The Scott Horton Show is brought to you by books.
Particularly, Kesslin Runs, a new dystopian novel about the very near future, by the great Charles Featherstone.
Kesslin Runs.
Also, No Dev, No Ops, No IT, by Hussain Badakhshani, and The War State, by Mike Swanson, about the rise of the military-industrial complex in America after World War II.
He also gives great investment advice at WallStreetWindow.com.
And when you follow his advice, you'll want to get some precious metals, gold and silver and etc., from Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc.
That's at rrbi.co, rrbi.co.
Also, check out ZenCash at zencash.com or zensystem.io.
It's a great digital currency, but it's also a messaging app and a document transfer app and all kinds of great stuff, too.
Learn all about it at zencash.com.
And then there's Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom.
If you sign up from the link on my page at scotthorton.org, I'll get a little bit of a kickback there.
And check this out, speaking of scotthorton.org, if you'd like expanddesigns.com to build you a new 2018 model website, go to expanddesigns.com slash scott and you'll save $500.
Also, don't forget thebumpersticker.com, stickers for your band or your business at very reasonable prices, high-quality stuff there.
It used to be my company back when, thebumpersticker.com.
Good.
All right, you guys, on the line, I've got the great Grant Smith.
He is the director of the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
That's IRMEP, I-R-M-E-P dot org, I-R-M-E-P dot org.
And he wrote a whole bunch of books, including Big Israel, get it, like Big Tobacco or Big Pharma, Big Israel, the Israel Lobby in the United States.
Before that, Divert, all about Benjamin Netanyahu's smuggling rings, stealing weapons-grade uranium from the Pneumek plant in Pennsylvania.
And before that, like six or eight or ten other books about the Israel Lobby and their crimes in the United States of America.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Grant?
Hey, Scott, doing well, doing well.
Just a quick clarification.
The Netanyahu-Milchan Smith smuggling ring was the one that got the triggers out of the U.S.
I thought it was all part of the same thing.
Netanyahu's too young to have been involved in the Pneumek heist.
Sorry.
Here I am, conflating different nuclear heists.
No, no, no, no.
They do get confusing after a while.
Sometimes they steal triggers.
Sometimes they steal weapons-grade uranium.
Right.
You know what, though?
Got to keep them separate.
My Twitter suspension has been lifted, but I'm going to still stay off of there because I was trying to quit anyway because I'm getting back to reading books like I used to be really disciplined and good at doing, and so I'm going to catch up on all of your books, man.
That's great, but as a follow of yours, I encourage you not to get off Twitter because I know that they're pretty onerous in their censorship, but it's a really easy way to follow what's going on.
Well, it's not that.
I mean, I'm not crying about the, oh, how could they persecute me?
My problem is the two minutes hate every day over somebody hurt somebody's feelings and whatever.
Somebody said something in a tweet six years ago.
Right.
And it's, you know, the number of tweets with any value, the ratio has just gone so far out of whack that I just can't stand anymore.
It's such a time suck.
Man, I don't just use it to promote a link here or there, right?
I sit there staring at it all damn day long like a meth head.
Okay.
All right.
I got to make a clean break.
So to speak.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, it's a high signal to high noise to signal ratio.
See, this is what I'm trying to say.
It's not as well as you.
Yeah.
All right.
Hey, man, talk to me about some things.
WNP 136.
It sounds boring, but I bet it's not.
No.
WNP 136 is the first and only classification guide that explicitly says something that we knew was somewhere in the vast bureaucracy of government.
But what it essentially says clearly is that no federal contractor employee can ever talk about release information about acknowledge or confirm the well-known fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons program.
This is the only one.
The first and only classification guide.
And it's only two pages long in which the Department of State in partnership with the Department of Energy are saying that this is classified information.
And, of course, that is a way to do something much bigger than simply fire employees who have written articles confirming the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program, such as James Doyle, who used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory and was an expert on these matters.
And they booted him and raided his home after he wrote citing public information, public domain information about the fact that Israel could not deter Syria from attacking it in 73 just because it had nuclear weapons.
