Sorry I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda.
Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our names, say it, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, y'all.
Introducing Greg Pallast.
His latest book and film is The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, updated for the 21st century here.
And he's an expert on Venezuela and has reported on Venezuela in the past for the BBC and for The Guardian.
And he's a good old friend of mine.
How are you doing, Greg?
Welcome back to the show.
Surviving the regime.
All right, good enough.
We'll have to settle.
Listen, I appreciate you coming on the show.
And I want to talk with you all about Venezuela.
But first, let me give you a chance to defend journalism and defend journalists' uses of sources to obtain secrets.
You have a very important piece here at your website, gregpallast.com, called Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and the Deepwater Horizon.
Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Yeah.
We just had the ninth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
Eleven men were incinerated, vaporized when that thing went up.
That was a BP, British Petroleum, deepwater rig that was built for it by Transocean.
And what you never got from U.S. media was that 17 months before those 11 men were burnt to death and the coastline of the Gulf destroyed, there was an identical blowout at a BP Transocean rig in the Caspian Sea.
And that was covered up by British Petroleum and its two partners, Exxon and Chevron.
And its third partner, Chevron's former board member, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
If you remember that Chevron had a tanker called the SS Condoleezza.
And what they, they covered it up.
Now, how do I know that they covered up this prior blowout?
And by the way, if they hadn't covered it up, there would have been no Deepwater Horizon drilling because the Interior Department said, we think it's unsafe to drill there.
They were overruled by Congress so that they didn't have, but they didn't have the information when the executives of these companies testified that they've never had a problem with such drilling.
Lying about the fact they just had this blowout in the Caspian Sea in a nation called Azerbaijan.
If you don't know where Azerbaijan is, don't worry.
After the 101st Airborne arrives there, it's just another oil country.
Now, how do I know about it?
Well, I had, I had inside sources in the oil industry in the Caspian, but it was confirmed.
And the Guardian actually beat me to the story, my own paper, because they got the information from Chelsea Manning.
From Chelsea Manning and from WikiLeaks, that is, which was headed by Julian Assange, the journalist.
Now, if we got the inside cables from Condoleezza Rice's operation, their ambassador about the secret meetings that they had with British Petroleum at the request of Chevron, Chevron called up their old, their gal Condoleezza and said, we're not getting any money from the Caspian Sea, what's going on?
And BP said, well, we're trying to keep this under wraps.
We got a big blowout at our rig.
And the cause of the blowout was the same in both cases, identical.
The use of a quick dry cement method.
And we would have had all this information.
Those 11 men would be alive.
And the coastline of the U.S. Gulf would be, well, I wouldn't call it pristine, but it wouldn't be as oiled as it is today and slimed as it is today, if we'd gotten that information out earlier.
And so all I'm telling you is that that was just one of the documents I used from Wikileaks and from Chelsea Manning to break that story.
And that I did on Channel 4 television in Britain.
We did that on the front page of the Guardian papers in Britain.
But there are many, many journalists who've used Wikileaks and the astonishing cables that were released by Chelsea Manning.
Understand, we're supposed to be a nation of the people, by the people, for the people.
That information did not belong to George Bush, did not belong to Bill Clinton, does not belong to Donald Trump, does not belong to Obama.
It belongs to you and me.
And when our lives are in danger and they're lying to us about it, covering it up, this is the job of a journalist to uncover those documents.
And I got to tell you, the crimes that they're charging Julian Assange with, well, they might as well come after Greg Pallast.
Because if this precedent goes through of the charges of jailing Julian Assange for releasing documents in the public interest, then I'm guilty too.
Because as for people who know me, Greg Pallast, my specialty is getting inside documents from the government, stuff you're not supposed to see, secret confidential reports of the government.
And, you know, I get awards around the world for these things.
But now I'm worried that I'm going to have jail time.
Well, now, so specifically, well, a couple of things.
First of all, on your main point of just the utilitarian overall value of Manning's leak and Assange's publishing of Manning's leak in 2010, we're talking about at least thousands, maybe tens of thousands of stories like yours that at least cite the WikiLeaks for one part, if they're not based entirely upon revelations in those documents.
And these are, you know, the stories are legion.
Stories that not just we, the American people, have the right to know, but stories that the people of the world have the right to know about our interventions in their countries.
And, you know, I mean, don't get me started on the list.
People can look it up, Manning's greatest hits.
There's a ton of them.
It's just absolutely out of control.
And now I hear what they're doing is they're, they actually have Manning and Assange are both in prison right now.
Manning for refusing to testify before a grand jury against Assange to build the case that you're just referring to there, which is accusing Assange of going outside of the duties of a journalist to actually participate in the hacking itself.
Now they're not charging him under the Espionage Act yet, but they're calling it a computer crime.
So is it possible, Greg Palast, that Julian Assange, by trying and failing to crack a password, as the government describes in the indictment, that he was doing something different in kind from what you do as a journalist?
You just receive documents.
You don't cajole your sources into giving you more, do you?
Well, of course I tell them, what else do you have?
Now understand, Julian Assange, he's not a hacker.
He wouldn't know how to crack a passcode if it hit him in the head.
He actually said to Manning, get what you can get.
I encourage you to get what you can get.
Now he doesn't know how to crack a code, and frankly neither did Manning.
Manning just figured it all out.
By the way, even in the accusation, the cracking of the code was simply to help hide Manning's identity.
It was not to grant higher level access than Manning already had.
It was simply tradecraft for covering his tracks.
Exactly, which we do a lot.
I use false fronts.
One of my big stories in Britain was uncovering how US and other corporations were buying up the Tony Blair's government.
I did that by setting myself up as a consultant to a company which was then not well known called Enron.
By falsely saying that I was the consultant for Enron, I said, what can I buy?
How do I buy this government?
I said, by the way, don't just tell me what you can do for me.
Give me the evidence of how you've already fixed laws.
They literally sent me in the fax machine documents.
That's the other thing.
The rich, the big corporations like Goldman Sachs got advanced knowledge, inside knowledge of the British budget before it was announced.
When you're trading in securities, that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in five minutes of trading.
I kid you not.
Most guys get the inside information.
They're never charged.
I've never heard of Goldman Sachs being charged for the inside information it was purchasing from government agencies.
