorist attack against you. Okay, people don't want to

[13:33] see terrorist attacks against anybody, but you can't have as your policy to go in and kill everybody or to push out everybody and kill women and children and elderly and sick people and blow up hospitals and ignore human rights and murder UN workers and murder journalists. That can't be the policy. So, I've been accused of being a noted anti-semite. I saw that two weeks ago. I actually I

[14:03] actually laughed out loud when I saw it. I'm a noted anti-semite. And then in um in a comment um actually it was on that viral clip that you're talking about, somebody called me very sli simply, flat out a Jew hater. Well, no. Number one. Number two, I'm going to work against anybody who is spying on my country. Anybody.

[14:35] Now, there was a case in the 1980s where a Greek American by the name of Steven Lis was spying for the Greek government. Steven Lis deserved to die in prison. He didn't. He was released. He moved to Greece. He became a Greek citizen. He's a big hero over there. But anybody spying against the the United States deserves the worst that the judicial system can throw at him. And the Israelis are spying on the United

[15:06] States. >> And on the topic of, you know, spying in intelligence, I think this is also something no one can really even answer. And it's this longstanding belief that US intelligence can't fully disentangle its priorities from Israel's, >> right? >> Um, from your experience, >> is there a structural dependency that's built into this relationship? Is there something bigger here? Something deeper? >> Yes. Yes. And it started in 1969 when

[15:37] Richard Nixon said that um the US would protect Israel under any circumstances. Our foreign policy changed in 1969 to guarantee Israel's safety and security. That was also about the same time that Apac became a major force in American politics. Apac has been around since the 50s and from the 50s to 1969, 197071 it would make, you know, campaign donations to this candidate or that

[16:08] candidate and, you know, would put out position papers, whatever, just like every other lobbying group. But now it's it's like a country in and of itself. And if you don't tow the line, the Israeli line in Washington on Capitol Hill, they will primary you and they will spend millions of dollars to defeat you and they're very successful. Well, that might be great for Israel,

[16:38] but I'm not an Israeli citizen. I want what's great for America and uh this system that we have now it's just not working out. Also, and I don't mean this rhetorically, I mean it literally. Why does Apac not have to register as a foreign agent? It's it's a mystery to me and literally no one has ever offered up a believable reason. It's because they get special treatment at APAC.

[17:09] And you know, one other reality that we know has taken place, we know intelligence professionals, you know, like yourself, they often have insights that rarely make it to into public discourse. I know for you, many have benefited actually from your experience and explaining all of that. But based on your time in the government, >> what would you say the average American completely misunderstands about Israel's political influence in in Washington? I think I think the thing that most people don't understand and I mean including

[17:41] friends and family members of mine um is that often times American foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy do not coincide. And you know there's a there's kind of a famous saying in diplomacy. It's there's no such thing as permanent friends, only permanent interests, right? And if we have national interests that coincide with the Israelis, God bless. But if we have interests that diverge from the

[18:12] Israelis, we need to do what is best for the United States and let the Israelis do what's best for Israel. Now, like I say, often times that means we cooperate with the Israelis. Good. But much of the time we shouldn't be cooperating with the Israelis because we don't have the same national interests. >> And another, you know, aspect to this as well is the media. So I know, you know, these are average Americans often times misunderstanding, you know, that that relationship that you just described, but we've also had situations, and I

[18:43] think you've also discussed this before, how intelligence agencies will sometimes plant stories in the media >> and um especially when it comes to obviously we know Israel and its operations. We know that in, you know, mainstream media in the US at least, it often appears without scrutiny. It's almost as if it's not even a question um that it appears in this way. What are some ways that you've seen how Israeli intelligence shapes American media narratives, especially on this issue? >> Oh my gosh, just look at the we we would

[19:14] need two hours just to talk about this. Just look at the 9/11 attacks and the story of the dancing Israelis. A lot of people think that that is just some anti-semitic trope that somebody made up. No. There were Israeli intelligence officers in New York in the weeks before 9/11 who were indeed arrested taking pictures of the World Trade Center and then dancing after it was hit. Um when they were picked up by

[19:45] the NYPD, they were told, "No, no, no. We're the good guys. It's the Muslims that did this. We're the good guys. Why are you taking pictures all week long of the World Trade Center and then just standing there waiting for planes to hit it and then you you're dancing in the streets. So, in the end, the Israeli government had to come to us and say, "Hey, listen. Let our people go, right?" And quietly in in the aftermath of 911 where, you know, the country's on fire and people are losing their minds, we just let them all go. Um, so the

