Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Whites Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again, you've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing the great Ray McGovern.
He used to be the head of the CIA's Soviet division on the intelligence analyst side.
And in this century, he's been one of the greatest anti-war activists and writers.
And we've come to rely on him heavily because, well, he's got those x-ray eyes, the ones that we like so much.
Welcome back to the show, Ray.
How are you doing?
Thanks, Scott.
Doing well.
Very happy to have you here and very happy to see you slamming James Clapper up against the wall, proverbially speaking here.
If there was ever a national intelligence director who deserves some walling, he might be the guy.
And yet, am I right?
Did I read this right?
That he's actually taking some responsibility for lying us into war in Iraq War II?
Yeah, I don't know.
You know, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he was pushing his book.
The book is named Facts and Fears, Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence.
Well, hard truths, indeed.
What he admits to was finding things that weren't there.
We're talking about weapons of mass destruction.
Now, going back to when Rumsfeld came into town as defense secretary, he needed somebody to take over what was then called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
That was a very key agency because they took all the analysts for what used to be CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center.
These were analysts with an average of maybe 25 years in service, the ones that found the missiles in Cuba.
They've been around.
The expertise there just wouldn't quit.
And what had happened, and this is illustrative, in 1996, John Deutch, who was head of the CIA, he thought as a stepping stone to become secretary of defense, he thought he'd ingratiate himself with the Pentagon by seeding lock, stock and barrel, all 800-member National Photographic Interpretation Center, always part of the CIA.
Now it became under the Pentagon, under the Defense Department, and it ended up being named, initially at least, National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
Now, Rumsfeld, since that would give him the photo and other sensor analysis unit, he wanted to make sure that in bogusing up this National Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he would have somebody in the National Imagery and Mapping Agency that would go along with that.
And so he picked Clapper.
Now, how does this work out?
Well, you have Chalabi and other Iraqi dissidents, so to speak, who persuaded us that there were, or ostensibly persuaded us there were weapons of mass destruction.
They would say, look at coordinate such and such and such and such, and you will find a suspected chemical weapons production facility.
Well, the analysts in NEMA, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, would duly target the satellites, and there were many of them, on that area.
And when they saw what the illusion was, what the coordinates were, it was a chicken coop.
Now, what analyst is going to say, Chalabi doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's a chicken coop.
There isn't any chemical weapons program there.
Well, he may try once, but the major in charge of him will say, no, wait a second, that's not what Rumsfeld wants to hear.
And surely Clapper says that's not what Rumsfeld wants to hear.
And so the prime way of finding out whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I'm talking about billions and billions of dollars invested in not only photographic imagery, but multispectral radar, infrared.
If there were WMD in Iraq, we certainly would have had evidence of it from this imagery.
And Clapper sat on it and pretended that there were weapons, even though there was no evidence of them.
So what does it translate to today?
Well, he writes this book and he talks about— Wait one second on that part, because on this part, I want people to remember just a couple of things here.
And there are a lot of young people listening who, they don't remember this happening at all.
This is before their time.
They were kids in school, you know, elementary school even or whatever.
They have no idea.
So I think it's really important to emphasize here that this was the legal pretext.
They had a few different pretexts, but this was the legal pretext for starting an aggressive war.
And not that the UN resolutions really said that this was good enough or anything, but they claimed that they were enforcing UN resolutions which legally prevented Iraq from holding these types of weapons after Iraq War I.
And that was the excuse.
It was all built up on this, and it was all built up on the idea that shame on you if you dare to doubt our intelligence, supermen.
If our government says there's weapons there, there's weapons there.
If our spies and satellites and CIA and military experts say there's weapons, then how dare you not believe it.
And even though the aluminum tubes had already been debunked, and even though so many of the different stories that they had put out had already been debunked, the slogan was, well, the president must have secret information that they can't tell us that really does justify the war, or else why would they be doing this?
And really, how do you, bartender, cab driver, house painter, you know, regular guy with a job, how is it that you could possibly doubt the expertise of America's intelligence agencies?
And that was, as much as any of the rest of them, the narrative that got us into that war.
And then it was like, oh, geez, well, you know, our CIA, they're just regular guys, and they're just doing their job, and it was just an accident, and it was bad intelligence, and they made mistakes, and whatever.
And so we went from, these are the uber mention who we must bow down and defer to, to, oh, geez, huh, I guess it's all Chalabi's fault, or somebody else's fault.
Well, that's the golden thing in this book that Clapper wrote.
Are you still with me?
I'm here.
Hit me.
Okay.
He sets it all up.
I mean, we know from the Downing Street Memorandum, which was prepared on the 23rd of July, 2002, that the head of the CIA had told the head of British intelligence that, quote, President Bush has decided to make war on Iraq.
It is to be justified by the conjunction of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists.
Translation, that means we're going to say that Saddam Hussein has all manner of weapons of mass destruction, that he's likely to give them to al-Qaeda and other terrorists.
And then the crowning sentence at the end of that paragraph, and this is from the British minutes of a briefing of Tony Blair.
The last sentence was, and the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.
So that was a meeting at CIA headquarters on July 20th, 2002.
Do the math.
March 2003.
This same rationale was used to, quote, justify ignoring, ignoring Nuremberg, ignoring the principles of Nuremberg, ignoring the UN Charter, just doing what Nuremberg called a war of aggression.
So fast forward now to Clapper, and what he says in his book is this, and I quote, The White House aimed to justify why an invasion of and regime change in Iraq were necessary, with a public narrative that condemned its continued development of weapons of mass destruction and its support to al-Qaeda.
Now, its support to al-Qaeda, Clapper says, the intelligence community had no evidence of Saddam Hussein's support to al-Qaeda.
What Clapper doesn't admit, what he chokes on saying, is that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction either, and he made sure of that.
And so on page 99, I don't suggest you buy his book, but you might go to the library.
Page 99, he says, look, we're going to put the blame for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, quote, where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the administration members who are pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in Iraq, and on the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't really there, end quote.
So eager to help that we found what wasn't really there.
That is the mortal sin of intelligence analysis.
