Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. I'm your host, jack Hopkins. Today. I'm honored to have as a guest Congressman Don Bacon from the great state of Nebraska, and the reason I'm so excited about having Congressman Bacon on he's a Republican and I have watched him routinely speak out as a supporter of Ukraine and condemning either in its entirety or certain aspects of some of Trump's policies. To me, that's a breath of fresh air. So even if you are skeptical just because he's got an R after his name, I think when you listen to this you're going to find it refreshing, a step in the right direction and a signal to others in the GOP look, come back closer to the side of sanity.

Speaker 1: 1:21

So, without further ado, let's get right into this episode with Congressman Don Bacon and, by the way, he's got a rich background and bio and I will post that and or links to that in the show notes. Let's get going, okay, I am thrilled to have Congressman Don Bacon on today. Welcome, thank you. It's an honor to be on with you just doing the right thing, and you have stood out in the GOP for your willingness to support Ukraine and to speak out against authoritarianism around the world anywhere. That's not something that's happening among too many people in your party. So first of all, I want to thank you for that on behalf of everyone.

Speaker 2: 2:28

Thank you. I appreciate it and I realize good people can disagree on this issue or that issue, but I feel very strongly about Ukraine and I'd rather speak up than be on the wrong side of history. Ukraine wants democracy, they want freedom, they want to have free markets, they want rule of law. They're trying to be part of the West. Russia is trying to stop that and they want to dominate Ukraine and really eliminate it off the map. Their language, their culture, their history and we've got to be on the right side of this. This is right versus wrong, an invader versus a victim, and I'm a Reagan Republican. I believe we stand up to this. We try to help.

Speaker 1: 3:07

You know, as from one veteran to another, although you outranked me by light years, I want to talk a little bit about what you see going on as strategy. I'll be 59 here in about a week and, looking back through the years I've been alive, it was just kind of the thing to do to speak out against dictators like Vladimir Putin.

Speaker 2: 3:46

Can you give me an overview of what you see going on here and why this is happening as it is? Well, I have moral clarity when it comes to Russia versus Ukraine and I know what the world would be a better place with a free, democratic, prosperous Ukraine and Eastern Europe. That's a game changer and really that's why Russia doesn't want it, because Russia fears free market, rule of law. I mean, they have a dictatorship under Putin and they fear boy. If Ukraine can do this, then our people are going to expect it as well. So I think that's what's going on there. But when it comes to what's going on in our culture, I've done some thinking about this. This may be a little more deep than you want.

Speaker 1: 4:23

I want you to throw it out.

Speaker 2: 4:26

I think I was raised in a Judeo-Christian ethic. I mean, our culture is Judeo-Christian background and it's more when you come from the Judeo-Christian spirit. It's about doing the right thing. It's about trying to add and trying to have a positive voice. Yeah, you're Republican or Democrat, but in the end you want to do what's right for your country and what's morally right.

Speaker 2: 4:49

I think we've gotten to the spot now where we call it the post-truth America, where we've moved beyond the Judeo-Christian heritage that we have and some people call it the post-truth, some people call it the post-Christian. There's different terms for it, but when you read these books, the underlying theme is it's more important to be on the winning side than it is to do the right thing. So what you're seeing I see it in our politics today there's like no desire to compromise or meet in the middle or find consensus. It's about beating the other guy, and a lot of folks would rather beat the Democrats or beat the Republicans than do the right thing, and I think that sort of gets to what we're seeing. And I see it in our social media today. It is putrid. I mean, it's toxic out there Now. I used social media because I want to communicate to my constituents and news, but all that other stuff out there. It's really toxic. So a lot of people don't want to get beat up.

Speaker 2: 5:50

I've gotten involved in a few issues where I had people with a couple million followers hit me on social media. Then you get thousands of re-hits. One week I had 31,000 phone calls in anger. Wow Right, it goes all over the country and it's intimidation. That's the intent there. I was even on the side where 70% of the Americans were with me, but that 30% they had these very active social influencers involved. I've been immune to it because I've stood up and I've. I guess I was able to win despite all of that. But I see so many folks around me. They're scared to be in the crosshairs of this and I think that creates some conformity.

