Hey you guys, Scott here.
It's fundraising time again at the Libertarian Institute.
And I say again very loosely because we haven't even held a fund drive since the summer of 2019.
And the reason for that is because you guys were so generous in the great book and institute fundraiser of summer 19 that I felt terrible coming back to you again until the book was finished.
But now the book is finished and the institute is out of money.
And I got to be able to pay my guys and pay my vendors and keep this thing going.
So I need help from you.
It's myself, the legendary Sheldon Richman, the firebrand Pete Quinonez, the brilliant Kyle Anzalone, who also works for antiwar.com.
And of course we got Keith Knight, Tommy Salmons, Patrick McFarlane, and all your great podcast hosts there, plus all the best writers in the libertarian movement.
And very proud about the six books that we've published so far.
Three of mine, two of Sheldon's and one posthumous book of the great William Norman Grigg.
And we've got more great book projects coming up this year.
We're going to publish one by the great Brad Hoff about Syria and Richard Booth, the best journalist in America on the Oklahoma City bombing, is writing a book all about it for the Libertarian Institute as well.
And not only that, but now that enough already is done, we're going to try to make part of this fun drive an effort to raise money to buy extra copies of wholesale books so that we can send these to, I don't know, the few best congressmen and their staff, the best people in media, all the middle ranked newspapers.
And you know, a stash, I like to send five or ten books to all the best peace groups so they have them for all their people and whatever.
Of course, the advantage of publishing these books at the Libertarian Institute is we get to do them however we want, but the disadvantage is we don't have a big marketing team and a big budget.
And that's where you guys come in.
We need your help to promote this book in a very grassroots way from the ground up.
And we need your support so that we can buy wholesale copies to send out to the people who need to get their eyes on it.
So check out Libertarian Institute dot org slash donate.
We got all kinds of great kickbacks for you there for your donors.
We got lifetime subscriptions to listen and think audio.
We've got copper Ron Paul coins and all kinds of great stuff there.
So check it all out at Libertarian Institute dot org slash donate and thank you all very much.
All right, you guys on the line.
I've got the great Gareth Porter again.
He's writing at the Grayzone this time sharing a byline with Max Blumenthal and we're reprinting it at antiwar dot com.
It'll be up on Monday the whatever date that will be the 15th the 22nd.
It's called U.S. State Department accusation of China genocide quote unquote relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far right ideologue.
All right.
Welcome back to the show.
Gareth the Great.
How you doing?
Well, thanks so much, Scott.
Good to see you back again, as always.
Very happy to have you here.
You're always telling us what ain't true and you're always right.
I was just telling the wife last night.
He's always right.
There was that one time like 13 years ago where you ran the story with the Pakistani source where you were like, actually, you know what?
There's some nuance there.
I think I want to pin.
That's the only that's as close to a real mistake I could think of you making this whole time.
And I've interviewed you about everything you wrote ever since before and after that too.
Yeah.
Now, on the other hand, I'm more cautious than most.
I'll say that much.
Yeah.
Well, and listen, starting from a position of disbelief and and not impressed is a pretty good, you know, first position for reporting of on the subject matter that you report on.
I got to say, though, I already knew a lot about Iraq War two before I started talking to you.
And that's how I knew you were so smart, because you knew all this stuff that I knew about it only a lot more and better than that.
I was learning new stuff from you there.
I don't know anything about China, not really.
Other than I know that my friend Eric Margulies says that he saw Chinese Uyghurs training at CIA camps in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001, which must have been some of the same men who were then later rounded up and tortured in Guantanamo Bay, Gareth.
And and I know a bunch of Uyghurs fought in Syria on the side of the CIA and the jihadists there.
But I also know that there's an endless list of accusations that the dictatorship in Beijing is waging a massive kind of ethnic and religious sectarian type cleansing campaign of reeducation and mass concentration camps and God knows what.
And so I guess my first question for you here is, as you're debunking this guy and his, I guess, most audacious claims about what's happening there and calling it genocide and all of that.
What percent of the entire narrative is coming from this guy and his think tank and close allies and the American State Department?
And what other journalism is there in the world about what's really going on there and how bad it really is compared to what this guy is saying?
Because I don't think in the article that you're saying everything's fine.
You're just saying everyone there is equally screwed and it's not exactly the way they portray it in that kind of deal.
So can we start with what is really going on before you tell us what ain't?
Sure.
Absolutely.
And and I did want to do that in any case.
I'm glad you started in that vein.
