06/13/13 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Over at AIPAC, the leaders of the Israel Lobby in Washington, D.C., they're constantly proclaiming unrivaled influence on Capitol Hill.
And they should be proud.
The NRA and AARP's efforts make them look like puppy dogs in comparison to the campaigns of intimidation regularly run by the neoconservatives and Israel-firsters against their political enemies.
But the Israel Lobby does not remain unopposed.
At the Council for the National Interest, they put America first, insisting on an end to the Empire's unjustified support for Israel's aggression against its neighbors.and those whose land it occupies, and pushing back against the Lobby's determined campaign in favor of U.S. attacks against Israel's enemies.
CNI also does groundbreaking work on the trouble with evangelical Christian Zionism and neocon-engineered Islamophobia and drumming up support for this costly and counterproductive policy.
Please help support the efforts of the Council for the National Interest to create a peaceful, pro-American foreign policy.
Just go to councilforthenationalinterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
And thanks.
...about Korea, Iran, and then I do questions and answers about Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Mali.
And so if you want, well, basically like this show-only visual, it's there at youtube.com/scotthortonshow.
I'm glad I got a chance to be on the record being really good on the North Korea issue because there's very little of that.
Anyway, all right, so our guest today, looks like our only guest today is going to be Phil Giraldi.
Jeremy Scahill had something better to do and so we're not interviewing him.
But we are interviewing one of the experts repeatedly quoted in Scahill's new book, Dirty Wars.
And for all I know, you're in the movie too.
I haven't seen it yet.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How about you?
I'm doing real good.
So Phil Giraldi, former CIA, former DIA.
Now he's the executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
And he writes for the American Conservative Magazine and Antiwar.com.
Okay, so first of all, what do you make of all this NSA spying stuff?
I'm sure quite a bit.
Well, I think this is basically something, I think in a piece I wrote, I suggested that anti-war has been talking about this for two years.
So it's not exactly like this was some kind of surprise or some kind of secret.
We all knew it was out there.
But what's interesting, I think, is probably the actual scale of it.
I mean, we're really looking at the National Security Agency having the capability of listening in or monitoring all our phone calls in real time all the time.
It's something that really is completely unprecedented in terms of our worst nightmares.
So I think this is a huge story.
I think that the Obama administration's trotting out a series of government lackeys who have come out with this usual line about, oh, we're doing this to protect you.
I see that the FBI Director Mueller has just come out and said that if this program had been in place at the time of 9-11, it could have prevented it.
I mean, this is just nonsense.
I mean, this is like, you know, you're pulling something straight out of your behind.
And then there have been a bunch of others, you know, Clapper, for example, and McCain and Graham, all of whom are saying basically, oh, yes, this has made us a lot safer.
But they never produce any evidence for it.
They keep citing this one case over and over again of Najibullah Ziza.
And if you actually look at the story of how Ziza was arrested, he was arrested because the information was passed to the U.S. government by the British Intelligence Service.
It had nothing to do with these intercepts.
Yeah.
Well, I know.
It's hard to pick on Mueller exactly for 9-11 because he'd only been on the job for two weeks or something like that.
But then again, he should have in his very first meeting said, I want everything on al-Qaeda right now.
And it doesn't look like he did that.
So it still happened on his watch, although he was very new on the job at that time.
But yeah, of course, just like you say, it just sounds good to say that, right?
Yeah, if only we had, if it hadn't have been for that pesky Fourth Amendment, if it hadn't have been for, you know, that damn Bob Barr and his restrictions on carnivore and echelon back in the 1990s, then we could have stopped 9-11.
Yeah, we all know that they had all the information in the world they needed to stop 9-11, Mueller specifically notwithstanding, you know?
Sure, sure, they did.
It's just a question of them not putting it together, not being smart enough.
But the fact is, you know, when they start coming out with comments like this, you know there's a snow job going on in terms of they're trying to misdirect the public in terms of what actually is happening.
And what is happening here is you have a hugely expensive program which is collecting great masses of information on ordinary Americans and foreigners who have the misfortune of being resident in this country, and the information is worthless.
There's so much of it that it's not digestible.
