11/04/16 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al 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.
All right, you guys, Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthortonshow.
That's right.
That's the new institute.
In fact, for those of you signed up to the old podcast feed from scotthorton.org, you're going to need to switch over there pretty soon because I'm going to start updating scotthorton.org on like a week delay in order to incentivize you to go over to libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthortonshow and check out all the latest there.
All right.
Introducing our friend Phil Giraldi.
He's the executive director of the Council for the National Interest Foundation.
That's the America first foreign policy lobby in Washington, D.C.
He writes for unz.com, U-N-Z, unz.com, and the American Conservative Magazine.
This one is at the American ...
Oh, and I didn't say, former CIA, former DIA officer CIA formerly stationed in Turkey and knows all about it, too.
Turkey and the next war is the piece at the American Conservative.
Welcome back, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing pretty good.
Very happy to have you here on the show.
Yeah, boy, there's a lot going on.
Maybe we should start with Mosul and Turkey's role in the battle to, quote unquote, liberate that city from the clutches of the Islamic State.
Do you know the extent to what extent they're actually intervening there now?
Well, Turkey has, by some estimates, about 500 soldiers that are in northern Iraq.
They're doing training of the militias that they favor, which would be the non-Kurdish militias, basically made up of ethnic Turks.
There are ethnic Turks throughout that entire region.
So anyway, what Erdogan, the president of Turkey, has been trying to do is to get a more active role for the Turkish military in the siege of Mosul to take it away from ISIS.
But what he's really doing is he's attacking the Kurds.
There was an air attack by the Turkish Air Force on militias in northern Syria, and it killed 200 Kurdish fighters by one report.
So that's essentially what he's doing.
What he's trying to do is liberate Mosul in a way that it will not become a majority Kurdish city.
So that's his motive.
And essentially this guy is pretending, Erdogan is pretending to be fighting ISIS, but actually he's fighting the Kurds, and he's doing it kind of using the war against ISIS as an umbrella or as an excuse for what he's up to.
And the United States, of course, is getting dragged into this.
All right, now, so is that a real fear, do you think, that the Kurdish Peshmerga would try to purge the city of Mosul of its Sunni population and really take it for Kurdistan?
I don't think so.
But the fact is that in that region, the Kurds are a majority.
So the fact is that if the city is liberated and it becomes back to normal, it's going to have at least a significant Kurdish population.
I don't think the Kurds are interested in carrying out purges against the Sunnis, but it's the Shia militias that are part and parcel of the Iraqi army that would be interested in doing that.
So, you know, it's a messy situation, as you and I have been noticing for about two years now.
And that's part of the fight, too, is Erdogan telling Abadi, the prime minister of Shiite Iraq, that, you know, don't you talk back to me, boy, and this kind of stuff, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And he's saying that, you know, in fact, he threatened to invade Iraq about two weeks ago.
He said, if it's in our interest to do it, we'll invade your country.
So his fight with the Shia is coming anyway, right?
But so his fight with the Kurds, I'm confused about, Phil, because he gets along, Erdogan and the Turks, they get along with Barzani and Talabani in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Is it the PKK that he's worried about in Mosul, or what?
Or he's just taking advantage?
He's worried about all Kurds.
I mean, he gets along perforce with some of the Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq.
But the fact is that the fear that the Turks and others have of creation of a Kurdish state is genuine.
I mean, if there were a Kurdish state to spring up there in the Middle East, it would take away, by some estimates, a third of Turkish territory and about 20 percent of its population.
It would also take away land and people from Syria, from Iraq, and from Iran.
So this is a real legitimate concern.
But the point is that Erdogan goes a little bit, you know, he's a little bit crazy on this issue, and he essentially equates all Kurds with being terrorists, and this is a lot of his argument, and that the Kurds that the United States is supporting, who are basically the best fighters on the ground against ISIS, he's calling them a terrorist group.
And so, obviously, this creates a dilemma for the United States, and the United States is basically tap-dancing back and forth to try to keep Erdogan calm and at the same time be able to use the Kurds.
So it's a mess beyond belief, but Erdogan is becoming crazier and crazier as we go on.
In today's media, there are many more arrests going on in the Kurdish region of Turkey.
He's basically replacing local leaders, elected leaders, with his own appointees, and he's essentially trying to deny any kind of self-rule or self-selection of democracy for the Kurdish people.
