Hey everybody, Scott Horton here, inviting you to check out the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org.
They've got a brand new website with new and improved access to more than 20 years worth of essays promoting the cause of liberty.
And FFF's writers, including Jacob Hornberger, Jim Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more, aren't just good, they're the best at opposing and discrediting our corrupt overlords in Washington and their warfare-welfare regulatory police state.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation's new and improved site at FFF.org.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is the Scott Horton Show.
My website is scotthorton.org.
I keep all my interview archives there, more than 2,700 of them now, going back to 2003.
Most of them are with Gareth Porter, our next guest.
No, that's not really true, but certainly there are more of him than anybody else, more than, well, somewhere right around 200 of them, I think.
Or with Gareth Porter, certainly more than 150 of them.
And that's because he's my very favorite.
Welcome back to the show, Gareth.
How the hell are you, man?
I'm fine, thanks, Scott.
Glad to be back again.
It's been way too long since we've spoken.
Where have you been?
Well, I went to the U.K., to Oxford University, participated in a rather arcane, strange debate, which Americans would have trouble understanding.
The premise of which, or the resolution that was debated, was that this House, under no circumstances, will fight for queen and country.
And so I think they were expecting me.
In fact, they even introduced me, not introduced me that night, but identified me originally as a pacifist.
And my first words out of my mouth, practically, were, I'm not a pacifist, I'm a realist.
And I tried to present the case that we have to evaluate this resolution in light of the realities that we face right now in the world, and the fact that the United States is a militarist country that is carrying out aggressive policies that threaten everybody in the United States and in Britain.
And so that was the argument I was making, but I was really the only one who was focused on that level of analysis.
So that was a long answer to a short question.
Well, that's interesting.
And of course, yeah, there are Brits sitting in Guantanamo right now still, right?
Brits who've been renditioned, hithering on?
I'm sure that's true, that they're British citizens, yes.
Yeah, if I were you, my argument would have been, America is such a threat because we're going around acting like the English, fighting for their queen.
Yes, that would have been a way to get through to them, I agree.
I mean, it's been like a thousand years since someone actually invaded England, right?
They do all the invading around here.
I suppose that's true, yeah.
Just like us.
Yeah.
Since World War II, anyway, since maybe before that.
Anyway, so, all right, good.
And then the other thing is, you're writing a book about how there's no Iranian nuclear weapons program, dummy.
Is that going to be the title?
It's called Manufactured Crisis, the insights or the secret history of the Iran nuclear scare.
And, yeah, it's going to be going back to the beginning of this issue and showing just how it developed and what the politics behind it really were.
And I'm going to be showing that it's both about the United States and Israel.
You can't talk about one without talking about the other.
They both have their own reasons and their own dynamics involved in creating this nuclear scare.
So that, in a short nutshell, is what I'm going to be talking about.
Well, I hope you let me proofread it or something so I can see it early.
I want to see it early.
Yes, I'll try to get you a very early copy.
And then I'll look for typos for you or something.
I'll try to make myself useful.
But, yeah, I can't wait to read it.
Because, of course, one of my favorite topics and my very favorite reporter of all, Gareth Porter, interpresserviceipsnews.net and, of course, original.antiwar.com/porter.
Really, antiwar.com/porter.
It'll take you right there.
And that's where you find pretty much everything, truth-out articles as well.
Bulgarian revelations explode Hezbollah bombing hypothesis.
You like that title?
It's the last one.
Wonderful.
How very literary of you to explode a hypothesis like this.
And you do.
You blow their hypothesis right up here.
This is one of those things where, and I'm sure that this is part of the theme of your book, too, right, is that there's an unending list of accusations against Iran.
Of course, whenever anybody blames Hezbollah for anything, they always are saying, well, Hezbollah is only a front for the Ayatollah anyway.
It's all Iran anyway.
And it seems like they must be guilty as hell of something over there because they're constantly accused, whether it's a secret atom bomb program in tunnels right outside of Tehran or whether it's a Bulgaria bus bombing or Indian car bombing or something.
It seems like it must be true.
Some of it must be true anyway because the accusations never stop.
Although I think you're probably the only journalist in the West anyway who decided they wanted to really pick through the case that Hezbollah blew up this bus in Bulgaria to see if it was really even right or not.
Well, I'm afraid that's true.
And it's also, I think, true in a wider sense that I really have been the only one who has been interested in debunking the broader narrative about Iranian Hezbollah, but particularly Iranian terrorists, a terrorist campaign that's worldwide going back more than 20 years.
