Alright, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm happy to welcome Ray McGovern back to the show.
He's the co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which is asking a bit much, I think, Ray.
Welcome back to the show.
Thanks very much, Scott.
Good to be with you.
Yeah, well, I'm glad to have you here.
Everybody, look at ConsortiumNews.com, which, that's your home base for all your writing nowadays, right?
It is.
The great Robert Perry, of course, was just on the show the other day.
Alright, so you have this piece at AntiWar.com today, which I guess I assume first ran there at Consortium News.
Yeah, it says so at the bottom here.
Military tribunal may keep 9-11 motives hidden.
So go ahead.
Hit them, Ray.
What?
Well, the whole exercise is designed to suppress information coming out of the trial.
If you have a public federal trial, you have, number one, a much wider audience.
People like you and me can go and sit there.
Number two, it's very hard for judges or juries to act in a prejudicial way to those being accused.
And number three, it's just really harder for folks to act in a way that just is patently unjust.
Now, if you put it in Guantanamo, wow, there you have a very small audience.
It can be cherry-picked.
You can pick the correspondents or the journalists that you can depend on to be discreet and not to say much about the $64 question, and that is, why?
Why did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those associates, why did they plot, plan, and carry out 9-11?
This is assuming that they did, but until we come up with a better scenario, let's assume that for the purposes of this discussion.
Why?
Why did they do it?
Now, the American people have been treated to all manner of suggestions here, first and foremost by our president, George W. Bush, who said, clearly, they hate our democracy, they hate our freedoms, and so that's why they did it.
Now, that's patently ridiculous, but you wouldn't find that out from anything written by the stenographers in the White House press room.
They suppressed their smiles and went ahead and never dared ask a question as to, now, really, why?
Why really did they do it?
Now, only Helen Thomas of recent memory, thank goodness she's still alive and kicking, but only she raised the question, and that was in connection with the president's appearance to try to explain what happened over Detroit on Christmas Day two years ago when Abdulmutallab was carrying this underpants bomb.
So what the president did was sort of chastise very, very gingerly the sophomores who were responsible for not putting the dots together this time, and then he said, okay, John Brennan, my chief guru for counterterrorism, he'll answer your questions.
So Helen Thomas, after some of the others asked ridiculous questions like, you know, how secure now, how good are the x-ray machines and all that kind of stuff, so Helen Thomas says, well, why do they want to do us harm?
What's their motivation?
We never hear what you find out about why.
Well, Brennan talks about, look, Al-Qaeda has an agenda of destruction and death, and they're attracted by religious fundamentalists.
And so Thomas says, well, so you're saying it's because of religion?
Brennan, I'm saying it's because of Al-Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse way, Thomas.
But why, Brennan?
Al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland, Thomas.
You still haven't explained why.
Now, why?
Well, what do we have in the way of evidence?
Well, people would be shocked to hear that we have a whole series of pieces that's hardly difficult to put together indicating what the terrorists themselves and specifically Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have said about their motivation.
You know, it was really sort of strange.
The 9-11 Commission people, the young folks putting that report together, were working hard and preparing their final drafts when all of a sudden they read in the Washington Post, hey, they caught the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
They got him.
I got an idea.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
Let's ask him why he did it.
Yeah, that's what we're supposed to be working on, right?
So they go to the CIA, and the CIA goes to their agents.
And three times removed, the answer comes back.
Well, what he says is, and I'll read you how this comes out in the 9-11 report.
It's on page 147 for those of you who have that report.
Here's the quote.
By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.
Wow.
Have you seen that in any newspaper?
No.
Why did they think that maybe it stemmed from his experience there as a student?
Well, he has a degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina A&T in Greensboro, North Carolina.
So, you know, these young people writing this report were thinking, well, maybe he had an affair of the heart, or maybe somebody called him a raghead.
You know, he must have had a really bad experience in Greensboro.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says, no, no, no, no.
It's because of, I have a violent, you know, keyword, violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.
Now, it's amazing to me that not only was that suppressed from any press reporting, but five years later, here we go, five years later, August 30, 2009, you recall that the 9-11 Commission report was July of 2004.