I wrote a piece on anti-war last week, I don't know if you saw that, where it said essentially this information is overload.
They can't digest this information.
They don't know what to do with it.
And it just makes it worse.
If you have so much information that you can't possibly get through it in a day, then it's useless.
It's in fact making you less efficient.
So these arguments are ridiculous.
And until they come up with an actual bunch of cases, like maybe 50 cases, where actual terrorist plots were thwarted because of information they collected by doing this kind of thing, then they don't even have an argument as far as I'm concerned because that's the only argument that makes any sense at all, even though it's illegal and unconstitutional, but it's at least a plausible argument, and they're not even making that.
Right.
And meanwhile, if they tried to hire you to come up with the argument for them, all you would have is examples of their failures.
I mean, we've got a bunch of successful sting operations against idiots, and then we've got the Fort Hood attack, we've got the Times Square attack, we've got Detroit and of course Boston, the recent thing in Boston, that they failed to solve.
James Bamford on the show said they're looking for a needle in a haystack, and they just keep adding hay to the stack.
Instead of hiring anybody, he's going to go looking for needles.
That's right.
That's exactly the problem.
Americans have this obsession with volume, with quantity, with things that come out of a machine and tell you something, but they're not real good at analysis and this kind of stuff.
And it's like, all right, is this information being collected actually helpful or isn't it?
If it's helpful, where is it helpful?
Let's see what the cases are that demonstrate that it was helpful.
But they're not doing any of that.
It's just this kind of a scaremongering attempt to get people to line up.
I keep thinking, my God, I mean, Obama is in some sense worse at all of this than was George Bush in the sense that what he's doing is more horrific, but he's a whole lot better at spinning it than George Bush was.
I mean, Bush looked stupid and sounded stupid, and Obama, unfortunately, is a slick guy who sounds pretty good.
Well, and also Bush said, well, I'm the president and so I can do anything and what are you going to do about it?
Which, yeah, it looked and sounded stupid, but also it was stupid.
Whereas Obama, he's got the House and the Senate, passed a bill, said he could do it.
And I guess he does have this secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that does go way too far, but he's at least got a somewhat plausible on his face, at least claim, that what he's doing, it might be very broad, but it's legal.
And he invokes the courts when they haven't really had a chance, but the courts have looked at it to some degree.
The Congress passed the FICE Amendments Act legalizing what Bush had done, and so it's not the same thing as when Bush did it.
The assumption on the part of a lot of people, rightly, I think, was the reason it was so secret was because of how wrong it was, not because of how wonderful and effective it was at getting the bad guys.
Yeah, I mean, that's the whole point.
I mean, Obama says this is legal.
Well, I mean, yeah, it's legal in that Congress has passed legislation legalizing it, but the fact is it can't be challenged in the courts because every time somebody has tried to challenge it in the courts, they come up against a state secret privilege, which means that there is no legal recourse.
There's no way to take it to the Supreme Court to determine whether this stuff is constitutional or not because the government won't let it happen.
I mean that's the kind of thing that happened in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia where basically you had this facade of legality and how the system was supposed to work, but it basically was all rigged on the side of the government.
Right.
Yeah, rigged.
That's exactly the term for it for sure.
Yeah, yeah.
And then I guess on the phone records thing is one thing, and for people who didn't hear it, I just wanted to drop the footnote here real quick.
The Wall Street Journal followed up and said it's not just Verizon, of course, it's AT&T and Sprint and all the rest of them too who have been turning over all this information, and that's the phone records thing.
But on the PRISM, were you kind of surprised to find out just how extensive it was or you thought it pretty much was like that where they're looking at your Google searches in real time and all that?
Well, the PRISM stuff, the scale of it was the surprise, I think.
I had assumed that they had these capabilities and I had assumed that they were doing, because basically they're not looking normally at individuals.
They're looking at great masses of individuals.
They have a blanket authorization, they think, take a vacuum cleaner and collect all this information and look for patterns and look for linkages.
That's what they do.
So I always assumed that was going on.
But, my God, the fact that this seems to be already a system that is all-encompassing was a bit of a surprise.
Well, now, okay, you're a former intelligence officer.
