07/29/16 – James Carden – The Scott Horton Show

Superior blends of premium coffee.
Roasted fresh in Zionsville, Indiana.
Darren's Coffee satisfies the casual and the connoisseur.
Scott Horton Show listeners, visit www.darrenscoffee.com and use the coupon code SCOTT at checkout for free shipping.www.darrenscoffee.com Because everyone deserves to drink great coffee.
Alright y'all, Scott Horton Show, I'm him.
Check out the website at www.scotthorton.org.
I got more than 4,000 interviews for you in the archives there going back to 2003.
And sign up for the podcast feed there as well, www.scotthorton.org.
You can follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Introducing James W. Carden.
He writes for The Nation and for ConsortiumNews.com.
And he helps with the committee, he's a part of the committee for East-West Accord.
For being realistic about and getting along with Russia.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, James?
I'm alright.
How are you?
Good, good.
Appreciate you joining us today.
Really appreciate this piece that you did for Consortium last.
We're running it, I think today on www.antiwar.com or maybe it was yesterday.
The Fear of Hillary's Foreign Policy.
And I guess, you know, whatever, disclaimer thing at the beginning here.
Carden, are you a Trump supporter?
No, I don't support either candidate.
I'll probably go for Johnson or the Greens.
I'm going third party.
I live in D.C. also, so my vote actually doesn't count.
But I tell you, if I lived in a swing state, I really don't know what I'd do.
But it kind of takes the pressure off living in Washington.
Yeah, there you go.
Good deal.
Okay, so everybody, you get that?
He's not a Trump partisan.
He's just saying, which I only emphasize that not for virtue signaling, as the crybabies call it.
But, you know, because the crybabies, the partisans, they want to cry you're on the side of the other if you criticize theirs.
And so I'm just trying to make clear from the get-go here that it's not so binary a choice.
And to oppose Hillary is not to endorse Trump.
Everyone get real.
Yeah, I mean, I'm also, you know, I'm not much of a lefty.
I'm really just a realist foreign policy commentator.
And I very seriously doubt I'd ever be invited to write about domestic things for the magazine that I write for.
So I kind of have my politics are somewhat ecumenical.
There you go.
All right, good deal.
So we surely don't need any more disclaimer than that.
Let's talk about how horrible Hillary Clinton is.
And not just that, but all of the horrible people around her.
Can you think of any bad decisions that she's made or anything, James?
Well, where to begin?
Well, you mean besides marrying Bill?
You know, in terms of her tenure as Secretary of State is rife with problems, right?
If you're looking to vote for someone who's an anti-interventionist, anti-militarist, she is not your candidate.
She was the nation's chief diplomat.
And during that time, she joined forces with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and forced Obama's hand in sending more troops to Afghanistan.
This was the ill-fated Afghan surge in 2009.
She was one of the prime movers of the Libyan debacle in 2011.
What we're hearing now is that she repeatedly tried to undermine the reset policy with Russia, a policy which she was supposedly in charge of.
And she repeatedly wanted the United States to get more involved in the Syrian civil war.
And in the years following her tenure, she's been extremely outspoken in wanting to establish a no-fly zone over Syria and to arm Ukraine.
So this is probably the most hawkish candidate that we've seen, oh gosh, I don't know, certainly in my lifetime.
Yeah, I mean, George W. Bush, we all knew he was going to attack Iraq, but at least he pretended he wasn't, right?
No nation building, we don't want to build up resentment against us for being the policemen of the world and all this kind of thing.
But she doesn't even pretend, not for a minute.
No, I mean, Bush made all the right noises in 2000, but of course 9-11 came along and that basically was, you know, a gift from the gods for the militarists.
And so Bush, even if he believed the things that he was saying in 2000, I really, I don't know.
I suppose I don't think he was lying in 2000, but everyone got caught up in the war fever.
James, you're a really nice guy.
Do you know that?
That's a first, but okay, thank you.
I mean, you're being so generous to George W. here when his first cabinet meeting was how to start a war with Iraq, when we all knew he was going to start a war with Iraq from 1999 on around here in Austin, Texas.
