The Senate has confirmed Jack Lew as the United States' new ambassador to Israel and it reveals a lot about what Biden's true intentions may be. Glenn runs through the basic qualifications an ambassador to Israel should have — a deep understanding of the Jewish culture, foreign policy, and Iran. So, does Jack Lew — Obama's former Treasury Secretary who played a key role in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — check the boxes? Well, Glenn says he has a feeling that Lew won't be too popular in Israel, especially as Iranian-backed terrorists continue to attack.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm President Biden's pick for ambassador to Israel. I don't think he's going to be real popular over there.
Now, this has been a month's long vacancy. How is that possible?
Well, President Biden really picked somebody really, really good.
The qualifications. What do you think the qualifications to the ambassador to Israel. What should he have?
I mean, maybe, he should be Jewish.
Okay. The new ambassador.
Checks that box. He's an Orthodox Jew. Observes the Sabbath. So far so good. Our ambassador to Israel should also have experience to foreign policy. Kind of important, saying the region is a tinderbox right now. Might be a little bit of an understatement.
Well, the nominee, he did serve as Obama's deputy secretary of state, for management and resources.
That is referred to as the chief operating officer of the State Department. So, you know, give it all the aid that we'll probably throw at the region. Could be a valuable skill set.
No. No. Now, of course, much of that aid is going to Gaza. But we know this new ambassador that was passed yesterday, by the Senate, knows how to handle finance. I mean, real finance. Real money too.
His name is Jack Lew. He's the new ambassador.
Lieu was also the director of the office of management and budget, under both Clinton and Obama.
And then he served as Obama's Treasury secretary from 2013 to 2017. So that's great. Right?
As we learned from Ukraine, keeping track of our foreign aid, is going to be very important. And if he's the ambassador, it will be great.
Oh, wait. What?
We just throw it out like Oprah?
And hope it blows up Russia or something?
What? There's definitely no money laundering going on?
What do you mean?
Having the guy who ran the US Treasury. The opera or operas is going to make things worse?
No. It can't be. It can't be. The third thing I think we should learn about the ambassador of Israel. He has a very solid understanding of Iran.
And Jack Lew has a very solid understanding on Iran.
Because Hamas isn't funding itself. Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Houthi rebels in Yemen, they're all getting their money and orders from Iran.
So we don't want to send more. What?
He's going to send. Okay.
Wait a minute.
Apparently, Jack Lew is one of the main players in Iran's nuclear deal.
He is also the main guy Obama used to sell the deal to the Jewish community.
Now, he probably quickly realized the deal backfired. Well, in 2017, he said, I think Israel is safer today, than it was before the deal, when Iran was genuinely approaching having a nuclear weapon.
So remember the pallet of cash, that we put on the airport there for Iran?
Yeah. That's Jack Lew.
So good pick for ambassador. For Israel. Right?
Every Senate Republican, except for two, voted no!
The two that voted for him, Rand Paul, and warmonger extraordinaire Lindsey Graham.
Now, is there a chance that Jack Lew will use his financial and negotiation skills to bring peace back to the region?
Or maybe he's the perfect guy to continue what Biden has been doing all along. Appeasing Iran. Making the perfect opportunity for government money laundering.
But, I mean, honestly, if we could print our own money in the basement, I mean, wouldn't you?
STU: So Rand Paul -- Rand has been on the record kind of to approve most nominees. Right? That's kind of been his stance over the years.
He pretty much believes -- he believes in pretty much rubber stamps. He believes unless there's something deeply unconstitutional about him.
I vote yes.
I am there to affirm. This is the way it used to be done, pretty much.
You would send somebody. And the Senate would not hold it for very long.
They would say, yes, Mr. President. That's who you want. That's who you get.
Unless there's something deeply disturbing.
And I think there's something deeply disturbing. You know, about Jack Lew.
STU: Right. It's interesting tool. On the money part of this.
The Republican Party stopped caring about spending. I don't know what year it was.
But pretty recently. At least stopped saying they -- they cared about spending.
They really just -- I guess they habitized it. Only when they're in the opposition, do they say anything about it, basically at this point.
And it does not seem to be to be a central part of the platform anymore. It's good. You want to make sure that you watch where this money goes. I think there's no reason to avoid doing something like that.
I think the interesting part about this, is that this is such a bad situation.
I am someone who does care about spending. Like, we bring on budget experts all the time.
We still talk about how the debt is out of control.
Like, it's an issue I still care about.
But when it comes to issues like both Ukraine and Israel, it is lower on my priority list. It's not the top thing, I'm thinking about when I'm thinking about it.
Like Ukraine is a great example of this. I'm upset about all the money we're spending in Ukraine.
It's not my top concern, however, when it comes to Ukraine.
My top concern is this moronic group of people, getting us into World War III.
STU: Like. I don't want them to spend the money. But if they spent the money on lollipops, I would also be very upset about it. But I don't think it would cause World War III.
GLENN: Yeah, right. I get that. I am concerned about -- that's why I like the deal that the House has just put together for Israel.
If Biggs gets the amendment. Where you have to have eyes on it. That should be a given. That should just be a given.
So you have to have eyes on it.
And the money comes from something you didn't spend that you said you wanted before.
Well, now you want this.
Okay. We will take that.
That is the way everybody in the real world works.
STU: Yeah. And it's a way to actually address both things. There's no reason, why we can't take it from some delapidated. Either not spending it. Or wasting it.
GLENN: Yeah. I don't think. And this is a real thing. We spent, I don't know how many millions on -- I guess mapping the vaginas of lesbians in the Congo.
I mean, what -- what?
STU: Mapping them.
GLENN: Well, I don't know exactly what we did with them.
But we were studying them for some reason.
And I don't know why.
STU: I don't want to know why.
GLENN: I don't want to know why.
Just stop. Stop.
There's enough cookies in the cookie jar. That are so bad, that we should take them out of the jar.
STU: And, you know, look, I've never been to the Congo.
I had a time share there. But I never made it out there.
STU: But my belief is it's probably not the greatest place to live on a daily basis.
And if so, leave these people alone.
Stop studying their vaginas. Just let them live their lives. You don't need to go in there with all your equipment. Just them alone. Let them breathe. You know what I'm saying? Let them hang out there. That -- that should be lower on your concern list.