Hotter Than the Sun: Time to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (feat. Scott Horton)

Welcome to Keith's and I don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute today. I'm joined by the director of the libertarian Institute, Scott. Horton to discuss his book hotter than the sun time to abolish nuclear weapons. A collection of interviews with Daniel Ellsberg Seymour Hersh and many others, I can't pronounce those other names. Who are they again? Okay. Yeah, well, there's some good

ones right there. So, after Hirsch is gar alperovitz, So, who is a famous historian and is written? I believe two major books on the decision to Nuke Who Rose from and Nagasaki and how it was all about scaring Stalin and that kind of thing. And then after him is Hans, kristensen from the Federation of American scientists. And I think cpri, and, and then joseon Sione, who was formerly at the ploughshares fund. Who's now at the Quincy Institute is a great anti-nuclear expert.

But then if you saw the Tweet thread this morning, you see, there's something What was the table of contents here? And there are some some people are are interviewed more than once, but there are I'm going to guess probably like 25 or 30 different people interviewed in here and you know, just like with fools there and Keith. It's the book is not just the case for getting out of Afghanistan. It's my history of the war in Afghanistan, right?

And same with enough already, it's not a polemic about, like, my opinion is, we should stop this. It's my version of the history of the last 40 years, by the end of it. You'll agree with the subtitle, right? But that's really only the last Which is we ought to get the hell out and we ought to stop this right as well but that's the title of the book. Because You know, for whatever effect that can have. I want that statement to be upfront that like that's the

point is to quit this. So it's going here. This book covers all different aspects of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare and the nuclear weapons Lobby, and the nuclear programs of the so-called Rogue states in the Middle East, including Israel and also North Korea, of course. And and also we talked about Hiroshima Nagasaki. Key. And then all the anti-nuclear activism and all of that. But yes, like a one common thread throughout the book is that it really doesn't have to

be this way at all. We kind of have this idea that it just goes without saying from now on. Well, now that there's nukes the most powerful Nations have to hold them at each other's head forever, to keep the peace in this sort of Mexican standoff with h-bombs and that otherwise we would be full-scale war in Europe. Again maybe full-scale War everywhere.

And I don't think that's right. And I think that even though people make the argument that Mutual assured, destruction has kept the peace, you know, over the last 70 years since the Soviets got their hands on nukes as well.

I think you could make a credible case that if they hadn't got their hands on nukes America, mind a nuke them and just invaded the Soviet Union. But once they got nukes that prevented that from happening and they haven't been used in Anger since Japan. And yet, if that ever fails and mutual assured destruction, Auction you know breaks down and

somebody's Bluff is called. Then the consequences of that may be low risk possibility are so high and so drastic that it should really be the highest priority of all political leaders in the world and of the populations of the planet to seek nuclear disarmament. And you know what, I'm not a hippie and I'm not a utopian and I know that this 1940s technology Ecology, and you can't uninvent it. However, it's really difficult to make a nuke.

It's essentially impossible for a sub State actor to do. It may be a major corporation in a powerful Western Country. Could do it. But not in secret, they couldn't not really and get away with just impossible to do. So, if you have, you know, if it's outlawed globally by treaty, then you can have an inspections regime that could essentially ensure nobody's cheating. Eating and if anybody does try to cheat and make a new well then you'd have to deal with that too.

But it's just like, you know, their treaties, outlawing slavery and so forth. It, you know, if you want to be a member of the International Community, private slavery, has to be illegal in your country and there is still slavery in the world particularly in Africa and in the Middle East. And so, but that doesn't mean you just give up on having those laws. It means that you try to work better to have them implemented and set people free.

Re so and and frankly you know I could say this upfront to maybe I'm ruining your whole interview here. Keifa part of the story here is that Ronald Reagan almost made a deal with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986. This is two years before the Wall came down. This is before anyone thought the Soviet Union would cease to exist. The Cold War was coming to an end. Reagan had decided he wanted, you know, he had been a real player and brinkmanship in his

first term. And then it was a few different things, affected him and change his mind. And he eventually decided he was on a mission from God, like The Blues Brothers to abolish nuclear weapons. And to off the face of the Earth and joseon Sione tells the story in the book because he talked with George Shultz and George Shultz told him the whole story, he was Reagan's secretary of state. The only people in the room was Gorbachev the translators Reagan and Shultz.

And Reagan said, alright Gorbachev, let's just get there. I know, Raikou Vic, Iceland 1986 and he says, let's just get rid of all the short and medium-range missiles. This is after he just they had both poured thousands in. I mean not Gorbachev of the Soviets important thousands of mid-range missiles in Europe and then Reagan match them by pouring in all the Pershing missiles and all this people are terrified. It's going to lead to nuclear

war. So Reagan says, let's get rid of all these and this ended up leading to the INF treaty the one that Trump only broke a couple of years ago. And that Putin insisted we get back in and Biden refused, the intermediate nuclear forces, Treaty of 1987. But Reagan said, let's get rid of all the short-range and medium-range missiles and Gorbachev says, all right. Hey let's get rid of all the long-range missiles to everything. And Reagan turns to Schulz and

says can we do that? And salt says you're damn right, mr. President we can do that, do it, do it, do it, do it. And they said, all right, well, let's start talking about this. What would be the frame of the thing? How are we going to do the thing? And part of Gorbachev's insistence, was that we would have to abandon the missile Shield. Well, if we get rid of all the missiles then who needs Star Wars anyway and of course it didn't work. I mean, if I Hold you in the

year 2022? Yeah, we're going to put all these space-based, lasers up there, that are going to destroy all the incoming nukes. You'd be like Horton, don't give me that crap. You just gonna waste a couple of Troy, right? Like it's bogus, 40 years in the future, it's still bogus right? In 1986. This is the most ridiculous fantasy that they're going to have a missile Shield, a nuclear umbrella, like not will protect you by threatening retaliation on your behalf.

But somehow we would have an umbrella that would protect the United States of America from icbms being able to detonate over our cities. This is just a lot. And so what happened was you won't be surprised to know Keith. It was Richard Perle and some of the others and and there are others involved are named in the

book as well. But Richard Perle, the so-called Prince of Darkness who was one of the major ringleaders of the neoconservative plot to lives in the war with Iraq in And to just as important as Paul wolfowitz that same guy helped convince Reagan that know if you do this, you'll be betraying your promise to the American people to build the missile Shield again, no missiles. No need for shield.

So who cares? And not that this apiece, the Neo cons because for the rest of the Reagan term Norman podhoretz and all of his men called Ronald Reagan Neville. Chamberlain appeasing Hitler at Munich as he was ending the Cold War. Or and dissolving the USSR. Essentially, they're calling him Neville Chamberlain and a weakling and all of this stuff so didn't buy him.

Any good will with those Hawks and and frankly he ruined the best chance, he was a hair away from abolishing nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. So that I'll tell you right there. When Ronald Reagan and George Shultz are working with Mikhail Gorbachev when nobody even knows that the USSR is going to cease to exist at all.

People imagined, at that time I was old enough, then I can't You at that time, the idea was the Soviet Union would live past the year 2000 and into the 21st century and no one knew exactly what was going to happen. But the whole thing was just going to dissolve, you know, just a raimondo and a very few other people were saying that in 1986 almost no one was saying that 1986 not certainly in, you know, broader understanding in the popular culture at all and, and they were willing to do it

anyway. And then the idea would was not magic rice, not Superman for, he's going to come and get rid of everything. Thing. Take care of everything for us. It would have been first of all, incoming on the Americans and the Soviets to dismantle all of our nukes. Down to about 200, that way we have the same as everybody else, the British, the French, the Chinese, the Israelis, the Indians, the pakistanis, probably have somewhere right around there, right?