No, that's not what's happening.
What they're doing is they're keeping from us information we need to keep informed.
Again, I don't hack.
I don't sit there figuring out how to break codes, etc.
But yes, I do set up false fronts.
I do use encryption.
In fact, I'll tell you, I was working with WikiLeaks itself and they asked me to use an encryption system.
And I said, please don't.
You might as well send up rockets and say, we've got something hot here.
There's other ways of doing it.
I won't tell you how.
But basically, they're making investigative reporting a crime, which they want to do.
And by the way, the Democrats can't wait to do it either.
And what I would remind you of, this hacking or whatever, with WikiLeaks, look, New York Times takes documents that were hacked.
They took, you know, this is what makes me ill.
The New York Times said it was great.
It was perfectly OK to arrest Julian Assange.
It was perfectly OK to put Chelsea Manning in prison.
They used Chelsea Manning's and WikiLeaks reports to win prizes.
Khrushchev, their guy who was the main contact, he had a best-selling book out of this stuff.
And yet he said, oh, yeah, put these guys, put my sources in jail.
If you send anything to Greg Palast at gregpalast.com or give me a hint about how to contact you, I would rather go to prison myself than give you up.
This is making me sick.
My fellow U.S. reporters, I don't even consider myself a U.S. reporter because I basically report for The Guardian, Rolling Stone, BBC, Channel 4, Britain, etc.
I'm not even an American journalist anymore because they make me sick.
Sorry, hang on just one second.
Hey, guys, as you know, I have a history with server problems.
But those days are over.
It's all solved.
And that's because of the great Harley Abbott at expanddesigns.com.
Expanddesigns.com.
Your website is too old.
It's out of date.
You need a new one for the 2020s.
Expanddesigns.com.
And go to expanddesigns.com slash Scott and you'll save $500.
It really is something to behold where they're saying, like George Carlin, hey, do whatever you want to the girl, but leave me alone.
It's the worst cowardice.
It's unbelievable.
I mean, they say, Greg, hey, you don't pick a fight with people who buy their ink by the barrel full.
Well, yeah, that's right, but don't worry because the Times don't give a damn.
Right.
And just remember, if you want to give your material to the Times as a source, you've just opened yourself up and gotten put in leg irons.
So that's why it come to me because I won't.
I would never let that happen.
And it is really American journalism has really sunk to nowhere.
And and the other thing is, for example, you know, people are screaming because of the WikiLeaks release of Hillary Clinton's emails or the DNC emails.
I got to remind you of something.
Julian Assange.
And if he got these documents about Putin, whatever, whatever the sources and he.
And by the way, the Mueller report makes it clear that he didn't know that that if it came from a Russian source, Mueller's two year investigation revealed that he had no idea at all.
OK, but it doesn't matter what the source is.
He got no one said that these are fake documents.
These are authentic documents about a crime.
And let me explain what the crime is, the crime that Hillary Clinton committed.
And there is absolute evidence of this.
The crime that was committed was that they were laundering money through the net, through the DNC, for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
You can only give two thousand dollars an individual, only two thousand dollars to a presidential primary and a presidential general election.
So what they did was you can give a quarter million dollars to a political party for its general purposes.
So what they did was they took the quarter million dollar donations and they actually gave them and put them into the Hillary Clinton operation.
That's money laundering.
That's a felony violation, felony violation of the federal election elections act and the FEC rules.
And instead of talking about, well, it's time to put Wasserman Schultz in leg irons.
They're going after the reporters who broke the story.
That's just insane to me.
We'll get back to Wasserman Schultz, a person without dignity, honor or never touched by the truth.
OK, now, so I'm sorry, because there's so much here to talk about.
But this is such an important issue.
What you say there and and as far as and what you're really getting at.
We got the right to know what's in those emails.
We had the right to know they had no right to keep them from us in the first place.
Whoever was behind that leak.
But I want to go back to what you said there, too, about the report, because people might have this wrong.
I've read that report and they make a lot of claims about how the GRU was behind that leak.
But I think what you're talking about is in the nitty gritty of some of those adjectives and verbs and sentence structures and comma splices where he refuses to truly stand by some of those assertions and adds in wiggle words about what apparently seems to maybe have happened and things like that.
Is that right?
Yeah, well, Mueller is, you know, look, don't look to the FBI for truth.
I know Mueller looks like he comes from central casting, you know, the six foot something, you know, guy with the gray hair, very serious look on his face.
But he is there to protect the establishment.
That's what his job is.
He wasn't there necessarily protect Trump.
Well, wait, but on that detail, because you were referring to that a second ago, but you didn't say explicitly what you meant by that.
So I'm just trying to get clarity of exactly what you meant, because he does claim the Russians did it, but he doesn't really claim that he can prove the chain of custody.
Right.
Well, what he he claims that the Russians did it.
OK, but one thing he doesn't claim, he basically clears WikiLeaks of knowing that it came from a from a foreign agency.
And I'm not sure, by the way, that if it came from a foreign agency, if I found out today that from a foreign agency that Brazil was paying wads of cash to Mike Pence, I said, oh, I can't run that story, even though you have the photos, you have the evidence and the documents because the Brazilian Secret Service was involved.
No, I'm sorry.
I'm a journalist.
My job is to get out information, not join in sequestering it.
Right.
That's not my job.
And you know what?
If people are get so mixed up in the partisanship with the parties and election season, but take another leak by the Russians when quite clearly they no one ever contradicted this.
I don't think it's proven, but essentially everyone agrees that it must have been the Russians that intercepted a phone call of Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria Newland, and Gregory Piatt, the ambassador to Ukraine, plotting a coup there.
And then the Russians posted it on YouTube.
And then two weeks later, they did the coup exactly as described in the leaked phone call.
They did it anyway.
But I don't think and there there was some indignation, I guess, on CNN that how dare the Russians let us know this vital information.
But that was huge and important.
And of course, we had the right to know.
And who cares if it was the GRU who hacked Victoria Newland's phone and posted that on YouTube?
Thank you to them for that.
We had the right to know that.
By the way, I'd like to remind you of another State Department cable that didn't come from WikiLeaks.
April Gillespie, who was the ambassador to Iraq and told Saddam when he said I was going that he was planning when Saddam was indicating he was planning to invade Kuwait.
