Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the White's 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 had.
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, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our name, bitch, say it, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
Hey, how are you doing, man?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
Hey, let's just start the interview right here.
It's Jason, everybody.
Jason Ditz, Managing News Editor of Antiwar.com.
Thank God for that, too, man.
I'll tell you what here.
You know what I need to know about from you is everything going on in Libya, say for the last couple of weeks, right?
Well, Libya has been kind of a mess since 2011, since the ouster of Gaddafi.
NATO intervened and kicked him out and just assumed everything would be okay.
But they didn't really plan on what was going to happen after that.
And what ended up happening is that a lot of the country got separated into different factions, different tribal groups and militias took over different places.
Khalifa Haftar, who was one of Gaddafi's generals in the 80s and then was the head of a CIA led and funded rebellion and then lived near CIA headquarters for about 20 years, showed up somewhere along the line in 2011 and decided he was going to try to take over.
And he's launched, I guess it depends how you want to define coup attempts.
He's conservatively launched two or three.
In reality, he's launched probably six or seven coup attempts where he's tried to take over the country militarily.
He's running something called the Libyan National Army, which is not an actual army, nor is it under the control of the UN-recognized Libyan government.
But he decided a couple of weeks ago to attack Tripoli and try to oust that UN-backed but relatively weak unity government.
And he got into the southern part of Tripoli.
He took over the only airport that's really left for a while.
And then the government bombed the airport, took it back, but now it's closed because it's been bombed, which apparently they didn't see coming.
And they've been fighting ever since.
It's kind of stalled as far as Haftar making any gains, but it looks like Haftar's got enough foreign funding that he's not really going to pull out of this offensive.
So it's really looking like a stalemate right now.
Yeah, it is.
Like on the outskirts of town.
Right.
He's got like the southern suburbs and kind of the outskirts of town and a whole bunch of money that Saudi Arabia gave him to give it a shot.
And enough support within the UN Security Council that the UN Security Council can't pass a resolution even suggesting that maybe the two sides should stop fighting.
So that's interesting right there that the Saudis are on the side of Haftar rather than the Islamists that control Tripoli.
Yeah, it's one of those things.
The Saudis love to bankroll some Islamist groups, but at the same time they have a real problem with some very specific groups, particularly those that are kind of Muslim Brotherhood related.
Which is why they were so in favor of the Egyptian coup.
And Egypt's also been heavily backing Haftar.
I guess they figure they're going to export the idea of just military juntas in the area.
Just for clarity there, when you say the Egyptian coup, you don't mean the revolution in 2011.
You mean the coup that canceled that revolution in the summer of 2013.
Right.
When Field Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi decided he was now president and legally the U.S. was supposed to cut off aid to Egypt, but they just decided they weren't going to recognize it as a coup and never did.
But the Saudis, I mean, there have been reports out of Saudi Arabia quoting officials within the Saudi government and aides to officials in the Saudi government saying, oh yeah, we gave Haftar like tens of millions of dollars for the Tripoli offensive, saying we were very generous and Haftar was really eager to take the money.
But when it comes to the U.N. Security Council, Egypt, I believe, is on the council right now.
They're opposing a ceasefire.
I want to say the United Arab Emirates is opposing a ceasefire.
And the big thing is Russia has been getting along with Haftar pretty well lately.
They're opposing a ceasefire.
And the United States, even though they won't say why, is also opposing a ceasefire.
Yeah, isn't that something?
I mean, even the part about, I mean, wouldn't it, the status quo would be, right, the idea would be if this guy Haftar was CIA and he'd been living in Virginia right outside of Langley for 30 years and was parachuted on in there by the Americans, you would just assume that that would be a rock solid relationship or he would have come to some kind of bad end already or something.
And yet, at least from what I can tell, which is very sketchy, I really don't understand exactly how this stuff works, but it's been reported that the Americans, I guess, essentially abandoned him and that the Russians picked him up then, which just goes to show how complicated things are when it's our Saudi allies taking the side of the Russians and their guy on this one.
But then, like you say, the Americans still, they don't want to get in his way on this one anyway.
He was one of the three Libyan governments at the time.
So like what he was a semi-official head of a semi-official army, even if it was the least recognized of the three groups.
