probably is, then why wouldn t she stay here until she negotiates the end of a shutdown? i think that pelosi, as well as schumer, have had three opportunities put in front of the president for him to have funding for his wall. you remember in january of 2018, they offered him $25 billion, in february of 2018 tucker: i ve followed it. over 10 to 12 years. they gave him install the of $2.5 billion and he still decided to shutdown the government. it s on him. he walked out of the office. he said bye-bye. tucker: what you are say something either he accepts their previous offers or the government remains shutdown forever? i m confused as to what you are saying. there is no more negotiating to do? is that what you are saying? there is absolutely morey negotiating to do it. tucker: why was she leave? she was leaving, tucker, as you know, as have you reported, because she was going to brussels to meet with nato officials and afghanistan to thank our men and women. tucker: to
than the speaker s decision on whether tucker: why is she you make a solid point it is his decision. the congress really doesn t manage our foreign policy at all these days. so, if it s his decision, why is she going to afghanistan at public expense? um, i don t think that it was at the public expense. i really disagree. tucker: it was at public expense. i disagree this was a public relations move. first of all, i worked in public relations for quite some time. tucker: i understand. whether you have a p.r. event, the one thing you don t do is keep it a secret. this is not a p.r. stunt. tucker: okay. leaving that characterization aside, you sst said that she doesn t have a role in deciding whether or not our troops remain in afghanistan. so why was she going there? why can t she go there? tucker: i m not saying that she shouldn t. thank our men and women in uniform? why can t she go there and meet on the ground with some our officials? tucker: i m not proposing t
we have no chance to militarily defeat the taliban. and we have little chance to leave behind either a self-sustaining democracy or even a self-sustaining very well-functioning enlightened take territoryship. all the trend lines are bad, it seems, unfortunately. and what we re sustaining at the moment is a moderate level of chaos where war lords, ethnic groups, compete with each other and if we pulled out, unfortunately, there would be a much greater level of chaos and, in fact, the regime might actually collapse in the way that the saigon regime collapsed in 1975. therefore, either this president or the next president, whoever, is going to face the choice of how to pull out of afghanistan. because the terrorist threat is still there, but the
tucker: that s not the bigger question, actually. the bigger question is should we keep troops in afghanistan? and no one seems interested in that. if that is an actual question. is he more interested in keeping our fellow workers from getting paid. that s what he is interested. in. tucker: right. i m sure that s his goal. let me ask you though why shouldn t straightforward question once more. why shouldn t she stay in washington until this crisis is resolved? you just said it s very important that our federal workers get the salary they are due. so why shouldn t she stay here and work on it until that happens? well it, seems like acting like nancy pelosi was going over there for two weeks to lay on a beach. that s not what s happening. tucker: you already couldn t tell me why she was going there. we still don t know why she was going. one, i don t work for nancy pelosi but i can tell you the reason why her team says she was going was to thank our men and women in uniform
question becomes is spending $45 billion a year there the right way to deal with international terrorism? because the iranians, the indians, the pakistani pakistan, the chinese all have strategic interest in afghanistan. we do not. our strategic interest there, and it s complicated to explain, we don t have time now are much, much less. so we re going to have to pull out under this president or the next one. tucker: so what you just said sounds right and it sounds like it s probably a conclusion that s been clear for a while. what does it say about our policymakers here in washington that nobody, that i m aware of, is debating this at a high level in public anyway and that this has been allowed to persist in this kind of counter productive window for so long? yes. this is a classic case of where many people in washington, many thoughtful