01/28/13 – Brendan O’Neill – The Scott Horton Show

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, Dagenian Lane at DagenianLane.com.
Dagenian 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 Dagenian Lane at DagenianLane.com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott15 at checkout for a 15% discount.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
The website is scotthorton.org.
Keep all my interview archives there, more than 2,700 of them now.
Going back to 2003, MP3 format for you there, the history of which proves that I'm right about everything always.
Which reminds me, I think about a year ago, I interviewed Brendan O'Neill about the war in Libya, and we agreed we were against it.
And I think we probably, if we went back and listened to it, you would hear one or the both of us talking about the probable unintended consequences from the war against Gaddafi.
Welcome back to the show.
Brendan, how are you doing?
I'm good.
Thanks, Scott.
Very good to have you back on the show.
I hope everyone will go and look at spikedonline.com, spiked-online.com, actually, and your most recent piece, at least on Mali, I think, How Cameron Created the Chaos in North Africa.
What's history got to do with anything?
Well, I think, as you say, when the Libya bombing was taking place, lots of us said that there were going to be unintended consequences, that you can't simply launch a bombing raid on a country and oust a dictator and arm various Islamists and other groups without there being some consequences, without there being some blowback.
But because in the West today we have these extremely immature, kind of grandstanding politicians, whether it's David Cameron in London or Samantha Power and other people in Washington, they don't think through what they do.
They just want a moment of glory.
They just want to look good.
And so they launch these bombing campaigns, they invade countries, then they go back home and congratulate themselves, and lo and behold, a year later or two years later, there is this terrible blowback.
And I think that's what we're now seeing in North Africa.
We're seeing what happens when people like Cameron invade and bomb other countries.
They really are that stupid, too, huh?
That's the part that really puzzles me about this, is because, you know, here I could be some nobody fringe radio show host, and I really know a lot more about foreign policy, what ought to be done and what should definitely not be done, than apparently all the collective wisdom in Washington, D.C.?
I think we just have, we have very infantile leaders these days who are very alienated from history and don't really know their history.
You know, in the past, there's always been terrible Western invasions of foreign countries, you know, right through the 20th century.
But they tended to be carried out by people who at least made some plans for blowback and at least had a kind of vision of what they wanted to do in the countries that they were conquering.
You know, that was one thing they had going for them.
But today we have these very infantile leaders who launch campaigns without thinking them through, and they're driven more by PR and the desire to kind of score some PR points rather than by any kind of determination to take over territory or recolonize parts of Africa.
And so in relation to North Africa, David Cameron and Sarkozy and Obama, they just didn't think through the fact that Libya is connected with Algeria, and therefore if you remove Gaddafi, you cause instability in Algeria.
They didn't think through that there are various anti-Mali elements inside Libya, and therefore if you shake up Libya, those people are going to go back to Mali and cause trouble there.
And that is precisely what has happened.
Algeria and Mali in particular have been severely destabilized by what the West did in Libya.
Right.
And now, you know, another difference from back in the day, I want to get right back to that in a second, but you were talking about, you know, the difference between the modern era and the old days of colonialism.
The other difference is cameras, right?
It used to be the redcoats could just go in there and butcher everyone until they were all dead and then call it peace.
No problem.
That was what the British Empire was all about.
But nowadays, like you said, you can't really do it that way.
You kind of just, you can't really recolonize the place in that manner, but you just call it one kind of heroism or another and go help people from time to time and just screw up everything.
Yeah.
Well, it all follows on from that ridiculous thing that was created in the 1990s.
Humanitarian intervention, you know, the greatest contradiction in terms of modern times.
The idea that you could have an imperialist venture overseas, which was humanitarian, which was about helping people.
You know, the idea developed by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, which was very much this idea of a neutral humanitarian form of colonialism, where you would bomb a country in order to liberate it.
You know, and that ridiculous ideology, you know, even though it's so see-through and so facile, is now the ideology that guides Obama and David Cameron and Francois Hollande in France.
Various other Western leaders are now guided by this ridiculous and very dangerous idea that you just drop a few bombs and you can free a people from bondage or free them from a dictator.
And I think the reason that's very, that's in some ways even worse than the old colonialism is because you just need to press a button or send a few planes and then you think everything is done and everything is solved.
You don't make plans.
