03/29/13 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Man, you need some Liberty Stickers for the back of your truck.
At LibertyStickers.com, they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The Democrats want your guns.
U.S. Army, die for Israel.
Police brutality, not just for black people anymore.
And government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at TheBumperSticker.com.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
For KPFK, March 29th, 2013.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is Anti-War Radio.
All right, y'all, welcome to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A. every Friday from 6.30 to 7.
Here you can find my full interview archive, more than 2,700 interviews going back to 2003 at ScottHorton.org.
Introducing Phil Giraldi.
He is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest at Councilforthenationalinterest.org.
He's a former CIA and DIA officer, writes for the American Conservative Magazine and for AntiWar.com.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How about you?
I'm doing great.
Appreciate you joining us today.
Great piece you got here.
Your most recent piece at AntiWar.com, Obama beats Bibi on a TKO.
Bottom line, the President could have done worse on his recent trip to Israel and Palestine.
Yeah, basically, I mean, I'm talking about this trip was fraught with dangers.
I mean, there was a lot of potential that Obama would find himself in a position where he would have to commit to some things.
That would be, shall we say, non-desirable.
And I was thinking specifically in terms of accepting what the Israelis have defined as a red line for war with Iran in terms of other commitments that he might have made.
So it was, in my viewpoint, Obama kind of did as well as he could have done under the circumstances.
Now, one very important point that you make in this article is that all the loud talk of America's eternal alliance with Israel really just goes to show how hollow that so-called alliance is.
Right.
We have to actually ask them to please refrain from helping us in any way when we have Middle Eastern wars, because it always just hurts us if we look like our policies have anything to do with them at all.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, you know, you can open almost any newspaper and you could have certainly during the trip that he made and see that Israel is constantly referred to as an ally.
But Israel is not, in fact, an ally of the United States.
And as you know and I know, an alliance requires a reciprocity.
It requires an agreement between two countries that lay out the conditions by which one country will come to the aid of the other and how they perceive the relationship as being tied together.
And so there's nothing like that with Israel.
It's just it's a constant reiteration of this.
Israel is America's greatest ally and so on and so forth.
It's all it's all meaningless.
It's a it's a it's kind of an argument that keeps being made just for the sake of being made.
And it's something that Americans should be aware of.
But clearly you're not.
I mean, we most Americans do believe that Israel is some kind of a lie.
Yeah, well, it's funny because if you just take any specific example, like the first Gulf War, where even when Saddam is shooting scuds at Tel Aviv, George Bush was asking them, don't shoot back because it'll just destroy the entire PR of our operation, which is, you know, we got all these Arab allies helping us because what Saddam did was wrong, et cetera, et cetera, like that.
And so they had to beg them to stay out of our war.
Yeah, that's right.
And that's a perfect example of the fact that that Israel, if anything, is as everyone knows, but nobody in Washington says is a strategic liability.
It's basically a dependency that the United States has to expend a lot of treasure and blood and and political reputation to support.
But it's not bringing any benefit to the United States as a result.
Right, because, well, I don't know how it was necessarily before World War Two or or whatever, but I can't think of what it matters to the U.S. who's in charge of Egypt, but for the fact that we've got to bribe them all the time to pretend to not hate Israel.
Otherwise, they don't they're not like Saudi Arabia full of oil under, you know, our oil under their sand or any of that kind of stuff.
Yeah, I mean, the only thing about Egypt is Egypt controls the Suez Canal, which, of course, is a is a strategic issue for a lot of countries that are engaged in trade in that region.
But, you know, you're right.
I mean, we didn't have to support Mubarak just for that.
Right.
Sorry.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Egypt's another country that basically is not doesn't internationally pull its own weight in any way.
And it's a it's a country that's become a legacy issue for the United States to take care of.
I mean, basically, whoever was ruling Egypt, even if we had a problem at the Suez Canal, it would only be a temporary one.
We could work something out.
We didn't all that support for Mubarak was really about Israel.
Yeah.
