11/05/12 – Jeremiah Goulka – The Scott Horton Show

Ben Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
Hi, Scott Horton here for the Bill of Rights Security Edition from securityedition.com.
It's a playing card sized steel Bill of Rights designed to set off the metal detectors anywhere the police state goes so you can remind those around you the freedoms we've lost.
And for a limited time get free shipping when you purchase a frequent flyer pack of five Bill of Rights Security Edition cards.
Play a leading role in the security theater with a Bill of Rights Security Edition from securityedition.com.
The Scott Horton Show is brought to you by the Future Freedom Foundation at fff.org.
Join the great Jacob Hornberger and some of the best writers in the libertarian movement like James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more for a real individualist take on the most important matters of peace, liberty, and prosperity in our society.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation at fff.org.
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.
Hey everybody, Scott Horton here for libertystickers.com.
If you're like me, then you're right all the time, surrounded by people in desperate need of correction.
Well, we can't all have a radio show, but we can all get anti-government propaganda to stick on the back of our trucks.
Check out libertystickers.com.
Categories include anti-war, empire, police state, libertarian, Ron Paul, gun rights, founders quotes, and of course the stupid election.
That's libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Introducing Jeremiah Gulka, a Tom Dispatch regular who's been writing about American politics and culture, focusing on security, race, and the Republican Party.
Formerly he was an analyst at the Rand Corporation.
We've talked with him before about the Mujahideen-e-Khalq communist terrorist cult that he went and investigated and wrote about for Rand there at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, and along those same lines is this piece, The Urge to Bomb Iran, running right now at TomDispatch.com.
Welcome back to the show, Jeremiah.
How are you doing?
Thanks for having me.
I'm good.
How are you doing?
Well, you're welcome.
Good, and I'm doing fine.
Thanks very much.
The Urge to Bomb Iran.
This is pretty much the case I've been making, that the Democrats are worse, but the Republicans are even worse, on Iran especially.
So go ahead, tell us about, well, first of all, give us a thumbnail, as you kind of do here, I think you sort of talk about, you know, Obama's Iran policy so far, and then maybe we can talk about what Romney has said to distinguish himself and who his advisors are, which is, we've learned in the Bush administration especially how extremely important it is who's your Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, advisors matter, especially if you're someone who comes to a subject without a whole lot of pre-existing experience or beliefs.
The thumbnail on this piece is that President Obama has more or less teed up the possibility of bombing Iran, but Romney and his people are actually interested in taking a swing.
And what I try to do in it is to talk beyond just even the advisors, but to show that there is sort of an infrastructure in the U.S. of groups, political groups and different organizations that have vested interest in getting us involved militarily with Iran.
And, you know, they've been sort of steadily working on that agenda, and they've done it effectively in a way that's frightening if you think about it in comparison with the Iraq war.
Because with Iraq, the Bush administration spent, you know, the better part of a year trying to sell the American public that there was, you know, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
But, you know, an Obama or a Romney wouldn't have to do that for Iran, because the public already believes that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program.
Right, they've spent the better part of a decade telling that lie.
Yeah, and, you know, there was a time when Iran, you know, did, and Iran does have a civilian nuclear program, but just the way that, you know, in the sense that words matter about, you know, you don't ever hear people talking about how Iran's civilian nuclear program, you don't even hear hardly about an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Well, and even the so-called weapons program that they ever had, mostly as far as I can tell, was just when the CIA gave them the blueprints for a finished implosion bomb, the Operation Merlin disaster, and then supposedly they had some bench-level experiments or something, but best I can tell even that comes from just the forged Israeli so-called smoking laptop.
So when they say they had a program up until 2003, they never described that.
It certainly wasn't a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade, or to, you know, machine such non-existent material into a warhead.
And when you, you know, hear about what people talk about, just in the news, it's always Iran's nuclear program, Iranian nuclear program, and that just sounds like an affirmative statement that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program.
And, you know, that's sort of a natural way for people's minds to work.
Right.
Well, and, you know, I'm just lucky in my life, I just happen to have been an anti-war.com reader, and especially I had access to Gordon Prather and could interview him on the show all the time, and he used to make nuclear bombs for the U.S. government, and knows all about them, and, you know, helped with the creation of the treaty and the entire non-proliferation regime and everything.
So I just had this ultimate cheat sheet about, you know, what this all means.
But otherwise, without Gordon Prather, I'm just like everybody else.
You say nuclear, and to me, immediately, I'm picturing mathematical equations that I could never solve.
