Hugh reminds me of Bill O’ Reilly. Hugh knows everything, he was there and he is better. Quite obnoxious and smug tbh. He STILL believes that Iraq war was not a lie. That’s comical!
To be fair, he is a con law professor who shared an office in the white house with the now chief justice of the supreme court. He does know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Hugh is bizarrely trying to shift the labels around. He insists Mearshimer isn't a realist while calling himself one. Then he doesn't want the label neocon except all his ideas reflect that viewpoint.
Sacks has decided he supports a view after considering many. The host is convinced he knows the truth but has only looked at one perspective. The host picked a source of info to trust (the Neocon narrative) and boldly disregarded the rest. Presented with a curious and logical person in Sacks, obviously motivated by trying to actually figure out reality, the host reacts emotionally because he can sense his strategy of trusting CIA experts has backfired. @@ASS_ault
Used to listen to Hugh all the time, but this was very hard for me to listen to. Hugh didn't really seem to want to hear Sachs. He just wanted to talk and get his points across. I remember him being so gracious - not in this interview. If I were David Sachs, I wouldn't have enjoyed myself or want to come back. Such a shame :(
I used to listen to Hugh everyday. Haven't listened in years. I'm with Sacks on this. I was lifelong Republican. I supported Iraq. I believed WMD. Not anymore. My family came from Odessa. I have friends in Ukraine. We're sacrificing their people and destroying the country. I'm tired of it. Never again.
Tremendous interview - Hugh tried a couple of got-ya's wrt Sacks not knowing the minutia facts, however David's overall approach in that "it is better to jaw-jaw" did come through. Hugh says he's Switzerland but I would submit he is NeoCon-lite as opposed to uber-NeoCon like Victoria Neuland. David properly argued to why more DoD/Pentagon funding is just plain folly but Hugh's response was so-what just give them more "because we are SO much safer now after 9/11 as evidenced by no 'attacks' on American soil" - a ponderous and laughable statement. (aside, the production level of this podcast is not very good with compression levels off and poor latency with the speakers stepping on top of each other way too much)
Saying rumseld and nuland just didn’t know and objectively didn’t line is absurd. They’ve repeatedly exhibited the same pattern of behavior of acting without justification and standing behind those decisions
Russia has concern over NATO with Ukraine after unknown years but is totally fine with Finnland NATO. So Finland NATO is not an expansion nor dangerous to Russia. Full of shxt
A key attribute of a neocon is the belief that america has no limits especially when it comes to spending endlessly on pointless conflicts which are often against our own interests, despite all of our disasters in recents decades proving them wrong. Never mind ukraine being destroyed economically, demographically, militarily; we’ll just spend at least 1 trillion to rebuild that country in the coming years after ukraine has lost everything. If the point of the Ukraine war was to get to a better negotiating position, we would’ve negotiated before the war as Russia’s draft treaty was actually very generous and we had great leverage. The 2nd best opportunity was after the kharviv offensive in fall ‘22 before Russia had mobilized. Instead the biden admin has created an awful disaster, not only in Ukraine, but also with our moral authority and global strategic position, similar to the after effects of the Iraq war.
Hewitt is interesting but totally obnoxious. He claims to have inside information about history that makes him win an argument. Then claims that he does not want a debate but an interview. So why use that trick? He is terrible with follow up questions. He always have to state that he dislikes Biden. No need to state this all the time if he is interviewing. His Sudetenland and Churchill is annoying. "Mearsheimer is not a realist, but go ahead" ... " I don't want an debate I am interviewing and interested in your views" - Hewitt lacks credibility. Still Hewitt brings up interesting questions. We need strategic clarity not ambiguity on Taiwan.
Hugh reminds me of Bill O’ Reilly. Hugh knows everything, he was there and he is better. Quite obnoxious and smug tbh. He STILL believes that Iraq war was not a lie. That’s comical!
To be fair, he is a con law professor who shared an office in the white house with the now chief justice of the supreme court. He does know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Sacks absolutely obliterated this guy lmao. It’s like an adult talking to a toddler! I was laughing half of the time. Great video.
The second I heard "muh Churchill, mu Hitler" level geopolitical analysis I knew he was going to wreck him.
Sacks A++. Hugh Hewitt.... not so much. Hugh is way too erratic to grab my sub.
I love that Hugh cringes at being called a neocon. Their blunders over the past 20 years in foreign policy have made the brand beyond repair.
He shares the same views as neoconservative, so it's a pointless distinction.
Hugh is bizarrely trying to shift the labels around. He insists Mearshimer isn't a realist while calling himself one. Then he doesn't want the label neocon except all his ideas reflect that viewpoint.
@@BennyOcean Succinct & well said.
The host is emotionally invested in a particular narrative.