You don't think things through.
You don't say, what's going to happen to this group of people if we remove this group of people?
So there's very little planning.
There's very little serious consideration.
There's very little historical literacy amongst these people.
Instead they just say, oh yeah, let's drop a few bombs on Libya and everything will be okay.
So there's a real recklessness in international affairs these days, a real dangerous, infantile, childish attitude, which I think is unleashing all sorts of instability around the world.
Well, you know, we've also seen, and really in the 1990s, I guess, is when they set all these precedents too, where it started out with Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait.
And of course, you know, we all know James Baker gave him a wink and a nudge and all that.
But anyway, he crossed the international border and that was the excuse for this big UN coalition to go and kick him back out again.
But it wasn't very long at all before Bosnia and the breakup of Yugoslavia and all of that provided the reasoning, this humanitarian reasoning, that now the quote unquote international community can get involved in civil wars and conflicts that take place wholly within the borders of a single state.
And that's, you know, it's been so long now, not even that long, you know, in real time, but you know, 15 years or whatever, they've just taken that ball and run with it wherever they want.
When it came to Serbia in 99, they had to pretend that 100,000 people, I mean civilians, had been massacred, men, women, and children.
In the case of Libya in 2011, they claimed that 100,000 people will be killed if we don't intervene.
And I don't know if you saw this, but the other day John Kerry slipped up and said, well, 10,000 people were going to be killed if we didn't intervene.
He forgot his lie.
Absolutely.
And what's happened is that the idea of national sovereignty has been really undermined by the humanitarian imperialists, that they have quite consciously and quite academically challenged the old idea of national sovereignty, challenged the idea that a state should control its own affairs and that that state should be accountable to its own people.
They've just kind of pushed that idea into the dustbin of history and created this new idea which says interventionism is the way to go, internationalism, as they falsely call it.
You know, the idea that the international community or the West has the right to interfere in any affair in any country that it thinks is doing bad things.
So that's created this really kind of crazy, almost Wild West atmosphere in international affairs where there's no rules anymore governing who can do what.
I think that's really dangerous.
And the other thing they never think about is the blowback from these conflicts.
So you mentioned, you know, their bombing of the Bosnian Serbs or their intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo.
And as we know, that had blowback in terms of boosting the fortunes of al-Qaeda.
You know, various Mujahideen from Afghanistan went to Bosnia and went to Kosovo to fight alongside these Western forces against the Serbs.
And of course, then they create this unstable situation from the late 1990s onwards.
And likewise, in Libya, the West goes in and kind of just christened certain groups as legitimate government.
And it contains all sorts of Islamists and fairly backward political elements.
And then they go and cause chaos in Algeria and inside Libya itself.
And then everyone says, oh, why did that happen?
So these leaders we currently have, they learn nothing from history and they learn nothing from earlier instances of blowback where Western leaders have armed various groups and then been shocked by the consequences.
Well, now, they kind of like it that way, too, right?
They're always stupid along the lines that perpetuate the same kind of policies, you know, as I'm sure you've noticed.
You know, they really screwed it up in Libya.
And the only solution to that is more of the same.
Let's take it to Mali.
Let's take it to Algeria, on to Nigeria.
Well, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I hear from pro interventionists is the idea, well, we caused all these problems, so let's go in and sort them out.
That's what they say all the time.
If you say to them, you know, we caused all these problems in Afghanistan in the first place with our kind of interventions there in the 1980s, they say, well, that's precisely why we have a responsibility to fix them now.
So they just create this perpetual violent cycle where you say, well, let's intervene here and then here and then here.
And they're just chasing their own disastrous interventions around the world.
And as you say, now the argument is, well, we screwed up Libya, but now there's problems in Mali and Algeria.
So let's invade those countries as well.
And, you know, you now have the French supported by Britain bombing Mali and sending troops to Mali and effectively occupying it.
So the constant spread of this instability is really quite terrifying.
And you wonder where it ends.
Are we going to have a situation where France goes back to Algeria, which will really be the greatest ignoring of history you could ever imagine, where the French, having had so many troubles there in recent history, will end up back in Algeria, back in North Africa, back in the place where they were not wanted in the first place and where they were kicked out quite violently a few decades ago.
Well, now, speaking of decades, Cameron, the prime minister over there said that, oh, yeah, decades.