And indeed, you know, this is the very textbook definition of a demonization campaign that has been going on now for well over two decades, which goes to the heart of the dynamics involved in the U.S. policy toward Iran.
And indeed, what I've been thinking about in anticipating this interview, Scott, is that this story seems to me to be one of those stories that really ought to radicalize anybody who has not been following this closely and doesn't already understand the reality that there has been a kind of screen of falsehood covering this entire subject of Iran going back, again, more than two decades, really more like three decades.
And that this is really kind of like a totalitarian system at work in terms of the way in which information is manipulated and put out for political purpose.
I mean, most of your readers will be familiar, your listeners, I should say, are familiar with the fact that Tom Donilon, the president's national security advisor, had an op-ed piece in the New York Times, which, you know, of course, asserts as though everybody knows this is true, that Iran, Hezbollah, was behind the Bush bombing in Bulgaria last July, and that, of course, this cannot be allowed to go on, and therefore the Europeans must now name Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
This is what, of course, the Obama administration and Israel have both been after now ever since July 18th.
And my thought is that, you know, this article underlines the reality that once the United States and or Israel has a political diplomatic objective, they are absolutely without any scruple about simply manufacturing a political line to serve that.
The facts mean absolutely nothing in the face of this, you know, once they have this aim in mind.
And I think this is a perfect illustration of that.
Well, yeah, well, I'd agree.
And we're going to go through the case here in a minute and make it, maybe we're going a little bit reverse order, because obviously I already agree with your analysis here.
But it seems to me like who ought to be radicalized about this more than anybody would be the average citizen of Israel, because it's such a blatant case, another blatant case of, wow, the government of Israel is perfectly happy to let the killers of these Israelis get away with it scot-free, as long as they can find a way to pin it on Iran.
Well, yeah, that's another way to look at it, for sure.
And, you know, the same thing is true, of course, of the U.S. government, that they're not really interested in the truth about this, which means that, just as you said, that they're perfectly willing to let the real culprits go scot-free.
They're not interested in tracking down what really happened.
They're only interested in what serves the immediate political purpose here.
And I think that's, you know, I mean, this is the problem that goes all the way back to Buenos Aires and my investigation of that investigation.
Another case where, and I don't want to divert us from the story here, but it is obviously relevant.
Well, no, it's okay, because we haven't gotten too far into the details of the Bulgaria thing yet.
And so it is relevant.
And you know what?
It was just in the news, Gareth, the other day, that the Israelis are shocked, shocked that the, as Jeremy Hammond put it, shocked that the Argentinians, I guess, have announced that they're going to take another look at the Buenos Aires bombing case.
The Israelis, they don't want that.
They already have their culprit they've pointed their finger at, and they're perfectly happy blaming Iran.
Yeah.
And in that case, again, the United States had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth.
They simply made up from the very beginning the line that this was Iran.
We know that.
And, you know, I won't go into the reasons they gave, but, I mean, it was really quite silly, the reasoning that was used to suggest that we know.
We already know that Iran was behind this, and they never wavered from that from the beginning.
And, I mean, there are other cases as well, which we won't go into, but that's the background of this.
Well, and I'll go ahead and mention for people, just use your favorite search engine and search for Gareth Porter and Buenos Aires, and you'll see that he makes a case.
I don't know if you'd call it, you know, proving it, but you certainly make a pretty convincing case that somebody else did it, right?
Not just that, well, gee, it doesn't seem like Hezbollah did it, but that it looked like neo-Nazi types, white supremacists inside the police services were behind it.
Well, I mean, you know, I did not have the space in the short number of words that I had to get this published to make the case that it was indeed, you might call them neo-Nazis, certainly anti-Semitic extremists in the intelligence, military, and police services of Argentina.
The people who basically were behind the dirty war were certainly behind this bombing.
And I wasn't able to get into that part of the story because I just didn't have the space, but that is definitely the case, and I have very good reason to assert that.
Right.
All right.
And now, and you're right too, I sound like I'm just picking on Israel, but the U.S. is perfectly happy to obfuscate in the very same way as we saw with the Kobar Towers, although I hope we can get back to the Kobar Towers maybe at the end of the interview.
Let's go ahead and delve into the details of Bulgaria.
Why is it that when you looked at this case, you thought, what are they talking about?
Well, I think, first of all, you know, it was the fact that, you know, you had the same pattern repeating itself immediately.
