08/12/16 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Superior blends of premium coffee, roasted fresh in Zionsville, Indiana.
Darren's Coffee satisfies the casual and the connoisseur.
Scott Horton Show listeners, visit www.
DarrensCoffee.com and use the coupon code SCOTT at checkout for free shipping.www.
DarrensCoffee.com Because everyone deserves to drink great coffee.
Alright, Scott Horton Show, www.
ScottHorton.org for the archives, 4000 something interviews there going back to 2003.
And sign up for the podcast feed there as well, follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Alright, introducing Phil Giraldi, former CIA and DIA officer.
And he writes for the American Conservative Magazine and Unz.com.
He's the executive director of the Council for the National Interest at www.
CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
And at least one article of interest, there's quite a few.
One recent one here is, I ran the CIA man, that is Mike Morrell, piles on Trump.
Welcome back to the show, Phil, how are you man?
I'm okay, how about you?
I'm doing real good, appreciate you joining me here.
Sorry I'm late, I was talking with Grant Smith about the Samson option.
So I went a little over time.
Well, it's a dangerous enough issue to go over time on, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, that's something else.
I like it because it's the kind of thing that at first you think, well that sounds crazy.
But then that doesn't make it less believable because we're talking about Israeli policy here.
So yeah, why not nuke Paris if, what, is that really right?
The plan is to nuke Paris if Israel is in danger of being overrun by Egypt or Jordan or who?
I think the original concept, as detailed by Cy Hersh in his book on it, was that Israel was basically holding Europe and other places to ransom to basically help protect Israel from being overrun.
And the threat was that if Israel felt they were about to be destroyed, it would take down a whole lot of other countries with it.
I mean, you know, kind of a stupid way of looking at things.
But I think the essence of it was that, you know, look guys, if you let anything happen to us, we're going to do some awful things to everybody.
You know, amazing.
But that's, I think, essentially how it played out or how it would have played out.
All right, now, so is conventional wisdom that that's still the policy, or that was just temporarily back when?
I think it was back then.
It was based on the fact that Israel, although it had nuclear weapons, had limited capabilities to deliver them, and basically it was seeing nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.
But at the same time, it was playing it like a political weapon, too, to get, you know, a political consensus to protect Israel and that kind of thing.
It's, you know, we're talking about how many years ago, 40, 50 years ago, maybe more than that, 60 years ago.
Oh, it really, well, was it 60?
It was in the 50s, early 60s, yeah.
So we're talking a long time ago.
I see.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, but wait, I thought they didn't need, wait, when did they get their first nukes?
I thought it was in the late 60s.
Well, no, they had it before, maybe we're talking late 60s, but it certainly is before, you know, the 68 events, 67, 68 events.
I see.
This was a policy that was being pulled together before that.
I think they had their nuclear weapons, at least some of them, in the fairly early 60s.
Yeah.
But I'm not completely sure of that.
Yeah, actually, as soon as I said that, I thought, no, maybe it was 63 or 64.
Yeah, yeah.
It was under Johnson, I think.
Yeah.
I'm only going off, I don't even remember what memory, just very sketchy.
Well, somebody will check it out on Google and get back to us.
Yeah, there you go.
But, yeah, okay, but so, no, I mean, it's important then to state that there's no indication that you know of that this is longstanding Israeli policy and thus it will always be, that you Americans better never let us down or that kind of thing.
No, it's not.
I think it's even too crazy for them.
But as it seems to me one of the interesting aspects of this, if you listen to a lot of what Vladimir Putin has been saying lately, he's been hinting at the fact that, or at the presumption on his part, that if the United States continues its aggressive policies and pushes Russia into a corner too hard, Russia will have no option but to go nuclear.
It's kind of a version of, you know, Samson Option, where Russia is saying, if we have to defend the homeland, this may wind up being the only way we can do it.
So it's interesting how these ideas play out.
Yeah, well, you took a trip to Russia, so that must explain your treason in taking that nuclear war threat from the foreign leaders seriously, Phil, I guess.
Yeah, well, Jill Stein and I were over there together, and we both betrayed the nation and signed documents in our own blood indicating that we would do anything, anything that Vladimir Putin asked us to do.