This is a situation in China where clearly there is what would be regarded as human rights abuse in terms of detention centers that are not voluntary, obviously, and and are not desired at all by the Uyghur community.
It's against their will.
And, you know, I mean, there's bound to be some harsh treatment in those centers of various kinds.
And so, you know, that that is not part of this story.
But clearly, you know, this is this is not something we're attempting to refute or to deny that that there is very harsh treatment of Uyghurs in that regard.
But obviously, the story here goes way, way beyond that and suggests that there is indeed a policy of genocide toward the Uyghurs based on a lot of stuff that is simply, you know, not true or, you know, completely misinterpreted.
It's untrue and misinterpreted, I should say.
And so so it's really one of the worst cases of sort of malfeasance in in regard to a an alleged scholarly effort.
Since I was sort of debunking the the case that the notion that North Vietnam was essentially committing their version of genocide against the the better off classes of North Vietnam during the land reform program, talking about hundreds of thousands of of poor, not poor, but more well off North Vietnamese who were rounded up and killed.
And and I found, you know, just a complete abuse of of scholarly practice in the process of putting out that that story.
And it reminded me of that when I was looking at what Adrian Zenz, the author of of this initial pamphlet, if you will, charging the genocide against China, against Uyghurs.
I saw a real parallel between the two.
So really, I think this is a story about the the lack of honest reporting or analysis by somebody who then gets picked up by the major news media and by political, you know, administrative officials, including former Secretary of State Pompeo and present Secretary of State under Biden and and Biden himself.
So we were talking here about a fiction that has gotten completely out of control very quickly.
All right.
So tell us, who is Adrian Zenz?
Who is Adrian Zenz?
That is indeed the right question to start with.
Basically, Adrian Zenz is a right wing religious fanatic who believes in the rapture like Mike Pompeo, at least supposedly he does.
Who knows what he actually believes?
But but Zenz is a genuine the genuine item, a genuine religious fanatic who who also believes that women should not be given equality, gender equality, that that is a plot by Satanists to to ruin their correct status in the home.
And so he is he is not somebody who should be allowed to to be sounding off on this kind of issue without the most careful scrutiny and fact checking, which, of course, we know that BBC, Associated Press and CNN just totally failed to do.
They were not interested in checking on him.
They picked it up lock, stock and barrel.
But but he is he's not qualified.
I mean, he speaks at least we know that he reads Chinese.
He uses Chinese documents, but he simply does not use them honestly.
He he distorts their meaning.
And in some cases, as Max picked up, I mean, he's the one who found this.
He he completely magnified the size of a particular statistic by a factor of 10.
And and that's what we'll get to that when we when we come to that part of the storyline.
But but basically, he is not to be trusted at all.
Instead, he's been picked up by the country's leading major news, news outlets, as well as now the highest officials of the United States.
It's alarming, to say the least.
All right.
Now, you talk about how well, a couple of things here.
First of all, you quote Lyle Goldstein, who I really like, who writes of the national interest regularly.
And I've interviewed a couple of times whose emphasis is on and who's at the Naval War College still and who his speciality is debunking the hype about Russia and China and why we ought to be so afraid of them and build up to defend ourselves from them and all of these things.
And I know he's a real expert in both countries.
And you quote him here saying, look, what's going on in Xinjiang province is not nice, but it is not genocide.
Exactly.
Exactly.
It's a it's a good quote, I think, to to set the set the stage to to sort of frame this this longer analysis of the facts that we have in the piece.
And I agree that Lyle's a very good source and a reliable source.
And for him to just say that, you know, with with such clarity and without any hesitation, I think is a is a big reason for additional reason for doubt or severe questioning about this whole story.
Right.
And of course, yeah, I would want him to show his work, too, and everything.
But I'm just saying it's a good start when somebody who I think has already displayed really great judgment on a lot of these questions in the past is right.
Kind of as you're saying, they're so dismissive of this.
Let me tell you what ain't true.
You know, he's pretty dismissed.
I would I would say exactly that.
That's what his stance is.
All right.
So now break down these numbers and make me believe you.
Well, let's start with just a fundamental point here as an introduction to what Zen is trying to get across here.
He begins by, you know, claiming that this is a genocidal policy on the basis of his supposed take on the genocide convention itself.
And his point here is that he says that the genocide convention.
Let me just read exactly what he says.
Says Article 2D of the convention says that imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group is a is one of the indicators of genocide and that that the genocide convention has a series of criteria, any one of which supposedly could could be come, according to Zen's, could become the basis for for calling genocide.