So you're way above my pay grade now.
I don't know.
You tell me whether I'm supposed to be scared or not.
All right, exactly.
Be scared.
Be very afraid.
Yeah, because I can't figure it out myself.
What am I going to do about, you know, nuclear technology?
I don't know.
Right?
So we all have to find our expert, and just mostly the only experts that get a hearing in the media are people who claim that there's a danger, even if they never define it.
Yeah, that's true.
And, you know, as I go into in the piece, you know, and as, you know, plenty of your listeners know, there's a whole world in Washington of people who are paid for their opinions in ways that, you know, that will promote the interests of whatever group.
So, you know, when it comes to war, there are plenty of groups at the various, you know, neocon think tanks particularly, but, you know, even a lot of the more mainstream ones whose job is essentially to promote fear of, you know, one place or another.
And, you know, if you come into it, you know, I think some people come into it honestly, but when they keep being, finding their views are so well reinforced and rewarded, well, it becomes self-perpetuating.
Right.
Well, and, you know, one of the things I think, and this is working on me too, and maybe it's because Obama actually is a shade better on this issue than the Republicans, but I sort of feel like there's a false sense of security.
You know, the New York Times ran that piece in February or March saying the Pentagon really does not want Israel to get us into a war with Iran.
And it was about how the generals are just completely opposed to this kind of thing.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that kind of thing.
So, and that leads a reasonable person to conclude that, well, it's just not going to happen then.
It's a crazy thing.
It's absolutely insane to start a war with Iran when you can't predict exactly how it'll end or contain the consequences when you just fought a war for them in Iraq and they could do all kinds of damage to you and all these kinds of things.
There's so many reasons not to do it.
I think a lot of us just assume it ain't going to happen.
But then that would be discounting the power and influence of the neoconservatives.
And I think what you do in this article is you refuse to discount the power and influence of the neocons.
They're not gone.
As disgraced as they may be, and they're sure as hell not giving up on this.
Yeah, exactly.
And it's interesting when you're mentioning how the generals aren't interested.
Well, I mean, I don't think the generals were that interested in going into Iraq either.
I mean, it's the civilian folks who have an interest in pushing.
The military sees, they've got experience and they see the costs of doing business in a way that the civilian politicals just don't.
You know, I learned an interesting thing recently reading a book, Republican Gamora, that I hadn't known before, which is that part of the Sarah Palin pick had actually been by neocons who were specifically looking for an empty vessel that they could influence.
And at least had there been a McCain presidency, the new McCain at least had some serious experience on the topic.
But it becomes worrisome when you think about the groups, the neocons and other varieties of similar hawks, since a lot of them disclaim that term.
You know how interested in having an empty vessel they are, so they can shape that person's policies, and obviously under the George W. Bush administration that worked for them.
Well, and obviously Mitt Romney doesn't know his ass from the hole in the ground.
I don't think he's as stupid as Bush, but he doesn't seem any more interested in the world than than George W. Bush.
But you know what I wonder, say Mitt Romney had the slightest bit of sense.
He won this election and he decided, well, thanks for supporting me neocons, but now I'm going to do the smart thing and I'm going to go with, I don't know, whoever Brent Scowcroft would prefer.
Are there even any realists left?
Are there any Rockefeller Republicans left?
I mean, other than Colin Powell, who is there in the Republican Party to run the National Security Council, to run the foreign policy of the Romney administration, who's not a neocon?
Haven't they all already been purged?
I mean, more or less, there are handfuls around and there are a lot who are more or less retired, or quite old, but ended up seeming like such a, you know, after a while kind of splitting hairs, since even the folks who are considered moderate within the Republican foreign policy community are pretty hawkish.
The idea of calling Kissinger anything other than a hawk, it seems sort of appalling.
Yeah, James Baker was just on that thing with Hillary Clinton a couple of weeks back saying, oh yeah, well, looks to me like we're going to have to bomb them off the face of the earth.
Yeah, man, he's touted as one of the moderates.
Or at least a realist.
I don't know about a moderate, but at least, you know, he's supposed to be smart enough to measure these things, you know, in attempting to be objective instead of just saying, you know, what would Benjamin Netanyahu prefer?
Like, you know, calculate over at the American Enterprise Institute.
Yeah, but then, you know, so you have someone like Powell, who we at least know knows what he's talking about, endorsed Obama again, and so he's not going to get any attention from, you know, a potential Romney administration, or certainly from a Romney candidate.