Sacks has decided he supports a view after considering many. The host is convinced he knows the truth but has only looked at one perspective. The host picked a source of info to trust (the Neocon narrative) and boldly disregarded the rest. Presented with a curious and logical person in Sacks, obviously motivated by trying to actually figure out reality, the host reacts emotionally because he can sense his strategy of trusting CIA experts has backfired. @@ASS_ault
Used to listen to Hugh all the time, but this was very hard for me to listen to. Hugh didn't really seem to want to hear Sachs. He just wanted to talk and get his points across. I remember him being so gracious - not in this interview. If I were David Sachs, I wouldn't have enjoyed myself or want to come back. Such a shame :(
Dave Sacks ate HH alive....
I used to listen to Hugh everyday. Haven't listened in years. I'm with Sacks on this.
I was lifelong Republican. I supported Iraq. I believed WMD. Not anymore.
My family came from Odessa. I have friends in Ukraine.
We're sacrificing their people and destroying the country. I'm tired of it. Never again.
David Sacks W
“I think maybe you should consider diplomacy more often.” BOOM! Sacks ROASTED this neocon warhawk!
Tremendous interview - Hugh tried a couple of got-ya's wrt Sacks not knowing the minutia facts, however David's overall approach in that "it is better to jaw-jaw" did come through. Hugh says he's Switzerland but I would submit he is NeoCon-lite as opposed to uber-NeoCon like Victoria Neuland. David properly argued to why more DoD/Pentagon funding is just plain folly but Hugh's response was so-what just give them more "because we are SO much safer now after 9/11 as evidenced by no 'attacks' on American soil" - a ponderous and laughable statement. (aside, the production level of this podcast is not very good with compression levels off and poor latency with the speakers stepping on top of each other way too much)
Great interview with David sacks, very interesting.
Hugh's summary on how the Soviet Union fell apart is spot on.
Hugh's podcast are so intelligent and knowledgeable. Kudos!
Gotta love how these boomer youtube show hosts pretend like they're always running out of time on their shows, lol.
Saying rumseld and nuland just didn’t know and objectively didn’t line is absurd. They’ve repeatedly exhibited the same pattern of behavior of acting without justification and standing behind those decisions
Exactly. When you have Hewitt's attitude you'd better be right on the facts.
@@ASS_ault You honestly think Rumsfeld didn't knew? All of Europe knew except Tony Blair.
Russia has concern over NATO with Ukraine after unknown years but is totally fine with Finnland NATO. So Finland NATO is not an expansion nor dangerous to Russia. Full of shxt
hugh is a naif if he thinks WMD story was not an utter lie. jesus christ, he loses all credibility if he really believes it.
I am here representing #TeamSacks ❤
Sometimes saying no to a podcast invitation is the best answer…. Sacks did a great job! Hugh should be on 1010 Wins lol
Excellent discussion!!!!!!!!!!!
Hugh is being a jerk. Sacks is handling it very well.
The host is drinking Ukraine's winnings; no one can beat the USA kool aid.
Fantastic discussion. Hugh love you engaging with thinkers on the new foreign policy right. Learned a ton
A key attribute of a neocon is the belief that america has no limits especially when it comes to spending endlessly on pointless conflicts which are often against our own interests, despite all of our disasters in recents decades proving them wrong. Never mind ukraine being destroyed economically, demographically, militarily; we’ll just spend at least 1 trillion to rebuild that country in the coming years after ukraine has lost everything. If the point of the Ukraine war was to get to a better negotiating position, we would’ve negotiated before the war as Russia’s draft treaty was actually very generous and we had great leverage. The 2nd best opportunity was after the kharviv offensive in fall ‘22 before Russia had mobilized. Instead the biden admin has created an awful disaster, not only in Ukraine, but also with our moral authority and global strategic position, similar to the after effects of the Iraq war.
This was painfull to watch
Hewitt is interesting but totally obnoxious. He claims to have inside information about history that makes him win an argument. Then claims that he does not want a debate but an interview. So why use that trick? He is terrible with follow up questions. He always have to state that he dislikes Biden. No need to state this all the time if he is interviewing. His Sudetenland and Churchill is annoying.
"Mearsheimer is not a realist, but go ahead" ... " I don't want an debate I am interviewing and interested in your views" - Hewitt lacks credibility.
Still Hewitt brings up interesting questions. We need strategic clarity not ambiguity on Taiwan.
Hugh Hewitt is an intelligent individual with an extraordinary ability to come up with dumb ideas. David Sacks nails it about Ukraine.
Hewitt, “why is that not on audiobook?”
Me: loads Audible and sees 18 titles in English by Colleen McCullough
“Because you never looked?”
This guy destroys strawmen like s real champ. Thank God he's not in charge of anything serious.
if we start putting American flags on bass boats we could have a bigger navy again
Hugh = worst interviewer ever lol 😂 a lot of I did this I did that and nothing more. Just like his cabinet position.
Hewlett: carnival barking snakeoil salesman!