10/08/12 – Grant F. Smith – The Scott Horton Show

So, you're a libertarian, and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at ScottHorton.org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
In an empire where Congress knows nothing, the ubiquitous DC think tank is all.
And the Israel lobby and their neocon allies must own a dozen.
Well, Americans have a lobby in Washington, too.
It's called the Council for the National Interest at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
They advocate for us on Capitol Hill.
Join CNI to demand an end to the US-sponsored occupation of the Palestinians and an end to our government's destructive empire in the Middle East.
That's the Council for the National Interest at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers.com.
If you're like me, then you're right all the time, surrounded by people in desperate need of correction.
Well, we can't all have a radio show, but we can all get anti-government propaganda to stick on the back of our trucks.
Check out LibertyStickers.com.
Categories include anti-war, empire, police state, libertarian, Ron Paul, gun rights, founders quotes, and of course, the stupid election.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here.
After the show, you should check out one of my sponsors, WallStreetWindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by Mike Swanson, a former hedge fund manager who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
Mike's site, WallStreetWindow.com, is unique in that he shows people what he's really investing in, updating you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike's betting his positions are going to go up due to the Federal Reserve printing all that money to finance the deficit.
See what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
And if you'd like to sponsor the show, too, let me know at Scott at ScottHorton.org.
All right, y'all, welcome back to The Thing here.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Full interview archives are at ScottHorton.org.
More than 2,500 interviews now, going back to 2003.
And our first guest on the show today is Grant F. Smith from the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, that's IRMEP, I-R-M-E-P, dot org, IRMEP.org.
He's the author of a great many books about the influence of the Israel lobby on American foreign policy and some of the amazing shenanigans that they have gotten away with.
And I shouldn't say shenanigans, horrible crimes that they have gotten away with in America.
The latest is Divert, Numic, Zalman Shapiro, and the Diversion of U.S. Weapons-Grade Uranium into the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program.
No wonder they're always accusing everybody else of that all the time.
Welcome back to the show, Grant.
How are you doing?
Hey, Scott.
I'm glad to be back.
And yeah, that book is going to have to be rewritten in about a year because there's now a whole raft of documents going in for declassification on that incident.
So stay tuned.
Great.
And of course, the latest there was, oh no, the second to latest on that story is Netanyahu worked inside nuclear smuggling ring.
Now I interviewed you all about that, right?
Right.
I interviewed you all about that.
That was because the FBI released some documents which had Netanyahu at the Israeli end of a smuggling ring taking nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
And that got some coverage, too, and not as much as I would have liked, but it did get some notice.
It did, and there just isn't the sort of establishment media lift on that kind of story.
But I think in spite of the fact that it never appeared in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, people are commenting and you see it in comment sections of mainstream papers.
You know, whenever they talk about Iran's threat, you see, oh, well, what about Netanyahu and the Krytrons?
And so that's good.
It just means people are getting their information, but they're not necessarily getting it from, you know, those old mainstays.
Right.
And good riddance to them, too.
Well, not yet.
I mean, I think they're still still in a position to do a lot of, well, misinformation, if you want to be polite.
Yeah.
Well, you know, somebody's got to pay Charlie Savage and James Risen to do the real work, right?
There's still a couple of good reporters up there.
There are.
And I, you know, I think that's important to mention the fact that not everybody's co-opted.
Not everybody's the tool.
I mean, you've got to be a real dork like me to memorize the names of all the different reporters at the New York Times or whatever.
But there are some good ones there.
Yeah.
Broad and Sanger are not included, unfortunately.
Yeah.
No, certainly not.
Actually, you know what?
Broad can be OK if you team him up with Mazzetti.
But.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Apparently you put them with Sanger and they just magnify each other's horribleness.
OK.
Well, I didn't know that there's like this negative catalyst there.
I see patterns.
I see patterns.
All right.
Hey, listen.
So there's some really important stuff to talk about with you here.
And I played this clip on the show last week or the week before, whenever the hell it was.
But I want people to hear this.
It's only what, almost two minutes long.
Please be patient.
We'll be right back here with Grant F. Smith.
But I want everyone to hear this clip of Patrick Clawson at the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy talking about how we might could get into a war with Iran.
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough.
And it's very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.
Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II, as David mentioned.
Or we had to wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I.
You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.
Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam.
You may recall that he had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until the U.S.S., until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing, which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if, in fact, the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.
