Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Whites 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 name, bitch, 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.
Hey, look guys, on the line, I've got John Schwartz from the Tiny Revolution.
Is that blog still up, dude?
The website still exists.
And every now and then I look at it again and think, hey, this was a pretty good blog.
There's some pretty good archives on there, man.
You better save it.
But now he's at the intercept.
This is important, too.
Mike Pompeo said Congress doesn't need to approve war with Iran.
2020 Democrats aren't having it.
All right.
So first of all, hi, John.
How are you?
Welcome to the show.
Well, thanks for having me back on to talk about a lot of the same stuff we've been talking about for like 15 years.
Yeah, well, it ain't over yet, is it?
So Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State.
I wonder if they could go ahead and make him Secretary of Defense, too, at this point.
But I guess not.
They say they're promoting the Secretary of the Army, I guess, to head the DOD.
Very powerful Secretary of State, this guy Pompeo.
And he's been pushing all kinds of different things here on Iran.
He was the guy that did the big Heritage Foundation speech that laid down the 15 points of their unconditional surrender and all of that.
That they must accept or else, you know.
And then, of course, he's been leading all the accusations against Iran on supposed threats in the region and the bombings of the tankers in different forms over the last few weeks.
But then very importantly, as you're writing here, he is going to Congress and telling them that the AUMF from September the 14th, 2001, that authorized George Bush to attack whoever was responsible for the September 11th attack, applies to Iran.
Is that right?
It's hard to know precisely what he said because this was a classified briefing.
I think it was back on May 21st.
He and some other people from the administration came and talked to pretty much every member of Congress who was willing to show up.
And what he said, therefore, has to be filtered through a bunch of different people.
And they also don't want to talk about anything that's supposedly classified.
But it seems like what he said was definitely, he laid out the case that Iran is somehow allied with al-Qaeda.
And he didn't say, and therefore, we have the authority that we need already under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force to attack Iran.
But he kind of gave a really big wink, you know, metaphorically or literally.
So that's the meaning that everyone took away from what he said, whether he said that literally is hard to know.
But none of the sources claim that he went that far with it.
Yeah, I don't think anybody says, a lot of people, they took that to be the meaning.
Like he said in open sessions, he's been asked, do you have the authority under the 2001 bill to attack Iran right now?
And he won't say no.
He just, he says like, well, I'll leave that to the lawyers.
You know, as though the lawyers don't work for him, as though they don't fire lawyers who give them the wrong answers.
As though we can't all read the plain language of the Constitution.
Right.
There's also that, that we have a constitution and you can look it up online.
So, you know, clearly they're thinking about it, whether they would actually go ahead and claim that that's why they were attacking Iran.
Like, who knows?
They make all kinds of claims about the power that the president has.
They claim that, you know, basically the president already has the power to go to war without Congress, even without the 2001 bill.
You know, there's the people behind the, like this view of the constitution, a lot of whom are left over from the Bush administration when they also had that view of the constitution.
Also didn't think that Congress needed to approve war with Iraq.
So they have a bunch of different ways that they could claim that they have the authority to do this.
And it's really up to Congress to stop them.
Hey guys, Scott here for Liberty Under Attack Publications.
Looking for a Liberty-focused publisher?
Liberty Under Attack publishes books and strategy guides for individuals looking to increase their personal freedom.
They assist authors through the entire publishing process, proofreading, editing, cover designs, paperback and Kindle formatting, and full audio book narration and post-production.
Tell them Scott sent you and get 20% off a full service deal.
To get some one-of-a-kind books or for more information, visit LibertyUnderAttack.com.
All right.
So, and now in this briefing, how detailed was it?
Did he go through and try to prove his case or he just said, listen, everybody, this is a thing that we know and trust me and that kind of thing.
Do you know?
I mean, it sounds as though he made some specific claims.
Like what they are, no one is willing to say, you know, as I said, it was a classified briefing.
And particularly in, you know, when, when members of Congress are speaking openly in public, they don't like to reveal things that may have been classified.
But it seems as though he went into some kind of detail and, you know, how convincing that was.
Who can say, like, it's all nonsense anyway, because basically, you know, every country in the Middle East has some like quote connections to Al-Qaeda.
You know, obviously Saudi Arabia has the greatest connections to Al-Qaeda.
