10/09/12 – Conn Hallinan – 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.
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.
I've been a journalist for a little more than 40 years.
I almost exclusively write on foreign policy.
And for 23 years, I ran the journalism program at the University of California at Santa Cruz and was a college provost.
I retired from UCSC in 2004 and it's going back to being basically a foreign policy analyst since 2004.
Great.
Well, you need to update your bio at FBIF.org.
Paul Pfeffer.
So I read your piece about Syria and the dogs of war and I highly recommend it to everyone.
It's really kind of a scary thing because I think you at the end leave open the possibility that this thing could be ramped down right now and maybe not get worse.
I'm not really seeing that likelihood at all, but I don't know how it ends.
But anyway, you sure reminded me of the conversation among people who weren't fools back in 2002 and 2003 that said, hey, you know, if you do this, a bunch of other terrible things might happen with the Iraq invasion there.
And what I think is you kind of are extrapolating from this Syria war and forward and I want to give you plenty of time to talk about that.
But to me, this whole thing in Syria right now is a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
I mean, where are all these jihadis coming from?
Where did they all get their training?
No question.
And and there is a direct I mean, the effect of the of the invasion of Iraq is going to reverberate around the Middle East for years to come.
This is, you know, it was such a catastrophe.
It's hard to measure it.
I mean, people forget that, you know, according to the Johns Hopkins study of the impact of the war in Iraq, that a million Iraqis directly or indirectly died as a result of the war.
And, you know, Johns Hopkins is not some radical lefty outfit.
This was a very careful demographic study, same one that the United States accepted for Darfur.
And we're talking about a million people and four million refugees, two million internal, two million external.
And that and essentially derailing one of the more important countries in the Middle East now.
No, no supporter of Saddam Hussein.
But I think people need to see that when you unleash the dogs of war, it's havoc.
And what you have now with Syria is that this is not just a civil war in Syria.
It's spread into Lebanon.
There's fighting going on in Lebanon.
There's growing sectarianism in Lebanon.
And Lebanon is always on the verge of sectarian civil war.
You've got a fighting spreading into Turkey with the Kurds.
You've got a jihadist campaign going on, bombing campaign, going on in Iraq, which has killed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Shiites and again is threatening to make that country more sectarian than it already is.
You have problems now in Jordan as well.
You know, you knock over a domino and you assume that there are not a lot of other dominoes around.
It's a mess.
And I think if people look at what happened with Libya, as much as I was no admirer of Gaddafi or the regime, the fact that it was overthrown with no kind of political resolution, it was overthrown militarily, you know, that's exactly why northern Mali fell to first the Tuaregs and then the Islamists, because suddenly everybody had an incredible quantity of weapons and as you pointed out, training.
And I don't think we've seen the end of what the end of the Libyan war was in Africa.
I think you're going to see that spread all over the region, certainly all over what they call the Tron-Sahal, the countries that border the Sahara.
So there are real, real dangerous things here.
And that's why I do think that we have to move toward a political resolution.
I'm afraid I share a lot of your sentiment.
I don't know if that's possible, but I know that the alternative is going to be a disaster.
And so I think we need to really ramp up some kind of a push for political settlement here.
Well, yeah, you know, I'm sorry to do this to you, but I'm going to play these two clips.
Well, you know what?
I'm just going to play the Obama one.
There's there's a clip of Hillary Clinton saying, well, you know, Zawahiri is in favor of this war.
And so do we really want to be on the same side as him?
Here's Barack Obama answering basically the same question.
He's asked by a local news reporter named Ben Swan.
So what's up with you back in Al-Qaeda in Syria?
And here's the president's response.
I share that concern.
And so what we've done is to say we will provide nonlethal assistance to Syrian opposition leadership that are committed to a political transition, committed to a an observance of human rights.
We're not going to just dive in and get involved with a civil war that, in fact, involves some elements of people who are genuinely trying to get a better life, but also involve some folks who would over the long term do the United States harm.
All right, now, if you want, I can let you translate all of that from Democrat speak into English.
But to me, the most important part is at the end there, his reference to there is no transition with Bashar al-Assad, that the president and Al-Qaeda have the same demand that they will not begin to negotiate until Assad leaves.
And then he pretends all of that, all the rest of what I heard was blah, blah, blah.
