Scott, thank you so much for your time. What does it mean to be anti-war? Well, I mean, for some people, they have religious or philosophical beliefs where they're just committed to pacifism, in all cases, I don't think that that is required.
And I don't think, really, anyone could deny that in America. Now, that this is the era of the phony Wars. This is the era of our government, looking for fights to get in none of which are Are really supportable on their own terms, or even, you know, on their advertised terms and all of which have all kinds of unnecessary repercussions for the people of this country. So, all should take to be anti-war. Now, it's just to be a patriot at all, he loved America.
Then the fight of our era is to save our country from our government and the wars that they wage around the world as James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put it back then. War carries the germ of every other infringement on human Liberty because it centralizes power and has all these perverse incentives through create a massive centralized state where before there wasn't one and as he says, Wars to the parents of
armies. And armies are the parents taxes and taxes of the parents of 100 offices of bureaucrats, sent out to destroy the lives of the people of the country. So, That is really the fight of our are especially as Libertarians in America. Is that, if we're ever going to conserve what was worth conserving about this country, we have got to abandon the Empire first, and our series of foreign interventionism, the new Cold War.
Our government is getting in and focus on saving the last of the Old Law. That is the most important to keep that is our Bill of Rights and the form. Of our constitutional government of having separate powers between the states and the FEDS, for example, and separate powers. For that matter, between the legislature and the executive. All of these things get skewed during wartime, especially during a permanent time of War, like we have now. So, was it mean to be anti-war
in America? Now, it should be just the ability to wake up in the morning and read. He is the host of the Scott Horton Show. Check him out. Scott. Horton, dot-org Scott. It seems like a blatant contradiction that, a lot of people have murder one person. That's a moral murder 10 people. That's really a moral and that's like serial killer. But when governments wage, mass murder campaigns, people don't seem to have the same hatred that they would have for on a smaller scale.
Do you have any idea? How such a trick was more or less played on the population? Yeah. Well, you know, I think we're all raised this way, especially in public school. And you can see the obvious exceptions, where raised on those exceptions. What about Hitler? Of course, even though God issued the Commandment, that thou shalt not kill. If FDR dresses you up and all of Green to go and face the wehrmacht in the field, you really telling me.
God would have objected to that. He'll know your country can issue. Issue you a license to kill in circumstances where otherwise it would be sinful and I know from being a 9th grader and excited about the first Iraq war that even though I didn't believe in the Republicans or the cause or all the patriotism and yellow ribbons around it so much. I just wanted to see some explosions. Now, he really cares so much about the araki's.
I didn't believe in George Bush, Senior one, iota at the time, but He was issuing the whole country a license to indulge in our essentially 15 year old level bloodlust. And and for that matter, just excitement lust, I want to see a supersonic jet. I want to see tanks actually used not just featured on the Discovery Channel and what they could do someday in a war That Never Comes as George Carlin said, I want to go play with my toys in the sand and it's fun,
and exciting. And it's a thing that As you say you could never do but that you can be really excited about when
it comes to war time. And that was, in fact, one of according to Brent scowcroft himself, one of the major reasons for the first Iraq war was to break what they called, the Vietnam syndrome, which meant the American people's, especially mental illness that they didn't want to do any more of these horrible proxy wars in the cold war, with the Soviet Union after what had happened in Vietnam and they were trying to make war Again, they wanted to dress the thing up with lots of
yellow ribbons and American flags and bright floodlights, and make TV stars out of the generals in charge, in the way that they did. In order to redeem interventionism in the minds of the American people at that time, and it worked. And so then, and you see, also keep there's this diffusion of responsibility, right? Where if you're a 17 year old kid 18 year old kid and you join the Army. You know, as they said Kipling right in other circumstances, that yours is not to question.
Why is just to do or die? And but the idea is see there, especially as taught by your fifth grade social studies teacher. Right? Is in government school, is that this is a democracy, and that means that the adults have talked everything over and have decided on what is the best course of action, they've elected the very best people to be in the position. Missions to make the decisions and they're doing the best they
can. And so essentially the history, especially of the United States is taught as what had to have been what must have been because it was always the best decision that the people of the country could make at the time. And so then if you're an enlisted man in that service, your job is to trust. Essentially that through politics and through the Democratic Republic and all of the things that you're being used.
Well, it doesn't matter where which country you're Commander, puts your boots on the ground to go in, accomplish your mission, you've already outsourced the decision-making to someone else. Your job is leading your team to success that night. Making sure that they stay alive and that you do too. And then so they could drop you in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria or Libya. The or wherever it is and and the politics belong to somebody else.
That's up to the kagan's at their Think, Tank to decide who it is that we go to war against. And then also, if you're trained and we just know this term anecdotal evidence, you go to the military go through boot. Can't get all this training, you know, there's a war on. You want to fight, that's the
whole thing. It's that same my same 15-year old mindset during the Iraq War one is the thing that they encourage and nurture and all of that, you don't realize till you get Home and turn 23 that like, oh man, this is I was still essentially thinking like a kid and thinking the thoughts that they'd put in my head and now look at what I've done and this kind of thing, and then you have all these people with all these regrets. But it's, you know, essentially
it's a deception, right? This is why they always have to bring up Hitler. Because even though he was Facing East and not going to come across the Atlantic Ocean, that essentially the idea Was that this is the ultimate Evil that he would have eventually, take over the whole world. We didn't take the opportunity to stop and when we did and that the only real lesson of World War Two is that we should have invaded Germany with Britain and France in 1933.
As soon as this guy came to power, we should have launched an aggressive pre-emptive War, that's the lesson. And so, then whether it's Manuel, Noriega or David koresh, Saddam Hussein or moammar Qaddafi or Bashar, al-assad Vladimir Putin. Our chairman, she for that matter. What is his other name? Other than chairman, huh? She over there.
They're all Hitler and doing anything except immediately confronting them with overwhelming Force, then is appeasing Hitler, which was the major lesson of World War Two is that Neville? Chamberlain should have never made a deal with this guy of any kind and that by doing so it only enable them and ennoble them and whatever. And you can totally believe that about the in World War Two and accept that as your model. I mean, the guy was probably the most fanatical human who ever lived.
Adolf Hitler on, on any subject. So the idea that he was essentially going to be this, you know, kind of Unstoppable, insatiable appetite for increasing, territorial gain in Europe, and at the expense of the world order and whatever the you could accept, all of that framing for World War Two, But just then see how hollow it is to try to put that on to Manuel Noriega, or put that on to Saddam Hussein or whoever it is and you look at what happens right now on Twitter.
If you say, we got a negotiate with Putin, they say that's like Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler.
It's what Justin Logan at the Cato Institute back, 12, 13 years ago called the fallacy of 39 and the fallacy of 38 39, And raimondo wrote about this too, but this is the Neo cons frame for everything and part of it is cynicism but also part of it is some of their families had come from Europe and survived and or their you know families had been killed in the Holocaust so that's absolutely the way that they looked at it was you know in other words we're always Superman.
And the enemy is always Lex Luthor and there's no time to waste and That's the level of emergency. Now, if you look at the parallels, I mean, if you want to make an analogy on Russia right now, I think this guy's probably not Hitler. Maybe he's Hindenburg and we ought to be lucky to have him before the next Chancellor comes. God forbid.
What is, you know, waiting in the wings to replace this guy who, after all, this is the same guy that Bill Clinton and w-- Bush and Barack Obama and Donald Trump. And frankly, Joe Biden have been dealing with and talking with negotiating with on all kinds of issues. When you're straight and no question. He's a strong man. He still the same president over
there. He stepped aside for, just a minute, but, you know, Condoleezza Rice had to go on TV and say, well, I think he must be mentally ill now. Because this isn't the Vladimir vladimirovich Putin. That I know. Well, yes it is. He's just finally reacting to her stupid, stunt trying to bring Ukraine and Georgia into nato in 2008. She can't take responsibility like that for her guilt. So instead she's got to pretend that he's He's crazy. You know, something, you know, nuts is going on.
Try to change the frame. Now, he's not essentially like a pretty hard right Republican now, he's Hitler. Now, he's a nutcase who can only be dealt with by force and so that's the way they frame things and after all like it's easy everybody knows who Hitler is and everybody knows the lesson as we all learned it in school, is that we should have launched that war earlier man. We should have not a way.
Little Pearl Harbor. We should have been killing them Nazis as soon as they were Nazis, why not? And that's certainly the way I was taught it. And so then that is the lesson. Of course, we're also taught that in World War Two, that it was America that defeated Nazi Germany. When it's true that, yes, America and Britain played their part but it was the Soviet Union that had taken the brunt of the Nazis violence and had repelled it and ultimately they were the ones who liberated Berlin.
And, you know, got there first and all of that. But because they're the commies, they erase that part of the story from the way that we learn it here in America. So now it was Hitler, was rampaging across the entire world and there was no one to stop until finally Uncle.
Sam was roused from his Slumber and came and did the thing and only because the Japanese were dumb enough to attack us and only because Hitler was dumb enough to finally declare war on us. When they could have, should have left us alone from their point of view, and they would have one which is not Right. You know, Soviets think they're going to win that war. Anyway, although Lend-Lease didn't hurt exactly. Yeah but we can negotiate with Stalin and form an alliance with them.
But Putin just cannot cannot be spoken to. And in fact, as long as you're on that line, I guess we'll get back to it. But it's worth pointing out that at that time we were a lying. Yes, with Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union against Hitler and the Nazis. And then now in Ukraine, we relying with not really a Nazi A government but a government that's infested with Nazis and a military force that's infested with Nazis with extreme
right-wing nationalist there. In Ukraine against not comee, Soviet Union, Russia, but just red white and blue Republican. Russia corrupt, American style, corporatism Russia with no ideological axe to grind. No Global battle for dominance between capitalism and communism to be found. If anything he represents like Reagan. I Tara Republican politics, Radomir Putin. Does you know what I mean? It's your, why would National
socialists against Republicans? Whereas before we were willing to lie, even with the worst Communists in order to defeat Nazis, And Richard Nixon was shaken hands with Chairman Mao, as evil as he was, it's better than provoking a war even invited Emperor, Hirohito to shake hands with at a meeting in America. So, great very valuable points.
You mentioned there you mentioned historical narratives a sense of urgency, the citizenry, finding meaning in war, very little accountability, and government schools, all sort of for are many sides of this different Cube that allow people to justify the atrocities. When done under Under the guise of War, check out LP dot-org for more information on the libertarian party. Scott, what else do people need to understand about the war in Ukraine?
Well, a lot of things but I think, you know, in the last point if I can find a good segue here, I mean, one thing would be that you should know that there are a lot of conservative Republicans who carry no brief for Vladimir Putin whatsoever. But people like Pat Buchanan, who was a speechwriter? For Richard Nixon and for Ronald Reagan, and absolutely still a supporter of every bit of the last Cold War up until this day,
who's been warning for years? That we should not be taking this course in Ukraine. And I think the social psychology of the situation is important because If people believe that the anti-war position is simply the province of naive, hippie girls in sundresses, singing Give Peace a chance, then it's easy for the war party to form the narrative that. Yeah. But anyway, you know us professionals know what must be done. And so we can safely ignore that
point of view. But when you have conservatives Like Pat Buchanan like Colonel, Douglas McGregor who people see on the Tucker Carlson show and for that matter Tucker Carlson but that man Or Donald Trump. He was not really that anti-war, although he did to his credit. Absolutely, he negotiated an exit from Afghanistan with the Taliban, which any got saw make alleles. I'd do it, which is just incredible. But other than that, it wasn't that he was a really great anti-war president.
But it was that he said, really anti-war things and being Donald Trump. Everything's, hyperbole, every comes out to the, everything comes out to the maximum. So, not only should George w-- Bush. Have not invaded Iraq but George w--. Bush was the worst president ever, who made the worst decision that any American president ever made which was to go to the Middle East at all right. So now we might even be talking about his father, right?
Like I spent 30 years to this over there, so when he says it like that, what that means then is you don't have to be a hippie, you can be. It's cool. Hippie. Sighing thrashing you. But I'm just saying you don't have to be a hippie. You don't have to be an anti-American communist. You have to be of this Narrative of like born on the fourth of July. Well, I was a patriot and I went to the war and then I came home and became a communist. And then, you know, that's forget.
All that vietnam-era stuff, new left stuff right now, especially the anti-war movement is led by bunch of combat veterans. Look at Dan McKnight and the guys at bring our troops home dot u, s pushing the defend the guard legislation throughout the country, and then look at. Hey, there's just no question about the best anti-war. Guy on TV again is Tucker Carlson who was a hawk on a rock or two and sincerely regrets it and it's been, you know, quite deliberately attempting.
I think to make up for it ever since by being the best anti-war guy. I mean, he's a little hawkish on China, but even then he didn't really say, War hockey things about China. Like we should definitely defend Taiwan and stuff like that. I don't think many ways certainly great on the Middle East and on Russia. Now, one of the best we have. And so, to me, Me.
That's what's so important is and look, I know I'm a Libertarian I'm talking to Libertarians, but I'm just saying in the world that we live in sentiment on these issues is pretty much divided by left and right, and it's important that people who identify on the right side at all. Eli cohn's, you like capitalism, you like church, you like George Washington, whatever. Like, in the most General sense. Broadly defined. If you're on the right, it's
okay. For you to hate all this stuff, you have to believe in this crap. I think about what we're talking about things that Bill Clinton and George Bush. And Barack Obama did with the help of John McCain and Joe Biden. There's no reason in the world why Americans should have to identify themselves with these policies or these presidents and their policies with this country. Maybe this is just a bunch of bad stuff that happened to us.
Just the same as it happened to these other people too. And it's just a way of framing it and look mean, anyone can tell you all of the worse than all the culture War, notwithstanding at all. It's the war on terrorism that has been the war on our economy. The war on our Liberty. In this Society, the war on, even the form of our government. Remember, Bush, and Cheney and the unitary executive, you know, this is and, and just their entire theory that the president
can. So any law, any treaty any other part of the Constitution that he wants by simply invoking? The commander-in-chief clause which is just nonsense. It's only able they're only able to try that due to the state of emergency. So, if you define yourself, you know, allied with conservatism at all, well, what's to conserve its the US Constitution or else? What are we doing here? And you can't have that in a state of War.
So, this is, you know, Garrett, Garrett, complain, just raimondo used to. Always Echo Garrett, we say, the American people have never had a choice between Republic and Empire. It was always Wilkie versus FDR, or do we versus Truman? In other words, Rockefeller versus Morgan. Yeah, good luck for you, right. We don't have a say in this and we never got a say, we never had
a presidential candidacy. That was based truly on ending the Empire Andres. Storing the constitutional republic until the year 2008 60 70, 80 75 years later after the National Security Act right after 70 years later after his just too late, after they the road to Empire had already been taken and when Ron Paul offered them a constitutional republic. They didn't even know what he was talking about. It couldn't even understand it was that alien concept to our
current system. That's the war that has destroyed. Our constitution truly. It's like and Star Wars republic or Empire. You can't have it both ways. The Jedi thought, they could have it both ways up. They all got stabbed in the back and killed and the whole galaxy got enslaved. And so that's obviously, the parable is about our country and about how how we treat our own legacy you mentioned. And that NATO had something to do with this. But with the current conflict in Russia.
How does having a military Alliance simply just making sure people next to you are on the same page, if you're ever attacked, how would that provoke Putin into going into Ukraine? Wouldn't that deter him? Well, so that's the whole thing about it is the claim is, this is purely a defensive Alliance. But defensive against who, if it's against someone that you claim all along these, your friend, who you Have a fight with but you continue to build up a military alliance against
that friend. You could see why that friend would begin to suspect that you don't really mean what you say. And there are plenty of anecdotes. I'm working on a book about this. I'm collecting these anecdotes like, Hot Wheels cars here where the American side different officials have said throughout the decades. Now going back to the Clinton years that. Yeah, we just never took their concerns seriously. Because one we would say, Come
on it's a defense of a line. Somebody thinks NATO's going to attack Russia, NATO's not going to attack Russia. We're not going to attack you. So, if you claim to be worried about that one, we're dismissing your claim because we think it's like dishonest, right? Or two, we think that you're just being foolish and we're not going to change our policy because you're like overreacting but then three What are they
going to do about it anyway? And that was the idea essentially that you have an enemy in the neighborhood guy that you don't get along with anyway and you start making allies out of all his neighbors and all of his Pals, kicking people out of their houses and replacing them with friends and then arming them up and camping out on his front yard. Is it? Well as long as he doesn't come outside with a gun and try to fight it. So I don't know what he thinks the problem is.
And that's essentially the posture. But the Americans, the American government and the American Media refused to ever explain to the American people is how any of these actions might look from the other side's point of view. And again we're not talking about the Communists here so you don't and you don't have to have any sympathy for Putin or His party or his politics whatsoever to, I'm just saying I'm bringing
up the Comet or something. Just to say, there's nothing to be hysterical about here, you know what I mean? Oh, the commie One World Revolution is going to take over the whole planet and blah de blah. And I'm so scared. And okay, well, that's a long time ago. We can be dispassionate enough about this and look and see how it is, and what it is that
they're doing. And so what has happened, is one the Bush Administration at the The Cold War promise, not to expand NATO Eastward, but they were lying. They were planning on expanding NATO. Eastward, they did not want to bring Russian in as a partner. They were just going to have to learn to accept it.
And then the Clinton Administration picked up the policy, and truly did begin to expand NATO wage Wars against Serbia, twice the Russians close allies, they sent the Harvard boys over there to help destroy the Russian economy deliberately kicking them. While they're down even according to Jeff, Three sacks who was one of the guys who was sent over there to help to Cripple their economy.
And then also the I was on a roll about Bill Clinton there and then I forgot, let's see Serbia and NATO expansion and the economics, I think that's my three main points on Clinton then W. Bush comes in, oh, and Bill. Clinton started, the color-coded Revolution by overthrowing the government of Serbia. Finally, in the year. 2000 W,
bush. Then he tears up, the anti-ballistic missile treaty and starts building up defense so-called defensive missile posture in Romania and Poland and he continues the color-coded revolutions against Georgia, Belarus Tajikistan, Lebanon. And of course, Ukraine the first time in 2004, now in Belarus, it didn't work in Tajikistan. In Lebanon, it didn't work and Tajikistan in Georgia, in 03 and in Ukraine. Nando for did work.
But this is essentially, these are CIA coup d'etat, cause National Endowment for democracy allied with George Soros and other, you know, billionaire funded so called non governmental organizations that Finance these protest movements, and essentially dress up, a put as a revolution and they all got these cute color coded names for them and all of these things. And then, Obama comes in he continues to oh I'm sorry.
W-- bush in 08, over the objections of the CIA and his National Security Council and his closest advisers on this including the ubiquitous Warhawk Fiona Hill. He went ahead and invited Ukraine and Georgia to get on an action plan toward eventual, NATO membership.
And that was because Germany and France, put their foot down and said you absolutely will not Not invite them to join NATO because it'll be an unnecessary provocation against the Russians. So Bush said, oh yeah, well, I'm still going to do this thing that he might as well have brought them in an 80, because by calling you to action plan. And then especially following there with the intelligence and Military cooperation after that, he was announcing de facto.
If not disarray NATO membership beginning, then for Ukraine and for Georgia, and then the Georgians really started it. As Part of their attempt to join NATO, was in 2000 and just three months four months after the Budapest or the Bucharest. I forget, which was which the Declaration of bringing them in to, to eventually bring them into NATO, the Georgians attacked a couple of breakaway provinces or they were, I guess they went first after South ossetia and they were going to
go after abkhazia. These two, Breakaway provinces of Georgia and the Russians came across And kick the Georgians back out again and secured. The so-called independence of us that you under Russian protection. And now that was because to join NATO, you have to have settled borders and so that's why no one even talks about bringing Israel
into NATO. Because everybody knows that greater Israel is supposed to go all the way to the Euphrates River someday or something like that, so they don't ever want to claim. Even at the Jordan River, is their eastern border. And so that's why it's, you know, it's in the NATO rules. You have to Settled border. So, that's what George was trying to do. There was settle their border by solving the situation, with their break off States, you know, violently but quickly,
which did not work for them. But anyway, so here W bush overthrew and non-cooperative government in Ukraine, and then invited the new government that he had installed in power, to get, you know, on the path to join the NATO military Alliance. Oh, and I forgot to mention, Under Obama, that he expanded NATO by what 9 or 12 more countries or whatever it was massively. I didn't get to Obama. You know, pushed it is what I say. Clinton start out with 3 and then Bush added nine or 12 or
something like that. Obama only had another for I think Bush did the main you know expansion of NATO including to the Baltic states Latvia Lithuania and Estonia. Now Latvia and Estonia, share a border with Russia Lithuania. Any, it doesn't because they're they almost do though, they're right there. Jason next to Belarus crammed in there, between Belarus and Poland and the Black Sea there. But these are all essentially on, Russia's border.
And anyway, soon Obama comes in and Obama continues with the color-coded revolutions. And he also, you know, launches these massive sanctions against Russia and all these other things. But most importantly, for our story, he overthrew the government. And for the second time in ten years, in February of, 2010 was the same guy Yanukovych, who was denied his presidency, after winning the election of 04 in the orange. Revolution, this time he had become the president.
Finally been elected in 2010 and they were essentially trying to get rid of the guy. And, and they did, they overthrow him and it was, it's a somewhat complicated story, but essentially he was to make a deal with the EU or with the And he chose the Russians against the EU. And so there were, you know, I guess what you would call a liberal forces, but also allied with very right-wing
nationalist. Ukrainian forces in the western half of the country who are really upset, not so much, they were being denied membership in the EU as much as that they were. This present was tilting their country back toward Russia in a way that they didn't accept in a way that he had promised not to do previously. And so this Protest, movement, broke out. And of course, all funded and obviously controlled by the ngos financed by the Americans and their Allied ngos.
And this includes people like George Soros and Pierre omidyar. The famous, you know, co founder of eBay who then was, is still the funder of the intercept and he, and Soros and some others. And along in cooperation with the National Endowment for democracy, back to the Groups that overthrew the government and what ultimately was a violent Street put in February of 2014 and as a direct result of that, the and not, well, I
don't want to skip a step. It's important to stay the three former presidents of Ukraine issued a letter say, now, is our chance to kick the Russians out of the sevastopol naval base on the Crimean Peninsula. Now, Crimea had always belonged and to the Russians since 1783, when Catherine, the Great kind of, you know, took it and kind of bought it from the Turks that was the year that John, Jay Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams traveled to France to sign the Treaty of Paris officially
ending the revolutionary war with Britain for years before, our Constitution was even written. And but what had happened, was Cruise, Jeff, the Supreme dictator of the Soviet Union, right?
The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and issued a decree in 1954 that Crimea now, belonged to Ukraine. So then when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1988 through 91 there and eventually it was in 1991 that Ukraine got their independence, the Russians were really in no position to dispute it anyway.
So the Russians ended up making a deal that was really signed on I guess by 93 that said that the Crimean Peninsula gets to still belong to Ukraine but the Russians get to keep their Naval Base there and they'll pay a lease for it. So this status Court held for 24 years until Obama overthrew the government and until then these former president said, now's our chance to kick the Russians out of here. Only then did the Russians sees the Crimean Peninsula with
essentially zero violence. I guess there's a report of single digit casualties like 5 or Yes, I don't think any of those are even necessarily directly attributable to Russian forces, but it was essentially just a coup de main where the Marines and the sailors at the Naval Base, just went outside and stood on street corners and said, this belongs to us now, and then, that was it done. And so the Russians, you know, that is illegal under international law.
But then again, so is launching an aggressive War based on lies against Serbia to break off Coast. So in 1999 to and I'm not justifying it, I'm just explaining the context. There was that the Americans were putting the Russians in a terrible position later. Putin actually even joked about it.
And said, you know, we thought about how nice it would be to go and visit our NATO friends at their suggestible, Naval base for the holidays, and then we decided not, you know, what would just keep the base and you guys can come and visit us and so, yeah. Okay, makes sense.
And then what Was there were people dissidents in the Far East of the country in Donetsk and luhansk who seized government buildings there and said if you guys can see these government buildings in Kiev and overthrow the government, then we can seize government buildings and refuse to recognize your Authority here in the Far East of the country. And then the new Kiev regime, immediately launched what they call the war on terrorism and attacked the East.
And it is true that the Russian In Special Operations forces to assist the Russian separatists, so-called Rebels, whatever you call them, they're in the donbas. But at the time, of course, the media said over and over again at the Russians, have launched this full-scale Invasion. And all these things that really wasn't true. They sent only essentially deniable forces across to keep
Kiev from winning out, right? They could have done what they've done this year back then and just said, oh, yeah, and taking a magic marker. And said, this is the new international border and we're occupying it.
And they would have been in a much stronger position to do that compared to the strength of the Ukrainian forces at the time, if they had done so. But Putin told them, no, they said they declared independence in the East and then petition to join the Russian Federation and he told them no, because he was working on a peace deal with the Germans and the French beginning in the fall of 2014. The first one was called Minsk and then the second one was Minsk. 82 in February of 2015
and you know, annexing the territory would have been completely contrary to that the deal was supposed to be to end the fighting or Anna least certainly I think the first deal did call back the air strikes, and the heaviest equipment and that kind of thing, and then it was supposed to end the
fighting. And then the national government in Kiev was supposed to launch, an economic rebuilding type project in the East and give Essentially, what we would call in America statehood like strong federalism. Well, we use federalism upside down in America to mean like a strong national government in this case.
I mean, it like in, you know, when Biden was trying to break Iraq into three, strong federalism, meaning more and more autonomy and Authority for the East separate, you know, in other words, remaining a part of the Ukrainian State more in name
than in real practice. But still Remaining within Ukraine. And so that was the means to deal and it's just clear key that the Americans even though the Obama government rubber-stamped, it was Angela Merkel from Germany and Francois Holland from France. The president of France who had worked out the men's deal Obama had rubber-stamped at the UN had rubber-stamped it but it's clear that the Obama government never meant it and never really helped
to implement the deal. And in fact what do they do? They embarked on a program they say no weapons, although I think There's some reports that there were already weapons going there during Obama but still they're sending him home bees and sending them equipment, boots and laces and camping gear and whatever kind of anything that they can send as terms of non-lethal Aid. And then sending our Rangers over there to train all of their guys and all this started in
2014 is going on the whole time. So even though Obama put a rubber stamp on this peace deal, he never meant that peace deal, they didn't want it. And so you had what they called, low-level fighting that went on. For seven years from 2014.
I'm really beginning with high-level fighting but you know, the low level beginning in 2015 and continuing throughout the beginning of this year, which was the major complaint of the Russians that of course, our media never really explained that this war has been going on. Since Joe Biden. The point man. On Ukraine in the Barack Obama government in 2014 launch this coup and and this war broke out in the East. Now what Putin is doing some major escalation of that same War.
Its I'm not denying that its own Invasion and you could even say like its own War but well really no. I mean there's been fighting going on all along and including You know right up until the attack happened in the organization for security and cooperation in Europe they keep all the statistics for the UN about who was dying and it was civilians and fighters on the separatist side being slaughtered by their government and so there's a coup in.
Kiev we go from Yanukovych to was this poor shank oh is that the guy who was installed right after Yanukovych and then The people in the East don't recognize the legitimacy of the regime in the west, they declare a war on terrorism on the terrorists. In the East, this donbas region, do we have estimates on civilian deaths?
I think the total deaths are approximately 14,000 in the majority of those although I'm not exactly certain the numbers but virtually certain that it's a significant majority of those are civilian dead because you're talking about just artillery being blasted into civilian areas and I kind of one final thing on Russia and Ukraine and then I want to get to other
aspects of foreign policy. You mention a document that Wikileaks released in 2008, this would sort of indicate that there was not Just that such a thing Could Happen. Tell us about this document. Yeah. There's a whole bunch of things along these lines about just what gains were? They knew that they were messing with here and again, people should really be clear. I don't disclaim to Pander to anyone. I just want people to not misunderstand.
I'm a Texan. Give a damn about Russia, my wife, she speaks Russian, but she's Ukrainian not Russian. So, you know, if I got a dog in this hunt, it's on their side. It's really on America side. So I'm not here to carry a brief for the Russians or for their policy here. I'm just explaining the truth, it's the same as Osama Bin Laden. Like, here's a guy who's, you know, a war, criminal, a mass murderer of civilians, there's
no way in the world. No reason in the world to take his side or to think that if someone was explaining his motive and strategy that they're taking his side, they may be. You're just trying to get you to understand the enemies motivation and strategy and it's just true and clear.
In this case that the Americans helped to provoke this fight, and I do encourage people to go to WikiLeaks or just type into your Google search engine, yet means and yet, and it was written by our current CIA director, William Burns back when he was the ambassador to Russia under Condoleezza Rice and George w--. Bush. When you see, what's the Secretary of State and in February of 2008, he wrote yet means, nyet, Russia's NATO
expansion, red lines. And it's about, first of all, a conversation that he had with Sergei lavrov, the foreign minister who's making it absolutely clear that man, don't you guys pursue NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia? It's just going to cause such a problem you could cause a civil war in Ukraine. And then we would probably have to choose whether to intervene In that Civil War, which is a decision. We don't want to have to make
man. So just let's not go down this road, but then he's also reporting that this is the view of everyone in Moscow, with a government job. This is absolutely the consensus that you just can't do this. This is their red line and you might say they're completely paranoid. We've never attacked them in a million years. Yeah, well they're paranoid, that's who you're dealing with and you're really trying their patients here and they've made it. Absolutely clear over and over and over again.
This is too far. Don't do it. Now I kind of skipped something. I'm sorry cuz I take too long to tell the story but see Trump came in and they falsely accused him of treason key and said that he was a sock puppet of Vladimir Putin. Well that was never true. Not one word of it. Anyone who thinks one word of any of those 900 separate accusations that were part of Russia Gator. True. You just wrong. Go back and check every single syllable of that crazy conspiracy theory.
He was has been soundly debunked. It was simply a lie cooked up by the Democrats, the FBI counterintelligence Division and the CIA to try to thwart Donald Trump. But now so then what happened, his son? I believe it was Eric. It might have been junior. Said it perfectly said, oh, well, now that we're dumping all these arms into Ukraine. Let's see him call us Pro Russian Traders now, because this is just kind of this two-dimensional thinking, right?
If he really was playing three or Dimensional chess like his fans. Always said he might have invited Putin, straight to d.c., take him out to the Opera, feed him a McDonald's. You know, Big Mac and sign a brand new gigantic, nuclear arms reduction treaty with him and maybe like a new status for special autonomy for the donbas or something and stick it right down their throats.
Let The Washington Post, call it treason, all they want, but he's signing a new awesome nuclear arms, reduction deal, something like that, but his take of We'll give in to the establishment and become Russia Hawks and that will acquit us that never work, that's just being played right so but that was what they did. We're Barack Obama was afraid to poor arms into the coup.
D'etat Junta that he had helped install, which did have at least nine and I think my count my current count, the book is 12, Hitler, loved and Nazis in major positions of power in the new government as soon as they took it over, he flinched John Conyers had an amendment in the Congress has said no funding to go to train Nazis and they put that in the ndaa. And then they had to take it out Keith because that's who our
Rangers are training over there. A bunch of Hitler, loved and Nazis. Obama was afraid of this and said, well, we'll train them and we'll give them trucks and things but we won't harm them. Donald Trump comes in and arms now and I have a whole collection of documents like this and people can search themselves. Here's your magical key word for arms to Ukraine that ever needs to I add to your search in all your different favorite branded search engines calibrate calibrated.
We're, although the number of weapons. The amount of weapons, the form of weapons that were sending in is being carefully calibrated Keith, to make sure to deter the Russians without provoking them, right? And they say that over and over again. But then you can read at Yahoo news and if this guy's got some really good Scoop series absolutely worth reading, his name is Zach Dorfman. And he has a piece at Yahoo
news. We're just as you or I might say, you know, obviously being a Critic here, he's quoting a whole handful at least of CIA officials saying well, The policy was that we want to pour in enough arms to deter Russia without pouring in so many that we provoke them. And that's what our politicians decided and that's what they told us to do. But we that's them speaking. The CIA to Yahoo news. We knew that actually doesn't
work that way. It's the exact opposite, we're sending in enough arms to provoke them without sending in enough arms to deter them. And so we're going to end up getting a war. And now this article is there told you so CIA claiming at least that they were trying to get the civilians in the government to understand, you're going to provoke a conflict instead of stopping one, but they wouldn't listen to us, right? You also can search from last December.
And from January that be December 21 in January, 22. All these reports of them talking about how? Yeah, you know what, let them invade you reading the Wall Street Journal reading. The Washington Post is all over the place in the In the hill you know, be great. Let's get them to invade. Will bog them down. It'll be just like Afghanistan in the 1980s. Remember Rambo 3. We had such a good job.
Did such a good job backing who the Posh tune mujahideen to Take on the Soviet Union to bleed them to bankruptcy and force their destruction and then we never had another problem with Afghanistan ever since that time right? Only. They're saying this for months after America. Finally.
He left in humiliating defeat and withdrawal from being defeated by the Taliban who would Bill Clinton had supported to replace the mujahideen that Corridor Reagan and Bush had supported to fight against the Soviets. And so just four months after we're finally done paying the costs of our 1980s intervention in Afghanistan. They've got Afghanistan and their mouths as the model and they say it's in the New York Times, you know? We've learned the lesson. We don't know anything about how
to fight an Insurgency boy. Is that not what they said before? Anyway, we don't know the first thing about how to fight an Insurgency, but we sure know how to back one, like we did in Afghanistan and like we did in Syria now they got, they just left Afghanistan and humiliating defeat for months before they got Afghanistan in their mouth. Well, there's still got troops in Syria, in the name of
fighting. In the Islamic State where Obama's dirty war on behalf of al-Qaeda, from 2011, through 13 and 14, led to the is to the rise of the Islamic State caliphate that, then he had to launch a rock War 3 and kill another half a million people to destroy and just within like, you know, anyone never mind the 1980s, right? This happened, all in the Teens in the Obama years and they're citing Syria as the model for what they want to do.
So they're saying, you know what will threaten Russia you better not invade but we won't do anything to negotiate in. Good faith to keep them in from invading. Because now we think we got this clever plan that we're going to do in Ukraine. What we did in Afghanistan ballgame down, bleed them to bankruptcy except that. Look at the map, you got an entire Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan between Russia and Afghanistan.
Right? When we fought a proxy war with Russia, in Vietnam, we had an entire China between them This is right on Russia's border. This is the second most important country to Russia after Belarus. Right. It'd be like saying, oh yeah, no, the Russians were just messing around in Mexico, not Canada where the Americans would really care about that.
But you know what, we care about Mexico a hell of a lot to and whether we have a friendly regime there or not one, hey no, it's plenty to eat by the way, as long as I'm rambling, I had brought up the issue before that in the Civil War. When the, when the British and French were thinking about intervening on the side of the Confederacy.
The Russians, the, the American government Abraham Lincoln did exactly what Bashar al-assad did, which was called the Russians, and the Russians came and brought their ships into San Francisco Bay and into New York, Harbor, to let the British and the French know that if they got, if they took the South Side that they were going to have to mess with the Russians to fighting on the North side and that they would, in fact protect those Harbors from attack in that kind of thing.
And that's, you know, essentially Lee do to America in, in the most desperate circumstances, still sticking to that Monroe Doctrine, that we better not have any intervention by European powers over on the American side, I guess, it's unless it's on the union side, then it's okay. But and then you use the example of Woodrow Wilson and the Mexicans. Oh wait. No it wasn't, it was Wilson. It was John I'm sorry Johnson.
After the Civil War telling the French, they better get the hell out of Mexico. When that was when Maximilian was the dictator of the kind of French back dictator of Mexico there for a little while you know, like Six Flags to Texas and clues like what Mexico is ruled by France. I do remember that. Yeah, it's just a little while, but the Americans said they like, as soon as the Civil War was over, they lined up Union forces on the Mexican border and so we're going to invade and kill you.
All if you don't get the hell out right now and the French packed up and left, Left without a fight. And so that's the American Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine is European powers better, stay the hell out of the Americas. And if you actually read James Monroe's, speech, he promises America will stay out of European Affairs in response as you know, as to return the policy to the other side. And we always ignore that part of the doctrine, but we can see exactly how America would
behave. If a European power was behaving in the Americans, The Way We Were Having an Eastern Europe right now or if Russia ever tried to put missiles in Cuba, I'm not sure they're done that, that they would stand by at all. I want to get into you mentioned Afghanistan. You wrote this book Fool's errand. Time to end the war in Afghanistan. September 11th. 3,000 American civilians are killed by Muslim extremists. What should have been done? And what caused that in the first place?
Well, what caused it in the first place? People need to understand, we mention the war in Afghanistan. There was the Pashto The mujahideen of Afghanistan that Carter and then Reagan back against the Soviet Union there and Bush senior to, there was also what's called the Arab Afghan Army that was recruited by Saudi intelligence in the CIA from all across the middle east of mujahideen to go and fight on the side of the Afghans against the Soviets.
And that included, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman, al-zawahiri, Abdullah azzam, and all of these men who their groups ended up, including the blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman And their groups ended up becoming the core of al-qaida and its really.
The azzam group was mostly Saudis that Bin Laden inherited and then Egyptian Islamic Jihad which was run by the surgeon Ayman al-zawahiri and essentially what happened was they decided for a few different reasons to attack the United States. One of the reasons was because they were all from so many different countries. And had so many different agendas attacking the Americas.
There was one thing they could agree on like well why should we attack the King of Jordan when I want to attack the president of Egypt? Well like okay both y'all shut up. We'll just attacked the Americans that kind of thing. So like problem solving in time inside their group, right? But also They were astute enough to see. They can never have a revolution in their own countries in Egypt, or Jordan, or in Saudi Arabia as long as they were backed by the American Empire.
And so they said we should fight the far enemy first and then the clothes enemy second. And so the idea was to provoke the United States into invading Afghanistan. Then they could replicate the war that we had help them fight against the Soviet Union against the United States.
And Lester bankruptcy and force our Empire out of their region the long way in the hard way so that we don't come back and then the idea is very cynical idea obviously is and if another million people are killed like in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and no well let all I'll sort them out. As long as they're good, Muslims will go to paradise and so who cares? If the Americans come and carpet bomb Afghanistan off the face of the Earth as long as the event?
Ali cost the American so much money that they go bankrupt and go home. Now, as we all know, the real implementation of Bin Laden's plan against the United States really took place mostly in Iraq rather than in Afghanistan. Although, it happened in Afghanistan to and to say that I'm not saying that George Bush was an innocent victim or like a
doe-eyed naive. Well-meaning chap, who just got played by Bin Laden. In fact, what happened was Ben Laden's, plan centered around the idea that the Americans are corrupt, lying cynical imperialists that if he gives them a crisis to exploit that they will cynically exploit, It ultimately to their own detriment and he was right about that. So yes, it's true that bush is a fool but he's a fool because he's a bad person because he was trying to get away with even All things.
And that's the same with the rest of his administration. When they decided what they wanted to do in Afghanistan, almost from the very beginning, over the objections of the CIA, over the objections at that time, I'll give her credit of the National Security advisor. Condoleezza Rice.
They wanted to bomb the Taliban Keith instead of al-Qaeda, they weren't hunting a couple of hundred Arabs who are friends with Bin Laden. They were going after the Taliban even The CIA, and the National Security adviser was saying what we should be doing is we should be bombing only Arabs where we can find them on the ground. We have solid intelligence, we can put a laser designator on him. We're going to bomb Bin Laden's Arab militias on the ground within the line of sight of
Taliban groups. And then we need to tell the Taliban. You see how good we are at dropping explosives on people play ball with us because the al-Qaeda guys were not Afghans. They were Were Arabs, they were Saudis and Egyptians and syrians and I guess chechens aren't Arabs but they're sure as hell, not Afghans either. So these were foreigners and the Taliban were willing to betray them. They've been trying to get rid
of them all along. It's in Gary bernsen's book, for example, a CIA officer on the scene that he got on the radio with the Taliban and they said, we surrender we surrender and he said, oh yeah, what do you have any Arabs with you? And they said, yeah, we do, we've got 20. And he said, oh yeah, kill him. And they said, okay, hang on just one second, and then he can hear in the background rat.
Tat, tat, tat tat, okay. All the Arabs are dead now, we surrender, and he says, okay surrender accepted, right? So in other words, CIA on the ground is saying that, yes, this can happen that we can Target the Arabs and not the Taliban and we can even get the Taliban to kill the Arabs for us if we give them an out. But Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush and Dick Cheney. They overruled all this. They said no we want to fight down in Kandahar and up in
mazar-e-sharif. We want to fight where the Northern Alliance is that war against the Taliban who did not attack us and then as his so. Well documented, especially by berntson who I mentioned Gary berntson. And also by a guy named Thomas Greer who that's his real name.
But his book is under the name, Dalton Fury 3 and he was the Delta Force Lieutenant Colonel. I believe it was in charge of the mission there and he and Bernsen both say, it's just this feeling question that they were deliberately deprived by Bush and Cheney of the reinforcements that they needed to one target Bin Laden and to, especially to seal the border with Pakistan there right there. Jason to the border with Pakistan, and the Eastern nangarhar Province there.
At the place that they knew all along was Ben Laden's, Hideout. He'd been interviewed by CNN and ABC News in the independent there. The silk a lion's den in Tora Bora and so they had four thousand marks Marines, down there in Kandahar. They had the 75th Rangers, which is top tier Special Operations forces than the Green Berets.
A second-tier special operations forces fighting up in the north than thousands of Army Rangers. I forget, which Battalion they're already occupying, the Bagram Air Base. And he had the CIA and the Delta Force Commander begging for reinforcements, which they were denied over and over again. And we know now that also that the airstrikes it Tora Bora were halted only eight days into the attack at Tora, Bora on December
the 8th. When Bin Laden is virtually certain only known to have not gotten away until December the 17th. Nine days later. So, and and it's clear from people. Well, it's all in the book Fool's errand. But if you look at Bob Woodward's book Bush that war, what happened was Bush again? This fool said, hey, you know, we should do. We should just give all of the National Security Council notes to Bob, Woodward, we like Bob,
he'll do a good job. And so here Bob, Woodward got these highly classified minutes of the National Security Council meetings where they are openly discussing. Maybe we should start bombing Iraq now. So the American people don't get the idea that this war on terrorism, could possibly be over in any reasonable period of
time. We need them to understand this war is going to take place over a long period of time in a broad period of space in all of these different countries and all this different agenda that we are going to launch now. And and Rumsfeld is adamant that if we get Bin Laden, that is not Victory. And if we fail fail to get Bin Laden. That is not two feet. We still have a lot more fighting to do.
I think maybe we need to start bombing Baghdad right now and all these things, this is from the very beginning, they know that they are going to take this just as Bin Laden hoped they were going to take this attack and exploit it. But unlike what Bin Laden thought that they would just launched this massive undertaking and Afghanistan. They tried to go more or less light and fast in Afghanistan. They later. Outsourced it to Nato.
And then, of course, Obama tripled the thing with his It surged in beginning in 2009 but at least at that time they were in a hurry to move on to it Rock. And that's where, you know, Michael sure the former Chief of the bin Laden unit said, well this is the hoped-for but unexpected gift to Bin Laden. That not only you going to break our military on the rocks, in our treasury on the rocks in Afghanistan. But now you're going to overthrow the Socialist Infidel, Saddam Hussein, who rules?
It's 2,000 miles to the west of nangarhar Province on in Mesopotamia, just adjacent to the Lavon and the Mediterranean Sea. And we're now moving the battlefield right into Arab land, right where? And in fact you couldn't have planned this better from Bin Laden's point of view because the and I guess you can ask me. This question is s of Y but America in that war.
The side of the Shiite. Super majority against the formerly ruling party, Sunni minority tribal communities, which just pushed them directly into the arms of the bin Laden nights. And what we call Al Qaeda in Iraq and some of the absolutely you know, most heinous war criminals on the side of the Sunni Insurgency who deliberately targeted Shiite civilians as well as American troops and Iraqi troops with suicide. Tax and beheadings and all kinds of atrocities, you know, as a
result of all of that. And so they took what had been quite literally 400 men Bin Laden and his 400 loser, criminal Bandit friends hiding out in no man's land on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the middle of nowhere. Exiled from the rest of humanity, guests of a bunch of cavemen, you know, with almost no ability to do anything to anyone. And, and George W. Bush turned, all of Western Iraq into Jihadi University, recruited, tens of thousands of
people. It made the Afghan War and the Arab Afghan Army that traveled to Afghanistan to fight under. Ronald Reagan and Bin Laden's forces in the 80s look like nothing, compared to the thousands and thousands tens of thousands, probably who traveled from Saudi, from Syria, from Libya, and all around the Middle, East to go and fight
with the al-Qaeda forces. As part of the Sunni based Insurgency in Iraq, now, Now in this book Fool's errand, time to end the war in Afghanistan. You actually mention that the Bush Administration was offered Bin Laden by the Taliban. How do you know that that happened?
What's the evidence for that? Well, I got all the footnotes in the book from the various papers, especially the British papers, who covered it very carefully at the time that the original Taliban offer after September 11th, they've been negotiating for very long time over this but their original offer was give us some proof that he This and we will extradite been like I guess 11. They said, well, we'll try them ourselves and the Americas like no, he's going to get rid of him it. Go.
Okay. Well look, we'll send him to any Muslim country for trial. That's, you know, I'm virtually certain every single Muslim countries a member of What's called the organization of Islamic conference which was created by the Americans and the Saudis in the first place. And it's essentially every Muslim state is a member of
that. And so, but this means we're talking to Total sock puppet, dictatorships of the United States, like Jordan like Egypt or, you know, friendly countries like Malaysia or Indonesia, who be absolutely happy extradition would mean the plane lands on the runway of papers signed and then it takes off again to land in Virginia and good luck pal,
right? That could have been done but they said we need to see some evidence of that and we'll send them to any Muslim country and the American said, nope, actually Colin Powell said yes, we're working on it. See a we're going to prove it and it was Ben London, his men who did it. And Powell said we're working on a dossier. We're going to prove it and then they never did come up with that.
And the second Taliban offer was listen, give us some proof, give us you know an indictment you know, not a conviction would give us a reason to believe that this happened that we can stand on. You know, there's a very strict honor code in Afghanistan, which like in Japan or something, where it's beyond reasonable in the old postion, Wally Honor Code that says you give a man your own daughter before you give up. Our guests to an enemy outside
and this kind of thing. So look you want us to betray these people who we are hosting. Give us a good damn reason to do it and the American attitude as George w-- Bush. So eloquently, put it was no negotiations I said hand him over. So then on October the 8th once the bombs started falling that day, the Taliban, oh no, I'm sorry, oh I said Pakistan they turn them down.
Then on the day the bombs started falling they said you know what forget proving the case we're now ready to turn him over and not just him but Al Qaeda will turn him over to any Third Country other than the United States and I guess, presumably Israel. Well, then move to any Third Country. So now we're talking Britain France. Mexico are best friends in the world if we want Japan. Again, people who would extradite him and his men to the United States for persecution
and prosecution without a blink of an eye, right? And pushed it too. Little too late. And that's because they wanted their war. And then again, what do they do? They refuse to go after he said, Wanted Dead or Alive and I quote, in the book in both books, I republish the entire block quote because I don't want anyone to think that I take it out of context in any way whatsoever. It's just six months after September 11th, still a year before.
For the invasion of Iraq, the beginning of March of 2002 And the reporter lady asked Bush. You don't ever talk about Bin Laden anymore. All you ever do is talk about Saddam Hussein and Bush. You know, he's sort of been practicing this with his men, but he's still just George w-- Bush. And so, this is the best he can do is like essentially insult her and chastise her for being. So ignorant that she thinks that this is just about one man.
Even though Yeah, he's guilty. And it doesn't matter whether he's still in command of a giant Legion or as Bush put it, he's on the run. So long as he's on the run. I don't care who but what about? We just want to nail him to a tree and watch him. Die of starvation anyway because of what he did. What about that? All you care about is that he's on the Run. Well I want him locked in prison, in solitary confinement, you know, next to the pot smoker.
I have, what are we doing? And then and then he just, you know, it's the clumsiest damn thing because it can only be the clumsiest damn thing coming out of his mouth as he's trying desperately to change the subject. And to say, you know what, lady you just don't understand the Nuance of the complex discussion about how this war on terror is far bigger than just been lot. And what is he doing?
He's changing the subject from the guy with the beard and the road to the guy with the mustache in the beret. The guy who didn't do it at all. And they go, I was strong. I mean, they're just doing this. You can't stop it. So, I don't know. As the Washington Post said, we're going to war. Why worry about is contrary stuff and they all just climbed on board for it. But at the time, if you didn't want to believe in it, it was the most absurd thing in the world.
And you know what? Keith our good friend Dave Smith. This is what made a dove out of him is because after September 11th, like this was not far from where he grew up, and he was upset. And he wanted George Bush to get some revenge for him and for the people of his City, and then he saw that clip of Bush saying, I'm truly not that concerned about him.
Let me repeat myself. I am truly not that concerned and Dave was like, yeah, but what happened to you standing on top of the fire truck and saying and the people who did this are to hear from all of us soon and you got me all excited. And now you're telling me we're going to to rack and you see right? Then I smell a rat and you look people, you know, in a way to their credit people are good and they just couldn't imagine that George w--.
Bush would lie to them like that the George W bush would take them to war against a country, that didn't do it knowing good and well that he was playing off the fact that they were still upset about that. That happen and essentially knowing that he's baiting and switching them into war. There was this one documentary, I think it was called World War 4 years ago. I don't know if it's even still
around anymore. If you could even find it but they quote a guy who was a cop and whose son was a firefighter. I think who died in the towers and he talks about how gung-ho he was for the thing and how and how happy was for the attack on Iraq and everything else. And then it wasn't I forgot. What year was? It may have been 2003. Three or four. that in a cabinet meeting, one of the reporters said to Bush, How come you keep saying that Saddam was tied to
Al-Qaeda when he really wasn't? And Bush kind of stutter something about. Well, I keep saying he was because he was, she goes. Yeah, but like what? And he can't say anything, but he's clearly caught in a lie. And then this cop, whose son died on 9/11, who spent the last two or three years being gung-ho pro-war goes. Wait, what? Oh, I know what it was because he said look I never said he did. September 11th. Saddam.
I just said that he's tied to Al-Qaeda and he could help them, do the next September 11th or something like that and the cock with. Wait what do you mean? You never said he did September 11. Like I could have swore that you did and the truth is he didn't quite, but he sure was happy to make sure that the American people believe that Iraq had been involved in the attack. He would say things like this. He would say, why do we have to attack Iraq? Because of September 11th.
And a one, and a two, and a three, and a four, and a five, and a six. And a because we learned the lesson that day that from now on, you have to start all the wars against people who might attack you rather than letting them attack you first because the how horrible that was remember that. But meanwhile during that whole pregnant pause and you know that your it's George W bush who
doesn't speak English that well. So when he says because of September 11th, you kind of rewrite it for him and you take that to mean because he did September 11th. Why are we attacking Iraq? Because of September 11th. Sounds like that's what he means because he did it to us and then but you would have to be thoughtful enough to go, well, why don't we start carpet bombing him immediately? Then why are we asking the Chinese?
And the French for permission on the UN Security, Council to attack, we didn't ask them for permission to attack Afghanistan. Why are we asking them for permission? Attack Iraq. Because the law says, you have to get a security Council resolution to start a war not to defend yourself when you're attacked, right? But people weren't able to think that through people just took it for granted.
I quoted all the time. It's so, you know, relevant Tory to me, the guy in my cab in late 02 or early 03, rich guy successful, real-estate guy tall and handsome and lived in the like swankiest bachelor pad apartments. And Southwest, Austin and was mr. Had his ass together. Men of the Town drink at the bars of the fanciest hotels. Kind of a guy and he, and all of his peers were sure that Saddam did 9/11 and that's why we have
to invade them. Everyone, he knew in his entire social class and Social Circle, everyone. He drank with every professional that he knew in his community of people knew that we have to do this because Saddam is such a terrorist and he did the 9/11 attack. Back and what he said to me was, come on cab driver, but here's the cab driver debunking. The president, you know, who the hell you? Come on cab driver. I mean, come on. If a rack didn't do 911, then, how come we're attacking him then?
We must have done it or else we wouldn't be doing this. And I'm going. Yeah. But, you know, like Eddie Murphy Coming to America. Aha, that's the whole point dude, is that he didn't do it and they're baiting and switching. They're jerking your chain and they're getting you to support a thing based on a false premise. And I said you can find it Cheney telling that lie but I demand I insist you go in there and Google the hell out of it and you will not find W Bush
saying that. Um did 9/11 and you won't find Condoleezza Rice saying that and you won't find George Tenet saying that and he won't find Colon Powell saying that you will find Dick Cheney saying that, but he's a damn liar. But the fact that the president won't even claim that means that he wouldn't dare, he's happy to confuse you on the issue, but he will not go on the record making that claim because it's so damn
false and debunk a bowl. And I mean, it really was the most cynical damn thing I ever seen in my life, and I watched him. The American people into war against the Branch Davidian ski. And this was even worse than that is. Just incredible to see the way that they were able to Buffalo people into launching attack
against this. Absolutely helpless cripple blockaded sanction, third world country that we'd been bombing for 12 years straight by the time that September 11th even happened, you know, well, I remember Dick Cheney on television saying it's been pretty well. Well confirmed that Mohamed Atta the commander-in-chief of the 9/11 operation actually met with Iraqi intelligence and I think Portugal or progress somewhere and it's like if they were Vaca he said which again, proves that he's lying.
There's no such thing as Czechoslovakia in the year 2001. So a member, I believe he was the presidential candidate of the libertarian party. Harry Brown on September 12th, came out and wrote an article talking about the Causes that people should not be surprised when a lot of people including myself and my family were surprised at the events of 9/11. What was the ultimate cause why do the terrorists hate us in this case? Yeah, well, I'm sure I went off
on a tangent somewhere in there. I mean, the point was that these were the mujahideen that Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan and h.w. Bush had nurtured, and then they turn against the United States, as I said, because one they're trying to consolidate, Their power and their, their movement and because they thought that the Americans were the primary supporters of the dictatorships that they wanted to overthrow in
revolutions over there. Now, they're essentially their recruitment stick against the United States that they used to get people on board to volunteer, even to be suicide. Attackers against the United States. Was that one we have bases in Saudi Arabia. We kept after Iraq war one in order to bomb and blockade Iraq. And there was a un report and it turns out this was exaggerated and withdrawn, but it was the famous report that said that five hundred thousand Iraqi children.
Had been starved under the sanctions. It really was 300,000. So, same damn difference, but Bin Laden would embellish it to 600,000 and even a million and say, the Americans have, you know, blockaded and starved a million Iraq. He's our million babies to death there. And from these bases on the holy Arabian, Peninsula the land were of Mecca Medina where Muhammad was born and where the Islamic religion was born. And then number two on the list is support for Israel and their
docking. Their oppression of the people of Palestine and at that time of Lebanon and support for the dictatorships around the region, as I said, pressure on them, to rig the oil price to subsidize our economy. Their expense, which of course, we hear that all the time, right? Why is buying mad at Saudi Arabia right now because they won't loyal, lower the price of oil for him, right? Is a constant theme especially
right around election time. And then I said, turning a blind eye to or supporting anti-islamist Violence by Russia, China, India and Kazakhstan and which is funny because that's just not true. The Americans supported the mujahideen against the Russians, support of the uyghurs against the Chinese. And support of the chechens support of the KLA and Kosovo supporter kitab and his friends
in chechnya. And I don't know exactly how much they did about against Uzbekistan, you know, back in say like the Clinton years but I think it was something you know. But anyway so those were the motor made the major motivations and those were the major recruitment talking. For the bin Laden night movement, against the United States in the 90s. And then as I say, the strategy was to provoke a fight Louis and to bog us down and bleed us to
bankruptcy. And in fact, I wrote an article for anti-war.com, it's like three or four articles ago, it's called Peter Berg and is mistaken about Bin Laden strategy. And Peter Bergen, was the former CIA CNN producer who accompanied, Peter Arnett, who interviewed Bin Laden in 1996. He likes to claim that he interviewed Bin Laden, but he did not Peter Arnett did and he was there. But anyway, Bergen is now like, you know, proclaimed terrorism expert.
And he says, open lot and thought he was just going to whoop ass in a few months and we'd turn around and leave crying with our tail between our legs, kind of a thing. And that he only made up this stuff about bleeding us to bankruptcy the long and hard way kind of after we didn't leave so quickly, but that's just not true. And I show, you know, through all different kinds of documentation. Students from before the 2004 speech where he really makes it clear.
He says I have to do is send a piece of cloth upon which it is written Al-Qaeda to the furthest point east and you'll spend billions of dollars in your generals racing to go and chase after it because your damn pool is winter but he said the same kind of thing like that for years throughout the 1990s. And in fact, even in a letter to mullah Omar of the Taliban, sorry for getting you bombed, mullah Omar, please forgive me. And please understand that. The Americans have two.
Aces. They can either pull out now and humiliation and be weaken and lose their stature or they can stay. And in 10 years, it actually took 20 we're not Communists here. We got a more powerful economy economy. But after 10 years, trust me, they'll be beaten and bloody and then they'll have to leave the long in the hard way, and then they'll still lose that same stature and power and on the world stage. And that is, the point is trying to get them to get the hell out of here.
The long way, in our way, people can read. That's right there in the wall. Fraternal. It's right there in the Atlantic Alan Collison is the great journalist who got a hold of a Taliban aesthetic Taliban computers that had that letter from Bin Laden to mullah Omar written on it in 2001. And it's it's just so incredible. I mean a 20 year war in
Afghanistan first time. NATO ever declares Article 5 declares war and then the Taliban Takeover in 11 days and now I see Clips like this with regard to a potential war with China. I want you To watch this and I want your response here. What should a Chinese president XI know about your commitment to Taiwan? We agree with what we signed on, do a long time ago and that there's one, China policy and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are not moving.
The, we're not encouraging, their being independent, we're not to let. That's their decision, but would you assess forces defend the island? Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack after our interview of White House, official told us us policy has not changed. Officially the US will not say whether American forces would defend Taiwan but the commander-in-chief had a view of his own. So unlike Ukraine to be clear, sir US forces us.
Men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese Invasion. Yes. What is it that people need to know about a potential conflict between the US and China over Taiwan? That idiot saying that is the most likely proximate cause of a war breaking out. The one China policy has kept the peace for 50 years. Half a century since Nixon and Kissinger worked as deal out with mouse victim. It says well it was officially since Jimmy Carter but they you
know worked it out. Originally way back under Nixon in the early 70s. And the deal is that America recognizes the Taiwan It is part of China. It has been since the 1600s. And yet, of course, you know, for people who don't know, the background is the commies won. The Civil War in 1949 and the right-wing fashion. The Nationalist under Shane Kai-shek fled to Taiwan and then the American Navy, got him between him and prevented the
commies from finishing the job. So then Taiwan then known as Formosa became essentially an American protectorate, run by a right-wing dictatorship. Didn't become a democracy until the late 80s, so right-wing fascist military. Very dictatorship and was horribly oppressed. The local indigenous Taiwanese by the way.
And but then so the Americans have this insane policy of pretending that the government on Taiwan was the real government of China and they kept that policy from 1949 until 1972 73. When Nixon went over there and finally changed that and recognize China and gave Beijing, their seat on the UN Security Council and because he recognized wrote a list of things that China wants and things that we want and they want Taiwan. And we actually don't care about it at all.
Doesn't make any difference to us. So we'll give him that column but now we didn't want to see our friends not our allies but our friends crushed either. So they said listen, here's the policy America recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. It's one country. However, we would really like to see you guys resolve your differences peacefully and this reintegration to happen at some point under peaceful circumstances. Then as part of that, the US has also had what was called the
Dual deterrence policy. The Dual deterrence policy said that we would tell the Chinese Mainland. Hello. Listen, we really don't want you guys attack and Taiwan we got a lot of big ships and you know that. But then at the same time, we would tell the Taiwan, he's you pipe down, pipsqueak you don't declare independence, you don't pick a fight with China that
we're not promising. We will defend you in, don't you go getting out over your skis and big too big for your Britches and get us in a fight because we might not come to your rescue, right? And so, the ambiguity there is to imply to the Chinese. We probably would defend them. Dude, don't try our patience, but to let the Taiwan, he's believe Ash. We might not defend you. So, stay quiet. And don't go and provoke a war.
Now, what's biting doing? Blindness saying Hell yeah I'll defend Taiwan which does what it throws. The one China policy out essentially he's de facto recognizing Taiwan is an independent Sovereign Nation and saying. This isn't a matter of any sort of Civil War. This is a war between nation-states and he's essentially declaring an alliance with the little helpless one. Seven thousand miles west to here.
And so, That we have no real ability to defend, and but what he's doing is, he's bolstering right-wing forces in Taiwan and giving them a reason to declare independence. Giving them a reason to be overconfident and if they declare independence, that is the single thing, most likely to
cause the Chinese to attack. And then people should know that in all the war games, we lose, we get quote, our asses handed to us, And that's when the Navy the US Navy fights against itself with some guys hired to pretend to be the Chinese. And then what happens, it's a simple as their sea-skimming. Supersonic anti-ship missiles have a longer range than an F-18. That there you go. Air power checked and mated aircraft carriers.
Can't get anywhere near Taiwan. Oh well, you published I've I was just going to there's a lot of overlap here. You published a book titled hotter than the sun, this is a collection of interviews where you talk about the danger of nuclear weapons, what is it? That people need to understand about the reality of a potential nuclear conflict and the risk of nuclear war? Well, Hurley in terms of of
China here. Just imagine the politics of any president, whether it's by nor anyone else in that chair. If an aircraft carrier is sunk in the Pacific Ocean and we have something like seven or ten thousand Sailors, drowned and killed. What does an American president do? Say odds, Gees shouldn't have gotten in that mess. I made a bunch of bad decisions that led to this bad outcome. I better change my mind.
No, the only time I know that that that I know of that that ever happened was, when Reagan put the Marines in Lebanon and they got blown up and then he pulled the surviving ones out instead of doubling down the war. He left and said man, I shouldn't have done that but they didn't get nuked, they didn't get and they didn't get drowned by the thousands of was 250 270 one.
I believe we're suicide truck, bombed to death but now seven or ten thousand Sailors drowned it's almost certain that that would escalate to nuclear war and the thing is about nuclear war is that once it starts it's virtually impossible to keep it limited. They kill one or two of our cities and we kill one or two of their cities. Now, we're talking 10 million dead. And then everybody's going to cool out after that.
Or not. And especially, I think people also underestimate the power of modern thermonuclear weapons. Where if you look at the aftermath of her Oshima and I actually have, I can't share these because they're guy. I promise to God I would never share them because they're not like officially copyrighted. But there are high resolution panoramic pictures of the aftermath of her Oshima essentially like a 360-degree view of Hiroshima and it's just flattened. It's absolutely unbelievable.
It's absolutely unbelievable. But that was a 15 kiloton bomb. But modern nuclear weapons are detonated in the megatons thousands of times more powerful than a Hiroshima bomb. So one or two megatons, key is enough to kill all of New York City, all five boroughs, everybody, everything gone, all of it. All of Houston. All of Dallas. From one bomb, could kill all of Dallas Texas. Who's for anybody who's ever even just changed planes at DFW airport at night flying in and
see how vast that territory is like flying into La at night. 11 good h-bomb set off say, in Hollywood. Would kill everybody from the beach to Downtown LA. Tens of millions of people would be, you know, either burnt or radiated killed in the first days. First, even single day of a nuclear war and then the idea is use them or lose them. The Chinese only have 300 nukes, they get a launch them all, or they got to all get destroyed in their silos by incoming American News.
So the answer is use them or lose them. Same thing their nukes are targeted at our nukes and our silos, use them or lose them now. And just think about how mad you'd be if the Chinese nuked la. And how mad the rest of society would be about that, you can't do that. If you knew quell, a we're going to Nuke Wuhan and Shanghai and Beijing because that's how we roll. And then that's it, that's General nuclear war.
Then the Russians say y'all better stop or were jumping in and then the British say you better not and then that's it. We're all dead. Dude, we're all dead. You're talking about a World War Two worth of casualties every day for a week or so until that's it, there's nobody left to push the buttons anymore. That's so the war would look like with Russia or with China. So what do you say to the
mindset? That. All right, so yeah, America is the Empire but if we're not the Empire, that void is still going to be there for China. Russia. Iran, maybe North Korea rises again. So, even though, yeah, look, unfortunately, we have this America's burden of having to be the world's police. But it's a heck of a lot better than the CCP calling the Shots everywhere.
What do you say to that mindset? It's just nonsense and the fact that matter is there is no nation in the world, anywhere near position to replace America as the global hegemon America's the first Global hegemon that's ever really existed. I mean, the British have invaded virtually every country in the world at one time or another, but they never ruled it all at
once. The way that America has since the fall of Communism or we are dominant in essentially every single state on Earth. Earth, including Russia and China up until recently and now, they're being, you know, pushed outward more. But they have nothing like the advantages that America had to build our world Empire America, build our world Empire, the aftermath of World War two were
every single other. Industrialized State, on the planet had been reduced to ashes and America had was quite the opposite. And was, you know, provided with sixty percent or more of the On the face of the Earth was coming out of the middle part of North America. So the economic disparity, there was just simply what we say, goes Ike Eisenhower, you know, told the British and the French and the Israelis at Suez the like, no, I'm the boss and you're not, can you question that?
And they were like no, right. Because America had that much more power than every other state on the planet. They had to pretend that the Soviet Union was 12 feet tall when they never were. Were it was always the most ramshackle Empire and, you know, frankly if we hadn't had an 80 at all and the Soviets had attempted to bite off West, Germany, France, and Spain. They have probably gone bankrupt in the process there before, you know, the 50s before the 60s,
for sure. So, you know, we never even really needed to have a cold war to contain the USSR. Now Russia that has a GDP equivalent to New York City. Not state, but just the city equivalent to the nation of Italy. That's preposterous a nation like Iran. That has an economy equivalent to the southern half of Alabama, they're going to take over.
They couldn't even be a regional hegeman due to their religious minority status except for the fact that W bush gave them Baghdad W, bush made Syria and Yemen, more dependent on them than ever before. But that's just the Ayatollah opening American. Christmas gifts. Don't tell me that. That's the u.s. you know keeping Iran at Bay or containing them are holding them down.
They just do nothing but benefit from American intervention over there and you know for and there's no way in the world that their forces could somehow what invade and dominate the Arabian Peninsula. Not in the next 500 years, are the Persians taken over Arabia. It's just not in the cards and look at China to, you know, when people accuse Sign of all the worst sins and rightfully so they'll admit that China is already a massive overextended Empire, right?
It's the Han Chinese Empire over the weekers over the Tibetans over, you know, a bunch of other, you know ethnic and religious type minorities inside mainland China. I marry in heard of they got these major factions, they're trying to dominate problems with Ty. Taiwan and then they've got, I forgot the count, I think it's 13 neighbors, that border them that they have to deal with you think of all of the paranoid talk about them, invading Taiwan, which it could happen, it absolutely could.
But again, Taiwan is part of China. Nobody, who's not just some ridiculous crank really believes that China is planning on invading and conquering Vietnam Next and then Laos and Cambodia and Bhutan and Pakistan. Hell, I don't even hear people worrying, that they're going to invade outer Mongolia, which is, you know, pretty much independent nation between China and Russia there. Nobody thinks they're going to invade North and South Korea.
Nobody thinks that they're going to invade and try to conquer Japan. We're talking about whether or not they're going to Reese's their own so-called Renegade Province. The idea, then that they're picking a fight with the USA. They're coming to California. Come on nobody, who understands how big the Pacific Ocean is thinks that's true. It's just not true.
It could never be true. The number of troops ships that they would have to manufacture And the number of missiles that America would have to ship off to Ukraine. So we don't have any to defend ourselves a ship. Can only sale. So fast across the Pacific, they couldn't get anywhere near. They couldn't get past Hawaii.
Before we sank, every single one of them and there's just as Ron Paul put it, we could have been this country with a couple of good submarines and then even then look at India, could China, invade and conquer. Overtake India no way and could they have a very dangerous War even a nuclear war fighting over a disputed Border in the Himalayas? Absolutely. Yes. But does anyone really think that China can move out of
China? Move west and take over Eurasia, take it away from the Cossacks and Uzbek sand the Siberians and the Afghans, and the no, come on. Come on, nobody thinks that and even their belt and Road initiative, which is first of all a boondoggle, right? You know, hardly workable in the first place but all it is is they're trying to spread essentially trade and private influencers semi-private influence across Eurasia, but the idea that they're just going to March there.
What 10 million man? Army down a highway to Lisbon Portugal. And that they're not going to get stopped by 10,000. Different, factions between here and there. It's just, this is the stuff of fantasy and I know that right Wingers like being afraid of things, but the truth of the matter is Spin The Globe. There is no power that threatens us.
There's no power really, and I should say, I guess, China could if it wasn't for America they might throw a lot of weight around in Vietnam and Laos and Thailand, but I don't care about that. I don't think for a minute that they would pose an offensive military threat and America throwing its weight around to keep them out.
It's hardly worth it. And one of the reasons America made friends with China was so that it didn't matter that we lost the Vietnam War because Well, who cares about the Domino Theory? Now, if we made friends with now, now, now now. Yeah. And of course, it was the Americans who kicked over the Domino and Cambodia so that doesn't count, you know, the Khmer Rouge. That was might as well have been Nixon's project back before Carter and Reagan directly back
them. But anyway, so there is no power or even combination of powers potential combination of powers on this Earth. That threaten us. He look at our Ukraine policy, right? Much of this has to do with attempting to thwart a peaceful Alliance and relationship between Germany and Russia. So why they're hell-bent against this Nord stream pipeline? Because if Germany is friends with Russia, and why do they need us? Germany's friends was Russia
than that. Means that together, they dominate all the lands of Eastern Europe, which means that we don't. And so how can America stuck way over here in America. And with our allies, the British, how can we rule the whole world with our Navy's? If we don't control the land, it's under the old British imperialist. Theories of Alfred mikeanderin.
You have to control Ukraine, to be the dominant force in Eastern Europe, and he who controls the pivot point in Eastern Europe, controls the world Island, which is hilarious, because look at the map, I mean, Ukraine, I guess is the key to the Black Sea, so those turkey. But Ukraine is the key.
To what dominating Afghanistan and China and Kazakhstan and Russia like not really no. It's access to a lot of Wheat and I guess that means you can keep it out of the mouths of people who you want to go hungry, if you're trying to exercise Imperial power. But just because Alfred mikeanderin wrote the stupid poem that says you have to control the pivot point to control the world Island and all this crap, doesn't mean that there's any wisdom in it
whatsoever. And and again, I mean, you know, look at when the Soviets dominated All of Eastern Europe and Asia was that because they controlled Ukraine. Now, this is one more country that they control and gave them their warm water port and access to the Mediterranean, but they didn't spread their Soviet Union throughout the Mediterranean from their. Did they know?
So that is just so incredible, sabotaging peace between Germany and Russia. I mean, after two world wars that that couldn't be appreciated. One of the most impressive things that I read. Was an author, you mentioned. Previously Pat. Buchanan saying, look, here are some examples of atrocities that have occurred that America did not intervene in as a result and the Soviet Union came crumbling down.
He said, Eisenhower was being pushed by some people in 1956 to go defend Hungary when the Soviet smashed a rebellion there and he didn't do it in 68, Lyndon Johnson, didn't do it in Czechoslovakia and then the Soviets I think in 1983 shot down. A plane with an American Congressman on it. And Ronald Reagan did not declare war a crush on the solidarity in Poland as well, the song. Yeah. Yeah. And and the serbians came
crumbling down. So so Marco Rubio, can Embrace his own party's history and not be a China Hawk and be the complete opposite. Same thing for Russia to looking for. The fact the matter is Ukraine is none of America's national interest unless you define America's national interest by this, In ridiculous, Alfred mikeanderin poem that says that you have to dominate Ukraine to rule the world. Well, I don't want to rule the world. I don't think we should and I
think that that's stupid. Anyway, I think dominating Ukraine doesn't give you the key to ruling Eurasia and that that's stupid and that anybody who thinks that that should be the guiding policy. The United States also is stupid. The whole thing is completely suicidal and and look, it could be that if America completely abolish, NATO and brought all our troops home. That maybe the Russians would try to dominate Latvia and Lithuania again or something like that.
I don't care about that, frankly. I don't care if they Crush solidarity or whoever tries to, you know, is the ruling faction in Poland either, that's just tough. The whole rest of the world look, this planet, you know, H bombs are not is going to just
keep spinning. The idea that the middle part of North America is to be the dominant power in all of Europe and Asia forever to keep everyone else from fighting or any other political faction from declaring influence on another side of a line drawn after WWII somewhere is a Fool's errand. It's absolutely crazy. And it has brought us to the brink of nuclear war over a nation that as Pat Buchanan said, Ukraine, their east of what we ever use.
To call Eastern Europe. I mean, even as recently as last year people called it the Ukraine, like they say the Midwest, right? It's a region of Russia. Most Americans thought, right? Like certainly they did up until finding out differently at the beginning of this year, there's like saying Siberia was, of course, it's dominated by Russia, it makes more sense. That Ukraine would be Dominated by the United States then by Russia and we're willing to
risk. Literally everything to make that true Obama. I mean Biden, and his government say whatever it takes. As long as it takes to secure a total victory for Ukraine here and Crimea to, I mean, this is madness. This is seriously. This is far more Reckless policy even than George w-- Bush. Going to the Middle East. And this is the most dangerous
thing. I mean, It's as bad as it says well look if there's a direct comparison to Jack Kennedy who like after all did, put the missiles in Turkey. In order to, you know, which did provoke the Cuban Missile Crisis that then he ended up trading the missiles away to solve. It was a problem that he had caused and with all of his BS, talk about the missile Gap, and how we had to build up this massive machine to produce nuclear missiles.
When the Reds only had four, And he was pretending that they were way ahead of us and so is escalating nuclear brinkmanship, which helped to provoke the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean, is that it's that Reckless, essentially, people always remember that Jack, Kennedy solve that problem without getting us all killed. So thank God for that but he always gets the credit for that. He doesn't get the blame for causing the problem in the first place.
But so here we have Joe Biden with all the recklessness of Jack Kennedy. But without any of the responsibility, You know, his Lamesa say come on, we should do more and he goes yeah men then and this is the worst Joe Biden that's ever lived. In Joe. Biden has always been horrible but this version of him worries just absolutely out of his mind has no wisdom anywhere in there at all, to Rattle around and compare things that he knows to other things. That he knows, and he's nothing.
But essentially, a knee-jerk reflex left in that head and it's, it's terrifying, man. It really is the most dangerous situation. We've been in my lifetime, for sure it's so difficult because with all these conflicts, that you're sort of playing whack-a-mole, it's like, oh, I for the last 20 years thought that Muslims were going to kill me and discriminately for no reason. And now I haven't heard of these people in two years. It's all about Russia and now it's all about China.
So how is it that people can differentiate between War propaganda and genuine news coverage to decrease the likelihood America will get Nip. Elated into another massive conflict reading anti-war.com. And that's the reality of it and bring. I'm kind of glad that you brought up the al-Qaeda thing because I still think that
that's a danger. I mean yes, the it use that as an excuse to do all these things but that doesn't mean these groups don't really exist and I think it's you know, vastly overblown who say oh and Al qaeda-linked group here and there like al-shabaab in Somalia give me a break man, leave those people alone but aqap in Yemen, that we used to bomb and kill that that ever since Barack Obama switch. Sides in the war in 2015, our government has been backing their. These are guys that tried to
blow up a plane over. Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009, they'll coordinate, September 11th, a bomb, the coal. They were responsible for some of those massacres in France, in Brussels and in France, and in Paris and a nice. And so Hand Pulse Nightclub there. Well no not aqap but that guy pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. So we We'll have blowback from all this stuff. Yeah, certainly.
But I mean, in that particular group aqap, I think that they're going to be a problem for a long time. If the if the current Yemen war ends, I think that the danger of aqap attempting to assemble, essentially continue Osama Bin Laden, same strategy, provoking America into continuing the Middle East war is to continue the further radicalization and destabilization of that region toward their ultimate ends.
Now, that doesn't mean that they have the ability to Reach Out And Touch us very easily but it's certainly not impossible and they're not gone. I think mostly Al-Qaeda are used as mercenaries by America and our Turkish and Saudi allies. Like we see in Libya Syria and in Yemen. And there have been jihadis off going to fight alongside the right-wingers fighting the Russians in Ukraine.
There's a massive Series in The Intercept three or four article series about Syria and Jihad. He's going in, teaming up with Nazis to go fight Russia in the donbas before this current war broke out over the last few years. And so, I think, you know why the FBI is busy investigating you and me for our anti FBI rhetoric, this is the kind of danger that this kind of deal can happen right under their nose. And we seemed like the Boston
bombing. For example, it was Vladimir Putin and the Russians who warned that these guys are tied with the Chechen jihadists. Who Oops, America likes the Chechen jihadists, so the alarm wasn't going on, you know, they didn't pay attention and we know from the great journalism of Trevor Aaronson that at the time, that the Boston bombing was being planned and plotted and prepared the FBI, not just the FBI. But the Boston FBI was busy.
Chasing their tail and trapping some idiot into a fake plot. While this real one was going on right under their nose. Now, they're not even busy and trapping Muslim idiots into fake plots. Now they're busy and trapping American white, right wing idiots into fake plots and they're not even looking at what's left of real ass. Al-Qaeda out there that still has the motive and potentially the ability to attack us. So this is the kind of and the real answer. Your question is how are we to
tell think hard? About what the hell is going on here. You know, in the first place, try to stay and, you know, up to date as much as you can and you'll notice all the same inconsistencies, you know, Malcolm X said, if you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything. Well it's also true if you stand for something, you'll start to notice a lot of weird stuff
really quickly. When if you have a little bit of consistency, you can see how inconsistent and crazy, everything else is. And so, You know, like if they're telling you, North Korea, they've got it in for us. Like, that doesn't really sound right does it, you know, you could tell it's the Americans who have it in for the North Koreans, and we put them in a very bad position. Now, that doesn't mean that their government is even
redeemable. I mean, there is really the last totalitarian state on the planet, truly totalitarian state on the planet. And China looks like, you know, a free Society Compared to North Korea. Something like, two thirds of the population are in the military. Is an absolute command and control dictatorship publicly owned virtually, everything government-controlled virtually everything.
And yet reason they're a danger is because of the United States of America. We refuse to negotiate an honest, peace deal with them for now my God man, 70 years, right? When in fact it was just 20 years ago, Keith is Right 20 years ago. The John Bolton and Dick Cheney and George w-- Bush. Ruined everything with North Korea, the North Koreans had were a deal with Bill Clinton that was called the agreed framework and as you can see
that was just the start. It was supposed to be an agreed framework toward really having a final deal and I hate to give Bill Clinton credit for anything, but this is a hell of a lot better than it. Could have been the North Koreans promised to stay within the non-proliferation treaty and to continue to have a safeguards agreement with the international atomic energy agency, under that treaty and to leave R soviet-built Jung Byung reactor off if America would give them
money fuel oil and eventually light water reactors by the way, Donald rumsfeld's company. Got the contract to build a light water reactors, they kept the money, never deliver the reactors and Newt, Gingrich and the republicans in Congress in the 90s never really would provide the money or the fuel oil or any of that stuff. To implement the deal, the North Koreans still stayed in it. But then John Bolton lied and said that they had, they were busted with a secret, uranium
enrichment program. Yes, it's probably true that they had bought some aluminum tubes from the pakistanis, which is just some old first generation crap. There's no evidence they ever had a secret uranium enrichment program that they had implemented in any way. And if they had, that was not necessarily in violation of the agreed, framework, or of their safeguards agreement with the iaea or of the non-proliferation treaty, which guarantees there.
Right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. And enriching uranium is not necessarily enriching uranium, for use in nuclear weapons, that's a separate issue. And so if it was even true, that they had a uranium enrichment program, still improving to this day that they did. At that time, that still would only be the basis for further negotiations. But so what did John Bolton and George w-- Bush? Do they tore up the agreed
framework using that? As the excuse, they broke the deal then they announced brand-new, you know, Lateral sanctions then they announced what was called the proliferation security initiative which meant their claimed right to seize North Korean ships on the high seas, in the name of counter-proliferation and then they put them in the neck in the nuclear posture review that December 2002 and put them on the short list for a potential nuclear first strike. And only then did Kim Jong-il
announced. He was going to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and kick. The iaea inspectors out of the country and start making nuclear weapons. Which is exactly what he did. Now, the plan I guess was going to provoke him into withdrawing from the treaty and then we're going to attack him, but the problem was, the war in, Iraq, was such a disaster. There's no way they're going on in North Korea then.
So all they did was force them to start making nukes but then they weren't able to start a war to stop him from completing the project. So now we have a North Korean Communists to tell Terry dictatorship sitting on a couple of dozen nuclear bombs and guess what? They're all made out of plutonium.
Every test that they've done of a nuclear bomb, this whole time has been made up out of plutonium that they got out of that they harvested from the waste, from their Jung, Byung soviet-built reactor and again, no evidence whatsoever that they've ever made a nuclear bomb, the reasonably they've ever made a nuclear bomb out of enriched uranium. So, based on John Bolton and George W. Bush's failure. There they push they literally push Kim Jong-il directly into the possession of nuclear
weapons. And then would they say, Will never negotiate with you until you give up all your nuclear weapons. First that's the precondition for talks. Well yeah. Right you know I'll negotiate with you as soon as you completely disarmed. And give up. Yeah. Well and then that has held throughout w--, Bush throughout Barack Obama. And then Donald Trump wanted to make a deal. He was ratcheting up tensions clearly so that he could trade
them away. And he had a really positive South Korean president to work with a guy named Moon and moon wanted to strike a deal with the North. Korea's Trump saw this as a potential for a real win, so he went completely around his own government, he met with the South Koreans and they were like, please give us a chance at this and he was okay. Tell you what, go? Right outside to the driveway and give a press conference right now. And tell them that I told you go
ahead. Which is smart because the US government rest of the government would have stopped it from happening but so he did that. And then so Trump got behind him and they were negotiating. And instead of saying you have to disarm first, they said no this we're going to do this in a way that makes sense to any rational adults mind. We're going to have an actual piece tree to officially end the war from 1950 to where we only have a ceasefire still to this day.
I'm gonna have a real peace deal. And then we're going to open up commercial and trade relations between the North and the South and the Americans then would have to give real security guarantees. Now, a lot of times their security guarantees relies but then again, sometimes they really stick like Jack Kennedy's promised not to invade Cuba and to get his missiles out of turkey. In order to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis, those promises stuck and we have an invading
Cuba and all this time. It's still a commie dictatorship and we haven't done a regime change there this whole time I guess just because Jack Kennedy promised. Not that promise has meant something. So it wasn't a treaty just like I promised not to expand. NATO wasn't a treaty. So what it was a solemn promise and your word is supposed to mean something if anybody Washington DC's, ever heard of that. But anyway, then what happened was the Israelis insisted that
Donald Trump hired. John Bolton, the be his National Security advisor and then he still, it was only his All I needed still didn't have to bring him to the negotiations with the North Koreans Trump. Ali didn't even know, this is the guy who ruined everything the first place in the first place. So not only did he bring him, but he let him sit right at the head of the table to right next to the head of the table at his right hand in the negotiations.
I believe it was in, I forget if it was in Singapore, Saigon which one was first or second, but and then Bolton just ruined everything. There was a guy named Stephen began that worked for Trump who had given a speech at Heritage that said, come on, we're not. Adam and denuclearization first, we're never going to get a deal that way. Well, if Trump had put Steven begun at the table with him there, they could have handled it.
They could have done it. And of course, the Democrats in their essentially, their treason against the American people, and Against Humanity. Here, retirement nuclear weapons issues here. Instead of supporting Donald Trump's diplomacy, they absolutely castigated him. And the narrative came down, I guess from Langley or wherever just say that. Kim jong-eun. It's so wildly and Brilliant. He's gonna walk all over Donald Trump and Donald Trump is so stupid.
That he's just gonna give away the whole store which nobody even knows what that man. I mean, how Bill Clinton was going to give them light water, reactors and money, and fuel oil
and anything to keep the peace. Oh, no, Donald Trump, he's just going to give them Alaska, I guess, you know, in order to claim that he has the victory here so they framed it in it's most absolutely - way and then the Democrats held hearings that day were they made his lawyer testify against and I forgot his lawyers name, the real scumbag from New York guy, you know, Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen in Michael Cohen testify that it's
a right as they're negotiating. He's got like in his other ear like updates of what's going on in the hearings. What CNN saying about me and blah blah blah blah the whole time. And so they they really with that pressure And then with bolt in there with him, they ruin the
damn deal. And then the second time they met, he got smart and he quite literally Keith sent John Bolton to outer Mongolia. But then it was too late and he I don't think he brought Steven began with him and then for whatever reasons, the deal still broke down and they still accused him that he was going to give away the whole store in order to get a deal. So that was his closest. We could have possibly come to having a piece and then what's Biden's position? Go to hell, North Korea.
When we won't even talk to you, until you give up your nooks. And so, as we're recording this, Keith yesterday, they fired, something like 20 missiles into the sea, in a show of force, and this This is you know where our refusal to negotiate refusal to act and diplomatic fashion is leading to a threat of a war. I mean, literally the by government has us not necessarily active at the brink but nearing the brink of war with North Korea and China, and really Iran to there.
Seem to be picking a fight with her on every chance they can get while they literally do have us at the brink of war with Russia as We incredible. I mean, Joe Biden. He is the worst president than George w-- Bush and remember the worst thing the George W bush ever did. He only did because Joe Biden helped him do it. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time in the hands of the opposition party and he was George Bush's, co-conspirator no less guilty.
Then the vice president or the secretary of defense, or the deputy secretary of defense Paul wolfowitz or Richard. Pearl or Bill kristol or the worst ringleaders of that war. Joe Biden's was just as responsible as all of them for it. Now, one of the best ways that I've seen people see through the lies of current Wars is to understand, previous deceptions that we have lived.
Under unfortunately, you wrote a book titled enough already time to end the war on terrorism where you go through a lot of these. I want to do sort of a lightning round. Give me as much or as little on each of these topics. Members of the libertarian party need to have a grip on as well as all Americans. What do Americans need to know about the israel-palestine conflict? Well, this is a very tough one. Obviously the libertarian party's take needs to always,
simply be non intervention. And, and, you know, I, we like to probably see the Israelis live up to their obligations under international law, but we absolutely should not be supporting Israel. Or any other state on the face of the planet but their sins are particularly egregious. Keith. It's hard for people to recognize Paseo way and why are you singling out? Israel? Annoys has its rules in a fairly
unique position. There are other states in the world where you have a lot of ethnic, repression and problems going on like in Bhutan or wherever. But, you know, these rallies are extremely close to the United States supported and protected by the United States in. Way. And yet they horribly mystery the Palestinian people and keep. The thing is about this issue, is it made deliberately to be confusing.
It sounds a lot of time like Palestine is the country next door to Israel and it's run by these terrorists like Yasser Arafat or moss and they're always attacking Israel and they're always threatening them and trying to extort land out of them. O land for peace. Peace. In other words, unless the Israelis give up some of their land to these terrorists. The terrorists are going to keep coming at them.
And so then, the Americans are demanding that the unfairly demanding that the Israelis bow down to this terrorist pressure. These kinds of things, but then that is confusing, right? Because you also hear all the time that maybe one day, there will be a two-state solution. Well what does that mean? Well, that means it's not the country next door at all the country. Next door is Jordan on the other side of the river, where is Palace?
Fine. Israel's on top of it, that's where it is. That's what that area is called, was called. And now, it's a break it down fairly simply here in 1947 and 1948, the Israelis waves, a massive ethnic cleansing campaign that kicked about 750,000 Israelis out of their homes and off of the land. That became what we now call Israel, proper or you'll hear referred to To as you know, inside the green line, people
say, 67 borders, okay? That's because in 67 there was another major war and the Israelis took the Gaza Strip on the Mediterranean Coast bordering Egypt and they took the West Bank of the Jordan River, which had been under the control of Jordan, ever since the secret deal. The Israelis had made with the King of Jordan back in 48, that
he would take that land. So that the Could not have an independent state on it now, 20 years later they come and they take that Land from the jordanians and they did kick about 250,000 of the Palestinians out of their homes.
But that's essentially a remainder because they kept Millions. So in 1948, when they cleanse the land keep, they had created something like an 80/20 super duper majority Jewish state So they could say, we're Jewish State and a democracy, and the Palestinian citizens of Israel have something like second-class citizens, but they are citizens, but they have a very small, you know, one fifth of the population and up until very recently only the last Israeli
government. They had always been excluded from any ruling Coalition. So there never participants in the actual administration of the government in A parliamentary system there. But then in 67, when they took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they kept that land and they kept all those people. Now they have millions of
Palestinians, never mind. All the ones living in refugee camps, all over the Middle East. But now you have millions of Palestinians who are essentially the subjects of the Israeli state but have absolutely no representation whatsoever. You hear the Palestinian Authority, As though that's a government. But those are really trustees
and Israeli prison. The West Bank is essentially an open air concentration camp and it's one that Israeli settlers quite in contravention of the international law that the USA has foisted on the rest of the world. Since World War Two, continue to gobble up, and occupy and build settlements all across that West Bank, especially so when you hear about that two-state solution, What you're hearing really is a two-state illusion for the past 40 years. Well, if 35 40 years they've promised.
Yeah, I mean really since 79 says Camp David in 79. So for 45 years, they have promised that there will be an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but someday Never Comes. And so instead of giving the Palestinians equal rights as citizens of Israel, regardless of their religion they say no we can continue to discriminate against them because it's just temporary because soon there will be this Palestinian state but they're never will.
And now, of course, the settlers, the Israeli Jewish settlers have occupied enough of the West Bank that it would cause a civil war within Israel. If the Army was ever sent to pull them out of there, It's hundreds and hundreds of thousands more than half a million Israeli Jewish settlers. Now occupy, you know, civilians live in the West Bank. So they have already defacto annexed this territory, it can never, and will never be an independent state.
So, now, let me try to make an analogy for you. Here, you here all the time, Ben Shapiro, for example, will say, Well, Hamas is firing Rockets from Gaza into Israel. Well what would we do if the Mexicans were firing Rockets over the Rio Grande into Texas? Well, first of all, you see what
he's doing there, right? As he's saying, the Mexicans, instead of some Mexicans by saying the Mexicans, he means the national Mexican Army. The Palestinians do not have the Palestinians are just some Palestinians, they're not the Palestinians because there is no state. Right. That's doing the fighting and the line between Gaza and Israel is not a border if it was a border the Palestinians would have their independence day.
What that line? Much more closely represents would be the borders of an Indian Reservation here, inside the United States of America. Not Mexicans firing Rockets over the Rio Grande, but maybe the Navajo firing Rockets over. A wall that we build around them out in Arizona and say, you know, not only are you, you know, bound to this reservation but we're building a wall around it and you're not allowed to trade, you're not allowed to do anything and literally turn the
thing into a prison. And then they're firing Rockets over those walls. Well, that's a hell of a lot different and it's a hell of a lot more active, an analogy than the kind of BS, that Ben Shapiro, and American Defenders of Israel like to shove On that issue.
And I think another very apt comparison and this hits home for me because I'm a Texan and I was raised on this history and people from the South especially know about the history of Jim Crow. Segregation would imagine if saying Mississippi where I believe I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that in Mississippi the vast majority of the black population live in the northern half of the state and certainly they did Did if you go back a generation or two
during Jim Crow here? Well what if when the during the Civil Rights era when Jim Crow was being abolished? What if Mississippi had said? No no no we're keeping segregation but don't worry. Eventually we're going to give the blacks their own independent state. We're going to let them break off a few counties of northern Mississippi and so then that'll be the two-state. And we won't be oppressing them anymore because they'll be independent from us. And so we don't have to
integrate the schools. We don't have to legalize black people drinking from water fountains and sharing bathrooms and eating at lunch, counters, and all of these things, like in the Supreme Court decisions, because trust is don't worry, someday, we're going to have a two-state solution but then, someday never comes. And now it's the 2020s and the blacks of northern Mississippi, still live under Jim Jim Crow
segregation. That's essentially a far more, again, far more apt analogy than the kind of BS that Ben Shapiro, has to lie and try to fool and deceive his audience into believing. Because the truth does not serve Zionist purposes here. They have to lie, they have to pretend that somehow. The Palestinians are the ones occupying them. The Palestinians are somehow, the ones extorting them out of there.
Al, and when that's a damn lie, and anyone, all you have to do is just think about it. Look at who's the ruling caste of the Israelis. They're Europeans with white skin. They look like you and me, they're not from there. This is the last great gasp of European colonialism after World War 2, when it's being phased out everywhere else in the world and the idea was well they're just a bunch of a rabb's, a bunch of sand. And Words, a bunch of towel, heads and camel jockeys.
And if our friends the white European Jews who hey need a place to go, want to go there, then the natives are just going to have to lump It, screw them. But the problem is that, that truly is the thinking of a pre-World War, Two generation that there's such a thing really, as these racial hierarchies that are legitimate somehow and, and Can be implemented without shame, that's just not true. The Jewish people are not more special than the Palestinian people. No matter what their own
mythology says. And in fact, if you study Shlomo Sands and the invention of the state of Israel and all of that, he shows that the Roman Exile never happened. So yes, Ashkenazi Jews. Can't race in many cases their lineage back to Palestine. Through, you know, RNA or was the mitochondrial RNA, or whatever this that I don't know, but fine. But that doesn't mean that all of the ancient Hebrews were exiled by the Romans out of their territory. That is just a myth that never
happened at all. And guess what? They were never cleansed from that area by anyone else either for two thousand years until The state of Israel in 1947 and you know what that means, that means that the Palestinians are the descendants of Abraham and Moses and if you believe all that stuff from the religious texts about how this land belongs to the sons of those, that God promised it to 3,000 years ago.
It's not a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews from Lithuania and Russia and Germany, and Brooklyn New York. It's the Palestinians and what had happened was and she'll the Richmond is written. All about this, as well. They just changed their religion because the Muslims said either convert or you have to pay taxes. So they said we're Muslims now. And instead of instead, and they weren't run off by the Romans, they weren't run off by the
Muslims, they just converted. And so literally, it's the Palestinians who even if you go by the supernatural property, It's of the Bible rather than the plain old natural property rights of the people who had worked that land for eons. Still, it's the Palestinians rightful territory and the idea. I mean, look at the guy who was just now again, the once, and
twice and now future again. Prime minister of Israel is from Lithuania. He has no claim to one acre of that land and only a religious like Zealot or a dishonest man could claim that he does. If you, if you accept that American Jews, have a natural and Harris Supernatural, inherent property right to go to live in Palestine.
That supersedes the right of an actual Palestinian, whose father and grandfather and great grandfather and great, great grandfather, actually tilled that land, then you have to believe that Sicilian Catholics in New Jersey, Have the right to go and invade Sicily and kill Sicilians and force them off their land, and take over their homes because they were from here. So we have the right thing to come and use violence to take property away.
He'll you would have to side with the Germans, right? To conquer Eastern Europe, land of the Teutons, where the German race originates from eons ago, is that the argument that the Germans had the right to invade and create all that lebensraum and Eastern Europe, because that's supposedly where the Huns originated, No, that's a bunch of crap, isn't it?
Well, same thing. It's a bunch of crap when the Israelis do it to the Palestinians to What is it that Americans need to know about the conflict? In Yemen, is some lightning round, huh? Looking Yemen, Obama started in 2009. He ordered the CIA and Air Force to do a massive drone War, to try to kill aqap. It didn't work, it just backfired and by killing innocent people. You know, they said a drone strike is a surgical strike with a scalpel. Let's not true.
It's a 500-pound bomb or even a Hellfire missile, you taking on a car full of people. 500 pound bomb. Taking out a building full of people and that, of course, only radicalizes more. It's even Stanley. McChrystal said Insurgent math, he killed two. You get 20 more and that's all the word did. But now in order to wage that war Obama had to bribe the dictator of Yemen Abdullah Saleh with guns and money to let him wage that war that's in the south of Yemen.
The anti Al-Qaeda were well. Solid takes the money weapons and he wages war against his enemies. A group of Shiites called the houthis a tribe called the houthis in the north and he in fact is playing a double game against the Americans because he's backing the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda to Use as exhilarates with his army to attack these Shiite houthis in the north. Well it doesn't work maybe because he's playing a triple
game. He's actually arming the houthis against its own Army and against al Qaeda. And the Muslim Brotherhood that he's playing a double game against us and backing, because he was afraid of his own Army and was kind of wearing them out a little bit. So anyway every time he attacked the houthis, they grew more and more powerful in response. Then comes the Arab Spring and there's while I mean sorry, peaceful and successful revolutions. In Tunisia and Egypt.
So all across the Middle East they break out in a day of Rage protests and all these things well in it was the Pearl roundabout is what is called the kind of town square there in Sanaa. Yemen were virtually all factions the houthis, the Muslim Brotherhood, the southern socialists and everybody, I don't know about the al-Qaeda guys, but virtually everyone else came together and said, let's form a new government with overthrow Salah and create a new state. Well, he refused to go.
Go, somebody tried to kill him. He was wounded in a bombing. So we had to go to Saudi Arabia to the hospital and while he was gone, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State swooped in and worked with the Saudis to prevent the people of Yemen from
preceding. Their Own Way Forward under their own plan and insisted that they keep the vice president hottie who had no real popular support and they held a big fake election with one man and one name on the ballot and I could look it up in Google Images. Salah election, 2012 Well, there is even MPR news, covered it one man, one name, one face on the ballot, one oval to fill in, in your presidential election. Hillary Clinton declared, this was the Advent of the many
democracy. Well, he was a terrible dictator and he made all kinds of moves that undermine, whatever, support that he had. And when Salah came home from the hospital, he didn't go and retired to a quiet life of study, like, mullah Omar the Taliban leader. He went away Matt and he went and joined forces with the houthis, it turns out. Guess what? He was a Sadie, she I just like them.
And so even though not a houthi and so he joined up with them and in the year 2014 they marched down on the capital
city. At the end of 2014, they seize the capital city of Siena the houthis and Saleh and they chased hottie the vice president down to Aden the port city, where the USS Cole was bombed in 2000 and then eventually all the way to Saudi Arabia. Now when this first happened, importantly, Keith our current Secretary of Defense Lloyd, Austin was then the four-star general commander of Central Command and he made a deal with the houthis to the al-Qaeda
guys, the only good Shiite is the dead Shiite. So to the houthis, the only good Al-Qaeda. Guys are dead. Al-Qaeda guy Hayes purely self defensive type of a thing. So Lloyd Austin was like oh you guys like killing Al-Qaeda guys, let's work together. They said, fine, the Wall Street Journal and I'll monitor both reported on this in January of 2015, and the houthis confirmed two. Americans were giving them intelligence to use to Target and kill.
Al Qaeda, two months later in March of 2015, Barack Obama turn around and stab the houthis in the back. Apparently, over Lloyd Austin's. Dead body Mark Perry reported that Austin and the Central Command generals were so upset about this that he had written this angry letter to Obama. And then his friends convinced him not to send it.
And what'd he do, he clicked his heels and he obeyed Obama's orders, he turned around and not only did he betray the houthis, he committed high treason against the American people because he took the side of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula against the new enemy, the houthis. And even though they were helping us kill, Al-Qaeda, guys, that sound. He's hated them because they're Shiites and that means their
friends were there. On and also you know Crown Prince bone saw Mohammed bin Salman at that time. Was the brand new 29 year old brand new, Deputy Crown, Prince and defense minister of Saudi Arabia and he needed to launch this war for his own gain. Public Choice Theory to solidify his power inside the kingdom and it worked and at the height of the start of the war that was when Remember The anti-corruption Round Up. We're all of the competing
members of the royal family. The most wealthy members of the royal family had all of their loot taken and many of them were put on house arrest including his cousin. The Crown Prince Mohammed, bin nayef, who been Solomon, then replaced and declared himself, Crown Prince, and he is now de facto king of Saudi Arabia since senile old father just sits there while he makes all the decisions. So there were worked out very well for him. And also as the Obama government told the New York Times.
They needed to placate the Saudis because they were making the nuclear deal with Iran Iran who was not making nuclear weapons. And because if they were, you would think the Saudis would be happy that? Oh good, they're not making nuclear weapons anymore and the Americans are locking down their program further and expanding inspections. So this is great. Well that was always a hoax. The Rings were never making nukes so the Saudis were not placated that.
Oh good you're locking down the nuclear civilian nuclear program who cares about that but they were mad about was The risk that America was going to now make friends with Iran that the nuclear deal was now the first step toward tilting back toward Iran, which would have been been at, Saudi Arabia's expense.
And so, the satellite was telling the Empire that they need a pat on their head and reassurance that they're still number one, in the American order in the Middle East, number two, behind Israel, in the American order in the Middle East. And so the Obama government told the New York Times. Seems that even though they knew the war would be long bloody and indecisive and break that down a
little bit. What it means is they knew that innocent civilians were going to be torn apart to death and they knew long and indecisive that means that they didn't know what victory looked like and they knew going in that they didn't even know what victory was supposed to look like, but that they were going to do it anyway because they had to, to quote placate the Saudis. So Obama launched a war of treason and then very quickly, Keith of Genocide against the
people of Yemen, he had no authorization from Congress whatsoever to do this. The closest he came to a declaration of war was he had Bernadette Meehan the spokeswoman for the state department. Issue a statement saying, we're helping the Saudis and the UAE bomb Yemen. Now that was his closest, we got to a declaration of war and they've been providing assistance diffusing responsibility leading from
behind. They like to call it but they All the Jets, all the bombs, all the maintenance, all of the logistics and all of the intelligence for the war. The first few years, they provided the mid-air refueling for the Saudi and UAE Jets, and of course, the US Navy is the ruler of the seven seas. And it's helped to enforce the blockade against the people of Yemen all this time.
And from the very beginning, Keith an operation decisive storm, they've targeted civilian infrastructure Terror, Wings of neighborhoods apartment complexes anything like Market or a grocery store or food processing plants of any kind they bomb funerals and weddings they bomb the civilian infrastructure, the water, the electricity, the sewage, the garbage, and the hospital's, even during the worst cholera outbreaks in recorded history. Which means worse than what h.w.
Bush and Bill Clinton did to the Iraq.
He's under those sanctions. back in the early 90s, big bomb, the cholera hospitals that are full of dying babies, who were essentially dehydrating to death through vomiting and diarrhea and then they bomb the caller hospitals and they bomb the Farms, they bomb the grain, silos, all the irrigation systems, the flocks of sheep in the field, the horses, in their Stables, the fishermen's boats, you know, the roads and the bridges and every Eagle bit of infrastructure that they can.
And for years, the media ludicrously insisted that up to as many as 10,000 people have died in this war for years and years. They were saying this, when you're talking 10,000 people a month, were dying in this war and then only finally did they update their estimate? The end of 2018. They said, it's as many as 350,000. 375, Thousand people have died now.
That's four years ago and so, you know, I think we're talking High hundreds of thousands of people who have been bombed deprived and starve to death in this war, who've died of otherwise, easily treatable diseases, because of malnutrition and so forth and especially, yes, children under five years old, are the primary victims of this? It's every bit as bad as Iraq war to, or Obama's dirty war in Syria, which again, all also was treason on behalf of the bin
Laden night terrors. But this one is a genocide. It has deliberately all along been a war against the civilian population of the country. So absolute horror show, and but the good news is key. That one, there's a semi ceasefire, the official ceasefire expired. And there have been some low-level fighting but more or less. It's holding anyway. And right now, as we record this, the beginning, in November
2022, we have right now. Active real War Powers resolutions in the house and the Senate and the house, it's HJ res. 87 and the Senate. It's SJ res, 56. And this makes it not just on constitutional but illegal for the Biden government to continue support for the Saudis and the UAE Air and the truth is man that the Saudis in the UAE or
trying to back out now. And they officially announced, the current round of talks right after the houthis had launched another successful drone strike, on an oil, refinery, right outside of Riyadh, and clearly somebody in a robe came and told Muhammad been Solomon enough of this. It's time to wrap this thing up and so they are trying to find a way out of this thing. And so, this is a place where the libertarian party already. Has been all summer and fall
long. So far already has been working very hard and can continue to work very hard. It's to end a war. There's an opportunity that we have not had, you know, they're this did happen sorted in 2019.
But in all of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya Syria and all of the terror whores, it is such a unique circumstance that we have actual active War Powers Resolution to get Trying to force the Congress that we the people can force the Congress to force the president, to force the Saudis to end this war and and forbid him from, you know, providing any more assistance for it. And of course, if they pass that and really stop the British and the French are going to wrap up
all their support to and then be the end of that. It's a huge opportunity, we have one. Well, first of all, and most importantly, of course. It's to as the American people to really end War into. It's also a test for the libertarian party. We have 30,000 something people who also join this party to engage in politics, to find a way to make a difference. And this is a test to see whether we can heard these cats, all these guys and gals on this one, big email list.
Can we get people to buy in this is Something that we can do that. We can do together. That really makes a difference. If I told you young man, call your Congressman, it would be okay for you to tell me to leave you alone. That stupid. But man, if we all are doing it together, tens of thousands of us and we have the entire population of the libertarian party. We also got the Young Americans for Liberty working with us Americans for Prosperity.
And I'm sorry, forgot the name. There's a couple other taxpayer groups and other Libertarians. And groups, who are pushing this and working very closely with the Quakers, and with the progressives on pushing this thing through, if we all work together on this and we get our mama and her sister, and her friends, and our co-workers, our husbands and wives, and people to do this together with us, then we really could make the difference the libertarian party and our effort could be the
margin that gets these things past. And yes, sort of a slippery slope Argument but not too slippery that getting these resolutions passed. Especially if we can get veto-proof supermajorities to support them could force an end to the war and that would be first of all, the greatest thing that the American people had achieved in foreign policy, other than maybe stopping the invasion of Syria in 2013, and I'm still, yeah, be even better than that ending. This war.
Forcing an end to it, and it'd be a great way for For the libertarian party to prove who we are and what we're about and what our priorities are. And for that matter for the broader libertarian movement, that this is what matters the most to us. And it's not because we have a dog in the fight, in terms of, you know, any special interest that we stand to benefit from in the, in the Yemen War.
They don't even have any oil or whatever little oil they have is, you know, essentially inconsequential this hole. Thing is happening because some you many expats and some leftist Anti-Imperialist and some Quaker pacifists and Grassroots including libertarian activists all around this country have been banging the drum about this. Since 2015 have been raising holy hell we don't have a single
champion on TV news. We don't have any rich people who are behind this effort and yet we already have more than 100 co-sponsors. On the house version of this thing and it truly is because of simple Grassroots activism by regular people. And, you know, I'm not a big promoter of belief in democracy to Deliver Us from Evil, and to deliver the utopian society, we all want to believe it, but we'd be fools to think that there's nothing to it at all.
And that we cannot use it for our ends in anyway. That's just not true. And I just been doing this long enough. No, my own little radio show from Austin but I've spoken with the activist in d.c. enough over the years to know that it's true from their different, anecdotes phone calls matter, emails matter, letters matter if the people are making it known that man. Let's Yemen thing is hot this week, then it's true.
We have to make it true and then it becomes true, we have staffers Join us on our conference calls with the activist leadership. Please more calls because the staff in many cases has already been won over. But now they got to go to the boss and they have to be able to say to the boss and not lie. It has to be true.
The phone won't stop ringing. If people really care about this Yemen thing, I think this is a parade that we need to get in front of I think man 100 co-sponsors So, we should hurry up and sign on now, before we look bad for taking too long to, and we should definitely vote for this thing. And maybe we should bring this up on TV apparently, people really care about this, but we have to set that narrative.
People actual ones in real life out here in the country, we have to make it true that Yemen. Apparently really does matter to people, and that maybe we need to get good on this from the point of view of the people up there. So that's what I'm asking. I'm not asking for libertarian party members to just become all Yemen. Were obsessed activist for the next seven years like my last seven right. Obviously, next is gold and guns and corruption in the healthcare system and every other thing on
everyone else's agenda, right? I'm not the boss of this thing. It's just this is really, really important. And if we can prove that we can Corral everybody and get everybody to work together, not just on elections which Are, of course, huge and important, but on single issues like this. Then we can prove that we can do it on guns. Shouldn't the libertarian party itself, be the biggest and best and most important anti gun control group in America? Well we can all agree about guns.
That's one thing. But can we Corral our membership to shoot down? A red flag law here and an assault weapons, ban there to get concealed, you know? Situational carry passed in this state or that state. Well, if we can stop a war in Yemen and we could stop a gun control law in Kansas and so, in this to me is the test case and we start with him. And of course, we got to do Ukraine, to we absolutely need to be leading the effort in the United States. You know, to, to push for peace.
Especially the Democrats and the Republicans are so compromised on that issue. So huge, another huge Opportunity, for the libertarian party to do. The right thing to do. Everything we can to get a negotiated peace, reduce the risk of nuclear war, and at the same time, show that we're the ones who are good on this stuff, and it's no coincidence that we're the ones who are going on this, that, and the other thing and, and give people a reason to
take a look at what we're doing. As opposed to the people, they've been told their whole lives, they gotta believe in but who just don't offer anything to believe in at all. Scott, I got three more conflicts take as short or as long as you'd like on these when it comes to the Syria conflict. What do Americans need to know about the US and Syria? Okay, first of all, we got to go back to Iraq, the neoconservatives, who arranged the Iraq?
War believed that will put the Shiite supermajority in power in Iraq at the expense of the sunnis. But then, they will do whatever we tell them. And that means they will tell Hezbollah in Lebanon to stop being friends with it. On and start being friends with Israel. And that'll make the Israeli. Turkish Jordanian, American axis of power, the dominant force in the region and it'll screw the Iranians.
Well that's stupid and David worms, her and Richard Perle and Douglas feith, they are stupid and they're clean break policy did not achieve what they thought it would achieve. Instead it achieve would all the critics accused, obviously you're going to put the Ayatollah Best friends in power in Iraq. That's what George W. Bush's, Iraq war to did from 2003 through 2008, was, he essentially picked up where his father had left off.
When he betrayed the Shiite Revolution that he had encouraged in 1991 and Junior, brought him all the way to Baghdad and fought a five-year Civil War to, you know, keep all of their enemies down and out and solidify their position and power. And that's who rules the country right now. Major iranian-backed factions, just finished. Dating their power again in the so-called parliamentary democracy such as it exists in that country in the year, twenty two.
But now by 2005 2006, some of the less stupid neoconservatives realized that we really screwed everything up here and so I'll make alleles odd and Elliott Abrams came to George w-- Bush and said, listen we scored what they call in soccer and own goal. We've really have empowered the Ayatollah here. So now we need to tilt back. Back toward the sunnis, meaning the Saudi king, the Jordanian, King, and their allies. And you know what?
Man, when I was writing enough already, I looked everywhere. I couldn't find the damn thing. I know this happened. I can't find it. Dick Cheney, went to Saudi an early 06. The only thing I could find was all make alleles odd. When I know that Cheney when I just could never find it again. But anyway, they went to go and kiss up to the Saudi king and tell him so sorry.
And we know this because of the heroics of the great publisher and Journalist Julian Assange, sitting in prison at the behest of the American Empire in England, right now that he published this Wikileaks, that says the joy. The Saudi king, read the riot act. It's all made, Khalil, asaad the neocon and said we told you not to do this Iraq war. He said it was going to be great and now you ruined everything. You know it used to be us and you and Saddam Allied together against Iran.
Now, you've given a rock to Iran on a golden platter, and what are you going to do about it and Khalil, asaad, boughs and scrapes and says whatever you say your highness, right? And then, so, what's the answer key? Going to tilt back toward Osama, Bin Laden's men, the Saudis don't have a land Army. And certainly not a navy and Airforce and a real capability for tilting back toward the Saudis. That means we're tilting back toward their suicide bomber shock troops.
It was our allies, the Saudis who financed the Sunni based Insurgency against our troops fighting on the Shiite side throughout that whole War. Now, what happened when the war was over, was all of the mujahideen who had traveled to Iraq to fight against the Shiites in the Americans started going back home. Just like Al Qaeda had come home from Afghanistan after the 1980s. Well, these guys all started coming back home to Saturday to, and especially to Libya and to Syria.
You and what is Obama do justice? He's killing Osama. He takes his side in Libya and he helps what was called, the Libyan Islamic fighting Group, which is just the Libyan members of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That's all they were the bin Laden. Ha Olivia, help them in a nine-month regime, change War to overthrow Gaddafi and which has led to, you know, Civil War in that country and tens of thousands dead, the refugee crisis and all these things, the regime change war in Mali and
the pollution. And then major intervention all throughout North Africa. And then they move right on to Syria and David Petraeus who at that time was still the director of CIA took the lead on shipping guns and Jihadi terrorists from Benghazi in eastern Libya on Syria. This is the real Scandal of the Benghazi attack of September 11th, 2012. It's not just that they had lousy security there and Hillary didn't do a good enough job, huh? And security for our guys.
It's why were they there? Instead of, in Tripoli they were there because that was the home base of the jihadis that they were working with the qataris. So funnel, all these guys off to the next war in Syria and there's all the evidence is in the book and then they go to Syria now, in, Libya the Saudis. And the British, and all kinds of people had a grudge against Qaddafi. They had an opportunity to exploit the Arab Spring to get rid of Gaddafi.
Great. But in Syria, it was really about was that the Bashar al-assad regime which is essentially backed by the ruling caste of what are called the Allah whites, which is a sort of predates, but is also sort of kind of an offshoot of the Shiites there. The ruling caste in Syria and their official allies with Iran. And so the idea was if W bush gave Iran Baghdad. Well we can't start that war all over again.
And start a massive ethnic cleansing campaign or sectarian cleansing campaign on behalf of the sunnis, to kick all the Shiites out, again that ship has sailed, man, you can't undo that but as a consolation prize we can take Damascus away from them and so that was what it was all about. This people really wandered. Man, you have a secular dictatorship where this guy Assad was the three-piece suit
shaves. His chin every morning and has essentially an alliance with the Shiite Arabs, with the majority of the Sunni Arabs. But also with all of the different sects of Christians, the child, Ian, and Mariah night Christians, and there's this one group where they still spoke Aramaic which was allegedly the language of Jesus. And that this was, you know, the Oldest continuous Christian
civilization in the world. These were all the people who are part of the Coalition Alliance that supported the dictatorship. On the other side, were a bunch of Bin Laden night suicide bombers. Again, the majority of the Sunni Arab population of the country even supported Assad. The supermajority of his army was Sunni Arab so it wasn't just sectarian differences.
It was the bin Laden nights, it was the crazies, the head shoppers The suicide bombers, the essentially, you know, wahhabists, leninists who want like World Revolution.
These were the guys, that the Americans, the Saudis, the qataris, the Turks, and the Israelis all chose to back in the dirty war in Syria. Beginning in 2011, the way I write it in the book, It's I quote over and over and over from, I don't know how many eight or ten different major authoritative sources from the highest levels, including Obama himself and all of the members of his cabinet and everyone explaining, why are we doing this?
Because we hate Iran. We hate this Shiites, and we hate that Iraq war to help the Shiites. So now, we're trying to figure out a way to get back at them, and then, as I explained it in the book, I say that is why the impossible things in this chapter are true. You just can never understand. It's not that Obama's a secret Muslim from Kenya. That was always a bunch of crap, but why would he do what he did in Syria?
It's just crazy. And the answer is because he's George W bush, because he's trying to make up for the mistake of Iraq war to by making another worst one in Syria and then what happened Keith after a couple of years and back in the bin Laden nights in Syria by 2013, Thereby halfway through. They took over all of Eastern Syria. Call that the Islamic State one year later, they invaded, all of Western Iraq. Took it over and, you know, no
time at all. All but ramadi took the longest time at they sieged, you know, they took over mosul Fallujah tikrit which was Saddam Hussein's hometown by G where the oil. Binary was near kirkuk in all this area and took your cook too.
And declare the Islamic State and you had this guy baghdady who might as well have been Bin Laden himself go up there on the balcony like Mussolini declaring himself God's chosen, dictator to come and rule this caliphate, a land area, the size of Great Britain. And then what did Obama do, then he launched Iraq War 3. To again, take the side of the Shiites that they wish they hadn't fought a rock or two for.
That was the reason they backed these Bin Laden nights in Syria was to spite these Shiites, it took their side again. In order to liberate Western Iraq. From the forces of the bin Laden nights, whose caliphate was obviously two or three or ten bridges too far from what they were trying to do. So then they had launched a rock were three, which killed another half a million. People and put America directly in the surface of Iran and their friendly malicious on the ground in Iraq.
And that's why when Michael Horton, who has no relation to me? But is a terrorism expert from the hawkish Jamestown Foundation. When they started the war in Yemen in 2015, he quoted John McCain. In fact, he was still find that son. John McCain's Twitter feed, he says, we're flying as a Ron's Air Force in Iraq, right now. Well, one, yes, that was 100% true.
And to that was 100%. John McCain's fault for supporting Iraq war to the regime change attempted regime change in Syria and Iraq War 3, but then Michael Horton. Said, yeah, John McCain complains were flying. As a Iran's Air Force in Iraq, right now. We're flying as al-qaeda's Air Force in Yemen. Right. But that's what he was talking about when he was saying that McCain's complaining that we're flying, as a Ron's Air Force. Why we're flying as to Ron's Air
Force? As we flew into Ron's Air Force in Iraq, war to regretted it, fought an evil dirty CIA suicide bomber regime, change dirty war that fails in Syria. Didn't lean to the fall of the regime in Damascus. But did lie to the fall of all of Western, Iraq, and Eastern Syria, and the creation of the bin Laden that caliphate and this whole disaster, Estrus new war. And so, you know, when I wrote that book, I didn't have a
professional editor this time. Like I had on Fool's errand and so I just made a bunch of different friends read it, including my mom, you know, for like grammar and stuff. And I usually talk about my family on these things but what the hell, it's funny, my mom's laughed and said to me, you know, I love reading this book. I swear, I lost track of how many times we change sides at 10 and then after that I couldn't remember if I was at 11 or 12 anymore.
So I Dropped it. So that's what that book is about enough already from 1979 on Switching size a, even supported the Ayatollah. Come into power in Iran. Just going all the way back. They just do nothing, but switch sides. We back Iran, we attack them. We back Saddam Hussein. We attack them. We backed the mujahideen. We attack them. We back out. Kata we attack them. We back Saddam Hussein attack him. We back Qaddafi attack. Him back Assad, attack him back
the houthis attack them. Does that sound right to you at all? How many is I lost count to? This is what we. This is how we fought the whole Terror war from the time. I was in preschool Keith and third grade at the Briar Patch. So when it comes to, if you're talking to a bunch of Democrats, they see the world through more or less, an oppressor oppressed lens, really caring about something like equality and justice especially for the most
vulnerable people in society. Why should they be anti-war? Why should they listen to the libertarian message? Well, America is run by a bunch of right-wing capitalist imperialist. See, dude, they don't care about you and they don't care about what you care about. They don't care about who you care about a leftist would never hire the Pentagon and the CIA to take care of their problem for them. And that's something that liberals could learn a lesson from their commie Brethren, you
know. And this is unfortunately something with liberals Where they in they Embrace militarism. Just to prove what, leftist, they're not right. I'm no anti-American. Commie. I'm a patriot. I support the current thing. You know it's kind of the way that they do that but what they should realize is out in the world and specially Democrat politicians should realize that the only reason that people prefer Democrats at all is because presumably they're a little bit less of War. Hawks.