Well, the support of Mubarak is quite rightly was based on on making him be nice to Israel.
And again, everybody knows that.
And it's just sort of a, you know, why are we doing this?
Is it is it something that makes sense for our own national interest?
And of course, it doesn't.
Right.
OK, now, Obama apparently, as you know, in your article, convinced Benjamin Netanyahu or maybe coerced Benjamin Netanyahu into apologizing to the Turks.
For the 2010 attack, lethal, deadly attack on the Mavi Mamara relief ship that was on its way to Gaza.
He didn't apologize to the American people for killing an American, but he apologized to the Turks.
So what do you think is behind all that?
I actually just spoke with Pepe Escobar and he was saying it seemed to him like this is just helping solidify their pact to continue or even step up their intervention in Syria.
Yeah, I've heard that argument.
I don't buy it.
I think Turkey is extremely nervous about what's going on in Syria and really at this point doesn't quite know what to do.
So this idea that, yeah, it's the old this is a kind of a Chomsky argument, you know, that that essentially there's this this capitalist monster out there that devours everything in its path.
And and that's what this all about.
I don't I don't see that.
I think that that in fact, the this was basically again, this is where I give Obama points.
I think Obama was basically saying, look, Turkey is our major strategic ally in the region and we have to get some kind of comfortable relationship with Turkey and Israel just because it makes it work better for us.
And and I think he convinced Netanyahu.
In fact, I'm pretty sure of this.
I've I've heard this from a couple of different sources that he convinced Netanyahu that it is in Netanyahu's interest if he wants to be involved in kind of dealing with what comes out of Syria, what comes out of the Syria situation.
Turkey is going to be the main player.
And unless he's unless he's basically at least somewhat friendly with Turkey, he's going to be the odd man left out.
So I think that's that's pretty much the arguments that that that Obama used.
And it seems to be borne out by the fact that that this was all kind of, you know, debated, debated, debated and pulled together at the last second.
So it wasn't exactly like, aha, let's get together and let's go figure out how we're going to divide up the pie in Syria.
I don't think any of that is true.
Well, and so what do you think is the Israeli position on the war in Syria as it exists now?
I mean, we've talked for years about how if they got what they wanted in their clean break scenario, the major looming question in in bold is what next for Syria?
And would that be beneficial from even the Israeli point of view?
It's always been crazy to me.
You're absolutely right.
That's that's the issue.
I think I think Israel, like the Turks, in fact, kind of was figuring out this is going to be quick and dirty.
It's going to be over and we're going to have some kind of pliable regime replacing Assad that we can manipulate as we see fit.
But it ain't working out that way.
And I think everybody is extremely nervous.
And I think the fact is the Israelis are completely divided on this issue.
They they they definitely at one point wanted to see Assad go.
But then I think they thought a little bit harder about it and realized that this might not be a good choice.
That what comes after Assad could be a lot worse.
So I think I think they are you know, they are very interested in in being engaged in the process of what comes out of post Assad, which is why they are willing to make some concessions for the Turks.
But I don't think they have a clear policy on this.
Well, all right.
So Obama gave a speech during this trip where he, in a sense, was saying, never mind the government of Israel.
Let me just go straight to the people of Israel.
It's time for you people to get this right and get your government to get this right.
Am I paraphrasing that?
Was it that strongly worded, do you think?
Yeah, it was that strongly worded.
If you read the actual speech, which I did, and I'm sure you have, he is saying that.
And it was a major, that's another issue that hasn't been discussed in the U.S. media.
That was a major slap in Netanyahu, because who else was he talking about?
Netanyahu was the obstacle for peace and he was making it very clear.
So I give Obama, and I'm no friend of his, as you well know, lots of points on this.
I think, yeah, sure, he didn't do anything in the way of committing the U.S. to move forward with any policies that would be good or anything like that.
But he told some home truths to the Israelis that no American president has ever done.
And I was pretty impressed by it.
Well, yeah, I mean, you actually picked out the quote where he invokes his own children and says, hey, put yourself in their shoes.
