Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been hacked.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing Ted Galen Carpenter from Cato, Cato.org.
And I'm sorry, you're officially a what there, Ted?
I am a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies.
Of course, that's what I was going to say.
And good thing you are too, I'll tell you that.
Here's Ted writing at TAC, theamericanconservative.com.
Another false dawn in Libya.
Also, you've got a great one here about Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn't deserve America's blind support.
But let me get at this Libya article first here.
Another false dawn.
I guess that was what they call the Operation New Dawn, the Libya War of 2011 for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and chaos.
And yet, it seems like there's been not much, but a little bit of progress.
Maybe the true situation is really told through the story of what's not happening in the resolution of the various conflicts there.
Yeah, I mean, there was a ceasefire negotiated in the summer of 2017 with French President Macron facilitating that.
And at that time, elections were promised in early 2018.
Macron then followed up with another agreement, a more specific one, between the various contending parties.
And an election date for December 10, 2018 was set.
Well, it certainly is evident that's not going to come off.
So about two weeks ago, there was yet another agreement negotiated among the various feuding parties.
And now the election is set for the spring of 2019.
And even if this comes about, I have a feeling the election will be about as honest as one typically gets in Cook County, Illinois.
That is to say, it's not going to have much legitimacy.
And whoever loses, whichever factions lose, will immediately denounce it as fraudulent.
And the fighting is likely to spike.
It has never completely subsided, but it's kind of been at a simmer or so for the last year.
But even that is very, very fragile.
Well, is it...
Everybody agrees on one thing, that there must be a central government for the whole country, or is it possible they could just go ahead and split or maybe have severe autonomy so there's not an official break, but something like that, so that they can quit fighting over who's in control of everything?
There is some sentiment for that, but the dominant sentiment among the various factions is each one wants to run the entire show.
The strongest faction is headed up by one of Qaddafi's former generals, General Haftar, and he is now Field Marshal Haftar, which again gives you a little bit of an insight into his ego.
He was once a CIA asset.
In fact, he lived just a couple of miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
But oddly enough, the U.S. has not, at least officially, backed him.
The Obama administration and the Trump administration have both backed a competing faction called, ironically, the Government of National Accord, which seems to be one of the weaker factions in this fight.
And the real power is held by the various militias, and these armed gangs, and that's basically what they are, reflect various viewpoints and ideologies, but the one thing none of them seems to be is a faction actually committed to Western-style liberal democracy.
That is very difficult to find anywhere in Libya.
And what the United States did with the military intervention that it led in 2011 was to overthrow a secular dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, and turn Libya into an arena of total chaos with fighting among, quite literally, dozens of armed factions, almost all of which are authoritarian in nature, and a good many of which are extreme Islamist in orientation.
So, as usual, U.S. officials made an already bad or difficult situation into something much, much worse.
And the tragedy for the people of Libya has been just overwhelming.
Hundreds of thousands of Libyans have been made refugees.
Many of them have tried to get across the Mediterranean to sanctuary in Europe.
A lot of them have been on small, leaky, overcrowded boats, and thousands and thousands of them have died trying to make that crossing.
So Hillary Clinton and her associates in the Obama administration have fomented a monstrous human tragedy, and the Trump administration, to its discredit, has basically put that policy on autopilot and allowed it to continue.
Yeah, it's really too bad.
And that includes drone wars and that kind of thing, right?
Well, the U.S. has identified areas of Libya where there's supposedly an ISIS presence, and the U.S. did launch new airstrikes beginning in 2016 against those kinds of targets.
But, again, identifying all the players in Libya without a scorecard is impossible, and they certainly try to manipulate outside powers to gain their backing.
You have Saudi Arabia and some of the other Middle Eastern powers also involved periodically launching airstrikes on behalf of one of their clients against an identified opponent.
Think of Somalia on the Mediterranean.
That is pretty much what Libya has become, thanks to the United States and NATO.
Well, and just like Somalia is Somalia, thanks to the United States as well.