Our ambassador under Bush senior told him we're not going to be involved to basically go right ahead and and invade Kuwait.
And that was and then, you know, we were shocked and horrified that Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Well, we just gave him the green light and we got that through a leak of of another State Department cable.
Well, that was Manning, too.
That was one that had been hidden all those years.
And Manning released finally for us.
Yes.
The whole thing.
So you have to understand, OK, these are our cables.
They're not their cables.
I mean, it it belongs to the people.
And my job as a journalist and Assange's job as a journalist.
And by the way, I'm not particularly in love with Julian Assange.
There's a lot of things about him personally and his style as journalists, et cetera, that I might disagree with.
But let's get down to the nitty gritty.
This isn't he's not running from his personality.
And I don't care about that.
The issue is, should this man, this journalist, be arrested for committing journalism because the crimes he's charged with are the crimes that I could be hit for, too.
And after all, I did use WikiLeaks documents in my reports.
The New York Times did.
The Washington Post did.
So how come those guys aren't in leg irons?
You know, at least.
But and what really makes me sick is that those guys are applauding who used Assange's information are applauding his arrest, who said it was OK to jail Manning and The New York Times literally said Kristoff, who used his Manning's material to get awards and and big advances for a book said, well, the the 35 year sentence was a little long.
Thank you, Nicholas.
Thank you for that.
You're a real journalist, not the guy who debunked the Niger uranium, but supported the Iraq war.
Anyway, good old him.
So here's here's the thing.
We have to protect journalism.
And thank you.
It doesn't help if we have all this information, if we can't put it on the air.
As you know, I told you how I use the story to break the real story of the Deepwater Horizon that has never been reported in the United States of America was a front page of The Guardian front page I did the television report at primetime in detail.
And you know what?
You would think that there'd be some stations and some newspapers along the Texas and southern American Gulf Coast who might be interested in a story like that, Greg.
But, huh?
Barack Obama, don't forget, he cut a deal with British Petroleum that said that all the payments that they would make were based upon would be based on would be due only by BP America.
Now, that's a very interesting detail.
And BP Gulf.
It means that BP still had to have those Gulf drilling rights to make the multibillion dollar payments to the U.S. Treasury and the state treasuries.
So basically we became partners in crime, literally, because if if the original information came out under the law, BP has to be a barred from drilling in the Gulf.
And they couldn't do that because basically the U.S. government became BP's partner in drilling the Gulf.
You know what?
As long as we're talking about this, let me ask you about something else you reported about this too, which is that we already know how to handle an oil spill out in the ocean like that.
You essentially surround it with a big floating plastic thingamajig that sticks up what a foot and a half or something off the surface of the sea.
And you contain that oil and you vacuum it up.
But they didn't do that.
They sprayed all these other crazy weird chemicals on the oil to disperse it all.
But I wonder why it just cost?
Because it seems like that's pretty damn expensive buying all those chemicals and doing all that and maybe opening themselves up to further liability instead of I don't know what you call it, you surround with those booms, those things, and then clean, actually clean it up.
Look, it's real simple to stop an oil spill around a rig.
You surround it with rubber and you suck.
It's called boom and you bring out a vacuum ship and a containment ship.
So what's the problem?
The problem was is that after the Exxon Valdez cracked up and you were required to have all this, which they didn't have the boom available.
They didn't have the containment ships.
They lied about it.
I did that investigation too.
Actually the people that own that shoreline, the Chugach natives, I did the criminal investigation.
And what happened was is that they lied and said that they had all this rubber boom that go around a ship like the Exxon Valdez and the containment ship.
The containment ship was in a dry dock under ice because it's Alaska.
The boom didn't exist.
They said who's ever going to check out in the middle of Alaska?
After the Exxon Valdez they pulled the same stunt.
It would have been about $2 billion.
It's not cheap to have all this stuff at the ready.
$2 billion to have the boom and the containment vessels.
They said, eh, well it takes our chances.
And besides, the U.S. Navy has a bunch of this junk sitting around.
But I got to tell you, the president named Barack Obama, if I recall his name, waited five days to call out the Navy to use its equipment.
Now you have to understand, oil spreads on water.
He called out the Navy to surround it.
The slick was as big as the island of Jamaica.
But again, he was being told and jived by British Petroleum as they did in the Exxon Valdez spill.
By the way, that was also British Petroleum.
We think of the Exxon Valdez spill as Exxon's responsibility.
It was British Petroleum that was responsible, not Exxon, for surrounding that ship with the rubber and sucking the stuff out.
They blew it in Alaska.
They blew it in the Gulf.
They blew it in the Caspian Sea.
Yet, here they are.
They're still drilling there because like I say, we are now partners with British Petroleum.
You talk about foreign influence.
How about British Petroleum influence on politics?
Their guy Malone was on George Bush's re-election.
He was chairman of George Bush's re-election campaign in Louisiana.
I know they call it BP.
They're a green company, but they're a British company.
In fact, they're not only a British company, but if you look at their board of directors, and I've talked to the guys on their board of directors, they say, well, British Petroleum, MI6, MI6, British Petroleum, you know, we're kind of the same organization.
So we talk about foreign influence.
That's a foreign influence I'd like to talk about.
Sorry, hang on just a second.
Hey everybody, buy my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and it's available all over the place in EPUB format, and of course in paperback and Kindle at Amazon.com, and you can also get the audiobook version at audible.com.
If you want a signed copy, check out scotthorton.org slash donate, and I'll help arrange that for you there.
It's Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
Find out all about it at foolserrand.us.
Hey, and let's talk about other foreign influence.
We don't like it when they do it to us, but, I mean, allegedly, the Brits, yeah, I hear you.
So let's talk about Venezuela.
They tried again to do a coup.
I woke up in the morning, they said, military coup in progress, and I thought, oh, see, they didn't have their act together the first time, and then the second time, the stunt with the trucks, and the concert, yeah, that didn't go.
But I guess now they finally recruited some military men to arrest Maduro and really do the regime change, so here we go.
And then it was apparent within a few minutes that, yeah, actually not so much.
Just another failed, I don't know what.
Greg, what were they even trying to accomplish there with that?
Okay, let me give you a little breakdown on what's going on in Venezuela, and as you said, I covered Venezuela for BBC television and for the Guardian newspapers of Britain.
