03/22/13 – Daniel McAdams – The Scott Horton Show

Hey everybody, Scott Horton here.
You got to consider advertising on the show.
Here's how it'll work.
You give me money and then I'll tell everybody how great your stuff is.
They'll buy it and we'll all be rich as Republicans.
Sound pretty good?
Shoot me an email, scott at scotthorton.org and we'll work it out.
All right, y'all welcome back to the show.
Now I was playing clips of me being right about Iraq in, um, October, November, and December of 2002 on the show the other day.
And one of those clips began with the end of me reading a Ron Paul speech.
And that was my giant cheat sheet.
Not only was I good on Iraq, um, for obvious reasons, but in detail, I was good on Iraq because I was paying very close attention to Dr.
Ron Paul and he was paying very close attention to what was going on over there.
And a big part of why Ron Paul was so good on all the details and not just before the war, but throughout and not just the Iraq war, but all of America's foreign policy.
A big part of all of that is his foreign policy advisor, Daniel McAdams, who now joins us on the telephone.
Welcome to the show, Dan.
How are you doing?
Thanks, Scott.
Great to be with you.
I was very great to have you here.
Um, for years I've wanted to interview you, but I couldn't because you're Ron Paul's foreign policy guy in his congressional office, not on the campaign and that kind of thing.
And so you're like off limits for going on the radio that whole time.
But now I finally got you.
Well, it's great to finally be with you now.
I can speak my mind.
All right.
Well, listen, so thank you for all the things that you said to Ron Paul that were right all those times, because, uh, he's pretty much good on everything.
And I don't know if you've ever heard my interviews of him, but I interviewed him a couple of dozen times, I think over the years since 2004 and almost always about, you know, real policy and specifically foreign policy rather than, you know, his presidential campaigns and politics and all that kind of stuff.
And in my experience, I can ask Ron Paul.
So what do you think about what's going on in Korea right now?
Or what do you think about the war in Somalia right now?
Or what do you think about, I can pick any crisis from anywhere in the world and the man will go on for 15 minutes.
He knows everything about it and he knows why it's all America's fault in the first place and why we ought to quit.
And, um, it just blows me away.
He's always good on just everything.
And especially people want to look up, especially everybody making excuses for how they were accidentally wrong on the Iraq war this week with the 10th anniversary, go back and read what Ron Paul was saying in 2002.
And then tell me how you had no, no, a chance to know better, you know, in the face of, of that kind of testimony.
Cause he wasn't just opposed.
He was exactly right about why.
And anyway, so thanks Dan, for all of your help to him, because he's been a great help to me.
I can't take a lot of credit for it because he, you know, he, he reads voraciously, as you know, Scott, and he still does.
He, it's, it's really just a trick to try to keep up with him.
You know, he's, he, he's most of the time taught the rest of us things on the staff.
So I can't take, I can't take that much credit.
Well, actually, you know, if you would give us just a minute, I want to get to the real topic here, but what, what is it like to actually give a Ron Paul foreign policy briefing?
Can you set the stage for us a little bit?
I've always wondered about, you know, how this works.
Cause I know I've seen him give speeches.
In fact, I saw him give a speech in 2004, where he said to the audience in the most serious way that, listen, you've got to start reading antiwar.com every day.
I mean, they just, they, you gotta, if you want to know what's going on with this foreign policy.
So I know that he, he is a voracious reader.
So I wonder what happens when he shows up, you know, prepared, but ready for a briefing by you, you know?
Well, the, you know, it was, it was a little more informal there, you know, but usually, you know, you, you get to the office in the morning and Dr.
Paul has already read 150 articles about the topics.
And so, you know, you're basically scrambling to try to keep up with them.
And, you know, it's, uh, you know, our job was to, you know, find some of the details and, uh, you know, uh, how many, how many soldiers were killed, uh, you know, and not in 2011, something of this nature, but in terms of the big picture and understanding how things work, you know, he, he really, we were pretty superfluous, I have to say.
Yeah.
I mean, basically you're just saying, Hey, make sure you did see this one, right?
Well, it's that kind of thing, right?
Yeah.
And he'd say, well, did you see these eight?
Right.
So he, you know, that's, and that was, I have to say pretty rare among members.
There were a couple of other members that we knew that were big readers, but, but really nothing, even in the ballpark of Dr.