But it's been used to clamp down on the entire federal agency bureaucracy and prevent anybody from talking about well-known facts.
And so this this lawsuit that we filed is a direct challenge to the entire self-licking ice cream cone known as nuclear ambiguity.
Well, and so to focus on one part of what you're saying there, there is no secret about it.
It's not ambiguous at all.
In fact, speaking of Twitter and Israeli nukes, I had a conversation on Twitter with Mordecai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear whistleblower, who told the Sunday Times back in help me what year, 81 or 76.
Yeah, 1986, 86.
And, you know, we went back and forth about how many they have.
And he confirmed that it was 200 or so.
Right.
But here's where we get into the weeds, Scott.
If you want to tell a judge to tell the Department of Energy and Department of State to knock it off, that they can't in any way claim that this is at all secret, you have to present evidence in courts.
And that evidence has to be from authoritative, meaning other government sources.
So you can put in Mordecai Vanunu.
You can put in, you know, you could even put in former employees who have confirmed this.
Defense Weekly or the Federation for Concerned Scientists or which have you right.
Yep.
You can put in Victor Galinsky.
Yeah.
But you know what, though?
You talk about in your article how Charles Schumer, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, has confirmed that they have nuclear bombs.
Colin Powell.
I guess he was a former at the time, but Powell confirmed it.
Exactly.
But you just you just nailed it on the head.
You just nailed it on the head.
Colin Powell, when he confirmed that they had 200 nuclear weapons aimed at Tehran in an email, was not acting secretary of state or even a general in the armed forces when he said that.
So when you get into the nitpicking.
OK, but what about Schumer, though?
That doesn't count because he's not in the executive branch.
Exactly.
He's not a member of a federal agency.
So it's interesting background and it's certainly included in our lawsuit.
But the challenge of all this going directly at the gag order WNP 136 is that you have to present so-called authoritative evidence from another government agency in order to say, hey, you know what?
You're claiming that this is a secret.
But look, an authoritative agency already released this back in, you know, back in 1974.
Actually, that is a key piece of evidence.
The 1974 National Intelligence Estimate released in 2008 and then again this year with even more details authoritatively says that Israel has a nuclear weapons program.
Other documents from the U.S. Air Force.
What's the argument that that's not good enough, then?
That is good enough.
There's no argument that's not good enough.
And that's the challenge that the Department of State and Department of Energy are going to face in the second round of this law.
So we file all of this damning authoritative information on the 16th.
And then they're either going to do two things.
They're going to give up or they're going to appeal to authority and simply say, we're the Department of State.
We're the Department of Energy.
We know better.
And you, little judge, had better keep this a secret because we are saying that this will harm national security.
So, you know, the thing that's good about this judge is that she in the past has not accepted that from federal government classifying authorities and she's pushed back on them.
So we are very hopeful.
And the sort of unstated premise of this entire exercise and the article that's at antiwar.com today is that this is a self-licking ice cream cone in the sense that the reason the classification guide is classified is that it's pretending that the secret is actually a secret.
And so if you overturn and expose it, you're really overturning and exposing the entire corrupt, ancient nuclear ambiguity doctrine by doing this.
So it'll pretty much be the end of these gyrations and circumlocutions of the State Department whenever a reporter says, yeah, but Israel has nuclear weapons, right?
They'll be able to say, well, we know that that's not a classified secret anymore.
So you could talk about this, sir.
Right.
And and that's the idea.
And I think I interrupted you before when you were about to mention this report from 1987 that you linked to in today's article.
U.S. confirmed existence of Israeli H-bomb program.
And this was a military report.
Right.
That's another authoritative report circulated by the Department of Defense, which not only outlines that Israel was working on the codes that you need to create a hydrogen bomb chain reaction, but they also had essentially mirror national laboratories in their words, all you needed to produce nuclear weapons.
And so, you know, that is an authoritative source of the fact that they have nuclear weapons.
OK, so now in the 1970s, Senators Symington and Glenn pass.