I was there during the coup against Hugo Chavez.
I knew Hugo Chavez very well, I know the current president, Nicolas Maduro, but I should also say I'm not friends with them.
I don't make friends with politicians.
I also know very well the opposition.
I should say this new guy, Juan Guaido, who is the Trump appointed president.
Now, understand, this guy, Guaido, never ran for president, so he can't claim, oh, I was cheated out, you know, they rigged the election, I should be president.
He never ran.
Never ran, and there's a good reason.
He's a nice white kid who has lived in the United States, and the American reporters love him because he speaks English and he has this nice looking wife and he looks like a movie star, and the thing is, it's a mestizo nation.
And for 400 years they were ruled by white rich guys like Guaido.
But then Hugo Chavez came along and he was a combination of the Nelson Mandela of Venezuela, the first black and Indian man to be elected president of Venezuela in a nation that's black and Indian combination, mestizo.
And he's also the FDR of Venezuela, the guy who took poverty.
According to the CIA factbook, this is important to know, the CIA factbook itself says that under Chavez poverty went from 49%, and they're sitting on a bunch of oil, so half the people were in poverty.
And he dropped it to 27%.
Now that's almost cutting poverty in half.
We haven't seen anything like that since FDR.
That's what Chavez did.
And according to CIA, he lengthened life expectancy, expanded access to schools, water, sanitation, housing.
So what's happened?
People are suffering in Venezuela.
They are right.
According to the New York Times, it's the incompetence and corruption of the Maduro government.
No, it's not.
It's an embargo.
It's the worst lockdown embargo we have seen in decades.
And according to the UN repertoire, that's the guy who sent in by the UN to find out what's going on, he called it a medieval siege.
Understand, people have different numbers, but it's up to a couple hundred thousand people died in Iraq because of the sanctions and embargo before the second Gulf War in Iraq.
However, they allowed Saddam to sell two million barrels of oil a day.
Eventually, anyway, yeah, the oil for food program, yeah.
What happened was in Venezuela, they're not allowed to sell anything.
Now, they did sell oil, but the U.S. government has taken the money.
Now, who would they sell the oil to?
This is also very important.
The number one customer of Venezuela, Venezuela sold most of its oil to the U.S., and its number one customer are the Koch brothers.
They're Koch Industries refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
Now, as you know, you're there in Texas.
There's a lot of oil in Texas, I understand.
What the hell are they doing importing oil from Venezuela when on the Gulf Coast, you're literally surrounded by oil fields?
The answer is the Koch brothers refineries on the Gulf Coast can only use heavy oil or super heavy oil.
That's what goes into their refineries.
They're very sensitive, these refineries.
They don't look it, but they are.
They can't use Texas oil.
That's called Texas Light Intermediate.
That's over there.
They need heavy oil, which only comes from two sources, Venezuela or Canadian tar sands.
Without the XL Keystone pipeline completed, they've had to rely completely on Venezuela.
Venezuela has, instead of charging less for dirty oil, which is usually what you do, they charge the Kochs knowing they're captive customers more.
Excess, they charge them a premium for their crappy, dirty, heavy oil.
And the Kochs don't like it.
And if they could get cheaper oil, either Canadian oil or own the president, Guaido, this guy that they picked, obviously the price would be much lower.
If they can drop the price 15%, they make a billion dollars each, personally, the Koch brothers.
There's a lot of money at stake, and it's all about the oil.
So it's not about that Maduro is corrupt or incompetent.
I don't know if he's the most competent guy.
I know him.
He's not a brilliant...
Hugo Chavez really was a genius.
He really knew how to run an economy, and he knew how to deal with the United States, as he told me.
I said, how are you going to stay alive?
They're trying to kill you.
They're trying to remove you.
They did kidnap him in 2002.
I was there, and I talked to him right after he returned when a million people came to the...
Remember, he's supposed to be unpopular, a dictator, using the same words he used about Maduro.
A million people went into the streets of Caracas, said they were going to take the people who kidnapped the coup leaders, including an Exxon lawyer named Pedro Carmona who named himself president and was immediately endorsed by George W.
Bush at the time.
And a million people came down and said we're going to kill the coup leaders unless Hugo Chavez is brought back to his desk in 48 hours.
They brought him back in four hours.
And so we're seeing the same stuff.
And I've got to tell you something else.
I was just looking at the New York Times today.
I've looked at several days of reporting from the New York Times about Venezuela.
There have been about 12 pictures from Venezuela of this Guy Guaido.
Again, a guy who named himself president about a half hour after he got a call from Donald Trump saying, if you declare yourself president, I will recognize you.
So Donald...
It's a Donald Trump choice for president, not the Venezuelan choice.
And this Guy Guaido, there have been about 10 pictures of him speaking to big crowds and keep saying, huge protests.
And I've got to tell you that the opposition...
By the way, it's odd in a dictatorship that the opposition is allowed to have these monster marches with 10, 20, 30, 40,000 people.
That's a lot protesting against the government.
Interestingly, they protest in Altamira, which is like protesting in Beverly Hills because they're rich people.
They're rich white people.
What has not been shown, and maybe you can put it on your site, is the footage...
It is.
It's on my blog right now, actually.
Libertarianinstitute.org I have some embedded tweets that has quite a bit of video there.
And I'll tell you, if you look at the pro-government demonstrations, you're talking about a quarter million people coming out in the streets.
And this was what I saw in Venezuela when I was reporting for Britain.
I was also reporting for Rolling Stone.
And I said, look, I was with the opposition.
I was in their marches.
I talked to their leaders.
Well, and listen, there's no question that this week, on CNN and on Fox, both, they'll show the same 10-second clip of an APC running down a couple of people who are throwing Molotov cocktails, by the way.
And they show that same clip over and over and over to the exclusion of any clip of any other thing going on, which ought to be all you need to know, really, that here we're talking about this metropolis, this city of, what, 10 million people or whatever live there, and they won't show us the city.
They won't show us the presidential palace.
Between Fox and CNN, they have one pool camera in Caracas, and it's focused on about 500 anti-government protesters out in the streets somewhere throwing stones.