[20:17] Israelis worked very hard to discredit the story that there ever were any dancing Israelis or that the Israelis were spying on us or that the Israelis had intelligence officers in New York City the week of the 9/11 attacks. But all of that was true. All of it. I said at a conference uh recently too um I believe that the Saudi government was at least indirectly involved in the 9/11 attacks but I also believe that the Israeli government had forewarning. The

[20:49] Israelis are really really good at what they do. They're very good spies. Mossad is probably the best intelligence service on the planet. Undoubtedly they had penetrations of al-Qaeda. They knew that attack was coming and they never told us. And I want to know why. >> With 911 too. And I'm going to segue to the next topic because I think it's it's important. As you mentioned, it was used um to justify the war on terror. And we know how that went. It was, you know,

[21:19] even till now, many Americans still view the Middle East as a whole, as a region, through a terrorism lens based on what happened on 911. How much of that framing would you say was constructed not not organically through like you know this happened that happened but intentionally after 911? Oh, I think a lot of it was intentional and I think a lot of it came directly from from the Netanyahu government in that Netanyahu saw 911 as the greatest thing that ever happened for Israel

[21:51] because and it wasn't just 911, it was it was the u Iraqi uh invasion that came a year later, a year and a half later in that Netanyahu is a smart guy and he knew he knew as soon as the first plane hit the World Trade what the American response was going to be. It was going to be to go to the region and kill as many Muslims as we possibly could kill. Now, that wasn't the stated policy, of course, but we all knew that that was what was going to result. And so

[22:23] Netanyahu through his neocon friends like Richard Pearl for example and Scooter Libby and all these people that were surrounding um Dick Cheney at the time, he knew that the iron was hot and now it was the time to strike and to put a little word in the vice president's ear that the next attack has to be against Iraq. There's kind of a famous story that Richard Pearl, who interestingly enough, never

[22:55] became a Republican. He's still a registered Democrat. That Richard Pearl on the 12th of September went to the White House to meet with these people, all friends of his from when they were in their 20s and all working for Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington, also a Democrat. On the 12th of September, he went to the White House and said, "You know, we have to attack Iraq, right?" >> Like that was always the plan. And so all they had to do was convince Americans who, as I said earlier,

[23:26] many of whom are very stupid people, even though they think they're very smart, convince them that Saddam Hussein was somehow tied to al-Qaeda. Now, we all knew that Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein as much as he hated the United States. There's nothing Muslim about Saddam Hussein. He he famously made the Umrah, the minor pilgrimage in the late 1980s with his vice president, Isat Ibrahim, and he didn't even know the prayers. He didn't even know what the prayers

[23:56] were. So Isat Ibrahim had to kneel just behind him to whisper the prayers loudly enough for Saddam to hear them and repeat them. There was nothing Muslim about him. But it was a convenient way for the Israeli media and Netanyahu and Apac and their friends in the Bush administration to put this idea in the vice president's ear that now's the time to attack Iraq. And in the end, after 20 years, we killed more than two million people in the region. Are we safer

[24:27] because of it? I don't think so. Not in the long term. >> Absolutely. And uh you know one other I think you just described something that I want to ask you but you kind of did a narrative autopsy there kind of going through the different stages who benefited what happened. If you were to take aside from, you know, Iraq, one major US storyline about the Middle East from the last, let's say, 20 years and do this narrative autopsy, basically how it started, um, who fed it, who amplified it, who benefited in the end,

[24:59] what would you think or what would you say would be the most revealing case? >> I think the most obvious case, and it's been discussed publicly, of course, but the most obvious case is Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney and the people in his circle. uh they were really the very definition of neoconservatism in government. Everybody from from David Addington and um Scooter Libby and Dubz Zahheim and the people that they

[25:30] installed at the Pentagon, they were all true believers in a militarist and activist foreign policy. And that coincide coincided very nicely with Netanyahu's idea of what American foreign policy should be. So I I think that the period from well 2000 but really late 2001 to 2008 was one of the most dangerous in modern American history. >> Obviously you've lived inside this narrative machine that you're describing right now. You've lived both both inside

[26:02] and outside of it. So really witnessing the manufacturing of a lot of these, you know, narratives, but also being on this side where you're also seeing it play out, um, especially when it comes to how the public interacts with all of this information. What's one thing Americans would, you know, understand differently about the Middle East, um, and their own government, you know, as as a player in that, you know, game, if you will, if they could see what you've seen in your experience throughout all of this? Oh, I'll tell you something that was revoly to me.