You know, I sound like Dick Cheney or Tony Blair.
This is a generational commitment now.
North Africa must be pacified.
Are the Brits not mad at this guy?
What's going on over there?
I thought you guys, I mean, think of the giant protest before the Iraq war, for example.
I think there's a I always think that the giant protest before the Iraq war was really an expression of defeatism and resignation more than it was a kind of lively anti-imperialism.
And the problem with the anti-war movement in Britain, for example, is that it tended to buy into the humanitarian argument too much.
So it was very much against George Bush's wars, for example, because they were seen as right wing Republican wars driven by oil and greed and everything else.
So they were bad.
But it was much more accepting of Tony Blair's wars and Bill Clinton's wars because they were seen as more leftish and liberal and couched in nice language and all about helping people.
So I think left wing and radical people in Britain tended to make too much of a distinction between bad wars pursued by people like Bush and good wars pursued by people like Tony Blair.
So they now find themselves in a very difficult position because David Cameron is right wing, but he pursues conflicts overseas in the same language as Tony Blair, you know, very much humanitarian, liberating people, helping the downtrodden and so on and so forth.
So they kind of really are hoist with their own petard where they can't drum up the right language and the right opposition to these kind of conflicts.
So what I think we need in the West today is a radical critique of humanitarian intervention and a radical critique of the new forms of intervention and pointing out why they are so dangerous and why they are deeply problematic.
Well, a big part of that is explaining the who's who and the who's what in Algeria and Mali and what they have to do with the with the war in Libya.
And you do a really great job of illustrating all of this in your article.
Again, the article is called How Cameron Created the Chaos in North Africa.
Can you take us through a little bit more of that argument?
I think the two key things that have happened, most notably as a result of the Libya in the bombing of Libya, is firstly that there is a huge ethnic group called the Turag people who are from Mali originally, but large numbers of them went to fight with Gaddafi in recent years.
They were trained by Gaddafi.
They were armed by Gaddafi.
It was one of those ethnic groups that he cultivated in order to shore up his power in Libya.
And of course, when Gaddafi is ousted and then eventually killed, this ethnic tribe can't stay in Libya.
So they go back to Mali, thousands of them with guns, with training, with their kind of new know-how that they got from Gaddafi.
And they...
So this would have been the fall of 2011 then, right?
Yes.
I'm just trying to help people, you know, put their shoes on pointed the right way here.
That was when Gaddafi fell and was shot in the head on the side of the road, August 2011.
That's when Gaddafi goes.
And then there is this very large movement of Turag people from Libya back to Mali, where they have always been quite hostile to the government, where there's always been very deep simmering tensions between this ethnic people in the north of Mali and the government in the south of Mali.
And of course, what happens in early 2012, almost as soon as the Libya thing collapses and they go back to Mali, is that the conflict between them and the Malian government starts once again.
And a few months later, the Malian government is ousted in a coup d'etat, war breaks out between the north and the south, all the things, in fact, that the government of Mali predicted would happen if the West bombed Libya.
In early 2011, the government of Mali said, we're really against this bombing because we think it will destabilize North Africa, including Mali itself.
And they were exactly right.
That's exactly what happened.
And then in relation to Algeria, the real problem caused by the bombing of Libya is that Algeria and Libya were very important supporters of each other for years and years and years.
And they have helped shore up each other's power and kind of pacified large parts of North Africa by linking together.
So when you remove one part of that equation, when you get rid of the Libyan part of the equation, you create hostility between Algeria and Libya.
And now there is a very, very tense standoff between the new rulers of Libya, who are effectively installed by NATO, and the rulers of Algeria.
And there is simmering conflict between these two countries.
And I think the storming of the gas plant in the desert in Algeria was actually carried out in large part by elements from within Libya who are hostile to Algeria and who see it as a kind of old-fashioned pro-Qadhafi country.
So what's happened as a consequence of the bombing of Libya is that the conflict in Mali has been directly exacerbated by that.
And Algeria now finds itself increasingly isolated and increasingly panicked and worried about its position in North Africa.
So really serious, deadly consequences that no one fought through before sending their bombers.
Yeah.
You know, you mentioned Samantha Power earlier.
And I don't know if you're referring specifically to this same article that I always think of or not.
If you have other things to say about her, too, then that's fine.
But I wanted to mention that there's this great, well, it's not really great, but it's a Rolling Stone article by the great Michael Hastings, I'll put it that way.
And it's about Obama's decision-making process in the run-up to the Libyan war.
And memory dithered for a while, and then he decided to overrule Gates and go ahead and do it anyway.
Well, and a big part of that was Samantha Power had been relegated to doing, quote, rinky-dink, do-gooder stuff.
You know, like teaching Iraqis about democracy and stupid crap like that that no one cares about.
And she wanted a pat on the head.
She wanted attention.
And her position of deputy assistant secretary of nothing way down there in the White House was not making her feel good enough about herself on a daily basis.
And so she got us into a war with Libya.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think that is almost, that is the level at which these kind of decisions are made these days.
In the past, serious decisions like bombing another country or invading another country would generally have been made in the national interest.
You know, it was often bogus, you know, an invented national interest.
But it would have been, you know, the right thing for Britain to do in order to get more resources or to get more land or to win more influence is to invade this country over here.
But today, these kind of decisions are not made in the national interest, but in individual interests.
So, you know, the kind of interest of one person who wants to assert their power in Washington or in the interest of Sarkozy, who was then in charge of France and wanted to demonstrate that he was a serious leader, or David Cameron, who in 2011 was going through lots of political problems and wanted to assert his authority by dropping a few bombs on a country a few hundred miles away.
So you have this really dangerous situation where now such a serious decision as bombing another nation can be done on the flimsiest of pretexts.
And it's almost this feudalistic, very decadent kind of monarchical approach to international affairs, where it's all about boosting the power of one section of the Western court against another section.
So I think all of that points to a very out of control dynamic in international affairs, where Western leaders have just become extremely unpredictable and erratic.
And, you know, they say they have the gall to say the problem in the world today is all these small groups of Islamist terrorists who are threatening to overthrow the West.
But the real problem in the world today is that the West is run by these out of control, infantile, immature people who think nothing of dropping bombs on foreign countries and destabilizing whole parts of the world.
I would say that that is a far greater problem than small Islamist groups that might exist in Africa or the Middle East.
Well, yeah, I mean, after all, I guess I didn't really go look it up in the encyclopedia or anything, but I'm pretty sure to be an insurgent, there has to be some imperialist force above you that you're trying to insurge against.
Right.
You can't have an insurgency without an empire.
So all we got to do is quit.
And all of a sudden, the insurgency against us dries up.
I think, yeah, there's a lot of the insurgencies that they kind of panic about are in fact the response to their crazy interventions in the first place.
And I think what they what the West is incapable of doing today is sitting down and working out what is its interest, what is in its interest.
So, you know, there was a long now I'm no fan of Gaddafi and I'm pretty glad he's gone.
I would have preferred it if it was through a genuine people's uprising rather than through this kind of NATO campaign.
But I think what's really remarkable is that for quite a few years in recent times over the past decade at least, both Britain and America had made amends with Gaddafi, particularly Tony Blair and Western Europe.
They'd gone over there.
They recognized that Gaddafi stabilized a certain part of Africa.
They said, fine, you run with it.
Keep this part of the world stable and give us oil, so on and so forth.
And then what happens all of a sudden in 2011, they just backtrack on that and say, oh, we need to make an impact.
We need to show people we're good leaders.
Let's get rid of this guy who we've been cultivating for the past decade.
Let's push him over the edge and just demolish him and his regime.
So there's that kind of chaos and that inability to work out what's in their own interest.
And so they go pursuing all these kind of crazy interventions overseas.
And as you say, in the process, giving rise to insurgencies and oppositional groups and Islamist sects and all the rest of it, which then come back to bite them later on.
Yeah, and provide the excuse for their next crisis, which who knows what the intervention that is going on in Mali right now, how bad that's going to spread, I don't know, to the west of there.
I'm just guessing.
Right.
Yeah.
Well, the scary thing about the Mali thing is that it's it's already embroiled France in a kind of violent conflict in Africa, which is a pretty depressing spectacle.
But also it's involving other African countries.
Niger is getting involved and various other African countries are sending troops there.
And there is a possibility that the West is creating a Congo in North Africa.
You know, North Africa was looked upon for quite a while as a relatively successful part of Africa.
