06/17/16 – Philip Giraldi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at wallstreetwindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself, wallstreetwindow.com.
All right, y'all, Scott Horton Show, scotthorton.org is the website.
More than 4,000 interviews now going back to 2003.
And sign up for the podcast feed there and everything, scotthorton.org.
Follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
Introducing our good friend, Phil Giraldi.
He is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
That's the real America First lobby in Washington, D.C.
He's a former CIA and DIA officer stationed in the Middle East, among other places.
And he writes for unz.com, unzunz.com and the American Conservative Magazine at theamericanconservative.com.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How the hell are you?
I'm fine, Scott.
How about you?
I'm doing good.
Appreciate you joining us here.
So, you know, I guess I am shocked and surprised.
I want to say I'm one, but not the other.
But I think it's both that, yeah, I sort of can't believe that here we are almost exactly two years, Phil, in June 2016 now.
Two years after the declaration of the caliphate by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Mosul.
And we still have apparently a majority of the American foreign policy establishment wants regime change against Bashar al-Assad and his secular, Baathist, fascist dictatorship in Damascus.
And apparently everyone agrees with them except the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president.
But and thank God for that.
But how could this be?
What the hell is going on?
Please talk to me, man.
Yeah, I must admit, it took me a bit by surprise, too.
I mean, you're referring to the letter written by allegedly 51 diplomats who are using their dissent channel at State Department to indicate that they believe a much more robust policy to take out Assad is what we should be doing.
I'm a little astonished by it.
I mean, it's just it's it's how stupid can these people be?
And then I really sat down and thought about it a little bit.
And the names of these people have not been revealed.
But I would suspect these are all people that came up under the Bush's and under Obama and under the Bush's and Obama.
You have American exceptionalism combining with responsibility to protect, which essentially is a bunch of people who were promoted through the system who believe in interventionism.
That's what it's really all about.
Interventionism is how they see America's appropriate role in the world.
And I think that's where these people come from.
Yeah.
Well, and I guess, you know, it's sort of like when they say that a tax cut is going to cost the government this much money, which implies that all property belongs to them in the first place.
And all we have is what they allow us to have.
It's that same kind of thing where everything's turned upside down.
America now is suffering Assad to live.
And how can we win when he's so horrible, Phil?
That's really what it comes down to in the minds of these idiots.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the fact is, he might be horrible.
I don't necessarily buy into all the allegations about how many people he's killed, because I think a lot of those people were killed by the others in this conflict.
But the fact is that, you know, he might be an awful person.
And indeed, the evidence suggested that he is an awful person.
But the question becomes, what business is it of ours?
What interest is it of ours to pontificate about what this guy is and to threaten to overthrow him?
He's the legitimate head of government in his country.
It's the same kind of rationale that led to what we did in Ukraine, that the United States has a right to intervene in countries because we don't agree with what they're doing or we don't agree with their leadership.
Right.
And also, just like Ukraine, it'd be easy.
It'd be a cakewalk.
Nothing bad will happen.
It'd be just fine.
In fact, at least I didn't read the whole report or anything.
But according to the New York Times version of telling the story here, the president is backed up by the military, who don't want to get rid of Assad because of their concerns and their questions about, well, what happens after Assad is overthrown?
As the New York Times says, quote, a scenario that the draft memo does not address.
What a surprise that is.
Jesus Christ, Phil Giraldi, you and I had this conversation ten full years ago, where I said to you, yeah, but if they overthrow Assad, who's going to take power after that?
Right?
The Muslim Brotherhood, if they're lucky.
Now we know who would take over, and it's not as nice an organization as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yeah.
The fact is, if the U.S. has an interest in what's going on in that region, it's partly due to the fact that we caused it.
But the interest is basically to take out ISIS.
And who are the people most actively working to take out ISIS?
The Iranians, Hezbollah, the Syrian government, and the Russians.
And if we're serious about taking out ISIS, these are the people we have to work with.
That doesn't mean we fall into bed with them, it just means that you have to hold your nose and you have to do what's in your interest.
And the fact that these clowns can't see that makes me wonder, what kind of diplomats are they?
I mean, the basic role of diplomacy is to serve your country's interests by convincing other countries to help you achieve the solution to those interests.
And you don't see any of that in this letter.
Yeah.
You know, I don't know, man.