That's all Chinese got to 300. So at that time, too. So we just get down to where everybody's got about 200 and then will host a new conference and we'll say, Let's see if we can get down to 100 and then we'll see if we can get down to 50. We'll see if we can get down to 10. Then like look Keith, I'm willing to settle for 10, okay, I don't know, I'm not this, I'm not calling for again, it's a very Stark title time to abolish

nuclear weapons. Well, whatever man if I could get if we not, I if we could have a world where instead of 15,000 nukes, we have 100 then that's Frequently better and it ought to be more than enough to deter any possible adversary. You know, there was a group of Air Force. Generals, did a study. There was one. I like this side but I could never find it again. So I'll drop that. But there's certainly one by the air force that said they could make do with, as little as three

hundred news. Well, we got 1,500 right now. So let's divide by 5 and then see from there, right? Let's do that. If we could do that. So in the cold war, with the Russians is what Donald Trump should have done his first day in office. Was invite Putin to DC and say let's start signing some treaties Welsh of this Russia gate crap. Write down these damn Democrats. Throws will make them oppose a new nuclear arms reduction treaty will Stomp Them you know,

something creative like that. Yeah, right. But it is doable, it's not a fantasy. And and when you really recognize the destructive capability of just one h-bomb, you know this one on the cover, this is the Red Wing. Apache, test from 1956. That's just one point one megatons. That's one Megaton bomb. And that's enough to kill all Houston. Okay, never mind a 10 Megaton bomb her five Megaton bomb, something like that.

Imagine bomb 10 times. That size thing, It's enough to kill all of Dallas, all Houston in just one shot. And then the same for the other side for Shanghai, all of Shanghai everyone in Shanghai dead from one bomb everyone in Moscow or st. Petersburg or wherever it's just intolerable that this is the situation. What are we going to leave it like this for another 70 years but don't worry. These are never going to go off. We're gonna leave it like this for the next 700 years.

Fact, this is the future of all of humanity. We have h-bombs pointed at each other's head from now on, We don't need any new ideas. I'm just gonna go with that and don't sound right to me. So how's that for one big? Hell of a long explanation of the entire book? For my first answer here? I want to look at the three primary examples that advocates for nuclear Armament, give when it comes to the importance even when they could be skeptical of

u.s. foreign policy. They'll say with regard to Iraq being restricted in the early 90s from pursuing a nuclear arms program Libya in 2003 pursuing disarmament. Yes, in 2003 and Ukraine in 1994 with the Budapest memorandum, so Iraq, Libya and Ukraine. Gave up their nukes got invaded and got screwed. Therefore, it's not time to abolish nuclear weapons, time to increase the amount that people have to deter aggressors like the US and Putin. Okay, well, those are all interesting questions.

Let's start with South Africa that gave up their nukes, and nothing happened to them at all. People leave that off the list, because nothing happened to them at all. So, when convenient right now, in the case of Iraq, they had an aboveboard safeguarded iaea inspected nuclear facility, a

toaster rack. I forget if they were actually a member of the non-proliferation treaty or not, I think they were, they certainly had a safeguards agreement with the Aea and then the Israelis Bond it, in 1981, flying American jets and that drove the program underground and really was until the late 80s that Hussein embarked on a secret nuclear weapons program. And he did that, you know, I think starting in like 88 and by the time of Iraq war one, he had

a nuclear weapons program. Although he was still, I think probably quite a few years from having even a single Atom bomb worth of enriched uranium. He did not have a massive effort. So you know, as far as and and I should go back and really study the extent of the weapons program that they did find after Iraq war one. And it's true that the CIA had said, no, there's nothing going on there. And then in the aftermath of Iraq, war one, they found it. And there was something going on

there. A secret underground nuclear weapons program again, the Israelis had driven it underground by bombing the safe. Art of facility, where all of their military? All of their nuclear material was accounted for and prevented from being diverted to any

military purpose. So the Israeli strike was counterproductive there, although I don't think that their their new program was an imminent threat to anyone at that time and if they'd really started to make nukes, so I really have a weapons program not just some kind of minimal, uranium enrichment program that would have been found out. Before they would have been able to make a new coal.

Most certainly and again you know, if America had not, if the Carter and I didn't I shouldn't have said again there. So if I keep saying this but not today on your show if Carter and Reagan had not backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran and financed his chemical and biological weapons programs and the rest of that in the 1980s, they might have had an entirely different Saddam Hussein to deal with. None of this takes place in a vacuum.

And so you know, why did he think he even needed a new cat All rights? Because there was a, you know, Revolution next door, the blowback against America's previous, KU 25 years before that, a neuron and a new Shiite Revolution that he felt, he had to help us contain and all of these things. So, You know, whether that could have been dealt with another way. I think almost certainly, if he had just had a civilian program and have been a nation at peace during the 1980s.

Then there's no reason to think that he would have gotten a time bomb for all the trouble that it would have caused them. And look what happened when they just pretended that he was going to make an atom bomb. They invaded his country said. We're not even going to take the Chaney's to the 1% chance that he might get his hands on a new core, something like that. And the case of Libya, you got to understand.

The only reason Qaddafi bought a bunch of Black Market centrifuge stuff from the pakistanis first generation old junk was simply so that he would have some stuff to trade away. He'd been trying to suck up to the Americans and get back in the brought back in, from the cold.

As they say, since, at least 1996, according to Gary Hart, who wrote article in, it was New York Magazine could have been know if he was the New Yorker. Nothing was New York Magazine, wrote a piece about how the libyans had approached him in Athens in 1996. Same will do anything to come and suck up to you and to be brought it back in from the

cold. And of course, the negotiations under Clinton went nowhere even though Qaddafi was the first person to put out an Interpol warrant for Osama Bin Laden that same year in 96. In fact, America and the MI6 preferred to Ally with the Libyan, Islamic fighting group to try to kill Qaddafi during that time. So what he did was he bought a bunch of old junk from a queue cons garage sale and he had it all sitting in crates in Tripoli and but he didn't have any scientists who were capable of

making a nuclear weapon. Or of Designing, even a program to engineer, how they were, would even approach such a subject and I have at least in the long version of enough. Already with all my footnotes I have all the scientists. You know, the real nuclear weapons experts saying they just did not have. I guess it's iaea reports. Even they just did not have anyone in Libya capable of turning this thing into a nuclear program of any

description. Much less a nuclear weapons program and so essentially amounted to nothing it'd be like if somebody, you know, put a bunch of junk from a queue cons garage sale over at your house and your like, oh look here. Bush. Have a Centrifuge. And and then pretend that your war in Iraq is what led me to give up a centrifuge to you, dude.

You know what I mean? You need a PR stunt, here's a PR stunt, but meanwhile, you have no capability of making nuclear weapons anymore than or any less than moammar Qaddafi did write. It was just a PR stunt and if you remember you're too young. But for people who remember in 2003, when they did this this was the narrative. See the war in Iraq, intimidated, Libya into Giving in.

So I know that you keep saying there's not a single Silver Lining to this absolute catastrophe of an aggressive war against pre supposedly, pre-empting a threat that did not exist in Iraq, but see, we threaten Qaddafi and said we scared him. See what we did to Saddam. You better give up your centrifuges when again that's just a lie. Gaddafi been begging to come in for the cold by that time for what seven years. Never not gonna. Math on the fly.

But yeah, again in the case of that right. What the Budapest memorandum? Oh yeah, so you create those nukes never belong to Ukraine in the first place. Those were the Soviet Union's nukes. And when the Soviet Union dissolved, they took their nukes with them. They did the same thing in Kazakhstan. It's just this make-pretend BS looks, it's just a lie. That all yes be Ukraine had all these nooks and they meekly surrendered them and made themselves vulnerable. They had no capability of

hanging onto those nukes. The only Monopoly on violent force in Ukraine. At that time, was the Red Army was the Soviet Union's, you know, KGB and police forces and military forces there. So this is not some voluntary thing of theirs in the first place. They were a satellite of the Soviet In and the Soviet Union took their nukes with them. And then, does anybody really think that because they don't got nukes Putin attack them but people just read Democrat, Twitter all day.