And it seems like that's some of the reports say that's kind of where the US is leaning again, that like at some point along the line, they envision a deal coming in where the Saraj government can stay in power, but Haftar becomes their military commander and the head of the official military.
So that I guess then when he decides to launch a coup next time, he'll have control of the entire military of everybody's side and they won't be able to do anything to stop him.
Crazy, man.
So now the government, they have a parliament and everything, the Islamists that rule Tripoli, right?
And then there's this national unity government, which was really no such thing, right?
That was the one that was made up by the US and the UN to come in to try to unite the different factions.
So how much actual sway does that group now have, at least say with the Tripoli government?
The Tripoli government has some sway, but a lot of it is based out of Misrata.
Misrata had a very powerful militia during the 2011 rebellion and in the years that followed.
They're an Islamist-leaning militia and they've been pretty supportive of the national unity government and they've sent some fighters to try to help them keep Tripoli from falling outright, but there seems to be a limit to how many they're going to send.
So at this point, the government that America put in there now seems to have more power on the ground than the government that had really won the revolution there and taken over the capital.
Right.
I shouldn't call it a revolution, that makes it sound legit, but you know what I mean.
Right.
The original Tripoli government, which originally there was just one post-revolution government that was like a parliament that got elected based in Tripoli, and during one of Haftar's previous coups, he decided that the Tripoli government was bad and he was going to ban it.
The way they got around it was to have new elections and they ended up with a new side that was slightly less Islamist one, but the side that lost didn't agree to give up power because they said, well, the election wasn't fair, it was under duress.
So those two factions fought with Haftar kind of on the sidelines.
One of them ended up fleeing to Tobruk and one of them stayed in Tripoli.
And then there were just two governments for quite a while.
And then the U.N. and the U.S. came along and said, well, we need a unity government.
And instead of just saying, oh, this one is the right one or this one's the right one, they said, well, we'll create a third government where each of these two existing parliaments gets to appoint so many people and then we're going to appoint some people on top of that.
And also the existing Tripoli parliament's people aren't going to actually have any political power.
So they'll just be kind of a secondary parliament that doesn't get to do anything.
And that didn't go over well, but they sort of survived.
So for a long time, you just had this government of national unity was hanging out in the sort of a coastal naval base and that was all of Tripoli that they controlled.
And then over time, they started taking a little more of the city, a little more of the city with with Ms. Rata's help.
And eventually they had the city and a little bit of the surrounding area, but that's about all they have.
And then so the now Haftar's been threatening and I guess he's tried a couple of times, but mostly he's been threatening to attack Tripoli for a few years now.
And so he finally launched this assault.
As you said, he took the airport for a while.
Now the government's taken it back, but now we're at stalemate on the ground, it looks like.
And yet in the security council, they're saying, no, go ahead and keep fighting rather than let's figure out a way to work things out from here.
Maybe their guy is in a better position to negotiate now than before.
Maybe he's in a better position now than he's going to be if they keep fighting, you know?
Yeah, I mean, it's it's not clear what they expect to happen from where they are right now.
They didn't want to.
In the past, when these things have failed, Haftar just kind of moves on and attacks something else instead.
I mean, he's had times where he's taken over Benghazi, he's taken over Sirte, places like that, and he'll start to lose to local rebellions or whatever.
And he'll just sort of pull out and, OK, now I'm going to attack these oil oil ports or something like that.
He'll just move on and hit something else instead.
But this time, it seems like his troops are just digging in and they're not going anywhere.
And that seems to be what everybody in the international community with a vested interest in seeing him succeed wants to happen.
It's just sort of, well, he can stay in sort of Tripoli and keep fighting.
Sorry, hang on just one second.
Hey, guys, as you know, I have a notorious history with server problems, but those days are over.
It's all solved.
And that's because of the great Harley Abbott at ExpandDesigns.com.
ExpandDesigns.com.
Your website is too old.
It's out of date.
You need a new one for the 2020s.
ExpandDesigns.com and go to ExpandDesigns.com slash Scott and you'll save $500.
Let me ask you Afghanistan questions here for a minute.
I just hate this headline.
Afghan peace talks postponed indefinitely.