I'm trying so hard to create peace here.
But yes, the rebels demands are my demands as the emperor of the whole deal here.
I think that's the problem.
I mean, I think, you know, and this also happened with with Gaddafi, too.
The problem is that when you start off, when your demand starts off with regime change, then I think what happens is, is that the other side has no reason to seek a diplomatic solution.
It's a fight to the death.
And I think that Assad has to go.
I mean, you know, look, I would hope that inheriting power from your father went out with feudalism.
And it definitely needs to, you know, it definitely needs to have a different political situation in Syria.
And plus the Assad regime there, you know, there are a lot of thugs.
I mean, people recall this thing started off by the fact that a bunch of teenagers, young teenagers, 15, 16 year olds pulled off a protest.
And the Syrian intelligence service didn't just arrest them, they tortured them to death.
And then they carried their bodies home and dumped them on their on their on their parents front door.
So, you know, this is the nature of the regime that that we're talking about.
Hey, they tortured people for George Bush.
Yes, they did.
I followed one of them and we didn't mind that at all.
We didn't mind that at all.
I think the thing that you what what you do need to recognize is a regime change means Assad has to go.
But the idea of entirely replacing all elements of the Assad government invites what happened in Iraq and Libya, which is essentially anarchy.
Yeah, but here's the thing.
Let me stop you right there, because there's a couple of things already.
One is, you know, for you or I, private citizen, human being on the planet Earth, whatever, to want to see him go is one thing.
For the government of the United States to have that position, that it's up to them to make that.
So is something entirely different.
Oh, entirely different.
I mean, in other words, we you got to I mean, what happened?
And it's you know, it's also in relationship to Iran and certainly was in relationship to to Libya, et cetera.
The United States does reserve the right to say that it has a right to overthrow governments.
And and, you know, we have not we have not repudiated the Bush administration's position in Iran, which is a regime change.
And I think that that's why I want to go back to that point.
If you start with regime change, then there is no diplomatic resolution.
There's only endless war.
And and that in this sense, while while I think that the I have no support of the Assad regime, the problem now.
Is that you have a group of the most reactionary countries on the planet, which is the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, working with Turkey to funnel arms and and men into Syria to overthrow the Syrian government.
Now, I mean, that's illegal to be able to do that.
You can't have that because it's a violation of the of the of international law and of the U.N. charter.
Nobody is saying anything about that.
I mean, here, the United States is saying that they're going to overthrow the Assad government.
They're not saying anything about the fact that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding jihadists worldwide.
And, you know, our monarchies, I mean, to to essentially have a situation of to say we have to have democracy in Syria and not say anything about the fact that the major source for men, money and material comes from several monarchies.
To me is I mean, hypocrisy just doesn't cover it doesn't cover the word there.
But I am concerned about the fact that if there is if the Assad government ends up falling militarily.
That what we're going to have is very different than Libya.
Syria is an enormously important country in the heart of the Middle East, and the reverberations from this are certainly going to be as serious, if not more so than those of Iraq.
And as I said, we're still feeling, you know, we're still feeling the hangover from Iraq in the region.
Yeah, I mean, it seems to me like if and this is a big if as far as I can tell, but I can't really tell.
It seems like a pretty big if that the rebels, whoever they are, if that's in the right name for them, can do the job and get rid of Assad.
It seems to me an open question whether the state of Syria will exist at all anymore or whether we'll just have fourth generation war there forever.
Well, one of the one of the possibilities, the real possibility is that you would have a kind of atomization of the country.
And the Alawites, whose traditional home is in the western mountains of Syria near the Turkish border, that basically the Alawites will withdraw and set up their own kind of little country there in the mountains and that the country would end up, you know, atomizing.
One of the things that people forget is that this area has, you know, has a history.
And this exchange of shells that's going on between Turkey and Syria at this point, the province that that those shells are falling in is Hakai.
Hakai has always been part of Syria.
The French gave it to Turkey in in the in 1939 in an effort to get Turkey to join the allies against Hitler.
They just arbitrarily did it.
And the population at that point was mainly Alawites and Armenians.
The Turks drove the Alawites and Armenians out of that province.
And it was essentially a product of the Second World War.
Syria has never even accepted the fact that that province is is part of Turkey.