Let's talk about patterns and linkages and whatever, because it seems to me like intelligence is such a biased term for information.
It says, like, yeah, we're smart and we're right just because we have this thing that we're saying, right?
Don't you think that that word is so loaded?
And so, like, when they go, oh, look, Scott Horton has Phil Giraldi's number saved in his cell phone and then Scott Horton also has, you know, whoever, people who aren't even political at all saved in his cell phone, too.
Look at us all in this network together.
And it seems to me like basically what we're talking about is a bunch of professional government-employed conspiracy kooks and their conspiracy kookery generator that they're putting garbage in and they get garbage out.
And this is like Gareth Porter covered about how the Delta Force kills people in Afghanistan.
This guy knows this guy, knows this guy, knows this guy, who heard of that guy, who once knew that guy, who went over there and this house is next door to that guy's house, and so kill them all.
Yeah, well, that's exactly how linkage works.
And you're precisely right that if you have my phone number in your Rolodex, as it were, they are going to link that together.
And then they're going to link me and you and everybody else that you talk to on telephone or send e-mails to.
It's exactly how it works.
And that's why this system is as monolithic, as huge as it is, because essentially if you play that kind of game, you will eventually wind up having 90 percent of the population as linkage contacts of potential terrorists.
That's exactly how it works.
You know, I even saw this thing on the Science Channel or one of those things about this network science, and they were talking about how new it was and how useful it was, at least in the eyes of the JSOC guys using it in Iraq in the days of the surge, especially in the final crackdown on the Sunni insurgency, Al-Qaeda in Iraq guys and all of that.
But they explained in there, too, that the Kevin Bacon game, that it's not just six degrees of Kevin Bacon between actors.
It's six degrees of Kevin Bacon between any people in the world.
And that really they even did this thing where they sent envelopes to people all over the world and said, see if you can get this delivered to this professor in New York in six steps without mailing it.
Right.
But just by giving it to a friend.
And they, you know, they're good.
They're in the Australian outback and in deepest, darkest Africa and in, you know, Eastern Europe and whatever.
And easy within six steps, they get the envelope hand delivered to the professor in New York, because everybody knows a guy who knows a guy who lives in New York.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, sure.
And so and so really there's just it's only their imagination limiting them to who all are the bad guys in any given case.
Well, ultimately, we're all connected to Mohammed Atta.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I guess it's just like we're all descended from the Prince of Wales or something.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's no question about it.
If you if you go out to about a third generation linkage, you get you start to get almost everybody.
Yeah, that's amazing.
All right.
So now let's talk about the new piece, too.
It's aptly titled Don't Forget Syria.
I was just talking to the people here about don't forget the DNA thing, because that to me is so huge.
But it hardly got covered because all this other stuff.
It's partly washed out of the headlines by the fact that Obama and McCain are having a fight over who's better at backing Al Qaeda in Syria.
And then, of course, also the NSA scandal thing.
But so I don't want to forget Syria.
I want to keep this thing on the front burner, because, as you say, this could get worse.
I think we've discussed and discussed before in the recent past and that your position has basically been that Obama doesn't want to necessarily get too far deeper into this thing than he already is.
And maybe he's already having second thoughts about how far he's gone.
And yet it ain't over yet.
And it ain't necessarily all up to him either, is it?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, you know, Obama's not.
There's a mistake in thinking that the president of the United States is an independent player in all this stuff.
He's he's subject to a lot of constituencies that are pressing on to do various things.
And what what is disturbing in this case is that most of the constituencies are are actually in favor of intervention.
If you go to the media, I think it was an editorial today in The Washington Post yet again calling for military action against Syria.
And so this is a constant drumbeat.
And then you get clowns like John McCain going over there.
I saw him on Sunday morning.
He's always on the talk shows on Sunday.
I'm sure you've noticed that even though this guy should should, if anything, be in a loony bin somewhere.
And he's he's he was he was referring to how Hezbollah in Syria was carrying out all these atrocities, killing civilians and doing this and everything.
Oh, you know, all this stuff is kind of it could be true.
Yeah.
But all this kind of stuff is made up of whole cloth.
