12/12/12 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here.
After the show, you should check out one of my sponsors, wallstreetwindow.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, wallstreetwindow.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 wallstreetwindow.com.
In an empire where Congress knows nothing, the ubiquitous D.C. think tank is all.
And the Israel lobby and their neocon allies most own a dozen.
Well, Americans have a lobby in Washington, too.
It's called the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.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 councilforthenationalinterest.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 and Lane at dagnyandlane.com.
Dagny and 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 and Lane at dagnyandlane.com.
And for a limited time, add promo code Scott15 at checkout for a 15% discount.
Hey, folks, Scott Horton here for Veterans for Peace at veteransforpeace.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 veteransforpeace.org.
All right, y'all.
Welcome to the show.
How's it going?
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show.
My website is scotthorton.org.
You can find all my interview archives there, more than 2,500 of them now going back to 2003.
And you can find me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slashscotthortonshow.
But we're starting off this show today with Phil Giraldi.
He's the executive director of the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
He's a contributing editor to the American Conservative Magazine and a regular writer, some columnist at antiwar.com, and, of course, is a former officer of the DIA and the CIA.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
Appreciate you joining us today.
First of all, can we talk a little bit about the Council for the National Interest?
How long have you been with this organization, and what's it all about?
Well, I've been a member of the organization since the 1990s.
It's been around for over 20 years.
It was originally founded by some former diplomats and congressmen to make an effort to counter the overwhelming influence that Israel and its lobby had over foreign policy in the Middle East.
You know, when I recorded that spot for the CNI for the show, I originally had it where the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives, they have, and I started listing all of the neocon think tanks.
You know, JINSA and AEI and the Center for Security Policy and whatever, whatever.
And I started going down the list and down the list, and I tried so hard to rewrite that ad so many times to leave it in there.
And eventually I ended up having to just leave it with, well, they must have a dozen of them.
They must have a dozen of them.
Because, obviously, Heritage kind of is on their line, too, and Brookings, which is normally kind of liberal, and there's Hudson.
You know, you can go on and on.
Yeah, I mean, it really is.
I mean, and even the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the old establishment from back before Israel, even, since, you know, the end of World War I, they still got Max Boot and Elliott Abrams and all of these guys at the highest levels there.
I mean, Bill Kristol's a member, but it seems like Boot and Abrams really have a lot of influence over the Council on Foreign Relations now.
Yeah, you won't find the Council on Foreign Relations taking any position that in any way is controversial.
Which, you know, never did.
But certainly not on these issues now.
I mean, that was the thing.
I guess they used to be more British nationalists than Israeli nationalists over there, right?
Yeah, basically, you know, their roots go way back into the Anglo-American relationship, you're quite right.
Yeah, all right.
So now what's the CNI up to?
You guys, as we just described, you're up against everybody who thinks about foreign policy in D.C. and New York.
So how do you take them on?
Well, we basically have taken them on by expanding our brief, in a way.
You know, when we first started out, obviously nobody could talk about Israel at all in any kind of critical way.
And now that's kind of changed with Mearsheimer and Wall's book.
And as a result, we're talking more and more about how U.S. foreign policy in general is kind of malignant.
And the malignancy, if you will, pretty much comes out of the policy that evolves in the Middle East.
So we're trying to demonstrate to the American people, through what we write and by having conferences and that sort of thing, and panel discussions, that essentially there has to be a kind of complete shift in terms of how Americans perceive foreign policy to put American interests first, because that's really what this is all about.
Well now, George H.W. Bush called it American interests when he declared a world empire.
And so we're fighting for our interests.
So how narrowly do you define that, or do you need a more careful term, or how does that work?
Well, I would say that, you know, for people who question how you define it, it's only necessary to go and look at the results of the last 11 years of foreign policy in particular.
Obviously the seeds of the things that have been happening have been there for quite some time, probably going back to Reagan.
But the fact is that the policy in terms of objective results that serve the American people and American interests just has not been there.
And I would say, you know, if you look at that, you will realize that it's basically that U.S. foreign policy has not served national interests of the United States.
It's served a lot of other interests and a lot of interest groups.
But it basically has not done a whole lot for the United States itself.
Well, you're setting a good example up there.
I mean, you're almost alone at this.
But like you said, with the advent of the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt, the discussion really has changed.
Well, and with the results of the Iraq war that the neocons got us into.
Sure, sure.
I'm going to have a piece coming out on anti-war tomorrow that discusses the very point that people seem to have forgotten about Iraq.