I guess I'm really confused about this, because I see, you know, on one hand, kind of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and these guys sitting around scheming, and they got real plans and they put them into effect.
And no, of course, things don't work out like they say, but there's no question that there's, you know, a real plan of action that they're going through to some degree or whatever.
But I think my nightmare now is that, no, really, Susan Rice is just making this shit up as she goes along.
And there is nobody in charge except a bunch of idiots who know nothing.
Yeah, I suspect that.
We know that Susan Rice basically made her career on being anti-Al-Assad.
So essentially, she's the one that's pushing this agenda, because it would discredit her thinking if any kind of other approach were pursued by the government.
And no doubt there are others.
I attend, in the Washington area, a lot of panel discussions and things like that.
And you'd be astonished at the numbers of people who you would think come from a background where they know better, but get up in front of these groups and basically, you know, you hear nothing but American exceptionalism.
And the one funny line I heard a couple months ago was, oh, yes, we have to help people who are striving to be free.
You know, I couldn't believe that anybody short of a Monty Python sketch would come out with that line.
But this was a highly respected advisor to a number of government bodies.
It's incredible.
Yeah.
Well, and especially, as you say, where, you know, on the other side of this thing is an alliance of the Syrians, the Iranians and the Russians.
And here they're saying, oh, don't worry.
We're not advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia.
But yeah, they are.
They are.
And I would be even more interested in hearing what these same 51 diplomats think about Ukraine.
But I think I can predict what they think about Ukraine.
Yeah.
I mean, and this has got to sound I mean, assuming the American people like the regular Joe six pack is watching anything like an accurate, you know, approximation of what is going on here, told to him on the Lair News Hour or whatever at night has got to be wondering.
But wait, we hate the Russians so much because they're bombing the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda terrorists.
I mean, I'm not for them bombing because that means they're killing innocent people.
I'm not for any any government bombing anybody.
But for God's sake, man, it doesn't it isn't it confusing that we hate the Russians so much when we know they're attacking the same people that supposedly we are trying to destroy as well?
Yeah, of course, that's the dilemma.
And of course, several people in Congress, of course, have raised this issue and said, you know, who are we supposed to be fighting here?
And that's what it's all about.
I mean, but, you know, this is this is this is the same crap that permeates what comes out of the government.
John Brennan of the CIA yesterday was coming out with all this stuff about ISIS and how ISIS is more powerful and more dangerous than ever.
And of course, this touches on the article that I wrote for the American Conservative about the decline of terror.
But you know, who's to believe this stuff at a certain point?
I mean, ISIS is morphing into various versions of itself because it's it's under a lot of pressure from a lot of sources, not just the United States.
And the fact is that, you know, to to create a monster out of this group where it isn't really there, that this group has severe limitations in terms of how it can act and what it can do.
And to be constantly beating on this gun, this drum and fear mongering is just something that's not in the interest of the American people.
Yeah.
Well, and of course, it is absolutely in the interest of the Islamic State, at least they think, because they keep doing these things to try to bait us into attacking them.
Sure.
Absolutely.
That's that we're playing their game.
And anybody who knows anything about what goes goes on in the Middle East knows this.
And that's what's so astonishing.
Where are all these goddamn smart people in Washington who are supposed to figure these things out and get paid enormous salaries before they go off and work for a beltway band and make even more.
Where do these people come from?
Are they all that that stupid?
Yeah.
Well, there's some some famous quote about being stupid when your paycheck.
It's hard to figure out the truth when your paycheck says the other way around or whatever.
Anyway.
Yeah.
I screwed it up.
Oscar Wilde said it best back when he said it.
But anyway.
So listen, and here's the thing.
And everybody, you should understand this about Phil Duraldi.
And I think you can tell he's a gruff old conservative former CIA counterterrorism officer here and not some hippie dippie pansy.
And no offense to hippie dippie pansies out there.
You guys are all right.
But I'm just saying, Phil, he would, you know, do that thing like on TV where he grabs her head and breaks a terrorist's neck if he had to do it.
It's just that he's realistic about all this.
His paycheck says tell the truth to us, Phil.
So he tells the truth instead.
And it's really important, I think, you guys to understand the background there.