And then, yeah, I see what you're saying about, too, and this is something that you have, I guess, also in Somalia with the foreign intervention, although the Kenyans, the Ethiopians, the Burundians are kind of from right there, and they're under the auspices of the American project, the AU project and all that.
Whereas in Libya, it seems like, from what I know of it, and it ain't too much, but you almost have, like, isn't it the Saudi-Qatar split going on, where the Qataris and the Turks back the Muslim Brotherhood factions and the Islamists in Tripoli, which is funny, because the Islamists mostly came from the east, right?
But the Islamists control the west of the country, and the secularists under Haftar, backed by the Saudis, and the Egyptians and whoever else, UAE, I guess, control the east of the country now, right?
As much as it's possible to identify the various factions, what their orientations are, and what territory they actually control, that's roughly true, but there are lots of different exceptions to it.
You have quite a number of militias that are just basically freelancing, and it's hard to discern what their loyalties are, what their ideological orientation might be.
So it is just a total, an arena of total chaos.
And it really is agreed, isn't it, that Haftar is not the CIA puppet now, that he was until he landed, and he's doing his own thing, or he's representing who now?
That's a little hard to say.
I would say primarily himself.
But he does receive backing from the Egyptian government, to some extent from the Saudis.
Again, you're also dealing with long-standing internal splits in Libya, including on a geographic basis with one set of tribes in the west gravitating toward one faction, another set of armed militias and so on in the east gravitating toward another faction, and more generalized chaos in the south of the country.
But this is one of the more chaotic civil wars that we're ever likely to encounter.
Man.
And then, well, I guess it's agreed then that there's no end in sight in any way, because no one has the ability, right?
Like, Haftar's been threatening to march on Tripoli for years, and he can't, right?
So you just have, it's just basically boiling and boiling.
It is doing that.
Of course, the latest hope is that the elections scheduled for the spring of 2019 will come off.
They will be accepted by at least all of the major factions.
And then the fighting will subside even further, and eventually one gets a coherent government for the entire country.
I would not bet my life savings on that outcome.
Well, and I know the Kochs pay better than over at antiwar.com.
Hey, now, so the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al-Sharia, the Islamist terrorists that he fought this war for, the Libyan veterans of al-Qaeda in Iraq from Iraq War II, the American people's enemies, where are they now?
Are they, I mean, I know that Hakeem al-Bilhaj was at one time kidnapped and tortured by the MI6 and CIA for being a buddy of Osama.
But then he, like, wears a suit and runs for office now.
He's in court in Britain over his torture, so maybe he's kind of turned over a new leaf from his former bin Ladenism?
Oh, I wouldn't count on any transformations or reforms with regard to any of the Libyan factions.
I think we have to realize that.
That there are no metaphorical white hats in Libya.
They're all various dirty shades of gray, ideologically.
And if we expect that Libyan Thomas Jefferson is going to show up and lead to good government there, that is a forlorn hope.
That's not going to happen.
Well, you know what Barack Obama said?
He said that the biggest mistake of his presidency was not launching this war, but refusing to fully invade and occupy the entire nation and build a new state for them there, like worked so well in Iraq War II.
If he actually believed that, that is a really sad commentary.
Obama himself, according to his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who, by the way, strongly opposed the U.S.-led intervention in Libya, but according to Gates, Obama said it was a 51-49 call about whether the U.S. should be involved in this military intervention.
So that's why he said he was very reluctant to do it.
And if he then believed that we should have stayed on and engaged in nation building the way we have in Iraq, the way we have now for 17 years in Afghanistan without a productive result, then that shows an absolute incapacity to learn from terrible mistakes.
Yeah.
It goes to show you about Robert Gates, too, that he threatened to resign outright if Obama refused to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
And when it comes to starting a war in Libya, Gates says you shouldn't do this, and then clicks his heel and himself carries out the war for Obama rather than resigning over that.
He basically was the good soldier and followed the orders of his commander-in-chief, even though he insists to this day he thought it was a mistake.
You know, I wish the Colin Powells and Robert Gateses of the world would actually act on what they say their beliefs were.
They've rarely done that.
Yeah.
Well, that's Horton's Law.