One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion on August 17th.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go down.
Someday one of them might not come up.
Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure.
I'm not advocating that.
But I'm just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition.
It's just sanctions has to succeed or other things.
We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.
We could get nastier with that.
Well, I'm not sure what to say because there's so many different things I want to say.
I'll just turn it over to you.
Grant, what do you think?
I think that statement, which has, as I wrote, creeped out a lot of people just for its sheer, you know, the U.S. needs to get into this war and can do so by fooling everybody with some sort of fake incident, is just really revealing about what the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is all about.
It's about not moving the U.S. toward any U.S. interest in this case, but in this case, touching off the desperately awaited for by the Israelis conflict between the U.S. and Iran.
And as you note, I wrote an article about it, not really dissecting that, which I'd like to hear your dissection of it, but talking about the true origin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and where it really came from and why, and in particular, when.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, I do want to get to that in just a minute.
But about that, about that statement there, I just want to boil it down because, you know, he kind of drones on for two minutes and maybe a little bit of it got lost in there.
But the bottom line, it sounds like what he's saying is this enemy state, Iran, they just won't do anything to us.
Right.
You know, apparently they're not really our enemy, but we want we're their enemy.
And so what we need to do is figure out a way to start a war, but make it look like they started the war.
That's what he's saying.
Right.
This is like Robert Stinnett said about, you know, Hitler.
He just would not attack America.
So Roosevelt had to provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor so that we could take out the Nazis.
Otherwise, the Nazis would have attacked us anyway.
Just as long as everybody's got that straight, you know, this is the way the American establishment thinks.
And apparently, as he cited there, this is the way the American establishment has always thought.
I mean, what's the new wrinkle here is that it's more on behalf of of Israel than England this time, I guess.
Right.
Well, the creepy thing about this is that the assumption is that the current administration wants to go to war with Iran and it just can't find the pretext.
And so somebody has to provide the pretext.
It's like, you know, calling in for outside help.
And so, you know, just this whole idea is is wrong.
But that's what you see coming from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Whenever you read an article, they always try and use the phrase American and Israeli intelligence analyst or American and Israeli officials think that.
And so it's this sort of diabolical pairing and saying that the U.S. is even looking to get into a conflict that's also, you know, it's obviously wrong, but it's part and parcel of kind of what this institute's been pumping out since 1984.
Yeah, it's amazing what you can get away with just by conflating ideas together with your jargon and getting away.
Nobody challenges you.
And you get to say American and Israeli interests this and Israeli and American intelligence agree that all the time.
Then you really do get away in in, you know, with creating in people's mind that real solid connection where, in fact, if you ask American intelligence guys anything, the first thing they'll say is that nothing the Israelis say is true, that they don't agree with a word of it ever.
You know.
Well, right.
And then they set up their own little institute so that they can serve as like a fact checker.
And, you know, the amazing thing is, is that this is not a gigantic organization.
It's only got about a nine million dollar a year budget.
And if you look on their Web site, you know, it's a relatively small handful of people.
But in terms of just sheer quotability, if you need the Israeli and American view of something and they're actively always asking for people to call their analysts like Patrick Kloss and, you know, that'll appear in the paper, that'll be the, you know, the quote, the money quote around which you can build a story.
And so, you know, back in the 1990s, it was whipping up the Iraq threat.
They were talking about yellow cake uranium flowing into Iraq.
And before that, 1989, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was working desperately because they were trying to figure out, as Martin Indyk said, what role Israel would play in a changing strategic environment where, you know, the Soviet Union, which had been kind of the reason that Israel was even considered an ally, if that was collapsing, you know, how are they going to keep the gravy train rolling to Israel in the absence of that threat?
And so you've got this organization through history, always communicating what or anticipating what the Israeli government needs and then working to provide it through some of the other organs of the Israel lobby.
It's really interesting to look, kind of do a nexus search back through all of their initiatives right back to the beginning and seeing how they angle and line up.
Right.
Well, and, you know, that's the whole thing about well, and let me be mean to you and play devil's advocate for a minute.
This is why you want them to register as agents of a foreign power, even though the Israel lobby really is Americans who, yeah, they put their love of a foreign country before America, but they're Americans.
Right.
But you want them to register because they're so damn good at playing the system that regular Americans who don't care at all about this or that other foreign country don't stand a chance against them.
Well, you know, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is different in that they usually have quite a number of Israeli officials on the payroll in Washington, D.C., working with their other analysts.
