Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been hacked.
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.
All right, you guys, introducing Dave DeCamp.
He is the new assistant news editor at antiwar.com.
News.antiwar.com.
Although this one is at original.antiwar.com because it's an opinion piece, sort of.
MSM coverage of Senate intelligence report is misleading.
Misleading?
What?
Welcome back to the show, Dave.
What's going on?
Not much, Scott.
Thanks for having me.
And I just want to say it's it's an honor to be part of the team.
Now, as you know, have a title as assistant news editor.
Cool, man.
Yeah, you do good work.
Speaking of which, misleading Senate report, misleading headlines based off of misleading Senate report.
You don't say.
Yeah, I mean, and misleading is kind of putting it lightly.
So this is about the Russians, right?
It's about the Russians.
Yes.
The Russians.
OK.
Yeah.
What have they done to us now or what have they done?
So the day after Robert Mueller's testimony, the Senate Intelligence Committee released the first of five reports.
So there's going to be four more of these.
So this is the first one.
And it's on.
And it makes the claim that the Russian government directed extensive activity against U.S. election infrastructure.
And but then the report in the findings section and in the top of the report, it says that the committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.
So basically what happened, I'm not an expert on cybersecurity and stuff.
So what I focus on in the piece is just the the terrible reporting on this report from the mainstream media.
But what basically happened was somebody who the Department of Homeland Security identified as the Russian government, which we'll get into how they did that in a second.
But basically came on the servers, didn't hack anything, just kind of observed what was going on.
I think there was one case that they tried to get in and hack, but it turned out they identified that as just criminal activity and it wasn't identified as Russian.
So, yeah, so that's what happened.
And like the report says, no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.
And it's interesting, I guess, you know, people just assume, I suppose, that they're not going to come out and say this stuff unless they really have kind of something.
But it really is turtles all the way down, just like always, a fancy bear, something, some kind of hacking activity seems similar to a previous activity that was also attributed to the Russians based on its similarity to another hacking event that had purportedly been attributed to the Russians.
And then that's it.
Yeah, and that's it.
When they make the claim that it was Russian in the report, they say that Department of Homeland Security arrived at their assessment by evaluating the tactics, techniques, and procedures that they were consistent with previously observed Russian hackers or whatever.
And yeah, and that's really it.
And then another thing, they say the IP address is associated with one of them.
Well, this is the words that they used.
The IP address associated with the activity made it maybe attributable to the Russian government and says that it provides some indication that it might be that.
And then, like you say, there's no indication that anybody tried to do anything with this information, whether they were Russians or maybe China men or some other dangerous kind of foreign alien.
How about Iranians?
All they did was scan.
Oh, I know they must have bought some Facebook ads to manipulate people into voting for Bernie Sanders after the election was over, something like that.
Yeah, yeah.
But I mean, that's like the point you made.
You know, I saw this story, I was like going to sleep.
And I got like a news alert on my phone.
And I saw the Vox story says new Senate intelligence report shows extensive Russian 2016 election interference.
And then I actually I think I emailed it to you and Eric when I first saw it.
And even in my head, somebody that's a skeptic of all this Russian stuff, I was like, oh, maybe they actually have something.
But then upon reading the story, it's nothing like it does nothing there.
Yeah, same like all of them.
Yeah.
But never forget, when it comes to foreign enemies of the United States, 100 times zero is 100,000.
Yeah, exactly.
So they don't have to actually amount to anything themselves.
They still get to all add up to a giant plot to destabilize our democracy, Dave.
Exactly.
They're destabilizing it.
So another claim made in the report and repeated by.
So I found two stories that had this as a headline.
The New York Times headlined their story that Russia targeted election systems in all 50 states.
And then, you know, the Young Turks.
Yeah.
They've gotten horrible, but their title of their video is Russia hacks all 50 states.
Yeah, sure.
Why not?
Yeah.
So in the report, there's like a chart and it has 21 states.
The only one that's named is Illinois.
And it's 21 states that like the varying degrees of scanning or whatever you want to call it.
And so because the Department of Homeland Security or the Intelligence Committee couldn't ascertain a pattern to the states targeted, it lends credence to the Department of Homeland Security's assessment that all 50 states probably were scanned.