You can always count on politicians to live up to their bad promises and none of their good ones.
I guess we need a corollary for the secretaries of defense.
They'll always threaten to resign over a failure to launch a war and never launching of a war.
Yeah, that's also true of secretaries of state.
I think the last resignation on the basis of honor and vehement disagreement with policy was William Jennings Bryan.
I was going to say that.
I couldn't think of a more recent one either.
Yeah, because he could not stomach Woodrow Wilson's drive toward war.
And he did the honorable thing, he resigned.
He couldn't carry out those policies.
We need more of that.
The honorable thing would have been to stab Woodrow Wilson before it was too late.
All right, well, anyway.
Speaking of problems that Woodrow Wilson helped cause, American intervention in Eastern Europe right now.
It's a couple of degrees removed, but not too far.
And this is just a huge one, and especially because of the Russian angle in current American politics.
I don't know if you could have anticipated this.
I hope you didn't have to bear witness yourself.
When Nikki Haley tweeted that due to the confrontation in Russia, Ukraine there, in the Sea of Azov, that we're going to have a U.N. Security Council meeting first thing in the morning.
And all the tweets below that were Democrats attacking from the right and saying, Of course Trump, the Russian traitor, is going to sell out our Ukrainian allies to the evil Vladimir Putin and all of this.
So Nikki Haley, who you might have thought was the worst hawk in all of D.C.
All of the Democratic Party, at least, the sort of liberal centrist opposition, is still based entirely on this Russia narrative.
I guess they're willing to go to nuclear war over the honor of our, quote, ally, Ukraine.
Which I might have missed it when they signed the Treaty of Alliance.
But anyway, what is going on in the Sea of Azov?
And why is it that I have to care about this at all anyway?
Isn't this far east of what they used to call Eastern Europe?
Yeah, well, the short answer to your question is you shouldn't have to be concerned about this at all.
This is a petty quarrel between Russia and Ukraine over access through a narrow strait that connects the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov.
And at one time, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that strait separated Crimea, which at that time was part of Ukraine, from the Taman Peninsula, which is Russian territory.
When Russia annexed Crimea following the U.S.-assisted, and that's the way I'll describe it, overthrow of the elected pro-Russian Ukrainian president in 2014, the strait now is a narrow body of water that separates two portions of Russian territory.
Russia has not prevented Ukrainian ships from entering the Sea of Azov.
That is a myth that is rapidly developing in the United States.
What Russia has insisted on is that Ukrainian ships seeking to pass through the Kerch Strait request passage 48 hours in advance and receive official authorization.
The Ukrainian Navy sent three ships to transit the strait without providing any kind of notice to Russia, without seeking permission.
The Russians then blocked those ships from passing through the strait and even fired on them.
Ukraine immediately screamed that this was an act of aggression.
The president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, used that as a justification slash excuse slash pretext for imposing martial law in major portions of Ukraine, specifically portions relatively near the Russian border, that coincidentally are likely to be strongly opposed to his re-election in the upcoming election on March 31st, or that's at least the first round of the election.
Poroshenko's political fortunes have fallen so badly that it is doubtful that he could even make the runoff as one of the top two candidates.
Now he is parading around the country in military uniform having declared martial law, which further narrows an already disturbingly narrow degree of freedom of expression in Ukraine.
I think one can be a little bit suspicious that there were ulterior motives for the decision to try to send the three ships through the strait.
That's where we're at.
The hawks in the United States, particularly the Russophobic Democrats, are calling for U.S. military aid to Ukraine, backing, strongly backing Kiev's position, even sending NATO ships through the strait into the Sea of Azov, which would be an incredibly dangerous provocation if we attempted to do that.
So that's where we're at now.
Yet another crisis, yet another situation where the United States has nothing in the way of genuine interest at stake, but we're running rather dangerous risks if we escalate this.
Alright, so here's who all sponsors this show.
First of all, Mike Swanson and his great book, The War State, about the rise of the military-industrial complex after World War II.
An excellent history there, and get all of his investment advice at wallstreetwindow.com.