Is it two different amendments?
Yeah, they're two different amendments.
OK.
And what do they say?
Well, Stuart Symington's amendment was they call them Symington and Glenn because they they had essentially the same ends.
And that was that the U.S. should not be providing foreign aid to countries that were unwilling to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and were also trafficking and building up their own nuclear weapons programs.
And so I mentioned in the article that John Glenn was particularly upset about this, but it wasn't really clear why until recently he was getting on the CIA's case and going over to CIA constantly as a senator saying, why aren't you doing anything about the NUMEC diversion?
What is this?
Did you guys actually steal this stuff yourself?
And so he was actually more upset by NUMEC than Stuart Symington, who was more theoretical about wanting to uphold his friend John F.
Kennedy's legacy in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
So the Glenn amendment was passed in 1977.
The Symington amendment was passed in 1976.
And they were both attached to the Foreign Assistance Act.
But now they're present in the Arms Export Control Act.
But they basically say you can't give foreign aid to a country that's a secret nuclear power.
Or if you absolutely have to and want to, like in the case of Pakistan, you've got to actually declare publicly to Congress and to the public why you're doing it.
You have to justify it.
And so that's been done in the case of Pakistan, which gets a trivial or at the time at least got a trivial amount of U.S. foreign assistance.
But no president has ever done that as required for Israel.
And so this is the thing, right, is you talk about there's this exemption in the executive orders regarding how the Freedom of Information Act is to be implemented where and I guess was it courts have ruled to or something or the other that if the secrecy is seems I don't know what the threshold legal standard is, but if it seems like the secrecy is being used to to cover up violations of the law, then it's null and void.
And that seems to be right what we have in this case.
That is exactly what we have in this case.
The argument and it's pretty clear, especially after this Adam Enthouse article, which we're using as evidence, pretty clear that this is an Israeli desired effort or led effort to violate the Arms Export Control Act.
They've been insisting on secret letters from presidents basically saying, yeah, we'll we'll help you get your aid and not talk about this stuff.
So we can we can even more easily prove that the executive order and FOIA, they're they're really one in the same at this point.
Classification, overarching classification authority does not permit using classification to conceal.
Well, quote, it's right in the executive order, conceal violations of the law or embarrassment.
So, unquote, so or embarrassment.
So that's a much lower threshold even.
Well, I just I guess I shouldn't have said quote on the or embarrassment.
It's in a subclause of the same section.
I'd have to look it up here.
But we're also arguing that the reason Department of Energy and state are also embarrassed and not just helping break the law is the fact that they tend to do the opposite of a rigorously protect the United States from criminal acts regarding theft of material and technology.
We mentioned in the lawsuit the State Department, far from protecting and enforcing the law, actually gave our non-milchan another 10 year visa.
And this is the guy at the center of the nuclear triggers theft smuggling ring.
And they the Department of Energy played an obstructive role in the record regarding the new investigation because they were embarrassed by the fact that Department of Energy was ultimately responsible for the theft.
So, yeah, this is fortunately there's so much on the record, so many official documents about these matters that it's unlike previous attempts to use the the particular prohibition in the classification regime about covering up violations of the law.
We mentioned a couple in the article, which, by the way, is titled Can the U.S. keep lying about Israel's nukes?
I forgot to say that at the beginning.
It's on antiwar.com today, everybody.
It is.
I'm going to go read it.
But so there was an attempt early on by a guy named Jonathan Bennett who was trying to get DOD records on the infiltration of agents and weapons into Cuba to overthrow Castro.
And he was saying basically, you know, these documents can't be classifiable because they violate this clause of the classification executive order.
But the judge didn't go for it because he split some hairs.
So this Bennett was proceeding without an adequate amount of authoritative information.
He was clearly on to something.
I mean, time has passed.
And yes, clearly, the U.S. was infiltrating arms and agents into Cuba, but he was unable to make the necessary argument in court with authoritative evidence to get what he wanted.
Yeah.
Now, this is a really fun kind of experiment in the so-called rule of law as it comes up against politics and power.