[26:33] And as background, I studied the Middle East in college. I have uh my my bachelor's degree is in Middle Eastern studies. My my master's degree was in legislative affairs, but with a focus on foreign policy of the Middle East. I speak Arabic. I lived in the Middle East. I love the history. I love the the literature, the poetry, the food, the culture. I love all of it. What was revvelatory to me was when we started capturing al-Qaeda fighters, not

[27:04] the leaders, but these kids 18, 19, 20 years old, they all essentially told the same story or variations on the same story. They were from some isolated village in whatever country they came from, Yemen, Tunisia, Saudi, whatever. They were mostly illiterate. They had no job skills. They had very poor relationships with their fathers, which struck me as very interesting. And I'll let the psychologists sort that out. I I don't

[27:35] know what it means, but they were of an age where they wanted to get married. And what father is going to want his daughter to marry a kid who can't read, can't write, can't work, and has no prospects for the future? I wouldn't want my daughter to marry a guy like that, >> right? And so the local imam went up to them and said, "You know, why do you want to stay in this village? You don't want to stay in this village. You should go to Afghanistan and make jihad against the Americans and we'll pay you $300 a

[28:05] month. And if you're martyed, we'll give your parents a $500 martyrdom uh bonus." And they said, "Okay, have nothing better going on." which led me to the conclusion that what we really need to do in the Middle East is spend money on economic development, on education, and on infrastructure. And it doesn't have to be our money. It can be Emirati money or guty money or Saudi money. But

[28:36] what they really need is economic development so that people are busy building careers and growing families rather than looking for a place to go make jihad against the Americans. >> And you know what in response to that John I think one thing that's interesting I was actually interviewing another you know guest on the topic of Syria and you know you mentioned economic development. The other aspect to that conversation is even when the US

[29:06] or even western countries, not just the US, when they do propose that economic development, it's it's always a Trojan horse. It's it's never just hey, you know, let's invest in the economic development of this country. It's let's let's do that, but obviously we want something in return. Obviously, we want, you know, a government that's either loy either loyal to the west. uh we want you know specific narratives being dominant there and you know hey we'll even make sure um they're institutionally educationally as you mentioned spread throughout the population. So even with

[29:37] economic development and with Syria the conversation was about the IMF now getting involved um with you know the fall of Assad and Galani power and all these different foreign entities now kind of getting ready to dive in. But we we we know and I'm sure you know, you know, you can explain and you know, attest to it, economic development and this idea of it being a Trojan horse. How how true do you would you say that is? >> Totally true. I I've been to Yemen as an example many many times. And every time I go, it's worse than the previous time.

[30:08] But I went on one trip. I think this was probably my second or third trip. And I met with the Italian ambassador. No, I take that back. It was the Italian defense attaches and the Dutch ambassador. And they were both very proud because the European Union had just uh built a new uh water, what do you call it, like a sewage system, water treatment plant

[30:40] for Sana. And this was the first time that the Yemenes were ever going to have portable water. They were going to be able to drink it right out of the tap and it was so incredible and it was going to change agriculture for the region and blah blah blah. And they would have been right had the US not gotten involved along with the Saudis to make sure that Ali Abdalis remained as the president. He was more

[31:13] of a dictator than an elected leader um of of Yemen. All the while the country is falling around falling apart around him. The south is trying to split off again and make a new south Yemen. The Houthies came out of the woodwork. Nobody ever heard of Houthies until whenever it was 2009 or 2008 or whatever and the whole place ended up going to hell. But you're right, one of the problems that we run into in places like that where economic development is concerned is that there always is a quid

[31:44] proquo and there shouldn't be. we should do it because number one, it's the right thing to do. But number two, if these countries are able to develop their economies, they're not going to be sending refugees to the United States. They're not going to be sending young men into terrorist training camps. They'll be able to take care of themselves. >> There's to me that there's no downside to it to economic development and to foreign aid. I'm a huge promoter of foreign aid. I'm I'm part of a very