Well, you know, it seems crazy, too, because, I mean, this whole thing is basically, what, like, one-third his doing, right?
This is one-third the king of Saudi, one-third Barack Obama, and one-third Erdogan basically conspired together, let's get rid of Assad.
And that's what really made autonomous Syrian Kurdistan in the first place, which is now the giant threat, as far as he's concerned, is because they have this level of autonomy and somebody's got to smash them before it gets out of hand.
Yeah, that's exactly the dilemma.
Here they've created this situation, they've created a situation which gives an opportunity for the Kurds in the region to hope for some kind of self-determination, and now they're fighting against it.
I mean, the whole thing is crazy.
I mean, it's just like, you know, why did it come out this way?
Well, it came out about this way because the United States invaded Iraq.
I mean, that's essentially the root cause of how all these things then developed.
And now the United States is trying to stick its thumb in the dike and stop this.
But it ain't going to happen, and Hillary's solution to this is to get rid of Assad and to essentially take on the Russians, which will destabilize the situation even more.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, I wonder what you think about her Goldman Sachs speech there, where she reveals her private position is actually much more realistic and sounds a lot more like something you would have written for the American conservative about why we should not listen to her.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, you know, she's not a stupid person, and she clearly has seen all the intelligence reports which are negative in terms of what's developing there in the battle between Iraq and ISIS and Syria and ISIS.
And she's seen all this stuff, and she could draw the right conclusions.
But the fact is that, for whatever reasons, she's taking a much more hardline position, and she's buying into the consensus view, which is that al-Assad is the cause of all this, even though he really isn't.
All right, now, a couple of points to make, which I think are kind of relevant here for the background of the discussion, is there was a time when you would come on the show and say, hey, look, you know what, Turkish democracy has chosen the conservative party, and they're not necessarily going to go along with America on everything, and that's fine.
It's basically super majority rule there.
And this guy Erdogan, yeah, he's got his problems, and he's not exactly a Kamalist or whatever like D.C. might want to insist on, but, you know, he ain't that bad and this and that kind of thing.
And you've really kind of changed your tune about his role over there.
It's not like you're speaking for the national government here in your condemnation of him, but you've certainly changed your opinion about what his role is in the American alliance system over there, huh?
Yeah, I have very much so.
I mean, when he first started talking Islamic, shall we say, my feeling was that, well, Turkey is a country that's 98 percent Muslim, many Turks are very religious, and it's not bad to have a little sense of ethnicity and religion in terms of a government.
And it didn't bother me that much, but the problem is he's become more and more extreme, and not just in terms of religiosity, but the coup back in July basically has unleashed the inner Erdogan, and the inner Erdogan is not a pretty sight.
He's essentially, I mean, he's arrested something like 30,000 people, and every day you open the paper and there's a new group that's being arrested.
And he's fired 100,000 people from their jobs.
And these people are not all people that were involved in the coup or that are supporters of the guy he blames, Fethullah Gulen.
These are people that are basically, in many cases, just independent or politically perhaps the voters for another party.
He's getting rid of all the political opposition to himself and his party, and he's using the coup as an excuse.
So this guy, as far as I'm concerned, has gone way off the reservation.
Well, and you mentioned here, too, this is the most dangerous part of our joint war there in Syria over the last few years there, is when his air force shot down a Russian plane for barely straying over.
It's a tiny little finger of a pseudo-peninsula of Turkish territory that juts down into Syria that this Russian jet passed through for, they say, 17 seconds.
And the Turks were waiting there, basically, to take a pot shot.
And what do you think was the goal?
He later said, oh yeah, well, no, the generals that did that were some of the ones I arrested in my purge.
But I don't know, what do you think was behind that in the first place?
Was that him that did that?
Well, I think it had to be a decision that came from the top level of the government.
And I think it was a miscalculation.
I think the idea was that he thought that he would get NATO lining up behind him to take a more aggressive policy in northern Syria.
But of course, that didn't happen.
And so it was a miscalculation.
But you've got to lay the blame completely on him.
These types of incursions have been happening for some time, just as the Turkish Air Force has incursions into Greek airspace regularly.
But you don't go and shoot the other plane down.
That's kind of the, unless the plane is about to drop a nuclear bomb on your capital or something like that, that's not the issue here.