All right.
Well, so much for my argument.
That was the best I could come up with.
Yeah, but in some respects, they're even more.
I wouldn't say they're that good.
I think, again, if you've got linkage between these policy mills, which also provide political appointees, link those to AIPAC, which is working to channel the might of 50 other organizations into lobbying power on Capitol Hill connected to political action committees to donate to politicians and major individual donors.
I don't I don't think they're necessarily all that great.
I do think they have a dangerous lock on policy formulation.
And I point out repeatedly, as you know, the fact that they've gained their power illegitimately, whether it's through election fraud, whether it's through illegally coordinating campaign contributions, whether it's from stealing classified information.
So, you know, the foreign agents argument is certainly indicated when you look back through time and see that these organizations all track back to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
All right.
And now this piece at antiwar dot com going back spy crisis launched AIPAC's think tank, which you're referring to there about in the 1980s.
Right.
When the I guess the Washington Post, I'm always interested in how these things work, too.
Like when in 2004, when the FBI raided AIPAC over the Steve Rosen thing, it was Andrea Mitchell that got the story.
And it wasn't because she's such a great investigative reporter.
It was because AIPAC handed it to her in order to get it out in the news, in order to try to short circuit the investigation from being able to get much further before all the publicity gummed up the works.
And the politics role more than once.
She also was the voice hounding the Obama administration spokesperson for when exactly when Dennis Ross would be appointed to a key position in the administration.
So she has I mean, she's definitely part of this environment.
If you look at her as somebody who's a pro-Israel advocate in the U.S. press, she clearly plays a spoiler role in some of these other incidents as well.
Right.
Never mind the fact that she's sister reporting on the economy with a straight face when it was her husband singular who did this to us.
It's just absolutely amazing that she is got a job in journalism anywhere.
Not that it's her fault what he did, but it's a conflict of interest.
I'm sorry.
Come on.
But anyway, the point being that what I was trying to get to was the Washington Post published a story back in 1984 that said, hey, the FBI is looking into how the Israelis got this top secret information about their strategy for negotiating a trade deal that had apparently all this top secret proprietary information to these American corporations in their consultations with the government.
And all this was disclosed to the Israelis and that made it into the Post.
And it made me wonder whether that was the Post, you know, whose agenda they were serving by leaking it at the time.
But anyway, so you say the response APAC was for Martin Indyk to go ahead and split off and create went up in the first place just to make it more difficult to be prosecuted, to give the FBI more targets, more politically connected targets that maybe be too tough to go after.
Is that right?
The argument here is, you know, why was the Washington Institute now that we're looking at this, this organ, why was it formed?
And if you again go to their website, they say, well, we were established in 1985 by a bunch of prominent individuals.
And what I argue is that that's not true.
It was coincidence, but not coincidence in the in the way we normally, you know, pronounce that as a random act.
It was coinciding with an FBI investigation, which was a little bit spoiled by that Washington Post article.
I think that put a damper on it and rallied a lot of forces against the FBI, because at that time, you did have the Israelis and APAC, they had stolen classified information of these 70 organizations that did not want to provide trade preferences to Israel.
And this was Martin Indyk's big, big initiative in 1984.
He was, you know, really leading the research area that was putting together this massive access to the US market that Israel needed so desperately.
And so the argument I make is that, although it's been pretty good for the Israeli government to have this perch where they can, you know, provide all these military experts and, you know, have a place to go when Shimon Peres is in Washington.
The reason that Martin Indyk's wife and a couple of other people not associated with Middle East policy formulation, suddenly incorporated this just, you know, weeks after the FBI investigation was made public, was that that provided a way so that if somebody had to take the fall, this new little organization with all the culprits could have gone down and left APAC alone.
And as you know, I make that argument, not as a conspiracy theory, but because it's what APAC had experienced only 20 years before, when its parent organization, the American Zionist Council was suddenly ordered to register as an Israel government related entity after it had been found laundering money into the US political and press.
And so the argument is, it was very timely for this small unit, which really laid low throughout 1985 with no major announcements.
They didn't issue a big press release saying, oh, hey, we're here, we're going to be doing a lot of work, kind of laid low until Dennis Ross wrote a couple of papers talking about the need for the Reagan administration to, you know, rein in any peace initiatives and things like that, but kind of laid low until this espionage investigation was terminated after the Israeli who had gotten the stolen information claimed diplomatic immunity.