[32:16] minuscule minority in the United States on foreign aid, but I think that we should, you know, we should increase our foreign aid budget by a hundfold and implement these these uh programs, >> right? And and kind of in closing, I want your thoughts on something that I know has become a huge issue of public discourse in America, and that is this whole America first idea. this idea that, you know, hey, our country and and it has come out especially in relation to Israel but

[32:47] also other countries. >> Why are we spending so much on furthering the interests of foreign entities when we have so much to focus on back home? >> And this is kind of a conversation that comes up very frequently. Do you think though that it will ever get to a point where America will truly be, you know, America first, not looking to get involved and extend its, you know, imperial footprint? >> No. It's like we can't help ourselves. So on the one hand, this is one of those rare areas where the progressive left

[33:17] and the MAGA right intersect, right? And they agree on this issue, at least as it concerns military interventions. So that's great. I think we should all be working together >> to stop American military interventions uh overseas. the two sides part company on the issue of foreign aid and I think the MAGA is wrong on foreign aid. I think for every dollar we spend on foreign aid it's going to save us $5 or $10 uh because we

[33:48] we won't have like I said these refugee problems or resettlement issues or civil wars breaking out and attacks against the United States. There was an attack today in Syria that killed two American soldiers and a and a Syrian translator. Uh just as an example. But with that said, I don't think the the Republican party is a MAGA uh America first party. I think that it thinks it is and it's kind

[34:19] of pretending to be, but I think that the likes of Lindsey Graham at all just can't wait until Donald Trump isn't president anymore so they can be in public neoons again. So, no, I don't think it's going to change. Not over the long term. >> What about the likes of Marjorie Green? I know she also, you know, is no longer in government. So that could in fact be proving the point of, you know, they have no place in the government because if you do try to go against that tide, it'll really consume you. But do you

[34:51] think the likes of this idea of especially in relation to Israel, which is what she was becoming very vocal on? Do you think that is bound to increase or will it just be shut down in the same way each time? >> Yeah, I think it'll be shut down. I was very, very disappointed in Marjgery Taylor Green for this resignation. In fact, I had just said to a friend of mine,"I can't believe that I get up every day and agree with Marjorie Taylor Green." Like, how did this happen? Because I don't think I changed. I think she changed. But um I remember thinking,

[35:21] "Wow, this may actually begin to change the national debate because she's even though she was junior in the Republican party, she was still very important in the Republican party." Uh Nancy Mace is another one. Nancy Mace is running for governor, I think, of South Carolina. She's in Congress now, but she's talking about resigning uh effective January 6th along with Marjorie Taylor Green just to make a political point that she doesn't like the way things are being managed right

[35:51] now. I think that's cowardly. I really do. And the only reason Do you know why they're they're hanging on until January 6th by any chance? >> I I don't. because that's the day they qualify for the pension. >> Oh, okay. Interesting. >> Wow. >> Yeah. Yeah. Shame on them both. So, no. I I if there was going to be if there was going to be a movement within the Republican party that was

[36:22] going to work to change the Republican party on some of these issues, it could have been led eventually by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green and Nancy Mace. And now it won't be. I mean, Thomas Massie can't do everything himself, right? And Rand Paul is right on the issues only half the time. So, no, I I don't think we're going to see any long-term changes. >> So, you don't even think there's any hope because I know, you know, one thing we know at least American public opinion has shifted dramatically on this

[36:53] >> dramatically. >> So, do you think that will ever translate to, you know, changes on a government level, >> you know, if if we can enter into a period of sustained peace, it's possible, I suppose. Look at it this way. After 911, George W. Bush's approval ratings were at 90%. And that lasted for about a year and then it started to sink and sink

[37:24] dramatically. And then people finally realized we were bogged down in forever wars. We weren't going to get out of these wars. Not in a year or two or or 10. It took us 20 to get out of these wars. And so if we can enter into a period of sustained peace, it's going to make it a lot easier for other people to flip on the issue and say, "Yeah, you know what? We actually don't need to be overseas. We don't need to have a role in every conflict in the

[37:56] world. Certainly, we have national interests that we will need to protect, obviously, but wars of choice are completely different." Well, John, thank you so much for joining me on TMJ. Lovely to hear your perspective, and I really do hope to have you on again. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate the invitation. >> If you like what you see here on TMJ News, don't forget to like and share and subscribe to our channel for more weekly interviews. TMJ News is an independent grassroots media outlet, and you can

[38:27] find ways to support us by reading the caption below. Thank you so much for joining us on this episode, and I hope you liked it.