Speaker 1: 6:36

Let me ask you this on that topic, because we know a lot of people have gone to the virtual town halls. One thing I don't hear talked about in the media is there a legitimate concern about violence occurring in those town halls among the GOP?

Speaker 2: 6:56

Well, there is some, but even with the Democrats. I mean, some of the Democrats are so angry at Democrats for not doing enough. They have wild town halls too. In my town halls I was doing one a quarter. I've probably done two-thirds in person, maybe one-third virtual. I saw a fist fight at one. I had about a 400-pound guy try to run me over in one of the town halls, but thankfully somebody got in between them.

Speaker 2: 7:20

So I don't have to have law enforcement there as a precaution, so I don't have to have a law enforcement there as a precaution. My take on town halls, though it's more of an opportunity for the move on dot org or indivisible In my case, democrats may have other groups on the other side doing this, but it's really for them to try to get me on film being yelled at and screamed at or my colleagues and you see it, those are do it it. One of my colleagues had a lady yelling f you but saying it the whole time during the entire town hall, and they want to get that on video. Now I want to address all the hard issues.

Speaker 2: 7:53

I did a virtual town hall last week. Roughly I got 17,309 people on it and I didn't avoid a single hard issue we had. I told my guys I want every hard issue and put it on there and then we can have a civil discussion and I think it worked out pretty well. But I could have 17,000 people, or I could have 300, with 150 of them organized by moveonorg right now or Indivisible, and they don't want a town hall. They want to create chaos and anger videos. Essentially.

Speaker 1: 8:28

What do you get in terms of feedback we'll call it feedback from some of the positions that you've taken, as supporting Ukraine, for example? What kind of feedback or pushback do you get from members of your own party, and what can you tell me about that?

Speaker 2: 8:47

Well, within Congress I've got mainly positive feedback, even from Republicans. I've had chairmen. I don't want to mention their names, but they come up to me and say, don, we need your voice on Ukraine. I thank you, we've got to win this. And I'm like thinking to myself, oh, it would help you being a chairman, if you were also speaking up. Thinking to myself, oh, it would help you, being a chairman, if you were also speaking up. But sometimes they do. Sometimes they do. There's a few that do, like Mike McCall You'll hear him and a few others, but for the most part people are pretty silent about this.

Speaker 2: 9:16

I did hear from a couple of my colleagues that are more pragmatic and they didn't share my views of the Oval Office meeting. I thought it was our president, particularly our vice president, I thought was being disrespectful to our guest in the Oval Office, whereas they were trying to say no, zelensky was being disrespectful. I saw it the other way around. So I did have a little disagreement with a few on that. We didn't see eye to eye.

Speaker 2: 9:38

But the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress have said thank you to me for being there and I have about the guy by myself Joe Wilson's out there, brian Fitzpatrick, mike Lawler, mike McCall, I mean there's Mike Turner, so there's others with me, maybe not quite as vocal, but they're there. Now I hear from in our social media and a lot of them aren't even real people. A lot of them have like pseudonym names. Now some of them aren't even real people. A lot of them have like pseudonym names. Now some of them aren't happy at all. So I get pushback on social media from people who don't even know who they are.

Speaker 1: 10:10

Right.

Speaker 2: 10:11

I'll tell you an interesting thing, though Republican businessmen that I know in Omaha are universally behind what I'm doing. I hear from so many Republicans they're the old-school Republicans, right? Sure, we've got to stick up to Ukraine. We got to push back on Russia. What's happening in our party? That they don't want to do that. So I'd say and when you look at polling, the last poll from Gallup was 69-31 in favor of Ukraine Right, so I could tell the White House this is a winning issue. I don't know why you're not. Don't be on the 31% side, be on the 69%, right?