They lost an extremely valuable port, much more important than any other port.
On the Mediterranean, those are the kind of, you know, those are the sort of colonial history, the landmines that colonial history puts all over the place and which is part of what is of what is going on.
The other thing that we're not getting is Al Jazeera did a very interesting report in which they went to the town in Turkey that has been in which the five people, civilians were killed by the Syrian mortars.
And they interviewed people in the town.
The people in the town were angry at the Turkish government, not at Syria, because they said the Turkish government had made them a target by making that particular village a sort of a transit point for weapons and men and therefore had opened them up as a sort of a target.
Now, that's not the kind of reporting you're going to get in The New York Times or or virtually anywhere in the West.
So these are the you know, it's to a lot of people, it looks simple, bad alpha, good rebels, in reality, various shades of gray.
And when you get into that, you start looking for a diplomatic resolution.
There's a military resolution.
When I when I spoke, I've been speaking with Pepe Escobar a lot.
But when this whole thing first really broke out into violent warfare, Pepe said, look, if Aleppo and Damascus, if if the upper middle class Sunni Arabs, the business class Sunni Arabs, the political ones, if they switch sides against us and for the rebels, then you might see Assad fall.
But otherwise, the rebellion doesn't really have a chance.
And and what's going on here, he said, is that you could take, you know, the Alawites themselves, not just, you know, outside of the government, the any different sect of Shiite Arabs, they're the Druze and anyone else, any Christian groups.
None of them love Assad, really.
None of them respect him.
They all fear him and they live in a horrible police state.
They just prefer him to what they're afraid will come next.
That's it.
I mean, they've you know, it didn't they they turn around, look over their shoulder at Iraq and say, we don't want to go there.
I mean, they've got camps full of millions of Iraqis to this day.
Yeah, refugee camps.
And and and remember the civil war between Sunnis and Iraq in 2005 to 2007.
I mean, it was it was stunning.
It was as bad as it were worse than the civil war that went on in Algeria.
And and I think that scares the hell out of of people in in Syria.
I don't think I think there's a stalemate.
I don't think the rebels can win.
I don't think the rebels can be defeated by the Assad government.
We've got a stalemate here.
There are two things to break it.
Either there be direct intervention in Syria and the overthrow of the Assad government, I don't want to think about the implications, the disasters that would follow from that point, or there's a political resolution.
I mean, that's those are the choices here.
There isn't any other choice.
And if you really have an interest in the Syrian people to step back from the fact that you have an ongoing civil war and try and find a diplomatic resolution, bring the dogs of war to heel.
Well, and now so if you were running things at the State Department, do you think you could actually, you know, have an arrangement?
You think you could negotiate a thing where this side and that side would, in fact, come to heel or this thing's already out of control?
Well, no, I think it isn't.
I think that there are possibilities.
And I think I think what would happen is that that you need a neutral ground here.
And the people who have who have been neutral in this, even though they've been talked about as being supporters of the Assad regime, they've not really been.
They have been neutral, the Russians and the Chinese.
So I would propose a meeting in Beijing or in Moscow in which you would invite all of the antagonists and you would talk about a political transition.
Part of that political transition would that Assad would have to.
Would have to resign, that he would have to go, but on the other side is a recognition that the Baathist government is is is a government that needs to subject itself to elections, but is not going to be entirely dismantled when we dismantled Saddam Hussein's government and dismantled the army.
That's that was the disaster in Iraq.
How do we avoid that?
We avoid that by having a political transition.
Assad has to go, but it's not going to be by force of arms.
And it's not a zero sum game.
Some people are not going to go along with that.
But the other side of it is, is that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have to be told, stop it.
You cannot ship these arms in here.
You cannot allow these these people to infiltrate into Syria.
We have a stand down, back off.
I mean, that's what you have to try.
Is it going to work?
I'm not sure.
You know, I don't know.
But we haven't tried it.
I mean, this whole talk about the fact of a political resolution.
It isn't true because we've always taken the position that the Assad regime has to go.
Well, again, you know.
Position that says you have to have regime change, and if it's going to be regime change, then no regime is going to commit suicide on its own, it's just not going to do it.
Now, there's been some speculation, too, that, well, they at least recognize that they can't have the regime change without Aleppo and and Damascus switching sides, you know, those neighborhoods, those populations, but that, oh, well, they'll just settle for one big, long, drawn out Bay of Pigs here.