Right.
Like when a deputy sheriff murders somebody on the clock and they go, well, you know, I mean, what are you going to do?
Hold them accountable?
Of course not.
Right.
Yeah.
So this is one of those where the law is clear and Grant Smith has all of his T's crossed and I's dotted.
And what are you going to do, judge?
And now she's up against, on the other side, this massive question of politics and foreign policy and these kinds of things that judges don't like to rule on and don't like to contradict this kind of power.
And yet, hey, it was the Congress that passed these amendments in the first place.
Right.
The law supposedly is the law.
So.
Right.
Fun to see what happens on the next round.
If I thought this was just going to be an empty exercise, I wouldn't invest all the resources into pursuing it.
But I am heartened by the fact that something could actually happen by the fact that she's been willing to release this kind of thing in the past.
Most judges, particularly, well, particularly on these national security cases and FOIA are absolutely the most deferential judges that you could ever find.
And, you know, you've had Matt Taibbi, I think, on your show, who's showing that in the criminal system, it's even worse.
It's just, you know, basically a mill of plea bargaining.
And it's pretty much the same on these FOIA cases.
But if you bring them what they need to actually apply the law the way it's written and according to the precedents, you can actually win.
You don't have to lose every single one of these cases.
So because we've already had some experience with this particular document, I think that we're in a pretty good shape to get the entire thing released and get the.
All right, you guys, here's how to support the show.
First of all, subscribe to the RSS feeds, iTunes, Stitcher and all of that.
All the feeds are available at ScottHorton.org and also at LibertarianInstitute.org.
You can also follow me on YouTube.com slash Scott Horton Show and sign up for Patreon.
If you do, anybody who signs up for a dollar per interview gets two free books from Listen and Think Audio.
And also you'll get keys to the new Reddit page, Reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
And then if you go to ScottHorton.org slash donate, 20 bucks will get you the audiobook of Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
50 bucks will get you a signed copy of the paperback there.
And $100 donation will get you either a QR code, commodity disc or a lifetime subscription to Listen and Think Libertarian audiobooks.
That's all at ScottHorton.org slash donate.
And also anybody donating $5 or more per month there, if you already are or if you sign up now, you'll get keys to that new Reddit group as well.
Already got about 50 people in there and it's turning out pretty good.
Again, that's Reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
If you're already donating or you're a new donor, just email me, Scott at ScottHorton.org and I'll get you the keys there.
And hey, do me a favor, give me a good review on iTunes or Stitcher or if you liked the book on Amazon.com and the audiobook is also on iTunes and I sure would appreciate that.
And listen, if you want to submit articles to the Libertarian Institute, please do and they don't have to be about foreign policy.
My email address is Scott at ScottHorton.org.
Results that we're going after.
I'm more hopeful than you are.
Well, good.
I mean, hey, far be it from me to naysay on your effort here, man.
I think it's great.
But so tell me this, two different ways I mean this question of what difference does it make about these Israeli letters that they had, I guess everybody from Bill Clinton on sign and I think we talked about this before.
I was reminded of the anecdote of the first time that Bill Clinton ever met with Netanyahu in 96 where as soon as the meeting was over, Clinton said to whoever was around him, who does this effing guy think he is?
Jesus Christ.
I couldn't believe the way Netanyahu came in there dictating to him when he was the reelected president of the United States.
Who the hell are you?
You're the mayor of some town in the Mediterranean Sea, dude.
But anyway, and then we found out that Jared Kushner reacted the same way as the Trump administration was being sworn in.
As though Jared Kushner needed instruction from the Israelis how to serve their will closely enough.
They were pushing him around to the point that he reacted.
But anyway, my question, those are just the silly anecdotes about the arrogance of Benjamin Netanyahu.
But my question is, what difference does it make for Israel to have the Americans sign this letter rather than just keeping the secret the way previous presidents had done?
And then what difference does it really make in your case that you have this New Yorker magazine story about this?
Well, we're going to have a lot more than the New Yorker story pretty soon.