But Article 2 qualifies this by saying that the relevant acts must be committed, quote, committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.
So this is the beginning of Zen's misleading approach to the whole subject by sort of selectively picking out one line, which is really meaningless unless you combine it with the rest of the other parts of the definition of genocide of the convention.
So I just wanted to make sure.
So in other words, it sounds like what you're saying is this is a totalitarian country where the government recognizes no limit on their authority to regulate people's family life to the nth degree.
And they're all getting it essentially the same.
And so as horrible as that is, you're disputing that they're really being singled out for being Uyghurs and Muslims.
Is that it?
Absolutely right.
That's that's exactly the point.
That was where I was going in my next breath, shall we say.
It's exactly right that what's happening there in China is definitely a totalitarian, if you will, approach to to the subject of population control, which has been extremely effective in terms of what they set out to do and and effective in making it possible, arguably, for China to to achieve a great deal more much faster than perhaps any other country has over the past several decades.
But but, you know, at the cost of imposing practices on the population, which are against the will of at least, you know, a large part of the population and and which, you know, can be criticized on that basis.
But certainly calling a genocide is another whole level, which is not simply not justified by the by the evidence.
And furthermore, the point that really has to be made at the outset, talking about the whole question of China's population policy, is that it was from the beginning a policy that established harsh, if you will, harsh limits on birth births by the Han majority.
And it did so at a time when the Uyghurs were being exempted from those harsh measures or those harsh limitations on on the number of births that could be used by or allowed to the Han Chinese population.
The limit was one child per family for the urban Han population and two children for rural Han population.
And the the Uyghurs were allowed to have two children for urban couples and three children for rural couples.
So so they were given a very distinctly more favorable, if you will, in terms of their own desires, a more favorable situation in regard to freedom to practice their their own family planning.
Now, of course, Uyghurs, you know, want to have large families.
Their culture is one of of definitely wanting large families, even more than Han Chinese after several decades under under Chinese communist rule.
And so the reality is that, in fact, Uyghurs had in many cases, I can't give you a specific percentage, but in a very large proportion of cases, they were having much larger families and Zenz himself even concedes that the Uyghurs often had eight or even nine children in their families.
And so it's pretty well documented that that they were not at all subject to meaningful limits on their family planning as the Han Chinese were until 2017.
And then, you know, the Chinese government made a fundamental decision, a policy decision that both Han Chinese and Uyghurs would be subject to the same limits on family planning, the same one that the Uyghurs had been subject to before.
Two children for urban couples, three children for rural couples.
And that represented a major, of course, a major concession to the Han Chinese.
It allowed them a much greater freedom compared with what they had been subject to before.
And so this is the context, really the policy context in which these statistics are, you know, should be should be evaluated.
And, you know, I think Zenz does not deny that, but he he Zenz steers the reader away from that fundamental reality, which puts an entirely different slant on an entirely different perspective on the whole question of limits on Uyghur families.
And again, you know what, I've been writing a history book about the Middle East for the last little while.
And I know so little about this, but at least the stories coming out right are that this is all taking place at the same time that they're rounding all these people up and trying to berate them out of their religious beliefs and kind of trying to Han and eyes them somehow or something like that.
Is that not right?
Because that's a genocide in its own sense, right?
Cut all cut all the Navajos hair off and put them in white Christian schools and force them to become us.
Well, I mean, you could you can make an argument that the policy toward toward the Uyghurs has now tended towards, you know, making them more like the Han.
I mean, there's no question about that.
I mean, they are, you know, that process has already begun.
Let's let's start with that.
But I'm just saying, like the the birth rate stuff that we're talking about is in the context of all of that, too, right, that they're correct.
So so but but I think I just want to make the point here that the that what you're talking about, the the the policy of making Uyghurs more like Han, which which does exist, no question about it, is in large part the the inevitable consequence of development in Xinjiang province, which has benefited both Han Chinese and Uyghurs.
And Uyghurs have participated in that, you know, very strongly.
I mean, they have gotten jobs.
They have worked in the urban area of Xinjiang.
And that doesn't mean all of them have been.
Some of them have have held back and for whatever reason, because they didn't have the qualifications to get those jobs or whatever.
They have been outside, you know, the modern economy of Xinjiang province of China.
But you know, that process had already begun.