The Israelis within hours, Prime Minister Netanyahu saying, we know Iran is behind this.
And then within three or four days, you know, he's on American television saying, we have absolute ironclad intelligence to assert this.
You know, you must believe us.
I mean, this is all a lie.
And I mean, that was pretty clear that they didn't have any such intelligence.
So, I mean, that was enough for me to decide that this was really something that needed to be followed closely.
And although I did certainly have been diverted into the nuclear book, the book about the nuclear program, nevertheless, I've wanted to keep my eye on this.
And so when the story, again, broke that the Bulgarian government was fingering Hezbollah on this, I spent two or three days really going back and looking at the Bulgarian press, because, you know, what's missing in the Western news coverage of this story has been any reference to what has actually been covered in the Bulgarian press.
And in the Bulgarian press, that's where you get some nuance, some detail here that just goes beyond the official line being taken by the government and by the U.S. and Israel.
Is Bulgarian its own language?
Yes, it is.
There is a Bulgarian language.
So it looks like Russian.
Right.
It sounds like Russian to me, but it is a separate language.
In other words, if you can read Bulgarian or you've got a good translator and you're looking at their newspapers, the actual quotes of their officials have all this nuance and subtlety and, well, it sort of kind of looks like, but maybe.
And then by the time Netanyahu says it in Hebrew, it's, we know for a fact.
Well, yeah, I mean, by the time it's masticated and put out by the Western press generally, what you get is simply, you know, Hezbollah was fingered by the Bulgarian government, whereas, in fact, from the beginning, I mean, that is to say, in terms of their public position on this, starting February 5th, if I remember the date correctly, the Bulgarian government's position was, in fact, quite nuanced, very careful.
They said, you know, it's a reasonable hypothesis, and the Interior Ministry then repeated it.
I repeat, a reasonable hypothesis that the people that we see as suspects in the bombing were connected with Hezbollah.
Now, that's a pretty indirect, very cautious position to take, but it got turned into Bulgaria thinks Hezbollah is behind it.
And that's what you get in headlines all over the world, and that's what the European ministers who gather on Monday to be importuned to name Hezbollah a terrorist organization were reading in their press as well.
Yeah, well, I thought hypothesis was the last step in the scientific method, no?
Well, that's the way it's normally used.
And in this case, as I point out in my article, the same Interior Minister who had put out the term a reasonable hypothesis was actually interviewed a few days later on a major television talk show in Bulgaria, and the talk show host said, why did you put this forward as just a guess, quote-unquote?
And interestingly, the minister did not say, well, it was not just a guess.
In fact, he did not bother to refute that characterization of it, and that's when he called it a hypothesis.
And the original wording was assumption, and then he used hypothesis on this television program in response to the question, why did you call it just a guess?
So clearly, I mean, this is a guess which is formulated for political reasons, because Bulgaria obviously has been under terrific pressure, particularly from the United States, to come up with this finding.
And they really did not have the information on which to base such a conclusion, and this is the heart of my story, which is that, again, unreported in the Western press, the chief prosecutor who was in charge of the investigation, a woman who was sacked a few days after she gave an interview, told a newspaper in Sofia that the investigators had really been able to come up with essentially only a couple of pieces of information about the suspects who they believed helped the bomber who was killed in the bombing.
There were either two or three suspects.
They're not even sure how many there were.
But the two suspects that they have these ID cards for, these false Michigan driver's licenses, they say, well, they were associated with one another, and we know that because they both have the Michigan driver's licenses.
And then she says, we traced this back to a country.
She didn't name the country, but it was later reported that it was found that they had been manufactured, they had been falsified in Beirut, Lebanon.
So that was one piece of information.
The other piece of information was even, I would say, much more vague and general and really quite useless.
But what she told the newspaper interviewer was that the investigators found that there was a similarity in lifestyle, that both of these suspects had very simple, austere lifestyle, which they inferred meant that they had had similar training.
And the implication was, although she didn't say it, that it must be military training.
So out of that very paltry bit of information, they came up with this hypothesis that these people must have been associated with Hezbollah's military wing.
In other words, they came from Lebanon, and they must have had some kind of similar training, and maybe it was military training.
And that's the extent of it, as far as I can see.
Do they even really prove that they came from Lebanon, or just that maybe their fake driver's licenses came from Lebanon?
Apparently they have some evidence, but we don't even know what the evidence is, that they actually lived in Lebanon from 2006 to 2010.
And I'm not going to swear by this.
I'm not going to say that they have any reliable evidence of that.
That may be an inference.
It may be the fact that this outfit that was falsifying driver's licenses existed from 2006 to 2010.
It may well be only that.
But that's the claim they're making.
And, of course, for people who aren't too familiar, every faction in the world is represented in Lebanon.
Hezbollah has a monopoly on part of the South.
That's it.
Absolutely.
To say that these people even lived in Lebanon for four years or six years or whatever means absolute zip.
It's of absolutely no value whatsoever in terms of determining their relationship to this crime.
And that is Hezbollah's relationship to the crime.
I mean, the fact is that al-Qaeda has been not only extremely active in Lebanon, but much more so over the past six years.
So, I mean, you know, al-Qaeda is definitely a growth stock.
If you're looking at Lebanese militant groups who have carried out terrorist activities in the past, then you've got to be looking at al-Qaeda.
And that takes me to the bigger story about this interview that the former chief prosecutor in charge of the investigation put out to this newspaper, which is that the investigators found a SIM card, meaning an electronic chip, which is used in cell phones, that allows you to make calls.
And, you know, you pay for the SIM card for some period of time, and then you have to renew it.
You have to put more money into it.
And the interesting thing, the significant thing about the SIM card is that it was from Maroc Telecom.
That is to say the largest telecommunications firm in Morocco, which covers the entire region of North Africa.
Now, North Africa, of course, it's not Hezbollah land.
That's not where Hezbollah has strong organizations.
In fact, it's not known.
I have found absolutely no evidence that Hezbollah has had any organizations in North Africa.
But al-Qaeda, on the other hand, and al-Qaeda knockoffs are all over the place in North Africa, and increasingly so.
So this is a major piece of evidence that, of course, contradicts the hypothesis that Bulgaria has been putting forward.
Well, it's interesting, isn't it?
Again, and you're the only one reporting this in the West, right, that the investigator is the one who said this, that she had a different point about al-Qaeda, right, that she had been told by another country's intelligence service that maybe these guys were tied to al-Qaeda.
Well, she did not talk about that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm misreading your story here on that scan.
That was the other piece of very important information.
That was the investigative journalist who wrote a piece a few days later, about 10 days later, that in fact indicated that a friendly intelligence service, a close intelligence service, had told the investigators that there was a tie-in between one of these suspects and al-Qaeda.
So that was a separate source.
So we don't know what that is, but at least that's there.
We don't know.
We don't have any more detail about that at this point.
I'm still trying to get my hands on the full text of this story and get it translated, and when I do, of course, we'll do something on that.
But anyway, the prosecutor simply put forward the fact, she did not comment on it, she did not comment on its significance or what it meant, that they found the SIM card and that it was from Maroc Telecom, and then she said, we had hoped that we would get a lot of very important intelligence about the contacts that this person who had been involved in the plot had been in touch with.
So what happened was that the Maroc Telecom apparently has not responded to requests for information.
The telecommunications firm should be able to provide them with the information, based on the SIM card, of who this person was in contact with.
So that's really quite interesting, particularly since Morocco is a very pro-Western country that the United States has very close relations with, and if they needed to muscle the Moroccan government to help, of course, the United States should be ready to do that.
So you think perhaps that indicates they don't want to know the real answer?
I would suggest that that's something that needs to be looked into.
All right, now, what motive would they have to strike al-Qaeda or anybody else to blow up a bus in Bulgaria?
Why would al-Qaeda do that?
This is part of a broader...
And that can't be the easiest way to reach an Israeli, right, Bulgaria?
Yeah, I mean, look, al-Qaeda's whole methodology is to strike at Jews, you know, wherever they can, but particularly where the Israelis congregate in resorts.
I mean, they've done that repeatedly over the last decade.
You know, at least three or four major terrorist attacks against Israeli tourists have been carried out by al-Qaeda, and they've openly taken responsibility for it.
Now, the other thing that we haven't talked about is that there was a claim of responsibility by an organization which nobody had heard of, but which used a name and used language which was quite characteristic of al-Qaeda franchise-type organizations.
And this happened within three days of the original bombing, and guess what?
The Bulgarian foreign ministry immediately within hours said, no, that's not true.
It can't be.
Despite the fact that there had not been any investigation, they couldn't possibly have had any information that would give them the ability to say, to deny that that was a possibility.
That's amazing.
Not only are they willing to let the guilty go free, but even if they're al-Qaeda guys, they're willing to let them go free, which I guess is consistent with fighting a war, you know, helping the Saudis and the Qataris arm and finance the suicide bomber brigades in Syria, or fighting a war for the Libyan Islamic fighting group in Libya two years ago, right?
Well, you know, Scott, it's a fact that is not denied by the Israelis that they have always regarded al-Qaeda as a very, very much lower priority and less of a problem than Hezbollah.
I mean, al-Qaeda doesn't really threaten Israel as far as they're concerned.
They don't really care that much about al-Qaeda.
In fact, they've made that point, I think, more than once along the way.
Yeah, well, and the Americans apparently agree with them.
The Americans agree with them.
That is to say, as long as they're not having to legitimize or justify the drone program, then the position of the United States has been pretty consistently that the real threat here is Iran and Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda is sort of the second level threat.
Hey, let's play pretend counterfactual history.
What if they had told the truth about bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed blowing up the Khobar Towers and killing 19 servicemen in 1996, Gareth, instead of Louis Freeh being at least a de facto agent of a foreign power and trying to pin it on Iran?
Well, you know my answer to that, which I've already given in print, which is that it certainly would have helped to focus on the threat of al-Qaeda much more quickly, much sooner, and arguably the United States would have had more chance of having done something to be in a position to detect the preparations for 9-11.
I mean, I think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption, if you will.
Yeah, well, and we've talked about this kind of thing over and over again, but for me it's really important to bring this kind of thing up all the time, because especially when it's something like the Khobar Towers attack, I think people probably remember that, right?
It looked like the Oklahoma bombing out front where the face of the building was blown off and there's a giant crater out front.
Nineteen servicemen died.
A lady, it only really made the news because a lady yelled, you suck at Bill Clinton, and so he had the Secret Service jail her for the night because she complained about him basically putting those boys out there like in Beirut in 83, where here you are in your barracks but with no armed guards and certainly not enough to actually protect you and so die in your sleep, which was a catastrophe.
And so she yelled, you suck at Bill Clinton, he had her jailed about it, whatever.
But I just, you know, I'm thinking, you know, average Joe listener or maybe his cousin or whoever just happens to be around and isn't particularly interested in these kinds of things, they might be really shocked and it might really impress them, I hope, to find out that, wow, it was Bin Laden that did that attack in 96 that killed all those guys, and for political reasons, for sucking up to Israel reasons, the U.S. government, the FBI, the Justice Department, the White House, decided they were going to pin it on Saudi Hezbollah, which is make-believe crap anyway.
And because of that, of course, the counterfactuals, et cetera, et cetera, September 11, 3,000 dead in a war that's killed more than a million people since.
Well, I mean, there's one piece of this that I have to disagree on, and that is that this U.S. position that blamed the Kobar Towers bombing on Saudi Hezbollah and Iran, primarily Iran, of course, was because of Israel.
This is where I think you get a separate U.S. interest here that is primarily the primary reason for this.
I think the Israeli angle here was really not significant as it might have been, as I think it is when you're talking about Hezbollah and Bulgaria.
I think that much more represents a joint U.S.
-Israeli position.
But on this one, I think you have a rather independent U.S. institutional interest in the CIA and the FBI to really hate Iran, a sort of position here that has to do with a lot of things, including the history of the dirty war, if you will, between the United States CIA and the Shia militants in Beirut during that period of the war in 1982, 83, 84, 85.
And then, of course, the United States supporting Iraq and getting into a direct military conflict with Iran during that war, a lot of other things going on there.
And then you've got the whole proliferation issue.
Let's not forget that the U.S. national security state has a huge, huge stake in the nonproliferation issue, and that stake has to do much more with Iran than anything else.
Iran has been the linchpin of the whole idea that the U.S. government has this huge job to do, which requires billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people and many, many programs and so forth.
So all of that is in the background of this position that was taken on Khobar Towers, just as it is in these other cases as well.
But I think in that case, I think that was much more important than the Israeli angle.
You know, I guess nobody really wrote about this back then, but I sure would like to hear some people tattletaling and pointing fingers and hear a little bit of inside scoop about who all fought about that conclusion inside the national security state, right?
Because there must have been somebody in, I forget, were they Marines or Army who died there?
There must have been somebody who was pissed off that 19 of his guys got killed and they were going to let the guilty skate, right?