Paul, he just, um, he read constantly.
He didn't stay to the mainstream sources.
He read alternative sources.
He read left and right and in between.
And, you know, he found the truth as, you know, mixing all of these together.
So he wasn't afraid to, you know, to look outside the mainline press.
And, and most, most, uh, members of Congress and senators won't do that.
They'll look at the post.
They'll look at the New York times and that's it.
That's the world for them.
So no wonder they're so messed up.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, you know, I guess this is one of the most important things I learned from Ron Paul really was that the people up there in Capitol Hill, they might not be stupid, but they're just not interested and you cannot teach them anything.
And I, I guess as I get older, I meet more and more people like that who already know everything and can't be taught anything.
And so, you know, I guess the best example would be like, uh, Ron trying to teach economics to Barney Frank, the biggest champion of the housing bubble, something like that, where, you know, his ears are just bulletproof.
There's just not a damn thing you can do to get a actual truth into his head.
And that, and then the whole, the whole damn government is run by those people.
Basically.
Yeah, but I'd have to say, you know, Barney Frank was one of the smarter, probably one of the smartest members.
He just disagreed on those issues.
And, and, you know, and Dr.
Paul's view was incorrect, but he really was one of the most intelligent, but there are a lot of other ones, as you say, that just simply don't have the intellectual curiosity.
And what that really does is it created, creates a huge space for these sort of faceless advisors, uh, behind the scenes to really, uh, manipulate the members.
Uh, you know, they, they, a lot of them have their own agendas.
Uh, they move from member to member from year to year.
And so their, their, their loyalty is to the system.
It's not to this guy who has to stand up for election every two years, you know, they come and go.
So, so really you get, you get people putting the words into the mouths of people who are essentially puppets.
Right.
And that's the real problem.
Yeah.
I mean, that's one of the best arguments I've heard against term limits ever since I was a little kid.
I think my dad said, ah, cause then the staff just runs the whole place.
And, and every Congressman is nothing but a puppet at that point.
Sometimes it takes a couple of years to be able to maneuver up there and maneuver around your own staff, even maybe, you know?
Sure.
And there are members too, who have said, you know, I don't really trust my staff or, Oh, my staff lied to me on this.
Or, you know, some, there've been several times where Dr.
Paul may have talked to a member after he took a wrong, a wrong vote.
And, and the member would say, Oh, my staff lied to me about this.
Could you imagine if you were running a business and your, your, your chief operations officer, if someone lied to you and did something that hurt the business, they'd be fired, but it doesn't happen to these guys.
Yeah.
The economics of American democracy, man, something else, you know, my friend, Tim works, um, he's the lawyer who, who turns the, what the Congressman wants into the legalese of the bill at the Texas legislature.
And he says, there's only two kinds of bills ever in the Texas legislature.
There's corrupt special interests getting what they want.
And then there are real kind of democratic populist, what the people want kind of bills and each and every one of those is about how to oppress people more and jail them longer and take more of their rights away.
And that's it.
Those are your only two kinds of laws that ever get passed.
The ones that are the, these are what the people really want are more prisons, more laws, more poor people locked up, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, absolutely.
And these, a lot of these guys that draft this legislation are masters at hiding behind legalese and hiding behind very vague statements.
And you know, this very well, Scott, look at the NDA of 2012 and how difficult it was to discern what it really meant and that's not by accident.
So they're very good at obfuscation as well.
There's no doubt about it.
Yeah.
I mean, when I was a kid, well, I used to vote.
Um, my first vote was against George W.
Bush for governor actually, but, uh, always the, uh, on the yes, no questions.
It's always in double, triple, quadruple negatives.
And you never know whether yes means yes or yes means no or whatever.
I mean, you just flip a coin basically.
It's, they're always written to trick you anyway.
So let's get to, uh, America and the empire and, uh, the, well, the aftermath of the Iraq war and particularly as it affects, uh, the situation in Syria.
Um, uh, well, let's start with this, Dan.
Uh, I know this reporter named David Enders from McClatchy newspapers.
And I asked him, I said, well, you know how during the Iraq war, the, the least part of the Sunni based insurgency, the Al-Qaeda prisoner, beheaders and suicide bombers, uh, ended up grabbing all the headlines and taking all the attention, but really they were only, you know, two or 5% of the Sunni based insurgency all along that kind of thing.
