01/15/14 – Kate Gould – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here inviting you to check out Modern Times Magazine at ModernTimesMagazine.com.
It's a great little independent publication out of Phoenix, Arizona, featuring unique views on economics, politics, foreign policy, sports, and music, with great art scene coverage and fiction writing as well.
That's Modern Times Magazine at ModernTimesMagazine.com.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
We're on the Liberty Express at ScottHorton.org.
Find all my interview archives there.
More than 3,000 of them now going back to 2003 at ScottHorton.org.
And you can follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at ScottHortonShow.
Now, thank goodness, Kate Gould is up there on Capitol Hill representing the Peace Lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
That's FCNL.org.
And she is their head lobbyist there.
Welcome back to the show, Kate.
How are you doing?
I'm doing great.
Great to be back with you, Scott.
And just a quick clarification, I'm the head lobbyist on Middle East policy.
So I was just going to say that because I remembered it as soon as I was done getting it wrong.
No problem.
No problem.
We work on lots of different issues.
But certainly, peace is right up there front and center.
And I'm trying to stop a war with Iran and with our network across the country and with my colleagues here and with you.
So great to be back and for my first debut on The Scott Horton Show.
Yeah, there you go.
It's been a while since we've talked.
I'm very interested to know, I guess, just basically, what's the atmosphere on Capitol Hill?
Does it seem like the sanctions deal is a done deal?
Or say, for example, Dianne Feinstein's opposition, has it helped the president push back against these sanctions before they happen?
Definitely.
Things are moving so quickly here.
And I've been hearing from Hill offices, you know, they are getting slammed with phone calls against the sanctions bill like never before.
So it really is a fight on sanctions that we've never seen here.
Usually, yes, sanctions often have been a done deal and they've passed unanimously.
This is very different.
And even some of the supporters of the sanctions bill are really walking back and saying, although they co-sponsored it, they don't want to see it go to the floor.
I mean, yeah, certainly the stakes have never been higher.
The president, Dianne Feinstein, the U.S. intelligence community, we have people on the right and the left and validators from the U.S. and Israel who have said, if these sanctions pass Congress, then that will cause the talks to just fall apart.
It will collapse the ongoing negotiations and then we're on a path toward war.
And we're right now, we're actually on a path to get this thing solved peacefully.
Great.
All right.
So now tell me about Dianne Feinstein.
She gave this big speech.
Was it yesterday or the day before?
It was yesterday.
Exactly.
Okay.
So tell me all about that.
Yeah.
Well, I think she really threw down the gauntlet.
She explained that if we go for these sanctions, then she actually, her quote is, passing additional sanctions now would be a march toward war.
The administration has also said that.
The spokesperson for the National Security Council said, if Congress passes this bill, it will be proactively taking an action that will make diplomacy less likely to succeed.
And, you know, and then she went on to say, look, if members of Congress want to take military action, they need to be upfront about it with the American public and say so.
Otherwise, it's not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy.
But I think, you know, Senator Feinstein had an excellent statement yesterday where she really drove home this point.
And she really walked us through the history of, you know, U.S. relations with so many different countries that have changed course and saying Iran could be the next one, talking about Japan, about World War II, about Germany, about South Africa, shedding its history of apartheid, about all these, this long list of countries that were pursuing nuclear weapons, and then they reversed course.
So it shows she was making the point that, look, you know, things can change if you, if you want them to, if you pursue the right, you know, diplomatic actions to make them happen, to make that happen.
And now we're really at a turning point with Iran, you know, we can, I mean, yeah, that this is the place where we can see the hinge of history move.
And, and that, unfortunately, there are senators who want to just shut that down and shut down the, this tremendous, unprecedented opportunity for improved relations between the U.S. and Iran.
Well, you can see why Nixon arranged all the China opening in secret and just kind of surprised everybody with it all of a sudden, you know?
Right, exactly, exactly.
I mean, once you get Congress involved in this mess, you know, you already see them there, there's different resolutions and proposals to legislate a final deal, you know, I mean, rather than actually leaving this to our negotiators, who've actually been doing a great job.
So it's, yeah, it's, it's ridiculous.
And, and unfortunately, you know, it's one thing, of course, to, for Congress to weigh in and say what they think are some, you know, helpful suggestions here on the diplomatic process.
But instead, they're actually working to violate, to violate the letter of the, and the spirit of the Geneva Accord that was reached and just shut down these talks entirely.
