06/30/14 – Jonathan Landay – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'm Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
All right, you guys.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
And our first guest today is Jonathan Landay from McClatchy Newspapers.
He tried to truth you out of war for Knight Ridder Newspapers back in 2001, 2, and 3, but you didn't listen.
You didn't read.
And so now, next step is, one, two, skip a few, ISIS declares establishment of caliphate, demands allegiance from all Muslims.
That's the headline from Mitchell Brothereau, Landay's colleague there at McClatchyDC.com.
Welcome to the show, Jonathan.
How are you doing?
It's nice to be back.
I'm well, thank you.
Bad news.
Well, kind of inevitable.
That's what they said they were going to do, and they've done it.
The only question is how long this can last and if it's viable, and there's big questions about that.
Yeah, you know, did you see this thing by J.M. Berger in the Daily Beast today, ISIS risks everything by declaring the caliphate?
I have not, but I've had some of my own sort of thoughts.
Let's hear them.
Well, the first thing is, you know, they're still fighting for what they...to hold on to what they've captured, and we don't know what the outcome of that's going to be.
Certainly it looks like they've still got the upper hand, you know, there was the first major Iraqi counteroffensive over the weekend, or actually beginning late last week, to try and recapture Tikrit, which is the hometown of the late Saddam Hussein, and it looks like, at least from all the accounts I've seen, including our own, that the Iraqis have not made a lot of progress.
But beyond that, the fact is that it may well be that ISIS has kind of set itself up against all sorts of...all the other Islamist groups that are claiming that, you know, that they're the guys who should be running the caliphate.
And that includes al-Qaeda and their core leadership, which is still based in the tribal regions of Pakistan.
And let's not forget that ISIS has been fighting in Syria with al-Qaeda's official branch there, Jabhat al-Nusra.
Now, the question is whether or not Jabhat al-Nusra is going to actually be able to remain cohesive given the success that ISIS has had in Iraq and in Syria.
So there's that factor.
How will their declaration affect that?
But also, in making this declaration, the head of ISIS, a guy by the name of Baghdadi, kind of declared himself the defender of the faithful.
That would be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the defender of the faithful.
Well, that's a title that Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, claimed in 1996.
So who is it?
Is it Baghdadi or is it Mullah Omar?
So you see where I'm going with that.
There's a big question as to whether or not the jihadi groups will themselves have a falling out over this.
And then there are the groups that ISIS has allied with in their drive from northern Iraq towards Baghdad, and these are a bunch of different groups, but including a nationalist, the Iraqi nationalist, who include former members of the Ba'ath Party, of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, and his former military.
And now, they're not jihadis.
They're not, you know, they don't have the same philosophy, share the same philosophy that ISIS shares, that ISIS has.
And right now, it seems more like that they're aligned with ISIS in terms of as an alliance of convenience, because they're both aiming at toppling the Shiite, Muslim-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad.
But once they've gotten that, if they ever get that, then, you know, they have to have an ideological reckoning, as well as a physical reckoning.
Is it Baghdadi who's going to run the show, or is it going to be some of, you know, the top former leaders, top leaders of Saddam Hussein's regime?
So there's all these questions out there, but the fact is that the declaration will add prestige and appeal to ISIS following its military triumphs over the last three weeks in Iraq.
All right, now, well, let's cut straight to the point here, and this is the conclusion that Berger makes after citing a lot of the very same things that you talk about here, is that one way to kind of insulate ISIS from all of these different opposing pressures that you're talking about would be for America to bomb them.
And for whatever, especially if then they end up losing some of these towns and having to retreat, and then they get to point the finger at America for destroying their awesome caliphate that, of course, we created for them in the damn first place.
But anyway, that's how to turn these guys into waves of anti-Western suicide bombers, and that's exactly what not to do here, even though, of course, everybody in D.C.'s finger is itching on the trigger, wanting to just blast the hell out of these guys, because what are you going to do?
Let them create an Islamic state?
Well, Scott, I'm not sure that everybody in D.C. is itching to do that.
I don't think the American military itself is very enthusiastic about doing that kind of thing, because, you know, to be effective, airstrikes have got to have American boots on the ground, special forces, or at least drones overhead, lazing targets and finding targets.
Now, these guys are operating now.
Yes, there are large stretches of open roadway and desert that these guys have to drive through, but they're also in the cities, and there's no doubt that they've infiltrated Baghdad, but they've got people we know now who have staged operations south of Baghdad, so they're not just to the north of the capital or in the south.
And I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure there are people in the American military who are none too enthusiastic about using airstrikes, not because they're concerned that ISIS will start launching suicide attacks against American targets.
They've already said that they plan to do that, as have other groups.
So I just think that it's, you know, once you open that door, you're on the slippery slope to even greater involvement in what essentially is this catastrophic mess.
Politically, it's difficult too, because look, it puts the United States, at least on the Iraqi side of the border, on the same side as Iran, and the Shiite militia in Iraq, who were killing Americans not too long ago.
So I'm not so sure that there are a lot of people, there are people, certainly people like John McCain and others who have been, you know, rooting for airstrikes, but I don't know that there are many people within the administration, including the president himself, who are very gung-ho about that option.
Well, you know, I think I agree with that, but I just, I guess I just can't shake the idea that they're going to do it anyway.
It's the unavoidable logic of the empire.
They've got ships full of Marines and full of air power, just, you know, not far from there at all, right there in the Persian Gulf, ready to go.
They've got, you know, maybe a threat to Jordan's sovereignty now, on their eastern border, and they've got fleets of armed drones over Iraq already, they've at least announced.
I don't know whether it's true or not, but I just don't see how they can not bomb them.
We're talking about the USA here.
I didn't, I haven't seen any, I haven't seen any announcement that they actually have armed drones.
It's not only that they've got drones that are doing what they call collecting ISNR missions, you know, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and sharing some of that information, at least with the Iraqis, at least information that's not overly, so overly sensitive that they don't have to worry about it being passed on to the Iranians, who, don't forget, are also advising the Iraqis.
But I think a lot of the deployments that you talked about are more about bolstering American allies who are concerned about what they think they see as being an American retreat from the region.
You mentioned one, and that's Jordan, but there's also Saudi Arabia, which shares a border with Iraq, and some of the other Gulf Arab kingdoms.
And so, I think, you know, it seems to me that at least up to this point, President Obama is doing the least he has to do.
Well, let's hope that holds.
Now, hold on just one second.
We'll be right back, everybody, with Jonathan Landay, right after this.
This part of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by audible.com.
And right now, if you go to audibletrial.com slash scotthortonshow, you can get your first audio book for free.
Of course, I'm recommending Michael Swanson's book, The War State, the Cold War Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
Maybe you've already bought The War State in paperback, but you just can't find the time to read it.
Well, now you can listen while you're out marching around.
Get the free audio book of The War State by Michael Swanson, produced by Listen and Think Audio at audibletrial.com slash scotthortonshow.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show on Liberty Radio Network and scotthorton.org.
I'm talking with Jonathan Landay from McClatchy Newspapers.
And like I was saying, I didn't really say this in his introduction, but I was explaining in the previous segment, this is the guy who got it right about the neocons trying to lie us into war starting in the fall of 2001 for Knight Ritter Newspapers.
And not just Landay, but his associates there at Knight Ritter Newspapers back then.
And so, you know what, before we get back to the current thing, I got to ask you this because it's controversial and it's going around again, as it should be, I guess.
And I'm kind of mixed opinions about it, and I got to know what you think of this.
And I'll be overly simplistic, and then you can be as complicated as you want, Jonathan.
And that is that, say, for example, Tom Englehart had an article recently about the horrible failure of the neocons and the Bush administration in getting what they wanted in Iraq.
Oh, they thought it was going to be easy, and the Iraqi people hardly existed.
They were just figments of our imagination.
They would do whatever they were told, and we would have a nice little democracy, and that would put all this pressure on Iran.
And they would have either Chalabi or Hashemite King build a pipeline to Haifa for water and oil, and the whole thing is just going to be great forever.
It's going to be, we're going to expand our footprint in the Middle East and blah, blah, and then the whole thing just blew up.
Sistani call for elections or whatever you want to say happened, and the whole thing just completely fell apart.
On the other hand, and there is kind of paperwork going back, as I know you're well aware, of neocons talking like what they would really like to do is smash all the Arab states into warring tribes of warring tribes who could never, ever possibly be a threat to Israel ever.
And Iraq was the largest, could be rich, powerful Arab state, only one Jordan away from Israel, and that maybe the neocons' real objective here was chaos.
That's why they abolished the Ba'ath party.
That's why they abolished the army.
That's why they invaded Iraq in the first place was really, as a writer puts it recently here, the Michael Ledeen's Boiling Cauldron Doctrine.
Let's just turn the whole region into a giant mess and whatever.
See what happens after that, or expedite the chaotic collapse so that we can then determine what should happen after what.
And I don't know if you think either or both of these are right, or a little bit of both, the first one, then the other, or something.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Well, I think it's original to begin with, that idea.
Yeah, and I've read Michael Ledeen's writings and others, and their idea was not only not to stop Iraq, but to unseat all sorts of Arab regimes, Muslim regimes, because, you know, who posed a threat to just not to Israel, but to the United States and the West.
And I think my recollection is that included Iran, which, you know, it's so it's not quite about, you know, just the Sunnis, it's reviewing, you know, all of the threats against, so-called threats against the United States, which was totally delusional, given that it would have required, you know, the United States to deploy its entire military in the Middle East, which is nuts.
I don't know that all the neocons were on board that particular program, quite frankly.
I'm sure that they weren't, I'm sure, or else we would have seen them attempting to do that.
I'm sure that Cheney and Rumsfeld saw Iraq as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the United States was not going to take 9-11 sitting down, and Afghanistan was simply an inconvenient two-week of a target to make as an example to the, quote-unquote, you know, axis of evil countries.
And of those three, Iraq appeared to be the easiest to invade and push over, and we've heard Wolfowitz actually say that many years ago.
So I don't know why we were listening to them then.
I don't know why people are listening to them now.
You know, I did an interview with Huffington Post last week in which I used the following analogy.
I said, you know, you go to a doctor with an ailment, and the doctor says, okay, this is what you've got, and I'm prescribing these pills and this surgery.
And it turns out he got his diagnosis wrong, and the prescriptions that he made that cripple you for life.
When you get sick again, are you going to go back to that same doctor?
And no, you're not.
You probably sued that doctor for malpractice.
And unfortunately, we cannot sue Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fife, Rice, and the rest of them for malpractice, but we can stop listening to them.
Yeah.
All right.
And now, by the way, a footnote here, and you got your own sources, so I ain't contradicting you, but just so you know, New York Times reported June 26, support for Maliki slips within his own party as armed U.S. drones start flights.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
Eric Schmidt in the New York Times there.
So, but yeah, now, and so back to that question.
My quick response to that is, how come Maliki is still the prime minister?
Well, yeah, and so what about that?
Support for him flipped inside his party.
Yeah, well, and they got the parliament is coming back together again, when, in two or three days?
Yeah.
I think Ayatollah Sistani wanted this thing done by tomorrow, and it hasn't happened.
And so you got to ask yourself, well, how come, if support turned against Maliki inside his party, I haven't seen any results of that.
Now, it could be also that, you know, Iran has a lot to say about that situation as well.
Yeah, you know, there's this piece in, oh, I don't know how to say it, A-A-W-S-A-T.net, and they're saying it's between Abdul Mahdi, Hakeem's guy from Skiri, and Chalabi.
That could very well be.
We've been hearing about Chalabi for a couple weeks now.
Yeah.
That just seems so crazy.
I can't wait to hear all the liberals justify it when Obama goes along with that.
That's why I hope it's him.
Just to see it.
Salon.com saying, well, you're...
