HollywoodBQ said:
Finished listening to the podcast last night.
In some ways I kind of wish I had taken notes because there was so much said that I'm sure I won't remember some of it.
One of my key takeaways was the language that HR McMaster used. One of the best examples was when they were discussing Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, etc.
When he talked about who is funding the Taliban and who is helping them, in some cases, he named names such as the Pakistani ISI. In other cases, he just referred to "money from The Gulf".
The "money from The Gulf" comment I thought was a very smooth way to name specific countries without naming them directly. Kind of a - we know who you are, you know who you are, and now you know that we know who you are.
My explanation might not make sense but the way he said it was very smooth and got the point across without falling down to the level of name calling that we see so often.
There were other things he mentioned that illustrated a great understanding of the current political climate without specifically naming names but again - everybody knew exactly who he was talking about.
That example went like this - he described people of a certain political perspective getting their news from one particular cable news outlet. Then he said that people on the opposite side get their news from the other two cable news outlets.
I thought the way he described FOX vs CNN + MSNBC was perfect.
It kept the conversation at an adult level without getting in to that sensational childish name calling that normally gets triggered in your brain as soon as somebody accuses people of getting all their information from FOX News.
McMaster did criticize the current administration and the 3 predecessors regarding their handling of the War on Terror. He provided a fair number of examples including of course the disastrous withdrawal from AFG last year.
Curiously enough, Joe Rogan has raised his game accordingly. Rogan sounded somewhat intelligent and educated even though he isn't. Maybe "Professional" is the right way to describe Rogan's interview of HR McMaster. In any case, he's miles away from the old stoner of 3-4 years ago. Maybe $100 Mil in your pocket does that to you. It was a different look for Rogan for sure. Considering this guy got famous for making people eat bugs and crap on "Fear Factor", it's an amazing transformation.
I'm glad at least one person on here listened all the way through and somewhat enjoyed it. I'm not an AVID listener to Rogan but I definitely listen to some depending on who the guests are, and this one was one of my favorites of late.
Concerning Rogan, I really have come to enjoy and appreciate his style of hosting and I think it's the key reason why his podcast has blown up so much. I don't think he's dumb by any stretch of the imagination, but he isn't polished like someone with an academic or corporate career would be, and I like that. He reminds me of some of my students who are clearly quite bright but just have no f's to give when it comes to following guidelines. He knows how to ask great probing questions and keep the conversation from topic to topic without taking over. He sometimes inserts his own opinion, but I like that he's more than willing to concede that he's no expert and to hear out his guests on anything they have to say. One of the reasons that he's widely popular AND why he's becoming a target is that he seems to have no agenda or isn't being bankrolled/backed/pressured by any particular ideological group. He'll take a shot a Trump and talk about how awesome weed is and question what biological men are doing in women's sports and say that he is worried about the vax all in the same 3 hour podcast.
I was most interested in McMasters' opinions on China and what we are and aren't doing to counter that. BTW, his plug for his own podcast out of the Hoover Institute compelled me to go listen to that one, and it was great. The one on the nature of gun control was fantastic.
I wish that Biden and Harris would listen to guys like McMasters and take their insights seriously, because we are at serious risk of being outflanked on several levels by regimes with more resolves and less restraint.