And I don't know, man, am I too cynical that immediately I'm thinking of Nixon and Kissinger and Anna Chenault and all this kind of subterfuge inside the agencies here where at least the Taliban's complaint, as I understand it, was that they went to meet, was it for the first time in this series of talks with Afghan government representatives?
But they just brought all these people like outside of the rules that they had agreed to, I guess, or something.
And I wonder whether, first of all, do I have that right at all?
Tell me what happened.
And then secondly, was that deliberate to try to scotch the negotiations here?
I'm not sure what the Afghan government is thinking on that.
Yeah, they were supposed to send a delegation to Doha for the talks.
They came up with this big delegation of, you know, it's supposed to be about 60 people.
They ended up appointing about 250 people.
And then they got to the airport when they were scheduled to depart for the talks.
And then the Afghan president told them not to leave, that they weren't supposed to depart at all.
So they never really even showed up to the talks.
They just had this big huge delegation that never got there and the talks never happened.
So Afghan negotiations, I'm not sure what's going to happen there because the Taliban, of course, have a delegation always in Doha, but they need to have somebody to show up to talk to.
Yeah, I mean, what was supposed to be special about the advent of these talks is that the Americans were freezing Kabul out because the Taliban always insisted that this is an illegitimate sock puppet government, we'll only deal with you.
And then our only demand is that you leave.
And, you know, I don't know, it just seemed, I'm not sure how they got them to agree to this kind of thing in the first place.
But yes.
Does it look to you like, yeah, this is really a problem for the future of the talks with the US here?
Well, it's either going to be a problem for the talks with the US or it's just going to be a really big problem for the Ghani government's thoughts or Ghani government's position.
Because, yeah, I mean, it took the US a long time...
Well, I mean, the reality is they're the South Vietnamese here, they lose as America negotiates peace with honor, which means don't kill them all until we've been gone for a little while.
Right.
And it took the US a long time to get the Taliban to agree to even meet with this Afghan government delegation because they don't consider them legitimate.
But now, you know, President Ghani has kind of been complaining about the talks all along.
He doesn't want the Americans to leave because he kind of sees the writing on the wall.
But to just completely sabotage the talks like he did, to not even like just send his delegation, have them be kind of obstructionist or something and just not send them at all, it seems like he's positioning himself against the US interest in the talks.
And it's either going to hurt the US Taliban talks or the US is just going to cut them out entirely and say, well, we're going to negotiate this.
Yeah.
Irrespective of what the Afghan government wants.
Yeah, which is the only real solution here.
And I hate to be so flip about it because I do think that it's going to be really ugly after America goes.
But I don't think that's an argument for staying.
I think that's an argument against the entire system of the American occupation this whole time, that they built up a structure that cannot stand on its own.
So it's a bitter pill to swallow.
It ain't no joke.
Right.
The Afghan government as it is, is never going to stand on its own.
That hugely expensive military full of ghost soldiers is never going to be able to physically control a country against any real insurgencies.
You know, let me change the subject here to Iran.
You have a piece here from the other day about the flooding there.
And I haven't been watching TV, so I don't know if they're really talking about this at all or not.
But I'm interested.
How severe is it?
And what's that got to do with us?
It doesn't get covered a lot on American TV, of course, because it's just Iran.
But they've had flooding in, I think, about 75 percent of the provinces in the country have some flooding.
There's been about 80 deaths, I believe, at this point.
A lot of cities that you'll see pictures like overhead shots where part of the city is basically an island now surrounded by floodwaters.
And early on, we had a couple of stories involved in this.
Iran has been sending out a rescue helicopter fleet to try to get people out of those islands that they're trapped on.
And they were kind of short on helicopters.
And the helicopters apparently aren't in the best shape because of decades of sanctions.
And the international community was kind of, you know, oh, we'll help.
We'll send some helicopters temporarily to help evacuate these people.
And the reality of all the U.S. sanctions sort of sunk in and they all sort of slunk away and said, well, we can't actually send those helicopters, we promise.
So you guys are kind of on your own.
The money that people had pledged to the Iranian Red Crescent, which is the Red Cross equivalent in Iran, hasn't been getting through because banks are afraid to send the money to the aid group because of U.S. banking sanctions on Iran.