And the lessons learned from Iraq seem to have disappeared already.
And I'm reminding people that it's one year now that since the U.S. forces were kicked out of Iraq by the Iraqi government.
And it's time to really consider what that whole experience meant.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I've been trying to remind myself, and I'm not good.
I should get a calendar of 2002 and all the important dates on the timeline there.
But we really should be celebrating all the different 10-year anniversaries of the lies that led us into war.
You know, it was 10 years ago today.
They brought up the already debunked aluminum tubes again.
What?
And, you know, and remember also that they said over and over again that if you claim to know better, then you're a traitor.
And you love Saddam Hussein and you love Osama bin Laden and you hate America.
And why do you hate freedom?
And why do you hate baby Jesus?
And they were so bad on accusing everyone who was right of being the enemy of America in league with the bogus enemy that they were inventing for us.
And to me, it's so astounding.
But it's like thrilling and fun in a way to go back and think about it and remember the climate of B.S. that rained 10 years ago.
You know?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, if you go back to the lead up to the Iraq war, I mean, there were only a couple places that you actually could read some counterarguments against invading Iraq.
And anti-war was one of them.
The American conservative was another one.
And I think on the left, the only place that I recall that really made some serious arguments was the nation.
And so it was really kind of a limited counterargument that was being allowed to surface at all.
And one of the funny things I noticed the other day, there have been some reports, which you've probably seen, that they're suggesting that the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein, of course, never had, that apparently, according to some accounts, were hidden away in Syria, are now, of course, being used by the Syrian government ostensibly against its own people.
I mean, the whole story is so ridiculous that it makes you want to cry, actually.
Yeah, is that the National Review saying that, or where's that coming from?
I've seen it a couple places alluded to the possibility, they raised the possibility that those weapons of mass destruction were, which at that time they were alleging, well, we can't find them, so they must be in Syria.
You see, if you believe all my lies at the same time, then it all makes sense.
That's right.
It's like, you know, if you wrote a novel about this, of course, nobody would believe it.
It's just, yeah, it really is incredible.
And speaking of which, look at what's going on in Syria right now.
A direct consequence of the American war in Iraq is that it really was split apart, kind of, where you have sort of an Arab-Shia stand there between Baghdad and Basra, allied with Iran and Syria, and then you have a Sunni Arab stand there who are basically now in alliance with Sunni Syria.
War with the Shiite brought this minority dictatorship there.
Yeah, and then, of course, you have the Christians and the Alawites who are considered to be heretics by both groups in the middle.
So it's, sure, it's creative.
It's like this classic blowback, you know, where you do certain things and, lo and behold, other things happen as a result.
And I'm finding it quite comical to see this group that we set up as the Syrian government, that we created, that we're now supporting.
Of course, it has virtually no control or connections with the actual jihadis who are doing most of the fighting and is being repudiated by them.
So the whole thing, again, if you created this as a work of fiction, there would probably be a New York Times book review saying this stuff is just too absurd to believe.
Yeah, well, it is, too.
But here's the quote.
I want to go ahead and get this on the record.
It'll just take a second.
Here's the president last night talking to Barbara Walters.
The Syrian opposition coalition is now inclusive enough, is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
All right, so now here's the thing about that, Phil.
Actually, you were the guy that broke the story a year ago and a few days.
On December the 8th, 2011, you had this piece at Antiwar.com that said there's two new findings.
One is for Iran and the other is Syria.
The finding, of course, is a presidential authorization for the CIA to break the law, right?
And it says go ahead and back the bad guys, the good guys, the suicide bombers in Syria.
And so they've been doing that for a year.
And we've been talking about that for a year.
And now they're saying, hey, Scott and Phil are right.
We've accidentally been backing the suicide bombers for a year.
So now they're our excuse that we need to intervene more by recognizing this government in exile, this group of chalabies, and dedicating ourselves now.
That's what the president just did, right?
He just dedicated the United States to installing these guys as the, quote, legitimate government of all of Syria.
Yeah, that's exactly what he's done.
And your suggestion that these are chalabie types is, of course, completely accurate.
These are people who have only tenuous connections with Syria.
In many cases, they've been exiles for many, many years.
And the whole situation is absurd.
And I think in his interview, didn't Obama also assert something to the effect that this group is dedicated to protecting women's rights?
I mean, you know, that's one of those guarantees that, you know, as soon as they get in power, it's gone with the wind.
And I'm so tired of hearing it.