Speaker 1: 10:46

Yeah, for sure. You know, with your military background and leadership roles that you had in the military, I know the chain of command is incredibly important to you. I mean you live and die by the chain of command, correct With that. And I realize politics it's not a one-for-one, it's not exactly like the military, but would you agree that there is a chain of command from the president on down? Could we agree on that?

Speaker 2: 11:20

Surely from the president on down with our military absolutely. Now at Congress, at congress for an equal branch. So I don't see him as my boss, although the 700 000 people in omaha are my boss. Um, if you want to go that way. But you're right, in the chain of command of the military it starts with the president yeah.

Speaker 1: 11:37

So my question, my specific question on that, because for me and I've talked to a lot of other people who feel similar to me on this when I take that chain of command map to Musk and Trump, that's where I have trouble figuring out kind of how that interaction and that role between the two works in some of the decisions that seem like they've kind of been Musk's decisions rather than the president. What are your thoughts and info on that?

Speaker 2: 12:12

Well, surely, when it comes to the bureaucracy, president Trump is in charge of the executive branch there. So I think we have problems really on. Musk and his team are making firing decisions, and some of them were rash. They had to take them back. So finally, the cabinet secretary spoke up. This is about two weeks ago. Three weeks ago, the cabinet secretary spoke up and said this has got to stop. We have to approve anybody that's fired, and the president agreed with him. So you'll see, after about two or three weeks ago, it went from Musk making these decisions to Musk making recommendations to the cabinet secretaries and then the cabinet secretaries having to decide whether they're going to follow the advice of Musk or not. That's a much better way to go about doing this, because I think it's more legal.

Speaker 2: 12:59

Sure, also have a secondary issue. Some of these programs were put in by Congress, funded by Congress, approved by, in this case, not only the previous president, but it's law, and so the president can't just get rid of those agencies that fall under that criteria. Now, some of these are all created by the executive branch. That's different. He can just get rid of them if he wanted to, but if the Congress funded it and the president signed it into law. This president can't just stop it right, but he was trying to do that anyway in some cases and he's lost in the court system on this and we've had these court battles that go back many, many presidents with the same problem. So that's a separate issue. Even if the cabinet secretary agrees, there's some things by law that the president can't just get rid of.

Speaker 1: 13:50

Thank you for that. I want to ask you there are so many people from so many different areas of life that are concerned, namely people getting social security benefits. Myself, as a veteran, I kind of look at the veteran issue, probably because I'm not yet able to get social security, but I'm a veteran always. What would you say to our veterans out there who maybe they're drawing disability compensation and they're drawing disability compensation and they're in a situation where, if they would lose that or have it significantly reduced, there would be some financial chaos in their household, Right? What are your insights on that and where we might be going?

Speaker 2: 14:42

Well, I don't think we're going to be cutting any VA benefits. I don't see anything on the horizon. No plans, no discussion. I'd oppose them if they were. There's no plans to cut Social Security. By the way, I'm about a year and a half older than you, so I'm 61. But there's no plans to cut Social Security benefits. But there's another issue out there that some of the media has brought up to me that some of the manpower in Social Security agency has been cut. And it's true there have been some reductions, which hurts customer service and I know firsthand customer service right now is not good in Social Security agency.

Speaker 2: 15:16

My mother-in-law passed away a month ago and we had a hard time getting a hold of anybody just to say, hey, please stop paying her benefits. She passed away a month ago and we had a hard time getting a hold of anybody just to say please stop paying her benefits. She passed away and I try not to use any special my special context as a congressman. I wanted to see how this works and it was very painful, very hard. So I feel for constituents that can't get a hold of social security. But there's no plans to cut social security. There's no plans to cut Medicare. There are some reforms we want to do to Medicaid, like workforce requirements, but really we want to preserve the health care that Medicaid provides and we've got to preserve the money that the hospitals are getting. If we want to keep hospitals, our local communities, they need Medicaid income on there. But there are discussions how to do some reforms to Medicaid. I'm not going to deny that. But Medicare Social Security benefits. They're safe.