So more than five years later, the Post cites a unspecified, quote, intelligence summary, end quote, for a brand new explanation about why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he did it.
And here it is.
I'll read it to you again, quote, from the Post this time.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's negative experience in the United States, which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills, almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist.
He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country, period, end quote.
Wow.
So now the Post is counting on us to either not having read what he said in the 9-11 Commission report or forgetting about it.
After all, five years, you know, you forget a lot of stuff.
Well, you know, it's hard to give the Post the benefit of the doubt.
But, well, let's say, you know, it wasn't until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 183rd border boarding session that he came out with this explanation, which, after all, is a much more politically convenient one.
This has nothing to do with Israel.
This has something to do with a fellow who was in jail for unpaid bills, and that propelled him on his path to becoming a terrorist, and confirmed his view that the United States was a racist and debauched country.
So what you get is a real feel for what would happen, what would happen if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four and their lawyers explained why they did it.
They don't care about getting, you know, getting off on this rap.
They've confessed to it already.
They expect to spend the rest of their lives in jail.
But they're going to make hay out of the opportunity to explain what they're trying to change and what their animus, as the thing says.
So it's pretty clear that this new procedure in the military courts will squelch most of that, if not all of that real rationale.
Yeah, it reminds me of that Bush press conference right before the invasion of Iraq, where one of the reporters called out an attorney and said, hey, hey, hey, this is a scripted...
All right, hold it right there, everybody.
It's Ray McGovern, former CIA, now a good guy.
We'll be right back.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Ray McGovern from ConsortiumNews.com and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Now, I was thinking, Ray, that it might be beneficial for our audience, and I'll try to help out where I can, but I was wondering if maybe you could start listing your very best footnotes that you rely on for this conclusion of yours that American support for Israel has anything to do with our terrorism problem, because, of course, as you said, that point of view is...
Whether it's in the official 9-11 commission or not, that information is complete, or that point of view, anyway, is completely blocked out from the TV news.
So here's your chance to tell people where they can look it up for themselves to really know this for themselves.
That's a really good request, because we do fact-based intelligence.
We don't do ideological or faith-based intelligence.
We stick to the facts.
Here's one for you.
I was surprised at the source.
He was our vice president, and his name is Dick Cheney.
The date is May 21, 2009.
Here's the quote.
The terrorists have never lacked for grievances against the United States.
Our belief in freedom of speech and religion, our belief in equal rights for women, our support for Israel, these are the true sources of resentment.
Whoa.
Our support for Israel is a true source of resentment on the part of the terrorists.
Now, how is it that Cheney said that?
He must have some brain damage from that last heart thing in the jig of his.
You know, every now and then he forgets himself, and particularly when he's out of office, he has no smart people preventing him from saying that.
Wonder of wonders, that part happens to be true, okay?
They do hate us because of our support for Israel.
If we didn't give Israel the right wing Israeli government, is what I'm talking about here, if we didn't give them $3 billion a year, they wouldn't be able to oppress the Palestinians the way they did, whether it's in the West Bank or whether it's in Gaza.
So there's one.
Okay, now, if you look at the 9-11 Commission report, and you go up to page 147, and you see what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said under their interrogation, namely that his planning and his action stems from violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel, well, there's a little footnote section there, okay?
And it shows that he's not the only mastermind that was so motivated.
Do you remember when they tried to knock down the Twin Towers, or at least one of them, back in September of 2003?
Yeah, well, it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Youssef, and he tried to knock down one into the other, which could have killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Right.
Now, Youssef was described as being really violently opposed to U.S. foreign policy.
Now, do you suppose that was our policy toward Guam, or perhaps toward NATO expansion?
Obviously, what the newspapers left out was what Ramzi Youssef said, and this is what he said in a letter before they caught him.
This is a letter to the New York Times after the bombing, but before they caught him.
We declare our responsibility for the explosion in the building.
The action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and the rest of the dictator countries in the region.