I mean, there are very few reliable sources who can testify that this is happening or that is happening.
But McCain is willing to take what he thinks is the worst case scenario.
And he's he's he's putting pressure on the president and upon the Republican Party, such as it is, to support this kind of line.
And this kind of line is is it's first of all, it's irrelevant to the United States.
And secondly, it's it's stuff that's that's designed specifically to create some case to go to war and people should recognize it as such.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, I guess the American people are pretty good on this.
I don't know how important they think it is or, you know, how high on the list of of things catching their attention it is right now.
But they don't seem to want the thing.
And and I think probably because, you know, looking at Iraq, they're going, well, tell me how it ends.
Right.
And that's that's the Petraeus quote.
Tell me how this ends.
Yeah, that's right.
I wish you would say something about it now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So so what the hell are we supposed to do in Syria?
OK, there's a lot of horrible killing going on.
Hezbollah is there.
The Al-Nusra Front that has declared its loyalty to Ayman al-Zawahiri is there.
The the David Henders is on the show for McClatchy explaining that the Al-Farooq brigades, the guys who oppose Al-Nusra because they favor elections, unlike Al-Nusra.
It was one of their guys that was eating the dude's heart on video that they posted on YouTube there.
Those are the moderates that we're trying to back instead of Al-Qaeda guys.
And and so who the hell are you supposed to back?
I mean, if you had to back someone in the Syria war, it seems like the obvious faction to back would be the Baathists to put an end to this.
Yeah, actually.
And actually, since it seems that the Baathists have the militarily stronger hand and I read something today, you probably saw the same thing somewhere about how so far as opinion polls or or judging popular support is accurate.
And in a place like Syria, the government would seem to have the majority, the clear majority of support of the Syrian people.
So, again, you know, it's like, what is this all about?
Why are we involved at all?
Why are we pushing a certain line that that really may or may not be true?
You know, there are a whole lot of questions that should be arising about about this.
And I fear what what is going to happen is going to be kind of a some kind of a vacuum effect where there's no policy and nobody knows what it is.
And the guys who are screaming the loudest and pushing the hardest will be the ones that will be able to to bring about the result that they want to have.
Yeah, because after all, I mean, it is just a matter of getting Obama to budge.
It's up to him.
I mean, people don't even mock him for for calling himself the decider or anything like that.
It's just this is the world we live in where, well, the president has drawn his red line and he'll draw it where he will and he'll declare it crossed when he will.
And, you know, none of this immaterial breach of U.N. resolutions or anything, the U.N. resolutions are in the president's head.
That's all we need.
He can do whatever he wants.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
It's not it's not it's not really like there's a there's a clear delivery of process here where people are sitting around and talking about, you know, what are the real interests of the United States?
This is a political process.
It's not it's not an analytical process.
And the political process can easily produce a result that has nothing to do with reality.
Yeah.
Well, in the Congress, they're probably worse than Obama on this if you just let them vote today.
But then again, if they had to actually take responsibility for, you know, not just passing an authorization to let him decide or something like that, but if they had to actually declare war to start one and take responsibility that way, they may, you know, look into it a little bit more than just what does APAC want me to say?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It would be kind of interesting if all these guys would sign a document saying that in one year's time we're going to hold a referendum.
And if the American people decide that that Syria is now worse than it was a year ago, all these people would have to resign.
That would be a nice thing to have.
You know, Pepe Escobar came on the show and he said half of the rebels aren't Syrian rebels at all.
They're foreign fighters.
I saw one story where one of the locals was begging the Mujahedin of foreigners to leave that.
I know you're good at helping us fight, but you're the PR is killing us here.
Yeah, I saw that.
I mean, they're basically at this point, it's this this protest movement was co-opted, co-opted by the foreign powers.
And it seems like the Syrians mostly are staying out of it at this point.
And even the ones who wanted to overthrow Assad, they recognize that the CIA and the Saudis have completely delegitimized their revolution and turned it into just, you know, a bunch of foreign mercs.
Basically, I don't know if these guys are working directly for Eric Prince, but they might as well be, I guess, working for Zawahiri.
Same thing.
Yeah, yeah.