Right.
Well, okay, so tell us more about who are the neocons that have been piling around with Mitt Romney, or that Mitt Romney's been piling around with, I guess would be the better way to say it.
Who are these guys, and why should, you know, I don't know, Joey, the brand new listener to the show out there, fear them?
There are various lists you can see online of folks who are on the Romney team.
But there are a few I mentioned in the piece, and so I'll just kind of name them.
So, you know, one is Robert Kagan, who's a very kind of influential neoconservative in America.
He was one of the founders of the Project for a New American Century, which was one of the major neoconservative sort of small group think tanks that did an excellent, very effective job of pushing us into the war with Iraq.
And he, so that's PNAC, it's no longer around, but they have sort of a successor organization called the Foreign Policy Initiative, and he's one of the leaders over there.
And as I say in the piece, you know, he's said in print many times, things along the lines of regime change in Tehran is the best non-proliferation policy.
And then you look at other members of the other directors over at the Foreign Policy Initiative.
One is Eric Edelman, another is Bill Kristol, Kristol being one of the key neocons.
He's one of their most prominent mouthpieces over at, you know, Weekly Standard and elsewhere, and in the Emergency Committee for Israel, and so on.
And then there is Dan Sanor, who is apparently one of the more prominent advisors to Romney.
His foreign policy experience seems, you know, somewhat limited in the sense that he was a spokesman, that's one of his major roles as the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, that organization that existed for the first year of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
But when you look at, so some of the, because they're all, you know, canny political operators, you know, they'll measure their words somewhat.
But when you look at what their organization's position is, the Foreign Policy Initiative, they've got plenty of stuff out on the web you can read.
But one is a quote from a National Review article said, this is, you know, authored by the organization's director, or executive director, said, it is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program.
More diplomacy is not an adequate response.
So the stated position of these folks is military action, not diplomacy.
And then there's one advisor who the Romney people I talked to basically are keeping at their distance from because he's so bombastic.
And so it's, who knows what position he would have in a Romney administration, but there'd probably be something and it's not like he'd be entirely kept out of the room.
And that's john Bolton, who was UN ambassador briefly for the W administration, and a frequent speaker on behalf of the Mujahideen-e-Halk, when it was on the foreign terrorist organization list.
And he's listening to some of his talks that he did for the MEK kind of essentially said he was mad that we had not yet done a regime change operation.
And the best time to do was yesterday.
So but when you find him to look around on online, and his quotes are all very, very, you know, clear, like one says, the better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly.
And we should be prepared to take down the regime in Tehran.
So, you know, those are just a few examples of people who are on the Romney team, and are directly that, you know, they've, they've said that they're really want to have, you know, military regime change in Iran.
And, you know, I suppose if you ask him directly, some may kind of be somewhat cagey about it.
And I know that sometimes the Romney folks will say, Oh, well, you know, those are just part of the team.
There's also, you know, the other folks like Bob Zelik, who maybe are a little bit less bombastic.
But you know, there are also these reports that come out saying that, when push comes to shove, when Romney is interested in talking about foreign policy, he goes to what are known as the Cheneyites.
And, you know, these, these, a lot of these guys were, you know, close to Cheney or worked for Cheney.
And, you know, and Cheney's on record saying that he was pushing, you know, the Bush administration to bomb Iran.
Well, and, you know, here's the thing, too, Obama has implied, I don't know if he's outright said this, but he's implied that he would be willing to accept uranium enrichment, as long as it's kept at 3.6%, whatever below five.
And they don't enrich up to 20% that they make some kind of trade.
Now he's refused to accept their acceptance of his offer at least twice, maybe three times now.
And but the Republican position basically is, I think, as you were saying there, no nuclear program whatsoever.
In fact, I mean, we all know it's just a pretext for regime change anyway.
But that's basically their thing is, they won't even float an idea for what a negotiated solution even could look like.
There cannot be one.
When it's one of the things that kind of makes it extra challenging in the, what do you know, the so called P five plus one negotiations for, you know, to try to put yourself in the Iranian negotiators shoes for a moment, to know that here you are, you know, negotiating with the United States where it's, where it's elected leaders are, you know, pushing extremely hard and are very, very unfriendly towards the, the Iranian regime.
And then the folks who are the a lot of the kind of, you know, lead opposition folks like the neocons have absolutely no interest in any form of diplomacy on that, because they want to see the regime obliterated.
Yeah, which, of course, brings up the problem is how that's supposed to happen at all.