Again, it's the — and by the way, if you look closely at those pictures, and if you go to GregPalast.com, you will see that White Supreme article I wrote for Truth Act called, White Supremacy is the Key to Understanding Venezuela.
And I showed the opposition members of Congress, and there's about 60 of them, and they're just lily white.
And then I showed you the pro-government deputies, about 110 or so, and they are various shades of black and brown.
And there's the whole story.
The thing is, the reason why a guy like Juan Guaido cannot become a legitimate president is that the average Venezuelan does not want to return to an apartheid state.
And you talk about those soldiers.
And I think that you have up another clip that I sent you by my colleague who is down there, William Kamakaro.
And he interviewed some of the soldiers who were supposedly standing with Guaido, you know, because Guaido stood in front of La Carlota, the big military base in Caracas, and said, I've had these soldiers with me, and they're ready to march on the presidential palace.
And he called on the soldiers inside to desert their posts and attack the presidential palace.
Now, if you did that, by the way, in the United States, you'd be in leg irons in a minute.
In fact, we have a law.
It's called the U.S. Constitution.
The one crime in there that's listed is treason, and the penalty is death, okay?
But in Venezuela, they're literally letting this guy run around and say, we want the United States to invade, we want the soldiers to desert their posts and attack the presidency and overturn the government.
Well, the few troops that, no one came out of the base, but the few troops that were standing with him, some of them suddenly ran away as fast they could and jumped into some vans, and William was able to get them on his little camera, and they're all talking real fast, these young guys, about six of them.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah in Spanish.
I mean, if you understand the Spanish as I do, but I still needed help because they're talking so fast on top of each other.
They're saying, we were fooled, we were tricked.
Our captain told us that we're going to have an operation somewhere else and to line up in front of the military base, and we did that, and we were fooled.
We found out that we're standing there with this guy Guaido, and these people are crazy.
They just want to have a civil war.
They want us Venezuelans to kill each other.
We're not going to kill Venezuelans.
And so, you know, now, you know, yes, they show an armored vehicle hitting some of the demonstrators, running over a demonstrator.
It's horrible, and I can tell you, it's very likely that it could be true because you have to understand you have these white people who are literally calling for the violent overthrow of the government.
They are armed.
Even the New York Times did show, when they're showing the protesters, this is funny.
It's kind of tragically funny, but the protesters, they had automatic weapons with, you know, ammo belts in the weapons, and these are the, quote, protesters.
I'm sorry, but if you came to an American protest and you did a protest against the government, and you showed up with automatic weapons with ammo belts running through them, I don't think we call that protest.
I think we call that insurrection and a crime.
Well, it depends.
I mean, Americans do show up with rifles at protests sometimes, doing their First and Second Amendment at the same time, but using them is a different question.
By the way, I have to correct you here.
You mentioned this on the show the last time, too.
The Constitution does not provide the penalty of death for the commission of the crime of treason.
You're right that it's the only crime defined in there, and that's to prevent its overbroad use, although it would apply in this case, trying to overthrow your government on behalf of a foreign one.
But it says clearly that the Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment for treason, but it shall not apply to the sons of those convicted and so forth.
The punishment can only be during the lifetime of the actual convict, it says, and that kind of thing.
So anyway, just to clarify, I think the law in America is that treason is a capital offense, but not in the Constitution itself.
Well, I should be very careful of getting into the details of the Constitution when I'm debating Mr. Horton.
I always stand corrected by you.
I'm pretty good at this stuff, but you know a lot of things.
But that's an important one.
I don't mean to beat you over the head too bad, but I just thought, you know, make sure and clarify there.
But a couple of things here, too.
So we talked about the inflation.
There's a recent report out that I haven't had a chance to look at, but it's by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs.
Weisbrot, who, as far as I know, is good on everything.
Sachs, who used to be horrible on Russia in the 90s, but has been heroic on Syria in the last few years, so I'll give him some benefit of the doubt, too.
And they're not my brand of economists, but they've done their study.
And I've been sick this week, so I have a great excuse for not having had a chance to look at it yet.
But I want to know, have you looked at that specific study?
And secondly, can you break down the timeline a little bit?
Because I think we agreed even last time, and certainly this is the narrative on the right, Greg, is that when prices were high for oil because of George Bush's Iraq War II, and it drove the price of oil so high, that that then gave Chavez the ability to essentially overpromise beyond what was reasonable for the long term.
And then he up and died and turned it over to this guy who, as you say, has less charisma and less leadership capability and so forth.
And now he has high oil prices worth of obligations during a time of low oil prices.
He can't meet them, so he borrows money, and then he prints money to try to pay off his debts and to try to beat the real value of the debt by inflating and diluting the value of the currency there.
And so, you know, monetary inflation, all things being equal, will lead to price inflation.
And depending on how much money you print, it could get quite out of control.
At the same time, as you said on the show last time a couple of months ago on this issue, which is of course a great point, that if America waged an economic war against Canada, who yeah, they have a socialist system, too, built on high oil prices and overpromising, maybe, if that was the narrative one wanted to use.
But if you go and declare war against their currency with the U.S. Treasury Department and kick them out of SWIFT and have the Bank of England seize their gold and have the Treasury Department essentially sanction any other country who tries to buy their oil, then you would see the value of their currency plummet, whether they expanded the monetary base at all or not.
So that's a great point.
But it doesn't really answer the question, which is where on the timeline did these different things happen?
How much inflation did we have before the sanctions?
And how much worse did it get?
And how well can you attribute it to the sanctions themselves?
Keep in mind that Venezuela has gone through just a rising number of restrictions and sanctions and leading to full embargo for more than a decade.
So it's not like Trump came in and said, that's it.
Trump came in and cranked it up.
But he didn't start it.
You have to go back to Bush and then Obama.
This has been going on quite a long time of restrictions on Venezuela.
And like Chavez told me, I'm a great chess player.
And to tell you the truth, Chavez used to cut deals.
Maduro, the current president, his name means wood, I know him, he's pretty stiff.
He is much more ideologic than Chavez was.
And Chavez basically knew when the oil company powers or the US were too strong and he would back off.
He increased the taxes on oil companies, for example, about the same amount that Sarah Palin did when she was governor of Alaska.
But when Exxon left, but rather than lose the other companies, and they took over their properties, but rather than lose Chevron and the other companies, they basically gave them back their tax increases if they would invest that money in Venezuela.