Speaker 2: 16:07

There's one thing that we should be honest though they're both going to go and solve it in 10 years if we do nothing, and so we've got to have some problems in the room and figure out how are we going to save Social Security and Medicare, and I think it's going to be a combination of things that need to be done, but nobody wants to take that on right now, and if we worked it today it would be easier. But I know how Congress works. They'll probably wait until nine years and 10 months. Ooh, we had a problem with Social Security. What are we going to do? But we should be working on that now and try to fix it.

Speaker 1: 16:38

And how much of that, to the extent that you can say how much of that just comes down to hey, I'm still going to be running for elections. I don't want this to become a hot topic associated with me. Is that a factor? And I mean, I assume it would be.

Speaker 2: 16:59

It is. I'll give you an example. When I first ran in 2016, I said we want to save Social Security. It's going to go insolvent in like 15 years at this point. I mean, I can't remember what, but it's changed a little bit since then, but this was in 2016. I said so. We need to have a discussion. Are we going to adjust the caps because you stopped paying it at a certain level? Do we need to adjust to retirement age? I think we should look at all that, and I had like $2 million in TV ads because I made that statement against me. There were attack ads saying Don Bacon wants to take away your Social Security. Don Bacon wants to, you know, throw grandma off the cliff. They had this one TV ad where an old man with a cane looked like he was in his 80s was carrying a cake. He put the cake down. He goes. That was my retirement cake, but Don Bacon took it away.

Speaker 2: 17:45

Gotcha, gotcha, people see what happens with me and I was just trying to have an honest conversation with them. We want to save this and I got attacked for it, so people were scared to talk about social security and Medicare.

Speaker 1: 17:56

It's a shame and it's unfortunate in that we know, and it's unfortunate in that we know, at least statistically, what the data shows. Attack ads work yeah, they do, so the chances of them going away is probably not too good. But do you think that that? I do think this. I'm wondering if you do the attack ads from either party. I feel like they just cloud the issue, they make it muddy so that nobody can really focus on the real points, and the real issues Is that your feeling.

Speaker 2: 18:31

Attack ads have like 10% truth to them. So I have said we ought to consider adjusting the retirement age for younger people. So how that gets translated in the attack ads. They'll say Don Bacon wants to cut your benefits. So if they said Don Bacon wants to adjust, maybe, their retirement age, it actually pulls high because most Americans know that something has to be done. So my opponent for a while they were saying Don Bacon wants to adjust their retirement age. And it actually helps me out because most people know that I'm trying to tackle a problem and I think they like that right. I'm going to adjust the retirement age. That actually helps me out because most people know that I'm trying to tackle a problem and I think they like that right. I'm willing to tackle a problem.

Speaker 2: 19:07

But when you say someone wants to cut benefits, that supports drops. So the only way to defeat that is you've got to be very much in the public and make your case why and I've been able to defeat attack ads largely just by being out in the public, many events and telling my story on radio news. The problem is they want to get you to do counter ads on that particular topic. And then they got you, because now you're spending money defending yourself on their attack ads versus wanting to get your own message out. So I've tried to stick with my message on my advertising and campaigns. Then you've got to defeat the untruthful ads when you're doing radio interviews and TV interviews and things like that. I've been able to do it, but it's not easy.

Speaker 2: 19:58

The last few cycles it's been abortion ads. The last few cycles it's been abortion ads and the accusation was I wouldn't even supposedly support the claim, even for a life of the mother. I was against abortion, which is just baloney, right, right. But I think people know that and I've studied politics my whole life. I liked Ronald Reagan at 13. So I'm an avid reader. I was reading National Review on Human Events as a teenager.

Speaker 1: 20:28

Yeah cool.

Speaker 2: 20:28

I find that when people overreach in these attack ads, it backfires. You've got to have a legit target when you're doing an attack ad. You know, for me, my opponent was in the protest against the police in the summer of 2020. All I needed was to talk about hey, he protested our police. It was truthful, that's a legit attack ad and people know it's truthful and it works. When someone says you're not even for abortion for the life of the mother, most people think, eh, that doesn't sound like Don Bacon, right? Yeah, and so attack ads work if they're truthful. And how?