And especially that, Phil, for I don't know how many years in a row now, maybe 10, you've constantly done every year annually, you've done a write up of the State Department report on terrorism, which, of course, is full of State Department spin, but also full of a lot of facts, too.
And you go through and parse it, you know, for us, you know, what are the ridiculous things they would like us to believe?
And what's the real truth that you can tease out of the data?
So I think people, you know, definitely I'm writing my book about the terror war now.
And at some point, I'm going to go back through all those State Department reports myself and hopefully read them all in a row and see what I can make out of them, too.
But you've got a lot of great articles about this.
So this is the 2016 version here.
And of course, you know, it's funny because just a few years ago, right, when you and I talked about this in 2010, it was there's only a couple thousand terrorists in the world.
Probably not even that.
Don't worry about it.
Call the whole thing off.
I mean, there are probably 30,000 ISIS fighters.
But I guess you're saying to me an ISIS fighter doesn't make an international terrorist necessarily at all.
That's right.
I mean, you have to differentiate between a mass movement, which essentially gets a lot of people in because, first of all, they're getting paid, otherwise they'd be unemployed.
And secondly, it gives them a cause, kind of, to fight for that in a vague way they kind of believe in.
But the actual terrorists, the core terrorists in a group like ISIS are very few.
And this has always been the case.
And you know, the point is, if you read these reports year after year, you see a trend.
I mean, the trend is that if the United States and its friends have accomplished nothing else, they've kind of mobilized much of the world against what we call terrorism.
And it's become more and more difficult to become a terrorist.
And so the fact is, as I went through the statistics, in 2015, which is when this 2016 report deals with, there were only 44 Americans that were killed by terrorist incidents in the U.S. and overseas in the whole year.
And quite a number of them, more than half, were killed in combat zones, in areas where they were in Afghanistan, in Syria, Iraq, places like that, where there is actual fighting going on.
And their deaths were the results of the fighting.
In many cases, I would characterize this fighting as civil wars.
And so anyway, the death toll of Americans in terms of terrorism attacks is really kind of minuscule.
And as I cited, that basically those numbers are equivalent to what happens in one week in Chicago.
And yet we have the whole country, the whole U.S., standing in fear and spending its money and inflating the value of these Beltway bandits as a response to this threat.
So the whole thing doesn't make much sense.
Yeah.
Well, and especially, I don't know everything about the San Bernardino thing, I guess, but in Orlando here, even the FBI is saying there's no reason to believe that this guy had any real tie to the Islamic State at all, other than, you know, going out in his, you know, so-called blaze of glory.
He said their name and said that he was fighting for, you know, their interests or whatever it was.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And when I wrote this article, it was over the weekend, and of course, Orlando had just happened.
And I wasn't really sure how to play that.
So I tried to include it, but not draw too many conclusions.
And as it's turned out, it seems that, if anything, the connection with international Islamic radicalism seems to be minimal in terms of what took place there.
You know, but the funny said, stop bombing my country.
So just like with all these so-called radical Muslim terrorists, it's always political.
It's never like convert or die.
I ain't heard a single terrorist say convert or die yet.
I mean, to the Zedis, yes, but not to us.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, I mean, you know, the newspapers and the media have to have something to say about all these cases.
I tend to think they make this stuff up.
But the fact is, yeah, this guy was what he was, and clearly a very troubled young man, quite separate from his Islamic identity, which apparently was paper thin.
And yet, you know, it's going to be played that way.
It is indeed being played that way by politicians of every type already.
And this is this is this is what happens.
And of course, the politicians have an agenda.
Their agenda is to keep the status quo going in their viewpoint or what they think constitutes a status quo forever.
And that's what they do.
OK, so I got a crazy theory and it goes something like this.
America, Russia, Iran, the Baader Brigade and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds all gang up on the Islamic State and they finally drive them out of Raqqa, out of Mosul, out of Fallujah, turn them back into nothing but Al-Qaeda and Iraq, the militia, no longer Islamic State, the place.
At that point, USA has proved Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda 100 percent right.
You can't build your Islamo fascist caliphate until you take down the Americans first.
And the only way to do that is to keep attacking them until they reinvade in full force and spend their last trillion dollars to complete bankruptcy and disillusion like the Soviet Union.
Even if it takes 50 years, you got to break the Americans bank first so that they can't come back and bomb your caliphate off the map.