But there are two real issues here.
Number one is, well, in the background, and not answering your question, in the background it's a reflection of the growing pressure on administrations to come clean about this.
And the Israelis have obviously judged their position to be ever more frail through the passage of time of maintaining this entire charade where whenever anyone asks a prime minister, and it happened recently with CNN and then Yahoo, but you have nuclear weapons, right?
And they roll out this nonsensical gibberish where they say we won't be the first to introduce them to the region.
It's a sign that that is not wearing well and it's becoming increasingly unacceptable.
So why are they doing the letters?
Number one, it shows the administration early on that the Israelis are going to be there in their face with the demand that you can never do enough for them ever on anything.
So it's kind of a show of force saying, look, you got in here because of our campaign contributions.
You can never do enough for us and we are going to need some guarantees.
And then number two, getting a written guarantee is extremely important to the Israelis.
They made George W. Bush essentially sign a letter saying that he could never imagine that they would have to return certain territories that they'd stolen deep into the West Bank to connect some of their settlements.
And every time there's the slightest pressure on them to do something in the so-called peace process, they would whip that written letter out and say, but look, look, you already agreed.
I mean, this is we've already nailed this down.
These are taken like titles to vehicles or, you know, real estate.
These are considered to be ironclad contracts that will never be renegotiated by the Israelis.
And that's why they asked for them.
I didn't realize this and I don't think many people do, but there's very little continuity between presidential administrations and their national security council documents.
They all tend to wind up in different places and they all tend to be closely guarded and access to them is extremely limited, much less public access, access by subsequent administrations.
So it turns out that the Israelis are the only ones who have all four letters and can go and pressure any given president or national security council saying, look, we have these contracts saying that you will not go in this direction.
So, you know, honor the promises of the United States.
And that's essentially why they're so important.
Not to the US.
I mean, to me and to anyone who examines them, there's simply a sign that things like WNP 136 aren't really US classification guidelines.
They're the implementation of Israeli policy within the US bureaucracy.
And it's just more evidence for you to cite for the judge.
Absolutely.
Get your hands on one.
Well, maybe not.
Right.
Just the New Yorker report.
Now that they've been put out there, that provides a whole vast amount of leverage for getting them released, Scott.
And all it took was a small mention of WNP 136, an obscure article to set off this entire chain of action.
That's the way it works.
Very interesting.
All right.
So what am I forgetting to ask, you know?
I think you're forgetting to ask me about why people should go to antiwar.com and read this article today.
And I guess the answer is there's no good reason not to go read it.
It's extremely long.
And I guess it had to go through a lot of editing.
So if people don't go take a look at it, they're missing something good.
Yeah.
No.
Well, like everything you write, it's extremely important.
And, you know, I used to like to say on the show, I guess I've forgotten to lately, but people should just go to ear map.
You know, how did you do on any search engine?
This will work.
You go site colon and then forget the HTTP and the WWW.
You don't need that.
You just go site colon ear map dot org.
I.R.M.E.P. Dot org.
And then just search for dot PDF and see what you get.
Because this is, you know, there's a reason it's called the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
Wait, the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
It's because you do a lot of research, a lot of lawsuits.
You've used FOIA to a great degree over the years to wrestle loose secrets from the U.S. bureaucracy regarding the Israel lobby and its activities, legal and illegal in this country.
And there's just so much there.
It's, you know, it's hard to even sum up in any kind of way.
I appreciate that.
There's a lot of low hanging fruit that nobody goes after that really offers some explanations for why we've had so many disasters.
And I'm not going to call them missteps.
They're just intentional moves in the region that just cost billions of dollars.
And more importantly, millions of lives.
And still very dedicated to getting that out.
And fortunately, there are people working in government and in the judiciary who seem to agree that you can't just have so much corruption and not have any accountability at some point.
So, right.
Yeah.
Please check it out.
I.R.M.E.P.
Dot org and Israel lobby dot org.
There's a lot of new stuff at the Israel lobby archive.
So, yeah.
Check that out as well.