You don't get so eager to help that you find what isn't really there.
And he admits it.
There it is.
Yeah, but for him to say it's their fault for making him do it when he's a military officer, right?
I mean, he's a full grown man and does not actually have to lie when his other choice is quit.
Well, for that kind of lieutenant general, a general retired by that time, it doesn't even enter his ken, enter his mind to think, well, maybe I ought not to do this.
I'm ordered by the president or the secretary of defense to do this.
These people are automatons.
They don't think.
I mean, why did Colin Powell spread those lies?
He knew darn well that they were lies and he did it anyway.
A lot of foreign correspondents at the time said to me, Ray, how could you?
How could they do that?
They would know.
People would find out they were lying.
Why did they do that?
And my answer then and my answer now is pretty simple.
They really expected that the Iraqi people would meet us with flowers and chocolates.
OK, and that we would depose Saddam Hussein, that he would recognize Israel.
And now who's going to complain at that point with us sitting high in Baghdad?
Who's going to complain about the fact that it was done?
Well, in a lie, nobody.
OK, now that's my interpretation of how they.
I think that's right.
I mean, this really was, as Tom Englehart likes to say, it was supposed to be easy.
They didn't understand what was going to happen once they got there.
And well, you know, I don't know exactly who all was behind the disbanding of the entire government and its army.
That may very well have been, you know, a deliberate move by the neocons to create the worst sort of destabilization there.
But I kind of don't think so.
I kind of think that that was part of it's going to be really easy to just remake Iraq however we want.
And you know what, too?
I don't think and I'm stealing this from my old friend Shana from Chaos Radio.
And she would always say that they'll lie about anything, any government spokesman for whatever agency at whatever level.
They will lie about anything and they don't care if they get caught.
All that matters is that you believe them today when they're getting away with the murder they're getting away with.
And if you catch them lying later, it's not like there's accountability for that.
They don't care.
They just need you to believe them so that they can claim some sort of mandate to get away with the thing that they're hell bent on doing anyway.
That's all.
I'm afraid you're right about that.
Didn't used to be always the case.
But now with the media completely under the government supervision, so to speak, it's really hard for people to find out what's really going on.
Clapper says that this is another quote.
We heard from we heard that Vice President Cheney was pushing for intelligence on Iraqi WMD weapons of mass destruction.
And the order came down to NEMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, to find and Clapper puts find in italics.
OK, so we were ordered.
He headed that agency.
We were ordered to find the WMD sites.
So we set to work analyzing imagery to identify with varying degrees of confidence more than nine hundred and fifty sites where we assess there might be WMDs or a connection with WMDs.
We drew on all of NEMA, NEMA's skill sets, and it was all wrong, period, end quote.
Man, I got to say he's lying right there, too, even in this current year.
Right.
Or, you know, at least by omission.
And we're supposed to think that we're just supposed to not remember, I guess, that the CIA and the U.N. weapons inspectors had the run of the place through the entire decade of the 1990s and that they'd already been to all of these places.
And they had already known, Scott Ritter himself told me himself, that they knew by the end of 95 that every last bit of their chemical weapons had been destroyed by the end of 91.
They lied in 91 and they tried to hide some mustard gas and the U.N. caught them and they destroyed all the rest of it before the end of 1991.
The CIA knew that.
The military knew that.
You knew that.
Because I remember you coming out then when Cheney announced in August of 2002 that, oh yeah, they're doing all this and all that and they're reconstituting their nuclear weapons program.
And you said, really?
Where's this all coming from?
Mana from heaven?
It's just materialized?
Because we already know what they don't got.
The negative has been proven.
Now this jerk is trying to tell me this year that he believed there were 950 sites where maybe they're making sarin.
Somebody shoot this guy out of a cannon into a red brick wall, please.
Well, there are a lot of lessons here, Scott.
One is how the uniformed military, by the time they get up to general rank, how they stop thinking correctly, how they avoid doing what's right.
You know, honor, duty, country, forget about it.
Here's General Zinni, Tony Zinni, widely admired still in many circles.
He's sitting there.
He's sitting there on August 26, 2002, at the Veterans for Foreign Wars convention where Cheney comes in and he says, Saddam Hussein is about to get a nuclear weapon.
Here's all manner of chemical and biological weapons and we have to stop it.
And UN inspections aren't worth a damn.
They just give you a false sense of security.
We've got to go.
Now, what does Zinni say three and a half years later?
Oh, gosh.
I knew he, you know, I was back on contract and I was privy to all these sensitive information on WMD and they weren't in Iraq.
And I was just really shocked that the vice president would say that.
And I checked.
There wasn't any.
Well, three and a half years later, give me a break, huh?
Give me a break.
Now, what's Zinni doing now?
He's sitting on boards of many of these defense contractors and he used to be, in my estimation, one of the good ones.
So this is a lesson learned here.
And he actually did say some skeptical things about that war.
He refused to come out and truly oppose it.
And you know what, too?
It's worth mentioning, I think, he could have stopped that war.
Just like Colin Powell, there were a few of these guys who were in the right position and who had the right credentials that they alone could have put their hand out, thwart history and yelled stop and made it stop.
And General Zinni, the commander of Central Command, could have just said, I don't care if you put me in prison.
Here's a bunch of classified information, Americans.
Dick Cheney's lying.
None of what he's saying is true.
And he'd have saved a million lives, at least, maybe more than that.
Because he would have been able to stop.
Same with Colin Powell.
Colin Powell could have said, you know what?
This just isn't true.
And I'm not doing this.
And I'm resigning over this.
And I urge the American people to do everything they can to stop this terrible mistake from being made.
Instead, what he did, he clicked his heels like a good little Nazi and committed a genocide.
The point is that once these generals become generals, they're not able to think for themselves or they lose all sense of integrity.
Now, there is one contrast here.
And you mentioned him already.
And that's Scott Ritter, former Marine, Marine major, who was head of the Iraqi part of the UN inspection team for weapons of mass destruction.
Now, he was he was beside himself because he knew, as you have already put it up, there weren't any there.