Yeah, you and Mike Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, too, right?
That's right.
I've got to say, he strikes me as a bit of a nut, Phil.
He is a nut.
He was sensible about Russia, obviously, since he was sitting next to Putin.
But at the same time, he was blaming everything in the Middle East on Iran.
And I had a big argument with his son, who was there accompanying him, when he was coming out with all this stuff, saying, you know, this is nonsense.
I mean, everything you've ascribed to Iran can basically be explained because Iran is surrounded by enemies and is under-defensive.
And, you know, but, no, that wasn't a good enough reason.
Well, it turned out he co-authored his book with Michael Ledeen, so I think that explains a little bit of something.
Right.
Where did you get those crazy ideas?
Oh, okay, now I know where you got your crazy ideas.
That's easy.
Right, right.
Pajamas Media.
He got fired from National Review.
Yeah, yeah, never heard of it before.
Well, he also got fired from the American Enterprise Institute.
Which, that's pretty low.
That's as low as you get, yeah.
Although, you know, McAdams was saying that, hey, compared to scum like Max Boot, Michael Ledeen is, you know, like a real high-class guy.
At least he knows how to read.
And he actually kind of knows the reality of the politics, even though he runs his own course on it.
But he actually knows a bit about what's going on over there.
And, you know, you're right, Max Boot doesn't know anything.
McAdams is like, Boot's just a punk.
Yeah, yeah.
All right, now, so let's talk more about Russia.
And, in fact, let's talk more about this dinner, because there was, in fact, Morris Davis, who I respected up until a couple of days ago, was red-baiting Jill Stein over this same RT dinner on Twitter.
And the first thing I said back to him was, hey, there were former CIA guys like Phil Giraldi there.
Are you saying he's a traitor, too?
Because you write for the American Conservative Magazine.
You lean right, and you're over there.
I mean, not that Russia's a communist country anymore, but basically it's still the same old classic red-baiting.
And Jill Stein certainly is a green, and so that's part of the red-baiting of her here.
Oh, look at her proximity to the ruler of the Kremlin and all of this stuff.
But so what actually, besides your sarcastic remark, what is your actual response to people who say that Putin is such an adversary of America that this is a real Jane Fonda-type move for you and Flynn and Stein and or anyone else to be in the same room with him at some RT dinner?
What in the world were you doing there, Phil Giraldi?
Well, it was their 10th anniversary dinner.
There were a lot of people there.
Larry King was supposed to be there, but for health reasons couldn't make it.
Jesse Ventura was there.
Ray McGovern was there.
There were a number of American journalists who were there.
It was not necessarily a propaganda session, although if one were asked a question, it was reasonable to be polite about Russia.
And nobody told us what to say.
I spoke, as did a number of others.
But the whole point is that Russia is being demonized consistently by the Democratic Party and by a number of people in the media.
There are lots of reasons for that.
And I even reject the formulation that Russia is an adversary.
Russia is a competitor.
And the fact that we are now persistently in the media referring to Russia as an enemy is very bad, because if there's one thing in our foreign policy that should be the number one issue, it would be to have a decent working relationship with Russia.
You'd think that that would be everyone's priority.
I mean, well, I understand partisan politics are a thing.
But, well, and there are interests, too.
I mean, you make pretty much no bones about your thesis on Michael Morell in your piece here at UNS.com that this guy has an interest in red-baiting Donald Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton and supporting an aggressive policy toward Russia.
And it's not that he wants a promotion inside the CIA.
He already got to be acting director, and that was as high as he was ever going to get in that job.
So now what's his game, Phil?
Well, his game now is to continue to ride the horse he came in on and essentially go with Hillary.
He might be Secretary of Defense.
He might be head of the CIA.
He might be head of NSA.
I mean, you know, there are a bunch of things that he might wind up with.
But the thing to bear in mind about all these characters, and he's just one of hundreds, is that essentially these guys are they have their noses in the trough, and they have vested personal interests in going with the war economy, the war on terror economy.
This benefits them directly.
But some of these people are batshit crazy.