And who cares if, in fact, all the better?
We'll have another flypaper thesis, right?
If all the jihadis go, they weaken Assad, which is good for Israel and helps weaken Iran and increases America's position, they think, and at the same time get a bunch of jihadis killed doing our dirty work for us.
Then, you know, somebody at the Pentagon or over at the Foreign Policy Initiative get to pat themselves on the back and call themselves smart for figuring this all out how to do it, right?
Well, that's a possibility.
But if you're thinking that way, you know, that's magical thinking, because I think the longer this goes on, the greater is going to be the political instability in Lebanon.
The greater is going to be the political instability on the Turkish border with the Kurds, the more sectarian Iraq is going to become.
And if people think that Jordan is too far removed from this, they don't think coming.
Yeah.
Jordan is extremely unstable.
Yeah, there's a whole other domino ready to fall over.
Talk about that for a few minutes, please.
Well, you know, here you have again, you have a monarchy and it's a monarchy which has done very, very bad job in terms of the economy.
It's a poor country.
It's a it's a country in which you have a very strong opposition that can't really act because it is a monarchy and and it may not be a monarchy in the same sense as Saudi Arabia is.
But pretty much, you know, the word of the king is what happens in in the in the country.
I think Jordan is extremely ripe for major unrest.
So if people think that this war can be like flypaper, that it can just run for a long period of time and end up exhausting everybody, I think they're in for a big shock.
I think what you're going to see is is enormous instability.
And I think what you're going to eventually start seeing is you're going to start see a greater unrest, growth of unrest in the Gulf countries themselves.
Now, there's already unrest in Bahrain and in eastern Saudi Arabia, but I think that's going to spread to other countries as well.
I mean, you know, when when Shakespeare made that line, you know, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
I mean, what he was saying is that once war begins, you know, you can't keep it in check.
Carl von Clausewitz, the great scientific, you know, an analyst of war, once said the only you can really determine a war whose fire is the first shot.
And then after that, you know, the fog of war descends and and no amount of planning survives contact with the enemy.
And and that's why I think if that's what people are thinking, boy, this is this is a really wrong way to go about doing it.
And there's plenty of examples that that, you know, demonstrate that fact.
The question is, is is the U.N. going to be neutral in this so far?
They have not so far.
The U.N. basically has been anti Assad and coming down on the rebel side by but being careful.
They really have to play a much more neutral kind of position.
And I think you need to get regional organizations in here, not just the Arab League, but Shanghai Cooperation Organization, for instance, the African Union.
You know, you got to you have to spread this out at this point.
And I I'm I'm an optimist.
I do believe that there is room to have a political resolution.
And I think the alternative is, well, I don't think we want to go there.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I actually I agree with you.
I can see in pretty much any of these disputes.
I can see room for resolution.
You know what?
If you guys would just do this and you guys would do that, neither of which would kill either side.
You could shake hands and work this thing out.
There's pretty much always an out.
But the problem is, it seems like a lot of people, rather than having, you know, your premise that, hey, let's let's not have a bunch of people killed here or something like that, is not where they're coming from at all.
And I'm thinking most cynically of David Wumser and his is sort of a companion to a clean break, a new strategy for securing the realm.
This one is called Coping with Crumbling States, a Western and Israeli balance of power strategy for the Levant.
It's at Israel economy dot org.
And in here, it's the famous phrase I'm getting to is, well, maybe in Syria what we should do is help to expedite the chaotic collapse in order that we can better control the outcome, you know, for the long term.
And I forget the guy's name, but apparently there's an Israeli strategy paper going back to the very early 1980s, 1980 or 81 or something about what we need to do is smash all of the Arab nation states back down to their tribal levels and just and let chaos reign, because by comparison, our power will just completely overshadow them.
So we won't ever have to worry about them again.
You know, the nation state of Syria could someday be an actual threat to Israel.
Right.
But a bunch of warring Syrians, not so much.
This has been standard, not just Israeli, standard American strategy in in the Middle East.
And that is prevent centers from power for centers of power from developing.
Keep countries divided.
Don't allow independent foreign policy.
I mean, what what is Syria's crime as far as the Americans are concerned?