Speaker 1: 21:04

does the?

Speaker 2: 21:04

10% true.

Speaker 1: 21:06

How does the legality of that play out? Do some of those attack ads border on crossing a legal line? Or in politics, is it just kind of anything goes?

Speaker 2: 21:21

Well, we were successful to get one tv ad pulled because it was just an out out lie. And just last month the democrat national democrats put up billboards in my district saying don bacon, cut medicare or medicaid, and it's not true. So our lawyers said hey, if you don't pull those things down, we'll sue you. And they took them down. So there is some ways to go about this. But it's got to be clearly a lie and in this case these billboards were clearly lies from the National Democrats. Yeah, Listen.

Speaker 1: 21:55

That's a lot of why I wanted to have you on. To have you on because we live in an era now where somebody's full of BS. If they have a certain letter after their name, that's in the. So nobody listens and we don't find out anything that we should be using to base decisions on or our feelings about somebody. And for Democrats, what the most that a lot of them are going to ever see about you is going to be in the form of attack ads. You know, because most Democrats don't follow a lot of Republican accounts. So it comes close to election time and now your name pops up and that's all you see. But in this format one-on-one, just kind of a coffee shop conversation I think more and more people need to get to know people in the opposite party, especially when they have such positions as being pro-Ukraine and speaking out against authoritarianism. So let me talk a little bit more about your military background. How much did the military and the leadership roles that you had in the military, how much did that shape how you approach politics?

Speaker 2: 23:22

I was way into politics before I joined the military. I mean I joined the military at 21,. But before that I worked for a congressman, ed Madigan from Illinois. He was a fifth-ranking Republican ended up getting beat by Newt Gingrich for a speakership job, a speakership around 88 timeframe, or to be the senior part of the Republican conference in the House, and you know I was campaigning as a teenager for our candidates. But I think the military has helped me immensely because I have a lot more experience with foreign policy and national security.

Speaker 2: 23:53

I mean I served in the Middle East many times, so I understand Iraq, afghanistan, iran. I lived in UAE, bahrain, qatar, different portions of my life. I lived in Germany. I've worked with NATO. I know the importance of NATO. So I'm so fond of East Europeans. I love the Polish. The Poles, the Baltics are huge American supporters. I think this president, unfortunately, has undermined some of that support, which is unfortunate. But East Europe, they're very strong for freedom. I mean they lived under the Soviet heel and they want their freedom and so I love working with them and the Air Force gave me that opportunity.

Speaker 2: 24:34

I also stationed in the Philippines, I've been to Korea, I've worked with nuclear weapons and so I guess the bottom line is this experience has helped me in the House, especially being in the Armed Services Committee. I'm the chairman of the Cyber Subcommittee and I feel like I'm a better advocate for our defense because of my nearly 30 years in the Air Force. And I think also the Air Force makes it clear and the military does with all the services your character is what's most important and if you have a strong character and people trust you, you can get more done. But if people don't trust you it's hard to get things done. I learned that in the military.

Speaker 1: 25:12

Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 25:13

And I think that truth still exists in the political world as well. I think I learned how to communicate say what's important, you know. Try to get cut to the chase and say what's important. I learned how to communicate say what's important, you know. Try to get cut to the chase and say what's important. I learned that in the military. I tried to do the same thing, you know, in office. In fact, I'm one of the few politicians, if you will, I know how to speak on time. When you give me three minutes, I'm done at two minutes and 55 seconds right.

Speaker 1: 25:35

And that I would assume that takes a knack, that takes some experience to do that. I know just from having given speeches and doing podcasts. Not just anybody can do that unless they've really worked at it. Yeah, and in politics, and how fast the world moves today, you know. I'm sure you find a lot of situations where you've just got two or three minutes and you've got to pack it in.