Is that what you think happened here? Not you, but anyone listening to this? What happened here is that George w-- Bush promised to bring Ukraine into NATO? And then Barack Obama did everything to help to speed that process along, including overthrowing the government in a violent Street, put in February 2014, that immediately led to a bloody war that killed fourteen thousand people in the donbas in the East.

When they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the new coo Junta that America had installed in power there. So, as and look, it's a long and complicated thing, go put my name in Ukraine into the YouTube seem to give a speech about it, or whatever, if you want. But Putin said all along and including in his Declarations of War, he's got security concerns. And if America truly integrates Ukraine into our military Alliance, that means we can install missiles.

Just like, we promised, we never would in Poland. We could install missiles in Harkey. That Could get to Moscow in five to 15 minutes depending on the make of the missile, a Hypersonic, could get there in five minutes. He went like this. He says, it's like a knife at our throat. Look at what happened in Crimea, the Russians.

First of all, Khrushchev had only given the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 as some internal politics in the Soviet Union because he needed the support of the Communist Party of Ukraine to help him. Take power after Stalin died. So this is, you know, a trade-off. But if I told you that an Edict of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet, Union was holy writ Keith.

You just laugh in my damn Bass, you know, the fact of the matter is crimea's belong to Russia since 1783 the same year that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. And John Jay went to Paris to sign the Treaty of Paris ending. The Revolutionary War with Great Britain was still four years before our Constitution was written much less implemented, you know, ratified and implemented as still nine year, eight years before the The ratification and implementation of the US Constitution. This one.

Catherine, the Great stole the Crimean Peninsula with violent Force away from the Turks. Okay. So if Massachusetts is part of the United States of America than Crimea is part of Russia, the fact that Khrushchev gave it to, you know, to Ukraine as an administrative detail, at the height of the Soviet Union's power in the 1950s is

essentially irrelevant. But then after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians kept their Naval Base there, sir, only all year-round, warm water Port is of course the height of their priority there and they've had their if they're black sea, naval fleet stationed there for a couple of hundred years now and they simply least the base. From Ukraine.

And there were various Independence movements in Crimea in the 24 years in between the fall of the Soviet Union and the coup and the war in 2014. And the Russians, never really gave them much support and encourage them to break away or anything like that. Then Obama overthrows the government in a violent Street Butch and then for former presidents issue a letter saying now is our chance.

Kick the Russians out of the Naval Base at sevastopol only then in the spring of the year, 2014, 24 years after the fall of the Soviet Union through the Russian sees the Crimean Peninsula and say, oh no, you don't, it belongs to us first. Not you. So was it nukes. That was keeping him out the whole time? No, they were the ones with the nukes and Ukraine had no noobs for 24 years. They seized the Crimean

peninsula. Angela because Barack Obama threatened to take it away from them, simple as that. And in fact, there's kind of a funny speech where Putin says You know, we thought about how nice it might be to go down to Sylvester Paul to visit our NATO Partners at their new Naval base

for the holidays. But then we thought, no, you know, what would be even nicer than that will keep the base and you guys are good friends and NATO Partners, you come and visit us. So even if we pin this all Iraq Libya and the Ukraine issue on America, you could just make the case that the rest of the world needs nukes to be safe from the American Empire. That how is it that the smaller countries can have leverage when operating against India? Pakistan, China, Russia? And the US?

Well I think that's a real good point and you know like in my argument America would be having a lead the way in good. Faith in nuclear disarmament on this issue. We're going to sit on a pile of 7,000 nukes and assist the rest of the world disarm, while we still claim the right of pre-emptive, nuclear strikes against non-nuclear, weapon, States, and our official national security. Our nuclear posture review, as they do every year.

You know, by the way, Barack Obama changed that Barack Obama said that we I only reserve the right for nuclear first strikes against other nuclear weapons States or Iran but if you're any other non nuclear weapon state we no longer reserved the right to attack you with a nuke first. Will trump reverse that and put

it back to the way it was. Before fact, you might remember this one from 2008 Obama said, I'm sending the CIA to Pakistan the Drone War. We're going to escalate the Drone war in Pakistan. Fouquet to hiding there and a reporter asked him. I don't know where the reporter got this, but the reporter just settle well. Geez, Brock Obama, but you wouldn't use nukes on them. Would you and Obama goes? No, can use nukes.

We're talking about killing tribesmen, you know, one by one or ten by ten in the federally administered. Tribal territories in Northwestern Pakistan here. Why the hell do I use the H? Bombs for that? Yeah. Then Hillary Clinton attacked him because you see how naive and unprepared Barack Obama is

for this job. You don't ever say that you won't use nuclear weapons in a first strike against even sub State actors in tribal territories, in a friendly country you never ever ever say who you won't nuke, that's what makes a real qualified presidential candidate like me. Hillary Clinton said that's men. So to answer your question. Yeah. This Russian need nukes to keep us out of Russia right now. Yeah, they sure as hell.

Do. And India and Pakistan North Korea is their sovereignty protected by their nuclear weapons and China for that matter. Yes, it's true but as you're implying in your questionnaire we're the only ones who threatened. Them. Russia and China.

Look again. You know I'm not a utopian here maybe if we if we had my wildest day dream, come true type nuclear disarmament negotiations here, maybe Russia, and China would keep 50 each for each other to keep for the Russians, to keep the Chinese out of Siberia and then whatever, I don't know. Maybe Japan will get 5 to keep China out but China's not coming. And so, if and look and and China's militarism as it exists, now, I'm sorry, it's just true, I'm from here, it's just true.

Then this all a direct reaction to American provocations from the first Iraq war to Bill Clinton's, you know, Naval provocations in 1997, in the Taiwan Strait and the, you know, tangling with our Air Force under w--, Bush, and all these different things, have advanced their military. Doctrine. But, for example, if we weren't over there China's not afraid, that Japan is coming, right?

The question will be. Whether again, the question would be whether in Japan, whether China is coming and there's no reason to think so, they're, you know, not that they don't have some conflicts that need to be resolved. It imagine. What is at stake in a war between Japan and China? Now, even Without nuclear weapons at all. It's just, there's, there's got to be a way to negotiate a resolution, you know, Williams Jennings Bryan. Gave this speech back.

Whenever I don't know, probably gave it a hundred times Beholder, Republic, unlike those evil empires of the old world and he talks about how, you know what we should be doing is we should be hosting peace conferences all the time because we're Limited constitutional republic way over here. Safe in North America, separated, from the conflicts of the old world. We don't have a dog in their hunt, so we can just show up and host a peace conference without

a conflict of interest. And we can just do the right thing. Hey, India and Pakistan, then nobody wants to see y'all fight. If y'all really fight, you could kill billions of people. Through nuclear winter. Okay, we just can't have this. So on behalf of humanity. T, let's all sit down and figure out something over Kashmir.

China, you can come too. Let's come to some kind of agreement for limited autonomy and this and that and whatever that everybody can agree on. Same thing with kaliningrad and transnistria write these officially Russian and Breakaway pro-russian provinces in Eastern Europe. Something's going, we have what they call a frozen conflict unresolved conflict as we've seen just The last week it could

lead to nuclear war right here. He had Lithuania saying, well we're just implementing EU sanctions. We're going to cut off the Russians, from being able to supply kaliningrad by Railway, through their easement across Lithuania from Belarus through Lithuania. Well, that's a good way to get a war started and there's no reason for Russia to fight Lithuania at cept, if they do

something, Stupid like that. And by the way, it was in the New York Times with a Lithuanian, I think Deputy defense, minister says, well, Rush would never attack us for this because we're members of NATO. I mean, if we weren't, they probably would. Okay, that's the economic incentives of the politics of NATO, the way under the current American System. But let's just say you had a president Paul. And the point was to truly in good faith.