It seems to be a touchstone for this administration that you have to be guaranteeing women's rights when you know damn well you can't guarantee any such thing.
All right, now, so here's the thing.
I want to give them – I won't call it a little bit of credit.
That's not really the right word for it.
But I've played the clip before.
I won't do it again.
But Hillary Clinton has been saying since last March that, geez, we really have a problem here when Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Hamas guys down in Gaza are endorsing this war.
And we don't want to fight a war on the same side as al-Qaeda and Hamas.
And yet, of course, she's been doing that this whole time.
But I can sort of kind of imagine a situation where there's a conversation here about, well, how the hell do we use these guys but make sure that they don't really win in the end, something to at least make it deniable.
Is that what they're trying to do?
They're trying to make it deniable that, okay, yeah, we've been backing al-Qaeda in Syria for a year, and in fact they're just al-Qaeda and Iraq guys.
They're Syrians that went and fought with the Iraqis, and they're Iraqi friends who now come home with them.
They're trying to clean their hands of the fact that they've been backing America's only real enemies in the world for the last year.
But I guess do they think that they have a way to make sure that the Chalabi's win?
I mean, are they smoking Richard Pearl's pipe or what?
Well, the thing I don't understand as a former intelligence officer is just how they think they're able to what the government would call vet these people to find out what they are and what their politics are.
It's not exactly like you go down the corner and you talk to a local policeman or something like that, and he tells you, well, yeah, this guy was a good kid when he was growing up.
The whole process is ridiculous.
What you're having, I would suspect, is people who have somehow gotten a year of the State Department and players on this in the State Department and are vouching for other people that they claim are good Democrats and so on and so forth.
I think that's the process that's playing out.
And I suspect what they think is that when Syria dissolves in chaos, that we will be behind this group, as will the Western Europeans, with funding and other support, and that they will be able to kind of rise to the top.
But I think that's probably a myth in that the people who are actually doing the fighting are otherwise inclined.
They're heavily armed, thanks to all the weapons that are being supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar by way of Turkey.
And they're just not going to roll over on their backs.
Well, so I don't know.
Maybe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't that stupid.
And what they want is a 15 year civil war of butchery, murder and sectarian cleansing.
Why not?
I mean, they are Democrats.
Yeah, well, that could well be what they're thinking, that Syria in chaos suddenly takes a friend of Iran off the board and makes it more difficult even to support Hezbollah.
Yeah, there might be something that ridiculously Machiavellian behind this.
But I don't really give them much credit.
I think a lot of this stuff is ad hoc.
I don't think they really have a program that they're following.
I think they're just kind of making decisions as they go along and then having to make adjustments when the decisions turn out to be bad.
That's certainly what happened in Libya.
Yeah, well, I don't know.
I don't know.
Do you think that they would go as far as escalating to airstrikes?
And I mean, I guess not ground troops, but maybe trying to get the Turks to invade or that kind of thing?
Or are they just going to?
The Turks have a problem, which is that basically they envision this whole thing as a quick and dirty and that Bashar would be out.
And it didn't happen that way.
And now the public opinion in Turkey is running very strongly against any kind of serious intervention by Turkey.
And I think Erdogan is very conscious of that.
Now, as for the U.S. doing airstrikes, yeah, I can see that.
I mean, it's really once you've recognized this dissident group as being the legitimate government of Syria, then the door is open to do all kinds of things, isn't it?
I mean, all kinds of mischief.
You know, I don't know.
With Libya, I knew that they were going to declare a no-fly zone and then it was going to be on from there.
And it was just I could see it coming.
It was too soon.
I remember Raimondo telling the judge on Fox News that Obama's too smart to do it.
And I remember thinking, no.
But this time, I mean, they've had a year.
I mean, yeah, there was an election and everything in the way.
But, Jesus, there's just got to be a point where this guy's too smart to go that far.
But then again, I mean, they could have told the Saudis and the Qataris to back off.
They could have not used the CIA to orchestrate this whole thing for the last year.
So what the hell am I talking about?
Well, I mean, to me, one of the great mysteries of all this is that the continued interference of Saudi Arabia just about everywhere in terms of, you know, supporting the most fundamentalist brand of Islam, which is in nobody's interest except maybe some deluded people running around in Saudi Arabia.
And the fact is that, you know, this is essentially what we're seeing play out, that they've long been an opponent of Syria because Syria is a secular regime.
And we keep forgetting that, too, that there were a number of secular regimes in the Middle East, Arab secular regimes.
And we're knocking them off one by one.