Now, they captured him, and of course they tried him, and after he was sentenced, he said, Look, you know, I'm proud to be sentenced to 140 years in a federal prison because it gave me a chance to tell the world why I did it and why it's necessary to stop the oppression of the Palestinians.
And so there you have just a couple of instances where it's very clear.
The two guys that tried to knock down the Twin Towers, both of them said why they did it, and there's lots of other things.
There's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself.
You know, he said that the purpose of the attack, and this is according to Moussaoui, Zahariyous Moussaoui, who was convicted and sent away for life, he described the purpose of the attack, that is, Mohammed, was to, quote, wake up the American people.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly a military or a government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab and Muslim peoples.
Now, there you have it.
Here's a statement from Moussaoui.
You know, he was the fellow that was captured in Minneapolis.
He was the fellow that was trying to learn how to drive planes, didn't really care much about taking off or landing, just wanted to be able to steer them.
They caught him, but too late did the FBI permit the agents in Minnesota to debrief him.
But they did try him, and that's what he said.
Let me give you one last one because this is really key.
People suggested that I'm making this up or that there's something else behind these charges, but there's clear as the nose on your face, as my grandmother used to say.
Here's the hearings, June 2004, before the 9-11 Commission, okay?
Commissioner Lee Hamilton, he asks a panel of government experts, you know, CIA, FBI, and the rest of them.
He says, quote, what motivated the hijackers to do it, end quote.
Now, if you look at the video, the CIA analyst, who I know, he wants to duck under the table.
He looks at the others in some panic and he's hoping that somebody will rise to the occasion because this is politically loaded.
If he says they did it because of Israel, he loses his job, okay?
So FBI Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald rises to the occasion.
I don't think he's in any relation to the other Fitzgerald.
What Fitzgerald says, James Fitzgerald, quote, I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States.
They identify with the Palestinian problem.
They identify with the people who oppose oppressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.
Now, that was the politically incorrect answer.
Yes, did it appear in the 9-11 Commission report?
No.
Absent from that report, just as so much other stuff was absent.
So, you know, there's a legitimate and urgent question, you know, why would people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and these are no dopes, you know, why would they do these kinds of things?
And if you look at the Goldstone report, before he backtracked a little bit, you see that even when they attacked Gaza, there were 1,400 Palestinians killed to 13 Israelis.
Now, why is it that none of this gets in the newspaper in quite this form, if at all?
Well, it's because, well, take the Goldstone report, for example.
You know, this guy is an internationally recognized jurist.
He's actually a Jew, comes from South Africa, there was a staggering civilian death toll unwarranted by any threat to Israel.
Well, what does our House of Representatives do?
Well, they vote 344 to 36 to denounce the Goldstone report as being inaccurate.
Actually, what they called it was unbalanced and unfair.
If you want to talk about a display of calling the kettle black, there you have it.
So what happens here?
Well, the Congress is under the influence of the pro-liquid lobby, the AIPAC kinds of folks who put them in their positions and can remove them from their positions.
And that's why you don't hear about it, and that's why when people look on from abroad, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and they see the massacre of 1,400 Gazans with 13 Israelis killed, some of them by friendly fire, by the way, and then the supreme indignity of watching the United States Congress dismiss this report by a 344 to 36 vote, well, they can only conclude that the lives of 1,400 Palestinians really don't amount to a hill of beans in the terms of the United States policymakers.
And I'm sorry to say that's a logical conclusion.
So what motivates these guys to do these things?
Well, they don't have jet fighters.
They don't have missiles.
What they do have is a lot of ingenuity.
And in this case, they had a feckless homeland security setup which allowed them to bring it off.
So if we don't look at these things, if we don't look at the real reasons, then we'll never get to a point where we'll think about, well, maybe our joint-at-the-hip relationship with Israel is not a good thing for us, much less for Israel.
And I want to chime in just a couple of footnotes here before we move on, Ray, and that, first of all, would be Osama bin Laden's original fatwa from 1996, not that he's really a religious authority, but anyway, it was called the Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.