So Chavez was really sharp with this stuff.
He did not, when they talk about, oh, they nationalized the oil companies, Saudi Arabia nationalized US and British properties 100% in the 60s.
100% takeover.
Chavez simply said that the Venezuelan oil companies, oil company controlled about 30% of most fields, said that Venezuela had a 51% ownership of the fields.
He didn't push it too far.
Whereas Maduro pushed it harder, and as Maduro pushed harder, the sanctions became bigger and tighter.
And so, like you said, you made a bleak reference to things like, and adding in the other nations, the right-wing Tory government.
And when you talk about an unpopular government that should be overthrown, Theresa May has about a 3.5% favorability rating, and that includes dogs.
And the British government's withholding a billion and a half dollars of gold bullion, which would back the currency.
When you have no back of your currency, you're in hot water.
You have other nations involved in this embargo.
And yes, so, and one of Maduro's things is to keep printing the bolivars, the Venezuelan currency, to the point where you're getting to that kind of German hyperinflation effect.
As people's expectation of inflation rise, you have this chase between the printing presses and the expectations, and you're absolutely hitting hyperinflation in Venezuela.
Is, you know, are they, have they, would I say that Maduro's played this the smartest way possible?
Absolutely not.
I mean, at a certain point, you have to know when their power is more powerful than you.
And plus, Maduro would do things that were a bit ridiculous by saying, for example, the embargo doesn't hurt us.
And yet, as my correspondents put it down there, I get my daily, in fact, hourly reports, that there's bus cemeteries.
Basically, buses break down the middle of the street.
The embargo doesn't allow those buses to get spare parts from abroad, and so they just sit in the street.
The subway system, which was free, is breaking down.
The water systems are breaking down.
When you talk about the lights going out, see, Maduro said, oh, it was saboteurs.
Well, it's not really saboteurs.
It's that electric systems, they were using parts from Germany, from Siemens, to keep the electric system going, as we do in America.
If we were embargoed from German parts, New York would black out.
We've had New York black out a couple times.
If you can't get the right parts, there's only a few places in the world that make these parts for these sophisticated electric systems.
If Germany embargoed any nation, you'd see the lights going out.
And that's what's happening.
So, is Maduro the best guy to deal with this crisis and this attack?
Well, the Venezuelan people have voted for him, whether I think he's the best choice or not.
I do know his vice president, Del C. Rodriguez, is quite brilliant, and probably Chávez is more of a chess player.
But it's not my job to pick their, unlike Donald Trump, and unlike the New York Times, I don't believe it's my position to tell the Venezuelan people who their president should be.
Hey guys, check out this cool near-future dystopia, Kesslin Runs, by our friend Charles Featherstone.
You might remember him, a regular writer for lewrockwell.com.
And this is a great story of...
Well, I don't want to ruin it for you, but you'll really like it.
Kesslin Runs, it's on Amazon.com, by the great Charles Featherstone.
Hey, let me go back to the Koch brothers here real quick, because I learned from you years ago about their interdependence with the Venezuelan oil system and all that, back when Chávez was alive and all of that.
But can I see some causation to that correlation, that they're the ones who are actually behind this policy?
Well, you have to go back to the think tanks, the think tanks that Guaido worked with.
They're in the Heritage Foundation, the rest of the right-wing think tanks, Donors Trust and others.
I mean, at Cato, Doug Bandao and Ted Carpenter and them are leading the charge against this.
Well, keep in mind that...
Not that Doug Bandao would change his opinion for any other...
Just so you're aware, the Koch brothers had a big split with the Cato Institute.
Cato Institute, I may disagree with their philosophy, but they stick with their philosophy no matter what their donors want.
And the Kochs did not like their position.
Well, it's certainly true for Bandao and Carpenter and them in the Foreign Policy Department, no doubt about that.
What happened is that you have what I would call the true conservatives, the true libertarians, who are horrified by these games, and then there's those...
And we see this in the Green Movement, too.
Those who are for sale.
And, you know, nothing new under the sun.
Money does talk in very loudly.
We also had the call for assassination of Hugo Chavez by the Reverend Pat Robertson.
And when I first found out about who Hugo Chavez was, because he had sent an emissary to ask me to fly from London to Venezuela to report on the coup before it happened, my first question, by the way, Scott, was, who is Hugo Chavez?
That's how little he was known then.
But one of the things I did find out is that he pissed off a guy named Pat Robertson because he wouldn't give him diamond mining concessions in Venezuela, which is one of the big interests of Pat Robertson.
So you have these economic interests trying to eliminate that government.
But Elliot Abrams, who was, you know, the guy, first of all, a convicted liar, a convicted fraudster, who also lied us into Iraq, who was, you know, leader of the death squad operation in Central America.
This guy, who sold us wars in Central America and Iraq, is now trying to sell us a war in Venezuela.
He was appointed special envoy by Donald Trump, who said he would, when he ran for office, said, we're not going to do this stuff anymore.
These neocons are crazy.
And then he hired Bolton as his NSA chief, and it brought back Elliot Abrams from the crypt.
And Abrams did speak to the Venezuelans, who did say, what can we do to end this embargo?
People are starving.
And Abrams said, you know, make Guaido president.
Well, he wasn't elected.
What else do you have?
Another way we can come to a compromise?
Because the Pope and AMLO, Andres Manuel López Obrador, the president of Mexico, said that they would offer their services for a settlement.
But of course, Trump told the Pope to fly, not for the first time, and said, you know, you got, we've chosen Guaido, the white guy, for you, and take him or leave him.
And he said, well, what if we don't pick him?
And Abrams said, well, we'll just be happy to watch your economy and your nation starve.
That's what he said.
And, you know, I don't think that's the position of the American people.
That's the position of a few neocons whose positions are empowered by oil money and white supremacy.
Yeah, man.
And, you know, Bolton had said it as frankly as he possibly could on TV that, well, he tried to spin it.
This part wasn't frank at all.
He tried to spin it like it was going to be some boon to the American economy overall, like our collective standard of living is depending on this somehow if they can just get away with a few tens of billions of dollars for them and their friends, which is a ridiculous joke, but he wasn't embarrassed to say, we want to turn Venezuela's oil over to American corporations so we can have the oil and the money too.