So, you know, what kind of interest do we see in the long term on this and opening the door to Saudi fundamentalism?
You know, there should be somebody in Washington who takes an adult position on these things and really starts thinking about what we're doing.
Yeah, well, I don't know.
There's a certain logic to it, if the logic is just to expedite the chaotic collapse and to spread chaos.
But then that still is only a very narrow, very short term view of, you know, strategic advantage, especially when they're picking on Assad, who might as well have been Mossad this whole time.
Phil Wright, I mean, he doesn't mess with Israel hardly at all.
That's right.
And, in fact, the whole idea, and there's a lot of Israeli support for this taking on Assad or getting rid of Assad, and it's really very short-sighted because you're taking somebody who was a player that you could deal with and that who would do things in a predictable way, and you're going to replace them with maybe a jihadi regime that doesn't view things that way.
Again, I mean, none of this stuff makes a whole lot of sense.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in one of these cabinet meetings, either in Israel or in Washington, where they're discussing this issue, and I'd like to see how they're explaining what their own interests are in terms of encouraging this civil war in Syria.
I can't see what the interest might be.
Yeah, well, you know, I try not to put too much stock in Bob Woodward's stuff, but some of those books about the Bush years, I kind of, at least the overall kind of theme, that all of these people are deaf, dumb, and blind, and they all hate each other, and they all want everything to be everybody else's responsibility, and nobody wants their name on any policy decision that anybody made, and the deputies don't even talk to each other either, and the whole thing's just a big nightmare.
I can kind of see that.
That seemed right, that Rice was always saying, well, that's what Donald Rumsfeld is supposed to do, and Donald Rumsfeld was always saying, are you kidding me?
That's Condoleezza Rice's job, and meanwhile, nobody's doing anything except protecting their own character for the upcoming Woodward book, you know?
So I guess I could sort of see the Obama administration maybe operating that way, like it really is just a Three Stooges fest up there.
I like to think, though, that, like you're saying, that somebody up there is smart and has the ability to say to everybody else, pipe down and listen to me for a second, you know, that kind of thing, you know?
Yeah, I think clearly we're lacking that.
We don't have any high-powered players in the Cabinet who can take control of a situation like that, and this traditionally would be the job of the National Security Advisor, and that role is not being played right now.
And then, of course, now you have all this stuff coming out about Susan Rice.
I'm sure you saw the Beiner piece on her where he was talking about listening to her evaluation of Iraq, and it was impossible to tell whether she was pro or con in terms of invading it.
So, you know, we have people that are basically interested more in their own careers and in furthering their own access to the president than they are in doing what's right.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'll never forget that Rolling Stone piece by Michael Hastings about the decision-making leading up to the Libya war and how Samantha Power's feelings had been hurt, basically, because she had been relegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of goofing around and painting Iraqi schools or some crap.
Rinky-dink, do-gooder stuff, she called it.
And she wanted attention, damn it.
And so, wow, cool, a war.
Here's a way that I can move up inside the White House and people will pay attention to me and maybe pat me on the top of the head, she said.
And so there we had a war in Libya.
It was her project.
Yeah, I'm afraid that's the way the system works.
It's people that are basically looking to enhance their own credibility with the president and therefore climb the ladder, and actually the rights and wrongs of what they're promoting is a secondary issue for them.
I think that's characteristic of bureaucracies, but the fact is that we seem to have it real bad, where nobody is willing to say the emperor doesn't have any clothes.
Yep, that's true.
It is real bad.
Well, wasn't there a Soviet propaganda minister that said, man, we wish we could have ever figured out how to do it as good as you guys.
Yeah, that's right.
All right, now, so I want to talk also about this thing that you did for the American conservative about the Kagan's fat-necked Fred and his hideous wife, Kimberly, and their recent op-eds, and we've got to stay in Afghanistan.
Forget this phony 2014 deadline, which is phony anyway.
And I just wanted to, before I let you state your case here and remind us who these people are and what they're up to, I wanted to point out this article.
I don't know if you saw it.
Taliban popular, where U.S. fought biggest battle.
This is the Associated Press from yesterday, and it's all about the Helmand province, which was the seat of the surge, and how everybody hates America and everybody misses the Taliban, and everybody says that if only the foreigners would leave, everything would be fine.
Yeah, I did see that article, and basically it is as you said, and it makes the point that after the Taliban were cleared out, the hopelessly corrupt bureaucracy and police of the Afghan central government moved in, and extorting bribes and stealing everything and so on and so forth, and the people are nostalgic for the rule of law under the Taliban.
Well, no surprise there, is there?
And my article is about the Kagan's who were cheerleaders not only of the surge policy, which they claim to be co-authors of, but also of the generals involved, Petraeus, Odierno, McChrystal.
These people are parasites on the system who basically, again, are people that are into self-promotion and don't really think through the policies.
In the article that I cite, they're calling for a residual force of in excess of 30,000 U.S. soldiers.after 2014 to fight terrorism.
Now, I point out in my response to that that there is hardly any terrorism coming out of that area that is not related to the conflict that we are involved in, and that there's no threat to the United States coming out of that area.
And it's ridiculous to even make an assumption that you're going to have two divisions of U.S. soldiers to counter that kind of threat.
And then, of course, there's also the issue of the Kagan's are just hyping the threat in general and encouraging the United States to stay in Afghanistan basically forever.
Right.
Well, because they're fighting for a group of people who have no grassroots power at all, right?
They have to stay or, as CNN lady was saying, geez, it seems like if we leave, though, then there will be a civil war and our guys will lose.
Well, we've already lost that war.
That's the irony of this whole thing.
I mean, basically, once we decided to stay there and rebuild the country or recreate the country, we basically lost at that point.
This was something that was not achievable.
It was never achievable short of throwing huge resources into the problem, and that probably wouldn't have worked anyway.
So it's kind of like, yeah, it's always this argument.
Yeah, if we leave, it's going to be worse.
Well, I don't think you can demonstrate that.
Vietnam has turned out a whole lot better after we left.
Iraq, for whatever faults it has, basically is what it is, and our continued staying there basically would have had no impact on it whatsoever.
Yeah.
Well, and as violent as it is there, it's less than when our guys were on patrol.
That's for sure.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
And the violence level now is a legacy of the surge, basically how the country was divided into three parts, essentially, as a result of our policies.
Yeah.
All right.
And, you know, the thing of it, too, and I hate to be all sentimentalist and whatever and all that, but still I think this is an important point, is that anybody who was off a bandwagon, but just really using their noggin and trying to think this thing through right around this time, 2001, could have told you, or before, that there's no point doing a regime change and trying to occupy Afghanistan.
That's a fool's errand.
And if, you know, hey, I was a cab driver 10 years ago saying that, or 11 years ago, before the occupation ever set in, before the fall of Kabul.
And I warned against, you know, any attempt to occupy land the size of Texas on a map, but also it's shaped like Colorado on the ground.
Yeah, good luck occupying that and changing those people's ways.
When, you know, when they're sniping at you from the top of the mountain and you're trying to shoot up at them, it's not going to work.
And so, therefore, all the thousands of Americans and Afghans who have died this whole time in this thing, it's all been for nothing.
It's all been a waste and a waste that was easily identifiable before it ever even started by someone as lowly as little old me.
Well, the thing was, you know, we created an army, a military establishment, that can defeat any collection of other armies in the world.
But that's all it can do.
And yet we seem to persist in the idea that once an army has crushed another army, it can remake a country.
I mean, that's a whole different problem.
And I understand that security is an aspect of creating any kind of government or any kind of stability.
But the fact is that it is not the only element, and it has a negative blowback, which is that essentially no matter how benevolent you are as an invader, you're still an invader.
And essentially the local people are going to come around to the view that you've been there too long.
Well, and here we are.
Thanks very much for your time, Phil, as always.
Appreciate it.
Okay, Scott, take care.
Everybody, that's Phil Giraldi.
He's the executive director of the Council for the National Interest, writes for the American Conservative and Antiwar.com, and he's a former CIA officer too.
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 McIlroy, 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.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
As you know, I've been laid off from Antiwar.com and have embarked on a mission to make this show into a real business.
And as you can tell, I've been doing all right at lining up some sponsors and some great ones at that.
But it isn't enough, so the perpetual fund drive rolls on.
The Scott Horton Show needs donors.
Needs donors and more advertisers if the show is to outlast my meager savings.
So please, stop by ScottHorton.org.
You can make single donations or sign up for a monthly subscription with PayPal.
You don't need an account with them to do so.
Or use Google Wallet, WePay.com, Give.org, and now even accepting Bitcoins.
And if you own or represent a company or organization interested in sponsoring the show, please email Scott at ScottHorton.org so we can work it out.
That's ScottHorton.org/donate.
And thanks.
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, founder's quotes, and, of course, this stupid election.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
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 plain 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.