That's where they're getting that 50 states from.
They're getting the 50 states, wait, from where again?
In the report.
From nowhere?
Exactly.
Yeah.
And that's how they headline the story.
It's just it's so irresponsible.
Go ahead and say that again, though.
They have what they think is some evidence of some scanning of some states.
And then how do they leap from there to it must have been all of them too?
This I'm reading from the report.
This is how they determined it.
They like it's something that they assumed.
And then neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the committee can ascertain a pattern to the states targeted, lending credence to the DHS's later assessment that all 50 states were probably, probably were scanned.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
And it's kind of like that, this attitude that Mueller, whatever you call him, has.
And Jerry Nadler asked him that question, like, is there anything in your report that proves Trump is not guilty of obstruction?
And he says, no.
And that's like the Democrats smoking gun.
But that's not a prosecutor's job is not to prove innocence.
Yeah.
Right.
That's so funny.
Yeah.
The idea, especially when you're talking about government employees and the president, after all, is the ultimate government employee.
He is presumed innocent.
In fact, even if he shoots a guy, all he has to do is say waistband and he can go home to his paid vacation.
No problem.
Lifetime pension.
No taxes.
So yeah.
Presumption of innocence.
You know, in other words, he has a license to kill anyone he feels like to get away with any crime.
The president does it.
That means it's not illegal.
As Richard Nixon instructed us and proved by getting pardoned and going home.
Yeah.
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.
And now is there a story to the narrative here where they do they conclude that they must have used this information that they scan to what?
Hack some credit cards or buy some Facebook ads to target our manipulatable brains?
Or what was the scam?
Do they say?
They say that they don't know.
They don't know what the motivation was.
That's really it.
And then they get into like based on that, we can ascertain that it was probably all hundred and ninety two nations in the world that got hacked.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Since we can't figure out the pattern of what it was they were doing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So you could really.
I mean, with the evidence that they present, I mean, the report is very heavily redacted.
So unless these journalists got the redacted report, which I doubt that they did, they didn't say that they did, then maybe we're missing something.
But I don't understand, like, would they want to protect the identity of Russian intelligence hackers or something, you know, like it?
Yeah, it almost it almost seems like they it's that redacted just to, like.
Leave all these possibilities open, but I don't know.
Yeah, they redacted this page intentionally left blank just to make it look like there was some substance under there, possibly.
Yeah.
And then the end, like the minority views, like it kind of just shows the attitude in Washington and that a lot of people have now about Russia.
It's Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.
I don't know if you know anything about him.
This is the first I heard him.
But he his minority, his problem with the report is that the is that part of the like conclusion, the Homeland Security conclusion was that they should the federal government should respect privacy of states of the state's elections and not get too involved.
So Wyden found that unacceptable.
The way this is the way he he put it, he said, we would not ask a local sheriff to go to war against the missiles, planes and tanks of the Russian army.
We shouldn't ask a county election IT employee to fight a war against the full capabilities and vast resources of Russia's cyber army.
So to him, this is, you know, we were attacked by our democracy and our country was attacked by Russia in 2016.
Yeah.
I don't know if you saw it during the Mueller testimony the other day where that one representative said this was a Russian invasion of America, not just an attack, but an invasion of our country.
And right in the middle of Mueller falling flat on his face in front of this whole thing.
The last sad trombone of the entire ridiculous fake scandal here.
And at the same time, nope, it's an invasion.
And this comes out the next day and says, Yeah, well, you know what?
Forget Mueller and his poor performance.
Apparently, there really was a concerted Russian effort to destroy us here.
Yeah.
Anyway, and then so you mentioned the Young Turks, but I guess this was the big headline on ABC, NBC, CBS and whatever, too, huh?
Yeah, yeah, I had the NBC headline.
The NBC headline was Senate Intelligence Report finds extensive Russian election interference.
That was like the most headlines was like that.
And then I just noticed the New York Times and the Young Turks put the 50 states in their title.
And a lot of the headlines like in the subheading, it said something about the 50 states.
Because that's a scary thing to say, you know?