Simple stealing.
It's amazing.
He said that on Fox.
You don't usually say we're in it to steal their oil, but he literally said, he says he's been talking to U.S. oil executives and I know that would be Exxon.
He's been talking to U.S. oil executives about taking Venezuelan oil for the American people and the Venezuelan people.
Well, I don't remember Venezuelans saying, well, our stuff is one for you and one for me or any other combination.
It's their oil.
I realize that from Bolton's view and from Trump's view and from Elliott Abrams' view, it's the oil company.
By the way, it's not the Americans' oil.
It's not like they're going to take that oil and give us a discount.
It's Koch's oil.
It's Exxon's oil.
It's Chevron's oil.
It ain't Venezuela's oil.
It's just that Venezuelans happen to be sitting on top of it.
By the way, this is important.
This is something you brought up before and I was reading about this.
It was mentioned in a Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting story the other day that the oil resources in Venezuela were nationalized in 1976, the year I was born, 43 years ago, and that when there were right-wing governments in power, it was socialism then, too, just for the very few and white instead of for everyone.
But it never was a matter of private property rights and real free market capitalism.
It was a fascist state.
Now it's a socialist one.
That's right.
It was before basically the money ran off to Miami.
There was more money created during the oil embargo of the 70s than there ever was under Hugo Chavez, yet there were one million.
And by the way, in 1976, I wrote about this, which must mean I've only been four years old, but in 1976, I wrote about one million homes made out of cardboard and tin in Caracas, in a nation that was floating on oil and just raking in oil at what in today's prices would be about $200 a barrel.
And that money just siphoned right out to Miami and to the pockets of the elite and so Chavez changed that and the elite hates it.
When I was down there, they just, the venom, the venom, and I gotta tell you what's interesting is that people who consider themselves progressive, if they're white Venezuelans, they just hated Chavez and a lot of this was because they saw him as Chavez told me, he said, I'm negro indio, I'm black and Indian, not only in who I am, but how I look and it just drives them crazy You can't imagine the racism in Venezuela.
It's on a level that, you know, that's more like 1952 South in America.
Although, yeah, where the tables turn though, I guess there were very well in Mississippi, the majority was black, but in most of those southern states, they weren't.
But in this case, you're talking super majorities and they've been in charge now, or at least their guys have been in charge for now 20 years.
Yes, and so what's happened is, of course, like I say, no nation could withstand this onslaught.
Florida couldn't withstand this onslaught.
If it was embargoed by the United, if Florida was embargoed by the United States government and the money from the sale of its oranges or whatever products come out of Florida, if that money were sequestered by the US government, if they were embargoed by all other governments in this nation and could not export their products, their lights would be out, their water would be poisoned.
I think they'd be doing worse than Venezuela today.
So if you remove, it's not corruption.
In fact, I want to tell you, when you talk about corruption, Ed Morris, I had a conversation which he didn't realize was being recorded.
He's one of the top guys in the oil industry, one of the top traders, and he's known as the top policy guy.
And he said, the frustration in the oil industry is not that Chavez and Maduro are corrupt.
The problem is that they aren't corrupt.
They're used to paying big sums of money, the oil companies, to a few leaders, stuffing it into their Swiss bank accounts and getting what they want.
And I'm not, let me be specific.
For example, one of our close buddies is Nazarbayev of the dictator of Kazakhstan.
He was given, he was bribed with $160 million.
And by the way, I will say that an ExxonMobil executive did go to prison for three years on that one.
But we never indicted or even used the name of Nazarbayev in that indictment, thanks to a request of Hillary Clinton, by the way.
And Bill Clinton then got a half million dollar one-day fee.
You don't say.
We don't say that.
Pretend I didn't even say that.
And so we're used to bribing guys getting what they want.
And I was in the nation of Azerbaijan, which I call the Islamic Republic of British Petroleum.
And there were, you know, different amounts are being bandied about, but somewhere in the area, 50 to 100 million paid to the ruling family of Azerbaijan.
We love corrupt leaders.
We love the Saudis who took a $200 million bribe from British Aerospace to get a weapons contract from the Saudis.
And we love them to be bribable.
We're not against corruption.
We love corruption.
That's how we operate.
And what we hated, according to Morris of the industry, who by the way has said on the record that he never said these things, so I don't know who was on that tape recording, but imitating him, but according to the guy who said he was Ed Morris on the tape, just upset that the Venezuelan government couldn't be bribed.
Well, you know, they say that Hugo Chavez's daughter has $4 billion, Greg.
Well, Hugo Chavez's daughter, she does.
She stole from him because they hated each other.
That's interesting.
Is that true at all?
She was in charge of some of these industries and was able to embezzle billions?
Do you see someone living in a castle made out of gold that isn't named Coke?
I don't see anyone named Chavez living so well.
You know, it sounded to me like it probably wasn't true just because, hey, it's the internet.
If that's true, then where's your link?
Somebody said so.
I got another thing.
Suddenly we're concerned about this corruption.
Again, I just told you about these.
What about the Saudis?
We're so concerned about democracy suddenly that, well, what about Saudi Arabia?
We call them the royals, but that just means that they're dictators and bathrobes.
I mean, we're talking about we love corruption.
We love autocracy.
We love monarchies and dictators.
We, meaning you're speaking for the U.S. government and establishment.
The establishment and the oil elite in America and Britain, they're really one crowd.
There's no nation.
There's no national flag for them.
They're elite.
You can't say, well, British Petroleum is British and Exxon is American.
It's not that simple.
They're a nice little club.
They all get together and they trade jobs with each other across international lines.
When I say we, I'm using that in that actually bad metaphor.
It's really not America versus Venezuela.
It's Elliott Abrams versus Venezuela and the people he works for.
Right.
Now, last question then.
What happens next?
They already completely failed to pull this thing off for now five months straight.
They're either going to give up or they're going to kill this guy.
I think that Venezuela is going to go through a horrid time.
The people are holding out.
You see the massive marches in support of the government.
You see the military in support of the government.
But the truth is when people are hungry and they have nothing and they can't get gasoline for their car in a nation sitting on oil and they can't get food, they can't get medicine, which has to be imported from abroad.
I'm going to tell you at a certain point that people are going to say, we give up.