They were all destroyed after after the first Gulf War.
Now, how do you know that?
Well, he was part of the debriefing team that interviewed Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.
OK, now, who is he?
Well, the U.N. interrogators, British and U.S. CIA interrogators went and interviewed him in Jordan where he defected.
And they said, OK, now, where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
And he says, oh, don't you know, we destroyed them?
And the interrogators, yeah, right.
You destroyed them.
Well, how do you know?
And Kamel said, well, maybe you don't know this, but I was I was in charge of all those programs, the rockets, the biological chemical and the burgeoning nuclear.
I was in charge and I ordered everything destroyed.
Oh, right.
OK, so how do you know it was destroyed?
He said, well, I visited some of the sites.
Are you trying to tell me that we still have?
This is 1996, OK?
Now, the game was clear to Hussein Kamel.
He was a real dumb guy when he went back and got killed by Saddam Hussein for telling them all this.
But the point is that Scott Ritter was so upset at people like Zinni, at people like Powell, that he went to Newsweek and he gave them the transcript of the debriefing of Hussein Kamel.
Now, what did Newsweek do?
Well, at the very end of February 2003, they put in their little periscope section.
I don't know if you remember that.
It was sort of up the front.
You get a paragraph, maybe two and say, oh, we have this report that all those weapons were destroyed and that the debriefing of Hussein Kamel improves that.
Well, what happens?
It was just four or five weeks before we're going to invade.
So there were a couple of journalists that went up to CIA headquarters and said, what about this?
What about this?
And they were told it's poppycock.
It's crazy.
It's erroneous.
It's it's drivel.
And so these journalists said, oh, thank you for telling us that because we were going to write a story on that.
It wasn't drivel.
It was documentary.
And Newsweek didn't have the guts to do a whole story on it.
And no journalist in Washington decided to pursue it.
Now, you know what, too, is I remember at the time, and this may have been on occasion of Cheney's VFW speech or even previously, being mad that no one else seemed to remember or cite at all Hussein Kamel's interview with CNN, which I actually just searched it.
And I don't see the video, but they have the transcript is here right here.
September 21st, 1995.
And Hussein Kamel spills his whole guts.
I saw it on TV at the time.
I remember.
The lesson is the media.
The media has never been so captured by the government.
And that's even even more true now than it was back in 2003, when the media cooperated completely with the government fable about weapons of mass destruction.
And, you know, the only thing that the intelligence community, the people I know in CIA stood up against was the notion that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
I'll tell you a little vignette.
When Larry Wilkerson was putting together the final speech for Colin Powell, first days of February 2003, they went into a side room.
OK.
And Powell said, you know, I don't know about this stuff between these links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Seems far too squishy for me.
Let's leave that out.
So Larry Wilkerson breathes a sigh of relief.
Yes, sir.
That's what I think, too.
They go back into the room.
Three minutes later, George Tenet, head of the CIA, comes in.
Oh, we just got a new report, a new report from a defector who says that he was in charge of authorizing and promoting the trips of Al Qaeda operatives up to Saddam Hussein.
Here it is.
Here it is.
Now, Colin Powell had been around a long time before then, and he should have seen that for the cockamamie thing it was.
But he chose to to, quote, trust George Tenet.
Big, big mistake.
And what happens?
Well, if you look at the speech, he talks about a, quote, sinister nexus, end quote, between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
So these guys were real trouble then.
They're they're around now.
Clapper is still talking and CNN and the Brennan and the rest of them.
So the problem is no one in the media except you and me, Scott, are able to discuss this with any audience that might comprehend that we're we're being led down the garden path now on Iran and, of course, on this Russiagate legend.
All right.
So here's who all sponsors this show.
First of all, Mike Swanson and his great book, The War State, about the rise of the military industrial complex after World War Two.
An excellent history there.
And get all of his investment advice at WallStreetWindow.com.
Then there's Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc., where you buy your precious metals.
And that's at rrbi.co, rrbi.co for all your gold, silver, platinum, palladium, etc.
No dev, no ops, no I.T.
A great book about how to run your technology business like a libertarian.
No dev, no ops, no I.T. by Hussein Badakchani.
It's really great.
I mean, I'm no businessman and I really enjoyed reading it.
So I think you should check that out.
And also Kesslin Runs, the great new novel by our friend Charles Featherstone.
It's in the very near future and only slightly dystopian.
No, maybe worse.
Kesslin Runs.
And also check out Horizon.
Global.
That's Zencash.
They're changing.
They're not just a digital currency.
They really are working hard on becoming a new platform for all different sorts of blockchain type secure applications.
And so for all you techies who really understand, check out all you need to know at Horizon.
Global.
LibertyStickers.com for your anti-government propaganda.
Tom Woods Liberty Classroom to fill your brain with good stuff.
Follow the link from my site so I get the kick back there.
ScottHorton.org.
And check this out at ExpandDesigns.com.
You can get a brand new 2018, hey, a 2019 model website there and get a $500 discount if you use ExpandDesigns.com slash Scott.
So this is really important too.
As he admits here in the book, as you quote, did I even say it?
I'm sorry.
I got to fix this in your intro.
The article at AntiWar.com is called Clapper's Credibility Collapses.
People regularly criticize Clapper for perjuring himself before Congress and swearing under oath before God and baby Jesus and all the rest of them that he was not lying when he then lied and said that the National Security Agency was not intercepting all of our data and all that.
But hardly anyone remembers that he was in charge of this satellite intelligence office and played such an important role in lying us into war.
Oh yeah, we came up with 950 possible things.
In other words, a horse trough or an outhouse or some shack somewhere.
In other words, just pretend we're all lying here.
I don't want to give credit to CIA analysts because I don't think they deserve it, but I sort of think that it's at least worth mentioning in a way that a CIA analyst can say, no, that's not right, Harry, to his boss in a way that military men just cannot.
They even maybe have an incentive to fight about things in a way.
And they lied us into war, too.
They're the ones who tortured al-Libi into claiming Saddam Osama ties, and they're the ones who claim the aluminum tubes, and I'm not trying to let them off the hook.