Yeah, well, it just goes to show how extensive the Russian hacking must have been if they bothered messing with Montana and Wisconsin.
Yeah.
I guess Wisconsin's a big important one.
I meant to pick a couple of unimportant ones.
Sorry.
No offense, Wyoming.
You don't have very many electoral votes.
That's all.
Yeah, no, that's interesting, right?
That, you know, Ron Wyden, who actually, you know, he's been less worse than the rest, I guess, when it comes to Fourth Amendment stuff, Edward Snowden type problems and this kind of thing.
But his attitude here is, oh, man, we got to get the national government to safeguard every little local election now or else we're asking our poor local authorities to stand up against a foreign invasion force, essentially, a foreign military state and its threat.
And so I wonder what all changes that portends when it comes to the central government taking more control over local elections and how they're done.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm not sure what that would like, what that would involve.
Just one big Diebold contract and more hackable elections for everybody, probably.
They'll make like a TSA for the voting for the polls.
We have to get tied down and take your shoes off to go cast your vote.
You're paying extra $85 to go through the precheck line.
Yeah, yeah.
And then the point I make at the end is just how dangerous this is, like that, how they're going to keep using this Russia stuff.
And like any politician that the establishment doesn't like, they're going to be able to delegitimize them by just saying that they're like, I use the example of Tulsi Gabbard.
NBC ran a story right after she announced, this is almost right after she announced her candidacy for president.
And I think it was titled like the Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting Tulsi Gabbard.
And the way that they came to this conclusion was that she was getting a lot of coverage on RT and like Sputnik.
And RT is known to have kind of an alternative view than the mainstream, than the more mainstream outlets in America.
But there are American journalists on the RT America.
And RT stands for Russia Today.
It's not a secret that it's a Russian funded network.
It's not like it's some conspiracy that they're running, you know, that they're covering Tulsi Gabbard.
Sure.
And the fact that, you know, they have an agenda that's against what the American government is doing in the world doesn't delegitimize that position when held by any American or anyone else in the world for that matter.
Some poor Iraqi is screaming, please stop bombing me.
Now it's treason day for you to oppose bombing him because now you're taking his side.
How do you like that?
Yeah, that's exactly how they're setting this all up.
Completely.
And very persuasive, by the way, if, you know, the Twitter retweets are any judge of it.
You know, the transitive property of, hey, she went to Syria and Assad knows Putin and so therefore she's a Putin bot or whatever kind of thing.
That's easy to convince people of.
They love it.
Oh, yeah.
No, that that like Assad apologist, that phrase is really like caught on.
Yeah.
People don't even know what like what they're saying when they say that.
Well, just think of how much more boring the election would be if the Russians didn't have a secret agent running to try to take over the Democratic Party.
Yes.
You know, it's just like right wingers getting their thrill off of the threat of Barack Obama's Kenyan terrorist usurpation of John McCain's throne back in 08, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
Not I think it was last week after this report came out, The Washington Post had a story that Mitch McConnell is a Russian Russian asset because he was like blocking some legislation.
And why not?
I don't know.
But yeah, you know, and Mitch McConnell's a really bad person in a lot of ways, but I wonder at some point, are people not going to notice that this is stupid?
This is stupid.
Yeah.
What are you talking about anymore?
Did you hear that there's a Russian guy with a lot of capital who wants to invest some in Kentucky?
Therefore, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell both are now the bought and paid for agents of the Russian state.
Everyone knows that.
It's as simple as that.
The majority leader of the Senate.
Yeah, him.
Yeah, that's all I have to do now is find some connection with Russia.
And it scares people.
And I mean, even like people like reasonable people that I know that I work with.
You hear about that?
There's like that face app thing that made people look older or something.
And apparently it's a Russian company.
Oh, no.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I've seen stories online like, what are the Russians want with our faces?
And I heard guys, reasonable people like, you know, wondering that, like talking about that.
I'm just like, really?
Like, you guys are really worried about the Russians?
And they have them voted for Trump.
Like, they're not like resistance people.
Isn't it funny if all of this was just a trading places $1 bet to just see how stupid we can make the Democrats?
Yeah.