Then there's Roberts & Roberts Brokerage Inc., where you buy your precious metals, and that's at rrbi.co, rrbi.co for all your gold, silver, platinum, palladium, etc.
No dev, no ops, no IT.
A great book about how to run your technology business like a libertarian.
No dev, no ops, no IT, by Hussein Badakhchani.
It's really great.
I mean, I'm no businessman, and I really enjoyed reading it, so I think you should check that out.
And also Kesslin Runs, the great new novel by our friend Charles Featherstone.
It's in the very near future, and only slightly dystopian.
No, maybe worse.
Kesslin Runs.
And also, check out Horizon.
Global.
That's ZenCash.
They're changing.
They're not just a digital currency.
They really are working hard on becoming a new platform for all different sorts of blockchain-type secure applications.
And so for all you techies who really understand, check out all you need to know at Horizon.
Global.
LibertyStickers.com for your anti-government propaganda.
Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom to fill your brain with good stuff.
Follow the link from my site so I get the kick back there, ScottHorton.org, and check this out.
At ExpandDesigns.com, you can get a brand new 2018, hey, a 2019 model website there, and get a $500 discount if you use ExpandDesigns.com slash Scott.
Okay, well, here's some comic relief in the story, though.
And that is that I saw in the comments section on Moon of Alabama, where they were talking about the Sea of Azov is so shallow that there are no American warships that can even get in there.
And they know that, and so someone in the comments section was joking, oh, maybe they'll send a literal combat ship, right?
And then they had this big quote from the Navy commander saying, well, actually, the literal combat ship is not useful for combat, per se, or really even a show of force.
It's more like it can do demining and stuff in non-hostile waters, freeing up other ships to do actual missions.
So this is like the F-35 of the sea, this literal combat ship.
They spent a bazillion dollars on, and even according to them, the whole thing is just for show.
They couldn't possibly use it in a fight.
It would sink.
Well, but just think, if we hadn't spent that kind of money, we would have wasted it on tax cuts, giving money back to the taxpayers in America.
Yeah, definitely could not have that.
Anything but that, right?
It's like in Orwell, where the whole purpose of the military spending is to blast your excess wealth off into space or sink it into the depths of the sea just to keep you from being able to get to it.
You might use it to benefit yourself.
Pretty sure they're reading that thing as an instruction manual in D.C. these days.
Yeah, I always said that Orwell's 1984 especially was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual.
You know, it's funny, because people always talk about the totalitarianism in there, but they forget that the backdrop for all the totalitarianism is a permanent state of war.
What are you, on the side of Goldstein, the enemy?
Button your lip.
And support our Eurasian allies, who have always been our allies, except last week when East Asia was our ally.
Yeah, exactly.
Just like sometimes we fight against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and sometimes we fight for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
You know, depending on the whim of our leaders.
Okay, so now I wanted to point out that one guy over at the Atlantic Council even, I forget if I learned this from your article or somebody else's I read about this, where the Atlantic Council, these are the most pro-NATO hawks of all the think tanks in D.C.
Well, they all are, but that's their reason for being there.
And even they said what you said, that, well, yeah, it looks like Poroshenko really kind of picked this fight for his own domestic political reasons, and we shouldn't get too caught up into that.
So I like that because it's against interest.
It's one of those things where you can tell that they thought it might be embarrassing if at least one of their guys didn't admit the reality of the situation while the rest of them went off, as you said, recommending a naval show of force and all of this stuff.
However, I wanted to bring up this, though, too, was I saw in Defense News this morning, it was supposedly leaked by the Ukrainians, and, you know, Bellingcat is behind it, standing behind it, so that means it's probably not true, I don't know.
But at Defense News, they're saying that they have audio showing that the Ukrainians did ask for permission to cross into the strait as they're supposed to do, and that the Russians, I guess, didn't ever answer them or something, but that they went through all the proper channels and basically framing it in a way where actually it was the Russians who sort of lured them into this and then, you know, attacked them, made it look defensive and made it look like they were the ones who had started it.
What do you think of that?
It's a little hard to imagine a reason that Russia would do this, particularly at this time when they were supposed to have a face-to-face meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin on the sidelines at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires.