And now when you say the Israel lobby archive, is that from is that the site for the for the speeches from the.
No, that's actually.
Yeah.
When you go to I.R.M.E.P. Dot org and you look in the nav bar on the left, there's a link to the Israel lobby archive.
That's where all the declassified and released documents.
Oh, that's all the documents.
And also things that we've gotten out of state FOIA initiatives.
And there's a lot going on at the state level in terms of making U.S.
Middle East policy that people really have no idea about, such as, you know, the previous article where you have an entire taxpayer funded Israel lobby sitting inside the office of the governor in Virginia.
Oh, yeah.
You live in Virginia.
You sure as heck better go read that and find out where your tax dollars are going and why they probably shouldn't anymore.
Yeah, that was a great one.
Meet Viab, Virginia's taxpayer funded Israel lobby, the Virginia Israel Advisory Board, where they go through here demanding that they rewrite all their textbooks to get rid of the true information, get rid of the occupation.
Yeah.
Talk about.
Yeah.
Talk about problems with textbooks.
I mean, the lobby is a big one for saying, you know, regions and entities in the regions are teaching hate in their textbook.
And, you know, who knows?
They probably are.
But, you know, why are we going to dumb down our textbooks and create generations of ignorant children in Virginia?
We don't know about the occupation or history.
Well, it's because the Virginia Israel Advisory Board wants it.
And they're inside the government making that happen.
Right.
Not that, you know, they have a guilty conscience and a motivation to go rewriting the truth out of the textbooks or anything.
Not that they know that they're wrong and that they have to lie all the time in order to convince Americans to let them continue to get away with it or anything like that.
Well, let's just say that all of the asks that they have in terms of changes to Houghton Mifflin and National Geographic have absolutely no authoritative or academic citations.
So something's up, Scott.
Maybe we can talk about that someday.
Well, they just got to make sure to keep the narrative upside down.
Evil Palestinian terrorists.
You can tell they're the bad guys because they're the ones who are brown and don't speak English as well.
And so they're the aggressors trying to steal Israel and extort land away from the poor Israelis who own all that land.
And then all you have to do is just not know anything about it except what the Israel lobby tells you.
And then you'll be fine with that.
Yeah.
Fortunately, that day that is being challenged.
And I think that day will will come to an end at some point.
Thanks to this show.
And again, Arnold Isaacs and your discussion about the anti-Islam disinformation campaign.
I mean, this stuff is funded with a lot of money.
Textbooks, disinformation, radio campaigns.
I mean, there's a lot of money behind this.
But, you know, what people need to know because they could just turn on their radio and hear it is, well, why are they doing this?
And you finally did get to the primary objective, which is advancing Israel.
And, yeah, that's behind a lot.
A lot of what we see here and encounter in academia and in commercial realms and particularly coming out of state and federal government is all about this.
And it's a tremendous, tremendous misuse of resources.
Yeah, absolutely.
Why would Rabbi Yerushalmi be trying to prevent the takeover of Sharia law in Montana?
There are no Muslims in Montana.
There's no Sharia law in Montana.
And Rabbi Yerushalmi doesn't give a damn about Montana.
He's just trying to make you afraid of Muslims.
Full stop, because as far as you know, those are the only people the Israelis are oppressing over there.
And if you hate and fear Muslims, then that makes that easier.
That seems to be a more pliable explanation.
Yeah.
So, I mean, this stuff is rarely challenged and people are afraid to challenge it.
So, you know, it continues.
But I do think that dragging it out into the sunlight, kind of like dragging out the entire WNP 136, you know, you take away the tools they're using and you take away everything they can do with the tool.
Turn on the lights.
I mean, you really take away the opportunity to do all this stuff in the dark.
And you really show the money, the organizations, and the falsity of the product.
I mean, it really does.
It's having an impact.
I have to tell you, it's having a big impact.
And a lot of people are starting to do a lot of good work on this.
Right.
You know what?