So I argue that there was a definite reason, a definite coincidence with this espionage investigation that helped form this organization.
It's funny too, how, you know, when you talk about how the Zionist Organization of America is that the one gets in 1962?
Yeah, the American Zionist Council, American Zionist Council.
So the state says, Nope, you got to sign up as a representative of foreign powers.
They go, okay, no problem.
We'll just create APAC then.
And then, and then so any pressure comes on their lobbying division.
Right.
So what happened is APAC simply incorporated and then they moved everybody over to APAC.
Yeah.
So can they, they can just do that.
They can just change the name and definitely now I don't think, well, I don't know, would, would the state department let any other countries representatives in America get away with that kind of, you know, obvious thing where can you do that?
Just change the name of your company and keep going.
In every other case, whether it was Germany or the Soviet Union or various Arab countries that dipped a toe into this pool of, Oh, Hey, we'll just put up a front group.
The answer is no.
And that's because the foreign agents registration act of 1938 is rigorously enforced in all other cases.
And in fact, a lot of laws are rigorously enforced.
The arms export control act is rigorously enforced.
You know, we'll go ballistic if different technologies used in nuclear weapons manufacturing go missing and are diverted, you know, to Pakistan, like textronics oscillators.
And that happened back during the AQ Khan network.
But when those textonics, the same models go missing through an Israeli front organization, as they did in 2010 and wind up in Israel, we don't do anything about it.
And so it's not the only case where there's just questionable non-enforcement.
All right.
Now, I'm really glad that you ended this article the way that you did, Grant.
And again, everybody, it's spy crisis launched Apex think tank by Grant Smith at antiwar.com today or yesterday.
You end it by bringing up this Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigators memo, which mentions the LeVon affair.
And that gives me a chance to mention the LeVon affair and ask you to explain to the people what's the LeVon affair?
Right.
Well, back in the early 1950s, around 1954, Israel really wanted to keep the canal zone, the Suez Canal, a neutral zone kind of protected by the United States.
And they didn't like the Eisenhower's administration's getting closer to the Egyptians and proposing to finance the Aswan Dam project and things like that.
And so they sent in a group of well, they had a bunch of Israeli undercover agents, bomb various U.S. facilities in Egypt, trying to point the finger as a false flag operation, really to Egypt as being hostile to the U.S. and the need of, you know, continued military presence.
And so this crisis was a major deal in terms of it was a signal to the U.S. that the Israelis were willing to undertake various covert means to move U.S. policy.
And in 1961, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee drafted a confidential committee memo saying that we really needed to investigate this type of collusion between Israeli covert action teams and their U.S. supporters to prevent them from moving U.S. policy around.
And they mentioned Israel in the Levant Affair twice in the short memo of March 17, 1961, which we had declassified in 2010, that nobody else has ever printed before, I might add.
They mentioned Israel in the Levant Affair, this terrorist attack, as the primary reason for wanting to investigate various foreign agents in the United States.
And so the Senate Foreign Relations Committee launched a series of investigations in coordination with the Justice Department that resulted in, as we've mentioned, the American Zionist Council being caught laundering money, influence peddling illegally in violation of all sorts of statutes, and they shut them down with the Foreign Agents Registration Act order.
AIPAC was functioning as an unincorporated lobbying division of the AZC, and as we mentioned, they simply incorporated in Washington six weeks after this order.
And it was really realizing that that made me want to look at the Washington Institute's own incorporation papers to see whether it looked like a rushed job, to see whether it really looked like the conscientious and slow formation of another entity, or whether it looked like they slapped something together in order to possibly mitigate criminal activity, which is what happened in the case of AIPAC 20 years later or earlier.
Right.
Yeah.
And of course, it does look just like that.
It was just Indyk's wife that went.
Right.
And, you know, a couple of other people, one looks like it might have been a high school student who just graduated.
I mean, this is literally, you know, this organization on paper coming together in mid-November with a bunch of, you know, people related, obviously, but not really foreign policy heavyweights is suspicious.
And it provides another look for what happens when there is sort of an accountability moment.
Now, the reason I ended the article with that particular note is that when you have an organization like the Washington Institute, which is now parroting kind of what, you know, this catalyzing event that PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, was parroting, I just think it's outrageous.
It's dangerous.