Well, and you can tell who's the bad guys in this, because they're the ones who are lying and pretending, oh, yeah, of course, we're only doing this because we're trying to strengthen the President's hand as he's begging us not to do it.
As the official position of the CIA, and everyone who's considered it in the world is that this is meant to sabotage the deal.
There's a 90 something plus percent chance that it would sabotage the deal if they were able to override the President's veto, for example, something like that.
Right.
I mean, you know, and Congress actually went to the intelligence community and said, we want to know what you think and what your assessment is of this sanctions bill and what would happen if we passed it.
And they, they came right back at him and said that it would likely collapse negotiations.
And that's the assessment that you're hearing from so many, you know, national security establishment figures from Brzezinski to Scowcroft, you know, on.
And they've been saying, Madeleine Albright, you know, there's, there's a long list of folks coming out on this, coming out of the woodwork and, and saying that this would just be disastrous.
And, you know, it's interesting because now the tone has really changed.
And I think, I mean, that's back to your point about how things have changed on the Hill.
I think it's not a done deal.
And, and you've seen first the proponents of new sanctions, like Senator Menendez, he was, he was against this Geneva accord altogether.
He was against a nuclear deal with Iran.
Well, now he's for it.
And the argument that he's making and that he's trying to make is that this sanctions bill would, would help a lot.
Yeah, exactly.
It would strengthen the president's hand, would strengthen the position of the United States in the negotiations.
He's saying this would actually help the deal where of course the deal itself has no new sanctions of any kind.
And that, that would, that would be a violation.
Well, let me ask you this.
What about Harry Reid?
I mean, he's going to be wishy-washy at best on anything.
Is, did Dianne Feinstein move him at all?
Cause he was on board for this, no?
So yeah, Senator Reid's position has been...
And I meant to say, majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, for everybody just tuning in.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
So he has taken, you know, some interesting position on this.
I mean, I think it was right before the holidays, he said, when, when Congress comes back, sorry, right before the Thanksgiving recess, he said that right when, when the Senate comes back, they'll be pushing forward on new sanctions.
And then fortunately he delayed those after the deal was struck.
So I think, and then after the deal was struck, he did say something positive about it, which is good.
You know, he's obviously in a tough position in that he's getting a lot of pressure, tremendous pressure from the co-sponsors of the bill.
I mean, I should say for the Senate sanctions and saber rattling legislation, there are 59 co-sponsors.
So we, you know, it's, we're one away from getting filibuster proof support and we're only eight away from getting veto proof support.
So while the president has said they would veto this, then the question is whether there's going to be enough support.
And I think that this is really what's going to define that, you know, majority reads calculation is whether there is veto proof support to sustain that kind of, um, you know, that the president's veto.
So I think the, that's really, I mean, it's what he needs to hear from his other senators.
And certainly, I mean, actually, you know, Senator Feinstein has really been a champion on this, um, for, for a while now.
And so she's one of the people who have spoken out against this, you know, and, and there's, and she's one of 10 chairs of Senate committees who've signed a letter to read saying, don't do this, don't push these sanctions and, and citing the intelligence estimate that says the same thing.
Um, you know, we now have all the Republicans in the Senate co-sponsoring this legislation except for Senator Paul and Senator Flake.
Um, and then we have about 16 Democrats on, on board as well.
So it is, he is getting a lot of pressure.
I think, um, in the end, one major factor for his decision about whether to bring this to the floor is about what he's hearing from other senators, particularly, um, Democratic senators, particularly those for up for reelection.
Uh, because of course, you know, he has an interest in, in maintaining his position as majority leader and, and wants to, um, to hear from Democrats who, whose positions are at stake, that this is not the right thing to do.
Yeah.
In fact, I'm sorry to have my footnote, but I did see at least a headline that said, I don't think I bother reading the whole thing, but it said that the, um, the Democrats who are the worst on this are the ones who are up for reelection next, you know, cause the, the, the Senate they're staggered in thirds, uh, in their six year terms, uh, and have elections every two years.
Right.
So it's the ones who are up next are the ones who are worst on this.
Cause they're the most worried, I guess, about the Israel lobby.
Yeah.
You know, and I haven't done a full, let's see, I'm looking through my notes, cause I actually, um, we, there are a number of folks up for reelection who are not co-sponsors and actually who's spoken out against the bill.