And he says in there that people who believe his way ought to kill Jews and crusaders, that's us, anywhere in the world they can find them, civilians too, and all the rest of this.
And he goes on at length, despite the propaganda, some Johnny come lately to the Palestinian issue or something, he goes on at length about the situation in Palestine and in Lebanon, where he had just arrived in Afghanistan after Bill Clinton got the Sudanese to expel him from there, and so they put him out there in Afghanistan, and it was right at the same time as the Kana massacre in Lebanon, the first one, and it takes up, I don't know, five paragraphs or something, and that original Declaration of War is all about Americans must pay for their support for Israel that does X, Y, and Z in Palestine and in Lebanon, and then CNN and ABC News especially did the best reporting on going to Afghanistan and interviewing the guy and filming it and getting good translations and transcripts for everybody to read at the time when this whole thing started from their side back then, and they go on and on and on about Palestine, Bin Laden and Zawahiri both.
And then one more footnote I wanted to add, Ray, is that the book Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott, who's an LA Times reporter, it's the biography basically of the Hamburg cell mostly, and he talks in there about Mohammed Atta and Ramzi bin al-Shib, one of whom was the lead hijacker that day, the other of whom is in Guantanamo awaiting his trial right now, would sit around in their apartment in Germany and talk about how the Americans must pay for what they're watching the Israelis do to the Palestinians and the Lebanese that day on TV in their house.
They look at Palestine and then they look across the Atlantic at us, where the responsibility lies.
Yeah, Scott, those are really good things to adduce here because it is very clear that Osama bin Laden has said those things, but they don't appear on the front page of the New York Times.
Rather, you go back to page 19 and to the bottom, the 23rd paragraph in the long story.
The business about Atta and the others, what motivated them, it's pretty clear.
But if you bring this thing up to the present and you talk about how it is, that even though Eric Holder is still scratching his head saying, oh gosh, I know that our justice system created by the Constitution, I know we can do this.
Well, who's preventing it?
Well, one is a lack of spine on his part and the part of his boss, but even more important is the Congress.
The Congress has now passed laws forbidding anybody to be taken to the United States to be tried in a federal criminal court.
Now, these were criminal offenses.
300 murders or thereabouts, okay?
Isn't that a war?
It's a criminal offense.
And yet for all his eloquence, for all his background, Holder had his hands tied unless he and his boss had more guts than they actually do.
So why did Congress do this?
Well, Congress, as I pointed out before, by the lopsided votes they take every time Israel comes up, was hell-bent and determined that they would not allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or his buddies to have public access to TV and tell their story about why they did it.
And Senator Lieberman is probably the most pro-Israeli guy in the Senate.
And, you know, you can look at his statements.
He said very recently, quote, Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a public courtroom in full view of the public gives him a better platform than any member of al-Qaeda has been given so far to recruit new members and to tell his side of the story.
Now, when people say to me, McGovern, his side of the story, they did it because they hate us, McGovern, because they're fanatics.
They did it because they just want to do harm to the United States, as John Brennan said.
Doesn't that do it for you?
No, it doesn't do it for me.
And unless we conduct this passionate debate, unless we ask people like Lieberman what he really means here by curtailing the ability of somebody who's going to be sentenced to life, if not death, the ability to speak.
Now, they will have a chance in the sentencing phase of things, but one wrinkle of putting in a military court is that the constitutionality and the procedures are so questionable under the law, under our law and under our constitution, that there are bound to be appeals after appeals after appeals, even if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of them would just as soon go to Florence prison and stay there for the rest of their lives.
So what will that mean?
Well, that will mean that there will never be really a chance for them to do a sentencing statement.
And I already repeated what Ramzi Youssef said when he was sentenced to 140 years in a federal penitentiary, namely that he was proud and glad because he did it to highlight the injustice being done to the Palestinians.
So it's a kind of shut and dried case here, as far as I'm concerned.
Now they have moved it to Guantanamo, of all places.
You know, Guantanamo is about the worst possible place you can move something like this.
Besides its reputation abroad, it gives the government all kinds of extra opportunities to delimit the people who can come to stamp a classified stamp virtually at will, to censor the transcripts.