Negotiate a peaceful resolutions to all these conflicts. We take the lead here and it's just clear. Give us security guarantee. How about the exact opposite of our nuclear. First Strike Doctrine, how about we give our security guaranteed to Cuba Doctrine for some reason key that I'm not sure, I understand when Jack Kennedy promised Khrushchev will never ever, ever invade Cuba.

Again, that's stuck since 62. And we haven't, let's give let's call that the Cuba level, you know, Ironclad, absolutely, steel-clad security guarantee and will give one of the whole world will never attack you. Not with noakes not with Conventional Weapons. But boy, don't you ever mess with us and we'll be safe over here in North America and screw Alfred Mick Kinder. We don't want to dominate the old world. We don't care about any of that.

Crap anymore. And if that was truly, the Paul Doctrine for the United States of America and the 21st century going forward. Then we'd have a whole new situation to have to answer, but you're right under the current circumstances, the Joe Biden to insist the world disarmed. When he's the one holding the h-bomb to everybody's head and more than China or Russia or anyone else then. That's just obviously not going to fly. So we would, we would need A whole new way of doing things.

Are you surprised at how confident NATO members seemed after a 20-year NATO war ended with the Taliban taking Afghanistan and 11 days? I mean, they act like they're so powerful and they better not mess with us and the first time they declare Article 5. It was like the biggest mess that were totally ashamed of. Why do they have all this confidence after such a black eye? So self licking ice cream cone, man, the more they screw up, the better. It is for them.

What looks like not working to you looks like me but it's still not too bad to them, you know, government work. So look, I mean, the first thing they did and I only belatedly

came to this understanding. A few weeks ago, a couple months ago, it was only two or three weeks after officially admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into nato, in 1999 that they launch their Attack against Serbia to break off Kosovo, which of course is a basket case, disaster of a country of an American protectorate right now. And if we left, did be broken out right into conflict again and still have Camp bondsteel. There lording it over.

Those people to this day then, of course, as you say Afghanistan, I quote, a few different sources in Fool's errand talking about. This one is from General eikenberry. I sent him the book but he didn't respond but he he was mostly good on this but I did quote him saying, yes, that Afghanistan is a team-building exercise for NATO was part of why we're doing. This is just as they used to say in the 1990s out of area or out of business. We have to find something for

NATO to do or else. People will think we don't need it for anything. And then look at their catastrophe and Libya, they promised. And this is a huge part of what sabotage, our relationship with Russia was that Hillary Clinton essentially used and abused and made a chump out of President Dmitry Medvedev.

And you know old strongman dictator Putin had actually stepped down from the presidency was supposed to be from two terms and and had passed power to and had gone to the everybody knew he's still the king maker here. But still, he's not the one in the chair, he went to become the Prime Minister for a couple of years and then what happened was? Hillary promised me Ivette. If that listed Qaddafi, we have intelligence and all this.

That's where's qaddafi's about the murder every last man woman and child in Benghazi we gotta stop him. This is your chance to really make nice with us on you know getting along on the UN security. Counsel and passing this resolution, I'm sure she probably threatened him. We're going to do it anyway with or without a resolution but I forget. Now he abstained some of the they got China to abstain or even vote for it, too. I need to go back and look at

that. I don't know how they got trying to stay out of that. They could have easily vetoed it and they had oil interest at stake to at the time but the Advent of went along with it and then where they do a no-fly zone to protect Benghazi. Of course not, they launched a full-scale regime. Change war, or the Libyan Islamic fighting group, and ansar al-sharia, and other groups who were the Libyan Veterans of Iraq, war to, who fought was our Callie in al-Qaeda, in Iraq and Iraq, war

to the now come home. Remember the same guys, the LIF G the same guys that even though Qaddafi had a war on Bin. Laden night terrorism in the late 1990s, CIA and MI6 still prefer the LIF G in trying to Target him as late as 1999 2000. So now, here it is. After Iraq War 2, and all the al-Qaeda guys come home. So our calories guys, come home to Libya Obama takes their side and uses the UN resolution. And the no-fly zone is covered to do it.

Well, this, of course, makes a complete chump out of me, inventive and discredit, him and pissed off Putin, who then came back to Power after only one term out and, you know, essentially on the theory if you want something done, right? You gotta do it yourself and came back in and that was the End of the so-called reset. Now it's true that Obama, he did, Putin really did try very hard to work with Obama.

He yelled prevent the full-scale war against Syria in 2013 by striking the deal for Assad to get rid of all of his chemical weapons in exchange for American not attacking then.

And he also leaned on the Ayatollah, Khamenei to allow his president to seek the Iran nuclear deal with us, which is a huge favor to Barack Obama and then got nothing but a bunch of crap for it. And of course I'd be remiss if I did not mention that Robert Perry believed that the neoconservatives push this plan for the coup in Ukraine. Not necessarily like without Obama's permission at all. He must have known what they were doing and approved it on

some level. But Perry believe that the primary reason for the coup in Ukraine more than any other thing was to sabotage Barack Obama's growing relationship with Putin. You might remember to that Obama sent John Kerry in 2016 To make a deal with Russia, that we're going to fight Isis together in eastern Syria. And then what happened? Ashton Carter, the secretary defense, bombed, a Syrian military position the next day and ruined it and which was taken I'm sorry.

I'd have to check my foot notes here but they do exist. This is not just, you know in The Ether this was came from Obama's. People told the media themselves that they thought that the defense department deliberately sabotage them. Imagine the secretary defense and Who the hell's Ashton Carter? You know what I mean? It's not like He's got a ton of

political juice. He's just a lobbyist for arms manufacturers, but it's not like he's a huge and famous, and Powerful name in d.c., like Donald Rumsfeld or something like that, and he just outright insubordinate. And when in fact, you Barack Obama, is the President John Kerry lost for president. But it's been a senator for 30 years. And, you know, from Massachusetts, there's an extremely powerful and influential Democratic senator, it's serving as Secretary of State. Date for Obama.

They make a deal with Putin defense department vetoes it you know this kind of anyway Perry believed that the primary reason for their coup in Ukraine was to sabotage Obama's relationship with Putin and in fact I'm trying to remember who it was That was writing about if you listen to the Victoria nuland phone call, where she and piatt are plotting the coup and are talking about, you know, pushing the UN, you know, to intervene instead of the EU, pushing the EU out of the way and letting

this guy Robert serry from the UN come in and with people, from Biden's office to try to glue the coup together. And all of these things, I can't remember. I'm sorry who and Your man, but I just read this the other day, really, and listen to the Zeal and her voice.

On when she is ostensibly in the employ of a president, whose policy his stated policy is to try to get along with Russia after all, even his Syria policy was not so much despite Russia as it was, despite it Ron. Now, you know, he was attacking one of Russia's friends, but the idea was well, what are they going to do about it? And it's not, that's not what it's about, so they shouldn't take it too.

Personally, you know, this kind of idea, but Ukraine for you, overthrow the government, Ukraine twice in ten years put in a bunch of far rightists from the, you know, National Freedom Party, and whatever it is and they're sobota been. Yeah, you got a war and a problem and and to any pretension of reset between our country in there.

So You know, it's not, it's not an ironclad, you know, a top-down order either, you know, under the presidency or under, you know, just dominant power factions in DC. I mean, there are separate factions with separate interests and apparently they don't mind overriding, the president when they feel like they need to. So when it comes to George Bush, coming out and saying we want Ukraine and Georgia to

potentially join NATO. What do you See that as is that him provoking, is that him just innocently trying to build a peaceful world order because him and Putin were friendly Putin, calls him after 9/11 and makes friends out of him. What is the goal? When you see something like that? It's so difficult to explain diplomatically. Yeah. Now I don't think it was because they were Pals. I think by 2008, it was absolutely a Hawkers position.