That's pretty strong words from the president of the United States.
Sure, sure.
So I think this was, you know, there are obviously a lot of domestic political reasons why he made this trip.
But the thing was, I think he handled it very well.
I think he's a much better politician than most people give him credit for.
I think that's really the thing with him.
He's very good, even though people are disappointed a lot in what he says and what he does.
He is very good at empathizing and playing that card.
I think he's done that very well.
All right, but now, even if he could convince the people of Israel, what they've just done is, well, I don't know what they've done.
What the political parties have just done is they formed, I guess, a historically right wing coalition in power.
And so it would have to be after another couple of elections from now, probably before we could see any kind of major change.
Could you describe, I think the coalition only finally came together because Obama was coming to town.
They absolutely had to work it out at the last minute kind of arrangement.
Is that right?
Can you explain the coalition as you understand it?
Yeah, it's the most extreme right wing administration Israel has ever seen, which is saying a lot.
And it has that Naftali Bennett in it, who's the head of the settlers movement, for example.
It looks like Avigdor Lieberman is coming back.
It's an extreme right wing group.
And you're absolutely right.
If there's going to be any payoff in terms of Obama delivering a message, it's going to take a long time to get there.
But at the same time, he sent the message.
You know, that is to me significant.
And you can argue, yeah, he sent a message at Cairo, too, and he reneged on that one.
So maybe this is his pattern.
And indeed, maybe it is.
But the fact is that, as I also point out in my article, what can he do?
I mean, he is tied hand and foot on Israeli policy by Congress.
And there's not a whole lot of wiggle room that he has.
He can't withhold any money from them because Congress will just shift it somewhere else.
If he tries to get too tough with the Israelis, he's going to get the media on top of him in addition to Congress.
So what exactly were his options?
What did people expect that he was going to go and do?
He's made his position on Israeli settlements clear a number of times.
And he got slapped down by Netanyahu the last time he tried to push the issue.
So what exactly did people expect that was the wiggle room that the president of the United States had in this situation that he was going to be able to do something?
I don't think he had any wiggle room at all.
Yeah, well, you know, it's a very important point what you say about how the Congress will just and they've already threatened to move aid to Israel directly straight into the Pentagon appropriations budget.
That's basically veto proof, because I think if anything, that's what people imagine is that the president could tell Netanyahu, listen.
If you don't stop the settlements and if you don't really work out an agreement here, then no more money for you.
But what you're explaining is that that's just not true.
I mean, unless he's going to veto the defense appropriations budget.
But then that's that's pretty much impossible.
Right.
That's not going to happen.
So it's just it's you know, it's like I think expectations of what the president can do in particularly in this issue.
You know, he can he there are other things he can do.
I'd love to see him do like like throw away his kill lists and and cut back on drone operations.
These are things he can do.
So let's criticize him roundly for when he when he doesn't do those things.
But on the other hand, this is a situation where he really has very, very little latitude in terms of what maneuvering he could do.
Yeah, well, it's interesting.
You know, Bill Clinton and George W.
Bush, they basically just waited till the end of their administration to fail.
You know, Connolese Rice's little Annapolis thing and whatever.
And it's a little bit of a PR stunt.
Maybe Clinton was trying a little bit, but Obama came into office first thing.
Like you say, with that Cairo speech, he made this a big deal.
He's he knows how to do it.
He's playing three dimensional chess.
He's going to work it out.
You know, I actually just spoke with M.J.
Rosenberg a couple of weeks back, and he said that he had word from inside Israel that Netanyahu almost backed down, that he was a day away from from breaking just on Obama really making him look bad, just on Obama having so much, you know, political capital built up, being the one and all of that stuff.
For when he first came into power and his honeymoon time, as they call it, right in 2009.
But that Obama backed down on the settlement thing and whatever.
I don't know exactly how true that is, but but that was really the only card he had to play was just public relations.
Say he's the nice guy and and and the Israelis are being intransigent and they need to stop.