No, it's it's I made the comment in my article that this is somewhat reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, where you have essentially two two parties.
And then you have you have other outside forces that are basically using these groups as proxies and that these outside groups don't necessarily have any good interest in what goes on in Syria.
They're basically looking for satisfying their own objectives, which might have nothing to do with Syria.
And so we have, you know, the the folks like the U.S. and the EU and Turkey lining up behind behind the rebels for no good reasons that anyone can imagine.
And and you have the Russians and the Iranians and Hezbollah and some other states lining up behind the government.
So it's a it's like, who's the patsy or who's the victim here?
The victims are the Syrians.
They're the ones who are paying the price for for what is clearly a game being played by a lot of outside forces.
Hmm.
Yeah.
And, you know, it may not be McCain, right?
Maybe the Saudis who are the loudest and not necessarily with their public relations, but with their actions and with their pressure on Obama, they're getting it done.
He's not stopping them and he could stop them if he wanted to, but he's not stopping them.
And they're they have their own agenda in Syria.
That's really the one that's being carried out here, isn't it?
Yeah, that's right.
And, you know, it's funny, the the Saudis are probably the the force for more bad things going on in the world right now than any other government.
And yet nobody holds them accountable.
And most particularly, the United States is not holding them accountable.
I mean, this is really this is really the big hidden story that somebody has to has to really break and start writing about what the Saudis are doing with their their exportation of Wahhabism and their support of fundamentalist regimes in many of these Muslim countries.
It's it's it's a it's a sad commentary when this country, which allegedly is so closely allied with the United States and with the West, but internally is extremely primitive and dictatorial, has been playing this game.
And it's really it's really about time that we start talking about this.
Unfortunately, it's almost a neocon line in some ways, but sometimes even the neocons get something right.
But the the Saudis are really a problem and are really a problem for the entire Muslim community in terms of how they use their vast wealth to subsidize programs that are basically anti-democratic and anti-liberal in the sense of 19th century sense.
Well, and then, you know, you mentioned other countries back in the Shiite side in here and you meant Iraq.
And because and you mentioned in your article, you say, ironically, they're because and this is why the Americans need the Saudis more than ever and have less reason than ever to check them is because George Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein.
You know, it's in the WikiLeaks where the king of Saudi Arabia says to the ambassador in 2000, and I guess it's right after the war.
Maybe it's not before it, but still, he says, I don't understand.
It was always you, me and Saddam against you and us and Saddam against the Iranians, you know, containing their revolution.
And now you've handed them Iraq on a golden platter.
What are you doing?
And so now the redirection.
And so now, you know, if we we can't regime change Iran, at least we can settle for Syria.
Yeah, yeah.
I guess that's it.
That's what they've come down to.
And switch back to the satellite.
And, you know, by the way, let me ask you about this, Phil, because I remember Greg Palast was saying that the entire Iraq war was nothing but a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia with America on Iran's side, of course.
But I don't know how documented it ever was.
Obviously, a lot of Saudis traveled to Iraq to fight as part of Al Qaeda in Iraq or whatever in the Sunni based insurgency.
But was it Saudi money behind a lot of the Sunni based insurgency there or they didn't really need to because the Iraqi Sunnis already had enough money to fight with or what?
Well, there definitely was Saudi money involved in it, but I don't think it was significant.
I think that, as you note, the I mean, the Sunnis had been kind of the the masters in terms of what went on in Iraq for a long time.
And they they really retained a lot of the the assets of the former state, even though they didn't have the oil.
But I don't think they were starved for assets.
I think that there may have been a lot of enabling of getting weapons and that kind of thing done through the Saudis, although, as we know, Petraeus certainly did quite well in that department, too.
So it's it's a little bit hard to say.
I would I would not say the Saudis would be significant factor in Iraq.
There were a lot of other forces that were unleashed primarily by us.
Right.
Well, yeah, I mean, Zalmay Khalilzad, when he was ambassador in the beginning of 2005, I believe, was really pushing to, I mean, not reinstall Saddam necessarily, but to to change our mind about the Iraqi National Alliance of of Sadr and Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Council and Ayatollah Sistani and switch back to the Sunnis, which the nicest pathos we can find, basically, and and and not go ahead and give all of Baghdad to the Shiites and whatever.