Now, it's not a lack of democracy because, come on, we support these monarchies.
So democracy is irrelevant here.
There's nothing to do with whether you get supported by the Americans or the Israelis or not.
The serious crime is always been that Syria, like Iran, have been two independent forces in the Middle East that follow their own particular view of the world as opposed to Washington's view of the world.
And that makes them a threat.
I mean, independence in a region that holds 60 percent of the world's energy resources is a threat to the United States.
And, you know, this goes all the way back.
People forget the Carter doctrine, you know, 1979.
This is where the Carter administration said that the US would resort to to the use of military power if anything ever threatens their access to energy resources.
Yeah, which is hilarious because they cited the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a direct threat to the Persian Gulf.
Ha ha.
Right.
Well, British have been, you know, the great game in the 19th century.
That was the British thing, you know, that the Russians were marching down through Afghanistan and and they're trying to get a warm water port, which is what the at that point.
So they wanted to get Pakistan or they wanted to get, you know, the Middle East and and that kind of thing.
And and the fact is that the Carter doctrine is still that is still the kind of, you know, foundation American policy in the Middle East.
And that calls for isolating and or overthrowing any governments which in any way act independently of what the interests of the United States is.
And Syria has always done that.
And as I say, you know, they're talking about, well, you know, democracy.
I mean, you know, come on, they cut people's heads off in Saudi Arabia.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, Barack Obama said in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, yes, exactly.
This could help to weaken Iran's position.
Yeah.
And he was the thing is that they've got this focus on Iran.
Yeah.
And he didn't pretend for a minute to the Atlantic that this is about how much he cares about the human rights of the average Sunni.
You know, right.
They're right to primary elections.
This is about Iran.
And again, you know, Syria is an important country, but it's not as important as Iran.
I mean, Iran's some of the biggest oil and gas reserves in, you know, in the world.
They're a country that's the same size in terms of population as Egypt.
You know, we're talking about eighty one, eighty two million people, something like that.
You know, it's an enormously important country.
And if that country is independent, you know, that really throw that's a fly in the ointment as far as the Middle East goes.
Well, you know, Iran has an alliance with Syria and and we see this as a way not only to knock off Syria and therefore weaken Iran, but also as an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And Hezbollah is always presented as if it's sort of a cat's paw for Iran, which is nonsense.
And the fact is that Shiites make up a plurality of Lebanon.
They have been marginalized and economically and politically for the last 200 years.
Hezbollah is the first organization to really put together a combination of military and political alliances that have allowed Shiites to express themselves in Lebanese politics.
The idea that they're just a cat's paw for Iran is total nonsense.
They're really a homegrown organization.
But, of course, they're also independent.
We don't like their politics.
And so if we knock off Syria, then, of course, we weaken Hezbollah.
Although we weaken Hezbollah less than we think we're going to weaken Hezbollah.
They thought they were going to weaken Hezbollah by forcing the Syrian army out of southern Lebanon back in 2005, and look how that worked out.
They thought they were going to weaken Hezbollah by bombing them in 2006, and look at them now.
Well, you know, the Israelis went in there and...
And made them more powerful by attacking them.
But, you know, the Israelis took a beating.
I mean, they're used to beating up on Palestinians who don't have any weapons.
And they went into Lebanon and Hezbollah fought them to a standstill.
All right, now let me ask you this, because here's the thing.
I talk to a lot of foreign policy experts on this show, and we sure do agree a lot about the stupidity of American foreign policy.
And you know what?
I've seen that thousand-yard blinking stare in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Connelisa Rice before her.
And I can see the whole argument for stupidity here.
On the other hand, we are talking about a lot of failing upwards here, too.
Where, you know, if they want to have a regime change against the commie Qaddafi, who's keeping al-Qaeda down in Libya, is it really that bad of a conspiracy theory to speculate that someone up there could have said that, well, you know, everyone knows that al-Qaeda is going to benefit from this.
But maybe that's OK, because that'll give us an excuse for some further intervention.
Say, once our consequences flow down to Mali or wherever they flow.
Because, you know, a year and a half ago, you and me and everybody else who wasn't in on it was saying, hey, but there will be consequences if you overthrow Qaddafi, right?
Is it that crazy to think that they say, good, right?