Yeah, I know, to avenge Papi.
Or at least, yeah, for appearances sake, you couldn't risk him losing re-election and being another one-term Bush president with Saddam still in power.
There's just no way that they were going to let that happen.
Yeah, you're probably right.
I mean, since we were talking about the Clintons at the start, we should remind listeners, though probably your listeners know this already, but it was Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998, setting the quasi-legal groundwork for Bush's invasion.
And the language of that so-called law was lifted almost directly from the William Crystal Project, Project for a New American Century, which really got the ball rolling.
Yeah, and which Ron Paul, who had just come back to Congress in 1997 at that time, he opposed it and said, this is a virtual declaration of war.
This means that if not in this administration, in the next one we are invading Iraq.
Get real.
Don't pretend that that's not what this is.
You know that's what this is.
That's a big part of why I'm so good on all this stuff.
He caught my attention in 1997 by saying, hey, look, everybody, it was in the British press today, and here's the documents that show that George H.W. Bush was selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, even during Operation Desert Shield, right before the start of the war.
Can you believe it?
And then at the bottom of the C-SPAN screen it said, R. Texas.
And I was like, whoa, wait a minute.
This is George H.W. Bush of this, who's a Republican from Texas.
And he was just like a hawk, but the different kind of hawk, just the eagle eye thing to mix up and ruin all my metaphors.
He was watching very closely what was going on in the evolution of America's Iraq policy and was warning very specifically and very learnedly against it back then.
So I had a real, just kind of advantage over other people, I guess.
It was like I just had this kind of secret tutor that no one else was paying attention to, who was really informing all of my view of what was going on there, even back to the 90s.
I mean, I had a similar moment.
Unfortunately, I was a little bit slower on the uptake than you, but I really, the scale sort of fell from my eyes.
And I have to admit that I didn't really follow this stuff all that closely when I was younger.
But when I heard and then read George W. Bush's second inaugural, I thought, oh dear, they've been lying to us the whole time.
Because the second inaugural dressed up the Iraq invasion in this sort of Wilsonian language.
So now it's not about WMDs and protecting the homeland and all this stuff, or the false links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.
It's about spreading democracy.
All of a sudden, when I saw that the rationale had changed, I had to really begin to rethink everything I thought I knew.
Yeah.
Well, it's got to happen to everybody at some point.
I just talked with a guy, and Tom Woods really got the better interview of him.
But, oh man, and now his name is escaping my mind.
But he helped Bruce Jackson run the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, helping lie us into war.
Jim Hale, that was his name, Jim Hale.
Yeah, yeah.
And he only had his come-to-Jesus moment when Ted Cruz finally lost.
And then he realized he was relieved.
And he went, wait, why am I relieved that Ted Cruz lost?
Isn't he the Christian conservative that I identify with?
And then he realized what it was.
It was the carpet bombing.
Jesus doesn't approve of carpet bombing?
Wait a minute, who do I like more, conservatism or Christianity?
Or what do I like more?
And he decided it was his religion was the trump card.
Not politics.
And finally snapped out of it just this spring.
And is now, you know, as anti-war as you and me.
Yeah, I mean, carpet bombing is not in the Beatitudes.
Yeah.
Well, you've got to read between the lines, you know?
All right.
So, now let's talk a little bit more about Russia.
Because someone, in fact, just tweeted to me something about Hillary in Russia and the coup in Ukraine.
And I had to say, well, you know, that's mostly right.
But really, it was John Kerry who overthrew the government in Kiev in 2014.
She was gone by then.
But so, Phyllis, and of course, I did say and I mentioned that Nuland was her protege after being Dick Cheney's protege.
She moved on to be, that is, Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland, worked for Hillary and then kept her job as John Kerry came in in the State Department there.
But so, can you fill us in a little bit about the reset?
I know the Libya war really helped screw that up.
The bait-and-switch on the UN Security Council resolution from no-fly zone to regime change really angered Putin and the Russians.
And then, of course, her Syria policy that she did promote starting in 2011 certainly has a lot to, or even before, has a lot to do with it as well.