It was relatively stable.
The economies in some of the countries were doing pretty well.
And now you have a situation where it's possible that France and Britain have created a new Congo in North Africa, destabilizing a large part of the continent.
And I think you're absolutely right.
People in the West ought to be making more of a fuss about this and holding our leaders to account for wrecking other people's countries.
Yeah.
Now, my thing is that, well, I'm looking at it from the point of view of America only has one enemy in the world, and that's what was Al-Qaeda, if there's anything left of it at all.
Maybe it's just Zawahiri is left as, you know, our enemy in the world.
But there were well, and there's so little good reporting out of Libya now, I really don't know the form of it.
But I know that back during the war, it was the Libyan Islamic fighting group that we were fighting for.
They were the leaders of the revolution from Benghazi.
And a lot of them, many, many of them apparently were veterans of the Iraq war where they had traveled there to be part of Zarqawi's group or or what it became later, the Islamic State of Iraq or whatever, and the Sunni based insurgency.
But the, you know, the suicide bomber brigade is the worst of them, these guys.
And that's what we were fighting for.
And now if Qaddafi had, you know, as you said, they brought Qaddafi back in from the cold.
If he had one, you know, positive thing that you could say about him at all, it was that he was good at keeping Al-Qaeda down.
Now, maybe he kept a lot of other people down at the same damn time, too, too bad for them.
And I'm not saying that America should have supported him in keeping Al-Qaeda down.
But certainly, and as you said, the people of Libya really could have figured out a way to get rid of them themselves.
And that would have been great, or at least none of my damn business, right?
But for America to overthrow this guy who that's his one use in the world is preventing the Libyan Islamic fighting group and their friends from taking weapons and sending them hither and yon and killing American ambassadors and whatever, then good, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
I think what's really striking is the inability of America and Britain to work out what is the best thing for them to do in their national interest.
That's the really striking thing about the Libya venture that they launched.
And you know, you have this bizarre situation where a couple of years ago, in 2011, David Cameron went to Libya and said, you know, we've freed this country.
And they talked about Benghazi in particular as this new, liberated part of the world.
And it was a wonderful place.
And now, last week, the Foreign Office in Britain has issued a statement telling all British people to get out of Benghazi, because it's become an extremely dangerous, violent place.
And so, and yet they don't recognize their own responsibility for having created that situation, for having armed all these various groups, where there's now a lot of inter-fighting.
And so, you know, in the space of less than two years, they can hail a place as a wonderful spot for liberation, and the next time see it as this kind of dreadful situation where everyone has to get out quickly.
And I think what happened in Libya is that there was a genuine uprising against Gaddafi in early 2011, which was very positive and very inspiring.
But then NATO got involved and handpicked all these various groups and said, yes, you are the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
We're going to arm you.
You are the people who have to push this through to the bitter end.
And what they ended up doing is sidelining the people of Libya themselves, who had been fighting back and protesting.
They were pushed to the sidelines.
And instead, all these various dodgy political groups were brought to the forefront.
So Libya's, NATO's intervention had a really disastrous impact because it weakened the people of Libya and it strengthened various dodgy al-Qaeda style Islamist groups.
So it really had a devastating impact, I think, on the Arab Spring itself.
Yeah.
Well, and then, of course, they try to hijack, they're still trying to hijack the Arab Spring in Syria, because there's one dictator in the region they don't control.
So they're trying to overthrow him.
And you know, haven't you found it odd, Brendan, that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, I don't know about the British politicians, but over here at least, they pretty much admitted that they're a bunch of guys that we do not want to fight for on the side we're fighting for over there.
But then we're still fighting for them anyway.
And you can read even in The New York Times and The Washington Post this whole time that, yeah, the CIA, the Americans, the Turks, the Saudis, the Qataris are helping the al-Qaeda suicide bomber brigades in Syria in their war against the Baathists.
Exactly.
I mean, the Syrian stuff really shows up how out of control they are, because, you know, I think their instinct is for stability in Syria.
They just want it to stop.
You know, the West would like there just to be no war and for stability to descend and everything to go back to normal.
But they keep supporting these really dangerous groups who are, even though they recognize that they are quite Islamist and reckless and violent and dangerous, and they're, you know, apparently doing public executions and all sorts of other things.