General Ham gives a speech, he's the new head of AFRICOM, and he says, you know what, al-Shabaab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and even Boko Haram down in Nigeria, why, these are reasons why we may have to begin intervening in Africa.
Oh, yeah, I don't think there's any question that people think that way.
I mean, I absolutely they do.
You know, they're not I don't think they're stupid.
I what I what we're talking about is what the consequences are.
But number one, what seems to be stupid is that they keep doing things that would obviously have these consequences, you know?
Yeah, I mean, the AFRICOM is a perfect example.
You know, it's sort of interesting that AFRICOM is formally organized in 2007, although the U.S. military is already playing a role in the Somalian in the Somalian war, you know, was we was the U.S. that basically helped the Ethiopians invade Somalia, which is what what put the Shabaab into power.
I mean, up until then, Shabaab was just one little element in a relatively isolated one in the Islamic courts regime, which was a mildly, you know, was a moderate Islamic government.
We overthrew that and then created the chaos of the current situation, which has allowed Kenya to evade and Ethiopia to invade African Union troops, et cetera.
I mean, I don't I think that it's interesting that AFRICOM is formed in 2007.
The year before that, the projection is that by the year 2015, we will be getting 25 percent of our oil from the Gulf of Guinea.
Africa has now become a major resource for us in terms of oil.
Now, a lot of other strategic resources as well.
So the fact that you suddenly have this this military formation for the continent of Africa, you have to go back to the fact that suddenly the United States sees Africa as a an enormously important source of resources and to as part of a worldwide competition, not simply with China, but with also with India and and the BRICS countries, that is, South America, Russia, India, China, Brazil, et cetera.
They see this as a, you know, a ground for competition.
And they're correct.
It is a ground for competition.
And so suddenly the United States organizes this military force.
And you're absolutely right.
They're talking about Boko Haram.
They're talking about their they've got troops right now.
We don't know exactly what they're doing, but troops are are are in Uganda.
And they're taking part in maneuvers in in Uganda.
We've got alliances with countries all over the all over Africa.
And in fact, the guy who overthrew the elected government in Mali, which is what set off the crisis in Mali and the takeover of northern Mali, he's a U.S. trained soldier.
Many years we trained him, we trained him, I guess, how to throw overthrow governments and to.
And now we have this chaotic situation in Mali.
So I agree with you.
I mean, I think I think there are people who look at this and say, you know, we can rule from chaos.
And chaos is is our friend, chaos is not our enemy, but of course, it's not our friend, it's not the American people's friend.
It certainly isn't the friend of any country that is being subjected to it.
Yeah, well, and it is just a sad fact, right, that every time it blows up in their face so much, the better.
That's just another ribbon for their little costume that they wear over there at the Pentagon.
Yeah, they love those little ribbons.
They do love those ribbons, combat ribbons.
Yes, indeed, they do.
All right.
We're way over time.
I really appreciate your time on the show.
It's been great.
Certainly glad they've been here.
Thanks for having me.
All right, everybody.
That is Con Hallinan and he writes for Foreign Policy in Focus.
The great John Pfeffer in them.
And this one is Syria and the dogs of war.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here for Liberty Stickers dot 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 Liberty Stickers dot com.
Categories include anti-war, empire, police, state, libertarian, Ron Paul, gun rights, founders quotes, and of course, the stupid election.
That's Liberty Stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
This October 15th through 19th, the Future Freedom Foundation and the Young Americans for Liberty present the College Civil Liberties Tour.
The War on Terrorism, Civil Liberties and the Constitution.
Featuring from the left, the heroic Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald.
On the right, former Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fine and the libertarian leadership of this new realignment, the great Jacob Hornberger, president of the Future Freedom Foundation.
That's October 15th through 19th at colleges across the western U.S.
Check out FFF.org/collegetour.html for more details.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here.
Everything.
Maybe your group should hire me to give a speech.
Well, maybe you should.
I've got a few good ones to choose from, including how to end the war on terror, the case against war with Iran, central banking and war, Uncle Sam and the Arab Spring, the ongoing war on civil liberties and, of course, why everything in the world is Woodrow Wilson's fault.
But I'm happy to talk about just about anything else you've ever heard me cover on the show as well.
So check out YouTube.com/Scott Horton Show for some examples and email Scott at ScottHorton.org for more details.
See you there.