When it comes to this kind of thing, as you're saying, hey, that's not what Rumsfeld wants to hear, there's nothing else at question other than what does Rumsfeld want to hear.
The question of whether what he wants to hear is true or not has nothing to do with it.
This is the same rule that says that if the Israelis try to sink your Navy ship, you're not allowed to talk about it.
Hey, those orders are orders, and they really stick.
The incentive structure of the military, the way it works at that level, is just absolutely counter to anyone sticking their neck out and saying, hey, boss, at least we know we're lying about this, or anything at all.
Your job is to go along.
And then, you can comment on that however you want, but also, I wanted to bring up here, too, that a part of his thing, other than just identifying all this ridiculous stuff all over the place as possible WMD sites, was, he admits, his team, my team, also produced computer-generated images of trucks fitted out as mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.
And those are some of the most famous and influential parts of Colin Powell's speech at the UN there, that, as he says here, this really carried the day with the international community and the Americans alike.
Because they just presumed that they wouldn't be lying about this.
Basically, I guess it must be that they had pictures of these trucks that aren't quite good enough to show us, so instead, they've drawn up these cartoons of what they must look like in real life, or whatever, when it turns out they did not exist at all.
That's right.
And imagine that, really.
Mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq.
Because, yes, they've decided to divert all of their resources to this one project of weaponizing Ebola to use against us.
And then, they're going to spray us with their balsa wood UAVs that can fly across Jordan.
And Israel and the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic to spray the eastern seaboard with germs, so cover your house in duct tape and plastic.
Not even the Air Force would concur with that, but they tried to get that into the estimate.
Yeah, you're quite right.
Now, when I saw what they call artist renderings, okay, these were the mobile biological production facilities.
And that means that they don't have any images.
They made it up.
They made it up on taking the word of a refugee who claimed that he knew about it, but it was a drunk.
And the only person that knew him from the, or interviewed him from the American side, said he was completely beyond believing.
So, here's Clapper.
Now, there's not a note of regret or apology here.
He says, my team, as you said, my team did these computer generated images of trucks, non-existent trucks, fitted out as mobile production facilities to make biological agents, end quote.
Now, what does he say later?
He would say we were shocked.
The trucks that we had identified as, quote, mobile production facilities for biological agents, end quote, were in fact used to pasteurize and transport milk, end quote.
And then there was this other stuff about moving trucks that moved materials around before they could be found by inspectors.
Well, again, Scott Ritter points out, those trucks, we visited that site.
Those trucks were decontamination vehicles.
You and inspectors had visited that site.
We knew about them.
It was, it was an ammunition bunker and the decontamination vehicle was a water truck used to keep the dust levels down because of the sensitive fuses located in the bunker.
These were known facts, but Clapper chose to ignore them.
Now, let me just tell you that when I asked him these questions.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
I'm going to get to the part where you confront him in a minute.
Okay.
Because I got a question about that.
I'm sorry.
But so I want to bring up this one more thing here too, from the article.
And that is that, well, and you know, Ray, as all good readers of the National Review and the Weekly Standard and, and watchers of Fox News know that the only reason they couldn't find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was because Putin had helped move them to Syria.
And that was James Clapper's story, wasn't it?with detailed quotes from what Clapper said.
And it started with, quote, Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war.
The nation's top satellite spy director said, James Clapper, head of NEMA, National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
He said the vehicle traffic photographed by US spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms program was shipped to Syria.
Now, in his book, that's what Gerd said, on the basis of Clapper's breakfast briefing.
In his book, he says, you know, quote, we'd made some assumptions that we shouldn't have.
He, end quote, then he says, I was still baffled that no WMD sites had been discovered.
I mentioned that in the days before the invasion started, we saw a lot of cars and trucks fleeing the country into Syria.
Well, that's what I would have done if I were in Iraq.
So I probably should have clarified what this is.
This is Clapper writing in this book.
I probably should have clarified what a stretch it would be to suggest that WMD had been transported to Syria, Syria, Iraq.
We're not seeing eye to eye here.
There was no mention of a Russian involvement in that point.
So, you know, I guess, I guess he's right on that.
I'm sorry.
I may have.
It wasn't my embellishment, but it may not have been his either.
But that was certainly the right wing talking point of the day was that Putin had intervened to help move the weapons to Syria.
And you know what?
I actually really feel sorry now for all those people.
I resented so much who believed all of this garbage and who hated all the rest of us who knew better than them during Iraq war two that what asses they must feel like now.
Yeah, that was me carrying water for Clapper's move the WMD to Syria.
I spent eight months of my life making the rest of my family hate me and, you know, all whatever arguing about Iraq war two.
And they were wrong, wrong, wrong about every single stupid thing that they thought.
And I pity them.
Question is, do they know it, Scott?
Unless they're listening to you or they read the stuff that I write, they can be blissfully unaware of this.
And that's the real crime.
Yeah.
You know, I when I got up to ask Clapper.
Yeah, I did my Rumsfeld bit, having questioned Rumsfeld 12 years previous and just ask some questions.
But as I say in this article that my first inclination was to say, you know, Hans Blix, the head of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission, he quipped at the time you were telling people that went to Syria, the WMD.
He told the Council of Foreign Relations, quote, It's sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about weapons of mass destruction existence, but zero certainty about where they are, period.
So I avoided that because I know this is a hostile audience.
And I simply referred to what he said about how the the administration was so hell bent on justifying a war.
And as Sir Clapper puts it in the book, those that were pushing the narrative that they had the WMD.
Well, they and the intelligence, quote, the intelligence officers, including me, were very eager to help so that we found what wasn't really there.
Now, I asked him about that.
And I fast forwarded to two years ago when Trump won against all expectations.
And I said, now, your masters then were Obama and the Democratic Party.
Did you do a repeat performance here with respect to Russian intervention in our election?
Did you did you help them find things that weren't really there?
What I get from this audience.
This is that's why this audience loves you so much.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Well, you know, there was all laid out and he started to remonstrate.
We only have the first minute or so of our conversation.