That was the argument for attacking the far enemy in the first place.
And the Islamic State said, no, that's stupid.
We want to make our caliphate now and now look what's happened to them.
So what does that mean?
That means we win this war.
We just prove that Osama was right, that we're the ones who got to be attacked more for all the people who used to be Islamic State fighters and now have a new mission.
Yeah, well, that's that's that's quite sensible.
I mean, the thing is that it and it looks like both Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton have bought into this.
I mean, they're both essentially the first their first thought is we have to destroy the Islamic State.
And you know, what is that going to mean?
They don't I she certainly understands what it means, at least in terms of what kind of resources.
He doesn't understand that at all.
But the fact is, it's just a bad idea from from either perspective.
This is something that's going to perpetuate the poison that essentially has made terrorism as much of a nuisance as it is.
And they they that message they just don't seem to get and they don't seem to get that our actions in many cases are are what stimulates the the growth of terrorist movements around the world.
It's a it's Muslims.
If you talk to Muslims overseas, as I have, you know, you they say the same thing here.
They're out to destroy us.
And they even if they're not activists, we're going to go out and start shooting at us or anything like that.
That's what they believe.
And sometimes when they look around, they can see some evidence of it.
That would seem to indicate, you know.
Sure.
OK, so now let me ask you this then about what comes next after the Islamic State, because the the most powerful force fighting them now, I guess the two may be tied for most powerful forces would be the Iraqi army backed by the the Shiite militias and which is basically just a Shiite militia itself anyway.
And the Syrian army, which is, you know, I guess largely Sunni, but actually is commanded by Alawites and Shiites and whatever, I guess, and is fighting on the Baathist anti-Islamic state side there.
But it seems like specifically in Iraq, there's a real danger that the Shiite army, after taking Fallujah and after taking Mosul, might just keep them and might just prevent the Sunnis from coming back, the Sunni population, civilian population from coming back and expanding the borders of, you know, George W. Bush's stand, Iraqi Shiite stand that much further to the West, you know, which it seems to me would be one danger.
And then I would also, I guess, ask what you think of the idea that which I assume they're talking about at the State Department, well, what if we go ahead then and create a Sunni state for go ahead and go along with the erasure of the Sykes-Picot line, create a Sunni state for Raqqa, Mosul, Fallujah and Anbar province and all of this, but just make sure it's dominated by the tribes instead of by the Al-Qaeda and Iraq guys.
Either way, it seems like there could be, you know, real severe consequences and further blowback coming down the line from both of those, but I just wonder whether you've been thinking about that and what you do think of that.
Well, people are thinking about that, but of course, it also, you have to include in that equation once you make that kind of judgment, the Kurds, I mean, the Kurds obviously are major players in what's going on.
The Iraqi and the Syrian Kurds, totally different factions.
Iraqi and Syrian Kurds and Turkish Kurds, these are all major players in terms of events in that region, and if you're creating a Sunni state based on ethnicity, why can't you create a Kurdish state based on ethnicity, and I think that's coming in one form or another.
The Turks, of course, will try to destroy it, but it's quite likely that the Turkish ability to do that has kind of peaked, so you know, it's, yeah, sure, I mean, obviously you can go back to Sykes-Picot and say that essentially that's what made these artificial structures and it's only been various other historical factors that have kept them alive to this day, but the fact is that, you know, people in those regions are very conscious of their particular ethnicity and their type of religiosity, and there is no reason why if you believe in that kind of nationalism, why they shouldn't have their own countries, and that actually would be, I think, a stabilizing force.
Well, yeah, maybe once it all settles, right, there could be a real crisis before that.
Yeah, before that it's going to be a mess.
All right, now, wait, when I look at a map of the region of Kurdistan, it cuts a huge swath out of Turkey, right?
Like, you know, Baghdad could let Iraqi Kurdistan go and they might stomp and cry about it for a minute, but what do they really care?
But Turkey would be sacrificing a third of their country or something, right, to a new Kurdistan.
It's the whole south-eastern part of Turkey is essentially predominantly Kurdish.
So yeah, it's a huge hunk.
I'm not saying that whole huge hunk would cease to be Turkey, but there are at least some regions along the border that are maybe 100% Kurdish that would be a natural fit for a Kurdish state.