The Cheney i'ts had one that, you know, we don't want a cooperative A working relationship with these guys. We'd rather have conflict and, you know, Fiona Hill who's known as this hardcore anti-trump or who was in charge of his policy to agree on the National Security Council. She has said that and she was on Bush's National Security Council. Then she confirmed that the intelligence agencies, not just the CIA, but all of them, apparently in their consensus, Warren w--.

Bush not to do this. And he did it anyway. Now this is just 4 months, 3 months is April of 08, it's just three months after our current CIA director, William Burns had written the memo on yet means. And yet, which we know from the Julian Assange, sitting in prison right now, waiting to be prosecuted on Espionage charges for publishing this information. And this is where Burns met with lat.

A broth and lavrov said, listen, man, very politely will invade in Concord Ukraine before we let you integrate them into your military Alliance, bro. Please don't make me do this. Please don't put me in this position. You know, where we're at, on this. We absolutely, can not tolerate. You can't Ukraine being brought in NATO. We're just not going to says it could cause the Civil War and then we would be forced to intervene which we don't want to intervene.

So just, you know, drop it, and then there's just three months later, that bush announces. Now he wanted to bring them into NATO right then to announce that they were like on the official track to join NATO and Angela Merkel and I think it was Francois Hollande, was the president? It might have been Sarkozy. No, no. I guess it was Sarkozy then it's just said, absolutely not. Absolutely not. And it has to be unanimous for a

new NATO, member to join. Why the controversy over turkey holding up new membership for Finland and Sweden now. But so the French and the Germans told Bush. Absolutely, not. And why just for only one reason. Unnecessary provocation against Russia, they are not going to take this. Well, there was no other reason for it, that was the reason and Bush went ahead and booked. The so-called compromise was. Well, we're going to announce that they are going to be NATO

members someday. Anyway, we're going to go ahead and put that out there. I think yes you're right. I think that you know, ultimately it was a provocation, it was a way to try to make sure to keep the American and and Russian relationship on Ice. In fact, you know, I've never read this, you know, in any particular claim but you could argue maybe that this is part of why they were insisting on putting all those anti-missile missiles in Poland and Romania.

It's not to protect Europe from Iran. Iran doesn't have missiles that can hit Eastern Europe. And they don't have any nuclear missile, you know, nuclear weapons to married to a missile anyway. At the same time could argue, there are certainly not enough anti-missile missiles in the tubes to shoot down a barrage of Russian nukes coming in. They've got enough to weigh overwhelm any of those defenses. Right fact. Keith did you see where those the Russian pranksters pranked

w--? Bush just a few weeks ago, right? After his big Freudian slip, they put out a thing where they Pretended to be zolensky asking him questions in all of this stuff and borscht dismissed Russian concerns over the anti-missile missiles by saying, I'm almost certain place. Brain, don't screw me up on this one 99%. This is where I saw this and he dismissed the Russian concerns by saying, come on.

It's not like we put enough anti-missile missiles in there to deter against the Russians anyway, so when the Russians say they're concerned about that, I don't take that seriously because there's nothing for them to Be concerned about but the thing is as Putin has continued to say over and over again.

It's the MK or Mark 41. I'm instructed by a military friend, they call him the Mark 41, not the MK, the Mark 41, missile tubes missile launchers, that can also fit tomahawk missiles that can be fitted with hydrogen bombs and, you know, I think currently are Tomahawks are Fitted with hydrogen bombs, but there's supposedly a program to reintegrate those two weapons

together again. So, this is now, you know, maybe not enough to really provide for any kind of meaningful, first strike on Russia. That would help us win a war because certainly see how it might be.

Just enough to provoke Putin and make him angry and prevent, you know, further rapprochement from being able to You know, lead the discussion in the policy and we insist were doing this and we know that that will prevent him from taking a more Pro erican posture in response, the probably not good for much more. Then destroying diplomacy Keith. Yeah, I really like the point you made about how America can lead the way when it comes to potentially one of these inspection tricky's.

So, a can inspect be be can inspect C and C, can inspect a sort of having something like this? It's so difficult to find something that a lot of Americans agree on to, I mean, to even debate whether or not something is constitutional, a lot of people don't regard the Constitution as legitimate, it was written by idiots who were racing. Some self-interested. So it's so hard for us to find a pin point to, which we can all sort of move towards something. We can all have in common.

I think this could potentially be it. However, when I see someone like Jake Sullivan at the Council on Foreign Relations or Anthony blinken on Stephen Colbert show, I see that it looks like we're kind of run by like total idiots almost who are either really stupid or they're just stupid in front of the cameras because they have to meet the lowest common denominator. Why do you think it is that such average boring people make it to such high positions of influence? Yeah, man.

I mean, it's the Peter Principle kind of a thing, right? It's, you know, those are the kind of people who want those positions in the first place and then they get promoted right up to the spot where they're just not capable of doing their job. Well and you know, I don't know. I mean it's and it's look as I mean, I simplest explanation, right? Is that our national government has been simply Absurd by these interests, right? And so, that's who they want to

run. Things is people who, you know, I just did an interview yesterday with this guy, Steinbach all about the center for a new American Security and the, oh my God, it's on the tip of my tongue, the, the group, I'm sorry. The what, West exec West exec lobbying group was created essentially, by the guys, from the Center for a new American Security, says all overlap, Michele Flournoy, and Tony blinken and Jake Sullivan's involved and all these guys are just paid.

You know, half a million dollar or more salaries per year, to promote the interests of the arms industry is just a simple as that. That's who finances every important, think tank in. D.c. that's who pays all their salaries. It's like the old joke about if they had to wear sponsor. Jackets like a NASCAR driver and people. They always say STP and Exxon

and whatever. But what it would say is Lockheed and Raytheon Northrop, Grumman and of course, all the biggest banks and it would have this Saturday in the Israeli lobbies on there, and this kind of thing you can think of them, you know, just to see what think of somebody in a professional paid commercial on TV, like, this is an actual, this is not actually a human, telling me a thing, this is an actor, reading a thing to me, which is different, right?

If you look at Dianne Feinstein and, you know, she's not a woman with a opinions. She is a front man for her husband's corporation, which runs he's dead now. But Richard Blum was arms. Got around military contractor, I don't know if you know, I don't know if he provided mercenaries or what think they did some construction work. And then also, you know, some other Outsource jobs but his Corporation made billions of dollars off of the government.

So, in that way, you can just Look at Dianne Feinstein, not really as her own person but just as a front for him and then you could look at the whole Senate, that way, which Corporation are you from? Instead of what state are you from, you know, and whose interests are you here to represent? And you know the whole thing is just completely wrecked that way, you know the neoconservative movement, Andrew cockburn.

I think crystallize this the best that it's where the Israel Lobby meets the military industrial complex, you know, the Bankers. And the oilmen already had the Council on Foreign Relations, but the arms dealers needed their own Eggheads. They didn't have any Eggheads, they had a bunch of Engineers but they needed a bunch of people to write studies about why we need them. And so they came across Richard, Perle and Company and said, oh this is perfect right here will give you the money.

You found the think-tank and write this study and explain why we need you. It was lockheed's. Bruce Jackson that finance bill crystals entire.

Here, you know, over at the Weekly Standard and all those things that's you know, and the project for a New American Century and and you know, there was a time I think Jim lobe said this, there was a time where about four out of five of these think tanks, were just a piece of paper and Bill crystals desk drawer, but then you have, you know, a few neo-cons that each one all riding position papers in the name of the different institution and you just flood the Zone with it and it creates

this giant Echo chamber and they out Council on Foreign Relations. Oceans, the Council on Foreign Relations and then of course, Abrams and Boot and a bunch of the Neo cons are at the CFR. Now setting the tone there now. So they won that war and that was where their money came from. It was Lockheed and Northrop Grumman who pay their way.