And just this week, Iran's president said, you know, the U.S. really should, you know, because this is such a disaster, they should really just kind of ease up on the sanctions for about a year or so.
Just for humanitarian sake, let us save all these people.
And then, you know, if you want to go back to the status quo afterwards, fine.
But he also kind of was realistic about the fact that the U.S. wasn't going to do this and saying, wow, this is kind of the cruelty of the American sanctions policy for full view.
Right.
And the reality is there's no indication that the U.S. is considering at all easing sanctions.
The Trump administration hasn't discussed it, except to the extent that Pompeo said none of it's true, that they aren't legally stopping humanitarian aid with sanctions.
Yeah, well, as long as they can hide behind the technicality, I guess, you know, it's just an effect.
Yeah, and it is technically not a lie, because the U.S. sanctions really do have, you know, caveats in them where it's like, well, this banking sanction doesn't apply to humanitarian aid.
If there's a humanitarian crisis, this sanction's not in effect.
But that's just a letter of the law.
And in practice, a lot of these banks and other agencies are really worried that the U.S. is going to use this as an excuse to go after them, whether they're legally in the right or not.
Yeah, the international shipping firms, too.
I mean, these are zillion dollar corporations with everything at stake if they get in the crosshairs of the U.S. Treasury Department.
Right.
I mean, you've had that's been the problem all along since Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran, is that even within the European Union, the European Union flat out said their companies can do what they want in Iran as far as making deals, and they'll protect them from any U.S. actions.
But major European companies like Total still backed away because they don't trust that their governments are going to be able to protect them from whatever the U.S. decides they're going to do at any given time.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, and it just goes to, you know, if you bring it back to just neighborhood ethics, whether you're a good sport and willing to give somebody a hand in literally a flood or whether you're going to kick them while they're down and America chooses the latter path again, just to make sure, you know.
Anyway, you know, we got to talk about this.
Jimmy Carter and his phone call with Trump.
I thought this was so funny.
He goes, I don't care that China is outpacing us.
That's great.
I'm just saying that the reason they are is because we've been at war since I was president.
Yeah.
And of course, he's talking about the Mujahideen and Saddam's Iraq and all these things, all these dominoes that he knocked over.
It's really amazing.
I mean, first of all, I guess we all know that President Trump has been constantly worried about China since before his presidency, constantly started trade wars that he thinks are going to fix things.
He's constantly doing all this stuff that he thinks is going to resolve the fact that China's growing faster than the United States and is probably going to catch the U.S. in overall economic power in about a decade.
But to think that he went to the extent of calling up Jimmy Carter and asking him, why is this happening?
That's kind of weird.
I mean, because first of all, I don't picture Trump ever thinking he doesn't already have the answer to something.
And even if he did, I think he needed some insight.
I wouldn't think Jimmy Carter would be his first guy to call with.
Well, he just probably has fond memories of being young back in the Carter years and associates him with that kind of thing.
I don't know.
It's Donald Trump we're talking about here.
That was the good old days.
Yeah, exactly.
Man, I had a red Ferrari.
Yeah.
And then Carter said that, and I think as much as I'd like to agree with this, this is pretty hyperbolic too, that America is the most war-like nation in world history.
I'm not certain that's really right if you take into account Genghis Khan and Tamer Lane and some of them.
Yeah.
I mean, if you'd consider single generation dynasties or...
The British.
Yeah.
But pretty close, though.
He's right that we are definitely top five.
Yeah, we're right up there.
I mean, you can always come up with something like, well, Nazi Germany was probably technically at war for a bigger percentage of their fairly brief history, or ISIS, if you want to get really technical, was 100% of the time at war while they had a caliphate.
Right.
But, yeah, for a country that's been around for, what, 250 years about, I mean, the United States has had maybe 10, 15 years apiece.
Right.
Yeah, there's got to be some kind of quotient where you divide the total quantity by the average so that you can adjust for the short duration of the Islamic State and compare still, you know?
Yeah, I mean, some of these, and some of the U.S. wars aren't, you know, it didn't really feel like a war from the U.S. perspective.
Yeah, like Indonesia.
That was a huge one, right?
Suharto coming and killing, what, hundreds of thousands of people in East Timor and all these things.