But he was overruled and they went on anyway.
So they did the redirection just later.
And when it was when the consequences were much worse for the or much greater anyway for the future situation with the Shiites now controlling Baghdad.
Yeah, well, it's sort of like the rethinking that's going on in Egypt or regarding Egypt by the National Security Council and the White House where they they really would like to go back to Mubarak.
Yeah.
You know, the onion did a thing about, you know, digging up Saddam Hussein and hanging him again, only getting it right and having a big parade and all that kind of thing.
What they should have done is put him back on the throne and just call the whole thing off.
And sorry, we evaded.
We actually had things exactly how we wanted them, but somehow that wasn't good enough.
Yeah, well, they could get a taxidermist to bring him back and put him in like Lennon's tomb, you know, have him encased in glass.
I remember I can't remember if it was MSNBC or CNN or something, but one of the ladies said, why are you chanting Muqtada?
What does that mean?
It doesn't mean anything.
Don't worry about it.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
OK, good.
Well, now and now, like as as you mentioned in your article, Iraq's on the side of the Baathists, the Shiite Baathists in in Syria, along with the Iranians and along with Hezbollah.
So good job, Republicans.
Yeah, exactly.
That's it.
Thanks very much, Phil.
Appreciate it.
OK, Scott.
All right.
That's Phil Giraldi.
He's at the Council for the National Interest.
Council for the National Interest or the American Conservative Magazine and Antiwar dot com.
We'll be right back.
Hey, you own a business?
Maybe we should consider advertising on the show.
See if we can make a little bit of money.
My email address is Scott at Scott Horton dot org.
Oh, man, I'm late.
Sure hope I can make my flight.
Stand there.
Me?
I am standing here.
Come here.
Oh, OK.
Hands up.
Turn around.
Oh, easy.
Into the scanner.
Oh, what's this in your pants?
Hey, slow down.
It's just my.
Hold it right there.
Your wallet has tripped the metal detector.
What's this?
The Bill of Rights.
That's right.
It's just a harmless stainless steel business card sized copy of the Bill of Rights from security edition dot com.
Therefore exposing the TSA is a bunch of liberty destroying goons who've never protected anyone from anything.
Sir, now give me back my wallet and get out of my way.
Got a plane to catch.
Have a nice day.
Play a leader.
Have a nice day.
Play a leading role in the security theater with the Bill of Rights security edition from security edition dot com.
It's the size of a business card, so it fits right in your wallet.
It's guaranteed to trip the metal detectors wherever the police state goes.
That's security edition dot com.
And don't forget their great Fourth Amendment socks.
Hey, guys, I got his laptop.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow dot com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
See what happens at WallStreetWindow dot com.
Admit it.
Our public debate has been reduced to reading each other's bumper stickers.
Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers dot com.
I made up most of them and most of those when I was mad as hell about something.
So if you hate war, empire, central banking, cops, Republicans, Democrats, gun grabbers and status of all stripes, go to LibertyStickers dot com and there's a good chance you'll find just what you need for the back of your truck.
Own a bookstore?
Sell guns at the show?
Get the wholesaler's deal.
Buy any hundred stickers and they drop down in price to a dollar apiece.
You can spread the contempt and make a little money, too.
That's LibertyStickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for The Future of Freedom, the journal of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Every month, plumb line individualist editor Sheldon Richman brings you important news and opinions on policy by heroic FFF President Jacob Hornberger, hard-hitting journalist columnist James Bovard, and others from the best of the libertarian movement.
The Future of Freedom tackles the most important issues facing our country, from the bankrupt and insane welfare and regulatory states, to foreign wars and empire, the dismal state of our economy, and ongoing assaults on civil liberties.
This society needs peace and freedom for prosperity to prevail.
Subscribe to The Future of Freedom in print for just $25 a year, or online for $15 a year at fff.org/subscribe.
And hurry up, because this summer they'll be running my articles about the wars in Libya, Syria, and Somalia in The Future of Freedom, too.
That's fff.org/subscribe for The Future of Freedom.
And tell them Scott sent you.