And that, predictably, Trump has been under pressure, has now canceled that meeting.
I don't get what the Russians would have gained by creating a crisis at this time.
I have no idea whether the Ukrainians asked for permission, whether they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's in their request or whatever.
And frankly, Americans shouldn't care a whit about any of this.
This should not affect even significant American interests, much less vital ones.
And yet we're drifting into a crisis with a nuclear-armed power over the most petty kind of incident.
Well, and it certainly has no effect.
I mean, even if you were to say that American private corporate interests of some Americans meant the national interest in the broadest sense, we don't even have any trade going in and out of Mariupol, right?
I mean, this is the furthest port from American anything.
No, I mean, we don't have significant economic connections with Ukraine or Russia.
This is just not a matter that should draw U.S. governmental concern in the slightest.
And it just suggests that our political elite, our bankrupt political elite, keeps drifting into crisis after crisis or generating crises to keep the public agitated, to justify massive levels of military spending.
And clearly the American people don't benefit from that.
And worst of all, the anti-Russia hawks are playing a game of geopolitical chicken.
They assume that if the United States adopts these belligerent positions, that the Russians will always back down.
Given the fact this is in Russia's core security zone, Russia regards Ukraine in much the same way the United States would regard Canada or Mexico.
This is a core security interest.
And the hawks need to answer the question, what happens if the Russians don't back down?
Because that could turn very, very ugly very, very quickly.
They don't have a plan B. They never do.
It seems like, I'm just spoiled rotten, right?
Because I'm talking to you and Doug Bandow and all these thoughtful people from Cato.
But up there in D.C. it really is like a town full of Doug Fythes, where blah, blah, blah, and then they just believe what they just claimed.
Just because they said so.
And then, you know, a perfect example of this was in 2014, when some of these think tanks put out a thing saying, well, we absolutely must start sending arms to the Ukrainian government to escalate this war in the east.
On the premise that there are Russian special operations forces who are coming and embedding with the rebellious provinces in the east there.
And that what we want to do is start killing Russians.
And that, as one of the very prominent think tankers, as a former ambassador, I guess, was explaining to NPR News at the time, he said, well, once dead Russian soldiers start coming home in body bags, the plan is, here's how it's going to work, see.
Once that happens, then that will cause the debate to go up in Russia.
And so that means angry Russian mothers are going to demand that Putin stop fighting, because they're so mad that some of their sons have died, without even allowing for the possibility that Russian moms might get really mad that Americans were killing their sons or helping kill their sons in Ukraine.
And they might throw a few more sons at the problem if they think it'd solve it.
But that was the level of debate.
That was the discourse among the DC's greatest think tank experts and national public Soviet radio, right, was we're going to cause the debate to go up in Russia.
It's a great plan, don't worry about it.
And then luckily Obama refused to go along with that, but Trump has not refused.
Although now there's a ceasefire, but Trump is sending weapons, something that Obama had refused to do.
That is one of the great ironies.
Obama, for all of the confrontational rhetoric regarding Russia, tread very, very carefully.
He rejected pressure from Congress and the foreign policy establishment to send weapons to Ukraine.
The Trump administration has now approved not one, but two arms sales to Ukraine and they're talking about an even larger third one to take place.
That's a very dangerous business.
And we have, I think, a lot of people, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, using the Russian issue as a partisan political tool.
And they're perfectly willing to endanger the American republic for political advantage.
They are cooperating with the congenital Russophobes, the people who I think must have eaten a contaminated bowl of borscht at some point in their lives as much as they seem to hate Russia.
And together they are building sentiment, not just for a new Cold War against Moscow, but a Cold War backed up by a degree of military belligerence that could easily trigger a hot war.
And the consequences of that for America and for much of the world would be absolutely catastrophic.
Yeah.
I mean, it really does seem to that the degree of the mistake they're making, you know, is in a perfect proportion of how certain they are that they're in the right.
I mean, I couldn't, for all we have talked about and studied and written about American policy toward Russia just in this century, beginning especially with Bill Clinton, with the NATO expansion.