And what we can get them to believe?
It sure seems like it.
And they're never coming back from this.
How are they ever going to climb down from this?
You know?
Oh, that whole thing where I wasted 10 years of my life being afraid of Russia.
You know, I'm as dumb as my dad was about Iraq.
They're not.
Just like he never did.
You know, they're stupid dads.
My dad was good on Iraq.
Thank you very much.
Well, I remember when all this Russiagate stuff was falling, started to fall apart.
And a lot of people were saying that Russiagate is just generations like WMDs.
And at first, I kind of disagreed with that framing because the WMDs was so much more harmful, I thought.
But I get like how Robert Mueller, they're just, and these journalists, they just repeat these, like, assumptions by our intelligence community.
And they just repeat it without questioning it, like one bit.
And that's really, really dangerous, especially now when you could paint anybody, somebody that's anti-war, and not that there's any, like, fully anti-war candidates out there right now, but somebody like Tulsi, who's against certain regime change wars, and just scream Putin puppet and Assad apologist.
So it is really dangerous.
And it's just so irresponsible.
And people should be shamed out of their jobs.
It's sickening, man.
That's a scary thought, man.
It is.
It's just, hey, our CIA is trying to protect us from our president.
Yeah, I guess that must be right.
And that's what TV says.
And then they can convince hundreds of millions of people to go along with that.
Like you're saying, we're even now they're afraid of their little Facebook app or their iPhone app, you know?
Yeah.
It's another world.
It is.
It's just like, you know, that time that Osama bin Laden sent his Kenyan secret agent Obama to take over the Democratic Party and usurp the presidency, which hundreds of millions of Americans, or I don't know, tens at least, believed in that.
You know, that was actually how Donald Trump really got his foot in the door with the Republican base.
He was one of the primary proponents of that back years ago.
So in fact, if anybody deserves this, it's him.
But it just sucks that it's at the expense of all of us and at the expense of America's relationship with Russia.
Yeah, yeah, it's a real shame.
Because like you think what's more influential is, I mean, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what's more influential, like some Facebook ads or every respected, I mean, maybe not so much respected anymore, but like media outlet, mainstream media outlet, just repeating that these baseless claims from the, you know, Homeland Security and FBI.
And the entire Democratic Party too.
Yeah.
And for everybody gets it right on these notifications right on their phone, they see the headline.
You can't blame people.
Like, I mean, you really can't blame somebody that just goes about their life.
They're working and they just look at their phone for news.
You can't really blame them for buying all this because it's just shoved down their throats.
Yeah.
Well, and then at the same time, though, at some point there will be the backlash where people say, man, I guess I just really can't trust these people at all.
I don't know who to believe.
I knew Fox was lying to me.
I guess the rest of them are now too.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Well, I mean- Which is true, right?
But then that's their claim is that, oh, boo hoo, this is undermining democracy.
But they're the ones undermining it all by completely undermining the American people's faith in the system such as it is.
Exactly.
So that's the silver lining in it to a degree, although it's the hard way around, that's for sure.
Yeah.
I mean, that's one thing that Trump was good for.
Well, I guess it's really just his base that it worked on, but all the fake news and he coined that phrase, right?
You know what?
I'm not sure exactly who coined it first.
And the failing New York Times.
I like that one.
Yeah.
You know, when fake news was first coined, it really did apply to like the EU Times and the National Report and a couple of these that were just, they were just pretend.
It was like, you know, they essentially the joke was, it wasn't so much like the onion.
It was more like ate the onion.
Like the joke was if they can get you to repeat it, they can get you to believe that it was a real news story.
But they were all hoaxes.
Like every story was a hoax and it was just kind of a joke.
Usually not that funny, but that was the joke.
But then, you know, it got, I think it was used by, you know, the centrists against, you know, free media first, maybe not even really fake hoax media, but just alternative media.
And then where they were trying to conflate, you know, the EU Times type, you know, hoax stories with just stuff that was coming from outside of what they deemed acceptable.
And so then it was really the power, you know, Adam Johnson at Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting has really written about this, how they started using it so over broadly and irresponsibly that then they were just handing that cudgel right to Trump to use right against them.