For example, we have, um, Durbin who's spoken out against the sanctions bill.
Um, and then we have in Merkley spoken out against it.
He's also up for reelection.
Um, so, but, and then there are, yeah, there are a number of these folks who haven't made a decision yet.
So, uh, for Minnesota, both senators, Franken and, um, well, Franken is up for reelection.
And then, uh, yeah, you have Markey.
So I think, I mean, particularly for those, but, but, you know, what's interesting is even those who like, you know, as, um, putting on my advocacy hat, which I'm always wearing, but, you know, I think, I mean, it's, it's important for everyone with, with senators, um, to reach out to their Senator on this one, because even those who've already co-sponsored can still whisper in Reed's ear, you know, don't do this, don't push it to the floor.
I co-sponsored because I wanted to get, you know, points from special interest groups, but I actually don't want this to happen.
I mean, I think that that's a, that's a, it's obviously a, uh, that's not what we want for it.
I mean, that this is a dangerous position and that, um, even if they do that, that, you know, they can justify signing onto the legislation.
We, we don't want that because if, if there are 67 co-sponsors, it will go to the floor.
I mean, that's sort of a, you know, what's going to happen, but, but I think it's just important to engage with, with everyone on this because there's still, um, you know, I mean, we've seen things change and I remember being on your, your show at, um, anti-war.com that, uh, years ago that where, uh, it looked like there was, it was a done deal.
We were told it was, there was a, um, resolution calling on president Bush to blockade Iran.
Um, and that it was going to pass like a hot knife through butter, according to, um, leadership's office.
And then we got five members of Congress to withdraw their co-sponsorships.
Um, so yeah, there's a lot that can be done.
All right.
Well, so we're gonna have to stop right there to take this break.
Um, and then when we get back, we're gonna talk a little bit more about, uh, the negotiations so far, of course, the politics on Capitol Hill and what listeners can do to help on this most important issue.
Uh, the sanctions, uh, introduced by the Warhawks in the Senate meant to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, which we're halfway through with right now.
So hang tight, everybody.
We'll be right back with Kate Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
That's fcnl.org.
What was the only interest group in DC pushing war with Syria last summer?
AIPAC and the Israel lobby.
What's the only interest group in DC pushing to sabotage the nuclear deal with Iran right now?
AIPAC and the Israel lobby.
Why doesn't the president force an end to the occupation of Palestine, a leading cause of terrorist attacks against the United States?
AIPAC and the Israel lobby.
The Council for the National Interest is pushing back, putting America first and educating the people about what's really at stake in the Middle East.
Help support their important work at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
I'm talking with Kate Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Reliable peaceniks up there on Capitol Hill where we need them.
And before the break, Kate, you were mentioned and I completely forgotten about this, believe it or not.
Oh, my brain, it gets full sometimes and I got to recycle some neurons.
But yeah, when probably when we first talked was about the Senate trying to push a blockade bill against Iran a few years back and it was defeated due in part to the activism of your group and to others who followed suit.
Exactly.
And actually, at that time, it was the House.
But yeah, it was the House pushing this resolution, pushing legislation, calling for a blockade against Iran, which, of course, would be an act of war.
And it was calling on the Bush administration to do this.
And they and then it was supposed to pass, you know, like a hot knife through butter just on the suspension calendar, which is only for items that are supposedly not controversial at all and just supposed to sail through, you know, no objections at all.
And then and then we actually had five members of Congress withdraw their co-sponsorship because of this groundswell of grassroots action.
You know, and we've heard about that.
I've been hearing, you know, about that on the Hill.
And that continues to shape how people talk about these things today.
And also, of course, the whole unprecedented uproar against military action in Syria.
And that that is shaping this debate.
I think that's why we've been as successful, you know, why this bill hasn't passed yet.
So there's yeah, there's definitely a big opportunity here.
And it just it makes a huge difference.
I mean, I remember when I just after we defeated, we all collectively defeated that blockade pro-war resolution.
Then I heard from a colleague who actually visited Iran and and, you know, could read Farsi and he could read all the different newspapers in Tehran.
And he and he wrote about this as well, about how it was it was, you know, headline news there.
I mean, it was reported in every single Tehran newspaper that there was this legislation calling for an act of war against Iran.
And and that people would come up to him in the street and ask him, like, why does you know, why do Americans hate us?
And and so they because that wasn't it wasn't just a Bush administration initiative.
