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, say it, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, so you guys introducing Hassan El-Tayyab from Just Foreign Policy.
That's JustForeignPolicy.org.
You know, Robert Naaman and the crew over there opposing all the wars, essentially.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing?
Thanks, I'm doing well.
Good deal.
Happy to have you back on the show here.
And, well, I need you to help me keep up.
There's been so much in the Congress.
I'm not used to having the Congress try to debate war powers, and yet they're debating all kinds of different things, including even passing resolutions, such as attempting to end the AUMF from 2002 against Iraq, and possibly even the 2001, you know, terror war AUMF restrictions on attacking Iran and all kinds of different things.
So I was wondering if you could sort of take us through House and Senate and NDAA resolutions and whatever else is going on here.
Restrictions on arms sales to Saudis, all this action going on in the U.S. Congress here.
Yeah, so there is a lot going on.
So just so people kind of know, we've got two separate versions of the NDAA, one passed by the Senate, one passed by the House.
The top line on the Senate is $750 billion, and the top line on the House version is $733 billion.
This is an extraordinarily large, it's the largest peacetime budget for the military in American history.
So while, you know, putting that aside, on top of these massive spending initiatives, there's also some really interesting amendments on the House side in particular.
So let's start with the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen.
So there is, I think, like three or four amendments that are attached to that bill that have already passed that I think are really interesting to watch.
One is the Khanna-Smith Amendment that would end logistical support to the Saudi-led coalition, as well as ending, you know, small commercial sales to keep the Saudi fleet in the air.
So that's in the bill.
In addition, there's the Malinowski Amendment, which would prevent us from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia for one year, which is also critical because, you know, all of the weapons that they're using in this horrible war in Yemen are coming from the, much of it is coming from the U.S., from contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing.
In addition, there's a Gabbard-Lew Amendment, which is also worth watching, and that would prevent, that would stop Trump's $8.1 billion emergency arms sale, because for about a year and eight months or so, Menendez put a pause in all weapons being sold to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights violations.
And that amendment that Lew passed, that would just say we're going right back to the start of this period of cessation of weapons sales.
So that's just Saudi-UAE.
There is also a Cona Gates-Iran Amendment, another bipartisan one, that had 251 votes in the House, and that would prevent any unconstitutional war with Iran.
So that was joined by a majority of Democrats, not a majority of Republicans, but a significant amount of Republicans from the Freedom and Liberty Caucus.
I'm trying to think.
So much has happened.
Do you want to stop there and maybe we can listen to talk about just that?
Sure.
Yeah.
So I guess, no, I should have said in the first place too, I'm sorry, and I think most people know, but NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, as you were implying there.
This is the financial authorization act for the year for the military.
And most people, they only know NDAA is, that's the law that Obama signed that says the military can haul any of us off to Guantanamo.
And it does say that back in 2012.
That's exactly right.
That's the law now.
That's the most shorthand, which is kind of funny, is people don't really realize because we don't have much of a discussion every year about the fact that they're taking, you know, upwards of a trillion dollars for the national defense establishment every year.
And this is the bill that represents the bulk of that.
You know, I think it's worth mentioning that the Pentagon asked for seven hundred and thirty three billion dollars and the Republicans are asking for seven hundred and fifty billion.
So the Democrats version has seven hundred and thirty three in it.
Republicans have at seven hundred and fifty.
And the Republicans are now, you know, many of the leadership are calling the Democrats weak on security because and actually accusing them of cutting the Pentagon budget, which I think is kind of funny when they're both, you know, asking for an increase.
So it's just kind of shows you like the distortion in this conversation about how big our budget should be.
And both sides are complicit of, you know, just continuing to feed this beast.
Yeah.
It's just an incredible amount of money.
And as and of course, it's the heart of all corruption in America, too.
The biggest honeypot in the history of the world, as William S.
Lind once put it.
Yeah, there's an amazing amount of money and corruption to go with it all.
OK, y'all, I'm doing a fun drive to raise money for an advance on my new book.
I published my last book, Fool's Errand, through the Libertarian Institute, and it worked out great.
There was no one to boss me around about it.
I was able to publish within a few days after dotting and crossing the last I's and T's.
This time, I'm going to do the same thing.
Only instead of starving and borrowing money from friends to try to get it done, I'm coming to you loyal listeners first.
I'm trying to raise twenty thousand dollars by September to help me get the book done, edited and out the door in time for Christmas and the 2020 campaign season.
You liked Fool's Errand?
Well, this is like that.