Morell, on the day after he wrote the op-ed that I addressed, as I'm sure you're aware, he had an interview with Charlie, what's his name?
Rose.
Yeah, Charlie Rose.
And he basically said that he would favor sending out hit teams, covert hit teams, to kill Russians and to kill Iranians to show them that they shouldn't oppose policies promoted by the United States in the Middle East.
I mean, this guy is batshit.
And yet he's endorsing Hillary Clinton.
He appears on television all the time.
He's the CBS go-to guy on terrorism.
And he's nuts.
And he's saying that we should be targeting in Syria.
He's saying to target Russians and Iranians who are helping Hezbollah and the Syrian army fight against ISIS and fight against al-Qaeda.
Yeah, yeah.
And then he had other smart ideas, too.
I think one of them consisted of blowing up al-Assad's helicopter just before he gets into it to send him a message.
You know, this kind of stuff, I mean, this is insane.
I don't detect with any of these characters ever any indication of what the actual U.S. interest might be in doing all this stuff and how this benefits the average American.
I mean, it's just not even there.
It's not even in the discussion.
Yeah, or even what's supposed to be the result of something like that?
I mean, even Charlie Rose ought to be able to come up with, but then might Ayman al-Zawahiri become the next dictator of Syria or something like that?
We don't want that, right?
Yeah, that's it.
I mean, Charlie Rose, for all of his pandering to the interests that pay him, he's another one.
Essentially, he's a smart guy.
He must realize that essentially these kinds of things Morell is talking about and Hillary Clinton is talking about are not good.
I mean, they're not going to have a good result.
But yet the media, as I say, they know where their money comes from, and they're just going to play the game as long as they have to, which is forever as far as they're concerned.
Yeah.
And now, Morell, he's got a new job right now while he's waiting for a position in her administration.
He's working for a business that works for her campaign.
Is that it?
Well, it's a business that was – it's a Wall Street-type consultancy, and it's a business that was founded by two people – three people, actually.
They were very, very close to Hillary Clinton at State Department.
And they do indeed do some projects for the Clinton campaign.
So, you know, there's a conflict of interest there, one would think, which the New York Times did not identify.
And that's for starters.
And the fact is this is a guy who knows nothing about financial services, nothing about Wall Street, but he's got this high-level job in a company that was founded by people that essentially are closely tied to the Clintons.
Hey, you own a business?
Maybe we should consider advertising on the show, see if we can make a little bit of money.
My email address is Scott at ScottHorton.org.
Yeah.
All right, now, so as far as Donald Trump, you know, I really can't think of much redeeming about this guy other than he is kind of funny.
You know, like, George Bush was a clown, but he never made me laugh, man.
He just made me grip my teeth in anger.
I just – but Donald Trump, I admit, you know, he's the kind of clown that gets to me sometimes.
Like, he did one press conference I think just one week ago where he just got there and killed it like a stand-up comedian for half an hour.
It was okay.
But other than that, he's a real scumbag.
Oh, but then the one other thing is he doesn't want a Cold War with Russia.
I don't even know he's good on Russia.
I don't even know if I should go that far.
He did say we should shoot down their jets when they're buzzing our boats right off of their coast up there in the Black Sea.
Like, we wouldn't be flying jets over Russian battleships or cruisers in the Gulf of Mexico or something like that.
But anyway, he keeps saying, hey, man, I don't want to have fire with Russia.
Wouldn't it be great if we could get along with Russia?
And everybody keeps attacking him for that as though that's the worst thing about him when I was thinking that's his only redeeming quality.
And since it's the most important issue in the whole wide world, it's actually maybe even definitive.
His advantage over Hillary is she's the exact opposite of that.
She wants to pick a fight with Russia.
She already blew a reset anyway.
What you're saying is how I see it, too.
I mean, to me, the worst possible outcome is a war with Russia.
And in my mind, for all his faults, Trump has been absolutely consistent, saying he wants to have good relations with Russia.
He doesn't want anything approaching a war.
But Hillary is saying just the opposite.
And so for me, if it comes down to the issue for war and peace, I have to vote for what I think is the better chance of peace.
I'm not trying to dismiss all the stuff that Trump comes out with.
I must admit, having been born and raised in New Jersey, and he's a New Yorkie, I understand the way he talks and the way he overstates things.
Because that's part of the local kind of culture.
And I think people from the rest of the United States don't quite get it.
Lucky for them.
But the fact is that a lot of what he says is the kind of bullshit that one would hear constantly in New York and New Jersey.
But the fact is the guy has said a lot of contradictory stuff.
But the one thing he's totally consistent on is the fact that he doesn't want particularly any more involvements in wars in the Middle East.
And he doesn't want to enter into an adversarial relationship with the Russians.
And, you know, for all of his fascist tendencies as far as, yeah, we're going to round up these and those and we're going to pass whatever law I feel like.
And Article 12 of the Constitution can't stop me either.
And all this kind of stuff.
At least he doesn't have any kind of coherent philosophy.
He's like Benito Mussolini, but who's never read a book before and doesn't even have any real plan other than he wants to do what he feels like.
So how dangerous can that really be?
A fascist who doesn't know anything or even want anything other than to have a good time or whatever.
You know, I don't know.
And bear in mind, he's not an independent operator on these things either.
He's going to have he's going to have a Congress, which is going to be very, very suspicious of both Republicans and Democrats.
And, you know, he's not exactly an independent agent and all the stuff he said he's going to do.
But of course, he doesn't understand that.
But he would understand that once they start pushing back.
So I don't know.
I wish I could vote for Jill Stein with a clear conscience.
But, you know, I supported Bernie.
I don't know.
I just I just I get depressed when I think about it.
Yeah, well, and that just, you know, here in Philadelphia, they say I supported Bernie.
That just shows what a rock and a hard place position the American people are in right now, that this is really who we're left to pick from.
I mean, I ain't voting.
So I'm just talking about, you know, who do I hate less or just for the fun of it, basically.
But but no, I feel your pain.
I mean, Bernie clearly was the best choice this time around.
An avowed socialist who couldn't.
I mean, if he accomplished anything, he would have destroyed our economy in a hundred ways.
And he's horrible on all the wars, too.
He wanted to keep the drone war and the ISIS war and all kinds of things.
But he was still the best by a million miles.
And what we face with Hillary, you know, I'm sure you saw, Phil, where Hillary and her friends have been putting out these trial balloons about, yeah, her and Michelle Flournoy.
They're invading Syria, man.
It's on.
Yeah, I mean, they're already saying, yeah, and they're going to arm Ukraine and and they're going to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
They've already, you know, she's she's already stated or outlined these policy positions.
My God, man.
It's unbelievable.
Yeah, it is unbelievable.
And as I say, the thing that that that is so scary about all this is you never, ever hear them say, well, this is what we're doing because it's good for the United States or good for the American people.
That never even comes up.
No, of course not.
Other than, you know, the liberal order is good for everyone, including us.
Or, you know, some very vaguely defined thing about the surge working or something, but no details for sure.
Right.
You know, right.
Yeah.
Well, unfortunately, we we the people are just cogs in the system, unfortunately.
And and the this country has evolved into an oligarchy, a two sided oligarchy.
And the oligarchs have the money.
They have the power.
They have the access.
They have everything that we don't have.
Yeah.
Well, the truth, you know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, listen, at least some of us are trying to fight a good fight against the Cold War propaganda here.
And it's important, especially that we have people with, you know, rights for American conservative and former CIA after their name like you to say that, hey, you know, you don't have to believe in this stuff at all, because otherwise people believe it.
Hey, man, I heard 10 times in a row something really nefarious is going on about Trump and Putin.
Is that right?
People are asking me that.
Is that really a thing?
They take it serious just because of the repetition of it.
That's all.
You know, it must be right.
Right.
Oh, my God.
What does that really mean?
You know, they're worried.
And, you know, and when they and when they basically it's reached a point where they they are blaming almost everything on on Putin, on Russia as kind of a backdrop to what's going on elsewhere in the United States.
And it's it's scary because this is the kind of stuff that we thought we got rid of when the Cold War ended.
And I was on Russian television the other night.
And that's exactly what I said.
I said, this is these people are establishing false narratives and they're all they're succeeding in doing is they're scaring everybody.
The Russians, the Russian public is believes the war is coming because of all the crap they're hearing.
And that's a kind of scary situation to be in.
Isn't it?
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, here's the thing, too, is it seems like, you know, the whole story of Stalin in in Eastern Europe is we're not getting invaded from the west again.
And here's this big gray area or, you know, not gray area, red area, but buffer zone where a whole bunch of poles are going to have to die before you get to us kind of thing.
And yet the line has moved so far now that there's no margin for error whatsoever from the Russian point of view.
And right.
And I'm sorry if I already brought this up to you.
I'm just bringing it up to everybody because it's the most important thing.
I think whenever we talk about Russia issues at all, Mark Perry, the great Pentagon reporter, said on this show that these generals really believe their own BS.
And that was in response to me asking him, hey, man, but, you know, they know that, you know, the CIA and the NED overthrew the government in Kiev right before Russia seized Crimea.
Right.
So even though they don't talk like that, they know that, you know, come on, we're the aggressors here and we just want to have a Cold War and we're having a good time doing our thing.
And we're pretending that they're the aggressors.
Right.
And Mark Perry says, no, they believe their own lies.
One hundred percent about all of this Putin on the march, Putin, the aggressor.
We must protect Europe from him.
And and I mean, can you imagine?
It's such obvious bunch of nonsense to you and me.
And yet when you're one of them, you know, the higher level party members are the truest believers of all.
And and, you know, that boy, they're really.
And see, here's the hardest part of what we're up against to fill is.
Come on.
Nuclear war with Russia is the absolute worst case scenario of anything that could ever happen at all.
And so therefore, for you to say that it's even a real danger at all, not that you're saying it's definitely going to happen in six weeks or where you're just saying, man, this is a real danger.
But that kind of sounds unreal because it's the worst thing that could ever happen.
So how could it be that our reasonable Democratic leaders would be participating in anything that would be making those kind of matters worse?
I just can't be right.
Doesn't sound right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, first of all, you know, bear in mind that all of these people who are mouthing off on this issue are direct recipients of having this narrative belief.
Their status comes from that.
Their money comes from that.
You know, it's something that they it's inculcated in their system.
But I would also add, I mean, that some of these people are stark raving mad.
I mean, morale from what he's just revealed in the in the past week, it clearly falls in that category.
And Philip Breedlove, the general that was in charge of NATO, basically was, as you know, and I'm sure many of your listeners know, was was angling, was engineering, starting a war in Europe with the conviction that we could whip the Ruskies.
You know, I mean, it was like these people are out of their bloody minds.
Yeah.
All right.
Now, so are you up to date, by the way?
And, you know, I'm sorry, I know you haven't written about this or anything, but do you know about what's going on in Crimea now?
Because I'm reading headlines that say the Russians are building up their forces and that the Ukrainians are building up on the northern border of the Crimean Peninsula right now.
Yeah, I've seen those reports, too.
I don't really know what the what the truth is behind it.
The Russians were claiming that there was a plot and there were incursions and stuff like that.
And the Ukrainians are claiming just the opposite.
I don't know enough about it to, you know, to really say who is who is pushing on whom.
One always has to suspect that they're both pushing.
Yeah.
And now, you know, I saw I don't know if you read Raimondo the other day, but he had one about an attempted assassination of one of the leaders.
I'm not sure if it's, you know, the leader, but one of the leaders of the pseudo, you know, autonomous independent republic there in eastern Ukraine.
Yeah.
And, you know, his his point being that this could escalate real quick again.
You know, we have this Minsk two accord, but it has not really been implemented.
And, you know, by I don't know, by any side, whatever it is, it's a cease fire at best.
It is not a peace deal that reigns in eastern Ukraine right now, Phil.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I had I had read that there was an assassination plot alleged.
I mean, I thought it was an attempt.
I might I might have read that wrong.
I'm sorry if I got that wrong.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I may have it wrong, too.
But the as I say, I don't know enough about it.
I don't know who's I don't know who's cracking it up for what reason this time around.
Well, you know, I mean, it's important that the last time, you know, they had the Minsk one deal fell apart.
But then Minsk, too, was where Angela Merkel brought Holland, you know, I think by the crook of his ear.
And and the French and the Germans went and did this deal.
I guess they had Obama's blessing, but they basically notified him that they were going to go and settle this thing.
They didn't ask, which is that's pretty big for satellite states like Germany and France to stand up to America like that.
Yeah, absolutely.
I guess he supported it, you know, ultimately.
But it's too bad that, you know, you know, you talk about that breed love thing where Obama was telling him no, no, no.
And it took basically all the nose he had to keep this guy from escalating the Ukraine war.
And, you know, to read about his emails and all the pressure that he was putting on Obama to escalate that thing.
If you imagine Hillary in Obama's position there, what would she have done?
It's guaranteed she would have aimed to please General Breedlove more than more than even considering herself or, you know, the American people or the people of Ukraine in any way.
Hers is all a social psychology about, you know, whether all the tough guys in the room approve of her or not will pat her on the head or not.
That's the way she's always operated with Jack Keane and the rest of those guys.
She would have given Breedlove everything he wanted, you know.
Yeah, yeah.
No question about it.
I mean, there's something about certain members of the foreign policy elite in the Democratic Party that has them locked into this concept of we have to help these people who are striving to be free is how they often express it.
And, of course, it's nonsense.
We don't have to help anyone.
Nations exist because they're supposed to benefit the people who live in them.
And they kind of have lost sight of that.
I, you know, as I say, we will.
I think we've got a long kind of road ahead of us.
And hopefully the Hillary's election will produce results that are not catastrophic, but are bad enough for this kind of thinking will eventually just go away.
Yeah.
You know, it's funny because it was, you know, Dick Cheney was the only one who wanted to escalate in Georgia in 08 and Bush shouted him down.
Right.
They say he said, who here agrees with the vice president?
We ought to attack the Russians.
OK, next subject, you know, kind of thing.
So if George W. Bush, you know, can do that, then Hillary Clinton, for God's sake, you know, she ought to be a little bit better than him.
You know, although that was very late.
Bush, he'd been burned by Cheney four times by then or something.
So who knows?
But Bush also made Netanyahu back off from attacking Iran.
So, you know, it can't be done.
Well, I don't know, man.
I guess it's going to be like this.
Phil, I've been interviewing you for, as I count them, I guess, 11 years now since you first wrote about Cheney plotting to attack Iran back in the American Conservative magazine.
And, yeah, by the looks of it, it's going to still be like this for 10 more or so.
Yeah, it could be.
Could be.
Well, you guys can read Phil Giraldi at UNZ.com, U-N-Z, UNZ.com.
Oh, man.
And you know what?
I didn't even get to ask you about Turkey this whole time.
We're talking about Russia and all this stuff.
Yeah, Turkey is, yeah, we're talking about.
Definitely.
All right.
The great Phil Giraldi, everybody.
Thanks, Phil.
Thanks.
Bye bye.
Y'all, he's at the Council for the National Interest and the American Conservative magazine.
And again, UNZ.com, U-N-Z, UNZ.com, where this article is called I Ran the CIA Man.
That's in quotes there, Michael Morell, former acting director, piles on Trump.
And that's the show.
Hey, go to the archives at ScottHorton.org.
More than 4,000 interviews going back to 2003.
And sign up for the podcast feed there.
Help support at ScottHorton.org slash donate.
And if anybody donates $50 or more, you get a copy of the brand new Rothbard book of long lost essays from 1967 and 68 that Rothbard wrote for the Freedom newspapers back then on Vietnam and civil rights and all kinds of great stuff.
Economics, of course.
And it's called Never a Dull Moment.
A Libertarian Looks at the 60s.
And for anyone who donates $50 or more to the Scott Horton Show, I will send you one in the mail.
So do that.
Also, follow me on Twitter.
Although I may insult you.
I hope I probably won't.
Twitter.com slash Scott Horton Show.
Thanks.
You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers or warmongers.
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, I'm Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop.
Which is, by the way, what he's doing right now.
Selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself.
WallStreetWindow.com.