Speaker 2: 26:02

Yeah, now, most politicians, though, say the same thing five times, and I said this is a different world. If military, I would have got kicked out of the office. Right, right.

Speaker 1: 26:13

For sure, for sure. By the way, just kind of a little bird told me and I think it's one of the coolest call names I've ever heard Bits. That when you were in the Bacon told me and I think it's one of the coolest call names I've ever heard Bits, bacon Bits.

Speaker 2: 26:26

I was Bacon Bits, or Bits Bacon, for 30 years. A lot of people don't even know my real name, yeah.

Speaker 1: 26:37

I learned that and I thought you know what I was with F-14 Fighter Squadron in Miramar, vf-24. So I'd been around some call names and I said that's the best one I've ever heard. You know it fits perfectly you know it's funny.

Speaker 2: 26:53

We all know what bits means here in America. You know you put it on your salads or baked potato. Sure it's a dirty word in Australia. Is that right, and so I flew with. I was on a base with half Australians, half Americans during the invasion of Iraq and these poor ladies from Australia would get red in the face. They couldn't call me bacon bits.

Speaker 1: 27:13

That's funny, oh boy. No, I didn't know that. I'll have to look that up, tell me. I've got a couple of other questions here for you. What danger and this may sound like a dumb question because so much of it is obvious, but what danger does Putin pose to the world if he goes unchecked?

Speaker 2: 27:35

Well, if Ukraine falls, I believe Moldova will definitely fall. It's not NATO, but it's put some right on the border with Romania and southeastern Europe. There, I think Georgia could easily be knocked. Some of the stands in Central Asia could fall. Putin wants to restore his old borders and Ukraine was a threat to him because they're Slavic and they wanted democracy. And suddenly that puts pressure. Okay, now they're going to think Russians think they can do it and that became a threat a free and democratic free market. Ukraine was a threat to Putin's lifestyle and his power.

Speaker 2: 28:17

I worry about the Baltics. The Baltics are under a lot of pressure. There's 8 million of them. We tabulate the three countries pressure there's 8 million of them. We tabulate the three countries together. That's not much, and they're very vulnerable, even though they're part of NATO. I also think China's watching this whole thing. If they see a lack of resolve by United States, why not take Taiwan? And we know that China would like to be able to do so in 2027. That's how they've positioned their forces and they think 2027, I don't know they're going to do it, but 2027, they want to be able to do it Right. So they're watching us and Iran is watching us.

Speaker 2: 28:54

North Korea is sending troops to Russia Now. They're up to about 15,000 North Korean troops, of which 40 percent of them have already been killed About a 40 percent attrition rate with the North Korean forces there. I think worse yet, if Russia prevails this whole notion of the rules-based international order where you respect borders, it's gone. Now, if you're stronger than your other guy, hey might makes right. That's not good.

Speaker 2: 29:23

We don't want to be in a world that's that way, and I think America's credibility is on the line right here. What kind of powerful country are we going to be? Are we going to be every man for himself, hide behind our borders, or are we going to be a country that can work with NATO, can work with Japan and try to protect the values that we hold dear? That's what I am and I don't hear that from this administration. This administration is more. It's totally a realist philosophy, whereas I have a blend of realism and idealism. You've got to protect your country. That makes you a realist, but I want to have good ideals that we promote and support, and I don't see that in this administration. It's a strictly you know what's in it for me mindset and I don't think that's a good foreign policy. I think it would be better.

Speaker 1: 30:12

Do you think and this is something I've been wondering, I know, in years past I was confident of this. But do you think, if China were to move on Taiwan, do you think that the United States would mount an aggressive support role, or as aggressive as we once might have, as?

Speaker 2: 30:34

aggressive as we once might have. You know we say we will, and I know Joe Biden said multiple times that he would. Then his staff would say you can't say that, so they would backtrack. And this happened like three or four times, which was a little bit humorous.