And speaking of Bill kristol you, you were slandered unfairly by a woman named Cathy Young. Here she is, she is discussing a debate you had with her at porcfest I'm just going to read this Section. I want you to respond. The gist of my introductory remarks was that I can respect a principled anti interventionist position with regard to Russia and Ukraine. But that unfortunately anti interventionists often seem unable to defend this position

without one denigrating. Pro-freedom aspirations in the neighboring countries, the Kremlin seeks to bully and to recycling lies and distortions that comes straight from Kremlin propaganda machine. And then for the next hour, Horton proceeded to do exactly that. First of all, how dare you second of all, how do you respond? That's funny. Well, she's right. That she spent her entire opening argument telling everyone.

What they were about to hear me. Say and why they shouldn't listen to it. She did not make the case for why we should arm Ukraine at war with Russia at all. She couldn't. And in fact, all she gave it was a throwaway line at the end. So yes, I think we should give them arms and intelligence. Thank Very much and set down. Now, I actually in my response, I cut her some slack and said, well, you know, I'm sure she's really short on time.

But you notice all I got was the throwaway line there, nothing about the risks and rewards whatsoever about how to even think about what's happening in the war so far or any of this stuff. And I was just being polite, because, of course, she had plenty of opportunity to make the case. She just didn't. She essentially told them he's about to say, all of this stuff, which of course, she knows. What it all is because she knows it's all true. And then, so she goes.

But you shouldn't listen to him because it's not really true because it's what Putin told them to say, or some kind of thing, which is, of course, completely stupid. And then went by, I denigrated the pro-freedom aspirations of the people of Ukraine. I don't remember that. Don't think that came on, she was trying to deny that the radical, right played a meaningful role at all on the Side which was completely Preposterous.

So for me to point out, the reality of that is to denigrate the pro-freedom, aspirations of ukrainians who actually are not radical rightist. Well, that's not true, right? If I say to you, hey Keith, there are right-wingers in Arizona who are bad. I don't think that really reflects on you. At all my friend like what you live near them or something? I don't know. That just that issue didn't come up there.

Just not true. And then, as far as the points I was making, well, you know, it's going to be another week. Before reason puts out the video, they have to kind of produce it with their b-roll on camera, angles, and Gillespie's introduction, and all those things. So, it's going to be another week and then you can judge for yourself. You know, the arguments I made. But, you know, just for one example, I mean I just read a quote this morning from hosseini.

No, this great kind of anti-war right-winger had a piece on his sub stack about how they're trying to. Ooh, what was this phrase? I forgot. But they're, you know, laundering, the azov Battalion and front, white washing them. And one of the things is the azov Battalion has now changed their patch.

And they've now replaced the V angle, which is looks like that capital N with the line through the middle of it, which comes from the Nazis. And they've now replaced that with a trident which is something that you know is also a white supremacist symbol in some places but is a Ukrainian symbol apparently. Going back to whatever Antiquity that has less Nazi connotations to it.

They've decided and then the quote he quotes from The New York Times that they have removed the Nazi Insignia from their jackets that had given the Russians the opportunity to push this ridiculous propaganda about what Nazis they are. Well, they're not Nazis, how come they were wearing Nazi Insignia on their jackets, New York Times that was giving the Russians, the opportunity to tell that lie but that's just

ridiculous. And as I said in the debate, you can look up The Washington Post and the New York Times And The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC and channel 4, and whatever you got since 2000 since 2014 between then and now covering what a Say Hitler, loved and Nazis, the azov Battalion are everybody knows that there's no secret about it.

She tried to say, it was the Russian side that were the Nazis and that the white supremacists are traveling all around the world to come and fight with the Russians against the ukrainians. Well, that's just a damn lie. Fact have a book here. Only just begun to get into from the fires of War, Ukraine's, azov, movement and the global far right.

As we know a radical white supremacist from the United States and all across Europe have come to Ukraine for years to fight on the side of the Nazis, against the Russians, in the East. And this includes excellent three or four part series at The Intercept of all places, which didn't refuse to cover the In war except to let Murtaza Al-Qaeda over there spin for the job at all in this for the whole time and refuse to cover the Ukraine war because Pierre

omidyar is conflict of interest there in helping sponsor the coup of 14 and so, but all of a sudden they got this four part series about how you got literal jihadists from the Syria War traveling to Ukraine to fight with the Nazis against the Russians, in the donbas, like a four-part series all about it. And she actually said at one point in the Uh, debate. Well, I don't want to talk about the azov Battalion, and then I

interrupted her instead. Of course, you don't want to talk about the azov Battalion, and they don't make your position. Look very good at all, do they, you know, tell me this on a scale of 1 to 10, how much do these guys? Love Hitler. Because the answer is 10 and they've said it over and over again. There's just no point in denying it, anyone listening to you and me talk about this right now can just type in azov and Hitler into there.

Favorite brand of search engine and you'll find them saying ya know he had the right idea, you find where you know one of the cofounders of the sobota svoboda party actually had set up the Joseph gurbles Center on political information in Ukraine. He named it after garbles. So, yeah, it is what it is. And, and I think it's hilarious that she immediately, you know, knowing that reason takes a week and a half. So, put out these Soho Forum videos, she immediately went and wrote, why?

It? Ain't her fault. She lost ninety-nine percent to one percent. In this live debate, it goes a rights of her build, crystals bulwark and you know, I was too polite to have asked in the debate, don't you think that once you start writing for Bill kristol, you have to stop writing. A reason magazine and and claiming to be a Libertarian in any way whatsoever. We all disavow you. You know, Cathy Young is the liberal Democrat. That's who she is. And go read.

It's all half woke and half pro-war. She's a liberal Democrat. She's not a Libertarian. She doesn't believe in Liberty. You know, somebody posted Tom Woods was ridiculing her on Twitter and Chris Baker. Who's a Texas, libertarian he goes. She's been betraying us all along. Here's her signature article from 2001. And there she is in October 2001, saying, if there's no atheists in foxholes, maybe there's no true Libertarians in a time of terrorism. And she's saying we're going to

have to accept that one. Forget blowback any Libertarians telling you that Al Qaeda attacked us because of what we did to them. First, that's a lie. They hate who we are. And the proof of that is they attacked the World Trade Center which has nothing to do with our foreign policy and is purely just a symbol of capitalism and freedom. Oh yeah, sure.

You know? Yeah. That's The Nelson and David named after the Rockefeller Brothers. You know, the the 25-year president of the Council on Foreign Relations and and his brother who wrote the UN Charter, The Architects of the American World Empire. Yeah. No, they don't have those Towers, don't have the slightest thing to do with American foreign policy as a symbolic Target whatsoever. No, of course not, not just the Pentagon. Yeah. No definitely not the Pentagon either.

And so she wrote literally Early. She wrote Reason magazine and I don't know. I like Nick Gillespie. Every time we meet I get along with the guy, but he published this thing and he was the editor and he published this essay by Cathy Young. Say now that September 11th has happened, libertarianism is canceled, we're going to have to get used to the government

reading. All of our emails, maybe abolishing encryption, which encryption always made her nervous anyway that people could encrypt things because what about terrorism. And so, you know, we're going to have to go to war and we're going to have to That these restrictions on our freedom cathie, Jung reason magazine October 2001. Right?

When Harry Brown was saying. He'll know, when Ron Paul was saying, he'll know when Jacob hornberger was saying, hell, no. And raimondo was saying, Hell no, that was her take was. Yep. Got to do what you got to do? Yeah, well encryption is important against the terrorist government. When you have to keep yourself safe from them, she gets it. She also said in this and I don't want to spend any more time on this. I know you. You've given me an hour.