And there's very little scrutiny when you put it behind the military walls there.
And in cherry-picking the correspondence, well, you're unlikely to get the kind of people who are going to report factually on this, no matter what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shouts out at this or that point in the proceedings.
It'll be like the proverbial tree falling in the forest.
Nobody is going to be around to hear it.
Nobody with the guts to report it.
So it's a masterstroke.
It really, really, the neocons are breathing a lot easier today because there's very little chance that what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his associates will say about U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, that that will be given the time of day.
All right.
Now, I actually want to keep you one more segment, too, because I really want to give you a chance to explain what it is about what Israel does in Palestine and or Lebanon and et cetera that is so offensive, supposedly, to these people.
But I also wanted to mention, if that's okay with you...
Sure.
No problem.
Okay, great.
But I also wanted to mention the flip side of this whole thing is about, at least in supposedly the words of Benjamin Netanyahu as quoted in Haaretz, the attack on the World Trade Center and he also included the American struggle in Iraq, he called it, have been a great benefit to us.
And really this happened in 1993 with the first World Trade Center attack, but especially after September 11th, Netanyahu was on Fox News by the 12th saying, see, your enemies are our enemies, but twist it all the other way around.
It's their Islam.
We're on the front line of your war against these terrible Islamic terrorists.
And that is the argument that's won the day here.
Yeah, that's unfortunately very clear.
The way that was exploited, you will recall that it wasn't two days after 9-11 when Ariel Sharon sent his tanks into the West Bank, into Beilin, into the other places there, surrounding Ramallah, making Arafat a hostage in his own West Bank quarters.
It was very cynical.
And it was no surprise that George Bush, that's part of the problem, George Bush's affinity for this kind of policy and his effect for Ariel Sharon.
All right, well, little did those hijacker guys know, they were cluing right into our Jungian subconscious.
It came out of the clear blue sky.
There's no other explanation for it.
I saw it right on TV.
All right, hold it right there, everybody.
It's Ray McGovern.
One more segment with him after this.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Ray McGovern from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and ConsortiumNews.com.
And, Ray, you know, we've kind of, you know, a lot of this maybe to somebody just driving by in their truck tuning into the radio might sound a little bit inside baseball.
I tend to think about, you know, my own understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian situation before I started, you know, really trying to find out about it myself, you know, quite a few years ago now.
But I sort of think that my old understanding of it is pretty much equivalent to the average American's understanding of it, and that is who, what, and what's the West Bank, and where's that?
And it's certainly not clear that the Israelis have been occupying this land militarily and colonizing it for the last, you know, 40 years.
It's just not made clear to the average American understanding by way of the television even what the situation is there at all.
I mean, those Palestinian kids just throw rocks and blow themselves up all the time, and what the hell is the matter with them anyway?
And so, you know, here you're telling me that whatever Israel's doing there is so bad that it motivates people to kill themselves in order to try to kill us for backing the Israelis and doing what they're doing.
What is it that's so problematic?
Well, it's a good idea to go back a little bit in history, and I'll do that very briefly.
After World War II, it was thought, widely thought, that the Jewish people who had been so traumatized and so many killed, that they were deserving of their own homeland.
And an arbitrary decision was made by the Western powers to emplace them in a part of Palestine already occupied by 750,000 Palestinians who had been there for a millennium, okay?
A thousand years.
The Israelis came in, and actually there was ethnic cleansing.
Starting in 1948, the Palestinians were driven out.
A little strip of land was carved out to be the State of Israel.
There was lots of support for this idea all over the world, and no recognition that the Palestinians really shouldn't have been treated in that manner.
The Palestinians, after all, had nothing to do with how the Jews were treated in Europe.
Matter of fact, the Palestinians and Jews lived fairly amicably together before the 20th century.
So, what we have now is the residue of that, the result of that.
And what we have now is an Israel that in 1967 decided to expand its borders, very much like Germany did in 1939.
Lebensraum was the term used there.
They needed more buffer zone because it was just a small little state.