And he said, yeah.
And he reported from Iraq at the time.
So he said, yeah, he really knew what he was talking about on that.
And I said, well, is that the same thing?
What's going on here in Syria that you really have this big broad based Sunni rebellion, but the Al-Qaeda prisoner beheaders and suicide bombers are just stealing all the headlines because of the way they behave.
And he said, no, this is a pretty much Al-Qaeda's war.
The Al-Nusra front, there's the prisoner beheaders, the suicide bombers.
This is their war in Syria.
And pretty much everyone else is sitting it out or fighting on the other side.
Yeah, I think you've got a good point.
And McClatchy has actually been very good on Syria.
I've read several pieces they've done, uh, that have been at least more objective than the stuff, the garbage you see from Reuters and other places.
Uh, but you, um, as far as the lessons learned from Iraq, when it comes to Syria so far, it doesn't seem like they've learned any because the same neocons are making the same lie to justify an intervention in Syria, which I think is probably a lot more complex in terms of its, uh, society than Iraq even was.
You have many, many more different factions.
Uh, but they're saying they're making the same arguments.
You're using the same provocations and the same propaganda.
And people are still falling for just like they did before.
So they haven't learned much.
And as far as the different fighters, you know, there are people on the ground, of course, who, who, who may know more, but from, from everything that I've seen, the, the, the much vaunted non-Islamist FSA, if there is such a beast is too busy, um, looting and bullying and thugging, uh, to do any real effective fighting anyway.
I mean, everything, everything that I've seen suggests that it really is only the Islamists who are able and dedicated to take the fight to Syria.
Of course, there are the believers.
Yeah.
Every time I see some Democrat on TV saying, well, what we got to do is back the moderates.
I wonder which war ever had the moderates leading a charge, man.
Exactly.
And you know, the war nerd, he he's, he's so amoral.
I, I just love him and hate him at the same time.
The war nerd over there from the exile.
And I read his whole book on it and everything.
And these are the kinds of people that he describes as being the best fighters because they don't mind dying.
That's basically it.
They are the baddest asses of the Legion.
They're the volunteers who, who go to the front.
Same thing happened in Vietnam, right?
In, in platoon, uh, um, it's even in the movie platoon where the Vietnamese soldier runs into the headquarters with Oliver stone is the, as the captain.
And it blows up the tent full of people and whatever that kind of thing happened during the Vietnam war.
In fact, I read a thing, or maybe it was a guest on the show explaining to me about how they would wrap themselves in, in bandages so that even if they got shot a bunch of times, their body wouldn't get torn apart.
Very much, you know?
And then they would shoot up a bunch of opium and then charge the Americans on a suicide mission.
You know?
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, I'd like to read, um, Colonel Pat Lang.
I don't know if you read any of his stuff.
He's got a really interesting blog.
Yeah, not often enough, but I know who you're talking about.
Yeah.
And he, he has a, he wrote something a few days ago, which was kind of interesting.
He, he, uh, he points out, and I think it's very important to remember, uh, he talks about the neocon line that the revolt in Syria was secular in origin.
So, and I've, you know, I felt that way all along that this was this, and even when the, even when the mainstream media and the corporate media has to, has to sort of come clean that their initial reporting was wrong, they still want to stick to that lie that this was somehow just a popular revolt that went bad.
Uh, and then, uh, the vacuum that we're here, here's the great neocon way of doing it, the vacuum that was produced by our refusal to become involved middle militarily in the first place.
That is what opened the door to the Islamist radicals.
So it actually was our fault for not starting to bomb right away, for not doing the Libya immediately.
You know, so talk about turning it on its head.
Uh, but you know, go back to the neocon plans, you know, uh, Wolfowitz told, uh, Wesley Clark years and years ago that something like the U S had one or two decades to overthrow Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia, where you can just go down that list and start taking them off.
You know, this was the intent all along.
Uh, so whether or not there were a few people demonstrating in the street who, who really did want to have some reforms, uh, even those people, uh, were certainly not, uh, were not interested in this kind of violent overthrow.
Uh, you know, I did a little piece on Lou Rockwell's blog a few days ago, or I quoted this really interesting interview from, uh, this guy who lives in Aleppo in Syria.
And he said, uh, people here don't like the regime, but they hate the rebels even more.