Only for all the terror wars.
I want what you want, for us to have a voice in this upcoming presidential election debate.
Hey, there's a new book out that says it doesn't have to be this way.
Finally.
Frankly, I need your help to get it done.
Simple as that.
Check out Scott Horton dot org slash donate for all the details about all the kickbacks, including signed copies of the book when it comes out.
That's Scott Horton dot org slash donate.
And thanks, y'all.
All right.
But now, so you got the Democrats in the House have got, you know, Ro Khanna and some of his guys in there that he's working with.
They have got a good group of resolutions that you've described here.
But so what happens in conference committee?
The Republicans just destroy it all.
And it amounts to an illusion at the end of the day.
Well, we're trying our best to not let that happen.
I should I should have also mentioned, as you did, is Barbara Lee has this wonderful amendment to repeal the 2002 AUMF.
That's attached to that.
So.
Okay.
And that's part of the NDAA, too.
That's all.
That's part of the House version.
And that's the 2002 go ahead and invade against Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.
It's amazing that there's any opposition to that when that authorization is effectively a dead letter at this point.
Anyway.
Yeah.
Yeah, I agree.
But those, you know, the Iran amendment, the the several amendments on Yemen and the 2002 AUMF, those are the ones that, you know, we think Democrats should just stand tough and not accept any deal that does not include that.
So we are doing our best with the grassroots, trying to do coalition letters, calls, move on, has a petition that's going around and several thousand people on it already.
I myself have met with Pelosi's staff and trying to meet with House leadership and just getting getting them to stand tough and not accept a deal that does not include, you know, ending the Yemen war, preventing war with Iran and stopping, you know, this horrible war on terror that's just, you know, just been going on for 18 plus years.
And, you know, it's great politics for Pelosi and her people for their own selfish interests.
They should look like the people who are really good on the Yemen war right now.
It matters right now and it's going to matter for the future history of the world at who was working to try to stop this thing.
And essentially, hey, the House of Representatives, I've read the Constitution, all bills of appropriation must originate in the House, belong to the House, can be killed by the House.
And so they could absolutely force the president's hand if it really came down to it.
If you want your money, you're going to have to sign our version of this thing.
And it only depends on the willingness to do it, which, hey, we're talking about the Democrats here, but hey, better than nothing.
It's all we got.
And after all, what are we talking about?
We're talking about all these resolutions have passed the House.
So I should shut up with all my cynicism here.
Right.
There's something going on.
Yeah.
You know, I think the Congress deserves a lot of credit for standing together and condemning the Saudi UAE coalition's war in Yemen that, you know, has brought 14 million people to the brink of famine.
We've got 100,000 babies under the age of five that have starved to death.
This is not you know, this is a horrible tragedy.
And I should say, you know, it's not just the Saudi UAE war in Yemen that the U.S. is backing, but we're also backing their involvement in Sudan.
And we all know what's happening, you know, with the RSF and just the brutality against the protesters there.
And we look at Libya.
So this is kind of an international syndicate that we're supporting here that's, you know, suppressing people all over the Middle East and North Africa.
So we are in we are in deep here.
And it's really, you know, promising to see Congress, you know, step up, try to condemn Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, try to condemn the UAE's role there as well.
We're you know, so that's just huge.
Now, I think, you know, they they just have to know from from their constituents that we will not accept a deal that does not include ending the war in Yemen.
That's just a bottom line.
We're trying our best to make sure that Pelosi knows that.
One thing I also wanted to mention, we kind of talked about there was another resolution.
Actually, the Senate took up 22 resolutions to block the emergency arms sales.
If we could just briefly chat about that, because that's that just happened.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Floor's yours.
Yeah, this the Senate, you know, was trying to stop, again, Trump's eight point one billion dollar of emergency arms sales.
He's saying that, you know, the threat of Iran is why we need to, you know, make sure Saudi Arabia has all these weapons, make sure the UAE has the weapons they need to fight a potential war.
But the truth is, some of these weapons wouldn't be going to Saudi Arabia for years and they already have massive stockpiles.
So to us in the advocacy community, it just seems like he just wants to sell a bunch of weapons to Saudi Arabia and doesn't really care about the consequences.
But the Senate, to their credit, they rebuked they you know, they introduced and passed all of these resolutions to block those sales.
Three of those went to the House.
Well, they've all gone to the House, but three of them came up for a vote on the House floor.
They were sent to President Trump a couple of days ago.
He vetoed them.
And the Senate is going to, you know, try to override those the vetoes again.