The issue here is you resolve it and you don't shoot the plane down.
And so there had to be a decision at the top level to do this.
And this is the danger with this guy, because essentially that's how he thinks.
He thinks you force a crisis and it's going to turn out well for him.
But because he's in NATO, Article 5 of NATO says that we're all for one and one for all.
If anybody is attacked by a foreign country, we all have to join in on the defense.
And Erdogan could easily fake an incident, is what I'm suggesting.
It wouldn't be that hard to do.
It wouldn't be that hard for anybody to do.
And you pretend you were attacked when actually you were the aggressor.
And that's what I would be afraid of, that Erdogan will create some kind of crisis that will plausibly look like he was attacked.
And then we, the United States and the rest of NATO, have to get into it.
Well, and, you know, there's a little bit of a history.
Two major points here where, one, it was, I forget, a leaked phone call or leaked email where they talked about doing a fake attack in order to justify invading Syria in order to protect a shrine that's owned by the Turks, but inside Syrian territory where they have some guards there.
And they were talking about, hey, let's fake an attack on Turkish territory inside Syria in order to be an excuse to invade.
That was a few years ago.
And then, of course, Seymour Hersh says that the fake, well, it was a Sarin attack, but the false flag that was waged by al-Qaeda against the people of eastern Syria, eastern Damascus, I mean, in the Ghouta neighborhood in 2013 in order to frame up Assad, that that plot originated in Turkey and that was where the Sarin came from and everything.
Yeah, that's absolutely correct, that the precursors that were used in that apparently came from Turkey.
So at that point, Erdogan was supporting ISIS and was supporting al-Qaeda, and he was doing it because he saw another agenda in terms of what he wanted to do vis-à-vis the Kurds and vis-à-vis al-Assad.
And then the other incident that you cited is also correct, that basically he was going to have, create a false incident in which he would fire on Turkish soldiers who were guarding the site inside Syria, and he would kill them, and he would kill them, and that would be his incident that he would use to create one of these situations where he would be able to invade northern Syria, or he would get NATO to do it for him.
You know, it's occurring to me too, Phil, that in that Hirsch report, doesn't he say that Obama basically, I think the president himself called out Erdogan's foreign minister at dinner, right?
Said, we know what you're doing, this kind of thing.
Yeah, yeah, there have been a number of signals.
I mean, you know, the White House knows what's going on and has known what's going on for quite some time.
They're getting reasonably good intelligence on what's going on in Turkey, and there have been a number of messages sent by Kerry and sent by Dempsey and sent by the president himself in terms of, isn't it time to kind of cool it, Erdogan?
And of course, Erdogan is not interested in cooling it.
Man.
All right, so now, the one other thing that I wanted to get back to from a minute ago was about the peace that Erdogan had achieved with the Kurds.
I mean, they had, with the Turkish Kurds, before the outbreak of the Syrian war anyway.
Can you explain a little bit about, I mean, there was a long-term war through the 1990s.
I remember Noam Chomsky talking about Bill Clinton is sending all these weapons to the Turks to massacre the Kurds and no one's talking about it, which he was right about that.
I mean, he was the only one back then.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, the war on the Kurds or the Kurdish, I don't know, insurgency, if you want to call it that, has been going on for a long time.
And back about, I guess, three or four years ago, I'm not too sure about the exact dates, there was a ceasefire arranged.
The Turks had captured the leader of the PKK, and indeed, he's still in prison in Turkey, and they had arranged a ceasefire.
And this ceasefire was holding, basically, until somewhat over a year ago, when Erdogan, for various political reasons, decided he needed an enemy and basically broke it.
He started arresting people, he started arranging for incidents down in the southwestern part of Turkey, southeastern part of Turkey.
And this kind of thing was used to basically end the ceasefire.
And since that time, of course, there have been bombings in Turkey, carried out probably mostly by Kurds, and there have been reprisals in which literally thousands of Kurds have been killed, and attacks against the military and police.
So it's the kind of thing that, again, Erdogan had basically a truce in place and decided to discard it.
And it was, I don't know, a major mistake, I mean, obviously it's very political.