But that was really all he ever had.
And he already blew that.
Yeah, I think that's probably an accurate assessment that when Obama came in, he certainly had the momentum and the leverage to do something.
And he got scared.
I think that's probably true.
He didn't he didn't judge accurately the depth of the opposition that he was arousing.
And rather than push ahead and do something decent, he got scared.
And I think that's I think that probably is correct.
Yeah, well, and it's pretty easy to imagine that his advisers like Rahm Emanuel were telling him it's not going to work anyway.
All it's going to do is destroy you.
So you might as well just call off the whole thing because you're not going to be able to declare victory at the end anyway.
You know, yeah, yeah.
Well, that's the thing.
I mean, all this stuff is, you know, we those of us who are critics of the administration and everything.
I mean, we look at it from our own viewpoint, which is, you know, do the right thing and that's what we want.
But the fact is, he's a politician and it's not exactly like he can play the game the same way you and I could.
You and I could can say anything we want about Benjamin Netanyahu.
And there are no consequences for us, basically.
But, you know, he's a he's a politician and he has to be able to work with the people in Congress who are basically hostile for him making any kind of moves on Israel that they're not totally satisfied with.
So he's a he's he's, in effect, a player in a game that's bigger than he is.
OK, well, now, so how's that dynamic work when it comes to the talks with Iran?
I mean, obviously, the Congress just wants to pass resolution after resolution after rubber stamped a PAC letter and and pass more and more sanctions.
Are his hands tied there or can he work out a nuclear deal, do you think?
Well, that's a different story.
And I'll tell you why.
I think that the situation with Israel is basically, you know, he's playing a essentially a domestic political status quo type game with with the other with the other constituencies involved.
But Iran is a matter of war, no war, life and death, maybe for the United States and in some very serious ways.
And I think I think Obama is serious about it.
And I think he's serious about it in the sense that he he is not willing to go to war.
I've I've sensed this right from the beginning.
I think you have, too.
And I really don't think he's willing to go to war.
Now, he's that's why he doesn't buy into the the Israeli language, why he doesn't buy into the congressional language about what the trip points and everything are, because he basically doesn't want to be pushed into that direction.
So I suspect that negotiations might be a tough one, but I think he might well be comfortable with working some way to spend this status quo out forever.
You know, and that's basically what American administrations do anyway.
But I think that might be the way he's going to look at it.
But, you know, we'll see.
I but I think the one thing I'm fairly confident about is that I don't believe that Obama is itching for another war in the Middle East.
Yeah, well, that's good.
And I noticed that he actually did convince Netanyahu or I don't know how much weight to put on this.
At least it was the first that I saw where Netanyahu basically conceded that they're actually not working on nuclear weapons.
Now, he implied that when he said he adopted Obama's language, that it would take them at least a year to make one or maybe he was being alarmist.
He was saying it would take them only a year to make one once they ever began trying to make one, if they ever did.
And he sort of convinced or somehow got Netanyahu to parrot that back, which is I'll take that as Netanyahu's admission that they're not making nukes.
Thanks.
You know, yeah, which, of course, is also the what Mossad has been saying for a while and what CIA has been saying.
So it's there is a consensus that Iran does not have an active nuclear program unless it's so carefully hidden that if it were carefully hidden, it would have to be minuscule to avoid detention.
So I think it's a safe assumption that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Right.
And now, how big of a deal is it, do you think, that he got Netanyahu to say that?
Because, as he said, Mossad has been saying that in Haaretz for about a year and the CIA has been saying that since 2007 and I've been saying it since 2004.
Well, I think it's significant that he got him to say it, yeah, because he's never said it before.
So that's good.
I'll take that, too.
I mean, I'm not sure how much weight to put on certain phrases of politicians, but in certain cases it can mean everything, right?
Well, it can.
I mean, it basically, I think this is what was good about the Obama visit, that he avoided himself getting into these situations where he was tying his hands by virtue of what he was saying.
And if anybody was tying his hands by virtue of what he was saying, it was Netanyahu.