But George Bush's, not just NATO expansion, but all the color-coded revolutions, the CIA and NED plots against five or six different, you know, Russian-leaning governments in the Bush Jr. years, and the continued threats to expand NATO, two coups in Ukraine in 10 years.
I mean, but you couldn't get anyone on CNN ever to admit that any of that is the reality at all.
To admit, you know, anyone at any of these think tanks to say that, you know what, it is true that George Kennan warned us that the Russians would react, and that we were really the ones starting the fight, but never even mind that.
They won't even admit that, right?
They just, to them, history began when they stole Hillary Clinton's rightful throne from her.
And so now something must be done before they invade Latvia, or God knows what.
Well, that's on the Democratic side, but keep in mind the Republican hawks are out there too, pushing the same narrative that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, that Putin is the new Hitler, that Russian ambitions are not only expansionist, but almost unlimited expansionist.
And most of that is utter drivel.
But that is the dominant narrative in the foreign policy establishment, in the mainstream news media.
And it is building up a very dangerous hawkish sentiment in the United States, and pushing the Trump administration into policies that I suspect, at some level, the President really does not want to implement.
If he has any sense at all, he shouldn't implement them.
Right.
You know, it's just too bad he's so poor at the art of the deal.
Because with all the trouble he's in over this bogus Russia-gate story, and with so much room for improvement in America's relationship with Russia, so many different issues that, where we have these unnecessary conflicts, we have all this room for improvement without actually losing anything on our side.
He's crazy to not just invite Putin to D.C., spend a week signing treaties, and going out to dinner, and telling the Democrats, ha ha, what are you going to do about it?
And, you know, reduce nuclear weapons, come to an agreement where we'll get the Russians to help Trump save face on blowing the Iran deal somehow, work out a new Minsk 3 over Ukraine, whatever the deal is.
He could just do all of that, and turn all of this energy of his political enemies and opponents against them.
And just say, listen, I want peace with Russia, and the American people are with me.
And I'm the leader, and this is what I say.
And when it comes to something like that, nuclear treaties with the Russians, that kind of thing, I don't think there's any question that the American public would rally behind him, and would reject the entire, you know, Putin's puppet narrative.
It's just too unbelievable.
Well, I don't think the American people are eager for confrontation, much less war, with Russia.
But unfortunately, Donald Trump, when it comes to foreign policy, reminds me of a couch cushion.
He bears the imprint of the people who sit on him.
And he is surrounded by establishment figures in his own administration, who keep sitting on him and pushing him to adopt hawkish policies.
We see it in the Middle East, we see it in Eastern Europe, we see it with regard to China.
And this creates a rather unsettled global strategic environment.
Right.
And it's increasingly dangerous.
It's funny, right?
It's tempting to say he knows better, but that's not it.
He feels better.
But he doesn't know better.
He doesn't know anything.
And so they can push him around with one finger.
Yeah, he can't rebut the hawkish arguments, because you're right.
His knowledge base is not strong enough, by a long shot.
It's like, we just need to write in lasers in the sky in D.C. somehow, where he can see it.
Like, nationalinterest.com, you know, or something.
He just needs to know there is a small group of writers who have acceptable enough credentials they could be on your national security staff, who are outside this consensus.
But he doesn't know that.
He thinks that there's the center, and then there are guys to the right of the center in a John Bolton way, and then who else are you going to choose from than that?
He doesn't have any more sophisticated understanding than that.
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
I'm going to have to go at this point.
I know me too.
But thank you so much for your time, Ted.
I really appreciate it.
All right.
My pleasure.
All right, you guys.
That is the great Ted Carpenter from the Cato Institute.
Senior fellow there for foreign policy, military affairs, and foreign policy.
He's a contributing editor to the American Conservative.
He's written 12 books.
His latest is Gullible Superpower.
And, oh, that's coming out in February.
Gullible Superpower, U.S. support for bogus foreign democratic movements.
Awesome.
Speaking of color-coded revolutions and the like.
Okay, so here he is at TAC.
Ukraine doesn't deserve America's blind support, and another false dawn in Libya.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