And, you know, if anybody actually wanted to use the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, like that would be the country that he would invade first.
Well, and the thing of it is, I'll go ahead and mention gratuitously all over your interview here that Robert Gaines and I have a new article.
Well, a few days old now at the National Interest, which is called a war with Iran would unleash chaos in the Middle East.
The original title was would be a win for Al-Qaeda.
I'm not sure why they changed it.
I like the original title, but the whole article does talk about chaos throughout the Middle East.
And Robert, he gets the credit.
He wrote it.
Well, I did all the research, but he wrote it well, completely debunking this whole thing about Iran and Al-Qaeda.
All Iran ever did was hold Al-Qaeda guys hostage and try to exchange them for the MEK and try to keep Al-Qaeda from attacking Iran.
And then eventually when they let bin Laden's son go and shake Al-Adl, they call them, it was in exchange for an Iranian diplomat who'd been kidnapped by Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
And so they had to give him up.
But that was like 10 years after Bush had refused to negotiate the handover of those guys in exchange for the MEK.
So and even then it was in exchange for a diplomat.
It's not like they were aiding and abetting these guys.
They were holding them on house arrest.
And it's, you know, the West Point Counterterrorism Center and the great Gareth Porter and, you know, all kinds of great investigative.
Oh, at the New America Foundation, they did an in-depth study of all the Abbottabad documents and all this stuff.
The whole thing's a bunch of garbage.
No wonder the only people you can find really pushing it are from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and others directly tied to the Israeli right.
Yeah.
And I mean, people who know anything about the Middle East know that the whole idea of Iran and Al-Qaeda like having any kind of alliance is preposterous.
I mean, they are the bitterest of enemies imaginable.
And, you know, Al-Qaeda has bombed mosques across Iran.
They just killed some IRGC guys in a massive attack in February.
Yeah.
And so it's just the dumbest of the dumb, like as bad as the propaganda was around Iraq in 2003.
Like this is even worse.
And, you know, it's particularly ugly, like just given the history of Al-Qaeda's kind of amazing brutality towards Iran.
But there it is.
I mean, I've always said that the 2001 bill was going to be used as justification for invading every country in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia.
Yeah.
Of course.
I mean, all the countries on the famous neocon list, as recounted by General Wesley Clark, not one of those regimes had the slightest thing to do with helping Al-Qaeda attack the United States in any way.
Not even Sudan, where bin Laden had lived for a while, but then Bill Clinton asked them to kick him out.
So they did.
That was back in 96.
So no one country on that list had done anything to us.
People like us remember, you know, that was in Rumsfeld's notes, Donald Rumsfeld's notes, the secretary of defense, on 9-11 that afternoon, like the Pentagon's on fire.
And he's telling his aides like what they're going to do in response.
And it was like, sweep it all up.
Connected and not.
And so like from 2001 onwards, they've just been using this as justification to do whatever it was that they already wanted to do anyway.
Yeah.
I like how it says right there to talk with the deputy secretary of defense, P.W., about proof that Saddam is tied to these guys.
There's only one source for that and he's it.
OK.
Like the Pentagon is on fire.
Like the building is being evacuated.
They're like body parts, all of Rumsfeld is like.
This is such a wonderful opportunity for us to invade Iraq.
Absolutely.
Oh, man.
All right.
So now the Democrats, this is a pretty easy one for they all essentially get it right, because how could they not?
Am I right?
Yeah, well, you would like to think that the Democrats would all get it.
You know, there has been actually, to my great surprise, some opposition from Congress to what's going on with Iran.
Like more than I really remember on anything, it's mostly been coming from Democrats, but not totally.
Rand Paul has been very good on this.
Mike Lee just joined a Senate bill, I believe, saying that no money appropriated by Congress could be used to attack Iran without congressional approval.
So there actually has been some resistance, not as much as you would like to see in a functioning constitutional republic.
But some, you know, then there's also been like Adam Schiff.
It's been terrible on this, like talking about the, you know, the whatever it was that happened to these various tankers, like how certain it was that this was Iran.
You know, so it's just it's not as bad as you would expect.
It's not great.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, so take us through is, you know, what, you know, Warren and Gabbard and Booker and the presidential candidates here that have made statements on it.
Yeah, well, so here's the good news.
There is a Senate bill and a House bill.