Netanyahu committed, I don't know if you saw my piece on the American conservative today about the Turkish agreement with Israel, but basically Netanyahu was a big loser on that.
Turkey didn't commit to anything.
And it was basically, in fact, Erdogan did not even want to take the call.
And it was only because Obama was also on the other line that he took it.
So, and Turkey is proceeding with a trial in absentia of the four senior Israeli military officers who were involved with the raid.
So, you know, Netanyahu got zero out of this, except that he's basically going to have a voice in terms of what goes on in Syria down the road.
But, you know, apart from that, it was Turkey all the way.
Man, and you know, it's such a contrast too, right?
Because nobody asked for an apology for the murder of Furkan Dogan, the American citizen who was killed on the Mavi Marmara.
He just counts as a Turk.
He was half a Turk, you know.
Right, right.
But he doesn't count because he's got a funny name.
Yeah, I know.
It's, you know, there's hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy.
But I think at this point, we're in a situation where we have to look for the little things that maybe are turning our way.
And, and all I can say is, I mean, can you imagine if John McCain were president now?
You know, as bad as Obama has been in some areas, particularly, as I say, with these kill lists and other things.
But if it were John McCain, we would be, we would have been at war, you know, five years ago, I guess.
Yeah, this whole time too.
Yeah, and it probably wouldn't be only one war.
It would be probably a number of them.
So, you know, it's like we have to count our blessings because we're, we're cursed with a political, political system where basically the kinds of things we want to say, the kinds of discussions we want to have, we're frozen out of the system.
And that's, that's essentially the way it works.
Yeah, and at least he didn't get completely took, like, you know, he sometimes does on other issues, you know, the fact, like you said, it was fraught with peril, him even stepping off the plane over there, all the different things that could have gone down in different ways.
And so, yeah, you're right.
We should give him a little bit of credit where we can.
And, you know, I think if it was John McCain, we'd all have died in a nuclear war with the Russians by now.
Yeah, I think we would have.
John McCain is still trying to arrange that, I think.
Yeah, I know.
You know, I saw him on TV the other day and he was looking pretty good, I'm afraid to say.
He was, he's looking good for his age.
All right.
Well, maybe, maybe he's a picture of Darien Gray, where he's getting younger.
What a scary thought that is.
You know, Ariel Sharon, of course, is still alive, too.
So we could have a horror film somewhere down the road featuring John McCain and Ariel Sharon.
Oh, man.
Yeah, Frank and Sharon, they said he was stirring in his crib there.
Yeah, yeah.
He was showing eye movement or something.
Oh, no.
Maybe that means you can hear everything in the room, you know.
Could be, could be.
All right.
So the Wall Street Journal says that maybe kind of along the lines of what you say about the Turks and the Israelis being afraid of what they've gotten themselves into in the so-called rebellion, whatever it is, the fight going on in Syria right now.
And so the Wall Street Journal said that the CIA has decided that they want to now begin sharing intelligence with everybody, I guess, or as many people as they can, who are not the al-Nusra Front.
And then I saw this.
That's basically al-Qaeda in Syria, I guess, or according to our government, it's al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Once they cross the border, they start calling themselves the al-Nusra Front.
And I read a piece in the Hurriyet, I don't know if that's how you pronounce it, saying that they've doubled their numbers as all these Iraqis have influxed to Syria.
And the reason that everybody chooses the Nusra Front to join up is because they're the ones that the Americans don't like or at least regret accidentally arming and financing this whole time.
And they've been trying to arm and finance others, but it keeps ending up in the hands of the al-Nusra guys.
But anyway, that's their claim to fame is that Obama says they're illegitimate.
So I just wonder, you know, what's your take on all that?
I mean, how hopeless is this task?
Do they even have a policy at this point in Syria?
Well, it is a hopeless task.
They don't know who the players are.
If indeed a lot of the jihadis that are going over are Iraqis, the U.S. has terrible intelligence on the Sunni region of Iraq by virtue of the fact that the Sunni region has been warring with the central government for quite some time.