But it's something, again, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Hey, Al 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 & 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 & Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Yeah, I think I remember back at the time, too, all the best explanations were, as you said, politics, but not just politics, simple electoral politics, that he was going to lose his supermajority, or he wanted to gain a supermajority in the parliament, and so he did this in order to basically criminalize one of the Turkish parties by starting a fight with them so that they would be out of the running.
Yeah, and in fact, today he's arrested two of the leaders of that party.
These are parliamentarians who have parliamentary immunity, normally, but he arrested two of them for being involved with terrorism.
Well, in the night of the coup, all the parties in parliament said, all hail the elected government and Erdogan, and down went the coup, but I guess that wasn't good enough.
That wasn't good enough.
They didn't bow low enough, and one of the interesting things about the coup, I know we've talked about it before, but within 24 hours of the coup being over, Erdogan had already arrested 12,000 people.
He had a list prepared, and if there's anybody that questions that, he knew in advance something might be coming.
You don't prepare a list unless you're willing to use it, and so, you know, Erdogan is a complete scoundrel in this case in terms of what he's been doing and how he's been manipulating the situation, and my article, the point of my article is that, hey, we in the United States and NATO, we don't need this guy, and there might be a short-term reason to want to use the Incirlik air base, which is under Turkish control, but that is a short-term interest in terms of why there is this crisis going on in Iraq and Syria, but that's not always going to be the case, and we really don't need this guy, and this guy should be someone that we should put on a prime list for getting rid of, or, you know, I'm not saying get rid of him, but get him out of NATO, get him out of a situation where he can draw us into a war.
All right, now, so, and yeah, speaking of which, apparently his policy is still regime change in Damascus or not?
He's still, he's more worried about the Kurds in the east now.
Well, I think, yeah, he, again, there's a lot of ambiguity in all of this.
His policy is very definite, his stated policy is to get rid of Al-Assad, and I think his intentions or his expectations would be that Al-Assad would be replaced with somebody more malleable and more friendly to Turkey, and, you know, that would be his rationale, but of course the fact is if you get rid of Al-Assad, it's going to create a power vacuum again, and you don't know who's going to fill it, so it's quite an irrational policy in any event.
You would have thought that the sensible policy for Turkey would have been to create a positive relationship with Syria, you know, but that doesn't seem to be the way he's thinking.
Well, you know, I was reading Ahmed Rashid about the rise of the Taliban in the 90s and Bill Clinton's National Security Council staffer lady saying, oh yeah, basically creating a Saudi-type dictatorship in Afghanistan, that's perfectly good, sounds great to us, we're all for Saudi and Pakistan helping put the Taliban in power there because, hey, look at how stable Saudi is, right?
They keep their people down with swords to their neck and it seems to work, and so, good times.
And I guess that's basically the thought here, right, is that, well, even if it's Al-Qaeda or ISIS or whatever, eventually they'll basically just have a Saudi-like regime, and that's tolerable, compared to, say, for example, Assad, who's a cat's paw of Iran.
Yeah.
I mean, that's the, when you kind of look at what the players are saying in these situations, it essentially comes down, for a lot of them, to how they feel about Iran, and obviously they connect Syria with Iran because Syria relies on Iran to a certain extent, and then they connect that with Hezbollah and they connect that with the Houthis in Yemen.
All these connections are dubious.
The fact is that countries like Iran and Syria and the Hezbollah, they connect with each other because these people, these groups are all under siege, and they're under pressure from their neighbors.
And so, naturally, you look for allies in that kind of situation.
But to say that Hezbollah does the bidding of Iran is ridiculous, or that Syria does the bidding of Iran is ridiculous, and this is the mistake the policymakers make.
They don't quite figure out that just because something is connected, it doesn't mean that you're in servitude as a result of that.
Yeah.
All right.
Now, so, what's Obama's policy on Syria?
Has he decided to back off a regime change finally, because it seems like every time there's a ceasefire, the CIA rearms al-Qaeda to fight some more, and that could end up working, right?
I mean, or they're just, he's playing three-dimensional chess, and as long as the Russians are still there to keep them in check, we'll just keep the thing going, or what are they doing over there?
You know, I don't know what the policy is.
It seems to me he's backing off from regime change.
I think he's decided that it is not viable.
He's not pushing it very hard, even if some people that he has at the U.N. and the State Department are.
So I don't think it's a serious objective, and in practical terms, does anyone seriously think that supporting these rebels in Aleppo is going to bring about a solution to what's going on in Syria?