And you know, it is you know, you can compare the situation in Xinjiang with, let's say, the Navajos or or other tribes in the United States who are moved out west, whether it's Midwest or Far West, and basically left to their own devices, except for, as you say, putting the children in in Western schools.
But you know, the comparison breaks down because, in fact, Uyghurs have been not just allowed, but encouraged to participate in the development in Xinjiang in a way that has improved their lot by, you know, but by a degree that is simply incomparable in terms of you can't compare it with the Native Americans at all.
They were they were simply left to rot, essentially.
And that has not been the case with the Uyghurs.
So so there are two sides to the policy is all I'm saying.
Hey, y'all, let me tell you about the Libertarian Institute's latest book, What Social Animals Owe to Each Other, by our executive editor, the great Sheldon Richman.
For decades, Richman has been explaining libertarianism to the left, from the left.
He makes a strong case that any honest liberal, progressive or leftist actually should be libertarians, since, in fact, it is freedom itself that provides what y'all want.
Richman argues the case for liberty and peace, the human spirit and social cooperation for true liberalism, libertarianism against the corrupt forces of statism, corporatism and violence.
What Social Animals Owe to Each Other by Sheldon Richman now available at Libertarian Institute dot org slash books.
Hey, guys, Scott Horton here from Mike Swanson's great book, The War State.
It's about the rise of the military industrial complex and the power elite after World War II, during the administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy.
It's a very enlightening take on this definitive era on America's road to world empire.
The War State by Mike Swanson.
Find it in the right hand margin at Scott Horton dot org.
OK, so break down more statistics, then.
I mean, you don't have just the birth rate stuff.
You're going for more than that here, right?
Well, I think the thing that Zenz puts forward as the the single biggest argument for genocide is that the rates of population growth in the Uyghur community fell by 84 percent in the two most heavily Uyghur prefectures of Xinjiang between 2015 and 2018.
This is his sort of the single biggest argument that he makes.
But he he fails to put that into context where we provide fuller expression of the statistical reality that has qualified, you know, has characterized the status of of the Uyghurs and the Han over the last 10 years or so.
And you begin with the fact that over the last 10 years, the Uyghur population growth has increased by a factor of two two point six compared with the Han population growth.
It's two point six times larger than the Han population growth over the last.
So in other words, it sounds like when the Democrats and the Republicans, for that matter, are talking about a cut, but they're just talking about a cut in the projected rate of growth.
They don't mean a real cut at all.
It sounds like the same thing here.
You're talking about the growth is still steady.
It's just decreased a bit as it continues to rise.
Yeah, that the growth rate is smaller, and in fact, the growth rate fell precipitously in 2017, 2018, when in fact, the Uyghurs were for the first time subject to the same limits.
But in other words, it's still a growth rate.
It's not just a decline rate.
It's still a growth rate.
It's just a lower one.
Right.
It's a growth rate over the 10 year period.
In the last couple of years, of course, it's gone down significantly.
But I think that's a fair way to put it.
OK.
All right.
And then what's this about framing free health care as genocide?
I could see that.
I mean, we're talking about communist China here, right?
Right.
Right.
I mean, this is this is just the weirdness of Adrian Zenz coming to the fore, although, you know, you'd have to really know a bit more than you would from reading his own paper or the press coverage of it, the media coverage of it, to understand this.
I mean, he's claiming that what the programs that the Chinese government has put into operation in Xinjiang in recent years, which have essentially made special efforts to raise the health status of the Uyghur population, sending these these groups of of military and civilian people out to do examinations and to give them medicine and, you know, give them other means of improving their health status.
He's treating this as part of a genocidal policy, which which is completely off the wall.
And and, you know, it's just part of the broader problem of Zenz as an extremist who was bound to misinterpret virtually everything within the context of his own crazy ideas.
And then so, you know, I think that Max Blumenthal had written in the past about some Australian think tank that was putting out all this propaganda, too.
Did you review that stuff?
I have seen it, but I'm not in a position to really discuss it in detail, to tell you the truth.
I mean, I I just know that he did do a takedown of this.
This government funded.
In fact, it's the excuse me, it's the it's the think tank that serves the military and intelligence apparatus of Australia.
So, I mean, just know that that that that outfit was putting forward propaganda that fit its own interests about about China, which, you know, of course, Australia has bought into, at least in part, to the U.S. take on China's the threat from China.
So it was part of it was part in that it was in that larger context.
And then so what's all this about exiles?
I got flashbacks of Ahmed Chalabi on frontline and him and his buddies promising we're going to find all these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And a friend of mine said to me, oh, yeah, no, I saw these Chinese dissidents on frontline.