And America gave him the green light to do it, helped him do it, had our government help him do it and approve it in the international diplomatic community and all these things.
That's an American war.
Probably if you ask the survivors anyway, you know?
Yeah, or Yemen or, I mean, more directly, things like the wars against Serbia to make Kosovo quasi-independent.
Panama, all the little ones.
Yeah.
All the remainders on the real count, you know?
I do that too.
I'll be listing all kinds of wars and then skip Kosovo.
Ah, I always forget that one because there's so many, it gets lost in the shuffle, you know?
Yeah, or just all those times where something happened in Haiti and we decided, well, we better go in there and not really fix anything again.
Yeah.
And you know, things have changed since the internet.
It's a whole new kind of level of consciousness about all sorts of topics essentially.
But there was a real reason that for years the Korean War was known as the forgotten war.
It was because America had been humiliated by them chi-coms and they just want to pretend that whole thing never happened.
And that pretension, of course, was what helped to lead to the Vietnam War after that, which overshadowed it and made it worse, right?
Like 9-11 kind of washing away the Oklahoma bombing or something.
And yet that war on its own terms was just an absolute holocaust itself.
Millions burned to death with napalm in that thing.
Millions.
Anyway, I'm just ranting at you now.
Did you know that?
There, I turned it into a form of a question.
Of course you did.
Yeah.
No, I'm sorry.
And yeah, just ranting a raven about the US at this point.
I was just interviewing Max Blumenthal about, maybe we'll attack Venezuela.
And he got notes that showed that at the CSIS, they had this big meeting of powerful people who were considering, well, what to do now?
Our coup didn't work.
So maybe we'll have to carpet bomb the place.
Right.
And that was a really weird story.
We had that story.
They met over the weekend, I think it was, last weekend?
Yeah.
On the 10th it was, I think.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And there was some reporting from a couple of sites saying, oh, we heard this meeting happened.
They called the CSIS and were like, the tree had this meeting and they were like, well, yeah, it was about, you know, they kind of were like, yeah, it was about the possibility of what military options the US has in Venezuela.
And they had State Department and some intelligence officials.
They had some, a couple of officials from Venezuela's opposition, and then they had some Colombian and Brazilian officials involved in it.
And they were sort of like, yeah, yeah, that happened.
There was this meeting.
There was no official transcript of the meeting or anything.
And the reports have all said the same thing.
As they started asking more and more questions of CSIS, they sort of backed away and were like, well, we don't really feel comfortable talking anymore about what happened there.
That was supposed to be off the record.
Yeah.
He talked about the, I don't know, the, one of the ladies that he contacted started answering his questions and then went, wait, who are you?
Why are you asking me this?
What is this about?
I have to go now.
You're making me feel uncomfortable or something.
Well, I think it's a real possibility from going back to Bolton and his 5,000 troops to Colombia.
Did that happen by the way?
Did they move special operations forces into Colombia?
Do you know?
I don't think they have yet.
I think that was just sort of a possibility.
That sounds like Chalabi crazy.
He can't do a war with 5,000 men.
You know?
No, not against the country that size.
And I mean, Venezuela's got a good size military.
And to the point where you have people like President Trump saying, oh, you know, if these Venezuelan people, the military doesn't switch sides to back Guaido over Maduro, these people will lose everything.
The military commanders, they and their families will lose everything.
I mean, really sort of mean spirited threats for a country we're not even really at war with yet.
Yeah, big yet there.
And then I'm sorry, one more here.
Newt goes off in North Korea.
Is that confirmed from seismograph experts and so forth?
This really happened.
They tested a bomb the other day.
I don't think that happened.
No, no.
There was a test of something.
There was a North Korea state media said they had done a tactical weapon test.
They didn't really say anything else about it, except that it had a new kind of guidance system and it had a powerful warhead.
But my gut says North Korea doesn't have the technology to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for tactical use yet.
That would be quite the feat for a country that just barely has made nuclear weapons at all to be able to produce short range tactical weapons already.
And they said that on Wednesday.
And they didn't say, you're saying that, you know, translation wise, they didn't say a tactical nuclear weapon.
That part was embellished by the US.
That was an assumption in American media.
Yeah, that was just an assumption by some people.
North Korea state media just called it a tactical weapon and they said Kim was present for the test.