You know, it was it was the Congress, which is supposedly, you know, it's supposed to represent the American people.
And so more so than, you know, the administration.
And and then when this was defeated, then that, you know, made people happy.
I mean, it just it changed the atmosphere.
It changed how people thought about the US.
I mean, this those things really matter.
And particularly when you're talking about these two countries that, you know, have been at war with words or in a cold war for for more than 30 years, then this has the potential to ratchet up tensions and get us on a path toward war or to cool down tensions and get us on a path to, you know, more mutual understanding and and working these things out without without violence.
So there's, you know, this is just it has far reaching impact.
All right.
Now, I think a lot of the reason that a lot of people don't pay attention to politics at all is because they feel completely powerless about it.
And me, I feel completely powerless about it.
But I'm kind of just stuck like this anyway.
And I'm just going to complain about it, you know, no matter what.
But I think, you know, people do care.
And if they think that they can do something about it, they just might.
And, you know, maybe I'm just too far from the seat of the empire there.
Is it really true that these goons in the House and the Senate care what we say when we call them on their phones?
Can that really?
I mean, you mentioned the Syria thing, but, you know, the Joint Chiefs were against that, too.
And I don't know.
I mean, a lot of the establishment was for it.
Don't get me wrong.
And the American people sure as hell were against it.
And it seemed like it made the difference.
But I just wonder, is that how it really works on Capitol Hill that they care what we say at all?
Or how does that work?
Assuming the answer is a partial yes, at least.
Why would they care?
It all comes to who can buy them TV ads, right?
Because that's what's going to determine who votes for them, not the issues.
Well, I would definitely contest that.
I mean, I think what we saw from the last election, there was, you know, we saw Sheldon Adelson put in, you know, untold amount of money into these TV ads to take down candidates that, you know, didn't work.
And interestingly, Sheldon Adelson also supported, of course, this military intervention in Syria.
And that didn't work either.
So I mean, you know, this man has more money than imaginable.
And yet, money did not carry the day for either of these issues.
And so I think, yeah, I mean, it certainly caused, you know, we talk a lot about these different, you know, special interest lobbies that have such a huge impact.
And yes, I mean, in part, they have that because of their work on raising money for different candidates.
But I think what I keep hearing, more importantly, is just how the perception of kind of what kind of weight they carry within different communities and whether, and the read, the way that members of Congress can get a read on that is, in part, through calls, through what is the buzz, you know, and that's why, yeah, I mean, I talk to staff all the time and who say, look, their members come in and even before a vote, I mean, you know, where they have back-to-back votes and they're coming in, you know, to the office briefly and they ask the staff, okay, what's the buzz here?
Like, what's, where are the calls leaning?
I mean, they just want to get a sense before they, I mean, often, very often, members of Congress make their decisions, like, while they're walking, you know, to the floor to vote.
I think, you know, it happens a lot.
And so those, the ways that constituents can impact the, you know, the calls, the emails coming in, the volume of that, the letters to the editor, I mean, all these things are definitely noticed.
And we, you know, we hear, especially on this issue, I mean, the, we hear from offices, they start telling us, you know, even before we ask them, they tell us what the calls are like, what the ratio is.
And there are a lot of offices where, you know, they're being just bombarded with calls against the sanctions bill.
And then there are offices where they're about even, and they, you know, they tell us that they need more calls on one side or, you know, to make a difference.
So you heard it, folks.
I mean, there you go.
It may be background noise, but it's important background noise, even if it's reduced to just that.
And after all, it's not like AIPAC is taking the week off.
They're showing up no matter what, correct?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, and they, yeah, I mean, I think this is often, hey, you often see this where it's the people who believe in political engagement that are often, you know, the most effective and they actually, so yeah, I mean, they're organizing calls.
In other words, it's not a matter of necessarily who has right on their side, but who gets the work done.
Definitely.
And I think it's also, it's, you know, often, it's not a matter of where public opinion is.
It's about who gets the work done.
So it's about, you know, it's a very small group of still, you know, unfortunately of the American public who've ever, you know, made a phone call to their congressional office.
And so it's really important that, you know, it's a vocal minority that obviously has a lot more sway than, you know, the overwhelming majority.
So, but of course the overwhelming majority can join that vocal minority by just by making the call and letting people know.
I mean, I think like with Syria, I think there's a lot of their members who are just undecided on this issue.
And so that's really where this can, where, you know, constituent input can just play a key role.