Oh, no, not frontline.
Who are these dissidents and what kind of shine or are they shuffling?
Well, there was there was one woman who was was a star, the star of this of this entire show of of Uyghurs who tell their stories to Western outfits about how horribly they were treated.
She claimed that she was sent to one of these detention centers and was was tortured, mistreated physically.
And then later on, she was interviewed by another another outlet and admitted that, well, there was no physical mistreatment, but it was mental mistreatment.
And then in a third time, she went back to the original story.
So, I mean, this is just an example of the kind of thing that you're going to find when there is a when the fix is in, you know, when when the the media are looking for people to sort of carry forward the storyline that has already been put out, you're going to find plenty of of people in the Uyghur community who will who will tell you, you know, stories that that will, you know, raise raise people's hair.
And I don't doubt that there has been physical mistreatment.
Don't get me wrong.
I think there has been physical mistreatment of some of the Uyghurs in the detention centers.
Beyond that, I would not venture to go.
I mean, you know, I don't know how serious it is, but but we also have this problem that there's going to be exaggeration.
And the people who tell the stories initially, at least, are not necessarily the ones who have actually been mistreated.
Yeah.
And you know what, too?
I mean, I'm still going through my withdrawals from the little seven year old Syrian girl asking Obama and Trump to start World War Three if you have to, to save the Syrian people, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And don't forget the situation in Kuwait with the young lady who tearfully told the story of the babies who were removed from their from the cradles that kept them warm.
Yeah.
The incubators.
The incubators.
Sorry.
The incubators.
Yes.
It's a long history of this, as you know, better than hardly anybody else.
Yeah.
And, you know, yeah, I agree with you, too, that we are talking about a totalitarian dictatorship here.
So if exile has a story to tell, it might very well be true.
Come on.
We also live in the declining American empire, where our national security establishment is just panicked and terrified about the rise of Chinese power in the world, and they're trying to do everything they can to contain it, which can seemingly only backfire anyway.
So far, it seems to be only backfiring anyway.
And it's clear that they'll glom onto anything that they can, just like if they're demonizing Saddam or the Ayatollah or David Koresh or anybody else on their hit list, you know.
Yeah.
I would just start with the point that it would be a safe rule of thumb not to trust stories of Uyghur women who claim that they were gang raped in detention centers.
I don't think that's going to be the way that mistreatment is going to be manifesting itself in those centers.
Or at least, yeah, let's have a little cooperation after, you know, Muammar Gaddafi's army using Viagra to rape their way across.
There's so many examples.
We could spend the rest of the afternoon just talking about the fake claims that you...
Remember when Bill Clinton pretended that the Serbs had murdered 100,000 innocent Kosovar civilians in order to start the war in 99?
I admit that I had not had that on my mind for a long time.
But thank you for reminding me.
Good times.
Yeah, boy, that never happened, I'll tell you what.
Yeah, no, there's an endless list of them.
But yeah, I agree with you that...
And we are in a difficult position, too, where there is a bit of an iron curtain here where I don't know who all has gone to Xinjiang to check this out for themselves or what they could possibly learn on the ground there in these circumstances.
And I have no idea what kind...
The limits of the abuse that these people are putting up with.
For all I know, they're torturing them to death like the CIA.
But...
Well, I think there's a huge difference here between what we're talking about in Xinjiang and what the CIA has done for a whole raft of reasons.
But I want to get into that.
I think the other thing that I haven't talked about...
Well, I guess just to finish that thought, I was just going to say, but let's see the proof before I believe anything.
Just like, yeah, Saddam Hussein tortured people to death.
That's not a lie, but I just don't think that's a good enough reason to start a war.
And the stories about him went far beyond that, et cetera, et cetera.
Real context matters.
Definitely not.
Now, the point that I wanted to raise before we finish, to make sure that this is part of what people understand about the situation.
And Max and I did not get into this in the article, and I had intended to do so in my initial draft, but it just turns out that I could not figure out precisely how to make the linkage between the two.
But look, there certainly is a relationship here between the detention of Uyghurs in these camps in Xinjiang and the fact that the Uyghurs were involved, heavily involved in terrorism, not just outside of China and particularly Xinjiang, but particularly in Xinjiang for many years.
I mean, they carried out a campaign of terrorism, which was pretty horrific in Xinjiang.
And you know, it was the government began to respond in 2014 in a new way, but it still had not gone to these detention camps yet.