You know, you think you can go ahead and use that term to delegitimize anybody.
Wait till the president of the United States is using this in New York Times and the Washington Post and just saying you can't believe a thing that they say, which is, of course, accurate because they're liars.
And in fact, especially in this era, they have just been nothing but mouthpieces for the CIA and the FBI, who on the case of Russiagate were lying the entire time about everything, pretending that there was anything here at all.
And so, yeah, you know, he's right when he says that the press is the enemy of the American people.
He's wrong when he thinks it's the enemy of the state.
You know, it's the handmaiden of the state.
It's just he's the enemy of the state.
That's the problem.
He's Saddam this time around.
He doesn't get that yet.
But no question that, I mean, well, I don't know who's going to do the Bernstein report on Mockingbird this time around, but just look at the CIA influence in the Washington Post over the last three years alone.
It's almost its own open and shut case for all the Russiagate leaks in there and all the false ones.
Yeah.
But anyways, yeah.
So destabilizing.
You know, Hillary Clinton said during the campaign when Trump said, ah, the election's rigged, they're going to try to rip it off and steal it from me.
And she says, that's so dangerous to say.
You never question the integrity of an American election and throw that into doubt and question the democracy and the democratic thing.
And then the moment she loses.
And this is, you know, been reported by very mainstream journalists in the book Shattered.
Hillbrun and no, not Jacob Hillbrun.
It's something like that.
Anyway, I forgot the guy's name.
But Matt Taibbi's written about this and Aaron Maté has written about this, where the day after the election, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff all had a big meeting and they were decided, one, that they were going to claim unfair and they were going to try to continue to fight.
And even though Obama had made her call Trump to concede that they were not really going to give it up and that the number one focus of their narrative was decided by them in committee, not based on facts, but based on what's the best thing to try to do for Hillary here was based.
And then they came up with centering the entire argument on the Russians stole it.
And that was what it was all about.
And, you know, they worked with Trump on it and whatever.
And then they just pushed it.
And you know, it sounds so crazy.
I like talking about this stuff.
I don't care.
It sounds so crazy that I always think people are going to think I'm crazy when I bring it up because it's just completely ridiculous.
But you can read all about it in the New York Times where they were talking about trying to get Mike Morrell, the acting director of the CIA, to brief the Electoral College so that they would throw it and they would not give it to Trump, that they would either give it to her or at least they would deadlock and throw it to the House of Representatives where they could elect.
That's what the Constitution says happens if there's a deadlock in the Electoral College.
And then the House of Representatives could elect Colin Powell or Paul Ryan.
And that was the Hillary Clinton plan.
And I think she had the agreement of some Republican establishment areas that this is what we're going to try to do.
They at least had feelers out for Powell by the time they leaked his name like that.
The whole thing is completely nuts.
And just again goes to show Hillary Clinton's disconnect that she thought that that would even work, that the electors who come straight from the state parties from around the country would have gone for that.
There's no way.
But anyway, and that's where this whole thing is.
Yeah, you like you saying that you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
But like you said, it's, you know, yes, right there in The New York Times.
And they have official statements from Hillary Clinton's campaign staff still on the job saying, yes, we want to pursue this.
Yeah, this is what we're trying to do.
And then this is the point that every, I mean, a lot of these guys make that have been good on this stuff, you know, like Aaron Maté.
This is, this is all just going to hand Trump to 2020 election.
Like, he doesn't have any, for the past three years now, they've been just trying to find a way to impeach him.
And now there's no real opposition to him and the Democratic Party that people want to rally behind.
Yep.
I think that's right.
Yeah, I don't know who they've got that can stop him.
And because of this, and think of how weak that he is.
But they could have spent this whole time attacking him for the war in, say, Yemen.
That's the most illegal one.
And probably the most immoral one going on right now.
They could be attacking him for all of the things.
And it said they attack him essentially for being an enemy of the central government, which I'm not saying I buy that.
But wow, what a great campaign slogan.
Like Trump, he's an enemy of the central state and wants to get rid of him.
Yeah, it's kind of perfect for his whole campaign for everybody saying he was fighting the deep state and stuff.