As I say, this bill prohibits the use of any money appropriated by Congress to attack Iran.
I've been trying to find this out.
I believe this is the first time in history that Congress has attempted to use its actual key power, the power of the purse that you learned about in like seventh grade civics, like the power that it truly does wield over the executive branch.
Like you can't do things without our money.
And we're saying that you can't spend money on this, that it's used the power of the purse to try to stop a war before it starts.
So it is interesting.
And as I say, I think probably historic in that way.
And so the bill in the Senate has maybe 25 or 30 co-sponsors at this point.
Every single Democrat running for president.
And how many is that?
Who can keep track?
37 of them?
I don't know.
Anyway, all of them, I think it's, I believe it's eight.
They have all signed on to this bill at this point because they're actually going out and meeting Americans and Americans do not want a war with Iran and are asking them about this.
And so they can't really refuse to sign on to this obviously needed bill.
So they're all on it.
The House version, I think there are four members of the House running for the Democratic nomination.
And just one of them is signed up now, including Tulsi Gabbard.
But I presume she is going to and probably the other ones will eventually.
Hey guys, a quick programming note for you.
If you signed up for the Just the Interviews feed at the Libertarian Institute, you're probably going to need to go over and sign up at scotthorton.org instead, or at least if you're on iTunes there. iTunes has canceled the Just the Interviews feed from the Institute, I guess, just because it's redundant with the scotthorton.org feed.
So either go over to scotthorton.org and sign up for Just the Interviews there or stay at the Institute and sign up for the other podcast feed.
And then that way you'll get my show plus the great Kyle Anzalone, Pete Raymond, and of course, Patrick McFarlane and Keith Knight as well.
That's all at scotthorton.org or libertarianinstitute.org.
And then, so you mentioned Ron Paul and Mike Lee there.
I guess there's not too much shift out of the other side other than them, right?
Other than them, I haven't heard about anything.
It's just the two of them.
But that's two more than you might have expected.
You know, even Rand Paul, you know, in my experience, like talks a good game and does not show up a lot.
Yeah, you can't always count on him, that's for sure.
But now, so him and Lee and a couple others, they made the margin on the resolutions over the arms sales to Saudi, which is that's a pretty big deal for Congress to go against Saudi like that, because that's going against Raytheon and Lockheed and Boeing, too, you know?
Yeah, it's going against these US, these gigantic defense contractors.
You know, it's going against what your staff wants, because they all want to go work for, you know, Saudi funded institutions once they, you know, are finished working for you.
Like, there's just a ton of money from the Gulf states on the stuff that flows through Washington.
So it is hard to make anything happen.
And so they did that as a good thing.
All right.
Well, so now I hadn't seen the news this morning, but I read it last night that Trump, you know, he says he came right up to the line and decided not to bomb him after what looks like, I don't know, possibly McKenzie and Central Command deliberately flew a drone into Iranian airspace to get it shot down.
I don't think that's certain.
That's certainly the Iranian side of the story is that it was on their side of the line.
And honestly, I don't give the American empire the benefit that it had on stuff like which side of which line things were on most of the time.
Yeah, well, you may have seen the New York Times said that, like, like, even the US military is not sure whether the drone and possibly another surveillance plane had entered Iranian airspace.
I actually did not see that.
I did see where the Iranians said that they saw that plane and decided not to hit it too.
And to just hit the drone, which is very nice of whatever local colonel in the IRGC called that shot.
But that just goes to show right there how very dangerous this is when you have very low level officers in charge of decisions that could very quickly escalate into very high level conflicts.
Yeah, that's true.
I mean, the whole situation is is just nuts and extremely dangerous.
And but but as I say, like the fact that you have an anonymous officials saying like, we're not even sure whether or not these planes are in the Iranian Iran's airspace suggests that there's a very high possibility that they were in Iranian airspace.
Yes, absolutely.
I hadn't heard that detail.
You're saying that was in one of the Times stories.
I'll have to go back.
Yeah, here's the time story said, like, like, there remained a doubt inside the US state United States government over whether the drone or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew did violate Iranian air support airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official.
And they it, you know, attributes to the official the view that that's one of the reasons that they decided to call off the bombing was that they actually didn't know whether, you know, it was a legitimate act by Iran.
Yeah, well, and you know, the thing of it is, there is, even if it wasn't, that goes to show the narrative that the military is willing to inject into the story that, yeah, we're not so upset.