I mean, you know, if Turkey's got to make up its mind, is it going to be permanent war against the Kurds or is it going to create some kind of situation where they can end the war?
Erdogan, I think, is insane, so he'll probably continue the war, but there are a lot of signs that the Turkish military is not too happy about this.
And they had a real good ceasefire going there, didn't they, Phil?
What happened?
Yeah, well, what happened was that Erdogan basically decided to turn against the Kurds as scapegoats as some of his other policies, particularly in Syria, started to unravel.
And so he was basically the one that allowed or was the catalyst for the peace agreement that they had in place.
He was the one that allowed it to kind of crumble.
And so, you know, he's to blame for this and he's to blame for the direction it's going in.
And now it seems that he's going to be able to become essentially an elected dictator in Turkey.
And so the solution is somewhat elusive.
Yeah.
Well, now the Iraqi Kurdistan is run by the Barzanian Taliban factions and not the the Iraqi branch of the PKK, right?
Right.
So they're kind of there.
There are plenty.
They have their own internal divisions within.
Well, no, their region is bisected by five countries or whatever.
So it's not even bisected.
I don't know what you call that.
Pentecostal.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, yeah, there are Kurds in five adjacent countries.
That's right.
So there's no way to put them back together again in any easy way anyway.
Right.
There's no.
No, no.
I mean, not easy, but I mean, Kurdistan in Iraq could serve as the core for some kind of state.
You have, you know, bits of other free other states going and joining with it with their consent, obviously.
And but, you know, it's viable.
It's it would be viable, be viable as a state.
And it had only considerable a lot of oil.
Yeah.
A lot of a lot of revenue.
Yeah.
I remember you joking before if it came down to it, maybe America would take the Kurds side against the Turks after all this time.
After all, what are best friends for other than stabbing them in the back?
And the Kurds got oil and the Turks don't.
Well, that's it.
Yeah.
We certainly have stabbed in the back as many friends in the past as we possibly could.
Oh, man, it's incredible.
OK, now.
So tell me about Iran, because everybody, quote, unquote, knows that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Phil Durali, are they going to kill me?
No, I don't think so.
Iran is never has never targeted Americans.
And, you know, there's been allegations.
But I I know of no case that's confirmed and and serious that indicating that Iran has targeted Americans ever.
Yeah.
But the problem with Iran is, of course, Iran is friendly with Hezbollah, which is an enemy of Israel.
It's friendly with Syria, which is an enemy of Susan Rice.
And so Iran has to be on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
It's a it's by definition.
And Mitt Romney said, you know, Syria, that's Iran's access to the sea.
So it's really important.
Yeah, right.
Yeah.
I guess you've got to look at a map.
I'm sorry for interrupting you.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, Mitt Romney, as you say, you should have looked at a map, but I guess he didn't.
Yeah.
But so now, really, is there just nothing else to it?
They support Hezbollah and that's it.
That makes them the leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Well, I would recommend anyone curious about a read the State Department report.
It's unclassified.
And you'll be astonished when you get to the state sponsored part, because Syria also is in trouble because it it's a friend with Iran.
So if you're a friend with Iran or you're a friend with Syria, or if you're a friend in both directions, boy, are you in trouble?
And then the Sudan is on the list.
And if you read the report, the report basically concedes that Sudan hasn't done anything lately.
So it's like, you know, you can't get off the list until Susan Rice approves.
And that's I guess that's the way it works.
Yeah.
Until Giuliani gets paid to give you a good speech.
That's right.
That's right.
Yeah.
So yeah, that's it.
That would be the solution.
They get some actually they could get Bill Clinton over there to give us.
Yeah.
That'll be right as rain in a day and a half.
Right now.
So now what about Hamas?
Because, again, everybody knows kind of conventional wisdom thing.
Hamas is just, you know, just like Hezbollah is that close to Iran controlled by Iran, their proxy in Palestine.
Is that correct?
Yeah, well, let's put it this way.
Iran and Hamas have have a friendly relationship.
The question to which there's any kind of actual support in terms of money, weapons or anything like that is quite questionable.
I mean, let's face it.
Hamas is hemmed in on three sides and in fact, on all four sides by Israeli power and Israeli and Egyptian power.
And it's it's not exactly an independent player.
And being friendly to Hamas is not really equivalent to being able to do anything.