Yeah.
You know, during the Syria thing, Alan Grayson, who's been a pretty reliable supporter of Israel over the years in Congress, he was asked, well, what about AIPAC?
Because they were, you know, lobbying hard, of course, for the war in Syria at the time, virtually alone.
And he said it, look, you know, AIPAC is one thing, but up against the will of the American people.
Hey, forget about it.
You know, that's it.
The American people win.
So he was, and in fact, he was taking the opportunity to lead on that issue, to get out in front of our parade and say, yeah, that's right.
Americans, we're against this thing together, aren't we?
Vote Grayson.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Right, right, exactly.
I mean, he, he was a great champion on this cause and, you know, he said, yeah, he said that AIPAC has issued a statement that they're in favor of the attack.
I'm just looking at, but he said, yeah, but at this point it's not relevant because the public is engaged, the public's paying attention, the public's against this, you know?
So yeah, I think that's right.
I mean, people are talking about, during the Syria debate, I mean, people were just constantly talking about the calls and when we would walk into offices, I mean, just every office, every, you know, congressional office that we'd walk into, we would hear these calls.
I mean, and it's amazing to be able to lobby with that kind of, you know, entry into the office, where you're hearing just the staff assistant pick up the phone and say, okay, you're another call, you know, against military intervention and, and tap it down.
And then, and then I'm called in to, to then go meet with the staffer.
I mean, that's, that's very powerful and a way that we can help represent, you know, this, the wider U.S. public who's against, against that U.S. war and against this U.S. war against Iran.
Yes.
And especially since it's all so unnecessary and this nuclear deal could be such a huge first step toward, I mean, I guess the first step's already been taken.
This could be a huge second step toward really normalizing relations and ending our Cold War with them.
And it's certainly the most important, you know, decision that's been made along these lines one way or the other in a long, long time, you know?
Exactly, exactly.
I mean, is this, and to put it, you know, the other way, I mean, if this fail, if we cannot protect this deal from Congress, then, you know, we're talking about a dark future where it's going to be hard to get diplomacy center stage again as, as the policy that we're pursuing.
I mean, you know, we're seeing, we saw in Geneva, I mean, we're talking like 23-hour negotiations and, and, you know, that kind of intensity, I mean, that's just unprecedented for, for this administration.
And I think, you know, for, for quite some, I mean, that's very rare and just sort of, I would say it likely for U.S. history, U.S. diplomatic history.
I mean, this is, this is an extraordinary amount of effort that's being put into this.
And we just, we have to protect it and make sure.
Yeah, the hardliners are certainly on both sides feeding off each other.
So the doves have got to speak up and speak up as loudly as those who are full of the worst and passionate intensity, you know?
All right.
Thank you very much for your time as always, Kate.
It's good to talk to you again.
Okay.
Great talking to you.
Bye, Scott.
All right, everybody.
That is Kate Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Help her out.
Get those phones ringing up there on Capitol Hill so that when she walks in, you're the background noise.
Yeah.
What she said.
That's fcnl.org.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for cashintocoins.com.
So you want to buy some bitcoins?
cashintocoins.com makes it easy and 100% anonymous.
Just deposit the money into their account at any Bank of America, Wells Fargo or credit union with shared branching and then just email them a picture of the receipt with your bitcoin address and you get your bitcoins.
A simple, clean, anonymous way to get bitcoins.
In a tough competitive new market, cashintocoins.com has the advantage.
A great system and great customer service to keep you coming back.
That's cashintocoins.com.
Hey y'all, Scott here.
So you made a little bit of money in this horrid economy only to find that the Fed is more or less outlawed saving.
So into the treacherous waters of the stock market bubble you go.
But how to make a little money without too much risk of losing it all?
Check out wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager who opens a very real window into his main account, updating his subscribers on the facts of and the reasoning behind all his market moves.
Follow along on paper or with real money and see what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
Hey y'all, Scott here.
Anti-imperialism is at the center of libertarianism, as long as we keep it that way.
So if you're part of a libertarian group, how about having me out to give a talk on the wars?
I work cheap and I'm good on everything.
I've even been known to change a mind or two with some of these things.
Check out some examples at scotthorton.org slash speeches and email scott at scotthorton.org for more information.
By the way, this February 15th, the Future Freedom Foundation is having John Glaser and I give a talk at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington.
Come on out and say hi.you