We think it's possible that maybe it was over the thing.
You know what I mean?
Which they didn't have to say it that way.
So that's, you know, at least I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, you know, the Joint Chiefs might be telling Trump one thing, and then McKinsey and CENTCOM might have a different set of priorities.
Who knows if these people even talk to each other, or if they're just reading the president's tweets and trying to guess what he wants them to do, or what's going on.
You know what I mean?
McKinsey is known as a real hawk, too, from what I understand.
Like, you know, the government, what the decision-making process is, are always much more chaotic than you would like to believe.
But especially with Donald Trump as president, like, who the hell knows?
Like, who's making what decisions?
Who's sharing what information?
How accurate any of the information is?
I mean, it's easy for me to believe that some, like, most people working for the Pentagon for sure do not want a war with Iran.
Like, they know what a gigantic catastrophe it would be.
And, you know, who knows what kind of information they would inject in the process to hope to sway Trump in making the decision.
So I have to believe that at some point we actually are going to find out for sure, like, where this plane was, where the drone was, and where the other plane was.
But the larger issue really is this.
Like, even if they're outside of Iranian airspace, you know, come on.
We've been threatening—Trump said that he would end Iran.
Like, if there were a country that was a thousand times more powerful than America threatening to obliterate us that had nuclear weapons and we didn't, and they're flying planes right up to the edge of U.S. territorial airspace, there's a chance that people would shoot them down, and that would not be a justification.
It would not be a justification for attacking the United States.
And so, likewise, the whole thing, the whole issue is not a justification for attacking Iran.
Yeah.
Well, and the whole issue here, too, is that Trump started this whole fight over nothing.
We already had a perfectly good deal in the NPT before we even had—which we still have—before we even had the Obama deal, which the Iranians are still within, by the way.
It was just the Americans who broke the treaty and left it, and for no reason, and have reinstituted these total sanctions and, including a couple of weeks ago, revoked the last of the waivers for our Asian allies to continue to import Iranian oil.
And so, you know, and all of the, it seemed to me, overblown threats that, oh, Iran's, you know, all their allies in the region, all their proxies, everything they do is now part of their preparations to strike the United States, and all of these things.
Our allies, the Shiite militias of Iraq, helping in fighting against what's left of the Islamic State in Western Iraq, all of a sudden, you know, it's true that they are potentially enemies, but all of a sudden, they're portrayed as though they're enemies now, getting ready to kill the Americans.
And apparently, as you could have read in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, and all over the place, this intelligence is exaggerated.
Don't get carried away.
Don't believe all these stories.
Not all at one time, anyway.
And this kind of thing.
So— And of course, what I'm talking about is making preparations to attack America.
It's like, well, maybe they are, but they're making preparations to attack not the United States of America, but American troops, American military bases.
Yeah, they're moving—the worst case scenario is they're getting defenses prepared in case a real war breaks out that they can hit on different fronts.
Which, you know what?
Anyone could have told you since 2003 that with all our troops in Iraq, if you hit Iran now, they're all, you know, stabbed in the back like Order 66.
They're toast.
It's the super-majority Shiite population of Iraq we put in power in that war, and we're standing right next to that whole time.
So, that remains true.
We still have forces in Iraq right now fighting Iraq War 3½ against what's left of ISIS there.
And so, those guys absolutely are vulnerable.
But again, in what context?
If the U.S. starts a war with this country, that never did anything to us.
Yeah, it is incredible.
And the context is the most important thing, I think, for people to understand.
Whenever they read news about Iran, for Pompeo, for Bolton, their issue is not whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, which it does not and could really never get under the Obama deal.
It is simply the fact that they have a regime that has defied the United States, and that means that regime has to go.
And there are actually people talking about Saddam Hussein in the Bush administration who explain, you know, after the war, here's what we were really thinking.
You know, we could not allow Saddam Hussein to demonstrate that you could defy the United States and get away with it.
And so, he had to be eliminated.
And that's their perspective, too, on Iran.
It's terrible for us, our strategy of running the world, if any country can be seen to defy us.
And with Iran, they've been defying us by simply existing for a long time.
And so, their regime has to be eliminated.
Israel and their priorities in common seems to be, you know, the common denominator between them all.
And, you know, this is all at Israel's behest.