Uh, like many other residents of Aleppo, I saw firsthand how the armed rebels were acting on the ground, crimes and looting and et cetera, et cetera.
And they said, another reason we hate them is that they're foreign jihadi fighters with extremist ideology.
So it's, uh, it's, it's a very, it's, it's a very, very rough situation.
Well, yeah.
And you know, the rebels have been quoted over and over again, too, is saying, and I guess I can see the public relations reasons why they would need to cut off people's heads and do suicide bombings and stuff, because they're trying to prove just how serious they are, just how unafraid to die for this thing they are, and that they're not going away and that kind of thing, which maybe, you know, helps them with their recruitment on the margin or whatever, but it sure as hell is good for convincing everyone else in the society that's not with them, that they better resist to the last man, because who wants to, you know, die beheaded on their knees?
I'd rather get shot standing up.
Wouldn't you?
So now they're just redoubling their opposition against them in every way.
But I wanted to backtrack one thing to what you say about the neocons and their long-term plans here, um, coping with crumbling States, a Western and Israeli balance of power strategy for the Levant.
And this is basically a companion piece to a clean break, the new strategy for securing the realm that David Wilmser wrote for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem and in Washington.
And what he says in here is that what we need to do with Syria is expedite the chaotic collapse.
That way, then we'll be in a better position to figure out what's going to happen afterwards.
The only thing about that is this was written back before the Iraq war.
And it seems like Jesus, even David Wilmser at this point has got to realize that sometimes when you expedite the chaotic collapse, you don't really get to decide what happens at the end.
And that may be.
And this is the thing I never understood about this thing, to be honest with you, Dan, is how anyone in Israel, whether Likud, Knicks or anybody else, or how any of the neoconservatives could possibly think that a bunch of jihadi crazies run in Damascus is better for Israel than the Baathists who, I mean, Assad might as well be Mossad this whole time.
He hasn't said a peep about the Golan Heights his entire reign in office, right?
Yeah.
I mean, what are they doing, man?
I bet if you went to Israel, you would hear so many people that disagree with this strategy, this apparent strategy of theirs.
The worse, the better strategy, because you're right.
It does put them in serious danger.
And, you know, I think, you know, I can speak more about U.S. policy, but I think it's really a equal measure of arrogance and ignorance, you know, falling for your own propaganda.
This is exactly what happened on Iraq.
People who are supposed to be intelligent, otherwise intelligent, falling for these lies.
Well, it's not going to cost anything.
They'll welcome us.
This is what the people really want.
You know, it's a fundamental it's a fundamental flaw in this kind of analysis.
When you when you view it through the prism of your own desires, you know, that's when you end up making mistakes and they're doing the same thing here.
Going back to talk about, you know, these these these radical attacks to to frighten people away.
Look at this horrific bombing of the mosque yesterday.
You know, this was a this was a Muslim cleric who was you take away every other attribute.
He would be the you'd think the type of person that the U.S. would be happy about.
He's obviously he's religious.
He's known for giving sermons against terrorism, opposed to terrorism.
And because of that, he was blown up by a suicide bomber, along with his grandson and 48 other worshippers in the mosque.
And what's interesting is the silence that you hear from the State Department.
Where's the condemnation?
You know, the U.N.
Security Council today did condemn it.
But as far as my last search, which is just before we got on the phone today, I've not heard the kind of condemnation you'd hear if the same thing had been perpetrated by the government.
You know, so it's it's it's really a sort of repulsive.
Yeah, well, it's amazing, actually, to see headlines that say, you know, on one hand, the CIA is preparing some drones to start picking off jihadists.
And then at the same time, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans in the Senate criticized Barack Obama for not doing enough to help the suicide bombers yet.
I mean, wow.
Are you guys really making that argument in public?
I don't understand it.
How is nobody asking a follow up question about that at this point?
And it's also very well known.
It's been reported even in the corporate media that the US CIA is training Islamist fighters in Jordan and possibly in Turkey.
This has been going on for a long time.
So is it possible they're training these very guys that are doing this sort of thing?
You know, and then don't forget, you have the weasels like the UK foreign secretary and its French counterpart, who in the in the wake of this bombing say, see, this is another reason why we have to lift the arms embargo and give these guys more weapons.
You know, talk about the dialectic.
Yeah, I mean, basically their message is, you know what, Dan McAdams?
You're right.
It is an Al-Qaeda war.
And that's why we need to intervene starting now, when really your whole point has been that they've been intervening on the side of Al-Qaeda the whole damn time.
Yeah, exactly.
And they're saying, oh, no, but we'll we'll, I guess, resurrect this guy that died in the suicide blast yesterday or that was killed by the suicide blast yesterday.
And him and his moderate friends and put them in charge.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
And there is a certain amount of arrogance to the U.S. believes that it can somehow control these people, that it's empowering now with weapons.
Look at this.
Three thousand tons of weapons from Croatia was airlifted with U.S. help into into Turkey and then cross shipped into Syria.
You know, the U.S. is arrogant enough to believe that they can control these guys once they get them in power.
And and look, that's what we thought in the in the 80s when we were helping the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
And look what happened there.
So believing your own lies is extremely, extremely dangerous.
Man, you know, it's like a year ago or something.
I think that Patrick Coburn, I said, so how's Damascus these days?
And he said, it feels like Beirut in 1975.
That is on the eve of a 15 year meat grinder civil war of mass death and massive different numbers of factions and militias fighting over ethnic and religious identity and territory and foreign intervention on all sides.
Boy, talk about playing with fire.
And again, right on Israel's northern border when this is ostensibly all for Israel.
Right.
Like, I mean, even Obama and that's an open source kind of thing, not just an accusation, Obama and Jeffrey Goldberg talking about it in the Atlantic.
Nobody said, oh, we care about the poor little refugees or anything like that.
Jeffrey Goldberg asked the president, well, this would be a good way to help weaken Iran.
Right.
And Obama said, yeah, that's why we're doing it.
Yeah, exactly.
But I mean, so that's crazy.
And what are they thinking?
Seriously, it makes no sense.
I mean, even on like a very like David from stupid right wing idiot level, it still doesn't make any sense to overthrow the Baathists in favor of a civil war forever.
Yeah, on Israel's northern border.
But think of all the wonderful contracts that will go when we finally get our guys in there.
We'll have a lot of contracts to rebuild the country to, you know, eight hundred million dollars to to repair the roads that never get repaired.
And you probably you probably had Peter Van Buren on your show at some point.
You know, he wrote this great book about all the money wasted in Iraq on these projects that never got built.
You know, so there'll be a lot of that and there'll be a lot of contracts for NGOs to go in there and teach tolerance and multiculturalism.
So it's also regime change is big business, too.
Yeah, that's true.
And, you know, my problem is, is I always try to imagine the leaders of these states as being reasonable and having anything like a public interest in mind at all, when it really just doesn't come down to that, when it when the policy is being made.
All as we saw with Iraq 10 years ago, all realities can be damned and they will just go right on with an agenda, the least sense making agenda of all.
Right.
I mean, Hosni Mubarak.
I'll never stop quoting this.
Hosni Mubarak said in 2002, if you do this, you'll create ten thousand bin ladens.
Please stop.
And that was, you know, America's most loyal puppet dictator in the region was saying, don't do this, dude.
I promise, because I love you.
Don't do it.
You know.
Well, look at the absence, not only the absence, but to be put it lightly, look at the absence of any critical analysis in the corporate media, they push this from the beginning.
You can't pick up any of the and maybe that's why people aren't reading newspapers anymore.
Maybe they're starting to wake up to what garbage and and regime promoting propaganda tools they are.
But, you know, there's never a critical eye.
They never take these things apart.
You know, you have to turn to to people like you who are interviewing, you know, people with different perspectives.
But it's just not out there that the and even today you read a lot of lies in The Washington Post about Iran, people like Jobi Warwick and all of these guys just putting the same lines, remember, from Iraq.
And there's no you know, you don't you don't get punished for being completely wrong and being a liar.
Yeah, you know, I think that's really the thing about it, right, is that we have the exact same people that lied us into war last time.
There's no accountability for that.
And so, you know, big surprise when they tell the same lie against the very same people.
And if it's not the ringleaders, it's the Ashley Banfield's of the world or whatever these TV news hairdos who don't know anything.
And so all they can do is repeat what they're being told by their expert guests that they got from the very top, you know.
Yeah.
And yet we're the extremists for trying to look at what's really going on behind the scenes and trying to look for real answers objectively.
Now, let me ask you this.
What degree of truth do you think is in the story, if any at all, about how Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus and Martin Dempsey all tried to convince Obama to arm the rebels parentheses more, I guess, and he just refused.
Nope.
He'll give them money and he'll give them aid.
And I guess he'll use the CIA to coordinate the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks and the Jordanians and purchases of Eastern European rifles.
But he won't arm them.
And I just what the hell is that?
I mean, because it's not very plausible deniability if it's if that's all it is.
Does it represent a real difference?
I mean, is it Hillary is saying, give them tanks and he's refusing to give them tanks or what?
It's a good question.
I've thought about that a lot and I don't I don't really know the answer.
In one way, it makes it makes sense that he's hesitant.
He does have these people around him that seem much more enthusiastic about direct confrontation.
But, you know, Obama is strange in that he he prefers a different kind of warfare.
He loves drones and he loves special forces.
You know, he loves to maybe it's a sort of a liberal instinct, the leftist instinct or something.
But he he doesn't want to have a big footprint out there.
At least it seems to me, if you look at how he's how he treats war and look, now we've built this huge drone base in Niger to start stirring up more trouble in Africa.
So there's a hesitation to sort of go boots in and a more of a predilection toward these kinds of, you know, sort of secret approaches.
So maybe maybe that's what it's all about.
Yeah, I wonder, you know, when it comes to an actual, you know, boots on the ground kind of thing, I mean, I can see some special forces guys, but just.
I don't know.
I have trouble believing Barack Obama is that crazy to reproduce Bush's Iraq war in Syria, now reproducing his own disaster in Libya or Mali or something like that.
I could see that maybe.
Pakistan.
Yeah, Pakistan.
But I got, you know, I guess it's possible, hell, he'll put 60, he'll escalate 60,000 more troops into Afghanistan for that thing, kill tens of thousands more people in a war he knew he couldn't win at the time.
And even all his confidence now admit that he only did it because he would if he was afraid that the Republicans would call him a coward.
And so he capitulated to them, which was the brave thing to do and whatever.
So I guess he could do the same thing in Syria.
I mean, if the pressure in the Congress gets turned up hot enough, but I guess we'll see.
Let me ask you this.
What do you think about all this hype about the Republican Party is really changing because of this Rand Paulian influence?
I know that you're, you know, follow the individualist power politics type theory of government here.
Can the GOP power, can the Karl Rovian elite be overthrown by some kind of populist upsurge in America?
Do you think?
Is it possible that Rand Paul's son could get the nomination for the presidency, do you think?
Or he could change the Republican Party that much?
Yeah, I I'm thankful every day that I'm not involved in politics, you know, and what I'm interested in doing in the future is more education.
So I'm I'm far less interested in which party, which team wins the Super Bowl, so to speak, because I don't really feel and Dr.
Paul has always felt and I mean, Dr.
Ron Paul has always felt that really the future is educating people.
It's not in winning elections.
That may be a tactical that may give you a tactical tool to help educate people.
But the the pursuit of the ring will never lead to anything good, I don't believe.
I think to the degree that that certain events can educate people, for example, on the drone threat, that's that's certainly a good thing.
But as far as whether the parties will co-opt a message that they feel have populist power, absolutely.
That's what they're in the business of doing.
You know, that's how they win.
Look at this.
And I haven't followed that closely, but but look at the whole Tea Party phenomenon.
It originated with the sort of Ron Paul campaign of 2008.
And as soon as the Republican Party felt the power of this populist surge, they immediately co-opted it.
And it became this even more aggressive on foreign policy than the actual Republican Party.
And you had decades long Republican hats calling themselves Tea Partiers.
And what a joke.
Right.
And boy, they sure got away with co-opting that thing easy, too.
Right.
And they took advantage of the yeah, they took advantage of well-meaning but unsophisticated people who felt like they really were ascending to some form of populist power.
And they don't realize that the elites laugh at people like that.
You know, they really do.
They laugh at them.
They'll condescend to meeting their constituents in an office, maybe, but they'll be certainly happy when they're gone so they can get back to running things.
You know, that's the problem with politics.
Absolutely.
All right.
Now, so speaking of which, tell us as much as you can about the new foreign policy something or other, because at least that much is public.
There's a new foreign policy something or other.
Well, I've been working with Congressman Paul.
He has a number of he has a number of projects that he's going to be working on.
He's already announced a few.
You know, he does a daily podcast and a daily radio segment now, and he's working on a number of other things.
And one of them is a foreign policy project that I'm working with him on.
And I'm very fortunate to be working with him on.
And as I said, he's focused now on education and educating people.
And so this is something that, you know, will be will be public in a short time, some, you know, in the next few weeks, probably, hopefully.
And I think it's going to be something very exciting.
And I think it's something that people will will really be looking for.
And you probably felt the same way.
And certainly the neocons felt the opposite.
They wanted Dr. Paul to retire, go home and not say another word because he's too dangerous to them.
But they'll be disappointed because he has something very different in mind.
Yeah.
And now he's even more available for TV interviews, too.
Unfortunately, in comment on this, that and the other development on pretty much anything he's got.
And you could watch it with the volume off and the closed captioning off and just trust that he's getting it right.
Ninety nine point nine percent of the time, too.
That's my favorite thing about him.
Exactly.
And he's caught.
He's crossing the country speaking.
He was in Canada recently.
I think he'll be traveling a lot more speaking and motivating people.
So he's he's put it on the afterburner now.
There's no question about it.
Great.
He feels like he's finally free to really start kicking into gear, no longer restrained by the house.
Yeah.
You know, back in 2004, the first time I interviewed him, it was actually Karen Katowski's question.
I was at the Libertarian Party Convention in 2004 in May 2004.
So the question was, since there's only one of you ever, you know, what hope do we even have anyway?
And so I asked him that.
And he said, well, you know, back in 1980, whatever, we pretty much figured that the Soviet Union would last our lifetimes.
And then just a few years, the thing was completely gone.
And so the lesson there is it's not your job to predict bad things to happen.
It's your job to just keep teaching liberty and see what happens.
You know, just you just keep making sure that people have access to the right information as best you can and see what goes from there.
So I know that that's, you know, that's his answer to that question.
What hope do we have?
Just keep teaching liberty and it'll work out.
So I'm I'm really excited.
I can't wait to find out what the real deal is.
Maybe, you know, off the air, I'll try to get you to tell me and pinky swear to not say.
But anyway, I just think that's great, Dan.
I can't wait to find out what you guys are up to.
Great.
Well, you know, you know, you're doing your part, too, that's for sure.
And you're educating a lot of people.
I always look at the list of people you've interviewed and say, how did he find them?
You know, so hats off to you as well.
All right.
Well, thanks very much, Dan.
Talk to you soon.
Take care, Scott.
Bye bye.
Thank you.
All right.
Isn't that cool?
I can interview Ron Paul's foreign policy guy now.
I'm telling for years.
What year is it?
Jesus, for for many more than five years, probably seven, eight, nine years or something like that.
I've wanted to interview Dan McAdams.
And now I can.
Isn't that great?
All right, good.
So that's Dan McAdams.
You know what?
I forgot.
I screwed up at the beginning and I forgot to say you can find what he writes at Lew Rockwell.com/blog.
He's blogging there all the time and, you know, undermining things that they say that aren't true.
So you might come to rely on him.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest dot org.
CNI stands against America's negative role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war party's relentless push to bomb Iran and the roles played by twisted Christian Zionism and neocon engineered Islamophobia and justifying it all.
The Council for the National Interest works tirelessly to expose and oppose our government's most destructive policies, but they can't do it without you.
Support CNI's push to straighten out America's crooked course.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest dot org and click donate under about us at the top of the page.
That's Council for the National Interest dot org.
Man, you need some Liberty stickers for the back of your truck at Liberty stickers dot 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.
At government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at Liberty stickers dot com.
Of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at the bumper sticker dot com.
That's Liberty stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here inviting you to check out Wall Street Window dot com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks in 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 Wall Street Window dot com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out.
So also keep your eye on writer Michael Swanson dot com for more details.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
Like I told you before, the future freedom foundation at FFF dot org represents the best of the libertarian movement led by the fearless Jacob Hornberger, FFF writers James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Wendy McElroy, Anthony Gregory and many more.
Write the op eds and the books, host the events and give the speeches that are changing our world for the better.
Help support the Future Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to their magazine, The Future of Freedom, or to contribute.
Just look for the big red donate button at the top of FFF dot org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.