And so they attacked the Egyptians, the Syrians, and everyone else, and enlarged their territory several fold.
They took over the West Bank, which is now their border with Jordan, and they took over Gaza.
They took over the Sinai, which is full of desert.
They gave that back to Egypt.
But they still occupy the West Bank and Gaza and parts of the Golan Heights belonging to Syria.
Now, in 1967, in November, after all this happened, the UN decided, the Security Council decided unanimously, Resolution 242, that Israel had to leave the occupied territories.
The U.S. voted for that resolution, one of the very few times when the U.S. voted correctly.
Now, that was 67, right?
The way I do my math, that's 44 years ago.
Did the Israelis give up any of that territory?
Well, as I said, the Sinai to Egypt, the desert they didn't really care about, and the Egyptians sort of co-opted to acquiesce in Israeli hegemony in that part of the world until Mubarak fell.
So, did they give up the West Bank or Gaza?
No.
The Golan?
No.
They are in possession.
They are occupying those territories for longer than the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, and that's a long time.
So, how did these people live?
Well, Gaza is a glorified open-air concentration camp by the count of anybody who's been there.
And I've been around the West Bank, and what you see are gleaming alabaster cities on top of the big hills, those are the settlements by Jews coming in there to settle those territories and, as they put it, create reality on the ground, create facts on the ground.
And the Palestinians are living in squalor, okay?
Now, let me just apply something you mentioned before.
Osama bin Laden has spoken about this.
I remember that on October 8th, which was the morning after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in retaliation for 9-11, on October 8th there were lots of reports in The New York Times, but there was one about what Osama bin Laden had said.
And what he said was this, and you had to read A19 or so to find it.
He said this.
He talked about a camel.
Now, a camel is not normally considered the most ferocious of animals, right?
But he said an owner of a camel was tying it up at a hitch place there, and he looked across, and on the other side of the street there was a butcher, and he had a big axe, and he was axing and dismembering a camel on the other side of the street.
The camel in question ran to the one that was being dismembered, bit off the hand of the butcher.
And what did Osama bin Laden say?
He said, so too the mothers and fathers of the Palestinians who are being treated like that camel, so too will there be retribution for that kind of treatment.
That's a pretty vivid analogy here.
As I say, camels are not normally considered ferocious animals, but that's what Osama bin Laden was being motivated by, as well as, and I have to concede this, as well as the U.S. occupation of what they call the Holy Sites in Saudi Arabia.
He didn't like that either.
But these are facts.
These are not speculations.
These are facts.
These are things that people say and facts on the ground.
Very few people know about the displacement, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel, and that's because there's a very, very pro-Zionist tone to the New York Times, The Washington Post, and many other media.
Similarly with the cable and network TV shows.
They're owned by a bunch of people who are subservient to this kind of mentality.
And so Americans, I think, have a basic sense of fairness.
Were they to know, and there's a whole nonprofit devoted to this.
It's called If Americans Knew, and it's an excellent source.
If Americans did know about this, I think they would say, Well, look, we don't begrudge Israel the right to exist, but we do think that the Palestinians have the right to have a decent existence too.
And not only in this altruistic way, but what happens when they don't?
What happens when they have no hope, Scott?
Well, we've seen it.
We've seen it here in this country.
After Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in 68, we had riots in Washington, okay?
Marian Wright Edelman, a good friend of ours, went down to 14th Street, and she saw this youth, you know, he had this big rock in his hand.
He was about 12 years old.
He was going to throw it in this picture window, and she says, Stop that, son.
She grabs his arm.
He looks up at her, and he says, Why?
And she says, Well, think of your future.
He looks up at her, and he says, Ma'am, I ain't got no future.
Wham!
Well, that's what you do when you ain't got no future.
People have been living in those concentration camps in Gaza far too long, and finally they got their act together, some of them.
We saw 9-11 happen, and that needs to come out because we need to change that policy.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for your time on the show.
I appreciate it, as always.
Ray, we'll have to leave it right there.
You're welcome, Scott.
All right, so that's Ray McGovern, ConsortiumNews.com.