And now they could use this as proof of that, you know, even though he's...
It's really true.
I mean, they're fighting him, not that he's really fighting them, but...
Yeah.
Yeah, no, that is true.
But I mean, he's also, you know, he's given the CIA more freedom when it comes to bombing and droning and the military budget.
And what did he just approve the debt ceiling to be suspended for two years and all this stuff with Iran.
I mean, he's just doing all, you know.
True enough.
Yeah.
And he'll get away with all of it.
And hardly any of his opponents, you know, are in a good position to attack him for it either.
Very few.
Yeah.
Anyway, you know what?
I'm gonna ask you about Tulsi Gabbard.
What do you think about Tulsi Gabbard?
I just wrote a thing about how I think she could do better.
But I also think that she's the strongest candidate on that side by far.
Yeah.
I mean, so do I. I wrote that piece maybe like two months back.
You helped me edit.
I think we kind of share the same view.
Like, she's definitely the best in the pack.
But she doubles down.
So she had that saying.
She said, when it comes to regime change wars, I'm a dove.
When it comes to the war on terror, I'm a hawk.
And she doubles down on that anytime she's asked about it.
When I saw her at the town hall in New York City, somebody asked her about that.
And she says, like, we face threats from al-Qaeda and ISIS and al-Shabaab and we can't bury our head in the sand.
And then she kind of just went on to talk about the work that she's done to oppose the war in Yemen.
And she actually said, which I know you'll disagree with, she said the war in Yemen has nothing to do with the war on terror.
Right.
Yeah.
That's what my new article's about is how, yeah, it is, too.
It's the result of it.
Yeah.
Yeah, I was hoping to ask her a question, but there was like a lot more people showed up, which I mean, it's good to see all these people show up for a candidate that, you know, is putting foreign policy first and she, you know, makes the debates about it.
She uses her time, even if they ask her a question about something else, to talk about the wars and stuff.
I mean, that's great.
But, I mean, if she gets an office and she takes all of our troops out of the Middle East, great.
But if she keeps bombing Syria and, you know, Iraq and Libya and Yemen, wherever all these terror cells are, then that's just going to open up for the next guy, the next president or whatever, to just keep those wars going and send troops back there.
She's not like an anti- I wouldn't call her the anti-war candidate.
Yeah, no, she's really not.
And the thing is, I understand she's got the same problem as Rand Paul, where it makes sense to not be too good on this stuff because you're going to make everybody mad.
But the thing is, she's got a right flank covered.
She can be as anti-war as she wants.
And also, the pro-war stance is completely stupid, too.
So it's not like she has to really, you know what I mean, oppose America's interests.
This is how best to protect them, is to call this whole thing off, obviously.
It's crazy.
Yeah.
Anyway, I think, you know what, I think it's going to remain her major weakness, and I think it's going to be her downfall.
Just like Rand Paul, you know, I remember Rand Paul, there was a picture of him on Twitter going around in 2016, where he's standing on a couple of pallets stacked up in this factory, and he's giving a talk to six people.
And they're standing around looking at him, and who knows what he's talking about.
He's going to take a chainsaw to the tax code or some garbage, and nobody cares.
And it's like, where's the revolution, man?
I sat in crowds of thousands of people turned out to see Ron, and he wasn't even the nominee.
That was just in the primaries.
And when the whole thing was rigged against him, and everybody didn't care, they wanted to see him speak anyway.
And Rand was trying to split the difference, and be not too good, in order that he could appease somebody, but who was appeased?
What good did it do him at all?
You know?
Yeah.
That's the model, and she's following it, you know?
Yeah.
But the thing, I don't think she knows.
I'm not sure.
In the piece I wrote, I focused on that interview with Glenn Greenwald, and I think she buys the war on terror propaganda.
Yeah.
Because when he asked her about it, she called Salafi Wahhabism the twisted ideology that fuels it.
And then Greenwald asked, do you think it's the ideology, or U.S. intervention in the region?
And she said, without hesitation, it's the ideology.
Yeah.
And she said, well, and regime change wars, you know, have something to do with it, too.
But she didn't mention any of the pre-9-11 stuff.
Yeah.
Well, that's as good as it gets.
It's just like that old George Carlin routine.
Hey, where do you think we get these people from?
They're Americans.
They're the best we can do, folks.
This is who we are.
They come out of our churches, and our schools, and our neighborhoods, our TV studios, and this is what we got.
A bunch of Kennedys and Gabbards.
So, another thing with Gabbard, that BDS vote, was that last week?
Yeah.
Yeah, the BDS, man.
So, a lot of her supporters trying to explain it away.
So, from what I understand, the resolution, it was symbolic.
It didn't really mean anything.
And they threw a bunch of phrasing in there, like saying that BDS works against the U.S. policy of pushing for a two-state solution, and for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state.
That was the language.
And her justifying it, she said she was protecting free speech, which I don't understand how that works there.
What do you think about that?
Yeah, well, it's just double talk.
Like Rand trying to justify voting against the Iran deal with lying about the Ayatollah, and whatever.
Just call it the opposite of what it is.
How can you condemn people promoting boycott in the name of free speech?
Yeah.
And even if you think that, no, listen, it's got to be a two-state solution, not a one-state solution, and this is contrary to that.
Well, that's completely beside the point.
The question was whether they got the right to or not, wasn't it?
Or what was it?
It was just a resolution with a sense of the Senate that they don't approve, or what?
Pretty much, yeah.
It was just that they don't approve, and it used the language that they want to work for a two-state solution.
They used it as like it's not helpful to that goal to give Palestinians a sovereign state.
Yeah.
And this could effectively squash that, because over 300 reps voted in favor of this anti-BDS resolution, so they can easily say, oh, why do we need to vote on Omar's bill when clearly it's not going to pass?
It has been a long time since she was hanging out with John Hagee and the Cornerstone Church guys, so I don't know, man.
She must be thinking of the politics of the whole thing, and just how good can any politician be on Palestine before you get yourself in so much trouble it's not worth it anymore?
That's the way she's got to look at it.
Yeah.
I mean, it's true.
Which is, again, so unfortunate that she's making that kind of calculation.
You know what?
Go ahead and go for it.
Well, like you say, I think.
She's not being dishonest.
Maybe she's not Rand Paul in the sense of kind of pandering.
Maybe she really just is that wishy-washy on everything.
Yeah.
Like I said, I think she still holds on to some of that 9-11, I don't want to call it propaganda, but you know what I mean.
She's a soldier.
She's still in the National Guard.
She's a patriot, you know?
Yeah.
So is Danny Sherson.
True, yeah.
Very true.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'm paging through her feed here.
I'm trying to find that one where it really was the most disappointing one of these where she says, look, there's al-Qaeda guys in Syria.
There's al-Qaeda guys in Yemen.
There's al-Qaeda guys in al-Shabaab, which now you're getting colder in Somalia.
Yeah.
Like these guys, come on, they're not really al-Qaeda guys.
But anyway, there's al-Qaeda guys in Syria, al-Qaeda guys in Yemen, al-Qaeda guys in Somalia.
There are hundreds of these groups all around the whole region, and it's because they're Wahhabis.
Like, what are you saying?
Any Wahhabi with a rifle is from now on the enemy?
Is that?
That's pretty broad.
And by the way, a lot of these guys aren't even that anyway.
So what do you do with them?
That was, to me, that's like, you know, George W. Bush level stupid and obvious.
Like, why try to do it like that?
Why not just say as many as a dozen different groups like this?
I don't know.
If you want to count any insurgent faction in North Africa or something, you know, I don't know.
If you want to define it really broadly, there could be as many as a dozen of these groups somewhere.
Nowhere near here, but still.
Hundreds, she says.
I mean, that's like Donald Trump just making up a new number.
You know what?
I like the bigger number.
You know what?
He always says the war in Afghanistan has been going on for a year longer than it has.
Iran killed 2,000 Americans in Iraq War II.
All right.
Well, thanks, Dave.
I sure appreciate it.
Yeah, Scott.
Thanks for having me.
All right, you guys.
Check out this great article that Dave wrote at original.antiwar.com.
MSM coverage of Senate intelligence report is misleading.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
