03/24/16 – Coleen Rowley – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new e-book by long-time future freedom author Scott McPherson, Freedom and Security, the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
This is the definitive principled case in favor of gun rights and against gun control.
America is exceptional.
Here the people come first, and we refuse to allow the state a monopoly on firearms.
Our liberty depends on it.
Get Scott McPherson's Freedom and Security, the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on Kindle at Amazon.com today.
Alright, y'all, again, there's a new order around here at the Scott Horton Show.
I quit doing the live show, well, I'm going to still be on KPFK 90.7 FM in LA, KUCR and KDRT in Riverside and in Davis out there in California, so that's good.
But the daily live show is now over, but I'm still going to be doing interviews.
I appreciate all the outpouring of support and emails and tweets and concerns and thanks and everything, everybody, a lot.
But I'm still going to be doing the live show, one or two interviews a day, as per usual.
I encourage everyone to sign up for the podcast feed if you want to hear these interviews.
Just go to scotthorton.org slash interviews, or just on the front page at scotthorton.org you can sign up for the RSS feed in the right side of the page there.
And I guess occasionally I'll be doing some Just Me stuff, and I'll be posting that in the full show feed.
For those of you who like the Just Me parts, you might want to sign up for both, but most of the content for now is going to be coming through here on the interview only feed.
And that's because I've got a book to write, and I've got to get cracking on this thing or it's just never going to get done, and doing the show in the middle of the day is just making it impossible.
And so that's the deal.
Thanks very much everybody.
Sign up for both podcast feeds if you still want all the content, right there in the right hand margin at scotthorton.org.
And now Colleen Rowley.
All right y'all, introducing Colleen Rowley.
She was person of the year, Time Magazine person of the year in 2002 for blowing the whistle on the FBI's failure to attempt to stop the 9-11 attacks.
Of course, was the lawyer for the FBI's Minneapolis office that had arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, and were unallowed to search all his belongings until after.
They're forbidden from even going to the judge to ask for permission to search until after.
A hell of a story, and we've got a previous interview or two about that if you want to go check it out.
But anyway, welcome back to the show Colleen, how are you?
Oh I'm okay, we just survived a blizzard here in Minnesota.
Oh that's good.
It's going to be about 75 here in Austin today, just so you know.
Now seriously, very happy to have you back on the show, and happy to see that you're part of this project here, Hillary is a neocon, at hillaryisaneocon.com.
Now I don't think she's married into the Podhoretz family exactly, but pretty close as far as ideology goes.
You guys start out at the very top of the page here with a quote from Robert Kagan.
Who's Robert Kagan?
He's the co-founder with William Crystal of the Project for the New American Century, that plotted and planned through the 90s to have, basically to seek this full spectrum dominance through waging wars and various regime change.
Also what the neocons call creative chaos, which I think is a good thing to understand.
Neocons are essentially just equated with the creative chaos that we've seen when they got their opportunity, their new Pearl Harbor of 9-11.
And Robert Kagan has been one of the main people constantly pushing for wars and various coups around the world.
Alright, and then the quote here is, for this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.
So making his preferences clear.
And then of course you even have a quote from Dick Cheney, saying that, well at least out of the current administration, she's the best of them, huh?
Yeah, I mean the connections between Cheney are that Victoria Newland, you know we were just talking about Robert Kagan, the founder of the Project for the New American Century.
Well his dear wife, Victoria Newland, was the assistant to Dick Cheney.
And then Hillary hired her to become spokesperson and then eventually rise up to be like an assistant director in the State Department, and she's the architect of the coup that toppled the Ukrainian government.
Successfully toppled the Ukrainian government, and then put in some of their neo-Nazi favorites.
She's been intercepted talking about all of this.
So I guess the good news in all of these things is that we've learned through, you know, first-hand information, both the direct emails of Hillary Clinton and some interceptions that have occurred from time to time.
So we don't have to always speculate and guess about motives.
These things are now pretty apparent right from the horse's mouth.
And you know, Hillary is so connected in with the neocons through, not only through Kagan's being an advisor to her.
I think what's important about this is that in our two-party partisanship, people, you know, often it's their loyalty to their party that more or less blinds them to the facts about the backgrounds.
You know, people have kind of a bad feeling.
I think even party partisans have kind of some misgivings about Hillary Clinton.
That's why she didn't win in 2008.
They know that she's had this long history of scandals and deceit and constantly being investigated for various, you know, wrongdoing.