But by 2017, 2016, 2017, you had the convergence of this situation regarding population policy and the need to deal with the fact that the Uyghurs were going way beyond their new limits in 2017.
And on one hand, and the fact that the Uyghurs, they knew the Uyghurs were still connected with a international Uyghur system of terrorism.
They just they were having trouble figuring out how to nail it down.
And so I think they made a huge mistake.
But what they did was to try to combine these two things.
And I think, you know, it was a huge mistake.
But I don't doubt that there is, you know, that is a big reason why you have a harsh treatment of Uyghurs in these detention camps.
Do you think CIA was behind that campaign?
Which campaign?
No.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I know that to rewind it, to go back, no, I mean, no, no, I'm not saying I'm not suggesting CIA was behind the Uyghur terrorism campaign.
I don't have no reason to believe that or I do.
I mean, again, you know, Eric Margulies, and this goes back, but, you know, when Eric Margulies saw the Uyghurs training at what he said, and I've asked him about this again, I should put you in touch with him.
You can ask him all the follow up questions in the world about it.
But he said they were CIA camps in Afghanistan where Uyghurs were training in the summer of 01.
So it was obviously a Clinton era program that was continuing into the Bush Jr. years.
And this is a month or two before the September 11th attack.
And that they were for use against the Chinese is what they were for.
And then as recently as, what, 2015, we have Seymour Hersh talking about thousands and there's other reporting to thousands of Uyghurs who went to Syria to and that's, you know, the Turks have this kind of band of influence from the old Ottoman Empire of the the Turkic countries, you know, spanning all the way from Turkey to China and that whole and there are guys, right?
The Turks funneling these guys from far western China to Syria to fight against Assad.
And so but that's all I know.
Now, I don't know anything specifically about the CIA using them inside China since the war on terrorism began.
But I'm just saying it's a good question.
You know, it's a question to be to be examined.
No question about it.
But I just I would say that we're talking about a very complicated set of of different periods and of different types of terrorism and that, you know, you're going to have to distinguish among those.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
That's all.
But yeah, I mean, would you be surprised to find out that, you know, some intelligence officials say that actually we kind of brought this on the Uyghurs by supporting these, you know, Robert Pape talked about how terrorism in China doesn't really work, that terrorism is a lot more effective in democracies where people can really react.
But the government in Beijing is not so movable.
So terrorism against them is likely to bring a clampdown, but it's not likely to bring any positive results for those provoking the reaction.
Only negative.
And, you know, it's it's not unimaginable that an intelligence agency could decide to try to do that.
But it would be different from the previous sort of notions of what to do about terrorism.
I think, you know, that that's that's worth it's worth further investigation, although I don't know how to do it.
Tell you the truth.
Well, good.
I mean, I'm sorry, because I'm not asking you to speculate, but just if you heard anything or anything, I know, you know, it came out.
There was long suspicions about this and but there had been very little written about it.
But then there's a leaf strat for email where they talk pretty good detail about the CIA and Saudi effort to bankroll the Chechen terrorists in their fight against the Russians, which the official story there, which I'm sure is true, right, is that Bill Clinton actually paid for the entire cost of Yeltsin and Putin's war in Chechnya.
They picked up the bill for that war against those terrorists.
The same time the CIA was backing them and helping the Saudis back them in that thing.
That's a really bad one.
We should learn a lot more about that.
But we got one really good strat for email that doesn't leave much doubt that it's true.
It's a great story.
If one can document it, that's for sure.
Yeah, absolutely.
All right.
Well, listen, I'm glad you're on this.
You know, obviously, the empire is changing the subject to China.
And so the Middle East is still important.
But this is the one that could get us all killed while this in the Cold War with Russia, too.
And so I can tell you, as I think I have already, I'm planning to really focus much more on China in the future, in the near future.
All right.
Well, thank God for that.
All right.
Appreciate you, Garrett.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks very much, Scott.
All right, you guys, that's the great Gareth Porter.
He is right in the gray zone.
This one, he's sharing a byline with Max Blumenthal, actually.
And it's also reprinted at Antiwar.com come Monday.
Anyway, U.S. State Department accusation of China, quote, genocide, relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far right ideologue.
That's a hell of a headline.
I'm surprised Garrett's Eric Garris didn't make me rewrite it.
The Scott Horton Show, Antiwar Radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APSradio.com, Antiwar.com, ScottHorton.org, and LibertarianInstitute.org.