Thank you for your patience here, just look at this weasel Enos. Yep, that makes a lot of sense. If you give people weapons, they'll want to fight and die in a completely unreasonable War when they could negotiate a much, better piece. Not, of course, addressing the fact that zelinsky's Enslaved, the male population. Not allowing them to leave Ukraine and conscripting them. How is this weasel? Enos getting attention at reason and the well, Bill kristol. But why is this the method of

debate? Instead of instead of logic or persuasion? How does she get so much attention? I mean, I have no idea, I've always absolutely hated her guts. And I couldn't say that in a Oxford style debate under Jean Epstein rules but I mean to me, she's just a mangy old Mutt and I always had the greatest time reading. Justin, raimondo taken her to the Woodshed, over the years.

She's absolutely horrible on everything and you know, I think well look I she's had to go right for the bulwark because Buddy in our movement, wants anything to do with her. And in fact, somebody told me she doesn't write for reason anymore, but I'm not sure, that's true.

But look, I mean, she had to race to put this article out for the bulwark to try to cover for the fact that when the video comes out working with c. And, and frankly, like, I think they're quite a few different claims in there for one thing, she puts in quotes that I accused the government there being a Nazi Hunter, but that's not true.

And I don't ever use that term because I'll tell you exactly what term I do use and you've heard me use it before a coup d'etat Junta, the Nuku Hunter, the people of the East refused to accept the authority of the new coo. Junta, which yes was put in place by a bunch of Street. Tough Nazis, the right sector and the c14 were the ones who did essentially, did this street push in on the night of February

the 21st? And 14. I never said that arseny Nets in New York was a Nazi, but he was from a very right-wing nationalist party. Although yes, in York himself wouldn't have Nazi and, and poroshenko, the first President, I never said he was a Nazi. I never said it was a Nazi regime or Nazi Hunter.

She put that in direct quotes when what I call it was a coup Junta, meaning a completely illegal one that overthrew a democratically elected government and yes is completely, you know, No has been and still is riddled with National Socialist, proud ones. So, there's things like that. And I think once the video comes out, if anyone wants to go through and say, you know, do a comparison of Kathy Young's claims about what I said, compared to what I actually

said. I mean, even during the debate Keith, I started out by saying I absolutely condemn Putin's invasion of Ukraine without reservation, I don't care. And, and, you know me, dude, I don't Pander to anybody, I don't give a damn, I just called her a man. The old mutt, right to you a second ago, right? I don't care which I do think that about her. She's disgusting pathetic, but I don't mind condemning Putin for launching this war because I do condemn it.

What he did was wrong, you don't launch a war. You don't start a war, no matter who you are. And the fact that I make the case probably better than Putin for why this is all America's fault / for provoking him Into doing it is still beside the point. As I say, his case against us is rational, that doesn't mean it's a reasonable argument for starting a war. It's not and I have not done enough hard work on this, but I can steal a couple of ideas from from.

I'll have one of my own into I can steal from Aaron maté here. One thing he could have done is he could have cut off all natural gas to Europe, all of it and just said, all right, dude, in the middle. The wintertime to you want to mess with me, Germany. This is what you get if you don't stand up to America. Now you're going to freeze in the dark pal. He could have done that. He could have as Aaron maté. One of his ideas was he could have oh no you know what? I think that was there in

Maltese idea. My idea that was one of Aaron's, my idea was he could have threatened to just veto all kinds of things in the UN Security Council until he gets his way on issues. Is related and not until he gets his way on this errand. Also said, that what he could do is he could say, bring in peacekeepers from some third state. That doesn't have a dog in the

fight. That's like friendly to Russia like India. For example, well, of Indian troops stand on the border of the donbas to prevent the the is essentially, to force, Kiev to implement Minsk, to, to prevent them from being able to carry on the so-called low level fighting in the east of the country. And finally really bring The war to the end, to an end in the East, that kind of thing. And look, I'm not talking about America getting involved at all.

I'm talking about what he could have done to put, you know, neutral forces in there, some kind of thing. In other words and there must be more ideas to write. In other words, he did not exhaust every option. He very well may have been feeling exasperated and it is very it is absolutely true. That Biden refused to negotiate with him and good. Faith and that America told the ukrainians, not to negotiate in. Good faith to prevent the War.

I mean, zalenski has explained that that they told me he said that him, you know, out loud that they told him. We're not really going to bring you into NATO, but don't say that. We're refusing to concede an inch on this and even if it ends up leading to war, we're not giving in on that issue. Even though we're not really Gonna Let You in either. And, you know, he's explained that. So anyways, and then, in fact, I think in my rebuttal, I I did it again.

I said, you know, damn him for doing this. And at one point, I said if I have a dog in this fight at all, it's on Ukraine side, not Russia's side. My wife has family there still and in fact she has some family inside, Russia kid, who could get conscripted and be forced to fight and get killed in this war on the Russian side. So I'm absolutely anti-war from on that Russian point of view side on what them to win. I want them to Stop the war

immediately. This young man's life is in danger and then all these people in Odessa my wife's people who are still there who, you know, there have been, there's been some shelling in Odessa the worst of the war hasn't gotten there so far. I'd like to see an end of the war right now. And I, as far as like, you know, morality goes and whatever, my heart is with the civilian population of Ukraine, the civilian population of Russia's and threaten other than the young men being conscripted.

But the civilian population of Ukraine there, the only white hats in this story, right? Not the militaries of either side. So that's where my sympathies lie but also my sympathies lie with the truth with the reality in the real context of what's going on here.

So then she gets up in her closing and says oh well I guess Scott thinks that Putin is just a perfect little angel who never hurt anyone and he just believes everything that Putin says, but the only time, That I quoted Putin was when he was saying, I take this to be a threat and I'm warning you right. I wasn't saying, we know that a thing is true because Putin said

it was true. Like, for example, I brought up Bill Clinton's support for the chechens in 1999 and I said and boot incited this to and his declaration of war and said, you think we've forgotten that we have it. But I also said, I have all these sources. I wasn't citing him as a source before I said that he remembers that inside. In his declaration of war. I said, I have all these other sources to, which I didn't cite

in the moment. But if you've read fools there and, you know, I already site in there, Coleen Rowley, and stratfor for saying that Bill Clinton and the Washington Post. Now, the Washington Post didn't admit the CIA role but they said the Saudis are doing the whole thing. Well, that's the CIA dummy and then there's stratfor that says it was the CIA doing it. And by the way, Funny story. I couldn't find it at Wikileaks and I was going crazy.

No, the stratfor emails that are late on there and I was going crazy. So many confront me on Twitter was like, hey, you said it was in the stratfor Wikileaks and I can't find that anywhere. I was like, what? I don't get that footnote wrong. I know and I went I couldn't find it either and I was going crazy. So then I took Wikileaks out of my search and oh, that's right, it's right there on Strat Force website, it's not of the Wikileaks. It's right there.

On Stratford's website, you can find it right? This second that Bill Clinton back The Chechen terrorists against Russia in 1999 and in now I got a new Even Better Batter a source than that that you can find reprinted at Scott Horton, dot orgs fair. Use, it's by Yosef bogdanski who was the chief investigator for the Senate.

I think, intelligence or armed services committee and he wrote this massive thing all about it. That's, you know, the going to be now the Premier Source and remember by the way, the Colleen rally article about this, you know, calling rally is She was the lawyer for the FBI in Minneapolis Minnesota, who wanted to bust Zacharias moussaoui.

Because he wanted to learn how to fly a plane, but he didn't want to know how to take off her Land one and they had connections, they connected him to his brother, to the Jihad in chechnya. But then what happened?