I don't think anybody's crazy enough to think that.
So I don't know.
I mean, why do they keep doing this?
Well, they keep doing this because I guess they don't have any other good answers, and they figure this is what we have to keep doing.
You know, the U.S. government is like a big machine that kind of keeps running, and it always has to have something that it's doing.
And I suspect there's a lot of inertia involved in what the CIA does and what the Pentagon is doing.
Well, you know, I kind of liked it back, what, six months ago when Nancy Yousef, and it was funny because as great a journalist as she is in that one, and maybe it was just because Michael Weiss did the editing or something before it got posted at The Beast, but the article really took the CIA's side, even though the CIA's side was batshit crazy, and the military was saying, look, these guys are terrorists, and yeah, we like fighting all the time, but we'd rather not fight directly on the side of the butchers of New York.
I'm paraphrasing.
And the CIA was criticizing the military and mocking them and saying they're listening to Russian propaganda about our terrorist allies in Aleppo, in East Aleppo.
I mean, we're through the looking glass here, people, or whatever.
It's just funny to see it where it's in The Daily Beast like this, where they just talk like this, you know?
Yeah, it's incredible.
I mean, it's like, you know, it's like we have lunatics running the whole show.
And as you're suggesting, they make it up as they go along.
I don't get it.
I mean, for a while there, as kind of a novelty, I was following some of the utterances of Ash Carter and the secretary of defense.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The man is either completely insane or somebody's bought him.
I mean, he doesn't even say things that make sense in terms of what the White House is saying.
I mean, it's just like this constant sort of agitprop that's going on about Russia and that's going on about developments in the Middle East.
And it's just crazy.
It doesn't make any sense, because basically what our secretary of defense should be talking about is what our interests are and what our needs are in terms of a developing situation.
You never hear that.
Mm hmm.
Well, and, you know, it sucks just trying to be an amateur criminologist out here from the outside looking at utterances from the likes of the State Department spokesman and the secretary of defense and his people to try to figure out what it is that they're doing here.
Because, you know, like I was just saying here, the the DOD is backing the Kurds fighting against jihadi terrorist types and the CIA is taking the jihadi side against the DOD's Kurds in that one.
And so that makes you think, OK, well, the DOD is more rational on this.
Right.
But then Kerry gets a ceasefire and the DOD turns around and bombs Syrian military targets.
And but then so that makes you wonder, makes me wonder.
So are we talking about its special forces have one policy and the rest of the Pentagon has another policy or the generals have one policy and the civilians have another?
Has Barack Obama even chaired a meeting where they discussed what the hell is going on here at all or what?
I don't know.
I mean, I don't I don't have an answer to that.
I know that I have talked to some people that that that sit on the National Security Council and they complain that there isn't that kind of communication, that that they go to meetings and it's clear that people haven't even read the briefing papers.
And that includes the president.
So, you know, you kind of have to wonder where is it?
But look, I mean, this is not new or unique.
I mean, look, look at the genesis of the Iraq war.
There were there were there were certainly enough stuff on the table to tell somebody who was who was rational that this war didn't make any sense from any point of view.
And yet, of course, that argument was not being made.
Right.
And it was also clear then, too, that between Tenet and Powell and Rumsfeld and the vice president, that everybody wanted to do things, but no one wanted to take responsibility.
And they all wanted to make, you know, especially Rumsfeld wanted to make all of his jobs somebody else's fault.
And that kind of thing.
It was clear that far from the adults, from Bush seniors group, we're going to come in here and run things straight, that they're a completely dysfunctional family in the Bush junior government.
And that was clear before the war in Iraq started.
That was clear just from Afghanistan, with the the contremps between that, you say that between Rumsfeld and Tenet over who's doing what in Afghanistan and letting Osama get away and all of that kind of crap.
And Condoleezza Rice, the idiot being the national security adviser in charge of coordinating it all.
I mean, man, that should have been clear.
And, you know, I can't help, but I just have this on my brain, Phil, is because I read Obama's wars, which is really only about one war.
It's Bob Woodward's book about the argument about the surge in Afghanistan through the year 2009 and McChrystal and Petraeus and Hillary Clinton forcing Obama to do the the surge in Afghanistan.
And it's the most tiresome thing reading a book like that about every single he said, she said for that entire war, a bureaucratic war over the escalation of the war there.