Well, now, what are the the stories that they've really split and backed off their support for Hamas in whatever financial terms or whatever it was over the Syrian war where Hamas has taken the side of the rebellion against Assad?
Yeah, that's been that's been appearing in the media.
And it's it's quite plausible.
I mean, if Iran is is is seeking to have allies in in the Sunni Arab world and Hamas is going the other way, then there's no reason why Iran will be supporting them.
But they're still friendly with them because they obviously the the issue of of Israel and how to deal with it is something that Hamas is very much a part of.
But you know, all this stuff is fluid.
It's like, you know, what's going on now with between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
They're they're fair weather friends right now because they're both opposed to to Syria and opposed to Iran.
And so you know, but how how firm are these relationships?
I wouldn't go too far with them.
Yeah.
And now so they have a whole section about the so called lone wolves like Orlando and San Bernardino and what all that's about.
In the State Department report?
Yeah.
No, no, because the State Department report only deals with foreign terrorism.
The US aspect of terrorism that you have to kind of dig elsewhere and look at other US government reports, but the deals with just people getting killed overseas.
Okay, now, so I guess I'd ask you, if you could, to give your description, you talk about this in the article about these entrapment cases.
I know it's something you've been interested in for a long time.
This is something that, you know, I think probably people's moms fall for this, right?
Because they don't really know, but they see the top of the hour news and they hear these stories.
And man, there are a lot of terrorist plots around here.
People trying to blow us up in our towns.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I mean, in the first place, there aren't that many.
You know, you think there are a lot of arrests for terrorism, but when it comes down to actually there are a lot of arrests.
But when it comes down for people actually to be charged and go to trial, they're only like about there were about 50 cases in the 56 cases, I think, in 2015.
And these were actual arrests.
And these were situations where the case proceeded.
But in two out of three of these cases, we discover that there was an FBI informant somewhere in the process.
So the question becomes, to what extent is the FBI informant the guy who actually makes the thing happen?
And of course, I think this is a legitimate concern that's referred to as entrapment, which is illegal.
Well, and that's the whole thing of it, is when the bulk of these things, even going back years and years, have been these entrapment cases.
If you're not familiar with kind of how that works and you're not skeptical every time there's an orange alert, but you go, oh, my God, another one, then that's a lot of them.
It's sort of like when you hear.
And by the way, audience, the only reason I pick on moms is just because they're busy.
That's all I mean is regular people living their lives.
And they hear the top of the hour news says the same thing again and again and again.
They don't really have time to know about it.
Presumably in my, you know, theoretical analogy thing here, I'm saying they don't have time to really look into it.
They don't know Phil Giraldi.
They don't know.
They just hear over and over again that, man, there's a lot of terrorists in this country.
I can see why people really would be scared.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, it's just it's a it's kind of, you know, the press needs something to report.
And terrorism is a great, you know, buzz line.
This is a terrorist we caught or we caught two of them.
They were going to deliver pizzas to Fort Dix, New Jersey, that actually had bombs located in them and things like that.
These are all good stories that people pick up on.
But the fact is that the reality of terrorism in the United States is, to my mind, more linked to screw ups by the by the authorities, police and intelligence services that they go for the low hanging fruit.
They look, they go after people that they can entice into making them look like terrorists so that they can make an arrest.
And of course, this is this is a symptom of our of our system.
All right.
So that's Phil Giraldi.
He is a former CIA officer, executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
And he writes at UNS dot com and the American conservative dot com.
Thanks very much, Phil.
Thanks, Scott.
All right, y'all.
Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at Scott Horton dot org.
Help support at Scott Horton dot org slash donate.
Follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign and you need stickers to help promote, check out the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
They digitally print with solvent ink.
So you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen print.
I'm sure glad I sold the bumper sticker dot com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
There are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me to let the bumper sticker dot com help you get the word out.
That's the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's fascism versus capitalism narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan fascism versus capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes or just click in the right margin of my Web site at Scott Horton dot org.
You hate government.
One of them libertarian types.
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers or warmongers.
Me, too.
That's why I invented Liberty stickers dot com.
Well, Rick owns it now and I didn't make up all of them.
But still, if you're driving around, I want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are.
There's only one place to go.
Liberty stickers dot com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian empire, police, state founders, quote, central banking.
Yes.
Bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
Liberty stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.