02/10/16 – Ray McGovern – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, all, Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee.
Lots of it.
And you probably prefer it tastes good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee, company at darrenscoffee.com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world, all specialty, premium grade, with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darrenscoffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and you get free shipping.
Darrenscoffee.com.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
And next up is our friend Ray McGovern.
For 27 years, he was an analyst at the CIA and including was the guy who did the morning briefing for Vice President Bush in the Reagan years and was before that the chief, I think before that, was the chief of the Soviet Union Analysts Division there, which I only learned recently.
And he's one of the founders.
He's the principal founder, I think it's fair to say, of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
And by the way, you ought to read everything they've ever put out.
I think you'll learn a lot, seriously.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Pretty easy to Google up a treasure trove there.
Welcome back to the show, Ray.
How are you?
Thanks, Scott.
Doing well.
How about yourself?
I'm doing great.
Oh, I should also say that your website is RayMcGovern.com.
And there's a great archive of Ray's stuff at ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Perry's site.
ConsortiumNews.com.
Tons of great stuff there on all kinds of issues.
But yeah, today we discuss Russia and the new Cold War, as everyone agrees.
It used to be that critics, you know, like at AntiWar.com, we would say, oh, it's the new Cold War.
But now that's really kind of caught on in the imagination of the mainstream media.
And of course, according to them, they're Americans.
It's all Russia's fault.
And then so it's very interesting in a way.
I know you can appreciate the, at least on the surface, the irony of the former chief of the CIA's USSR analyst division, explaining that, you know, really it was America who started it, as you do.
But I think it's pretty powerful if people give you a listen.
So can you tell us, I guess, can you start with right now and how bad you think the crisis is?
And then maybe explain, you know, the most important points and how the U.S. made it this way, Ray?
Well, yes, Scott, it is pretty serious right now.
I was thinking of how Putin and his lieutenants will be talking this morning about the results of New Hampshire.
You know, Hillary Clinton has called Putin Hitler, you know, so I mean, you could see where she's coming from.
I think that they're breathing a big sigh of relief on the prospect that it's no longer a done deal, that Hillary will be acceding to power here, but that maybe a more reasonable person will be coming in.
Now, as they look at the Republican side, I imagine they're scared to death.
Now, Putin can say to his military, look, the anti-ballistic missile system, don't worry about it.
It's just the biggest welfare system for contractors and Wall Street that has ever been devised.
They make out lots of billions and billions out of this and it'll never work.
Now, why can't he say that?
Because...
I really got to get an applause button here, Ray, for when you come up with stuff like this in the middle of the show.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah.
You know, you really have to say that Putin has to plan for the worst.
That's simply the way militaries work.
And so what's he doing?
Well, he authorized the exercise of strategic rocket forces in the coming weeks.
They're going to go out on maneuvers, they're going to go from place to place to maybe test as to how their mobile systems can elude surveillance from US surveillance systems.
And they're exercising just as they did during the real Cold War.
Now, that's, as they say these days, concerning.
That's anxiety producing.
Because if the generals in Moscow get the idea that our generals consider that with all the anti-ballistic missile systems, so-called in the Black Sea and the Baltic and in Poland and Romania, if our military gets the idea that they can nip in the bud the Soviet, the Russian intercontinental missile system, then you have a situation that has not existed since before 1972, where there was a balance of terror because there was no guarantee that someone might not try a first strike.
What's a first strike?
That's a strike where you guarantee that you can obliterate the other side's nuclear potential without suffering undue damage to your own country.
In 1972, and this was luck of the draw, I was out there in Moscow when the ABM, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was signed.
And that was key.
That was key to the balance of power, not the balance of terror.
Why do I say that?
Because under that treaty, each side guaranteed that it would not build more than two anti-ballistic missile sites in its country.
Why only two?
Because then there could never be confidence that you could do a first strike and prevent a strike against you.
Now, that wasn't in being until Bush came in.
It's one of the first things he did.
Oh, I don't think that we'll do that.
We'll opt out.
There were opt-out provisions, of course, there usually are.
But he opted out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
And it was that that called a halt, really, to what had gone like topsy, an arms race, where thousands and thousands of ICBMs and bombers and missiles under the sea, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, were threatening at a hair's trigger the devastation of our planet.
That has been rescinded.
Both sides now are pouring immense wealth into updating these missile systems and the warheads that they can carry.
And it makes no sense at all, except for the military, industrial, security services, media, congressional complex.
And they are making hand over fist in money.
And I forget if this has ever come up on the show with you, Ray, but I'll mention that there's a guy named Klaus, who has posted virtually the same comment on my various interviews, whether or not about Russia issues, thousands and thousands of times.
Out of 4,000 interviews, probably 3,000 of them have the same comment by Klaus.
And they say, he's quoting experts about, here's what happens when America achieves first-strike capability, then Russia goes to hair-trigger warning.
Already they're on itchy-as-hell trigger-finger warning, but this makes it hair-trigger, where the slightest breeze could get us all killed, because they cannot risk the possibility of any possible first strike actually being won.
And so, if Norway launches a missile, but the communication doesn't make it through the chain of command, humanity's done.
Yeah, the technical term that is used around here in Washington is launch on warning.
That's what I was trying to think of.
You don't have 30 minutes anymore, right?
30 minutes is what we used to say, we might have that before we'd have to launch.
But now you're on a hair-trigger, as you put it.
And Putin and Lavrov, the foreign minister, and his defense minister have made no bones about that.
When we're getting to the second anniversary of the coup that we mounted in Kiev, that was on the 22nd of February.
The capital of Ukraine.
Ukraine, Kiev, capital of Ukraine.
And we orchestrated this coup.
Actually, George Friedman, who heads up Stratfor, one of the more reputable think tanks, he let himself say back in December of two years ago, this was the most blatant coup in history.
Why did he say that?
Well, you know, they say that the revolution will not be televised, right?
Well, this coup was YouTube-ized with our assistant secretary of state for European affairs, Victoria Nuland, telling our ambassador in Kiev exactly what was going to happen, that Klitschko and the others could wait in the wings, Yats is the guy, Yats is our guy, and sure enough, on the 22nd of February, Yats becomes prime minister, and the pro-Russian folks are told, well, immediately...
Wait, I'm sorry, Ray, hold it right there.
We've got to take this break.
Everybody just Google up F the EU and you can listen to that leaked intercepted phone call yourself during the break here instead of the dang commercials, and then we'll be right back with the heroic Ray McGovern from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity right after this.
You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers, or war mongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented LibertyStickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now, and I didn't make up all of them, but still, if you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
LibertyStickers.com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian, empire, police, state, founders, quote, central banking.
Yes, bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new e-book by long-time future freedom author Scott McPherson.
Freedom and Security.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
This is the definitive, principled case in favor of gun rights and against gun control.
America is exceptional.
Here, the people come first, and we refuse to allow the state a monopoly on firearms.
Our liberty depends on it.
Get Scott McPherson's Freedom and Security.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on Kindle at Amazon.com today.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Talking with the great Ray McGovern.
And I know it probably sounds crazy, right?
We're sitting here talking about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia over what now?
And yet we're talking with the former head, the former chief of the Soviet Union analysts at the CIA, Ray McGovern.
So this ain't nothing.
And at the break, we're interrupted by the commercials there.
But you were mentioning about how the USA overthrew the government of Ukraine two years ago, in February of 2014.
And what's that all got to do with it, Ray?
Well, it has everything to do with it, really.
If you go back to when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded a year or two later, we persuaded the Russians to withdraw their troops.
There were almost 300,000 troops, can you believe it, in East Germany at the time.
And they withdrew them in return for the quid pro quo of not moving NATO one inch toward the east.
Let me just repeat that for people so that they understand what we're talking about here.
Picture your old globe or whatever, where the Soviet Union went from Russia's border westward all the way halfway across Germany.
And they withdrew their troops from all of those countries, which was how many countries in Eastern Europe that they were occupying at that point?
And never even mind South Asia or Central Asia.
We used to say six at that time.
It was the Warsaw Pact, which was the counterpart of NATO.
The Warsaw Pact was disbanded a year or two after the Soviet Union imploded.
So what was NATO's role?
You know, these institutions have a way of developing the kind of bureaucracy that kind of perpetuates itself.
And so they had to figure out what we're going to do with NATO.
And then, of course, Bill Clinton came in with Madeleine Albright and others and said, hey, did we promise the Russians that we wouldn't go farther east?
Well, yeah, Secretary of State James Baker, that's what he said.
Where is it?
Where is it written down, says Bill Clinton.
Show me.
Well, it wasn't written down.
And so, you know, Bill Clinton's a lawyer.
He said it wasn't written down.
What are they going to do if we double, mark my words, if we double the number of NATO countries from 12 to 24, all of them to the east of Germany?
What are they going to do?
Nothing.
They can't do anything.
So promise the shmamuses we're going to go ahead and do this.
Now, I had an opportunity, Scott.
I don't usually share this kind of thing, but I talked with one of Gorbachev's main foreign policy advisors.
He now teaches at the University of Moscow.
And he was there.
You know, he was advising him in 1990, 1991, 1992.
And I said, why wasn't that agreement, why wasn't that quid pro quo written down?
And he said, well, Ray, two things.
One is, the Warsaw Pact still existed.
Germany had to be read in on all this.
After all, we're talking about reunifying Germany.
So those were two bureaucratic reasons.
But the biggest reason, and he looked me right in the eye and he says, we trusted you.
Whoa.
Anyhow, what happened, of course, was NATO did expand to the east.
And then we had one regime change too many.
When Victoria Nuland at the State Department and her CIA contraires decided, well, we'll use whatever we could, even if they're proto-fascist forces, to overthrow the government in Kiev.
And then we'll have Ukraine in NATO.
That is what I mentioned was a regime change too far.
Because the Russians had made it abundantly clear that that was a nyet.
There's a great embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, courtesy Bradley or Chelsea Manning.
And if I've seen one Moscow cable, State Department cable, I've seen about 3,000.
So this is authentic.
And the title is, nyet means nyet.
Lavrov on Moscow's red line regarding Ukraine in NATO.
And it goes on to say, Lavrov, the foreign minister then and now, called me in today.
And he said, Mr. Ambassador, do you know what nyet means?
Of course I said, of course I do.
He said, well, look, Ukraine in NATO, nyet.
Do you understand that?
Because if you even try that, there's going to be a real trouble.
There will be civil war, I guarantee you, in Ukraine.
And we will have to face the prospect of having to intervene to preserve our security on that border.
So nyet means nyet, okay?
Now, by the way, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to say, I think it's important to say, Chelsea Manning's doing 35 years in the brig for bringing us this information.
So what happens?
Well, that was the 1st of February, 2008.
On the 3rd of April, so two months later, NATO, at a summit, NATO in its wisdom in Bucharest summit said, Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.
So you get Washington thumbing its nose at Russia, why?
Well, because they couldn't do anything about it.
Well, now Russia can do something about it.
And when this all hit the fan, so to speak, and Putin convened his national security advisors the day after the coup, it's very clear.
It's very clear in a movie that was made and produced on Russian television saying, you know, what are we going to do about Crimea?
They say that they want to join NATO now.
What's going to happen to our base there in Crimea?
Now, stop, give us a little bit of background on that base.
I know it's very important.
Well, it goes back to Catherine the Great, about the time of our revolution.
That's when she consolidated Russia's rule down that far south.
And it became the sole and only historically warm water, that is, ice-free port for the Russian Navy.
It's been that forever, perhaps since then.
Can I add one thing to that?
Besides the 220-something year history of them owning it, and God knows how many wars with the Brits and whoever else over it, too, Eric Margulies pointed out that the Soviets, the Russians, really lost hundreds, three or four hundred thousand men, defending Crimea from the Germans during World War II.
So that's like the Alamo times 10 million zillion, right?
The importance of Crimea to the Russian imagination, never even mind the reality of the thing, is we don't have anything comparable to that.
It would be like somebody coming and taking Virginia from America.
Well, yeah, and when you think about the Nazis, the Ukrainian Nazis, like Bandera, that cooperated with the Germans and executed many Poles, Jews, and Russians, then there's a very bitter history there.
But all of that had been sort of repaired when the Soviet Union was whole and complete.
Even during Khrushchev's time, after he took over from Stalin, it was all one body there.
The Ukraine and then Russia proper, they all come out of the same identical civilization around Kiev, just one millennium ago.
So what happened?
Well, Khrushchev thought he needed a little bit more support from his Ukrainian folks there, and so he said, hey, let's make it a separate little, let's make Ukraine kind of a separate part of Russia, and let's give them the Crimea, too.
Well, that was an accident of history.
That was a political move.
There was no plebiscite then.
It was simply an ukaz, an order from Khrushchev.
And so when they did run a plebiscite, no one was shocked when it ran.
Something like 95%, 96% wanted to rejoin Russia, and so they did.
Now, did that violate the Budapest Memorandum that was concluded between the British, us, and Russia, saying that no offensive weapons should be used, or there should be territorial integrity?
Yeah, it did.
But so did the coup.
And without the coup, there wouldn't be any annexation of Crimea.
Most people in America have been so malnourished on good information that they've bought the notion that, well, you know, a lot of people died in Russian aggression when they sent their troops into Crimea.
You know how many people died?
Zero.
The Russians already had 20,000, 25,000 troops there by agreement with the Ukrainian government, and these green men, well, they took over all the government institutions before anybody knew what was going on.
And all very independent polling has shown that the very super-majority numbers, 80, 90-something percent numbers from the plebiscite on the annexation to Russia, that those are all, you know, German pollsters and other independents have gone in there and verified those numbers.
Yeah, well, there were people there watching the plebiscite.
But, you know, what I'd like to add here is that the day before the plebiscite on the 17th of April 2014, Putin made a big speech, a really big speech, okay?
And in it, he said this, I want to say a few words about our talks on missile defense.
This issue, missile defense by NATO, is no less, and it probably is even more important than NATO's eastward expansion.
Incidentally, our decision on Crimea was partially prompted by this period, end quote.
Well, there you have it.
We initially were going to have some anti-ballistic missiles stationed in the Czech Republic.
They went wobbly about it.
The Poles, now they're going to throw it.
The Romanians, they're going to throw it.
What about Bobby Gates, who is the Defense Secretary?
I know what I'll do.
Let's put them on ships, okay?
Let's put them on ships.
We can go into the Black Sea.
We can go into the Baltic.
And, you know, this is a real sore point.
Ostensibly, it was supposed to begin with whom?
Iran?
Iran didn't even have missiles that reached them that long, much less a nuclear weapons program.
They had a nuclear program, but not weapons, okay?
So now we have an agreement.
And when Bush first said that, everybody laughed at it.
It was ridiculous.
Putin laughed about it on TV, but even the TV news anchors laughed about it.
They're putting anti-missile missiles in Poland, on the Russian border, and, you know, or whatever, however many miles away from Moscow.
And this is about Iran?
Whatever.
And then after, in fact, I think they always laughed about it until Obama said it.
And then everyone was like, oh, I guess that must be really why they were doing it.
Or maybe North Korea.
Some people still say North Korea, but they don't look at the globe.
The point I'm trying to make is they can't trust us on this issue.
And proof positive is when Obama was overheard in a conversation with then Russian President Medvedev in Seoul on the 26th of March 2012, so four years ago.
And what happened?
Medvedev says, look, you know, we really need some movement against this missile defense.
We're not fooled.
It's not against Iran.
It's against us.
And that's what Obama said, and you can hear it on the tape.
On these issues, especially missile defense, we can do this, but not now.
Let me get reelected.
Let's see what he says.
I have to quote.
He says, give me some space.
I need to have some space, Medvedev.
I understand, and ABC News producer is going out of his gourd listening to this.
Medvedev, I understand your message.
You need some space.
Space for you, Obama.
Yeah, this is my last election.
After my election, I will have more flexibility.
Well, if he thought he did, he was sadly mistaken or maybe never intended to do it.
But you're a Russian, right?
And you're listening to all this in retrospect and say, that was four years ago.
They're going ahead with this like bunkers.
It's the biggest welfare system for predator arms traders, what Pope Francis calls the blood-drenched arms trade.
And it's never going to stop.
And does it endanger our security?
Well, it sure as hell does.
And so where are we?
We're at hair-trigger missile defense.
And do the Russians want to be in that position?
I don't think so.
Nobody wants to be in that position.
We know how close we've come in the past.
There have been several instances where only one human being, only one human being said, no, this is crazy.
And did not deploy, did not push the right buttons that he was instructed to under great pressure and under great jeopardy.
So do we want to go back to that?
I don't think so.
But do the American people know anything about this?
I don't think so either.
Yeah.
Well, now, and I'm sorry, we're over time.
But if it's up to me, I'll interview you all afternoon.
So whenever you got to go, just let me know.
But I got more to ask you about if you want.
Sure.
I'm OK.
Yeah, let me narrow down on this thing about the military-industrial complex.
Because on one hand, OK, it's just a pat answer.
But then on the other hand, I mean, that's basically really the bottom line here is that the combine between the generals and their contractors and their influence in Congress.
They just have us on this suicide mission, the same one we've been on since the National Security Act was signed, basically.
And there's just nothing that can be done to break this iron triangle until we're all dead.
That's basically what you're telling me, I think.
Yeah.
You know, Scott, let me give you a little vignette here.
After 9-11, I mean, immediately after 9-11, I was desperately searching for something good that might come out of it, right?
And I said to myself, aha, I got it.
Carl Levin, the head of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, had put a hold on funding millions and millions and tens of millions of dollars for an ABM system, OK?
So McGovern says to himself in his great political wisdom, well, at least that's going to hold.
I mean, this is not the threat anymore, for God's sake.
The threat is these crazy terrorists, and ABMs are not going to work against Osama bin Laden.
So at least Levin's going to be able to keep his hold on these tens of millions, up to billions of dollars, for an unnecessary, a provocative, and most people think an unworkable, anti-ballistic missile system.
Guess what?
Two weeks later, Carl Levin signs off on it.
Now, how do you figure that?
Well, you figure that by looking at how much money Carl Levin gets from the re-a-thons, the Lockheeds, whatever people make all these things.
And the congressional people are deep, deep into it.
That's why, you know, when one of the candidates says the status quo is just not possible anymore, it's true.
You've got to change a lot of the congressmen as well, and you've got to give them some challenge to do things in an honest way and not to get bought.
So, as I reflect on Putin and his associates this morning, I see them kind of saying, well, you know, if we can just hang in there and work with Obama to the extent he's his own man, and still build up our military, but try to persuade him not to try anything untoward, then maybe, just maybe, if the Democrats win and the person who called me Hitler doesn't win, then maybe there's a chance we can go back to the days of John Kennedy, where we could work out a decent relationship, because there is really nothing, really nothing that prevents the kind of cooperation that was just nipped in the bud when Kennedy was killed.
Well, and now so, or even Nixon and the detente, you know, it's settled for Kissinger at this point when it comes to Russia, I shouldn't say that, but actually, he was on the right side of the Ukraine coup issue, right?
Blamed the USA, rightly blamed the USA for picking that conflict.
Obviously I'm being tongue-in-cheek about Kissinger, but even Kissinger-Nixon was better than what we got now on this, right?
Well, in a sense it was, you know, even Kissinger during the Ukraine, when it all started, he says, you know, blackening Putin, calling him the devil, is not a foreign policy.
It's true, but it certainly sells a lot of weapons.
You know, I'll give you a little microcosmic glance here.
There's an arms manufacturer, trader called Maffei in Germany, okay, they have a French counterpart, I forget the name of it, but they were commissioned to do the, to build the common European battle tank.
That's about 10 years ago, right?
So you get all this stuff going, and uh-oh, sort of ran aground because, well, the threat was not really all that tangible against whom, right?
The Russians were not misbehaving.
So what do you do?
You get the Russians to misbehave.
You threaten them, you cause a coup on their frontier, and then when they look out for their own interests, they're aggressors, they've got to be contained, we've got to send more American troops there, $3 billion more for Pershing, not Pershing, but Abrams tanks that don't work.
I mean, these are sitting ducks on a modern battlefield with the missiles available to the Russians and others, but hey, lots of money.
You know, it really comes down to cui bono, who profits from this thing, and profits is the correct word.
Well, and I hate to buy into some bogus propaganda, because it very well could be bogus propaganda, but on the face of it, it makes sense that, you know, as they say, the new generations of Russian and Chinese fighters will be at least a match or more than a match for the F-35s, because the F-35s are complete pieces of junk, because they're not made to be good jets, they're made to just transfer money out of the treasury.
And so, in that sense, you know, Lennon laughing about them hanging themselves, or we'll sell them the rope to hang themselves, and that kind of thing, they can, since they mean serious business, hey, let's make a good fighter jet with modern technology, and they're actually trying to accomplish that, they can do it for a hell of a lot cheaper on a hell of a lot smaller economy than America, where almost our whole economy exists just to transfer wealth to Lockheed to make jets that don't fly.
Well, you're right.
The F-35 has all the bells and all the whistles, except they forgot how to, they did a little thing, they forgot how to supply oxygen so that the pilots don't fall asleep.
It's not fast, it can't climb, it can't turn, it can't hold more than a couple of bombs, it's not stealthy, it can't fly at night or in the rain or during moisture.
But the arms dealers and makers are so powerful that they just get, you know, supplemental appropriations to make it better, and, you know, we're not going to lose this whistle, put this whistle on and that, and I don't know how good the Russian fighter, I used to know a lot about this stuff, but if the profit margin there is not as great in Russia or China, it just makes common sense that they can build these things, and they've acquitted themselves quite well, I understand, in Syria, and build these things for far less and they work far better.
So, you know, it's just, you know, it's a system that's got to change and the good news about last night there in New Hampshire is that there's a realistic prospect now that we're not, you know, we're not frozen into this, that there can be enough grassroots, and I'm talking grassroots, you know, $37, $27 a throw, grassroots movement that gets out in the street and not only elects a decent president, but hopefully one house at least of the Congress that will not defy him at every turn.
Well, I'm not so optimistic about Sanders, but I could certainly see a million ways that Hillary is worse, if anybody wants to put it that way, but, you know, it's interesting too that Trump, who is absolutely avowedly horrible on many issues, says about Russia, come on, why have we got to fight with Russia?
You know what?
You can't fight with everybody.
Maybe we should just get along with him.
You know, this guy Putin, I can do business with him.
He's all right.
You know what he's doing?
He's looking out for his own interests.
Yeah, well, that's what a leader's supposed to do.
Let me deal with him.
You know, I hate to quote Trump as like the fount of wisdom or something like that, but I guess he's from New York, not D.C., and that makes a difference, huh?
Well, yeah, he talks a good game.
He also says he's going to bring back waterboarding and worse.
Oh, yeah, no, no, no, yeah, don't get me wrong about that.
I'm sure Sanders is a million times better than him, and he's probably as bad as Hillary on a lot of things, but on the Russia issue, he's basically, all I'm saying is he's not locked into Kagan's talking points on this issue.
You're right.
He's saying this is ridiculous.
Why would we fight with the Russians, which is in fact, you know, and maybe he doesn't even mean it, but it shows that he knows what every man in every living room in America is thinking.
Why do we have to fight with the Russians?
Wasn't that a long time ago?
What is this?
Well, that's what the established, that's why the establishment hates him so much, and I'm not so sure about every American.
I think every American has been kind of exposed so much to this Russian aggression, Russian this, Russian that, and I had a professor, a woman professor from a local university here in Washington.
She came and dressed a group of progressives, and she said, you know, at Sunday school last Sunday, my eight-year-old son came home and he had drawn a poster and had said, Pochin, don't you know the commandment, thou shalt not kill?
And she beamed with pride and everybody shook their heads.
Oh, isn't that nice?
So always the skunk at the picnic.
What's the illusion there?
And she says, well, Crimea, of course, Crimea, the invasion of Crimea, taking Crimea from Ukraine.
I said, well, how many people get killed?
Oh, hundreds, probably thousands.
We don't know.
I said, well, you're correct in saying you don't know, because the correct answer is zero.
It was an incredible, it was an incredible take back from a push that had happened in the capital, and no one got killed.
I can't be true.
Well, it can't be true if you listen to what passes for the pap.
Now, to be fair, Ray, I think two bullets were fired into the air as warning shots.
You're always a stickler.
I don't know if that counts for in anger or not.
It was more like, hey, guys, back up again.
A couple of birds.
OK, I take your point.
Yeah, yeah.
No, I'm just.
So all I'm saying here is that it's a very dreary thing here because people that I respect, highly educated people, you know, they buy the notion, Putin bad, Putin very bad.
Putin sometimes has no shirt on.
Putin rides horse with no shirt on.
Putin invade Ukraine.
Putin very, very bad, threatening us.
We need to build more sophisticated nuclear weapons.
My God, we've lost our head, man.
I'm going to go try to find mine right now.
Thanks very much, Ray.
I sure appreciate your time again.
You're most welcome, Scott.
Take care now.
All right.
So that is the great Ray McGovern.
He's at Ray McGovern dot com at Consortium News dot com.
And veteran intelligence professionals for sanity.
Of course, we keep an archive of hundreds and hundreds of articles.
You can find his name on the right side in the margin there at Antiwar dot com.
And that's it for today.
See you all tomorrow.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism versus Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism versus Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes or just click in the right margin of my Web site at Scott Horton dot org.
Hey, I'll Scott here for Samurai Tech Academy at Master Samurai Tech dot com.
Modern appliance repair requires true technicians who can troubleshoot their high tech electronics.
If you're young and looking to make some real money or you've been at it a while and just need to keep your skills up to date.
Samurai Tech Academy teaches it all.
And they'll also show you the business, how to own and run your own.
Take a free sample course to see how easily you can learn appliance repair from Master Samurai Tech dot com.
Use coupon code Scott Horton for 10 percent off any course or set of courses at Master Samurai Tech dot com.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at Scott Horton dot org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.