But I would kill right now for one of those about the Syria policy for a Bob Woodward book with all of the national security advisers and the National Security Cabinet and all these people pointing fingers at each other and claiming, you know, what their position was and why it's everybody else's fault for not going along with them and whatever, because boy, would that be hilarious, because I think a lot of it would still be from the point of view of, yeah, we should have got rid of Assad a long time ago rather than how crazy that is.
Right.
Yeah.
That argument keeps coming up, particularly from the neocons, that essentially the policy was right, but the implementation was wrong.
And of course, that's what they argue about Iraq.
They make the same, precisely the same argument that we should have done what we did, but we just didn't do it right.
And of course, that, you know, that's a that's an unanswerable argument.
You can always claim that and you can always claim that that's true.
But the fact is that, as I try to point out when I speak anywhere, if you look at interventionist foreign policy overall from since before 9-11, you'll discover that it never works.
And whatever the excuses are being made are being made.
It never works.
It never turns out well.
And and, you know, somehow they don't want to look at that.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, in this case, Obama himself has said and Hillary Clinton herself has said, geez, we're really in danger of empowering a bunch of jihadists because there really are no moderates to put in power there.
So what are we doing?
She said that herself.
Obama said that himself.
So, you know, OK, confirmation bias and everything.
But obviously, that's the truth.
Well, it's clearly the truth.
I mean, you know, how do you this is like the questions I always raise about our immigration policy.
If you how do you vet these people?
How do you figure out who they are, what their intentions are, what they want to do and so on and so forth?
Because you have you have no access to government documents of any kind.
You have no access to the neighborhoods where these people grew up to talk to the neighbors.
You know, you don't you have no way to know what you're being handed.
And it's true in terms of immigration policy into the United States.
And it's also true and absolutely true in terms of all these people who are recruiting to turn into moderate rebels.
Right.
Yeah.
And that's the real irony is go back a couple of years.
I remember that guy that the DOJ prosecuted for aid and comfort while it wasn't treason.
It was providing material support for terrorism.
And he his excuse and his father, you know, defended him, too, in the press and said he was recruited by the CIA to go over there.
It's not fair that the FBI is prosecuting him for this.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, it's just like it's incredible at the time.
And I don't know if they proved it, but it sure seemed like, you know, that wasn't just a made up excuse, that that was a real thing, that they had said, oh, you're interested in jihad, huh?
Well, why don't you go make yourself useful?
And here's a ticket to Turkey, you know?
Well, and it's like you and I have talked before about the whole issue domestically when they're arresting people on terrorist charges.
It's almost always entrapment is basically putting an idea in somebody's head and then sending a friendly, friendly interlocutor around who convinces that person that it's time to blow up something in Times Square, you know?
Yep.
Yeah.
And they do it all the time.
In fact, there was recently a white supremacist terrorist plot against basically an entire, you know, apartment complex full of, I think, Somali refugees, something like that.
But they were put up to it by their FBI informant.
Yeah.
It's the same as the PatCon operation going back to the 1990s.
So it didn't seem, I mean, it's a horrible, scary story until you look a little further and you go, oh, yeah, the FBI informant had every idea in play here.
Oh, OK.
Yeah.
Anyway.
All right.
Well, listen, man.
Thanks very much for coming on the show and talking about the crazy and terrible wars over there.
America's fighting in the Middle East.
Phil, appreciate it.
OK.
Thank you.
All right, y'all.
That is Phil Giraldi.
He's at the Council for the National Interest.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org, UNS.com, and the American Conservative magazine at theamericanconservative.com, Turkey and the Next War is the most recent article there.
And that's the show.
Thanks, y'all, for listening.
You can go to the archives at scotthorton.org and at libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthorton show.
It's the new institute.
Check it out, dude.
Hey, y'all.
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.
You drink coffee.
I drink coffee.
Just about everyone drinks coffee.
So why bother with anything but the best?
Darren's Coffee is roasted at his new shop in Claremont, Indiana.
And coming soon, you can order on Amazon and support the show by using Scott Horton's affiliate link, Darren'sCoffee.com, because everyone deserves to drink great coffee.
This part of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by Audible.com.
And right now, if you go to AudibleTrial.com slash Scott Horton Show, 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 Scott Horton Show.