So even the partisans know that.
But I don't think they realize how deeply she's connected, even like with Kagan, for instance.
Kagan, by the way, was an advisor to McCain.
So if the party partisans understand that this isn't about party loyalty or somehow that you can trust the leader of your party, this is essentially about the fact that the War Party, which is this neoconservative, very controlling movement in Washington, D.C. and think tanks, actually is behind Hillary Clinton.
And I think that's the thing that, you know, many of your listeners will already know, but the majority of people out there don't.
And it's why this website's important.
I mean, these things I think would, if people allow themselves to read it, will shock the average American voter.
It won't shock, you know, readers of Antiwar.com will know some of these things and readers of Consortium News, et cetera.
But the average person out there, it's kind of sad.
I go to some party things and I'm like dismayed to find that people don't know any of these things.
Yeah, all the dominant narratives are, well, she'll be the first woman president and she's got experience.
She's got lots of foreign policy experience.
She really knows what she's doing.
She's not just some amateur that they say anything about foreign policy.
It's just that.
But mostly it's all about just shattering that glass ceiling and, oh, it's finally her turn because she waited patiently and these kinds of things.
And you know, it's really I got to blame Sanders for all of this.
If he really wanted to win, he could nuke her off the planet just by mentioning a few pertinent facts.
As you have them listed here on this page, Hillary, is a neocon.com.
And he just keeps just for months and months and months, he does nothing but pull his punches.
Occasionally he hits her over Libya.
But he kind of just says, you got to read the New York Times series about it, which no one's going to do.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
It's I don't know what the motivation for that is.
Of course, political advisers around you will be trying to tell you that the winning strategy and a lot of it is to keep your mouth quiet about various scandals, especially when they don't are not assured of how public opinion will react.
So I'm possibly that's what he thinks.
If I still have a chance to win, I've got to follow these political advisers who are limiting my, you know, what I can say and stick to this message on domestic politics, which is what Sanders has done.
I don't.
Of course, I don't agree with that, because I don't think that ultimately this is even a winning strategy.
The people of the country are one of the reason they reasons they flocked to Sanders as well as Donald Trump is because they are kind of sick of this politician mode where they can expect basically not to be told the truth about anything and that they have to kind of just, you know, vote on political identity, etc.
You see a lot of people now very tired of that.
And I think that is the attraction to both Sanders and Donald Trump.
So Sanders in this in these remaining weeks of the campaign, let's hope he does, you know, do a little better on foreign policy and going after her, because there's so much that he can especially especially now with the emails being out there.
I read one article that, for instance, social media and Facebook, because we know, like, for instance, Google actually cooperated with with Hillary Clinton in trying to overthrow Syria, the Syrian government.
We know that some of our social media, we always hope that it's better than the old mainstream media.
But there's a lot of reasons to to now suspect that they have also been captured by the, you know, the establishment and by the military industrial complex.
But I read that Facebook, for instance, is not allowing this whole WikiLeaks.
What is it called?
You know, when they post all of the emails in a way that you can actually access them.
Right.
What's what's that?
It's the Hillary Clinton email archive is what it's called there.
So this archive of emails now, which has just come out, you know, with the State Department putting them out and if they've done it, they put out a lot and it's all damning.
It's all again, because this is firsthand.
You don't have to speculate and you don't have to have he said, she said, this is firsthand communications that Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, thought that she had to have on a private server.
And because of that, that Sanders now doesn't have to go out there and make allegations.
He can actually point to hard evidence of these things that she has had her basically her hand and fingers in all of these very nefarious efforts at with the neoconservative movement to basically topple governments, to start wars that they know is going to increase terrorism.
They know this from the outset.
That's right in the emails.
And you know, that was that was surprising shock.
Most people, if they think they're electing a great feminist, first female president to realize that this woman is one of the main reasons now why we are experiencing the horrible terror attacks.
You know, people glued to their televisions, watching every every second of how horrible these attacks in Paris and Brussels and worrying that that will come here.
And then to say we're going to elect a president that's had her fingers involved in knowingly encouraging and increasing the level of of terrorism in the world.
I mean, if that is known again, Sanders won't say it.
It's just apparently too difficult.
But that that is that's incredible.
I mean, this irony right now that we're living through is is is almost more than I say it.
I'm basically my stomach is churning when I'm even talking about it.
It's incredible.
It's something that we would watch in the Manchurian candidate movie or whatever.
We've watched something like this on television just to kind of shock ourselves.