But I know I'm missing big pieces of sort of the run-up to the regime change in Ukraine and Hillary's role in NATO-slash-Russian relations in the first Obama term here, James.
Yeah, so let's go to the pre-Ukraine years and the reset and discuss maybe why the reset didn't work.
And you're exactly right.
The first sort of problem that the reset encountered was the Libya policy, right?
The Russians went along with the no-fly zone and NATO got its UN mandate.
But they felt lied to because the no-fly zone wasn't meant to facilitate regime change in Libya.
And once that occurred, Putin in particular felt betrayed.
And this was in the months leading up to his decision to come back for a third presidential term.
Once he decided to come back for a third presidential term, protests erupted.
And he felt that the United States and the United States instruments of what we call soft power were provoking these sort of large-scale protests against his coming back.
So he was obviously very offended by that.
And so this began a sort of tit-for-tat dynamic within the relationship.
And so in September, you saw in September 2012, he threw out USAID from the country.
You had President Obama appoint a regime change enthusiast as ambassador to Russia, an academic by the name of Michael McFaul.
You had the Magnitsky Act, which was passed by Congress to sanction people who were allegedly involved in the murder of a Russian lawyer under suspicious circumstances.
The Russians responded with the adoption ban.
And so by the end of 2011, the reset, well, by the end of, by the middle of 2012, excuse me, by the middle of 2012, the reset was ruined.
And this had to do a lot with Putin's, I think, largely correct perception that American soft power as exercised and carried out in Russia and in the peripheral states around Russia, particularly Ukraine, Georgia, you know, these are not necessarily benign, that they are, the real aim is to drum up opposition to his regime.
And so that was sort of the background leading up to the Maidan.
It's true that Hillary Clinton wasn't Secretary of State when all of that went down, but the groundwork for all that had been laid in the years before.
And of course, she's been an enthusiastic proponent of arming the Ukrainians ever since.
And now, so this sounds crazy to me.
And I know it's a thing, but I still, I guess, James, I can't quite get my head around just how much of a thing this is.
The real possibility of an attempted regime change in Moscow.
You know, I think the average Joe, if I pull the average Joe off the street and said, hey, guess just how badly America is messing around with the Russians.
They would say, no, because they got nukes.
And so you can't push them that hard because they might nuke you.
They got 7,000 H-bombs.
There's only so much pushing we can do when it comes to things like that inside of Russia.
It would seem on the face of it.
Now, contrary to that is just as one little clue.
And of course, you just mentioned all this, you know, NGO stuff going on in there.
But there's this article by Carl Gershman that I'm sure you're familiar with this.
It was published in the Washington Post back in September.
I always say November.
It's September 2013, right at the start of the Maidan protests there in Kiev.
And it's, or maybe just right before they started.
It's Carl Gershman, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
And the article is called, or the essay is called Former Soviet States Stand Up to Russia.
Will the U.S.?
And so he goes on and on about all kinds of different topics in there, particularly Ukraine.
But then he ends with this.
He says, Russians too face a choice and Putin may find himself on the losing end, not just in the near abroad, but within Russia itself.
And so my question for you is, is that really the threat of regime change that it reads like to me?
And do these people really think that they can make threats like that against a regime like that of Vladimir Putin's and get away with it without a response?
Or that he would be unable to prevent them from?
You know what I mean?
Overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic with some trumped up protests is one thing.
But overthrowing Vladimir Putin?
I mean, come on, this is crazy town.
It is indeed.
And what they subscribe to is sort of a reverse domino theory, right?
So the domino theory, as you recall, in Vietnam, we believe that if Vietnam fell to the Reds, that all those other countries down there, Laos, Cambodia, and the rest of them would also fall to the Reds.
There was absolutely no basis in fact for any of that, but that drove our policy throughout the Vietnam War.
This policy, the sort of reverse domino theory, as I like to call it, is an idea that people like Brzezinski and Gershman and the rest of the liberal interventionist crowd continually posit.
And it is this.
If Ukraine becomes westernized and democratic and if Georgia becomes westernized and democratic, then the Russians are going to see that shining example in Ukraine and they are going to take to the streets and they are going to make Russia western and democratic.