If they'd been doing it privately, I could tell you if Patrick Klassen and Dennis Ross had gotten together with some of their Israeli intelligence friends and said the same thing, it would probably have been the subject of a counter-espionage investigation.
Yeah, that would have got buried.
In other words, the FBI would have overheard it and then done nothing.
Well, you never know.
I mean, again, there were massive investigations and wiretaps going on of the Israeli embassy.
And I assume they're still ongoing that were, you know, revealed by Shemai Leibovitz back in the day.
And it looks as though there is interest in this kind of thing.
But it's just, to me, when an organization like this is calling for a false flag or other catalyzing events that will simply tripwire the U.S. into another unnecessary war in the Middle East, it's clearly time for, you know, the curtain to be ripped away once again and for some sort of law enforcement action to take place.
Because really, you know, this organization has always been front-running and part of another larger entity of organizations that really are foreign agents of the Israeli government.
You know, every once in a while there's a fake fight that's launched in the press, you know, of a minor disagreement between one of these policy think tank people and the Israeli government.
But I don't really take those too seriously.
It's the vast and overriding historical trajectory has been that they've been front-running and working for the Israelis ever since they were created.
Well, you know, it's funny, too.
So often it seems like, and I don't know all the examples, you know, M.J. Rosenberg can go through, you know, rote from memory and just name example after example after example, but it seems like a lot of the times the American Israel lobby is to the right of the Israeli government.
And the Israeli government is run by some right-wing nationalist maniacs, and who are pretty far to the right of most of the Israeli people, I'm under the impression anyway, or if you found a mean in there somewhere.
And it seems like there's got to be a lot of resentment in Israel toward the neocons and their think tanks and their leadership in this country.
I mean, especially when you're talking about, you know, trying to drag the American people, the American nation empire kicking and screaming into a war in Iran that the polls say we don't want, as you mentioned in this piece, that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the one before him and the one before him said that they don't want either.
Can they afford to lose America as their ally?
Because that's the kind of thing that they're messing with.
It seems like if they want Israel to last in the long term, they're going to have to be a little bit less obvious about how they exploit and use our friendship against us.
Yeah, I don't think they're worried at all, the people behind all of this.
And, you know, one of the things I've enjoyed reading, all the analysis about these videos that have proved to be such a provocation and other activities that just seem to constantly, you know, try and agitate and really make this clash of civilizations reality, is that nobody seems to be worried about being caught or brought in for any sort of accountability.
As far as the question of right wing, left wing, you know, I don't know that that's such a valuable way to analyze the relationship.
I mean, I really do look at it as, are we going to constantly violate U.S. laws to prop up Israel?
And are we never going to hold the people who are responsible for a lot of criminal activity accountable?
And again, that's how I look at it.
I mean, before Israel was formed, you had this massive smuggling network just pumping all sorts of arms illegally into Palestine, to the Haganah.
You have this nuclear smuggling ring, you have all of these election fraud cases that have come up, like Michael Goland and others, in terms of directing PACs from AIPAC headquarters.
To me, it's less important whether AIPAC veers to the right or left, as long as it ultimately veers into criminal court.
That's what I want to see.
I want to see them brought in and presented with evidence of foreign agency and regulated, because that has long been the major U.S. statute that they've been violating, in addition to, again, brushes with espionage, which are inevitable.
It's going to happen again.
AIPAC will be investigated for espionage or conduct espionage at some point in the future, because they have to be closer to U.S. policy formulation and the data behind it than the U.S. administration.
I think the call, in terms of accountability, needs to be one of law enforcement and statutory, rather than looking at whether a particular lobbyist is to the right or left.
I think it needs to happen sooner rather than later, because although nobody's noticed it or really written about it, AIPAC is not devoting the majority of its lobbying initiatives right now to aid packages.
It's working on crafting legislation to govern the internet, which, if AIPAC's doing it, it's because the Israeli government's concerned about it, and you can bet they're concerned about programs like this and sites like anti-war.
So I think they're going to be giving activists and people who don't like this relationship between the U.S. and Israel even more reason to fight to get it out into the open and properly regulated.
Well, yeah, sure, come on and declare war on our First Amendment, too.
Speaking of making the American people want nothing to do with Israel in the long term, I guess you're right, it's a horrible oversimplification a lot of times to the point of meaninglessness or whatever, but I guess I was just thinking, and obviously Ehud Barak is supposedly a bad cop over there, and he's the head of the Labor Party, the defense minister, but generally speaking, the more right-wing and nationalist you are, the more for war with Iran you are.