But I mentioned and this is really, really important.
I know what you're going to say.
Yeah, it has to do with what Obama himself said two days before he left town.
OK.
Now, here's the deal.
On the 5th of January, 2000, 2018.
All right.
The gang of four.
17, you mean?
Clapper, CIA head Brennan, James Comey, the FBI and the guy, Admiral Rogers from NSA.
So they descend on Obama and say, OK, we did this assessment and we know that Vladimir Putin fixed it all so much that they hacked into our election.
And he personally did this and and they gave it to WikiLeaks.
And we have this in the assessment.
OK.
By the way, that was not a national intelligence assessment.
It was done by handpicked analysts from three agencies.
And when you handpick the analysts, you handpick the conclusions.
Right.
So what happens?
That's on the 5th of January.
The next day, that assessment is published.
And the next day, these four meet with president, with president elect Trump.
And they say, well, we have this this assessment that the Russians really helped you win the election and that it was Putin himself who you don't really criticize very much.
He orchestrated this whole thing.
And so we just want to let you know that we published it today.
It's going to get a lot of press.
And and then James Comey says, now, gentlemen, I have something very sensitive to tell the president.
Would you please leave?
So Clapper, Brennan and Rogers leave.
And what does what does Comey say to the president elect?
He says, now, Mr. Trump, this is very awkward.
We have this dossier and we can't substantiate all of it, but it has you cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow a couple of years ago.
And it has all kinds of terrible revelations about your past contacts with the Russians in Ireland.
And as I say, it's scarlet.
We can't verify it.
But but just just so you know, just so you know.
And by the way, we have reason to believe that will be published rather soon.
So just just so you know.
Now, Trump was green, OK?
If that were McGovern or I dare say Scott, OK, I think you would have reacted this way.
Mr. Comey, go back, clear out your desk.
I know this tactic.
This is J. Edgar Hoover in spades.
Just so you know, right?
Just so you know what you got on the president.
You're going to be out of there as soon as they come into office.
Clean out your thing.
You're finished.
I would have fired him on the spot.
Instead, what does Trump do?
Well, he tries to ingratiate himself with Comey, whom we all know now is doing his best to prevent him from being elected and then impeding his his administration.
So on later in May, when their famous interview with that, what's his name?
NBC guy.
And when they say, well, Trump, why did you really fire?
Why did you really fire Comey?
Comey, he says, oh, that that was that Russian thing.
Aha.
Everybody says, ah, Lester Holtz, the guy.
OK.
Oh, oh, no.
So he is admitting that he was trying to prevent knowledge of his collusion with the Russians.
Well, that wasn't it at all.
The Russian thing was Comey taking him aside just as all presidents elect are taken aside, saying, Mr. President-elect, we have this dossier.
It's very embarrassing.
We can't verify all of it.
But Bill Hicks had a great bit where he says what happens is after you become president, they take you in this dark room and there are these, you know, powerful men smoking cigars, a smoky room, and then they play you footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before.
And then they go.
Any questions?
Yeah, just what my agenda is.
Well, now it's not all men.
We have the director of the CIA, you know, the torturer in chief of that first black site, Gina Haspel.
So the the black room with the cigars are all integrated now or there's a more or less sexist atmosphere.
But I don't know if that exactly happens.
I know that the former governor of Minnesota says so.
Well, never mind what he says.
But I know that well, about his own experience, I might believe him.
But like you're saying here, this is the same thing.
And look at how ridiculous this dossier is that says that where they don't even the guy who wrote it doesn't even stand by the whole thing about the prostitutes at all.
It says he heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy and he didn't believe it either.
And then he put it in there anyway.
And this is the same dossier that says that this nobody, Carter Page, was going to be given a 20 billion dollar commission on an oil deal.
Oh, yeah.
That all sounds very reasonable to me.
And Ray, I think you must be an agent of Putin if you don't believe that one.
Well, you know, Comey is one of the one of the people behind all this, he and Brennan, especially when Comey saw that he was in deep kimchi, so to speak.
He leaked to the Washington Post, no, New York Times through an intermediary, a ostensible conversation he had with the president, which, by the way, ipso facto is classified, but he leaked it anyway.
And it was talking about Trump wanting to have the FBI go a little easier on General Flynn, you know, and all this stuff.
So that's leaked.
Now, the next day, a special prosecutor was named.
And who's that?
Oh, it's Bob Mueller.
Oh, who's Bob Mueller?
Ah, James Comey's best friend forever.
You know, when they asked Comey why he leaked to the New York Times that day, he said, well, I wanted a special prosecutor appointed.
And when it was when it was his best friend forever, Bob Mueller, you know, I could see him saying under his breath, thank you, Jesus.
This is gonna be great.
And that's, you know, that's how they've tried to do this thing.
Now, it's been a year and a half.
Mueller has come up with nothing on collusion by the Trump administration and Russia.
And I have to tell you, my wife always says, Ray, for God's sake, you're going to appear to be supporting Trump.
No, I'm supporting the truth.
I'm saying that Trump is the worst president the United States of America has ever had.
But he's right on two things.
One is that there is no reason in God's heaven why we can't have a more decent relationship with Russia.
And the other thing is they're out to get him with a false story about his colluding with Russia, trying to make it appear that he owes his victory to Vladimir Putin.
And which is really bad, too, because first of all, it ain't true.
And it causes all these problems domestically, too.
But it also really helps ratchet up the Cold War with Russia.
And on the Democratic side, more than anyone else, like if you're going to have knee jerk militarists, usually they come from the right.
But now this is like a huge inoculation against peace for Democrats that anyone saying we should be getting along better with Russia sounds like Trump, the worst president we've ever had, which you must have never heard of.
James K. Polk or of Abraham Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon or George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
But anyway.
Well, it's a mix of people there.
Woodrow Wilson is the father of Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and Mao and the Bush family fortune, too.
So pretty hard to say that Trump is worse than him, at least until the H-bombs start going off.
Well, I measure I measure a government by what it does for the poor, what it does.
I go by the height of the pile of skulls.
Yeah, well, OK.
Internally, it's what the government does with respect to the widow, the orphan and the refugee.
And that comes out of a faith tradition that I think is valid.
And when I see him violating that to the nth degree, that alone should get him out of there.
I feel you.
But, you know, you got to take into account the genocides, too.
And and Trump, I mean, if he does eight years, he surely will have killed more people than Obama, although that's really going to be an amazing accomplishment after what he did.
Well, you know, Obama at least tried to come up with ostensibly legal theories as to how he could kill Americans, for example.
You know, I remember when Mount Rushmore.
Anwar al-Awlaki and his son were both murdered by drones.
His that is Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, was forced to kind of explain how, you know, there's a Fifth Amendment which says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property with a due process.
So how do you do this?
Well, he gets up at Northwestern Law School, pretty good law school by all accounts.
And he says, OK, this is no.
He says the Fifth Amendment says due process.
It doesn't say judicial process.
Oh, well, it always had meant judicial process.
So so says says Holder.
We do.
Yeah, we do.
Do do we do the due process right here in the White House?
Thank you very much.
And all these budding lawyers taking notes, oh, they're probably on the final exam because that's new.
How do they get away with that?
Well, when I see what happens, what's happened to the legal profession, what's happened to the to the journalism profession, it's profoundly disturbing.
But there are us and I think there are enough of us.
And by and by, I like what I.F. Stone says, you got to go into this expecting to lose.
You're going to lose and you're going to lose again and you're going to lose again.
And then finally, someone who shares your values and shares a desire to tell the truth wins.
Meanwhile, you've got to keep your sense of humor.
You've got to keep your head on and you've got to prepare the way for that time after so many losings.
Yeah, absolutely.
And, you know, it's funny, I gave a speech recently at this Ron Paul conference about mostly just about how much I loved Ron Paul and what a great hero he was.
And then I was really kicking myself on the way home that I remember that I absolutely had a great ending for that, that I didn't use, which was the first time I interviewed Ron Paul.
I asked him a question that was actually suggested to me by Karen Katowski, the great whistleblower from the Pentagon who witnessed the neocons lie us into war from the Office of Special Plans and all that.
And she told me to ask him, well, if there's only ever one Ron Paul, then what hope do we have?
I mean, look at just how bad these things are.
This is in May, I guess, of 2004.
And Ron Paul's answer was, oh, yeah, no, forget that.
Hey, guess what?
Just a few years ago, we thought the Soviet Union was sure to last at least for the rest of our lifetimes.
We didn't know that it was about to come apart.
We could have never imagined the secession of the Soviet Union from Russia in that way.
And what happened in 88 through 1991, it was beyond our wildest dreams.
And so it's not our job to go predicting the worst or doomsaying and this and that.
It's our job to just keep teaching people about liberty and keep teaching people about peace.
And you never know exactly what's going to happen.
But what really matters is that you keep doing the right thing in the meantime, which is virtually the same thing you just said.
You mentioned Karen Katowski.
Let me announce here on your show that she is the winner of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity and Intelligence for this year.
Oh, really?
Hey, man, can I do the speech?
Oh, no, I guess I want to do the introduction or something, but I guess that's probably your job.
Well, I'd be happy to crib from whatever you provide is going to be on December the 8th.
And as you know, or maybe you don't, there is a...
I'll write you up a whole thing that you can use whatever you want out of it or whatever.
But I just absolutely love her.
She's so great.
Well, do you know about the film Shock and Awe with Rob Reiner directing and acting in it?
I did.
And actually, I guess a friend told me, I hadn't seen it yet, but a friend told me that they really did her wrong and kind of made her look bad in it, which I thought was really...
Well, she's happy with it, actually.
Oh, that's good.
The story is that there was a premiere here in Washington and I went and there was John Brennan.
We bumped into each other physically and I said, hi, John.
And he shook my hand and Larry Johnson...
You should have asked him, hey, how's Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Muhammad al-Jolani doing lately, traitor?
Yeah, I wasn't quick enough.
Anyhow, at the end, there's a Q&A and it turns out that Larry Johnson recites some telephone numbers.
And the two people from Knight Ritter who got it right said, oh, my God.
So you're the guy.
So Larry was talking to them.
So was Larry Wilkerson, another one of our veteran intelligence professionals for sanity.
And then this woman comes down after I made some question and she looked very familiar.
And when she took the mic, she said, that woman that sat outside the Pentagon office there, that was I. And she had kept that from everyone, including her closest colleagues in VIPS.
And hey, I'm here to tell you, I know her very well.
And I interviewed her about the neocons over and over again and about her role in that time and about her articles that she wrote for David Hackworth's site, Soldiers for the Truth.
And I knew her story and I knew the Landay story that they were the first reporters.
They called it the Office of Special Projects in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, Feith's Gestapo office, as Colin Powell later called it, where they came up with so many of the WMD lies.
But I did not know that she was Landay's source either.
I don't think Larissa knew either.
Well, now you know.
And the Shock and Awe, again, directed by Rob Reiner and also available on Amazon and on other places for four or four bucks or six bucks if you want to get the whole thing.
It's really worth watching.
As I say, Karen is happy with the way her role was portrayed.
And as a result of that, it was real easy picking out the Sam Adams Award for Integrity recipient this year.
And we're really looking forward to promoting it.
It'll be in Washington and it'll be in the 8th of December in the evening.
We have a wonderful celebration planned.
Larry Wilkerson is speaking.
So is Larry Johnson, both of whom were also sources for the Knight Ridder people.
And we always have a really good crowd there.
And Karen, of course, is due this honor.
Absolutely.
She was a great source for my wife, too, for Larissa Alexandrovna Horton now.
And it was funny because in 2012, I met her at this Ron Paul thing in Florida during the convention thing there.
And I told her, hey, did you know that I am married to Larissa Alexandrovna now?
And as I recall, she punched me in the shoulder and said, well, you sure got the better part of that deal and went on to talk about how great my wife was.
So that was very nice, too.
I really like that lady.
The announcement, we're getting that out this weekend.
And, you know, to the degree you can promote it, it would be great because she joins the ranks of Colleen Rowley, of Craig Murray, of Julian Assange, of Ed Snowden, of Chelsea Manning.
They're all previous recipients of the Sam Adams Award.
We're very proud of that.
And Karen will be number 17 in 17 years.
That's just great.
I'm so excited by that.
Now, listen, I want to let you finish this thought that you started.
And I'm not sure if you went off on a tangent or if I interrupted you and made you, but you were going to talk about not just the blackmailing of Trump, but how the intelligence guys gave their briefing to Obama.
And then Obama publicly announced that, you know, I don't know, something.
Yeah, well, thanks for picking up on that.
This is really important.
And the reason it's important is because the First Amendment is a real, real problem for people who want to prosecute Assange.
The First Amendment is very clear.
And if you prosecute him on First Amendment grounds, well, it's in the New York Times, Washington.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is the wrong tangent.
I'm talking about Obama not believing the intelligence assess.
Oh, I see where you're going.
Never mind.
Go ahead.
It took me a second there.
It's all connected.
So they can't get Assange on those grounds for being publisher of publisher, for receiving leaks, which is what he does, and publishing them documentary evidence.
What they could try to get him on is espionage.
So what they try to do is find and if they don't find it, they're not above manufacturing it just the way they did with WMD in Iraq.
Okay.
They're trying to find some sort of intercepted conversation, some sort of some sort of story that says Assange actively solicited from whoever leaked or he was in cahoots with not only the Russians, but with others, maybe the DNC.
And once they can pin that on them, then they can make a well, ostensibly, they can make a case that is not just before publishing is for active espionage on behalf of the Russians or something like that.
So why is that important?
Well, it's important because Obama didn't know that.
After this detailed briefing on the 5th of January 2017, he was not persuaded.
He was not persuaded of the link between what what was called Russian hacking and WikiLeaks.
And so he he said quite a quite apropos of not much else.
At his final press conference on the 18th of January 2017, he said, quote, the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to how the Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks are inconclusive, period, end quote.
So you have the intelligence community conclusions, which everybody refers to now as sacrosanct, briefed to him just 13 days before.
They turn out to be inconclusive conclusions.
And so if Obama didn't know how Assange got these things, sort of big gap there, right?
How can they say that Assange was witting of this Russian connection or so with all this stuff?
So so this is really important.
What they have to do is conjure up something.
And as I say, they're not above doing that.
They've proved their mettle on that conjure up something that will allow them to get the Ecuadorians to say, ah, look, he's spying on behalf of the Russians.
They haven't been able to do that yet.
Mueller's been at it for a year and a half.
And by the way, you know, Mueller's is no neophyte here.
I mean, my God, he headed up the FBI for 12 years.
He successfully entrapped hundreds of innocent idiots into fake terrorism plots.
He's really good at this.
Yeah.
And Colleen Rowley and others will have the book on him.
He's a white collar criminal.
Okay.
Now, not people people know that.
But, you know, if he hasn't if if he was really after collusion, he knew which people to ask and where the bodies were buried.
And ironically, a supreme irony is that the bodies came up.
But what the body showed was FBI gate, not Russia gate.
FBI involved together with the CIA and the NSA to make sure that that Trump would not win and then to eviscerate him, to emasculate him once he did win.
That all came out.
It's documentary.
So here's Mueller for a year and a half, unwilling, unable to come up with anything on collusion.
And, you know, it's not like he started the whole thing.
That fellow Peter Strzok had been at it for seven months before that.
And seriously, if the president United States was compromised by the Kremlin, wouldn't there be some kind of rush on this?
They're like, we need to go ahead and get that one good indictment that will lead to impeachment and removal of this foreign agent in the Oval Office.
Well, you pointed out how sketchy that dossier is.
I don't think even the even the reprobates in the FBI justice and all that kind of stuff would cite that.
What's what's at stake here?
And it's going to be interesting to see if Trump has the guts to do what he can do through the house intelligence community before leadership changes on that community.
And what he needs to do is have the Justice Department declassify the FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application, which put the surveillance on page.
Now, once they declassify that, they'll see that they use the dossier without citing the fact that it was paid for by Hillary Clinton's folks.
They use all manner of spurious things to justify trying to spy on one of the people who had been connected with the Trump campaign.
So once that's released, then it should be possible to see what's really going on here.
The stakes are very high.
Devin Nunes, who heads up the House Intelligence Committee, when asked, could these people be tried?
Could they go to trial?
Could they go to jail?
He said, you better believe they can.
If they violated the law, they will go to trial.
Whoa.
I have never, never, ever seen a House Intelligence Committee chairman throw down the gauntlet like that.
So things are going to be very interesting.
My fear is that Trump is so afraid of the intelligence folks that he'll throw Nunes and all the other people who are trying to get the real answers here, throw them under the bus.
That will be supremely unfortunate.
All right.
Now, one more thing here real quick, and I'm sorry because I know I'm keeping you late here, but your article ends on this, and I think it's extremely important.
And I know you're not a lawyer, but I also know that you're a former CIA analyst from the Soviet division and used to brief Vice President Bush and President Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s and things.
So I know you know a lot about this stuff.
And you say travel tip for Clapper.
Don't you go somewhere where they claim universal jurisdiction and the right to prosecute you for war crimes because you're guilty of them, pal.
And now you're not talking about torture here.
You're talking about the way that he helped to lie us into war in Iraq War II.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And it's by his own admission now.
All people have to do is look at page 99 of his memoir and find out that, you know, he was so, as he puts it, so eager to please the administration that he found things that weren't really there.
That's enough.
Now, when Haspel, the head of the CIA now, Gina Haspel, went to Turkey, you know, I don't know this, but she probably should have had a fighter escort.
Because there are people who are very serious in Germany and France who would like to get their hands on her for her admitted role in leading the waterboarding and worse of al-Nashiri in Thailand at the first black site.
So, you know, Gina Haspel got it, got to Turkey.
Now, the Turks aren't all that concerned about about torture, except when the Saudis do it, apparently.
But, you know, if she let's say the plane had a malfunction and she had to land in Frankfurt, whoa, she better not get out of that plane because they'll be there.
They'll be there.
And so Clapper suffers the same same liability here.
And as we know, the Italians have jailed some some CIA folks.
So some people take World War Two, the Nuremberg Tribunal and international law seriously still.
So that was a little warning to my friend, Jim Clapper.
Be careful.
And, you know, just a word to my kind of libertarian and more right wing friends, too, who, you know, I don't particularly like the idea of the ICC.
But then again, she broke the law in Thailand.
Nobody would say she's not subject to the law of Thailand when she did it, even if she's an American.
And also this whole thing with the universal jurisdiction where assuming, let's say, that all of her crimes took place on American soil, where we all agree that just like Anwar al-Awlaki, she deserves American due process and the full complement of our Bill of Rights, not some lesser European or U.N. standard.
But then that's all dependent on us making sure, using our democracy to elect only prosecutors who will put Gina Haspel in prison for torture.
She's a criminal.
She violated the law.
And for some reason, she's the director of the CIA instead of sitting in the penitentiary.
So at that point, and as you're saying, only at that point, when the Americans have blatantly refused to pursue criminal charges, does the option of universal jurisdiction even kick in?
And we saw this at the beginning of the Obama term, and this is in the WikiLeaks, thanks to Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, that the Obama administration sent people over to tell the Spanish, don't you prosecute the CIA torturers because we are having our Justice Department look into it.
So your excuse that we're not looking into it and that we're not abiding by our treaty obligation that says that there are no exceptions and that the torture laws must be enforced is moot, because we are working on it.
But then it was just a sham, and they appointed this guy, was it Dunford or something very close to that, who investigated only two CIA officers for two cases where they actually tortured a guy to death, Gul Rahman in the salt pit torture dungeon in Afghanistan and Abdul Jamadi in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
And then in both those cases, they went, nah, you're just doing your job and you're fine anyway.
And it was like a preliminary investigation about whether to have a preliminary investigation, and it never went any further than that.
It was an obvious hoax and a farce and a fake investigation into the lawbreaking of the torture regime in the Bush years.
And so I say, have at them, ICC.
I say, let the Khmer Rouge, who were just convicted of genocide themselves, let them hold Gina Haspel's trial and see if I care.
Well, you know, with respect to Clapper, it's kind of interesting.
He was a protege of Rumsfeld, as I mentioned before.
He probably doesn't even know that Rumsfeld had a close brush with being captured in Paris back in 2007, the year after he left being defense secretary.
So he's making a big speech in Paris and he hears the Paris prosecutor has been served a formal complaint against Rumsfeld for authorizing torture.
Oh, wow.
What did he do?
He's out the back door, out to Charles de Gaulle Airport and in the air before anybody, before the prosecutor in Paris could make up her mind as to what to do.
And even George Bush, he had a close call in February of 2011.
He was going to make a big speech at a big, big dinner, Jewish charity in Geneva.
Okay.
Now, at the last minute, he learned that as soon as he got off the plane in Geneva, he was going to be served.
And so he canceled his plans and went to see the Texas Rangers instead.
So it's real enough.
And these people, you know, I agree with you.
If the United States justice system, such as it has become, is unwilling to follow the principles of Nuremberg and other international law instruments, then next time these people, Gina Haspel goes to confer in Germany, maybe justice will be done in that one small way.
And people can see that you can't have total impunity for the rest of your life for doing these horrendous crimes.
Yeah.
And by the way, I want to apologize for saying Khmer Rouge without the necessary prefix, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's friends, the Khmer Rouge, which, by the way, did you ever brief Ronald Reagan on our support for the Khmer Rouge is going really well, boss?
No, I didn't.
That would be an interesting anecdote.
Well, you know, I had other things that I did, that I did report that were not very welcome.
But I can't really.
That's the one thing that I think is sacrosanct.
We have to make sure that those who are briefed by CIA officers have every reason to believe that these conversations will be completely confidential.
So I never say anything about the substance of what I briefed these folks.
And I think that that's a good policy.
And most of my colleagues have abided by that as well.
All right.
Well, with that, I've kept you way over time here, and I'm so late for my next thing.
But thank you so much, Ray.
I always love talking to you.
And it absolutely is a fact that I get more reaction, positive reaction, all of it, from your interviews than from any other work that I do.
People just absolutely love you.
I hope that might.
For obvious reasons.
I hope that might balance out the reaction I got at the Carnegie Endowment.
Yeah, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where they're all a bunch of insane right-wing hawks.
Yeah, I have this vision of Andrew Carnegie rolling over in his grave.
When I wrote up my experience at the Carnegie Endowment, I looked up the history of it, and it was peace that they were about in a very serious way.
And I have to tell you that as late as 2003, four, five, under the leadership of the daughter of the—gosh, what's the name of that wonderful book?
I'll remember it in a second.
They were right on Iraq.
Joe Cirincione and others who were on that staff, Jessica Matthews was her name, daughter of— That was the one official think tank in D.C. that opposed Iraq War II, right?
So what's the lesson there?
The lesson there is that 2004, 2005, we were on the same wavelength.
They were very, very judicious and very, very strong in opposing what the evidence was.
So what is it now?
18.
So four from 18 is what?
14 years, and you've got war criminals, self-confessed war criminals.
People who torture, people who start wars or give the evidence to justify wars.
Now they're featured at the Carnegie Institute, and those who ask real questions escape with the skin of their teeth.
So I'll just end on that, and it's been a pleasure talking to you, Scott.
All right.
Thank you again, Ray.
Really appreciate it.
Okay.
All right, you guys.
That's Ray McGovern.
Contact Tell The Word if you'd like for him to give a speech to your group.
Find his essays at original.antiwar.com, and of course, raymcgovern.com.
And also, very importantly, you can find him at consortiumnews.com, as well as the entire archive of the public memos, the open letters, basically, written by the group that he helped found back before Iraq War II, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and they have the full archive for you there at consortiumnews.com.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan, at foolserrand.us.