So they're really torn, I think, because they want stability there, but they also want to be seen to be doing something.
They want to be seen to be helping people in this kind of humanitarian way.
So they also end up arming various strange and dangerous groups.
So I think the Syria thing is another example of just how out of control the West is and how unable it is to sit down and say, okay, this group of people represents this, this group of people represents that, let's work out who is the best representative of our interests.
So there's a very strange situation in Syria now where the West is sectarianizing the conflict, is supporting various sectarian groups, various ethnic groups, and is balkanizing Syria more and more and just dividing it and entrenching these various different groups to such an extent that you just can't foresee how this conflict is going to end, except that it's probably going to drag on for a long period of time.
Well, you know, and assuming the, you know, just the weight of the militaries or the size of the states involved here, eventually, assuming they keep it up, the foreigners will win because they got America, the nine zillion pound gorilla on their side, the CIA, they can overthrow your government if they really try.
But then, boy, to me, and especially I'm imagining being, you know, in England right now and my imagination of Syria and how close that is to Europe, you know, supporting the Mujahideen suicide bomber brigades in Afghanistan against the Soviets, for example, that's one thing.
But supporting them in Syria right there with basically direct access to Israel and direct access to Europe, I mean, these guys are absolutely mad.
And you know what?
There's just no criticism of it outside of the independent media anywhere.
Maybe you hear Zbigniew Brzezinski go off, but nobody understands what he's talking about and then they just go on.
Well, that's the really surprising thing about their intervention in Syria.
They don't recognize that Syria is bound up with so many local interests in that area.
I mean, there have been skirmishes between Syria and Turkey in recent weeks, and Turkey is aspiring to become a member of the European Union.
So you have a situation where a potential future EU country is being drawn into this conflict in Syria.
And as you say, Syria is also closely linked with Lebanon, for example, and also has access to Israel.
It's got an important relationship with Iran.
And none of this is factored into the Western intervention in that arena.
They don't think about how shifting things around in this way in Syria could impact on a whole host of closely knit relationships in that region.
And I think if they don't watch themselves and if they don't think hard about what they're doing there, we're going to end up with a great amount of regional instability, which could impact on Israel, Iran, and right through to Eastern Europe.
And that's the danger that's going to spring from the Syrian conflict.
Right.
Well, now I sound like Mitt Romney saying direct access to Europe.
Almost.
Yeah.
Syria is how Iran gets to the sea, too.
OK.
Anyway, thank you so much for your time, Brendan.
You're awesome, dude.
Great.
Thanks, Scott.
Everybody, that is the great Brendan O'Neill.
He is the editor of Spiked Online, that's spiked-online.co.uk.
And also he's at brendanoneill.co.uk.
And we will be right back after some of this here.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org.
They've got a brand new website with new and improved access to more than 20 years worth of essays promoting the cause of liberty.
And FFF's writers, including Jacob Hornberger, Jim Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more, aren't just good, they're the best at opposing and discrediting our corrupt overlords in Washington and their warfare-welfare regulatory police state.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation's new and improved site at FFF.org.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
First of all, thanks to the show's sponsors and donors who make it possible for me to do this.
Secondly, I need more sponsors and more donors if the show is to continue.
ScottHorton.org.donate has all the links to use PayPal, Give.org, Google Wallet, WePay.com, and even Bitcoins to make a donation in any amount.
You can also sign up for monthly donations of small and medium-sized amounts through PayPal and Give.org.
Again, that's ScottHorton.org.donate for all the links.
To advertise on the site or the show, email me, scott at scotthorton.org.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, Brookings, Heritage, AIPAC, WINEP, JINSA, PNAC, CNAS, the AEI, FPI, CFR, and CSP.
It sure does seem sometimes like the War Party's got the foreign policy debate in DC all locked up.
But not quite.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
They put America first, opposing our government's world empire, and especially their Middle Eastern madness.
That's the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out wallstreetwindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
Wall Street Window is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the Federal Reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike's got a great new book coming out, so also keep your eye on writermichelswanson.com for more details.
Man, you need some Liberty Stickers for the back of your truck.
At libertystickers.com, they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job, the Democrats want your guns, U.S. Army, die for Israel, police brutality, not just for black people anymore, and government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at libertystickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at thebumpersticker.com.
That's libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.