I'm just going to bring up this one more anecdote while we're talking here before I let you go, which is, I only learned this from Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss.net years and years later, decades later, that in 1992, when I was paying very close attention to the election in 92, I was only 14 in high school, but I was very interested in what was going on and all the back and forth and, you know, what have you.
And I never was a Bill Clintonite, but I always hated the Reaganites.
And so, you know, I had an interest in what was going on there.
And in all the back and forth in that election, Ross Perot and this and that and everything, nobody ever said anything about Israel.
And yet, you go and you read up Mondoweiss and you realize that the Israel lobby had made a very specific decision to abandon the Republicans and the Reaganites and tilt toward Bill Clinton and do everything they could to support Bill Clinton.
And it was because specifically that George H.W. Bush and James Baker were trying really, I guess, to force the Israelis to stop expanding their colonization of the West Bank.
And he had even, I think, mumbled something under his breath about he wished they would get rid of Yitzhak Shamir and get somebody else in there or something like that.
And this was just and then that was it.
The Israel lobby decided this president's got to go and they did everything they could to get rid of him.
And for someone who was such a, you know, quantitative consumer of news at that time, man, I never heard the word Israel once that they've decided against this president.
I mean, that was just absolutely, you know, I don't know how in the world they got away with such a big move without ever being named.
If you were in New York City at a fundraiser that was hosted by some of the organizations that really advocate for Israel, you would have heard Bill Clinton saying that he would jump, grab a rifle, jump in a trench and die to defend Israel.
Now, this is, you know, obviously a veteran of many U.S. Oh, wait, no, it was Bill Clinton saying that to a group to raise money.
And he was also saying, to your point, that Bush and his team were bad, bad news for Israel.
He was in his campaign accusing them of anti-Semitism.
So that's how far on board Bill Clinton got to get elected.
And he was certainly wasn't what was highlighted in the news.
I know that.
I mean, I guess if you were, you know, really reading it, not watching it on TV, maybe you'd have caught some of that.
But boy, I sure had no idea that whatsoever.
And out here in the world, you know, the people behind the counter at 7-Eleven.
Huh.
Wow.
We the boy from hope.
Who would have ever thought somebody from Arkansas?
I guess American democracy really does work that anybody can be the president and this and that.
Yeah.
As long as the Israel lobby says it's OK first.
And you sell out to them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So it's it's there's always, you know, too much time passes between broader popular knowledge and what's actually out there.
But like you say, it is changing now.
And part of that is because Trump is making it such a partisan issue right at the time that more and more Democrats, including many Jews, are getting sick and tired of this situation.
And so that's I think it's going to help.
I mean, having the Democrats in your corner ain't worth much, but at least it means that there's much more of a debate coming over who's occupying who and what's to be done about it over there, whereas before the most Americans are just kept completely in the dark about this.
So, yeah, that is a that is a major shift.
And you see that a lot of Jewish organizations in particular are becoming quite embarrassed by Israel's actions.
And they really aren't supporting it to the degree they used to.
But the Democratic Party shifts and the younger candidates, they just aren't having any of it.
So very interesting development.
Yeah.
In fact, a Palestinian was just just won the primary in Michigan yesterday and is running unopposed in the fall.
So right.
Second Palestinian in the House of Representatives.
Exactly.
When does that ever happen?
Yeah.
Justin Mosh is the only one.
All right.
Listen, I know you got to go.
But thank you again, Grant.
Really appreciate it.
Thanks, Scott.
See ya.
All right, you guys.
Grant F. Smith.
He's the founder and the director of the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy.
IRMEP.
IRMEP.org.
And then check these out at Antiwar.com.
Can the U.S. keep lying about Israel's nukes?
And before that, well, yeah, this one.
This is old, but still from February 2015.
U.S. confirmed existence of Israeli H-bomb program in 1987.
And the most recent article before last is Meet Viab, Virginia's taxpayer-funded Israel lobby.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at LibertarianInstitute.org.
At ScottHorton.org.
Antiwar.com.
And Reddit.com.
Slash Scott Horton Show.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand.
Timed and the War in Afghanistan at FoolsErrand.us.