Yeah, but then you're going to see the neocons come out and say, see, we got it in the end.
Yeah.
He was the right guy.
Can you imagine?
All right, well, and now, so wait a minute.
If it's Sistani or Sadr, who was, after all, at least at first, wanted a government of national salvation, as they called it back in 05, and before, with the Sunnis, sent his fighters up to Fallujah back in 04, and was more of an Iraqi nationalist against Iran and the United States at the same time early on.
But could anyone at this point reach those benchmarks of 2007, that the Sunnis are going to have so much representation in Baghdad that they don't feel so bad about losing it anymore?
I mean, come on.
Well, I'm unfortunately not the great expert at internal Iraqi politics, and it's quite possible that you're going to see...
There are still Sunnis, I think, Sunni leaders who have not abandoned the idea of trying to put together some national salvation kind of government.
But the question now is, can the Iraqi army hold it together long enough to be able to push ISIS back, end the threat against Baghdad, and, by the way, the Shiite shrines, which I think are probably the real target for ISIS now, not Baghdad, in order to be able to create conditions in which such a national reconciliation government can run the place.
And there's a big question about that.
Is there a chance you can do one more segment here, or you gotta go?
I can do one more segment.
Great, great.
Thanks.
And it won't be as long as the last one, I think.
Hang on just a minute.
We'll be right back with Jonathan Landau.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
First, I want to take a second to thank all the show's listeners, sponsors, and supporters for helping make this show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And now I want to tell you about the newest way to help support this show.
Whenever you shop at Amazon.com, stop by ScottHorton.org first, and just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way, the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon.com sells just about everything in the world, except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at ScottHorton.org, or go to ScottHorton.org slash Amazon.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show.
And the big news is that yesterday, ISIS declared a caliphate from, I guess, Raqqa in Syria, formerly known as Syria, all the way to the suburbs of Baghdad.
On the line, we've got Jonathan Landay from McClatchyDC.com, McClatchy Newspapers.
And you were saying there about, you know, the question is, can the Iraqi army hold it together?
And the answer is, if so, only with the help of the Badr and Sadr militias, which means it will, you know, to defeat ISIS, they will end up, you know, needing to employ sectarian militias that will then be that much more counterproductive toward ever achieving any kind of compromise with the Sunnis and reforming what was called the state of Iraq the day before yesterday.
Indeed.
And that's why I said earlier, I think that ISIS's next targets are not going to be Baghdad per se.
But look, they're looking, I think, to throw more gasoline on the Sunni Shia fire.
And to do that, they would look to try to drag Iran into this mess, which would then drag the Sunni Arab states into this mess, most likely.
And to do that, they would do that by going at one of three or more holy Shiite cities.
They've tried to go at Samarra, which they seem to have failed to do.
But then there's also Najaf and Karbala.
And we know that they've already declared their intention to destroy the Shiite shrines in those cities.
And we also know that Iran has made the destruction of those shrines red lines.
And so if you really want to, if they really want to stir things up even more than they already have, that's what I think they may try to do.
Yeah, well, and, you know, it seems smart from their point of view, if not to bait America in, which is a concern of mine.
People are saying, well, they're no threat to us.
I think they might be if they're trying to, you know, reenact the bin Laden scam and lure us in to defeat in their sand and bankruptcy and all of that, like worked so well before and again.
But the same thing is they could do that to Iran.
And that was that's what I would expect them to do is to try to do everything they can to bait Iranians into intervening just to rally, right, not just legions of fighting age males from around, but the states of the Gulf region, too, and to, you know, perhaps getting into a real full scale, major scale proxy war there.
But they've already declared their intention to target Americans.
They've warned America.
They warned Americans last week.
There was a day I forget was Friday, Thursday or Friday, where they did this incredibly intense campaign over social media, Twitter, warning of the United States, warning the Obama administration not to stage airstrikes, because that would mean that they would come after Americans.
But also they've issued threats of that nature before.
And let's not forget that there are thousands of foreigners who are in ISIS's ranks, Europeans and Americans, that who could, you know, turn around and come back home and become threats.
That is something that the U.S. intelligence community and European intelligence and government are very worried about as well.
Yeah.
Well, and of course, it's already happened, right?
One of these ISIS veterans, a Frenchman, murdered two Jews at a museum in Brussels.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Can you imagine the French army in there?
I guess.
Why not?
I don't think you're going to.
I think one of the things we're seeing, Scott, is a reticence by the United States and Europe to get involved in what's going on.
You know, especially look at the United States.
Once upon a time, you know, when oil was a major, major factor for the United States, I think we would have seen a lot more of American involvement earlier and much more intensely, not just in Iraq, but in Syria.
But you know, the United States is approaching a point where it is going to be self-sufficient in petroleum.
And that changes the strategic calculus of intervention a great deal.
I also think that President Obama, looking at, you know, I was thinking about this myself.
Since World War II, I don't think there's been any major successful U.S. military intervention anywhere except Kosovo, Grenada, and Panama.
And I think the President looks at that, and his people look at that, and they say, you know what?
Every time the United States has intervened in a significant way militarily, especially in the Middle East, we have screwed that situation up worse than it already was.
And I think he's trying to change that kind of knee-jerk U.S. foreign policy where, you know, we have to get involved in a crisis, particularly in the Middle East.
And you've seen a lot of pushback.
You've seen a lot of criticism of the President, particularly from, you know, the McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world about, you know, how the United States is relinquishing its leadership in foreign affairs, etc., etc.
But you know, that's to be expected if, indeed, the administration, the President is in fact trying to change what has been American foreign policy for decades.
Well, yeah, I mean, really it's one unbroken chain of interventions since Woodrow Wilson.
Every crisis they create becomes the excuse for the next one, and on and on all the way down into Nigeria now.
But so I don't know.
If he's finally figured out there's such a thing as blowback and actually wants to make policy based around that fact as kind of a central theory of foreign relations, then great.
Well, he puts it another way.
It's only 2014.
I mean, you just have to— It's about time somebody in D.C. learned about this.
Well, you have to— But you're right.
I mean, what we need is a clean break.
We just have to say we can't fix Nigeria.
We can't fix Mali.
We can't fix Libya.
We can't fix Syria or Iraq or anything.
What we can do is quit trying to.
Yeah, but I mean, he doesn't quite put it in those terms.
Read the speech from West Point, the recent speech, and the way he puts it is, you know, he's only going to get involved militarily in crises where Americans or American interests are directly threatened.
Now, you know, the world isn't as clean as that, right?
The world is not as clean as that.
I mean, that's what George H.W. Bush said, too, and look at us now.
Well, no, I think he—I'm not sure that that's where he was coming from, but the world isn't neatly packaged that way, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria interfere with that approach in that, as we just talked about, there are genuine potential threats that these crises are creating against the United States, and in particular against the stability of U.S. allies and friends in that region, so, you know, it's not quite as neatly packaged as I think he would like it to be.
Yeah.
Hey, how crazy is this?
What if ISIS just all of a sudden, like an arrow, rushed west to Jordan?
Is Israel and the United States going to have to put boots on the ground there to keep Jordan's borders?
I think they would have a very hard time doing that, because the only place where there are, I think, a substantially strong U.S.—I mean, sorry, yeah, U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are in the south, you know, along the Jordanian border and the Israeli borders.
I mean, I think that's—if there's— They're working with us.
Well, that's right.
I mean, you know, the CIA—I've been told—I was in Jordan last year, and I was there, I was told, you know, this CIA-led operation, it's very modest, and it's been arming and training, training and arming some vetted Syrian rebels to ensure the security of those two borders, but not much more than that.
So I think it would be a hard, hard row to hoe for ISIS to be able to do that.
But nevertheless—and the other thing is the virtually entire Jordanian army is deployed on their border with Syria, and I suspect they've been making deployments to the Iraqi border as well.
So we'll have to wait and see.
But certainly, you know, this is stuff that has gotten this administration to change what has been policy for three years, with the announcement last week of the $500 million in train and arm assistance that they want Congress to approve for the quote-unquote vetted moderate Syrian opposition, which I'm not sure really exists to any great degree anymore.
Yeah.
You're saying that the guys that they're training in Jordan, their only role was basically just staying on the border?
That my—well, I was told by free Syrian army people in Jordan was that there was, you know, that that was the object.
It was someone, one of them— I mean, they're giving them tow missiles and all that, though, right?
But not a lot.
I mean, you haven't seen—and it's not just there, it's in the north as well, but you haven't really seen them making a great deal of difference, have you?
And I think that, you know, those videos we saw and the supply of those missiles were part of what we now have seen is this announcement by the administration to train and arm vetted Syrian rebels.
You're saying that those videos were taken by those rebels who were given the tows to—they videoed their use of the tows as proof that they were using them and not selling them, which has been the fear, to other rebel groups.
And then they then put them up on—and they showed these videos to the Americans.
Well, I actually read a thing in the Long War Journal that said that al-Nusra was already getting them, though.
I thought that they were getting the—that they had obtained the Croatian anti-tank or sort of the former Yugoslav anti-tank missiles and not these tows.
Well, I don't know the detail, but what I read on the Long War Journal—in fact, let me ask you this.
Hell, we're already into the commercial break, anyway.
What about the Islamic Front?
What the hell is the Islamic Front?
When the FSA got seemingly pretty much chased into Turkey back in, what, late December, early January, then all of a sudden there was this Islamic Front and they became the new moderates.
But who is that, really?
We have to wait and see.
For the most part, I think the Islamic Front consists of mainly one group, Arar al-Sham, and maybe some other Islamist groups, but they're sort of like the third major Islamist group, Syrian Islamist group, fighting the Assad regime.
Yeah.
We have to wait and see.
That was what I said in the Long War Journal, was those guys were fighting with Nusra in a battle.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
They've been aligned with Nusra and the FSA in fighting ISIS.
And that was what Prothero said on the show the other day, was that those are the guys who are receiving the weapons and the money directly from the Saudis are Arar al-Sham.
Or were.
We're not sure that that's Saudi policy anymore.
Well, it sure wouldn't make sense.
Well, I guess it would make sense for them, but it wouldn't make sense for America to let them get away with it.
Not at this point.
Right?
Right.
Well, we'll have to.
You know, again, there's a great deal of uncertainty about all of this.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I've kept you way, way over time.
Thanks very much for your time, Jonathan.
Absolutely.
Anytime.
Appreciate it.
That's Jonathan Landay, everybody, from McClatchyDC.com.
The military industrial complex, the disastrous rise of misplaced power.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here.
I'd like for you to read this book, The War State, by Michael Swanson.
America's always gone to war a lot, though in older times it would disarm for a bit between each one.
But in World War II, the U.S. built a military and intelligence apparatus so large, it ended up reducing the former constitutional government to an almost ceremonial role and converting our economy into an engine of destruction.
In The War State, Michael Swanson does a great job telling the sordid history of the rise of this national security state, relying on important first-hand source material, but writing for you and me.
Find out how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all alternately empowered and fought to control this imperial beast, and how the USA has gotten to where it is today, corrupt, bankrupt, soaked in blood, despised by the world.
The War State, by Michael Swanson.
Available at Amazon.com and at Audible.com.
Or just click the logo in the right-hand margin at ScottHorton.org.
We should take nothing for granted.
Why does the U.S. support the tortured dictatorship in Egypt?
Because that's what Israel wants.
Why can't America make peace with Iran?
Because that's not what Israel wants.
And why do we veto every attempt to shut down illegal settlements on the West Bank?
Because it's what Israel wants.
Seeing a pattern here?
Sick of it yet?
It's time to put America first.
Support the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org and push back against the Israel lobby and their sock puppets in Washington, D.C.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org.
And if you'd like to learn and order more, send them a message at commoditydiscs.com.
Or check them out on Facebook at slash commodity discs.
And thanks.