It's a pathetic situation.
I hear from former colleagues and friends of mine that they don't have any kind of handle on what's going on and who the players are.
They keep setting up these dummy prime ministers and presidents and governors and putting them in charge of what they say are the democratic elements of the rebellion.
But that's just all window dressing.
They really don't know who anybody is and what they stand for.
So yeah, I mean, and this is another case like Iran where Obama's just scared to make it that much worse anyway, right?
So thank goodness.
Yeah, sure.
That's exactly right.
Obama clearly is reluctant to go beyond sharing intelligence and, you know, certain amounts of humanitarian supplies and, you know, also a certain amount of small arms and other stuff too.
But the fact is, you know, he's got the tiger by the tail.
And he doesn't know really what to do.
If you get Assad, you get a power vacuum and you get all kinds of nasty people flooding into the power vacuum.
And it's going to be a repeat of Libya.
But, you know, they should have talked to me and you.
They should have known this back three years ago.
This was not hard to foresee.
Well, and the Republicans...
That's what kills me about it.
Yeah, the Republicans are only criticizing Obama for not intervening enough soon enough.
And so therefore letting these other guys, you know, co-opt and lead the rebellion.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, to get back to John McCain, what is he advocating?
Surgical bombing, you know?
There's no such thing as surgical bombing, first of all.
And he's advocating the United States bombing.
Bombing whom?
It's just absolutely astonishing.
I mean, how this kind of level of ignorance can prevail in our government and nobody challenges it.
When is somebody going to say, hey, John McCain, you know, what are you talking about?
But nobody's going to challenge him.
I mean, Rand Paul is a broken reed as far as I'm concerned.
He's grandstanding to increase his own profile, but he's not taking on some of these issues in a way he should.
Yeah, well, and, you know, when it comes to the kinds of dangers that they're messing with, I say let the Republicans just complain.
I prefer Obama's cowardice to him getting the idea that a truly great Democratic president gets a country into a world war or, you know, something like that.
I mean, if he really wants to go down in history, he could be a lot worse.
So, you know, I'll take it.
Let John McCain cry in the wind.
Sure, Obama could be an LBJ.
I mean, that would be about as scary as it gets.
Yeah, I know.
It's like I cannot understand this level of ignorance in Washington.
But it's kind of a willful ignorance.
I think these people are smart enough.
They know what's going on.
They play with so many constituencies and interests as they work their way through these issues that they never do what would be right or what would be expedient.
They just kind of go with the flow.
Yep, and that's where we'll have to leave it.
Thank you very much for your time on the show tonight, Phil.
Appreciate it.
Okay, Scott, take care.
All right, everybody, that is Philip Giraldi.
He's a former CIA and DIA officer and is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest can read his articles at the American Conservative Magazine and Antiwar.com where his most recent is Obama Beats Bibi on TKO.
I'm Scott Horton.
This has been Antiwar Radio for this evening.
Thank you all very much for listening.
We're here every Friday from 630 to 7 on KPFK 90.7 FM in LA.
You can find my full interview archives at ScottHorton.org.
See you next week.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here inviting you to check out WallStreetWindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson who's investing in commodities, mining stocks, and European markets.
WallStreetWindow is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the Federal Reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out, so also keep your eye on writermichaelswanson.com for more details.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at Councilforthenationalinterest.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 in 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 Councilforthenationalinterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
That's Councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
Like I told you before, the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.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.org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
First of all, thanks to the show's sponsors and donors who make it possible for me to do this.
Secondly, I need more sponsors and more donors if the show is to continue.
ScottHorton.org has all the links to use PayPal, Give.org, Google Wallet, WePay.com, and even Bitcoins to make a donation in any amount.
You can also sign up for monthly donations of small and medium-sized amounts through PayPal and Give.org.
Again, that's ScottHorton.org for all the links.
To advertise on the site or the show, email me, Scott at ScottHorton.org.
And thanks.