But now it's the actual reality.
Well, it's part of having no accountability in the media over any of these wars for the last 15 years.
And so we're stuck with all the same media people who couldn't even be bothered to learn this stuff in the first place.
So it's not even just, you know, I think Sanders probably knows enough to be pulling his punches.
But when the CNN talking heads are saying, wow, this Brussels attack, which, of course, is entirely Hillary Clinton's fault for her interventions, especially in Libya and Syria, direct blowback, backdraft from her intervention in Syria.
But they don't know that they can't even be bothered to know that they go, oh, this Brussels attack makes Hillary Clinton look great because she's tough and experienced and this and that.
And meanwhile, she's the one this these guys are veterans of the Syrian jihad that she supported.
Yeah, I mean, it's again to to see this kind of Orwellian world where people are so misled to opposites.
And of course, the neoconservatives always joked about this and and they always you know, I had this one quote, I write it sometimes on Facebook, but the one quote and I don't even know who originally said it, but it's the neocons are like pyromaniacs who light a fire and then laugh when no one can put it out, which I think is a real good little description, because this laughing in private about the chaos that is created and then the knowledge that because they so control the mainstream media or the mainstream media is so lame.
And now they're they're actually getting a lot of the Internet media, too, that because of this, that they can basically make people believe anything fact free, logic free.
They can get them to believe, you know, black is white and peace is war, etc.
And it's a real powerful key.
Imagine how heady that would be if you're in these positions where you realize that you can basically, you know, what did Rove call it?
Make your own reality, because the reality is opposite, but but if you can make your own reality through controlling the media, and again, once that happens a couple of times, you can just see how this just goes right to your head.
I mean, obviously, this is this is something that we've seen in in old movies where, you know, power corrupted.
It is, you know, I don't know.
This is, I think, where the where we need to put our efforts.
People really need to put their thinking caps on because, again, there's a there's a relatively small number of people that read that listen to your show that that in it.
And there are also people in levels of expertise, for instance, in the CIA, in the Joint Chiefs.
There are analysts who understand this very clearly.
A lot of them are, you know, don't know what to do because they're trying to keep their their jobs and their their salaries and get their kids through college.
But they know and even Obama, you know, this Obama doctrine, whatever it is, 20,000 words that came out, even he finally picked up on, you know, the fact that this so-called playbook in Washington, D.C., is is really wrong, is really resulting in disastrous consequences.
So I think that part of it, too, is the disastrous consequences when they're only on Afghans and Pakistanis and Yemeni and Syrians and in Iraqis.
That is, you know, like I go back to those analysts that know what they know, this this the game they know what's going on.
But they say, OK, it's bad, you know, these people are dying, millions of people.
But they're still not me.
When this starts, when this chaos that they thought they could control now reaches Brussels and Paris and then San Bernardino and other places, I think ultimately that will be the only way that that people inside these environments will become whistleblowers, because now they're own that they themselves, their own kids, their family.
There's a new documentary coming out about drone warfare that I just saw.
And I even met the director once called National Bird.
It's airing at Tribeca and it aired in the Berlin Film Festival.
And the film review of it is exactly the same.
They said once a drone strikes somebody in the United States walking on a street, killing all the the civilians in the immediate vicinity, then, you know, things are people are really going to start thinking about this.
But as long as it's seen as only killing foreigners, even though it's killing civilians and children, it's just almost impossible for people to care enough.
So I've been thinking long and hard, how do we get people to really wake up?
And it's there's a few things that I think need to happen and that we maybe can help along.
Well, you know, I mean, the real sad thing is probably the first time a terrorist uses a drone to kill an American, they'll say, look, everyone, history began today.
And they hate us because they're Muslim and because we're good and innocent.
And we tried leaving them alone and not hurting a single Arab or Muslim for the last twenty five years.
And that didn't work.
So I guess now we're going to have to start our war against them.
Same thing they did two days ago after the Brussels attack.
When it's obvious for any idiot, you don't even have to really care.
All you have to do is slightly pay attention for the last five years.
And, you know, America has been trying to overthrow the Assad government by backing a bunch of jihadis that that is what has led to.
Oh, and then we stabbed him in the back and started bombing him.
The very same ones were backing.
And that's what's led to this.
It's so clear.
And yet shrug.
They just pretend and they get away with it.
And as long as Colleen Rowley doesn't have her own show on CNN to say, uh, not so fast, then their narrative dominates no matter what.
Well, I'm not quite that pessimistic.
I think that you have seen you have seen all you are one of the people I think in the country.
I would put you up in my top five people of most knowledgeable, because, again, you pierce right through the propaganda and you've you've seen it so many times.
That's very good.
You didn't need the Hillary emails to know exactly the same things.
But you are in a very elite category.
The majority of people don't know.
And that is why they are so vulnerable, like you said, to this crazy propaganda that comes out that that basically spins things in the opposite direction.
The question is, how do we get more people, you know, again, without having shows on CNN and without getting on the mainstream?
I think one problem is not enough of a seek.
I think that that I've seen this even locally.
People give up on getting mainstream attention.
There are people, you know, obviously, if you go back in the last 15 years, people like Oh, Joe, Joseph Wilson, I mean, he was getting mainstream attention, even even Ray McGovern a few times got on to CNN and whatever.
So there have been some isolated examples based of it.
She writes really well.
He gets his op eds published in large newspapers.
I think a lot of people kind of give up too soon on attempting this.
I've gotten a couple of op ed.
I got one op ed in the New York Times a couple of years ago.
So the truth is, some of it is we get a little bit too demoralized, I think, about trying.
And that's maybe a little part of it is that more of us have to try.
Mainstream media will go will like people with some stature.
So somebody who does come like a Richard Clark, for instance, if they have that kind of a background, they will at least accept him or her for a while, unless that person now goes off the off the chart.
You know, it's true.
I mean, it actually goes back kind of to their ignorance in a way, right?
Like Wolf Blitzer.
No one explicitly ever handed him a memo that said stop inviting Ron Paul on the air.
So at least back before Rand stole all his thunder and destroyed it, he would have Ron on all the time, because what Wolf Blitzer knew about Ron was not so much about, well, his opinions are verboten, but I like him.
He's a nice guy.
He's always available.
He has an opinion about any subject.
And he's just a great TV guest.
Right.
That was that was the mathematics as far as Wolf Blitzer was concerned.
Now, the bosses at CNN may have seen it a little bit different in terms of the substance.
But Wolf Blitzer doesn't have substance.
He's just an anchor.
You know, you've never seen him on Jeopardy, the episode of Celebrity Jeopardy.
So he just knew Ron as, you know, this nice old guy who can say some good stuff sometimes or some something one way or the other sometimes.
Right.
And so he got right in.
You know, they're looking for somebody who's articulate and smart.
And and and of course, Ron Paul fit the bill.
And of course, it didn't hurt that a lot of things he he said were were true and actually have been proven, etc.
So I think that he's that's a great example.
Then there are some others.
And I think a lot of it is that people are reticent to even try in many cases and especially, again, if people are satisfied after retirement, for instance, when they don't have to worry so much about their about their salaries and stuff, they really should continue this.
Let's go back to Hillary is neocon, which is in the next few months.
And, you know, we have a real task, a real challenge to get that information out.
And if people want to vote for more war, for more terrorism, for for less adherence to law in the United States, for, you know, everything that the this this chaos that she has been behind since actually since the Clinton administration, we think she was the one who actually argued with Bill to get her to get the Clinton administration involved in bombing Yugoslavia.
Yeah.
In her own words, she took the credit for I urged him to bomb.
In fact, all appearances are that this is how they made up after the Lewinsky trial was over in the Senate, that this is how they came back together again was bomb Kosovo.
Wow.
This is a Macbeth.
I mean, this is a Shakespearean drama that we are living with.
Unfortunately, we call them leaders, you know, but it's how how people in power bond this way.
Oh, my gosh.
You know, over killing millions.
Well, one thing that could be said here that I think is important is that she doesn't stand a chance against Donald Trump.
And for the exact reasons that we're talking about, she's horrible on all this stuff.
And he's already proven that he's willing to shake up the left, right definitions and unapologetically go after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for ruining everything.
So if he's willing to do that, then he ought to be.
And he seems bright enough at labeling people that he ought to just attack her for being Dick Cheney.
He ought to say, I don't know if I'm running against Liz Cheney or Bill Clinton's wife because she's the same thing.
And just look at all how she helped George W. Bush and Dick Cheney destroy the entire Middle East that led to our current immigration crisis and all this kind of stuff.
And how can she deny it?
She's guilty as hell.
She's bad on every single one of these decisions this entire time.
So and he's already shown he's willing to attack her from the right.
And she's already shown that she's dumb enough to think that she ought to attack him from.
I mean, he got attacker from the left.
She's dumb enough that she's already shown that she wants to attack him from the right and say Donald Trump is going to reduce our stature in the world.
He doesn't want to take care of everything and lead everything and get involved in everything.
And he's going to say, yeah, exactly.
And she does.
So she's just playing.
She's pitching him a softball to knock out of the park on that.
So she's really a bad candidate, I think, you know, by all analysis and that, you know, there are a handful of people now that are writing that Hillary Clinton is to the right of Donald Trump.
And, of course, this is one of the reasons Kagan, of course, immediately lends his support to Hillary.
And, you know, what maybe we can do is is, again, with Donald Trump, who knows if he won't get some advisers, you know, all trying to be politically correct and telling him to basically, you know, go light on on Hillary on these things, because it'll oh, it'll turn off some of your own Republican pro war base or or, you know, it'll you know, who knows what they I'm I'm always worried about these political advisers because they try to do these things.
So maybe what we need to do, again, thinking about what average people can do, maybe we need to lead the charge and say that this what you just described, which is a candidate transcending party message in order, and of course, this this nonsense about, you know, i.e. conservative versus liberal, somebody like a Donald Trump, who already has done this to some extent, and basically trying to say the truth that transcends this party partisanship and push in that direction right now, so that in fact, if he does have political advisers who try to tell him to go the partisan route, and oh, be careful, you know, I'm of course, what I'm afraid Sanders is following, to some extent, that that is less, less important.
And more people to cheer that on right now, that aspect of Donald Trump, who is criticizing the stupidity of the Iraq war, there, we need to have a larger component of people cheering that truthfulness, again, with Donald Trump, it's kind of hard to know, because he'll he'll have one truthful moment, and then he'll backtrack and back and forth.
And he will, you know, again, he seems to have this idea that might makes right, you know, to some extent, but the good news about him, is he has some of the Ron Paul non intervention idea that intervention itself is the problem.
And I think that's what we need to cheer on.
And maybe, if and when it comes to him facing Hillary, he'll see that there are a lot of people out there that want this, there's a real audience for truth.
And, and of course, it will, the truth will be Hillary's undoing again, we won't, people won't want to elect a president who's going to lead them into more chaos and more trouble and more misfortunes for themselves, right?
More fraud, or Wall Street fraud on themselves, etc.
I really doubt people are going to vote that much against their self interest, if they know.
Right?
Well, yeah, I mean, you're right.
I mean, we absolutely need to try to find ways to reinforce to him the idea that he's being smart, he's doing the right thing is a huge risk for him to attack George W. Bush and Jeb Bush and the whole war in South Carolina, in the debate there, and then he beat everybody by double digits anyway, by 25 points or something, he beat him.
And it was because, on one hand, he was telling the Republican rank and file of South Carolina, a lot of them veterans, that you were wrong to believe in these guys and to do their war, that war was wrong, you were wrong to support it, maybe you were wrong to fight in the thing.
But more importantly than that, he was saying, I'm alpha and Jeb is below me, because Jeb is tied to that terrible thing.
And so even though he was attacking something that's at their core beliefs, I mean, the rank and file right of South Carolina, can you think of the man hours they have put into defending the Iraq war?
And yet he's able to flip that right over by just saying, by making it about him being smarter and better and not being dumb enough to do that.
And it worked.
And that's a huge risk.
And it worked great.
So it does seem that, yeah, if he can learn the lesson that, yeah, my right wing anti-war stuff has good traction, do you want Hillary to get your other son killed?
Is that going to get a standing ovation kind of thing?
And if we can get him to believe that, then, you know, maybe we can even get him to believe what he says about it.
You know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's an absolutely interesting electoral, you know, obviously, the media is lapping it up with all of the the firefight and the vitriolic rhetoric, etc.
Unlike anything I've ever seen in my lifetime, I mean, people used to fall asleep during these presidential debates and now they're calling each other names and, you know, calling their wives names and etc.
And Hillary has had a she's had a pretty easy time of it so far, you know, believing that she was anointed, whereas Donald Trump actually has already kind of faced a lot of, you know, kind of challenges and fire from the other candidates.
So it'll it'll be interesting to see.
I think I always go back to people.
What can we do as opposed to just sitting in audiences and clapping for these people?
One or one or the other lesser evils?
You know, what can we actually do in the course of these elections to make a difference?
And I think cheering on the good aspects of bringing people together as opposed to this political ping pong, which, you know, if you look at the Robert Kagan and the neoconservatives who have their tentacles into both parties, you know, basically the war party, you realize what a hoax this is.
Unfortunately, there's still a chorus of partisans out there that refuse to go past their loyalties.
And, you know, right.
They'll cite this experience.
One of the things I've tried to counter on Facebook is this argument that it really matters who is president, even if you don't like him personally, even if they're dangerous on foreign policy and everything else.
It matters because they'll get to appoint the next Supreme Court justice or justices.
And I've tried to say counter to people, you know, they really were to examine the track voting records of many Supreme Court justices.
They wouldn't even know what president appointed them, you know, whether it was a Republican or Democrat, because once the justice gets appointed to a life term, there's quite a number that have totally changed their stripes.
And they also compromise.
And they they often with Kennedy, for instance, he switched from one side to the other.
So people putting a lot of stock into this idea that the Supreme Court makes such a difference.
The appointments is not valid at all.
And again, because we have checks and balances with Senate and sometimes they go through two or three candidates at a time.
So it's just not that important.
But that is always the fallback on party partisanship.
And meanwhile, you're watching terrorism rise and and what are we, 20 trillion, almost 19 to 20 trillion national debt and all of these various serious economic perils, which are so much more important than a shade of difference in one Supreme Court justice that you don't even know for sure how the guy is going to end up voting.
Right.
Yeah.
And, you know, always the partisanship, anybody but the other guy kind of thing.
I remember in the year 2000, it was like this to nobody.
I drove a cab in the year 2000.
I would ask everybody what they thought.
And nobody liked Bush or Gore.
Everybody only said, we got to get rid of the Clinton Gore years.
We got to get past that.
So I guess I'll settle for Bush or, oh, my God, not the Bushes.
I guess I'll settle for Gore.
And same thing.
And that's how everybody kind of use this stuff is at least stop the other worse guys.
In this case, it's really kind of hard to tell because they're both Hillary and Trump are both so bad, but on different things, kind of this hard to balance out.
I mean, here he's perfectly willing to scapegoat politically powerless ethnic and religious minorities in our country, which is like, holy crap, who is he, George Wallace or something?
But on the other hand, on the empire, we know what she's about.
She is just horrible.
You got the whole list here.
We haven't touched on a tenth of it here.
The list at Hillaryisaneocon.com.
And if you saw her speech yesterday, boy, oh, boy, is she just chomping at the bit to be the commander in chief.
And she dreams of this all night, every night of taking control of this military and using it for her ideals as she would conceive them.
So it's really hard.
There could be a real fight over this one.
This is a little bit different than the not a dime's worth of difference election that we usually have.
If it would have been Jeb, for example, you know, the conservative Democrat versus the liberal Republican, and they're both just basically clones.
Right.
Kagan would have had a much more difficult time picking between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, exactly.
And I was telling this was also leaked out in emails not so long ago.
Two or three major editors and journalists that that Hillary Clinton obviously controls because she can tell them exactly what to write because it's in her emails.
She insisted that she be described as muscular, that that word muscular.
Yeah.
And of course, that's a little bit of a code word for I'm willing to kill.
I'm willing to kill.
Everybody realized I am strong.
And I am out.
I'm not.
She's so afraid of being the of being looked at as a female, because that's the image that females are effeminate.
They're nicer, kinder, gentler, by the way, not true at all.
From my background in the FBI with the first female agents, I don't think it's true at all that females are inherently kinder.
I think that's kind of a liberal myth.
And I think it's especially not true when you have your first females in a male dominated situation because there's a psychological need to compensate, just as kind of like these chicken hawks, you know, sitting in their armchairs, have this need to compensate because they don't have military experience, you know, when a Petraeus walks in.
So they have to actually promote themselves and appear as if they're more bloodthirsty than, you know, Eisenhower or Petraeus, even though they have had Zippo experience.
Well, for anybody who's anybody whose tiny feelings are offended by what you say, the same thing is true just for Democrats in general, of course, that they have to be extra tough so that they're not criticized for being weak, wimpy Democrats.
So you add femininity to the equation.
It's just the same problem, only worse.
Right.
Only Nixon could go to China.
If a Democrat had gone to China, they'd hanged him.
And I think that perhaps she's been told this for 20 years by political advisers, too, that she has to appear muscular.
And that word then makes it into all the descriptions in these articles of her crony reporters.
And, you know, the thing is, she's polished.
I'll say one other difference between Trump and Hillary is a neocon.
She's a neocon, but because she's such a polished politician and so well with the word smooth talking, by the way, you know, smooth talking is also overlaps with psychopathy.
But people who are able to really, you know, talk to an audience and make them think something that they're not even saying and she never hardly says anything.
Her speeches are very, you know, up in the clouds, not saying a whole lot.
But she's very good at that.
Trump is more on the George Bush level now.
Now that plays both ways because he's not that not that polished a speaker.
He I noticed in many of his talks, he keeps repeating one phrase over and over.
You know, he'll have little I forget what it is now, but he'll say it all the time.
Hey, folks, you know, and he'll say this over and over.
So he's not he's not a great speaker.
On the other hand, if you look at the appeal of George Bush, one of the things that average voters liked about him is they thought, oh, here's a plain talking guy that I would love to have a beer with.
And that was one of the one of the main reasons people voted for George Bush is that he had this kind of like hominess.
And so maybe that's also coming through a little bit with Donald Trump, as opposed to this again, very smooth, very polished politician.
But unfortunately, with that smoothness, people are grasping that that's covering for a lot of of really bad, deceitful things that she's done in her lifetime and and and still facing, by the way, there's a there's some chance that the FBI, maybe not DOJ, but there's certainly some chance the FBI may push for her to be prosecuted on this email her carrying on our private servers.
Well, we're already seeing that they're leaking to the papers how upset they are that, of course, they're not going to be allowed to do anything.
So there's going to be a steady drumbeat like that all the way to the election for sure.
And yeah, I mean, when it comes to identity, this is what the that the cartoonist Scott Adams, the guy that does the Dilbert blog, is what he keeps saying about Trump is that Trump is the master persuader.
And he understands that it's all about not really, you know, reason or or real arguments or policies.
It's all about identity.
And even though Trump is a billionaire from New York, he can play like he's one of us.
You know, maybe I'm a rich jerk, but I'm on your side.
I'm your rich jerk against the rest of them.
And I'm such a rich jerk.
Believe me, I know how to handle them.
And and so it's I'm with you and it's us against them.
And she doesn't understand that kind of thing.
She doesn't know how to.
Now, he has to broaden that and he has to say, you know, in the general that he is talking about blacks and Mexicans and Muslims, too, and all Americans, which is something that he's been running hard to the right on all those things.
And he may have overdone it to to a crippling point by now, I think.
But but I think once it's the general election, he starts tacking back to the left.
He has that thing where basically everybody from Bangor, Maine to San Diego, California is supposed to be able to identify with him on something.
And he's on every side of every issue.
But she just she'll be the the the candidate of the women that, you know, rich, yuppie women that listen to NPR and basically nobody else.
Yeah, I think that that's her base, the the the so-called people that believe themselves to be feminist, you know, and of course, led by Gloria Steinem.
And I keep wondering, thinking, can't Gloria Steinem see this?
Oh, my gosh.
I mean, I think she's got to be a little brighter than than being going out there and following the orders to Albright.
And who is it?
Albright and somebody else that said, oh, you young you young females, why can't you get behind Hillary Clinton?
And of course, Gloria Steinem would leap to the challenge.
But a lot of people were offended by that.
And a lot of young millennials thought that was horrible.
So we'll have to see.
Maybe that'll get kind of overplayed, too.
It's hard to know.
Again, I think I keep going back to what can we do?
What can people do here?
And I think I don't know any answers there.
I keep thinking about it.
I go on social media a lot and keep thinking that maybe there's you can make some inroads over time.
And that's the thing is, I mean, that's the same thing I'm doing, too.
It's my best idea is, well, I guess talk about it.
Try to keep the conversation going.
Try to point out that WikiLeaks that everybody else forgot about or whatever it is that we can do.
And and, you know, check it out, everybody.
Colleen Rowley.
And, you know, and I think I mean, as soon as I have better ideas, I'll let you know.
But Ron Paul is gone and Rand proved that Ron is the only good politician ever or ever will be.
And so, you know, maybe we can try to force bad politicians to sound like us and try to adopt our policies a little bit is the best we've got.
But, you know, then this is on your list.
It's at the top of your list.
And she keeps saying, oh, when Sanders criticizes Obama, I would never criticize Obama.
She criticizes Obama all the time for not backing Al-Qaeda in Syria enough.
And and she has outright said that he was wrong.
As you say here, he was wrong to not launch that war against Syria in 2013.
Right.
And I look for I, well, I hope I guess I don't look for it, but I I have maybe too much optimism that even eventually Obama towards the end of this of this thing might actually, you know, be more vocal himself, because, yes, he he is the one he claimed.
He now admitted he's going to campaign for what he's going to do, I think.
He's going to what he's going to campaign for her.
I hope he doesn't care.
You know, she he admitted Libya bombing of Libya, which created a vacuum and more, you know, ISIS and Al-Qaeda has regenerated in part because of Libya used also to send arms to Syria.
And Obama admitted in that long, long interview that that was a mistake.
Well, who led him into that mistake?
Who wound his legacy in that way?
Well, it was Hillary Clinton and he's going to campaign for her.
I mean, again, it's hard to have any grasp of what is going on in these politicians' heads.
But it certainly doesn't make sense.
And I'm sorry I trailed off there.
I had lost my train of thought.
But I was going to say that you were right, that people can make a difference.
And the part of what we can do about it was that in that botched Syria war 2013, which she and Israel supported so bad that Obama eventually said no to, the American people were against that war.
Right wing talk radio across the country was against that war just as much as the hippies.
And they just had in one poll, it was six percent to ninety four percent or maybe it was ninety two with two percent undecided or something like that.
But it was just the biggest super duper majority against a war probably in human history that and that really helped to stop that war in 2013.
So even Obama and even, you know, our our national security state to some degree, they are answerable to the people when we have a real consensus and and when we're against the worst things they're trying to do, which, you know, like the torture thing, it's not like they really stop, but they sure did back down a lot because of the public outcry about it, you know?
Yes, and those are great examples of where and the feature that is in that example you just mentioned was that it transcended political party.
The consensus went outside of one liberal conservative, whatever identity that you have, and it transcended that.
And I think that's the answer.
You know, they all have all those politicians.
There's one thing out there that they live and breathe by.
It's pollsters.
And so when you have that happen.
And you can actually make people understand that this is not a question of party loyalty and it is a question of right and wrong.
And and it's, you know, it's going to have terrible consequences upon us directly, as well as, of course, everybody else.
When that can happen, you know, the politicians then do.
It's not like they're completely unaccountable.
When that happens, they will change their stripes.
In fact, they'll they'll, you know, change rather rapidly if they realize that the public it's just a question of when the mainstream media is so so kind of corrupted with with what the politicians want.
And it's this breakthrough point.
This breakthrough to that is where you need to get.
And there are some examples.
And I think that even Obama's last year and a half and again, once he realizes the Obama doctrine or whatever, which is a less intervention, certainly not non-intervention, but he realized apparently at some point, you know, less intervention was good.
And so, well, that's a pretty good sea change from what from where he started.
And, you know, when he starts talking about the playbook in D.C., I think it's kind of a code for this neoconservative dominated belief that we can control full spectrum dominance of the world through constantly shifting alliances and arming rebel groups to topple governments and launching wars and whatever.
So once that all is seen for what it is, which is now disastrous, I think it'll it'll be very quick, very quick once that happens and we might be on the verge of it.
Let's hope let's cross our fingers that maybe Donald Trump, you know, I still have slight hope Obama might come out with somebody powerful.
And then in between times, all of us out there constantly with our little voices.
Yep, absolutely.
All right, y'all do your part.
Colleen Rowley says so.
Thank you so much for coming back on the show.
It's been great to talk with you again.
Yeah, thank you.
All right, so that's Colleen Rowley.
Check out Hillary is a neocon dot com.
They've got the great list.
I'm pretty sure this is the full list of all the horrible international violence she supported and quotes from Kissinger, Cheney and Robert Kagan loving on Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is a neocon dot com.
Learn it, pass it around, make it viral, do something.
Thanks.
See you all tomorrow.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism versus Capitalism narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot 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.
Hey, I'll Sky here.
First, I want to take a second to thank all the shows, listeners, sponsors and supporters for helping make the show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And I want to tell you about the newest way to help support the show.
Whenever you shop at Amazon dot com, stop by Scott Horton dot org first and just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon dot com sells just about everything in the world except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at Scott Horton dot org or go to Scott Horton dot org slash Amazon.
Hey, I'll Sky here.
If you're like me, you need coffee.
Lots of it.
You probably prefer taste good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee Company at Darren's Coffee dot com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world.
All specialty premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren's Coffee dot com.
Use promo code Scott and get free shipping.
Darren's Coffee dot com.