Why now? Glenn reacts to the accusations in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ new book

January 08, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ new book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War, is gaining a tremendous amount of attention because of the things it ‘exposes’ about the Obama Administration. Gates claims President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both told him that their opposition to the surge in Iraq was purely political. Meanwhile, Gates accuses Biden of “poisoning the well” against military leadership and says “he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

While conservatives and Republicans may appreciate the opportunity to say “I told you so” when it comes Gates' reports about the current Administration’s feelings towards the military, Glenn has a major problem with the timing of Gates’ revelations.

"So Robert Gates is coming out with this book, and I have no interest in it,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “And when we were on the winter break, I realized what it was. And Pat went off on a rant. And I said, you know, that's it. That's why I have no interest in it.”

The book, as Glenn sees, is remarkably hypocritical and a way for Gates to make a quick buck off of some of the more controversial things he witnessed during his tenure as Secretary of Defense. When you consider the gravity of the decisions Gates’ was involved in and how much he seems to disapprove of the Obama Administration’s decisions, one has to wonder why he didn’t speak up sooner.

“Where were you, you miserable worm, when this was all going on and you were carrying out the policies? Where were you then,” Pat asked exasperatedly. “They used you as a shield… And now that he can make money off it, [he] writes a book and stabs everybody in the back. Now he has a problem. Where were you then? Where were you then?”

In the book, which will be released later this month, Gates describes why he nearly quit his job at several points during the Obama presidency because he disagreed with the policy decisions. But, as Glenn, Pat, and Stu explained, telling the world how much you disagreed at the time – when tens of thousands of American lives were on the line – is simply unacceptable.

“If you think this is dangerous policy that's hurting America, I think you have an obligation to speak up,” Pat said. “[This is about] saving lives on the battlefield. This is about war. This is pretty serious stuff.”

Glenn: General Boykin is an honorable man, such a remarkable man. And I'll never forget when he said, on my set, and I think he said it on air. If he didn't, I know he wouldn't have a problem with me saying it. He said, it is past time that somebody with actual stars on their shoulders walk in to the Oval and put them down. I cannot do it another day. I resign and I am going outside of this building and I'm going to hold a press conference and say why I resign. He said, there's nobody left that will do that. Gates should have done that. Now Gates will play this little game in his head, well, I couldn't have done that because they would replace me with somebody worse. So I did my duty by standing in the line of fire. And then what? Then what? You write a book? You go write a book? Oh, okay. I got it. If you are going to dedicate your life to now reversing all of the things that you were a part of, it's despicable. Really despicable. I have a problem with people writing books.

Glenn has no problem with Gates’ right to write a book about and make money off of his experience, but he does have a problem about the way in which Gates has handled this situation.

“I don't have a problem with people writing books and making money. I don't have a problem with people staying in [a job] because they think: ‘If I leave, they are going to replace me with somebody worse.’ I don't have a problem with people resigning when they figure out what's going wrong,” Glenn explained. “But I do have a problem with people that resign their commission or post and go out and try to repair, try to correct the injustice and the problems that they found. What's he doing? He's writing a book. Making money. Then what? Then what? What are you doing then?”

When you consider the platform Gates had while he was in office and power his opinion had, one has to question his true intentions if he could wait four plus years to make these fear known to the American people.

“Can you imagine what this guy could have done if he was in front of a Congressional hearing? Can you imagine if he didn't have that conversation behind the scenes,” Glenn asked. “He could have gone to his people and said, ‘I want to you have a joint session that it's televised.’ And he could have gone up to Capitol Hill and… [said], ‘I want the American people to know, and I want Congress to know exactly what I have found and what's going on.’ Do you know how this man could have changed the world?”

Ultimately, Glenn concluded that he will not be lining up to purchase Gates’ new book, and he had this to say to anyone in government who is not speaking up about problems they have observed:

The world is looking for heroes. We're not looking for revolutionaries. We're looking for heroes. Looking for somebody who has the balls to stand up. Somebody who has the balls to say, ‘You know what? To hell with it all… Something else is bigger than me. Something else is bigger than my bank account. Something else is bigger than my fame, my fortune. Something else is bigger than even my family.’

Well, Mr. Gates… how can I trust you? How can I trust anybody? How can I trust you to tell me the truth about the NSA? Did that play a role in you staying? Has that played a role with anybody in Congress? The NSA still won't answer the question: Are you spying on members of Congress? Can we trust members of Congress to tell us the truth on the NSA, when the NSA will not confirm that they are not spying on members of the Congress?

And oh, by the way, do you trust the NSA? Do you think Mr. Clapper is going to tell you the truth? Do you think Mr. Clapper, even if he was on truth serum, knows what the truth is? The guy was the one who told us that the Muslim Brotherhood is totally fine. And he's the one that we're getting our guarantee from on the NSA?

I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, I'm a busy man… And I get home and just like every other American, Mr. Gates. All I want to do is play with my kids. All I want to do is be with my kids. All I want to do is study the things that are important. I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, I don't have time to purchase or read your book. But thanks for the tip that we can't trust this administration. That comes as a total surprise.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep