10/19/16 – Gilbert Doctorow – The Scott Horton Show

I love Bitcoin, but there's just something incredibly satisfying about having real, fine silver in your pocket.
That's why Commodity Discs are so neat.
They're one-ounce rounds of fine silver with a QR code on the back.
Just grab your smartphone's QR reader, scan the coin, and you'll instantly get the silver spot price in Federal Reserve Notes and Bitcoin.
And if you donate $100 to The Scott Horton Show, he'll send you one.
Learn more at Facebook.com slash Commodity Discs.
CommodityDiscs.com.
All right, y'all, this is Scott Horton Show.
I'm him.
Check out the archives at LibertarianInstitute.org slash Scott Horton Show.
And sign up for the podcast feed there as well, and you can follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Introducing Gilbert Doctorow, writing again for ConsortiumNews.com.
He is European coordinator of the American Committee for East-West Accord, which now that I think about it, might be the single most important project in the world right now.
He's the author of the book, Does Russia Have a Future?
, that was published last year.
This one is at Consortium News.
It's called The Warnings of a New World War.
Welcome back to the show, Gilbert.
How are you, sir?
Scott, thanks so much for inviting me.
Very happy to have you here.
And really happy to read what you're writing here at ConsortiumNews.com.
It's all the best coverage of American-Russia issues there at ConsortiumNews.com, no doubt about it.
But this one is especially important because you're really trying to sort of be the ombudsman in a way and explain to the Americans what kind of point of view, how we are being perceived or how our government is being perceived and its actions are being perceived by the government in Russia, for that matter, the population of Russia.
And that's something that we don't get to hear nearly enough of.
And apparently they're pretty worried, judging by your checklist of things that they're reacting to in here.
I guess, first of all, can you talk a little bit about the recent statements or I guess actions in calling off the nuclear deal that we had with the Russians to dispose of the plutonium?
It seems like maybe that's symbolic, but maybe it's symbolic of something really, really important.
Well, I think you've summed it up very accurately.
The deal itself was never implemented because on the U.S. side, they never had the installations necessary to convert the weapons-grade plutonium into fuel suitable for peaceful energy generation.
So it's gone nowhere for close to 16 years.
They took deliveries of weapons-grade plutonium from Russia.
It was supposed to be converted or reprocessed.
In fact, it was just buried.
It's held in storage pending the creation of those installations which never were created.
This was used as a lever to raise questions that are much more substantial, in fact, that are existential, because in the bill which was introduced on the 3rd of October in response to the official State Department renunciation of any further dealings with Russia over Syria, the Russians, or that is the Kremlin, read the Riot Act to the United States.
In the past, going back to 2007, when he first made his Munich security conference, the overall review of Western and particularly U.S. relations with Russia, going back to the end of the Cold War, and listed his grievances or Russia's national grievances over U.S. policy.
This time it wasn't a list of grievances.
It was a bill of requirements to re-establish normal relations with the United States, and I would basically include it as key items were the notion that United States policy towards Russia has been hostile, that's to say the attitude and behavior of an enemy, and that it has been destructive towards Russia.
This calls for, among other things, the rollback of U.S. military presence, of U.S. military personnel in the so-called new NATO countries from 2004, the Baltic states, and the other countries where the United States has recently brought significant numbers of troops and materiel.
So the Russians are saying this has to be rolled back in order for us to return to normal relations.
They say that you have to undo, repeal, the various laws that have introduced sanctions going back to the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Act, going to the 2014 Ukrainian Freedom Act, all of which had provisions that are very hostile towards Russia, and assume that Russia was on its back and would not be able to respond or to defend its national interests.
These have to be rolled back.
They have to dismantle, the United States should dismantle the missile defense installation which it has built in Romania, and which is a similar installation now being built in Poland, which the Russians have objected to since the concept was first announced by the United States going back close to 80 years, 10 years ago.
The point is that these installations from the Russian technical and military standpoint upset the balance of power, the strategic balance that prevents us having wars.
Both of these installations have both defensive, which is the way the United States has described it, and offensive capabilities.
That is to say, they can host missiles which are intended for a first strike that the United States military doctrine has discussed openly, a first strike that is intended to decapitate and disarm.
The Russians also can read English, and they find these notions that are discussed by U.S. technical staff as intended to disarm and decapitate them.
And so these hostile intentions have to be rolled back from the Russian standpoint.
I'd like to dot the I here.
This was a bill that was introduced into the Duma by the Russian government on the 3rd of October.
Today we're at the 10th, and today there was a vote in the Duma on that bill.
It passed unanimously.
That is to say, we're not dealing with one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, we're dealing with the whole Russian political establishment.
The idea of a regime change, of bringing in a different voice in Russia who would be more accommodating is total nonsense.
The entire Russian political establishment has had it with the various degrading and insulting measures that the United States has introduced, implemented, and forced on its allies in Europe during the period of the second part of George Bush's administration and the whole of Obama's administration.
So there's so many things to follow up on there, Gilbert, but I think basically the real point is, as you're saying here, they've come up with this list of demands that includes all these things.
So they didn't, I mean, I guess they brought this stuff up before, but there was no ultimatum before about repealing all of these different policies kind of all at once.
It's sort of like, maybe they weren't perfectly happy, but they were more or less happy to just lease the base at Sevastopol until America overthrew the government twice in 10 years, and then they decided they were going to go ahead and break off the Crimean Peninsula and take that big step.
In other words, now we push them so far with all the sanctions and with the war in Eastern Ukraine and with all of this stuff, with the anti-ballistic missiles.
Now they're saying, what you're telling me is, now they've even passed a law unanimously with Putin, of course, signing it and behind the whole thing, to say America must roll back all of these policies or else what exactly?
We're not just talking about the plutonium deal that's been canceled.
What all has been canceled?
What is it that could be restarted?
Because the problem, of course, is basically, right, their demands now are that the American, that the DC political establishment has to back completely down on everything that they're never going to do.
Well, this is an negotiating position, and I mean, I didn't list perhaps the most galling demand that the United States reimburse the Russians for the economic damage that these sanctions have done.
But I'd like to move on from their list of grievances, which must be addressed before we return to normal relations, and come to the bold fact that words are words.
They follow this with actions, and the actions should be disturbing to anyone who looks at security issues.
The first thing they did was they sent three missile-armed Navy ships from the Black Sea fleet down to the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast.
This was when they armed them with weapons which are both sea-to-ground and sea-to-sea.
That is to say, they gave themselves the possibility of acting and destroying U.S. military installations through a large swathe, the range of these missiles is 2,000 kilometers.
They could attack U.S. military bases almost anywhere in the Middle East.
They also could sink the Sixth Fleet.
There's no question about it, it could be sunk.
Now under what conditions would this threat be acted upon?
Well, we now have to go take a step back and look at the announcement they made the preceding week, which they then clarified and built upon on Tuesday, the 4th of October.
They explained that the S-400 and the S-300 systems were much more capable than has been publicly stated and could intercept and destroy all unidentified aircraft, including U.S. stealth aircraft, and intercept and destroy cruise missiles.
These are capabilities that no other country in the world has.
Now I assume the United States approaches this, but Russia is the only one who has it operational in that area, and it is capable of bringing down anything that the U.S.-led coalition could put in the air.
If missiles came in from U.S. ships in the Sixth Fleet, it is reasonable to expect that they would not just shoot down the incoming missiles, but go after the source of the missiles.
Now that is a very important change in the security situation.
Absolutely.
Now, Gilbert, there's a clip that's been going around of a general, and I really should memorize his name here, testifying before the Senate, and some tough-talking, I think, Republican senator is saying, well, you know, why don't we just do a no-fly zone?
And the general says, listen, that would mean war with Syria, and quite possibly, I think he says, likely, with Russia.
And he's clearly warning and says, this is certainly not a decision that I'm prepared to make, Senator.
And then some of the clips include the senator's reaction, where he's really bowled over and hadn't thought that hard about this yet, and this is the first time he's been made aware that that's what we're really talking about when we're talking about a no-fly zone over Syria.
Who's flying over Syria other than us and our allies?
The Russians.
And, of course, the Syrian Air Force, too.
But so I wonder whether you think that maybe cooler heads will prevail there, where even if the generals are willing to say, Madam President, we think that this is a bridge too far here, that, you know, maybe they'll back down, rather than going through with all this campaign-type rhetoric about how bold they're going to move into Syria next year?
All right.
The question of a war with Syria was superseded by, again, by the press officer of the Russian Ministry of Defense also on Tuesday, who didn't only explain the capabilities of the missile systems that are now present in Syria, but explained that Russian military personnel are all over the place in Syria.
They're conducting negotiations or maintaining local pacts with various tribal groups in Syria that are effectively the local ceasefires.
They are supervising and driving the distribution of humanitarian aid to the civilian population in the areas under Syrian government control.
And of course they are embedded in Syrian military installations, not to mention their own bases, their Air Force base and their naval base at Targis.
The point was that the Russians will view any attack on Syrian territory as being an attack on themselves.
Now, that leaves no room for speculation.
It was a bold and direct statement.
This is their red line.
You send in unidentified aircraft.
You send in a cruise missile, and you're going to get a response.
You will be shot down.
Now, the thing that is surprising and disappointing is that there was no acknowledgment by the U.S. government of this very plain new situation.
Instead, you had the pretense by Hillary Clinton going into this debate on Sunday the 9th that we could still stand up to the Russians in Syria.
And you had a president who said virtually nothing about that, but whose advisers came out speaking on behalf of the White House, saying that on Friday, this past Friday, that Obama was having a strategy meeting with his security advisers to discuss the implementation of their Plan B in Syria, which Plan B being essentially just that, attacking Syrian bases.
So officially, the Obama White House did not respond, did not even acknowledge that the Russians had issued these warnings.
At the same time, coming back to your remarks about Kugelheads prevailing, at the same time, yesterday, on the 18th, the Washington Post carried an article entitled, Russian Air Defense Raises Stakes of U.S. Confrontation in Syria, in which the author says that effectively, the administration decided that this was much too risky to the United States to implement its Plan B in Syria, and said they spent the whole of Friday discussing and strategizing over U.S. support and guidance to the Mosul operation.
If you look at the news since the start of this week, Syria almost disappeared from U.S. reporting, and everything has been about Mosul.
So we have, the United States government did recognize and acknowledge that the Russians have won this showdown, but instead of letting the American public have any idea what was happening, and what is the real situation in Syria today, with no grace whatsoever, the administration has changed, has overturned the chessboard, and has moved on to its next competition in Iraq.
Well, I mean, it kind of looks, Gilbert, to me like, the Russians really called Obama's bluff finally a year ago, right, in the battle for Idlib, and they said, we're done with this, al-Qaeda's not getting any further, they drew their line in the sand, and they've enforced it ever since, and then secondary, or kind of a separate point then, or no, along with that, is after the first ceasefire, the CIA kept backing the rebels anyway, and kept pushing it anyway, and then now with, it seems like they've definitely had an Iraq first policy when it comes to the war with the Islamic State, it almost seems just as cynical as back in 2013, that we'll keep bombing al-Qaeda in Iraq, in Iraq, and chase them across the border into Syria, where they can make themselves useful, and it doesn't seem like, really, that's changed at all, they still want them to go after Assad, maybe they're not willing to get US pilots shot down, but they're willing to fight to the last bin Ladenite, I think.
Well, I'd like to pause on a word that you used, because unfortunately, it is a key word, and that is bluff.
There's a serious problem that we have people like Biden, and people around Obama, including Samantha Power of the United Nations, who are using language in the most irresponsible way, and ignoring the fact that Russians also can read, Russians also can understand English, and the domestic posturing that goes on for someone like Biden or Obama to look tough, and to stare down the still more radical, aggressive warriors in the US political establishment, this domestic discussion, the Russians have, with good reason, taken dead seriously.
And one thing that Mr. Putin is, he is straight, he is not a game player, in the sense of talking hot air.
I think it's been a tragic development over the last several years, that the US media, and the general US public, have been led to believe that Putin and Russia are unpredictable.
They are extremely, they're probably the most predictable country, and the most predictable leader on earth.
He says what he means, and he says it only because he can do it.
And we should be advised to grow up.
We're speaking about the existence of the United States, we're speaking about who is going to press the button first.
Who has the political capability to press the button first?
And it's a sad thing to say, but I think that the Kremlin has the ability, and the determination, to do so, if it feels its existence is threatened.
And we are threatening them all the time, without the intended follow-up.
Hey, Al, Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
Okay, so here's where I want to get back to what I think, just using my imagination about it, must be the most disturbing part of all of this on your list of grievances that you were explaining that they had even passed as a law there, all the things they wanted fixed.
And that is the missile defense system, so-called missile defense systems, anti-missile missiles, that it sounds defensive.
That, okay, well, that's cool.
Our government has the constitutional obligation to defend us by all means.
But instead, what this really is, is like wearing armor to a fistfight or something like that and giving a qualitative edge as part of a, as the military would put it, a package of offensive capability.
And as you mentioned, it's the first strike, meaning that our guys figure, and I don't know if they think they're at this place yet or they're just still working on trying to get there, but the idea being that we could hit Russia with so many hydrogen bombs in such a precision way that we hit all the targets we want to hit the first time to such a great degree that they have at least hardly anything left, and then we can shoot down whatever they try to launch in their retaliatory strike, there'll be so little left, we'll be able to shoot all that down with our defensive missiles.
And then that'll put us in a position where we can go ahead and instead of mutually assured destruction, which has kept the peace since the dawn of the Cold War, which apparently never ended here, instead that would mean that the Americans can initiate war at their pleasure whenever they want to destroy Mother Russia.
And then that means that, see, all this sounds so far away and abstract to a Texan.
I'm a Texan and I live and breathe this stuff and it still sounds almost make-believe.
But now I'm saying, wait a minute, if I live in Moscow, if I'm an actual Russian and this is really what is going on, nevermind a politician, but even from the point of view of the average Russians, that the Americans are circling them with the capability of launching a nuclear first strike about them, well then I think I'm starting to catch on.
This isn't so much about Assad and whatever.
Russia is afraid of being destroyed or near destroyed for the hundredth time here right now, and they have a very real reason to feel that way.
One that the American people are really just not clued in on at all, especially with all the narrative about Russian aggression, Russian aggression.
But the idea that we've moved our military alliance right to their western border and that we're trying to put in the capability to shoot down even any retaliatory capability that they might have after a first strike, that I think starts to make things a little bit more clear.
So anyway, that's just saying a lot, not really asking a question, except that I guess if you would like to elaborate a little bit more about that, about what the Russian man in the Duma or the man on the street in Moscow thinks, or how they really feel about that.
Because again, to an American, it just seems completely academic almost.
Well, what you were describing, the scenario of first strike, the United States delivering a first strike, the United States eliminating immediately Russia's capability of response, that is a neocon wet dream.
And practically speaking, it is impossible.
They have a triad, just as we have a triad.
It's a dead man's mechanism, so that if the country is decapitated, they still will deliver a brutal strike against the United States with one or another surviving triad.
What they are concerned about is the United States has done everything, particularly since 2002, when Bush withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty.
The United States has been striving to achieve what Reagan had once spoken about with Star Wars, a global strike capability to decapitate other countries.
Now, the problem with this is that it assumes, I say, political decision-making capability, which is improbable that we have in the United States.
It ignores the determination, the steely determination of the country that even Obama two days ago, for some strange reason, acknowledged in the press conference he had following the Italian Prime Minister Renzi's visit, that Russia is the second most powerful military in the world.
It is.
Their technical capabilities are entirely their own.
They're the only major country that has these capabilities and has not gotten them from US equipment.
It's all made at home.
With this capability, a technical capability, and with this political centralized control, and essentially one man can decide.
That is the fact.
Without getting into the question of whether this is democratic or not democratic, the fact remains the same, that Russia does have a very centralized decision-making mechanism.
It is madness for us to taunt them and to threaten them in their existence and not assume that they will in fact strike first.
Our boys are playing with matches, and the whole lot of us, they're going to burn up as a result.
This is the suicidal instinct of our neocon generals, and the, I mean, armchair generals, the politicians.
The military generally in the past, with exceptions like General Breedlove, who is a rare, hopefully a rare exception, the professional military have always had cool models that came with the territory.
It's the politicians who have been madmen, and I think it was the serious professionals, who fortunately do exist in some numbers in Washington, who brought Obama to heel and pulled back from this threatened plan B in Syria.
All right, now I want to bring up one more thing about this Carl Gershman, who basically threatened Putin with regime change three years ago now, almost November 2013 in the Washington Post.
He's written another one, and Bob Perry had a write-up on this at ConsortiumNews.com as well, but he's written another one, threatening regime change inside Russia, and I wonder, I mean, there must be some thinking behind this other than nothing, I don't know, but I just wonder, you know, if, well, like we used to say about Syria for some, for, you know, ever since I read The Clean Break, well, what if they do get rid of Assad?
Who are they going to get after him, the Muslim Brotherhood, if they're lucky, right?
Maybe Al-Qaeda or worse.
Well, same kind of thing here.
If we get rid of Vladimir Putin, this, you know, demonic, terrorist, terrorist, you know, demonic, James Bond villain character, or what have you, well, I'm a little curious and ignorant about who lies to the right of him, and what might the reaction be if instead of getting another pliable Yeltsin-like puppet to be very compliant with the American Empire sitting in the Kremlin, what if it's somebody worse?
And, you know, I just, I don't know how moderate is the conservative party over there right now anyway, you know?
Well, the conservative party, let's take the right of center LDPR party of Vladimir Zhirnovsky.
He's widely viewed abroad as a clown.
He's been viewed within Russia as a clown by many people, and indeed, he's done clowning around because that made him politically viable.
It got him attention.
It left him below the radar screen for people in the Kremlin who might feel he's a threat to their power.
At the same time, he's a highly intelligent and shrewd, shrewd politician, the old, the oldest Duma member and his longest serving Duma member in the country.
His party was the first non-communist party in Russia, still in Russia, still in the Soviet Union.
Now, Vladimir Zhirnovsky scored considerably better than the other main opposition party, the communists.
He took votes away from them.
He got, I think, about 13% of the vote, and he has been given a very nice reward for this.
His party was allowed to select the chairman of the foreign relations committee of the state Duma that was previously in the hands of the United Russia Party of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev.
I can tell you that the manhood who's been installed as the new head of the Duma gives you a very good idea of what would take over if Vladimir Putin stumbled and fell under a bus.
I don't think we want to contemplate that.
These are much tougher people than Putin and his colleagues who have tried to be accommodating, going back to Putin's being the first foreign leader to phone George Bush after 9-11 and opening up the whole Russian backyard to the American military in the hope that this would be the basis for a new accommodation and new good relations in the United States, and it never happened.
The new chairman is a man named Slutsky.
He is no fool.
He is a fluent French speaker.
He is the one who brought French senators to Crimea.
Those were the first major political visitors to Russian Crimea, and he knows his way around in parliamentary circles in Europe.
He is a very determined and very skillful articulator of Russian national interest, considerably better than the man from Putin's own party, whom he replaced, and still better than the man who held that position earlier, Kosachev.
The last tenant was Pushkov.
Before that was Kosachev, who is now the head of the similar committee within the upper house of the Russian legislature.
But my point is that Mr.
Slutsky, who is now on television every other day on the talk shows and holds his own remarkably well, is not a hot air specialist.
He is a very skilled speaker on behalf of Russian national interest, and he is the one who got the Duma bill on the suspension of a Russian-US convention over plutonium through the Duma with a unanimous vote today.
So I think we're going to see a tougher Duma, a government that is tougher than Mr. Lavrov is personally, and if Mr. Putin were, for any reason, to leave the scene, it is these people who are considerably rougher and considerably less in favor of a good relationship with the United States than Putin is.
They're the ones who would move into the power slots.
Yeah.
Well, I got to tell you, I think without saying anything good about Donald Trump, I can certainly say that he's better than Hillary on Russia, at least rhetorically.
I mean, then he turns around and the way he talks about Iran, you would think he was a Democrat.
But anyway, Hillary Clinton looks more and more like she's going to be the president no matter what.
And it occurs to me that no matter, even if she can think her way out of this a little bit or understand something like the perspective that you've shared here, that really, this is all her fault in a sense.
It was her husband that expanded NATO like this in the first place.
She's been a huge supporter of every one of Bush's policies and implementer of every one of Obama's policies that have created this mess, including pushing the bait and switch on the no-fly zone for regime change in Libya in 2011 and embarrassing and really humiliating Medvedev who went along with that and empowering all the hawks who said he shouldn't have and that kind of thing.
And so, you know, really for 20, 25 years, she has been at least somewhat implicated.
I mean, she was just the first lady, but still her and her husband, her co-president, they're implicated in this policy for all of these years straight.
So, you know, it seems like maybe we need to concentrate on coming up with a way for her to back down in a way that she doesn't have to acknowledge this is all her fault or something, because otherwise, the path that she's on, she's just got to keep doubling down and doubling down and blaming everything on the Russians, because otherwise, we might have to discuss what a mistake it was to separate Kosovo away from Serbia, you know, without U.N. approval, etc., etc., back in 99, over Russia's dead body, basically back in 99, for one thing, expanding NATO, the rest of this.
And she's just, as Donald Trump would say, she's been in on all of this stuff for 30 years.
So it's really her legacy that is such the problem.
So that's going to make it so much harder for her to find a way to wiggle out of it, assuming, again, the premise that she realizes just how dangerous this is getting and wants to do better, you know?
The problem that comes up is that we have had, for the last six months or so, ever since Donald Trump became a credible candidate and was saying what he was saying about the possibility or the hope for good relations with Russia and China, ever since he came upon that status, he has given us all a breathing room for public discussion of these security matters, which we unfortunately haven't used.
I mean, not you and me, but a handful of other people.
But generally speaking, media has not been pressed to use more productively than it has to get the public awake and thinking about where we're going and what our alternatives are.
And I'm afraid that if she wins the election, that the McCarthyism that preceded the advent of Donald Trump, the McCarthyism that has been attacking him in his status as candidate, is going to return with double force and to try to shut us all up or to tar us with the brush that they had been tarring Trump with.
He is a much bigger fish, he's a much more powerful personality, and still he's been attacked most viciously.
We are much more susceptible to these vicious attacks, which preceded the advent of his becoming a candidate, and I'm afraid will follow with still greater vengeance if he loses the election.
Yeah, of course, I left out of my whole build up and all that talking there about all the demonization of Putin just in the last few months on the issue, blaming him for all the hacking and for, you know, trying to spin the election for Trump and all of these different things the way they've done.
And, you know, never mind back when she called Putin Hitler a couple of years ago after the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea.
But boy, what a ladder she's got to climb down from to climb down from any of this stuff.
And I guess I'm with you.
I just don't see her doing it.
So good luck to us, Gilbert, I guess.
I agree.
These are not good news.
If she wins, they will not be good times.
All right.
Well, this has been good.
I really appreciate your time.
Thank you so much for being so generous with it.
Well, thanks for having me.
All right, so that is Gilbert Doctorow.
He's over there trying to save the world, literally, at the Committee for East-West Accord, by all means, go and check them out at eastwestaccord.com.
And here he is writing at consortiumnews.com again, the warnings of a new Cold War, a very good one, very thorough, good piece of work, help make it viral.
Would you guys, the warnings of a new Cold War there at consortiumnews.com.
That's the Scott Horton Show.
Check out my archives at the new place now, libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthortonshow.
Sign up for the podcast feed there as well.
And follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Thanks all y'all.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign, and you need stickers to help promote, check out thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
They digitally print with solvent ink, so you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old-style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold thebumpersticker.com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
And there are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me too.
Let thebumpersticker.com help you get the word out.
That's thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
On average, how much do you think these interviews are worth to you?
Of course, I've never charged for my archives in a dozen years of doing this, and I'm not about to start.
But at patreon.com slash scotthortonshow, you can name your own price to help support and make sure there's still new interviews to give away.
So what do you think?
Two bits?
A buck and a half?
There are usually about 80 interviews per month, I guess, so take that into account.
You can also cap the amount you'd be willing to spend in case things get out of hand around here.
That's patreon.com slash scotthortonshow.
And thanks, y'all.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai