02/22/17 – Jon Schwarz on the connection between Americans’ fear of Muslims and ignorance of foreign policy – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause, or campaign, and you need stickers to help promote, check out thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
They digitally print with solvent ink, so you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold thebumpersticker.com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it, and there are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me too.
Let thebumpersticker.com help you get the word out.
That's thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
All right, y'all, Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at scotthorton.org, about 4,300 and something interviews going back to 2003 for you there.
Almost all anti-war stuff, 10 years of anti-war radio right around now, scotthorton.org.
And then also, everything gets posted first over at libertarianinstitute.org slash scotthortonshow, so check that out.
And of course, I'm screaming at you on Twitter all day long at scotthortonshow as well.
All right, introducing good old John Schwartz from the old tiny revolution blog that comes from a great George Orwell quote, and now he's a blogger, writer, maybe reporter too, I'm not sure, for the Intercept, and a very favorite writer of mine.
This article is called, Why Do So Many Americans Fear Muslims?
And then he goes ahead and answers it for you.
I'll ruin it.
Decades of denial about America's role in the world.
Welcome back to the show, John.
How are you?
Hey, it's great to be back.
We've been talking about this stuff now for 15 years.
Yeah, man.
You know, I really think that you should only write this article over and over again every day from now on, because, I don't know, I think this is the only argument that matters.
I think, you know, basically, every other facet of the entire damn terror war, and you could throw in Iran and Hezbollah and every part of the whole America's war for the greater Middle East, it all comes from premise one of those planes came out of the clear blue sky that day, you saw him with your own eyes.
And that's all you need to know is evil showed up.
And now we're fighting a war to defend ourselves from this onslaught.
And yet, as you illustrate in this article, everybody knows it's not a secret that George H.W. Bush waged a war against Iraq from Saudi, and that Bill Clinton stayed there.
And everybody knows that America writes a blank check every year for Israel to kill any Lebanese or Palestinians they feel like, steal their homes, torture their children, do whatever they want.
And everybody who knows anything about this knows that Ramzi Youssef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri said all along, this is why they were attacking us.
It's all George Bush senior's fault.
Why is that so hard to understand?
To blame Bill Clinton?
What is so difficult about blaming Bill Clinton?
He's like the fourth worst person on the planet.
He's like, oh, you're going to hurt my feelings if you start, you know, pointing your fingers at Bill Clinton.
Why?
He's a bastard.
He murdered uncounted.
Nobody knows for sure how many hundreds of thousands of people he murdered.
So why is that so hard to say, John?
Why?
Well, you may know that when the commissioners of the 9-11 report wrote their own book after the report came out, that they discussed their trouble getting any kind of mention of U.S. foreign policy into the 9-11, into the official 9-11 commissioner report.
Then in their book afterwards, they explained why.
And the reason why, they wouldn't put it exactly like this, but was that no one wanted to change U.S. foreign policy.
And they wanted to just say like, oh, well, you know, al-Qaeda, they're motivated by crazy religious reasons that we can't understand.
So there's nothing we can do about that.
They're just going to keep attacking us no matter what.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. foreign policy.
So that was part of what the other commissioner members wanted to say.
And so they were only able to smuggle in this one small line saying that, you know, U.S. foreign policy has some kind of effect on the world.
Who can say what it is?
So there's a huge coterie of people who, you know, like U.S. foreign policy and they want to keep it exactly the way it is.
And they realize that that will involve periodic terrorist attacks that will kill regular Americans like you and me.
But they don't want to start talking about that because if Americans realize that there's something that they could do to prevent terrorist attacks from killing them, they might want to do those things.
And the people running America, you know, don't want to have that conversation.
Yeah.
Well, simple as that.
There you go.
And you have the great quote in here.
It's also in my book.
But I went and found the original myself in the Weekly Standard.
Thank you very much.
Where before 9-11, this I think it's an advisor to the joint staff, something like that said he just heard the chief say over and over.
It was a kind of a catchphrase inside the joint staff.
That is, the leaders of the Joint Staff.
And he said, you know, we're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
We're going to do this.of the Pentagon, that terrorism, that is, you know, the mass killings of American civilians is a small price to pay for them to be able to be a superpower, right?
Not that if you're some schmuck from, you know, working as a trader in the towers that any of this superpower status necessarily benefits you at all.
But you know, generals get promotions based on it.
So it's good for them at least, you know, right, right.
Like we're the small price, right?
Eric Alterman at the nation said the same thing about support for Israel.
He said, look, the fact is they were motivated by support for Israel.
And I'm not saying that we should stop supporting Israel because of that.
I'm saying, damn it.
If that's the price we have to pay, then I'm willing to pay it.
But of course, nobody killed Eric Alterman on September 11th.
No one in his family died in Iraq war two, based on the excuse of September 11th.
You know, that's a price he's willing to pay to support Israel.
Really?
No, I would say I actually respect Eric Alterman for for being that straightforward about and that honest about it.
And that's that's the conversation that actually Americans should have, because maybe Americans like, well, I love supporting settlements in the West Bank, and I love having lots of wars around the world, and I love drone strikes, and I love the fact that there's tons of money being spent on generals flying around in fancy planes all day long around the world to run our empire.
Like maybe regular Americans would say, you know, it's worth it.
Like I don't mind dying in terrorist attacks for that.
That sounds like a super great deal.
And so I respect Alterman for being straightforward about it, as I say, like that's the kind of conversation we have to have where people say that, and then we're like, okay, do we do?
Is it worth it to us?
Yeah, well, and see, this is always gets me in trouble, too, because I'm sure it gets you in trouble, too, is because the entire counter argument to they hate us because we're so white and Christian and innocent and free and wonderful is not on Dick Cheney and or just Mossad did it and there is no Al Qaeda and the whole thing's a fake and the whole thing is just an excuse.
And that really, you know, doesn't leave as much room for no, it was Al Qaeda.
They did it and that did it and they did it because of Ariel Sharon and they did it because of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and the bad decisions that they made and that and the gloating that Madeleine Albright engaged in and et cetera, et cetera.
You know, so the truth is, right, is that bin Laden was the conspiracy master and that George Bush and Dick Cheney and for that matter, Barack Obama worked for him and they've been serving the interests of America's enemies this whole time.
And that was bin Laden's plan was he knew that they would cynically exploit an attack like September 11th in order to get rid, you know, take care of all their other agendas that they wanted to do, which is what he wanted to do.
Bin Laden on 9-11 was writing George Bush a blank check that he was surely stupid enough to try to cash to completely overextend and bankrupt America.
Hell, in 2017, it's universally understood that the high point of American empire is already over and we're on our way back down the other side of the mountain now.
And that's because George Bush was Osama bin Laden's slave.
Even though everybody on this side says, no, no, no, it was bin Laden worked for George Bush.
That obscures the fact that it worked perfectly.
Yeah, I, I prefer to see it as not the George Bush was bin Laden's slave, but that they were friendly collaborators and they, they both got something out of it that they wanted.
And in the end, it didn't turn out to be that great for bin Laden personally, but he could never have imagined that the United States would, you know, weaken itself to this degree.
As you say, at the same time, you know, Bush and the neoconservatives could never have imagined that, uh, you know, the Mideast would, would be in such incredible turmoil.
Like this is far beyond anything that they ever had in mind.
Sure.
So, well, is that maybe Ladeen?
Yeah, that's true.
The boiling cauldron.
He saw things more clearly than, uh, than the people in the white house, but anyway, So yeah, it's, and it's a very straightforward, clear story.
And it's incredible that, you know, even 16 years later, no one can talk about this.
And you know, you may remember that Ron Paul and one of the presidential debates, one of the first ones in 2007, uh, he brought this up and Giuliani went crazy.
It was like, I've never heard anybody say anything that bizarre.
Right.
Well, and you know, I mean, that, that really was the moment that made Ron Paul, uh, right there.
Everybody said he was doomed.
And yet the fact is the American people knew he was right.
The Republican voters watching the debate knew that he was right about that.
Hey, I remember the 1990s existed.
I remember there was controversy about our soldiers based in Saudi Arabia and whether American army women were allowed to drive or not, or this or that, that was a thing.
You know, there was a whole big, we called it the Gulf war.
You know, I remember distinctly that, uh, yeah, we have been over there.
Um, but of course it just, the thing is, is Ron's not in the house anymore and there's no one of that stature in national politics.
I mean, and he was, he was quote unquote, nobody before that.
That was what gave him stature was that fight.
But then now that's gone and there's been no one to replace him to make that point.
And yeah.
And now, but so here's to your real point, what do we have instead?
Islam, Muslims, don't you hate them the way their evil religion makes them hate and want to kill us, John?
Yeah.
And that's what really is frightening and dangerous because when you have no accurate explanation of what the motivation of these people actually is, you end up with people, you know, rightfully believing like crazy explanations because there is no other.
And that's what we see with, you know, Trump now that like, like he talks about this as though it's some kind of incomprehensible mystery.
And as I know, you know, you can't blame people for believing him because no one else has ever provided any kind of alternate explanation.
And like any story, even a totally false and dangerous story beats no story at all.
Right.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's fascism versus capitalism narrated by me, Scott Horton at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan fascism versus capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at Scott Horton dot org.
Well, and, you know, at least Obama knew that he knew what the truth was.
We knew he knew what the truth was, not that he would ever admit it or change policy based on it.
Although I guess, no, that's not really true.
To some degree, he took a more of a hands off role.
I think he listened to Robert Pape when Robert Pape said, you know, combat forces on the ground.
That's what drives them really nuts.
He said, OK, let's just bomb them then.
You know, this kind of thing.
So but with Donald Trump, he really doesn't know, John, nobody.
And even it kind of if he does, he's got the kind of brain that, you know, if part of him knows this really is all George Bush and Bill Clinton's fault, that the Mujahideen used to be our friends back in the Reagan years, which wasn't so long ago to a 70 year old, you know, that the other part of them that knows that it's because they're Muslim and evil because that's what all good American right wing patriots think probably overrides that.
They don't.
Those those two thoughts in his mind, I don't think really come into conflict necessarily.
So he might even read your article and then still say, yeah, we got to crack down all the Muslims till we figure out what's going on around here or just this kind of thing.
Because, well, he's just not that rigorous a thinker, you know.
And I don't think I mean, what are the chances that McMaster's going to sit him down and explain that this is all George Bush senior's fault, you know, that it's his fault, actually, the hero of the first Gulf War, McMaster, you know?
Yeah, that's super unlikely.
I think it is fair to say that that Donald Trump, as you put it, is is not a rigorous thinker.
And I am curious about what will happen with McMaster's.
He does seem to be an unusually honest member of the U.S. foreign policy elite.
So I can't imagine that he's going to last more than a week or so.
The Trump administration.
Well, that's what they keep saying is how honest he is.
I mean, it seems like his honesty extends to things like, yes, sir, Mr. Bush, we really need to double the war in Iraq to win it, when in fact that was the worst thing they could have done was his and Petraeus's surge there.
Well, that is interesting.
I would say I'm basing what I'm talking about on his book, which is about Vietnam.
And he may well be one of the people who is willing to be honest about the past.
Have you read the whole book?
No, I have not.
But I have read some of the more significant segments of it.
And it is impressive that you have someone who is serving at a high level in the U.S. military being willing to say straightforwardly, you know, the politicians were lying.
The Pentagon was lying.
Everyone was lying.
Now, as I say, it may be that he's somebody who is willing to tell the truth about the past, but will be perfectly happy to participate in lies in the present.
Like, yeah, I mean, even then, you know, Barry McCaffrey was like, you know, George Bush is doing this war all wrong and I'm being brave and standing up to him.
We need more Bradleys.
And it's like, you Bradley salesman, son of a bitch.
Get off my TV.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't know.
Anytime a general says something brave, I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What's his conclusion is we should have bombed them harder.
We should have fought them harder.
We shouldn't have been Namby Pamby about it.
We should have doubled the Phoenix program or we should have used a bombs or we should have, you know, whatever.
We should have become traffic cops and made them fall in love with us or, you know, they're whatever ridiculous pretend strategy.
See, the problem with with the previous coin is it was just clear hole built.
But now, see, we've added clear hole build and transfer to this ghost army that we haven't really made.
And so now it's it's so great.
We're ready for global counterinsurgency now G coin, even though they have no successes at all.
Right there.
All they do is talk these generals.
And every time they say something brave, it's something like we got to stand up to Russia more or something horrible.
You know, nothing brave at all.
You know, let them let some brave army general come forward and talk about Wesley Clark's role in the Waco massacre.
Right.
Something like that.
That is all true.
I mean, the generals.
It's also the case with Michael Shoyer from the CIA.
Like generally speaking, they will say, you know, this really is because of our foreign policy and we have to continue that foreign policy.
So now we have to go all in and occupy the Middle East and maybe nuke it.
I mean, and he used to say, just call it off, just call it off.
But yeah, no, he got a lot worse.
Yeah.
So.
So I agree with you.
You do have to keep a very close eye, even on the people who are who are being accurate because it's often only the most militaristic people who feel that they have the the the ability and like the standing to be accurate.
Right.
Well, yeah, you know, I don't know.
So I guess we need to take stock, John, of you know, you you have lots of great links in your article here to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board telling the truth here or, you know, a couple of studies here or there, but but who of national political stature is willing to talk about this at all in that Ron Paulian way?
Is there really anybody that I'm overlooking, any Democratic senators who are willing to talk this way about, yeah, George Bush?
And you know what?
It is true.
Bill Clinton, too.
Their policies kind of got us into this mess.
I mean, just that would be such a huge step forward, I think, if we could really it would be.
And I've thought a lot about this and looked around as much as I could and could not find a single person.
You know, Bill Clinton is, in fact, I would say, as you put it, one of the worst people in the world, because it's not just that the sanctions that we had strenuously applied to Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were children or very old.
It's that.
And this is something that no one ever talks about these days.
Those sanctions were not put on Iraq in perpetuity.
The rules, according to the UN, was that those sanctions would endure until Iraq had been disarmed of any weapons of mass destruction.
And we now know that Iraq had no real weapons of mass destruction after 1991, which is before Bill Clinton took office.
And we know, too, you and I both know, because of Scott Ritter, that the UN, which included the United States of America, knew, I mean, he was a Marine Corps captain himself.
They knew for a fact that there were no weapons after 1991 as of 1995.
Because after Hussein Kamel defected, Saddam Hussein panicked and ordered his people to turn over every scrap of paper in the whole wide world that could find a turnover because he was going to be damned if Hussein Kamel was going to give them something that he hadn't also given them.
He didn't want to get caught.
He had already given them up.
He'd already ordered four years ago to destroy every last bit of them.
So he didn't want to get in trouble for something that he really wasn't doing wrong, and he gave them everything.
And that's according to Scott Ritter himself, the head UN weapons inspector.
They had nothing after 1991, and we knew that after 1995.
And nonetheless, the sanctions were maintained and people continued to die.
So it's an incredibly ugly story, and yet it's one that 99% of Americans have no understanding of at all.
Yeah.
Well, and you know, it was in the Bush senior administration and in the Bill Clinton administration too, where they made it very clear that regardless of what the law says, that you decided that the sanctions were here for this purpose, to disarm Iraq, that no, in fact, we are going to keep the sanctions regime on until it convinces the people of Iraq to overthrow him.
Even though the last time Bush, at the end of the war, had encouraged the Kurds and the Shia to rise up against Saddam and then betrayed them and let Saddam keep his helicopters and use the MEK to help kill a hundred something thousand of them and betrayed them.
So then after starving them and sanctioning them, they were supposed to get stronger and stronger in comparison to Saddam when they had their one chance and we backstabbed them.
You know, and well, I think it was an impossibility.
It was an absurdity on the face of it.
And yet they said the sanctions will stay until the people overthrow Saddam, which they clearly could not do.
Well, let me Scott, let me defend the US foreign policy establishment for a second here.
They never wanted the regular people in Iraq to overthrow the government.
That's why we betrayed them in the first place.
Their hope was always that it would be some kind of military coup and that that's what we were hoping that the sanctions would provoke and that then we would remove the sanctions and help our new friends who had conducted the coup.
So they weren't hoping for regular people to overthrow Saddam.
They were hoping for a military coup that would replace Saddam and continue all the wonderfully wonderful policies that Saddam had had during the 80s when we elected.
Boy, I wish I bet they wish they'd stuck with that now instead of invading and fighting a whole civil war for the Iranian side.
Yes, I guarantee that there have been like classified papers are written within the Pentagon imagining how much nicer the world would be.
Well, it's just like, you know, it's just like with Iran when we overthrew Mossadegh and people, you know, 50 years later, we're like, oh, God, I wish we could have him back now.
Yeah, well, and of course, especially when they had gone ahead and encouraged the Ayatollah to do the revolution in 79, the Shah was dying anyway.
His regime was basically done anyway.
So they're like, yeah, we can work with Khomeini.
He's all right.
He helped us overthrow Mossadegh back in 1953.
We know him.
They put him on a plane.
They told the French, yeah, go ahead.
Put him on a plane.
Send him home.
It was until the the actually was until they let the Shah into the country.
David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced Jimmy Carter to let the Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatment.
That's what caused the riot and the seizing of the hostages at the embassy and the breakdown of relations there.
People conflate all those things together like it all happened in one day, but not quite.
And this is something that's extremely unpopular that I don't think anyone is going to compliment me for saying, but I suspect the day will come when there'll be people in the Pentagon who will be like, I wish we had Osama bin Laden back.
Like, now there was a reasonable man with whom you could negotiate.
Like, like bin Laden, while extremely dangerous and, you know, I was here in New York to see what he was capable of in 2001, was not like ISIS.
And this is something I mentioned at the end where what you have when you invade a country and vomit for years in the case of Iraq, when you support the Iraqi government, like torturing Sunnis to death with power drills, you get crazy, crazy, crazy political reactions.
And that's what ISIS is.
You know, people don't understand that for regular Sunnis in Iraq, you know, ISIS is very frightening, but it's a tiny bit less frightening than the government of Iraq, which, as I say, like engaged in just the craziest, most brutal form of torture.
And so the more that you engage in ultraviolence, the worse and crazier your opponents become.
And that's a situation that we're getting into now.
It's very similar to Israel, where Israel has tried, like consciously tried to turn it into a religious conflict, whereas it's just a really straightforward, easy to understand conflict about land.
Right.
Well, you know, I think the real problem that one of the real problems that we face, other than denial of the last decade of the 20th century, is that the real prescription here is just quit.
There is no actual, you know, better rewrite of the counterinsurgency manual that actually would get the job done in Afghanistan, in Western Iraq, in Eastern Syria, in North Africa.
What we need is Ron Paul up there to call off the entire empire and say that, yes, there's going to be a civil war in, you know, continuing in Afghanistan and wherever the hell else.
It's just that now we won't be part of making it worse.
Right.
There's no panacea for the Middle East is going to fix itself and Central Asia is going to fix itself and everything's going to be just fine if we leave.
But we won't be the ones making it worse anymore because, you know, you have to basically say you can't do it.
The most powerful country in the history of the world, the leaders of the world can't do it.
They can't win.
There is no government of South Vietnam that we could create that the people will support enough to maintain their independence from the north.
It's just not going to happen.
It's the same thing here.
It's not going to come out with any kind of loose ends.
Last few loose ends tied up.
We have to just quit.
But in this real world, just quit, just withdraw from the entire Middle East and just say, yes, it's true that there because of Bush and Obama and now Trump, there are 10,000 or 20,000 bin Laden nights where before there were 200.
But now we're going to call it off and we're not going to do anything about those last few 10,000 guys.
I mean, it's impossible.
Who could possibly do that at this point?
As Hillary Clinton said, when you find yourself in a hole this deep, you've just got to grab a shovel and keep digging out.
That's it.
Yeah.
And we've created the kind of dynamic that you see in Israel where they will do things that are sort of modest steps forward sometimes, occasionally, and because they refuse to actually solve the real problem.
Attacks continue and people like, oh, well, you see, you know, we we did one minor good thing and yet the attacks continued.
So that means that we've got to go back to our super crazy plan, right?
You know, our super crazy plan that we'd enacted before and rescind all the minor good things that we did.
And so, as you say, I mean, that's the dynamic that we're in now.
And it's the dynamic like if Israel were to finally withdraw from the West Bank and remove the blockade that is imposed on Gaza and had done everything that it should have done back in 1967, there, you know, after 50 years of killing Palestinians, there is going to be still some residual anger about that.
And we're in the same situation now.
Right now, as you say, if we were to withdraw from the Middle East, there almost certainly would be some continuing attacks on us.
Many, many, many, many, many fewer.
But there would still be some.
And then people would say, well, you see, now we've got to, you know, we've proven that doing the right thing doesn't work.
So it's just it's a terrible dynamic.
And all you can do is try to do the right thing sooner rather than later.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I'm writing a book about Afghanistan.
And at the beginning, I cut out all the stuff about the motive.
Like I left in the strategy, but I cut out all this stuff about the motive because like, man, I'm really kind of going on and on and on about Israel here when this is supposed to be a book about Afghanistan, you know.
But I think I have to put it all back in because I still I guess I think that this is the most important argument in the whole country about the most important issue of all.
The very basis of the war is that the 1990s didn't happen.
And my argument is, yuh-huh, they did too.
And so, I mean, I think that's the most important argument that I have to make.
So I guess I have to put it all back in.
And I just hope that my audience will be patient.
When's he going to get back to Afghanistan here?
I don't know.
So the argument of your book is that the past actually did happen?
Yes.
I mean, the thing is, to prove that, it's going to take, you know, a couple of chapters to really demonstrate that there is such a thing as history before that day, you know?
But yeah.
And I'm really not sure how much I can try.
I'm not going to put all the Iran and Iraq war stuff back in.
I mean, there's there's yeah.
Anyway, I cut out a ton.
I got to put back at least some of it.
But I am kind of worried.
Like, if you buy a book about Afghanistan, you don't want to spend that much time talking about bin Laden's motive that all has to do with things taking place, you know, 700 miles to the west of Afghanistan.
You know what I mean?
I'm not sure.
Anyway, it's your interview.
And now I'm talking about my book with you.
Well, I mean, I look forward to seeing it, because unfortunately, everything is connected.
And it's very, very difficult to sort out, you know, what is not important from what is.
And, you know, it is actually true that Israeli history that the Iran-Iraq war, all that did affect Afghanistan.
In fact, the the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran, like that affected Afghanistan.
If that hadn't happened, the Soviets probably would never have invaded Afghanistan.
So it's history is a nightmare is what I'm saying.
Yeah.
And the only reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because they were ripping him off and he was trying to pay back his war debts to Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE.
So yeah, whole thing is.
Yeah, it's a big Reaganite mess.
I tell you, we're in it.
We're still living it.
Well, listen, I mean, I think this is such an important article.
I made it the spotlight on Antiwar.com the other day.
I hope that everyone will look at it and put it on your Facebook and your Twitter and show it to your right wing uncle and be like, remember how much you hate Bill Clinton?
All right, let's see if we can blame him before we get to Mohammed for just a second.
Why don't you entertain the possibility that this is that SOB's fault and not, you know, this entire religion itself?
After all, there's more than a billion Muslims in the world.
If Islam made them all terrorists, then we really would be in the middle of a world war right now, wouldn't we?
Seems like most of them are just getting up and going to work in the morning like everybody else.
So something must be wrong with that explanation.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that, unfortunately, is one of the biggest problems of trying to explain this to regular people in America is that people have gotten so partisan that they want to blame one political party.
And you can't understand it without realizing that both political parties have done horrible, horrible things.
And they're both to blame.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, listen, the article is great.
Everybody, please go check it out.
It's at the Intercept.
It's John Schwartz.
Why do so many Americans fear Muslims?
Decades of denial about America's role in the world.
Great work.
Thanks, John.
Great.
Thanks.
All right, y'all.
That's Scott Horton Show.
Scott Horton dot org for all the archives.
Four thousand something interviews.
A lot of them have me just haranguing my guests like you just heard, but you might like it anyway.
Scott Horton dot org for all that and Libertarian Institute dot org.
That's my institute.
Me and the heroic Sheldon Richman and the great Will Gregg and the wonderful Jared Labelle.
We're libertarian as hell over there at the Libertarian Institute.
So check it out.
Libertarian Institute dot org.
Thanks, guys.
Hey, all Scott here.
On average, how much do you think these interviews are worth to you?
Of course, I've never charged for my archives in a dozen years of doing this, and I'm not about to start.
But at Patreon dot com slash Scott Horton Show, you can name your own prize to help support and make sure there's still new interviews to give away.
So what do you think?
Two bits?
A buck and a half?
They're usually about 80 interviews per month, I guess.
So take that into account.
You can also cap the amount you'd be willing to spend in case things get out of hand around here.
That's Patreon dot com slash Scott Horton Show.
And thanks, y'all.
This part of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by Audible dot com.
And right now, if you go to Audible trial dot com slash Scott Horton Show, you can get your first audio book for free.
Of course, I'm recommending Michael Swanson's book, The War State, The Cold War Origins of the Military Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
Maybe you've already bought The War State in paperback, but you just can't find the time to read it.
Well, now you can listen while you're out marching around.
Get the free audio book of The War State by Michael Swanson produced by Listen and Think Audio at Audible trial dot com slash Scott Horton Show.