So, you know, part of the problem, just to go back and pick up one of the details of the story that I did, the series that I did on Khobar Towers, is that the Iranians were engaged during the 94-95 period in a pattern of carrying out intelligence research, reconnaissance, if you will, of U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia, both military and civilian.
And without going into detail about it, I mean, clearly they were doing this to send a signal to the United States, look, if you threaten us or if the Israelis threaten us, and by the way, that was when the Israelis were starting to threaten to attack Iran over their nuclear program, we're going to target your targets here in Saudi Arabia as well as elsewhere.
And so this was done in a way that was not really hiding it from the United States.
U.S. intelligence knew all about it, the military was all excited about it, they were upset, and there were constant back and forth messages about this going on in 94-95.
So all that was in the background.
And that's why you get the military thinking, oh, of course this was Iran, you know, we just assume this is Iran, because they had been carrying out all these reconnaissance activities using their Shia friends.
Well, you know, the Frontline episode, we talked about before, I think, the Frontline, where they talked about John O'Neill, the al-Qaeda hunter at the New York FBI office, and how the Saudis had told Louis Freeh and the FBI counterterrorism guys that, oh yeah, it was Saudi Hezbollah and Iran and all of that, and that apparently Louis Freeh believed them.
And this was what got John O'Neill, part of what got John O'Neill in so much trouble was that he dared to talk back to the boss and say, oh, I can't believe that you're believing the Saudis, Louis Freeh, they're blowing smoke up your ass.
Louis Freeh, of course, I have absolutely no doubt, I hope I won't get sued by his lawyer for saying this, was certainly approached by the Saudis before he left office and offered all kinds of possible, you know, very lucrative relationships with the Saudis.
He knew that he was going to be in tight with the Saudis.
He wanted to be in tight with the Saudis.
That's why he worked very closely with Prince Bandar and worked out what needed to be done.
And, of course, he was also essentially a neocon who hated Bill Clinton, and this was his way of politically damaging Bill Clinton.
That's the other part of this.
Well, how was that politically damaging to Bill Clinton any more than if Al-Qaeda had done it, blaming it on the Iranians?
Well, this was later on when Freeh was essentially arguing that Bill Clinton was not letting him pursue the Iranian angle.
It was not really true, but the fact is that Janet Reno, as the Attorney General, refused to accept what Freeh wanted to do, which was to use testimony by the Shia Saudis who were in detention and had been obviously tortured by the Saudis to give confessions to this whole plot.
She said, we can't accept confessions that are clearly tainted by the likelihood of torture.
I mean, Freeh knew that.
The FBI knew that they were walking into a torture-tainted situation there, but they did it anyway.
They collected all these confessions from the Saudi Shia and used that as the basis for doing an accusation against Iran and Hezbollah.
So that was part of the problem that he had with Bill Clinton, that Clinton wouldn't order his Attorney General to go along with what he wanted to do on this.
Yeah, on torture testimony.
Boy, how far we've come, huh?
Yes, indeed.
Well, not that far, because of course the context of this whole conversation is the Bulgaria bombing.
But on torture testimony, boy, we'll allow a lot of that.
Anyway, we've got to go, Gareth.
Thanks so much for your time.
All right.
Thanks for having me again, Scott.
Appreciate it.
Good to talk to you.
Everybody, that is the heroic Gareth Porter.
Whatever lie the War Party tells, he debunks it.
Simple as that.
IPSnews.net, Truthout.org, and Antiwar.com/Porter.
And I should mention, he won the Gellhorn Prize, which is a big deal over there in England, last year for his work on the surge in Afghanistan and all the civilian deaths there, work that he did for Truthout.org that I sure hope you'll take a look at.
We'll be right back after this here.
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.
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.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, Brookings, Heritage, APAC, WINEP, JINSA, PNAC, CNAS, the AEI, FPI, CFR, and CSP.
It sure does seem sometimes like the War Party's got the foreign policy debate in D.C. all locked up, but not quite.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
They put America first, opposing our government's world empire, and especially their Middle Eastern madness.
That's the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here inviting you to check out wallstreetwindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
Wall Street Window is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the Federal Reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out, so also keep your eye on writermichelswanson.com for more details.
Man, you need some Liberty stickers for the back of your truck.
At libertystickers.com they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job, the Democrats want your guns, U.S. Army, die for Israel, police brutality, not just for black people anymore, and government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at libertystickers.com.
And of course they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at thebumpersticker.com.
That's libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