They always want to make up for the fact. Oh everyone thinks that Liberals are effeminate and weak and cowardly and that only you know, all Macho tough guys who know how to fight her all on the right. And so, then they want to be Hillary Clinton ights, right? And prove, what hawks they are? We need a muscular foreign policy to show how muscular we are. We know that's not what people want.
What people want to hear liberals say is that, they are somehow the descendants of the new Left movement from the Vietnam and Civil Rights era. And that they want to come home America. They don't want to be an Empire. They don't believe that we're going to save the people. People of Iraq. And how can you believe that the same Pentagon, that was not going to save the people of Iraq was going to save the people of Libya and this is a fight.
I got with Juan Cole who actually had supported the invasion of Iraq but then he had been a really good expert on it. I'd interviewed him a bunch of times but a liberal you know and then he turned right around and supported the war in Libya. It's like how can you sit there and tell me like you've learned nothing just because it's Barack Obama doing it.
What's the CIA? In the Pentagon, doing it to see American Empire. Doing it, you think this is going to work out well for anyone or you nuts. So it's just look. Again, this is the era of the phony Wars. If Hitler was out there, but striding the world, I guess we'd have a real argument here. The fact of the matter is America's the bully America's the world Empire, everyone knows that. There's no point in denying it, you've said it yourself. All of you. We're number one, weird.
The superpower. Well, was that make everybody else? No less powerful than That there were two superpowers than one of them ceased to exist, and now there's one and it is us. And yes, of course, they dress up all their bullying in humanitarianism. George W. Bush said he was going to Iraq for the benefit of the people of Iraq. Come on. And Barack Obama claimed that that moammar Qaddafi was about to murder every last man.
Woman and child in the city of Benghazi 700,000 people write as many people as he claimed live in the city of Charlotte. He said imagine the city of Charlotte North Carolina being wiped off the face of the Earth. Every man woman and child and Charlotte killed Well, that's a damn lie. You know, that makes him a damn liar. That makes him no better than George w-- Bush at all. And it's the same with all these guys.
There is nothing for you to believe in when it comes to the American World Empire, there's just not and it shouldn't have to hurt your ego to divorce yourself from it. I mean, especially as a Libertarian, it's easy because none of us ever liked Bill Clinton. Or bush or Obama or Trump or by never. So if we have to turn around and denounce their stupid policies that they've done fine. Well, maybe you really like George Bush for a little while. Well, you know what?
That was a long time ago. Maybe now you can admit that you were wrong. Maybe you really thought that Bill Clinton was a great Improvement on h.w. Bush? Yeah. Maybe now you can omit that know.
He got us attacked on September 11th, Expanding nato in violation of Bush. Senior's promise and help pick this fight with the Russians. Every single one of these guys constantly threaten, the Chinese sale, their fleets in the Taiwan Strait and all of these things and provoke, the Chinese even asked the American Pentagon and they will tell you the Chinese Doctrine is a2/ad Anti-access area-denial. In other words, it's entirely defensive.
It's about keeping us out. Not creating a world Empire America's the world Empire? And look so I mean he'll you lean left. There's plenty of great leftist for you to follow on this issue, starting with Chomsky and all the way down got, you know, all kinds of great and look at anti-war.com every single day. We're running great leftist and all of their great work on all of this stuff.
And if you're right winger go, no further than Donald Trump who said all this stuff is just absolutely stupid. And frankly, you're stupid, if you believe in it too, that should be all you need. Meek. Certainly, yeah, yeah, yeah, leftist is very against things like exploitation taking advantage of those in vulnerable situations. Well, murder is the ultimate form of, you know, claiming ownership over someone's life and and permanently harming them.
So this should be at the top of their level. You mentioned. We, of course, said they could embrace the philosophy of Dwight Eisenhower or even thinks that Trump said anything else. You would tell conservatives who see the world through a civilization verse Prizm lens. Why should they be anti-war anything else? Sure, I mean back to the Liberals for a second and look at the environmental Devastation. The Pentagon burns more fossil fuels than Germany, right?
The Pentagon itself is like the third or fourth ranked, sovereign state. In terms of pollution, if you separate it from the rest of the United States of America. And then, you know, all of those bomb. Look at Iraq, where all of the bombardment of those explosives, put all kinds of heavy metal, is that have been deeply buried in those Desert Sands and does up into the air and made people terribly sick, led to all kinds of problems.
You see depleted, uranium all over Iraq and all over, Serbia, all over Afghanistan and this kind of thing. The worst environmental Devastation on this planet comes at the hands of the American Pentagon and so if you want to you know stop pollution at all. You want to protect sea life you want, you know, any of Of the major things protect endangered species, any of the major things are even for that matter.
If you're into the global warming and and keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you have to oppose American militarism. So key to it all major force in all of it. And now, as far as conservatives, I guess I'll go back to kind of what I was trying to say at the beginning here, which is that you cannot have a limited constitutional World Empire. And you cannot have a world Empire and a free Society at
all. If we're going to keep our Bill of Rights, you know, for old people listening to this, I know you only care about one thing, your grandchildren. Well, you want them to have the Bill of Rights or not. Because they're either going to have it or they're not.
And you're not going to have the Bill of Rights if they don't have the Constitution and then not going to have the Constitution. If America Duval's into a totalitarian police state in our vain attempt to conquer the world and figure out a way to make the appeal, the American people afford it. It's just not going to work. Spin The Globe. Look at a map. This is the middle part of North America. All of South America, all Africa, Europe and Asia. We can't rule it. We can't afford it.
We got a 30 trillion dollar debt and we're flat broke. If we can afford it, you sure as hell. Don't need to worry about Russia, China, India, Iran or any, you know, middle rank power coming and taking the position that we can't hold either. You know, when the neoconservatives inaugurated the Cold War era, they called it Our unipolar Moment was Charles Krauthammer the hawk in foreign affairs. So now is our chance to set up the world of way, we want it before.
Our Time runs out because eventually what's going to happen is Brazil and India and China and some of these other and health that matter Russia, they are going to gain in wealth and they are going to become at least middle rank Powers enough that we will have to respect them and their wishes to some degree. They will be participants in the global system as of that time, it's America, Britain and Japan, Uber Alles, everybody's going to do, whatever the hell we say,
right? But that won't last. It's our unipolar moment and the story was never that been Russia. China, India, whoever are going to replace us as the dominant power, it's just that it will move from a unipolar planet to a multipolar planet.
It doesn't mean United Nations troops occupying, the United States of America. It just means that the Americans finally, again, although they ain't used to, it are going to have to allow for a decent respect for the opinions of the rest of mankind, instead of Simply having their way that's it. And the truth is and I think everybody can admit this now, you know, like, if you just fundamentally disagree for real reasons, fine, but if it's an
emotional, hang up, get over it. The truth is, none of this had to happen this way for the last 30 years. From the end of the Soviet Union on we could have absolutely abandon our Empire. Abolish NATO brought all of our troops home from Europe Asia and the Middle East and just said forget it. Limited constitutional republic time. If Ron Paul had won the election of 88 and 92 and Harry Brown had won the election of 96 and 2000 and Bill Clinton's bridge to the 21st century.
He would have been paved with freedom and liberty and gold, and then more so than Ron Paul Harry. Brown was such an Evangelical libertarian and especially when it came to his point of view on the people of the world and he was happy to see if you listen to a Statue of Liberty speech, he gave it all the time. He's happy to tell the rest of the world. You're not good enough, you're not doing Liberty right? Right. And he was determined that in America that we do Liberty,
right? That then we can show the rest of the world. This is how it's done. You're Bill of Rights. Isn't good enough. Your criminal justice system is unfair, your markets are corrupt. Your foreign policy is aggressive. You should be doing it like we do only instead of then standing you know up to our chest in a pool of the blood of innocent people. People, it would be Harry Brown. Meaning every word he said, and it be seven billion other people on this planet going.
Hey, kind of makes a good point. And without being able even for a moment, to pretend to be able to mock the American position that you guys don't mean what you say. And so we got the exact opposite of that, right? We got Bill Clinton, spread the world Empire called it. Free markets and democracy how h.w. Bush killed a million people at least called it spreading freedom. To the people of the world and only Barack Obama even really tried to claim.
He was doing anything right? Trying to save some lives. He lied in a few cases while he was just spending them. But but Bill Clinton, especially in W, bush with his Global Democratic Revolution. And all of that stuff they took the good name of self government and private property and market capitalism and they drove it into the ground. And did the Exact opposite. The exact opposite of what Ron Paul and Harry Brown would have done.
If they had won the elections, to see us through the end of the 20th century and the beginning of this one. And so then never even mine w-- Bush. Then if we didn't have to have a rack War one, we need to occupy the Middle East. And we didn't need to expand NATO into Eastern Europe during Bill Clinton. And we sure as hell didn't need to do those things.
Any further under W bush. Barack Obama or any of the consequences that came after that with Donald Trump and now Joe Biden. They just didn't have to be this way at all and everybody, no matter who you ever voted for. If you're a hardcore reaganite, if you beat your son because he didn't believe in George w-- Bush as hard as you did back 20 years ago, fine. You know what you ought to be able to admit to yourself now? It's not right.
That this is what America does in the world that this is what the American militarized police state does to the American people in order to make it all possible. We just need to call it off, it shouldn't hurt that bad to admit that you were wrong. And, and again, hell, maybe even just lie to yourself. And say, you know what, I never did like that George w-- Bush, fine. I don't care. You know what? It doesn't have to be this way. It's not supposed to be this way
and it's not quaint. This is absolutely sound advice for our society. Now that our government's position and its relationship with the foreign nations of the world should be peace, Commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none and that doesn't mean by doctrine that we never have to fight and never have to
defend ourselves. But I'm just telling you the reality is we have no enemies on this planet, take that globe and spin it. There are no powers of the earth that threaten us other than, as we talked about in the case of Russia and China fights that our government is picking for us with these powers that do have the ability to hit back, there's nobody coming for us and we just we could live out the rest of this Century, essentially in peace and prosperity.
You know, those guys Shermer and Some of these people who preach that, like all the world has never been better. Everything is so great now and they quite correctly, say you read this kind of thing at reason Magazine from time to time but there's less poverty and more self-government and more rule of law as opposed to just rule of tribal Chief or warlord or whatever right now in the world than ever before.
Fact, the number of democracies has decreased over the last 10 years, I was on the, on the upswing from there. But the number of capitalist countries, the amount of wealth and prosperity. In the world is at such a high rate there, virtually nowhere in the world where people are starving to death. And there are fewer places in the world where people are going hungry than ever before. Capitalism global capitalism is abolishing hunger from the face of the Earth and is abolishing war.
There's one big exception, the United States of America, the proclaimed champions of self-government and peace and market capitalism are we're the greatest violators of it. The worst Central planners the most violent destructors and the only Society on the planet that has people under our jurisdiction, starving to death, and that's the people of Yemen and Somalia at the hands of our CIA in our pentagon But our government picking on two of the weakest societies.
Most helpless societies on the face of the Earth for vested, special interests countries and never attacked us again. The only people ever attacked us out of Yemen of the guys were fighting for now. Right?
And that's these are the only places on the planet where people are starving in Afghanistan, where there have this horrible, Great Depression, because of the now, complete and total lack of Aid money that had been flowing in and had built their entire economy of been structured on Aid money.
From the West has now been pulled completely out from under them and they're, you know, surviving only on the aid of foreign Nations and despite America keeping our sanctions on them and trying to prevent food from getting through.
So people like Schirmer and those optimists are right Jeffrey Tucker talks this way, reason magazine talks this way, things are getting better for Humanity everywhere that should be good but man it's sort of like I'm talking about the libertarian party ought to be taking the lead on Yemen and then we get to take a little bit of the credit for that too,
wouldn't that be nice. Well the United States of America ought to be getting the credit for converting the planet to self-government and capitalism but we don't we don't get the credit. What do we do? We came in with a bunch of IMF gangsters to steal your water supply. Came in with the Marine Corps
and blew up your hospital. came in with the CIA, in the Air Force drone, bombed, your school, your wedding, People go Liberty. Liberty means when the Americans burn a child to death, that's what Liberty means. And now, how are we going to get over that Keith? What's it going to take to change that narrative and then so what do we get instead? We got like the kind of horror movie version of our Bill of Rights. We have the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is half
communism, right? Which half sit which says it's your human right. Your natural human right to live under a government, powerful enough to tax, everything your neighbors. Got to give it all to you. And you got the people of the world who see that as a much more consistent set of libertarian principles than the ones that the Americans apply with their Bill of Rights soaking in blood. And it can you blame for that? It's set our leaders and the people who believed in them, of
course, it's so important. Yes, critical race Theory can certainly harm families, but world wars, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Men, who have to get conscripted, get their limbs blown off. This is the worst thing. So for the first, another one for the pro-family side, they need to be the anti-war side too. Yeah, and look, I mean on the pro-family side to what does more to Upped the families of the people in in the service and sending them off to War.
I mean, it's high suicide rates, yeah, High suicide rates, huge divorce rates, you know, infidelity and broken marriages, and then children who grow up in without their fathers, and all of these things. And then look, I mean, as some obviously, the case of the Vietnam where you have this massive cultural revolution from the left in the Vietnam, anti-war. Evening and he didn't have as much of a left-wing anti-war movement during w-- Bush but it
is absolutely true. As Dave Smith has repeatedly explained that the last real gasp of cultural dominance of the American right was during w-- Bush. When Donald Trump came to power, he did not bring the cultural right back to Power. The cultural, liberals still stayed, the dominant Force through TV through the me. Idea through the police institutions, that frame Trump for Russia, gate, and all of those things acting kind of as antibodies preventing his disease from really taking
control over the government. So what happened during w-- Bush? What happened was? He lied us into war and everybody knows it and he lied us into war because a bunch of ex-communist representing the foreign nation of Israel wanted him to.
And because Dick Cheney was Is corrupt and owed money to the gangsters of Halliburton, whose company, he had helped run into the ground in the 1990s because Donald Rumsfeld wanted to prove his theories about defanging or, you know, defunding the Army and giving all their money to the Air Force and Special Operations forces. Instead, in other words, his
little Pet Project right? And they lied us into war and they got you know, 4700 Americans killed a million araki's killed Cuz 30,000 something suicide and everybody knows. It was all for nothing, nobody believes in. Last time, anybody believed it was when ramadi fell to Isis in 2015 and I said, oh my God, I can't believe this not one man who served in Iraq war to could. Now say that he was proud of what he did over there other than maybe saving his buddy's life.
But in terms of the war that they fought for this faction against that faction and then look what it. All came to and then no one ever believed in the conservatives. Again, they blew their entire wad on lying us into war on supporting torture. And then what was their last gasp? Their real last gasp was trying to prevent gay adults from getting married to each other. Yep. You wonder why Libertarians are happy to split the vote against you guys. It's because you don't believe in Freedom.
Do you not really? Do you hate the left? And you don't like what the left is doing to your freedom, but do you believe in other people's right to be free and live any way other than how you say American, right? We know that an aunt in practice, the answer is no and that's why we hate you. You know, the polls showed throughout the entire Bush era. The more you went to church, the
more you supported torture. And that's because the more you went to church, the more you were committed to political conservatism and the Republican party and this fools golden idol George w-- Bush. This scum, this half a man And they were willing to worship him and put his doctrine of torturing innocent men to death. Over the Mandate of their Christ, who ordered them in The Sermon, on the Mount, to turn the other cheek and to preach peace.
It was conservatism and republicanism it was politics that destroyed the American right and cost them the last of their credibility among the American people. And how are they ever going to get it back? You still can't get more than a third of them to be anti-war right now, the leaders of the house and the senate in the Republican Party are no less worse than John McCain and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney right now. Mitch McConnell would lead the war against Russia right now.
And so, if you only care about yourselves right Wingers, you should note, this is why people don't believe. Even you it's all of the blood of innocent people that you shed. Its all of the lies that you were willing to repeat the most horrible sins that you were willing to countenance made people not believe in you anymore. You want to change that and going to have to get good on something. You know, us, Libertarians, we're good on guns and peace.
Conservatives are good on guns because the arms manufacturers want to war and bribe them to pretend to believe in Freedom on one issue because it sounds sort of like what they need. So they can sell what so they can sell guns to the government. Not to the American people. People say how come the NRA doesn't stick up for an innocent black guy when he gets shot by a cop? Well, how come the NRA doesn't stick up for an innocent. Anyone ever when they get shot
by a cop? You can be the whitest guy in Minnesota. They won't stick up for you when you get shot by a cop because they're not the right of the people to keep and bear arms Lobby. They represent the gun manufacturers, who want to sell guns, who to, you know, to the captive Market of the American police, and the American Military because that's where they make their money. You want the NRA to stick up for your interests when you're going to have to make the private gun
Market? The most important gun Market in America? And when you're not competing with the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security anymore. Maybe they'll begin to give a damn about you. Also, vitally important, it's not that to they have to abandon their ideas and embrace the non-aggression principle. Even though I think everyone should have course, they can embrace the ideas of Thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not murder.
It's it's so important. People can check out LP dot-org. Join today. Check out the libertarian party platform Scott. Horton. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. As always. Thank you.