A personal favor to Netanyahu to get us out of that deal.
And, you know, I don't know who all is behind some of these attacks in the Gulf, but they're all pretty suspicious, if you ask me.
And I'm not saying I think the Israelis did them necessarily, but it's as likely to me that they or their allies in the UAE or Saudi would have set those attacks up in order to frame Iran as it is that Iran would do it.
Although there's an argument for why Iran might do it, too, to demonstrate that they can hit hard at, you know, very low prices in an asymmetric fashion and that kind of thing.
But still, an unsolved case so far.
Yeah.
I mean, it's not crazy to think that Iran would have done it because they want to be able to show, like, if you attack Iran, like, we can shut down the world oil industry.
And in fact, they could.
That's one of the reasons why the war would be so damaging, not just to Iran, it would be a catastrophe for Iran, but for people all over the world.
So, you know, it's not, as I say, it's not crazy to think they might have done it.
But number one, we certainly don't know that for sure.
I find it plausible, too.
Like, I would actually say particularly the UAE.
That's what I thought, too, was if it was a false flag, it would have been their special ops guys.
But they would have had to have permission from the U.S. to do that.
Right.
They wouldn't get they wouldn't want to get caught cheating by the U.S.
You know, you never know with these situations.
It's always very difficult to tell.
Even my gut instinct on this is very undecided.
I really don't know.
Yeah.
But let's say, in fact, Iran had done that.
Like, still, that is not a justification for a war with Iran.
And it was meant to be that.
Right.
It was meant to show that, you know, this is deniable and no Americans, no anybody killed, but could have been some people killed, but not Americans anyway.
And not enough to sink the boats, but just enough to show that we could sink a boat and that kind of thing.
So, yeah.
In fact, I'm about to interview Elijah Magnier, who I respect a lot and who has sources in Tehran.
And that's what he says is going on here.
And so if I was going to hear it from anybody, it'd be him anyway.
That's coming up.
But again, point being that none of this is authorized and America doesn't have the right to do any of this to Iran.
Put all these sanctions on them and do all this stuff when they haven't really done anything.
And all the worst threats of their violence are all about threats of what defensive action they might take if we start a war against them.
It's pretty hollow, right?
It's transparent.
Well, I mean, again, it's, you know, I know lots of people listening to this know that America just has a culture, especially at the top, which says we can attack anyone at any time for any reason, anywhere on Earth.
And if they fight back, that's totally illegitimate and probably terrorism.
And that's the way we look at Iran.
That's the way we look at everything.
I mean, people still talk about the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in the 80s as being terrorism.
It's like these were soldiers waging a war in another country.
That is not terrorism.
You can call it other things if you want, but how can you possibly call this terrorism?
It's just our perspective that we're allowed to go anywhere, do anything.
You can't fight back.
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Although, here's the perspective, too.
Donald Trump knows that everybody hates George W. Bush's guts because of Iraq.
He said it was going to be easy and fun, and my God, was it not that?
And, you know, he'll never live it down.
No matter how much professional court historians try to cover up for him, George W. Bush will always be hated, and Trump knows that.
That's how he won, was by saying, This guy is George Bush's brother, are you kidding me?
And that was pretty much the end of Jeb right there, you know what I mean?
He understands how that works.
And that was what Colonel McGregor told him on the Tucker Carlson show last night, that this president is smart enough to understand that war destroyed Lyndon Johnson, war destroyed W. Bush, war would destroy him and his presidency, and this is not the right thing to do, and here's the thing to not do, so don't do it.
And, by the way, it's a correlation without causation, but I'm pretty sure that McGregor on Tucker last night is what stopped that war, is that he's not getting to hear that voice from anywhere else, and Tucker plays it perfect.
He does it over and over.
Him and McGregor play the same script over and over and over again, where Tucker is all so concerned and bewildered and says, But all the terrorists are Sunnis, right?
And the Shiites didn't do anything to us.
And McGregor says, That's right, Tucker.
And Tucker goes, OK, well, what the hell are we talking about then?
And it's like, that is actually the only point, isn't it?
That Iran actually, you can try to conflate them with people who have attacked and killed Americans, but that's the best you can do, because in fact they haven't done that.
I will check out that segment.
It really is an interesting time in America.