Keith FBI headquarters said we like the jihadists in chechnya so his tied to them doesn't count as a Tied to International terrorism so you can't get your foreign intelligence surveillance warrant to search his computer and we know now that once they did search this computer, it led directly to the hijackers in Florida, they could have stopped the September 11th attack but they said not when when suicide bombers working for Osama Bin Laden fight in chechnya their moderate Rebel

Heroes and we love them. And so warrant application denied they weren't even allowed to take it to the court, their supervisors that The FBI and Department of Justice wouldn't even let them take it to the fisa court because that was Bill Clinton's covert op at the time. And, and then I go Yeah, and and Putin said that that's still pisses him off to and she goes oh you believe him? Yeah, I believe him when he said, there's something makes him mad.

I believe him when he says, you know, I could be in Kiev in two weeks. And if you try to bring Ukraine into NATO, that's exactly what I'll do. Yeah, I believe that I believe his threats. I got the same thing from my Pulse Nightclub video. They're like, oh, so you just take the words of terrorists, like, Omar Mateen, it's like it. Look, look at his words.

He's saying like, you know, they, they murdered friends of mine to guy named Wahid. They are bought their up planning with the Russians to bomb places in Syria there. Killing people in Fan and Iraq. And they're like, oh you believe that? Don't, you isn't that like the most believable thing in the world and they take it as weekday. Yeah, yeah. TV says, he hates gay people. So I'm going to take the word of these known proven Liars who have no evidence whatsoever,

that that was his motive at all. And I'm going to take their word over the words of the guy who goes, here's my motive and then explains his motive over the course of two and a half. Hours while the cops weight in cowardly tear outside while these people are bleeding to death like Uvalde.

You know, it's just yeah and by the way and we know now because it came out at the trial sworn testimony from the feds themselves admitted that mountain wanted to attack Disney World, not because of how gay it is. But because that's where all the civilian targets are but he realized that they have to tide of security there. You got to get through 10 rings of goons before, you can get to

the fun part of the Park right? So then he typed in nightclub into Google on his phone and Pulse Nightclub was the first one that came up so he went there and then when he walked up he said we're all the girls. Because he didn't realize, he didn't know why. It was almost entirely men. And there were some women in there, but it was almost entirely men that so that had absolutely nothing to do.

And what are the government say, the government said, he did this one because radical Islam says that you have to hate and murder gay people and to because Mateen was gay. And so he had to hate and murder himself because of his Freudian self-hatred over the thing, over him not supposed to be. This is all a lie, 100% of a lie. But no, the Ripped of him telling the 911 operator and the transcript of what he wrote on Facebook about why he did this.

You should definitely dismiss that when he says, I'm doing this because Barack Obama is killing women and children in Syria. So do you believe Putin asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join nato in 1999, and what do you think Clinton should have done? There's there's good sourcing on that and I have to say, man at the time I was a new world order cook and this is what What I thought was the whole game of the New World Order, get it

thesis antithesis synthesis. Now, we become more like the Russians, as they become more like us. And we join our forces together into the oneworld, white Army of the North, and then attack Islamic South Asia, or China. Although they got nukes. So hope not that. And that was what? And look, that was not complete BS. I mean, I was wrong and that was

not the way it was heading. But, you know, Bill Clinton's guy strobe Who led NATO expansion, he had written in Time magazine in 1992, the birth of the global nation and soon All Nations on Earth will recognize a single Global Federal authority over all Etc. And you know, there are a lot of indications during the Clinton years that there were people who really were pushing for World federalism and ultimately for bringing Russia into NATO and they created the nato-russia

council. But what I did not understand was that the right wing in the United States and I don't mean in America like that. People. I mean the militarists the military-industrial complex side one and nothing to do with them because they need Russia to have

an adversary. They need an and you know I think even in the Pentagon to the idea was, you know, we could tell the Germans what to do. If we bring the Russians into our military lines, they're going to have a say, we're going to have to cooperate with them while we're going to standardize our two militaries together, but then they're going to really I have a voice and a veto specially all the nooks they have and everything and I'm going to turn control over all

that sauce. It would be much more of a partnership rather than an American dominated order and its didn't want to do that. They weren't willing to do that and that's something that I'm working on and that's one of the chapters in the book that I'm working on. Now about the background of this was, you know, the different tides and pushes inside the government over, whether they were going to bring Russia into NATO or whether they were not

and etcetera. And now he also asked bush in July of 2001. Hey man, what about us joining NATO, I guess he has colon Powell and then they just didn't even answer him. There's didn't even want to talk about it at all and then that was their plan was to, you know, they had John Bolton in there and the plan was to tear up, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and expand so-called missile defenses. And all of these things over Russia's dead body and what are they going to do about it and

continue on NATO expansion? No, I think it's true that on the American side that in a way, they believe their own BS about look, man, we told you a hundred times. This is a defensive Alliance and if we wring your entire country bring every single nation in Eurasia into our defensive Alliance that stepped you, it's still defensive as long as you don't attack anybody. Everything will be fine will never attack you. Why would we do that?

But I think they believe that I think during the Cold War, they believe that as well. We're not going to do a first strike against the Soviet Union. We're just here to keep them out of Western Europe, but then is Ray McGovern tells me, and it's in the book. When the Soviet Union fell and they went over there and they talked to the Soviets they said, man, we weren't going to invade Western Europe. We were afraid that you guys were going to hit us first.

We weren't had no plan whatsoever to attack. You got, you know what I mean? So this kind of thing is again, it's a self licking ice cream cone, right? It's built in to the frame of the thing is that, of course, you need us. Now. Let's figure out why you need us.

In fact. You know, at the end of 2018, know, the end of 2019, the New York Times ran a story about how they had a big emergency NATO meeting about how they don't have anything to do and they don't have a purpose in the world and they're afraid that the pressure is going to increase on them. You know Trump had made some signals that were wildly isn't misinterpreted to mean that he really meant to leave NATO or Like that.

But they, you know, saw this sort of negative pressure against them and they said, we need a new reason to exist. So they held a big meeting, an emergency meeting, they called it. And they decided at the end, the new reason for NATO is China, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is new. Enemy is in the South Pacific. and, Out of area or out of business. So let we had to find something to do it's China.

Now, luckily this Ukraine thing came up and they're able to say, oh no, they're protecting Western Europe from Russian advances, but of course, we can see. And, you know, people got mad at me for interviewing William Arkin because he was telling a lot of, you know, sort of our government's current narrative side of the story about how bad, the Russians are doing in Ukraine and stuff like that.

But I like William are can even when I disagree with him because I think He's an honest guy, not a liar, I think he's wrong sometimes, but I think that he'll tell you exactly what he thinks. So his narrative was meant in the Russian suck and then ukrainians are kicking their

ass. But then what's his conclusion from that his conclusion from that as he told me in that interview was well, apparently NATO doesn't need one more dime, not one more dime and apparently Russia is no threat to Lithuania Latvia. Estonia Poland, Hungary Slovakia whatsoever, there are threat to Nato none whatsoever because look at what a poor job. They're doing fighting in

Ukraine, right? So, you know, take relieve his interpretation of exactly how well they're doing or not in Ukraine. I think, you know, people who tend to side more with the Russians aren't doing that, bad narrative will admit that, they probably shouldn't have invaded from 17 different directions at once or whatever.

Was and that they did suffer some major setbacks in some places but I don't think anybody argues whether they rule almost the entire donbas at this point and that Ukraine is never getting it back, so you know, but are they marching all the way to the knee / river or they marched and all the way to Moldova and Romania and Poland? Hell, no. They're not, they're just not. And they have no capability of doing. So evidently, so You know, I think that's the good news, right?

Is just like, back in the days of the Soviet Union that Red Army was mostly just a paper tiger and the current Russian army is as well. So, you know, time is on their side in this one. But do they really pose an external threat to anyone else? Probably not. And I forgot what the question was. No. Sorry, there's a lot that's totally fine. The book is hotter than the sun time. Abolish nuclear weapons available now. Links will be in the description below. Scott, Horton, thank you for

your time. Thank you very much. Keith for having