So, again, more pressure from Congress.
But, you know, a but we still have a president that seems to want to support Saudi Arabia and the UAE over our own constitution.
Yeah, well, such as how it is up there and has been.
And, you know, this is the thing about it, too, right.
For all the sort of kind of hyperbolic takes on foreign influence in D.C. or really, more importantly, all the hyperbolic takes on the hyperbolic takes that anyone thinks that, oh, Saudi or UAE or Israel or Turkey or England or anybody controls American foreign policy.
It's not that.
It's just that they all seem to have a lot more influence than the American people do.
And that is way out of balance here when none of these policies are what the American people prefer at all.
Name one thing, you know, the Yemeni state ever did to us, got us fighting on the side of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The only Yemenis who ever attacked us against their enemies, our same enemies.
It's crazy.
It's totally mind boggling.
And, you know, to think that we're on the side of al-Nusra in Syria, we're on the side of al-Qaeda in Yemen is just unconscionable.
But I think long term, the U.S.-Saudi alliance is going to fundamentally shift.
It might not happen in this administration.
Maybe it's, you know, but long term, something's got to give here.
And I think this, you know, the fact that Congress keeps making these votes is a sign of, you know, the long term future of the, you know, Saudi-UAE alliance with America.
And even faced with Republicans in the Senate and the president's veto powers and all these things, it seems like, well, I read at least one take and it makes sense on the face of it anyway.
I don't know if there's specific evidence of this, but it makes sense that this congressional pressure is part of the motivation for the United Arab Emirates to now withdraw from the war on the ground in Yemen.
They're still keeping some militias and stuff.
Everybody keep your eye on antiwar.com for that.
Jason Ditz is on the case, but they are withdrawing the bulk of their military force.
And I think the idea is, well, geez, if there's going to be a war with Iran, we don't want to be in it.
And not only that, but we're feeling like we're being made the pariah along with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Bonesaw and Mr. Genocide Campaign.
And who needs that kind of negative public relations?
And if they could get out now after four and a half years of this, seems like they're making the best of it.
And part of that must be that the U.S. Congress isn't happy.
And so should we just rely on bribes or we need some goodwill up there?
We need to chill this out, right?
I'm really glad you brought up what's happening with the UAE and Yemen, because a lot of people I think are saying, oh, well, they're pulling out.
That's a great sign.
Now it's just the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
But that, I think we've got to be careful not to just say that, OK, they're out.
While it's good that they've pulled forces out of Hodeidah, which is Yemen's largest port, and that's bringing about realization of the Stockholm agreement to actually get a ceasefire in this really critical port, they've got 90,000 proxies on the ground.
They've got all these people that they've trained.
They're still occupying the south of Yemen.
So I don't think we should look at this as an olive branch to the Houthis or to the indigenous people of Yemen that have been suffering so much.
To me, this is like another strategy to try to save face as the war continues.
And they're a little bit more strategic than Saudi, and they care, and they know that their reputation is being really tarnished in D.C.
So, but it's not, I wouldn't say like they're pulling out and they're not going to have influence.
They're going to still have deep influence over what happens in Yemen on the ground.
Yeah.
And as I mentioned there, Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com has been keeping close track of all the caveats here and all of what this doesn't mean and that kind of thing.
Although it does seem like overall, this really unavoidably does weaken the Saudi position there.
Absolutely.
And I don't want to take away from that.
Just before we jump for joy, I think people should know the nuances of it.
Yes, like the more isolated Saudi Arabia is and the more unpopular this war becomes, the more likely it's going to be that we get a political settlement.
Because all the resolutions in the world aren't probably going to stop the war, but they put a tremendous amount of political pressure that can help realize a political solution, which is what Yemen needs so desperately.
All right.
So now in the Senate, you do have Mike Lee and Rand Paul and maybe a couple of fence sitters here that are in play.
Basically, they're the swing votes on some of these things.
So what's their importance this season here?
Well, so I really think that, you know, we need as big a support network as we can.
Todd Young has been really great on this.
You know, Collins, Murkowski, Danes, Baran.
So we've got a really solid contingent of Republicans in the Senate that are advocating to end the wars.
But I think really, really it comes down to Pelosi and Hoyer and Schumer and Adam Smith.
I think these are the four people that are really just playing the critical role to make sure Democrats stand tough and don't let go of those important amendments I mentioned.
But hopefully we see this coalition of, you know, really great like Republicans that want to, you know, fight to end wars.
And I hope to see that coalition just continue to grow because, you know, we see we actually saw, I think, 22 Republicans in the House vote to prevent war with Iran.
So, you know, led by Matt Gaetz and Meadows and a lot of the Freedom and Liberty Caucus.
Yeah, it's interesting the way foreign policy and well, first of all, foreign policy is such a great clarifier as to who's on whose side and and who has what kind of priorities.
And but there are great ways to work with that, too.
Like, I don't know, maybe you have a lot of pressure on you to be a hawk on Iran.
But you really want to give that kind of war power to Donald J.
Trump or however it has to be phrased on a, you know, one at a time basis as you work through the 535.
How do you get these people to see this clearly that whatever whatever reasons they have to think a hawkish foreign policy is smart?
There are a lot better and closer ones and near to their interests that say otherwise.
Yeah.
You know, I don't know if you got a chance to watch the committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday on authorization of use of military force.
But it was really fascinating that one of the representatives from the administration came in and was taking questions from all the senators on that committee.
And, you know, and he said, we don't have use of, you know, the 2001 AUMF.
We're not interpreting it as authorization for use of military force yet.
Like to date.
So they kept throwing that word to date like something could change.
And it was just baffling to think that a bill passed to go after al-Qaeda in 2001 in any way could, you know, authorize military force against Iran for any reason.
It's just ridiculous, because to me, Article 1, Section 8 is absolutely clear.
Only Congress has the power to declare war.
And, you know, that's the that's the chamber that's most accountable to the people most often.
It's so upside down now where, you know, they're working so hard.
And I know you've been working so hard to get these war powers resolutions.
I guess these these resolutions invocating the War Powers Act from the 1970s to try to force Trump to stop the war that Obama was never authorized to start in the first place.
Again, this isn't the war against AQAP, which they dishonestly, you know, shoehorn in under the 2001 AUMF as it is.
This is the war for them.
This is the war that couldn't possibly be authorized under the 2001 AUMF.
And they don't even pretend that it is.
They just say, well, I don't even know if they have a legal excuse.
They're leading from behind or something and helping the Saudis to do it.
But, you know, they're sailing American boats in support of the thing all there in the Gulf of Aden and in the Red Sea enforcing that blockade with the Saudis and this kind of thing.
So the whole thing isn't authorized in the first place.
And then even when you pass a resolution, which miracle upon miracles, both House of Congress, both just a couple of months ago, passed the exact same version of this resolution invoking the War Powers Act to try to force Trump to stop.
And he just vetoed it and went on anyway.
People were talking about impeaching him for obstructing a nothing investigation into a thing that never happens, a bogus rush of garbage.
When here's a president perfectly impeachable for war crimes, for illegal, unauthorized war.
I guess the only catch is you'd have to lock up Barack Obama, too, but that's fair.
Yeah.
I mean, so there are there is some movement happening with a potential lawsuit of the executive branch and Trump.
There are kind of two tracks.
It's still early stages, but some Yemeni activists might be filing a joint lawsuit and be lead plaintiffs in that lawsuit, saying that they've suffered greatly because of this unauthorized war.
And there's also another track trying to get members of Congress to be lead plaintiffs, maybe even Pelosi.
So, you know, the plot continues.
The plot thickens.
Obviously, I could could not be in more of agreement.
You know, what worse crime and what more impeachable offense than, you know, 100,000 starving Yemeni babies.
So I think it's it's really important that we get our priorities straight here.
Yeah.
Hey, and those numbers are no joke.
I mean, that's the latest U.N. numbers come out, say 100,000 have died violently in the war.
Another hundred and thirty thousand have died of deprivation in this war.
And that is, I don't know the exact proportion, but a huge plurality or a majority of our children under five years old can read all about it.
Daniel Larrison in the American Conservative magazine has written all about this.
It's exactly what is no hyperbole at all.
Starving babies to death deliberately.
And a country that never attacked us, that never even dreamed of attacking us.
Well, I appreciate your show and all the attention you're bringing to these important issues, Scott.
And just a side note, I've been reading your your book, Fool's Errand.
It's great.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Great.
Thanks, man.
Shit.
Yeah.
Glad you like it.
Cool.
All right.
Well, I'll let you go, but we will be back in touch as things progress there.
And thank you so much for all your hard work on this stuff.
Oh, thanks so much, Scott.
Have a good one.
All right.
You, too.
All right, everybody, that is Hassan El-Tayyab, and he is at JustForeignPolicy.org.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at LibertarianInstitute.org, at ScottHorton.org, AntiWar.com, and Reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at Fool'sErrand.us.