On Thursday, the acting US defense secretary said, well, we're aware of the test.
It wasn't a ballistic missile, but that was all he added.
He still didn't say what it was, just what it wasn't.
Yeah, I mean, by the way, right, if it had been an above ground nuclear test and there would be no question whether it was uranium or plutonium or what have you from nearby sensors and that kind of deal.
Right.
And that having a conducting an above ground nuclear test in 2019 would be a much bigger deal than what this looks to be.
I mean, that that would be a huge provocation to the entire region.
In other words, it was it was a conventional explosive.
If it happened at all, it was a conventional explosive on what they're calling a tactical rocket of whatever range.
So, okay.
Right.
And another massively overblown headline there.
Yeah, it's really probably nothing.
They said some of the analysts are saying it's probably a rocket.
Some of them are saying, well, it might even be some weird kind of mortar that they think works better.
But we don't really know.
All right.
Wait, one more.
So this was the thing, because I remember it being told that Trump was really upset that he felt he had been manipulated by his government into kicking 60 Russian diplomats out of the country.
And they told him that it was equivalent to what the allies were doing.
But then later he figured out that, oh, you know, one or two from 30 countries or something like that.
It was 56.
I'm getting the numbers wrong, but close enough.
But the point being that, you know, Britain, France, Germany, and whoever, Spain or whoever it was, they kicked out three or four each, not 60 each.
And then so he felt like he got really burned that he had been manipulated by his own team on that.
And now there's this further development about how the CIA manipulated him into doing that in the first place.
Right.
CIA director Gina Haspel produced these photographs for Trump when they were trying to, they were trying to talk him into, they apparently had a few options for what they were going to do diplomatically to Russia.
She was put in charge by somebody into getting Trump to choose the most aggressive option.
And she decided the way to do it was these photographs, where we don't really know where these photographs came from, what exactly they showed, but the indications are they, she had a few photographs of sick children, and a few photographs of dead ducks.
And this was built around the story of Skirpal getting poisoned by the Novichok.
And the day he was, the day he was poisoned, he supposedly, he had gone out and fed some ducks, he had interacted with some children while he was out at the park feeding the ducks.
And the implication that Trump was meant to understand was, oh, look at how floppy Russia was.
They made all these children sick, they killed all these poor ducks, when none of the children that he interacted with got sick at all, which was really discrediting Britain's original idea that Russia had smeared the poison on a door handle or something and got it all over him.
And he would have spread it on to everybody then.
But none of the actual children that were actually present got sick.
None of the ducks that were in that pond died.
So where she got these photos of sick children and dead ducks from, we don't know.
But Trump was meant to understand and did, did believe that this was all just Russia being really sloppy and heavy handed.
And then he was like, well, we have to do something now.
Man, you know, I wonder if he ever finds out about these corrections later, if he resents it at all.
I guess he probably is too dim to even catch on.
Wait, that duck thing?
That wasn't true.
Hey, didn't I make a decision based on those ducks or something?
Can you imagine Donald Trump being the president of the United States?
What fun.
Jesus Christ.
Dead ducks.
I think he would be furious to get misled like that by his own cabinet.
But it's probably not the first time anyhow.
Anyway, what a fun time we live in there.
One of my favorite anecdotes of this is from the Washington Post where he says, I don't even know why we got to be in Somalia anyway.
We got troops in Somalia.
And Mattis tells him, we're trying to prevent an attack on Times Square.
You have no choice.
What a great quote from American politics.
You have no choice.
The defense secretary instructed the president of the United States about a war against some peasants in some far off land that the president couldn't even find on a globe.
It's just amazing, man.
This whole thing.
I'm starting to wonder if it's all fake just to entertain me or what.
It's too perfectly wrong, you know?
Anyway, thank you, Jason, for coming on the show again, dude.
I really appreciate it.
It's good to talk to you.
Sure.
Thank you for having me.
Everybody, this is the absolutely indispensable Jason Ditz at news.antiwar.com.
He's our managing news editor there.
And he writes up all the most important stories every day for you with, you know, unlike this show, Barry in the lead.
He gets it straight for you all day, every day there for you at antiwar.com.
The great Jason Ditz.
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.