Speaker 2: 30:48

President Trump I don't know if he's been so clear, but I will tell you we have plans I've seen them OK To help protect Taiwan in an invasion. Now, whether the president will do that or not, I'm not sure, but what's more important, we should deter an invasion. Part of this deterrence is how we're going to handle Ukraine right. That communicates to China. We're willing to stand up to authoritarianism and an invasion. I think it's even more important.

Speaker 2: 31:16

We got to get the right weapons in Taiwan right now, and we had a huge backlog. I remember I went to talk to Secretary of Defense Senator Biden and I said what are you doing to get this backlog? He says, well, we got to think. We put together a group of people to study this. And I go you're the Secretary of Defense, put your fist on the table. So you want sea mines to Taiwan tomorrow, and the anti-shipping missiles should be there next week and the air defense stuff should be there. So what Taiwan needs is air defense missiles that can shoot sink ships, sea mines and things like this to prevent an amphibious invasion. And they should have that right now, because that's how you deter an invasion, and I'd rather prevent a war than have to get into one and try to stop China because it would be ugly. A war with China will be ugly. I'd rather deter it, but I've got to tell you China's looking at how hard it is for Russia right now. They're like maybe this isn't so easy. That's a good thing.

Speaker 1: 32:14

Right. So in your mind, if we don't play an aggressive role with Russia and Ukraine, that probably increases the likelihood then of China moving on Taiwan.

Speaker 2: 32:28

Yeah, the United States is going to intervene. You know America's intervention is a strong deterrent. But if you don't think America has the will or the desire, suddenly, if you're the powerful neighbor, you just attack your weaker neighbor, and you're going to see that not just Ukraine, you're going to see a lot more of it from other countries too. And we created this international order, rule-based order, and it's been a good one. And I worry that we're backing away from it, that we're backing away from our alliance system, and that void will be filled by Russia and China.

Speaker 1: 33:06

Yeah, Militarily, how are we? Let's say, something breaks loose hot and heavy with Iran and China moves on Taiwan and all hell breaks loose with Russia and Ukraine. Are we stretched thin in a situation like that, or?

Speaker 2: 33:26

are we okay? We used to say we wanted to be able to fight two wars at once and we had that capability, but we've done so many massive cuts since 1990. Our force structure is less than half of what it was just 30 years ago and I don't really blame it because it was the peace dividend. The Soviet Union fell. China wasn't really a threat in the 90s, but we did have Iraq. You know, they invaded Kuwait Right and then we had 9-11. So there's always bad guys out there. We have overwhelming capacity to crush Iran if we wanted to. China's a tough fight. They got a bigger Navy than we do now. We have a bigger Air Force than they do, but a Taiwan fight is in their backyard. It's a long reach for us and they have long range weapons that will make it hard to get into the Taiwan area. That's why it's so important to have the right weapons in Taiwan now, so that they have what they need, and that's a deterrent and that's what we've got to do.

Speaker 2: 34:28

Obviously, Russia is a clear threat to its neighbors. That said, look how weak their military has been. I mean Ukraine has delivered a butt. Kick into these guys and it's an embarrassment to Putin and his military. I mean they've lost thousands of tanks, 800,000 Russian casualties. I mean it's appalling, Ukraine has outfought them, but they're only one-fourth the size of Russia. That's the problem. They're having to beat a country four times its population size. But Russia's military is not good. They make good tanks, they make good missiles. They have poor leadership. Their leadership does not command from the junior soldiers and have them move out and get the job done. They've learned from our military how to delegate, how to trust.

Speaker 1: 35:26

Okay, congressman Bacon, understandably you've got other things to do today.

Speaker 2: 35:30

I've enjoyed it.

Speaker 1: 35:31

Well, I have too. Hey, thank you so much for coming on and speaking as openly as what I've watched you do in recent months, so thank you.

Speaker 2: 35:42

Well, it's an honor to be interviewed by you, so I look forward to doing it again.

Speaker 1: 35:46

Thank you, so do I.

Speaker 2: 35:47

Bye-bye.

Speaker 1: 35:48

Bye-bye.