And as you move to the left, you get people less and less in favor of that, and that goes for here in the U.S. as well as in Israel.
And so that was what I'm getting at, is if you have a bunch of people in America who the neocons there and the WINEP, AIPAC, and the Israel lobby here, they amount to the leading war hawk edge of the Likudniks in Israel, right?
But that doesn't represent the people of Israel in general very well.
So what I was just getting at is, imagine being an Israeli and seeing Israeli interests in America and American interests combined, working together to push your country's policy to the right on war, to try to, for example, come up with ways to drag America and Israel both into a war with Iran, that everybody knows will go regional and last for generations and be horrible.
And so, you know what I mean?
That's all I was saying, was it seems like they would say, if I was a rank and file member of the Labor Party or something over there in Israel, I would be saying, what are you people doing?
You're going to make the American people hate us forever.
They're going to not be our ally anymore after this, if you do this, you know?
No, I agree.
And they're probably as horrified as, you know, informed Americans are whenever cadre of WINEP officials are promoted as political appointees or have a hand in crafting something, because it's not representative.
There's a great set of polls about US support for military aid to Israel, US support for economic aid to Israel, whether they should take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And all of the results really go against virtually everything the Washington Institute and AIPAC are doing.
But again, because you don't, I mean, because you don't really have a balanced discussion across the news media, you have to really look for it.
I would assume most Americans don't know just how divergent those policies are.
And again, whether in Israel, some Israelis who aligned with the labor movement are upset or not, you know, it's, I'm sure there is discounted as all of this data is in the United States.
It's just because there is a policy machine, which has absolutely no countervailing and equal opposite that's out there drumming up these policies.
And the fact that, again, at the basis of their discussion, it is just how to tripwire the US into a war, because that's what needs to happen.
It's outrageous.
It really is outrageous.
And people need to really get action against that.
But no, I agree.
I agree.
All right, everybody, that's Grant Smith.
By the way, in the background, I saw it, you know, on mute in the background, Romney gave a big foreign policy speech this morning.
And the headline on CNN is Romney promises to do a better job of backing Israel.
Well, that's CNN International on CNN.
They're just talking about some movie star.
But on CNN International, Romney says we're going to double down on supporting Israel starting now.
Yeah, there's an entire book that's just come out called leading from behind about about how Obama has utterly failed.
And of course, Norman Port Horowitz's daughter Ruthie is out there drumming up another book about how Obama is Jimmy Carter.
So you're going to see a lot of that right now.
Boy, wow.
I'd take Jimmy Carter.
I know he's horrible on Liberia issues and stuff, but I don't care.
Anyway, thanks so much for your time, Grant, as always.
It's great talking to you again.
All right.
Much appreciated.
Bye.
And thanks so much for your great work.
All right, everybody, that is Grant Smith.
Look at him today on antiwar.com spy crisis launched APAC think tank.
Where did the wind up come from?
A spy crisis at APAC.
The Scott Horton Show is brought to you by the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF dot org.
Join the great Jacob Hornberger and some of the best writers in the libertarian movement like James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy and more for real individualist take on the most important matters of peace, liberty and prosperity in our society.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF dot org.
Hey, ladies, Scott Horton here.
If you would like truly youthful, healthy and healthy looking skin, there is one very special company you need to visit Dagny and Lane at Dagny and Lane dot com.
Dagny Lane has revolutionized the industry with a full line of products made from organic and all natural ingredients that penetrate deeply with nutrient rich ionic minerals and antioxidants for healthy and beautiful skin.
That's Dagny and Lane at Dagny and Lane dot com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott 15 at checkout for a 15 percent discount.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
As you know, I've been laid off from antiwar dot com and I've embarked on a mission to make this show into a real business.
And as you can tell, I've been doing all right lining up some sponsors and some great ones at that.
But it isn't enough.
So the perpetual fund drive rolls on.
The Scott Horton Show needs donors, needs donors and more advertisers if the show is to outlast my meager savings.
So please stop by Scott Horton.org/donate.
You can make single donations or sign up for a monthly subscription with PayPal.
You don't need an account with them to do so or use Google Wallet.
We pay dot com, give dot org and now even accepting bitcoins.
And if you own or represent a company or organization interested in sponsoring the show, please email Scott at Scott Horton dot org so we can work it out.
That's Scott Horton.org/donate.
And thanks.