There is this bubbling up just across the political spectrum of people asking these questions, which were not being asked for years, if not decades.
Yeah, and you know, Laura Ingraham, too, Hannity is so funny.
Actually, I never watch these shows, but last night I was like, I got to watch Tucker and see what's going to happen here.
But so I left it on through most of Hannity, and my God, it's like it's still 2004.
Not one single thing has changed in that guy's brain whatsoever.
And I know he's just an actor and all that anyway, but still, it was kind of fun to see in like a time warp.
You know, he's a little bit grayer, a little bit fatter, but otherwise it's the same, just absolute garbage.
And then once Geraldo starts making a point, he just starts screaming over him.
It's great, man.
But then Laura Ingraham, she's on it, too.
She's like, Trump ran on peace.
What is this?
Don't do it.
Yeah, no, as I say, it is interesting.
And it really leaves a lot of openings for weirdos like us to push our agenda.
Yeah, exactly right.
Like, hey, how about stop intervening over there altogether?
Another point Tucker said was, hey, we're oil exporters now.
He said this to John Bolton's assistant, Fred Flights.
Hey, we're oil exporters.
Why don't you care about the Middle East at all?
And he's like, geez, I don't know.
I'm not sure what to say.
Can I say Israel?
I shouldn't say Israel, right?
Yeah, that is very interesting.
I would like to look at that part in particular.
Flights, he is kind of the knockoff John Bolton, the John Bolton JV.
And he is super dumb, and I would not be surprised to see him flummoxed.
Oh, man.
All right, well, listen, keep writing great stuff so I can keep interviewing you about it, okay?
Well, I hope to do so and look forward to talking to you again soon, although hopefully about how we have avoided war rather than the fact that we're about to have one.
Yeah, I mean, I got to tell you, I still don't think this is going to happen.
I mean, it could happen.
The Iranians are being put in a very bad position, and who knows?
They might do something stupid.
Seems like their best bet would be to grin and bear it for now, as hard as that might be, because Trump doesn't really want war either.
His guys are trying to make him have one, but he doesn't really want that.
And so it seems to me like there's just not enough consensus among the powerful in this country to get behind a project as big as a war with Iran.
And everybody knows a little one could turn into a very big one very quickly.
They're not obligated to play by the rules we set for them once a war begins.
And just there's got to be reasonable people shouting this down, more than just McGregor on the Tucker Carlson show.
Somebody in there has got to be, you know, speaking reason to these guys.
You got to just be able to look at a map and know that you're biting off a lot more of a fight than we had with Iraq.
Well, I hope that you're right.
I think you probably are.
But I very, very much hope that what you're saying is true.
Well, I mean, here's the thing, too.
None of this goes without saying we all have to make it that way.
Where the consensus is among everybody in and out of power is, no, we are not having it, no.
It has to be clear.
I just saw a poll, and who knows how screwy this is, John, but this poll had it that 40% of the American people would be willing to support strikes against Iran over the tanker attacks.
It was part of the poll question.
Hey, stupid, do you know that not one of them even was sunk?
That none of them were even American ships?
40% of Americans are willing to start a war over an attack on a Japanese tanker?
I think 40% of Americans are willing to start a war with anyone at any time.
That's really a high number.
And who knows, you know, I'm sure the wording is not perfect, but essentially if you call 1,000 people at random, that proportion is going to more or less hold if you keep calling them.
Anyway, have a great day.
Hopefully we'll all be alive for us to see you next time, John.
Okay, yes, I hope that, too.
I look forward to being alive and talking to you later.
Great.
All right, you guys.
John Schwartz, he's at The Intercept.
This one, I should have said, is with Akela Lacey at The Intercept, theintercept.com.
Mike Pompeo said Congress doesn't need to approve war with Iran.
2020 Democrats aren't having it.
So you like supporting anti-war radio hosts.
That makes sense.
Here's how you can do that.
Go to scotthorton.org slash donate, and there's all kinds of options to do so and all kinds of different kickbacks at different levels.
Of course, take PayPal, Patreon, and all different kinds of digital currencies and all of those sorts of things.
And anybody who signs up by way of Patreon or PayPal to donate $5 a month to the show will automatically get keys to the Reddit room, my own private Reddit group that I have.
Quite a few members now and lots of fun in there every day.
So check out all about that at scotthorton.org slash donate.
And thanks.