And I saw this in Nicaragua during the embargo there under Reagan in the 80s where people said, okay, we give up.
We'll vote for your guy.
And they did.
And Nicaragua got next to nothing.
And so then later they voted back the Sandinistas into power because they were disappointed.
But I think that the people are just going to give out.
They don't want to survive.
They're all for Chavez and they're all for Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution.
And that's most of the people.
And they're so happy that apartheid ended.
And they're so happy that they now live in homes made of steel and brick instead of cardboard shacks.
But at a certain point when they can't eat and their kid can't get and their grandpa can't get medicine for diabetes, people are going to give up.
I'm sorry, but that's what I predict.
Well, looks like that's what they're trying to do in Iran.
I think they might have a little bit tougher time of it there.
But you know, Americans, we really got to ask ourselves, I think that term sanctions is just somehow it comes across as so euphemistic.
You can't feel the pain in that term.
Even embargo.
I think blockade actually makes it more clear.
But then that's more of a literal definition, meaning Navy ships floating here and there.
And so it's really hard to get across to people, maybe just how effective the U.S. Treasury is at waging war against a nation state when they choose to do so.
Well, keep in mind also, we're talking as I would use the term that the U.N. repertoire used, which is a medieval siege when they used to lay siege to to cities and watch them starve till they finally gave up.
And that's what we're seeing here, a medieval siege.
This is worse than anything we imposed on Iraq, worse than anything we imposed on Iran.
And also, frankly, those nations kind of knew how to do the system.
I mean, like I say, Maduro was never really set up to deal with this type of onslaught.
And they just don't have the kind of back-channel, black market operations set up the way Iran and Iraq were able to pull off.
It means massive bribery of small oil companies on the side to take their oil.
And there's all kinds of games that can be played.
And the Venezuelans, the other problem for Venezuela, it's a big nation with a lot of people that have to be fed and cared for.
And they weren't prepared for this.
They built the subway system, which depended on German parts, an electrical system depended on German parts.
They have a system which is based on selling oil to the United States and the U.S. paying for it instead of saying, thank you for the oil, we're keeping it in a special account for Mr. Guaido.
They just were not one thing is clear, they were not prepared for this onslaught.
And in fact, Maduro's speeches are filled with denial.
And it's heartbreaking because people are absolutely deadly suffering and were given such horrific propaganda.
And I'm going to bring up, I'm going to close this with where we began with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
If you think this is just a Trump special, Debbie Wasserman Schultz removed, who was former head of the Democratic National Committee and removed for her really illegal shenanigans on behalf of the Clintons.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and she's still a congresswoman.
Trump isn't tough enough on Venezuela.
Well, what's there left to do?
Just shoot kids in the street?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the so-called Democrat, that's her position, that Trump isn't vicious enough in starving the people of Venezuela.
So this is not a Trump-Republican game at all.
Yeah.
And you know what?
One more point here before I let you go, which is this great thing in fairness and accuracy and reporting where, you know, they do the very thorough rundown and they report that 0% of American major media have dissented against this policy at all.
Not one major newspaper's editorial board.
Not one.
Not one host on any of the cable TV news shows with, they don't mention this, but you may have noticed one exception.
Tucker Carlson is the only one who has dissented against this, had Colonel Douglas McGregor on to dissent against this and then interviewed someone from Max Blumenthal's Grayzone Project.
This woman, I forget her name, who was absolutely great.
He gave her like a solid minute to just knock this out of the park and including explaining that, oh, you talk about their dropping standard of living.
That is the deliberate policy of the United States to wage an economic war, to hurt the people, to pressure the people of Venezuela.
That's what they say they're doing.
So don't pretend they're not.
That was on Fox.
But nowhere else.
And then, of course, it was really funny to see Hannity come on next because, boy, he clearly hadn't been watching.
But that's it, Greg.
We have total and absolute unanimity in the year 2019 after Iraq, after Yemen, after Libya and the half-regime change attempt in Syria.
The consensus is America has to go help the people of Venezuela.
One question, Scott.
In your wildest nightmares, did you ever believe that Elliott Abrams and John Bolton would not only be directing America's foreign policy but would be getting a standing ovation in unanimity from the Democratic Party?
Yeah.
Well, you know, a big part of that is because of the dynamics of Russiagate, right, where the worst thing about Trump is that he's not a patriot at all.
He's a foreign-backed agent, traitor against America.
And so, you know, all good liberals love and rally around the FBI and the CIA and the institutions of the American centrist so-called moderate extremist empire to protect us.
And so then, when he does what they want, then that's a sign that he's finally doing the right thing, going along with the consensus.
You know what?
I gotta tell you.
When I hear supposed liberals say, how dare the president attack the CIA and the FBI?
I said, well, thank God now I can take a break for a few minutes because that was my job.
Exactly.
Yeah, man, I'm telling you.
I mean, it's like, it's so unreal but I saw this the first round with Venezuela when they said Chavez is a dictator, people didn't like him.
They did the same thing.
I don't want their editorials to say, don't invade Venezuela.
What I would rather see than their editorials, I don't care they can all endorse Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Trump dancing cheek to cheek.
And Pelosi's in on this too, by the way.
And what I would rather see is just the truth.
If you're going to show a picture of 20,000 white people demonstrating against the government, that's fine.
But then show the 200,000 people demonstrating for the government.
That they will not do.
Yeah, they will not.
And it's so blatant.
It's just so blatant.
They won't even show you a narrow clip of, well, here's some people turned out to vote.
They won't even, I mean, to support the government, they won't even show you that at all.
They won't even broach the question at all, which is just left begging.
Right?
It's like, hey guys, you're showing one side.
You're not going to even pretend to show us what it looks like on the other side of town at all?
I don't know, man.
Again, it doesn't seem like they worked very hard on this plot before they launched it.
I don't know.
Anyway, I'll let you go.
I've taken up enough of your afternoon, but I sure appreciate you coming back on my show, Greg.
I appreciate the opportunity to get out the real information.
Thank you.
All right, you guys.
That's Greg Palast.
The best democracy money can buy.
That's what he calls his book, Updated for the New Century.
That's also the name of his latest film.
And check out all of his great stuff at gregpalast.com.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org at scotthorton.org antiwar.com and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand.
Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us