And that's what's really strange about this thing, and has been for years on end, to me, is that they can say they want regime change.
But I think it's agreed by all 7 billion on earth that, yeah, but who are you going to replace them with?
You're not going to be able to replace them with the Shah's family, you're not going to be able to replace them with the Mujahedini cult, communist terrorist, Charles Manson cult, you're not going to be able to replace them with the Jandala suicide bombers, you know, whatever Kurdish faction of PJAK communist terrorists, who in the hell is supposed to take over the country next?
Because this guy Mousavi, Mousavi, the leader of the green movement, he likes the Ayatollah, he just wants Ahmadinejad's job.
So what are they even talking about?
Do they even have the slightest fantasy, like some kind of narrative for what it's going to look like when they get their regime change?
You know, I'd love to be able to, you know, see into the heads of folks who are really committed to regime change.
And I worry that, you know, we'd have, again, what happened with Iraq, where this weird combination of thinking, on one side, we're in a terrible situation, and it's very urgent, we have to bomb now.
And on the flip side, it'll be really easy, no problem, you know, we'll get this stuff done well, and we've got a ready-made government, and Ahmad shall be, so we're good to go.
You know, it's worrisome that, say, you know, Amouja Hadini-Halk will be able to persuade, you know, any folks who actually want regime change to say that they are a useful, at least temporary government to install.
Because they say, you know, the group says it has a president-elect in a parliament in exile, and they're just waiting to go, and they do a good, you know, a good job of PR in Washington, and they've got their attack dogs who say that they're only interested in democracy, and they don't even want to have violent regime change.
They just, they want it to happen democratically from the inside.
Yeah, well, you know, what's funny about that, right, is that, I guess that it works really well within the Beltway in Washington, D.C.
I know from, I guess, talking with you, but also with Scott Peterson from the Christian Science Monitor, and others about, really, the scandal about the MEK hiring so many mucky-mucks from both parties, generals, and all these people to represent them.
And you can tell by their responses to the reporters who are asking, the few reporters who are asking questions about what are you doing repping for these guys, and most of them convincingly plead ignorance.
Oh, what do you mean there's a problem with the Mujahedini cult, communist terrorist cult?
They seem like perfectly nice people to me, where, you know, from here in Texas, they're a communist terrorist cult.
They're crazy, they're killers, they're bombers, they're traitors, and they have a zero percent approval rating inside Iran, and so what in the hell are you even talking about?
That's what it looks like from Texas.
But inside D.C., I think you're right.
Well, you just said that, like, this is completely plausible to them, the same way that they bought into Ahmed Chalabi, which, by the way, he and his Iraqi National Congress, they were working for the Iranians, trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Imagine that.
Yeah, I mean, it's so bizarre.
I mean, maybe this is, some of this goes into the ability for people to, you know, put on their blinders, you know, in exchange for a nice honorarium.
So, you know, some of these ex-officials, I guess, maybe they thought that, you know, $20,000 was worth not really looking into who they were talking about.
Right.
It might be worth it to me to give a couple of good speeches about the MEK for 20 grand, huh?
You know, and if you're a politician who's used to basically reading off of speeches that someone else wrote and just handed to you, you know, the speeches they were giving for the MEK were written by the MEK.
And so, you know, if they were handed docking points, you know, if you've had all this experience reading off of someone else's docking points, maybe this is not so weird.
I don't know.
It's hard to put myself in that mindset.
Well, but look, the bottom line is the people with the power in America who are threatening this war, who want this war so badly, they're lunatics.
Or they're so stupid that they imagine these things that couldn't possibly be true are true.
I mean, which is superior?
You know, what's better there?
Neither, I would think.
Yeah, exactly.
It's a rock and a hard place.
Yeah, it really is frightening that there are, you know, this number of people who are very good at promoting fear and making it sound sort of legitimate and well-articulated and rational.
And, you know, we kind of ignore the fact that they make a living off of this because their organizations are, you know, funded by groups that have value from war.
You know, your Lockheed and your KBRs and your Dyncorps and the various security companies that, you know, with the privatization of war, that becomes their entire business model.
Right.
Well, that doesn't apply to the Lockheeds.
But, you know, of course, the various Lockheed folks, they get value out of war because that means more replacement parts, you know, more service, more, you know, bullets used, means more bullets sold.
So, I mean, it's obviously we're talking about, you know, the possibility of just massive quantities of money.
And so they kind of keep this cycle rolling.
Although, you know, I think probably you could count Lockheed in.
But I don't know.
Well, I don't know.
James Baker, he's the lawyer for every oil company in the world.
And the way he was talking a few weeks back, maybe there is a broader consensus for this thing than I would have thought inside American business.
It seemed to me like the whole thing was just led by the Israel lobby, maybe Lockheed too.
But I guess, you know, like you were saying before, the American people are for it because they've been told for 10 years that, no, Iraq didn't really have weapons of mass destruction, but the Iranians do.
And so they've memorized the hell out of that.
I mean, you couldn't teach them the truth in a thousand years.
Yeah.
And I mean, it lines up with all these other things.
So you mentioned that, you know, oil companies and, of course, oil companies want to have, you know, better access to the oil in Iran.
And so how are they going to get it?
But through the way they get it in lots of other places, which is through the deployment of American military force, you know, and then you add the cultural aspect of this.
I mean, the U.S. and Iran have, you know, hated each other for a long time.
And culturally, we generally Americans hate Iran because they hate the regime.
And ever, you know, ever since the, you know, the students took the embassy, it's just this constant flow of hate.
And then, you know, you add the, you know, the kind of general views towards Islam that have happened here since, you know, 9-11, especially.
And, you know, you add, you know, long beards and funny outfits and people chanting, you know, U.S. is the great Satan.
I mean, you already have a ready-made enemy here.
Yep.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard just regular folks saying, oh, yeah, the Iranians, you know, they hate us.
Because they just, if you say Iran, they just picture, you know, young men screaming and burning a flag.
And they never, I just, you know, you would have to waterboard them to get them to ask.
I wonder why they hate us.
Yeah.
I wonder if they ever had a reason other than Islam told them to or something.
Exactly.
And then getting into the they, how many of it is the, you know, how many, you know, who and, you know, how many people actually are chanting in the street or is that the sort of selective, you know, camera work?
Yeah.
Not to mention you're saying, which is such a huge issue, you know, that the whole why they hate us issue has been such a kind of a sort of pathetically dealt with.
And, you know, since 9-11.
Well, this one goes back to, you know, you're my whole lifetime, right?
This thing with with Iran, you know, the question of why to why do the members of Abdul Azam's old group hate us?
That's more of a last 20 years kind of thing.
But this deal with Iran has been going on for so long.
Oh, yeah.
And there's a great clip of Ron Paul trying to explain the 53 coup to Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly just saying, no, no, you can't teach me history.
History doesn't have anything to do with any of this.
Exactly.
He just won't let him say a word about it.
Right.
Unless it's O'Reilly trying to sell his book about Lincoln, in which case he cares about history.
Right.
And in which case, all scholars on all sides, pro and anti Lincoln laugh right in his face about it.
But anyway.
Yeah, exactly.
And it really it's funny, you know, just one little wrinkle on that is, you know, there are, you know, some some neocons will write about how the historical memory of the 1953 coup, you know, with the US helping to bring down the, you know, elected, you know, leader of Iran replaced him with the Shah.
And then try to say that that that that history is flawed and it wasn't actually the US bringing bringing him down.
And, you know, I don't I'm not I'm no expert on that period.
So I can't actually say whether they're, you know, making stuff up or not.
Oh, they are.
Yeah.
Read Stephen Kinzer.
Oh, yeah, exactly.
I like their stuff.
And, you know, and the sheer willingness to make stuff up is something that makes it debating with with, you know, neocons and a lot of conservatives really difficult.
And I was on a radio program recently debating with a senior guy, former head of the Hudson Institute.
We were talking about voter ID laws.
And and I mean, he just made things up on the radio and flat out lied.
And it saying that saying when I was saying that, you know, voter ID laws are an issue.
He said, well, in most states, you can just go to the to the polling place and ask for a photo ID and they'll just give you one.
So it's fine.
No problem.
And I mean, I just, you know, it throws you on to, you know, throws you off your footing because, you know, how can you actually have a debate with folks who are just making things up on the spot?
Right.
Well, and you got off lucky because the way they usually argue, the right wingers, especially in the war guys, especially on foreign policy issues, the way they argue is, oh, you think this and you think that and you're pro Hezbollah and you this, that, whatever.
And those make up a hundred different things to put in your mouth.
That's their entire argument.
And now you have only one chore, and that is to go through the entire list saying, no, I never said that, which just you lose, you know?
Yep.
Yeah, it's it's thuggish, rhetorical, you know, tools.
And, yep.
And, of course, the same thing is happening to me now, like on Twitter, when I'm picking on Barack Obama, that's all the answers I get back from all the Obama fans is, well, you just love Mitt Romney and you just want to help Mitt Romney and whatever, whatever, whatever.
It's the same kind of thing.
Right, right, right.
It is interesting that the natural I think that often with people on a normal level, the desire to kind of say, OK, if you're if you're if you're, you know, no on this, that must mean I'm just going to assume that's because you're yes to this other thing.
Right.
And by the way, speaking of which, are you certain or how certain are you?
I guess would be the way to ask that Barack Obama and going to go ahead and get us into a war with Iran anyway.
I mean, he was just wait until after the election.
In fact, there was a thing the other day in The Guardian by Julian Borger, who's a real journalist over there, has done great work all these years that said that, yeah, the joint chiefs are telling the Israelis, hey, don't do it because it'll make it harder for us to do it for you a little bit later.
Yeah, well, that's that's where I was trying to stay in the piece, basically, that, you know, Obama's cocked the gun and, you know, he just isn't really hanging out right by the trigger right now.
But fingers around there, just that that we know that a Romney administration, you know, his people want to pull the trigger.
But that's not to say that Obama absolutely wouldn't.
I mean, all the you know, he's doing his and his administration's done it, done a lot to cock the gun.
So, you know, assuming he wants a negotiated solution, he sure painted himself in the corner.
And from the very beginning, right, you have to do everything we say by December 31st, 2009 or else.
And then even when they said, OK, OK, he still wouldn't accept their acceptance of his deal.
And then the Turks and the Brazilians said, well, here, we got it all smoothed out now.
And Obama then lied and pretended that he didn't ask them to do so.
Yeah.
And then you look at, you know, the sanctions laws coming out of Congress, which basically are, you know, seem pretty hard to ever, ever be able to satisfy enough to then ever take off the books.
Yeah, it's it is questionable.
I mean, it does seem that the Obama administration's approach to this is not really given the Iranian government kind of any any sort of credence as being frankly, like a government they're willing to work with.
And I've been worried about about us getting involved in Iran for a long time.
And and so there's plenty in an Obama administration.
There's plenty of reason to worry in a Romney administration.
There's even more reasons to worry.
But either way, we should be worried.
Yeah, right.
So.
All right.
Well, listen, either way, everybody needs to go and check out this piece.
It's Jeremiah Gulka.
The urge to bomb Iran.
It's running today at Tom Dispatch dot com.
Thanks very much for your time.
Hey, Scott, thanks for having me again.
Hey, folks.
Scott Horton here for Veterans for Peace at Veterans for Peace dot org.
I'm not a vet, but if you are, I'd like to ask you to consider joining Veterans for Peace.
As you know, in matters of foreign wars, a veteran's voice is given much more weight.
Well, Veterans for Peace is making veterans voices heard in ways and places where they can really make a difference.
There are more than 175 chapters of Veterans for Peace in all 50 states working hard to eliminate nuclear weapons, seek justice for veterans and victims of war and abolish war as an instrument of American national policy.
It's the peace vets versus the chicken hawks.
Join up the good fight at Veterans for Peace dot org.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here.
After the show, you should check out one of my sponsors, Wall Street Window dot com.
It's a financial blog written by Mike Swanson, a former hedge fund manager who's investing in commodities, mining stocks and European markets.
Mike's site, Wall Street Window dot com, is unique in that he shows people what he's really investing in, updating you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike's betting his positions are going to go up due to the Federal Reserve printing all that money to finance the deficit.
See what happens at Wall Street Window dot com.
In an empire where Congress knows nothing, the ubiquitous D.C. think tank is all.
And the Israel lobby and their neocon allies must own a dozen.
Well, Americans have a lobby in Washington, too.
It's called the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest dot org.
They advocate for us on Capitol Hill.
Join CNI to demand an end to the U.S. sponsored occupation of the Palestinians and an end to our government's destructive empire in the Middle East.
That's the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest dot org.
Hey, ladies.
Scott Horton here.
If you would like truly youthful, healthy and healthy looking skin, there is one very special company you need to visit.
Dagny Lane at Dagny Lane dot com.
Dagny Lane has revolutionized the industry with a full line of products made from organic and all natural ingredients that penetrate deeply with nutrient rich ionic minerals and antioxidants for healthy and beautiful skin.
That's Dagny Lane at Dagny Lane dot com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott 15 at checkout for a 15 percent discount.