Now, that's an extraordinarily silly way to look at it considering, as you say, that Russia is a nuclear armed power and Putin, they forget, has tremendous popular support in this country.
The thing that this also points to is that these guys, their love for democracy is very selective.
Right now you hear a lot of accusations against this guy Paul Manafort who is Trump's campaign manager and Manafort was an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych who was the guy who was overthrown in the Maidan revolution.
But Yanukovych, who was corrupt and he was corrupt and inept and everything else, but he was democratically elected in a free and fair election in 2010.
All that the Ukrainians in the West had to do was wait out a year and then go to the polls.
But they couldn't wait and we egged them on and then they overthrew this guy.
And look at the mess that has subsequently occurred.
So when you hear Gershman and people like that say how much enamored they are with democracy, I kind of wonder.
It seems to me that that's extremely selective.
In terms of the regime change stuff with Russia, this is based on a very dangerous misreading of the domestic situation in Russia.
People like Gershman and people like the Washington Post editorial page and writers like Ann Applebaum and the rest of them are under the impression that Russian liberals, westernizing liberals, have popular support in Russia.
But they don't.
And the only reason that these people think that these brave Russian liberals like the girls in Pussy Riot and Garry Kasparov and Khodorkovsky and Navalny, the only reason they think that these people have popular support is because they're the only people that they're in contact with.
It's like Pauline Kael said she didn't understand why Nixon was elected.
She didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon.
It's the same sort of dynamic that's going on there.
Putin has extremely high popular support in Russia.
Russian liberals have close to zero support.
So the idea that the United States can egg on from outside or from within via soft power vehicles like USAID to overturn, to overthrow Vladimir Putin is fanciful at best and extraordinarily dangerous at worst.
Yeah.
Hey, I'll check out the audiobook of Lou Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty and the evil history of 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 vs.
Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audiobook.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin on my website at scotthorton.org.
Well, I don't know everything about this Paul Manafort guy.
I know he's represented a lot of horrible governments around the world and this and that.
But when I heard that he had been an advisor of any kind to Yanukovych and was now talking to Trump, I thought, that's great!
Because that just means that Trump has access to someone who has something to say about Ukraine and Russia that is not memorized from the talking point script, the bogus consensus of every idiot in Washington, D.C.
Maybe he'd actually be able to tell Trump a story about Ukraine and Russia that begins before March 2014.
Imagine that!
And thank God for that!
If Trump's instinct in the first place is, come on, I don't want to pick a fight with Russia, that don't seem right.
And Manafort's telling him, hey, you know, this guy Yanukovych was elected and America helped overthrow him and that's what led to the war there.
I'm only assuming that they've had this conversation about the birds and the bees and the origin of the problems in Ukraine.
And so much the better.
You know, what really is scary is, I think it's pretty clear that Hillary has no incentive to believe anything but the collective narrative of the D.C. mandarins on the problem with Russia.
And that story is so far from the truth that it seems like it could really get us into trouble.
For that reason alone, I think she is more frightening than Trump.
He's more frightening than her on a lot of issues, but she's more frightening than him on picking a fight with Russia and their H-bomb arsenal issue.
So what outranks that?
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that she's...
If her record is anything to go by, or even her husband's record, you know, we are in for a bumpy four years because her first instinct is to turn to the generals and to turn to the military.
And she has the full-throated support of the military establishment.
She has the full-throated support of the neocon establishment.
This election is actually, as if it couldn't get any more interesting, what we're now seeing is sort of the neocons are fleeing en masse from the Republican Party to back Hillary.
And it's really affecting the tenor of the Democratic Convention.
I mean, last night, retired General John Allen gave a hectoring, really borderline crazy speech endorsing Hillary.
And the crowd, and these are Democrats, mind you, erupted in chants of USA, USA.
You know, that stuff used to be the province of hardline, hardline Cheney-ite Republicans.
But there's been sort of a role reversal where Trump, as crazy as he is, is really kind of the voice of...
I wouldn't say peace, but I mean, diplomacy and perhaps detente with Russia.
And Hillary is the Democratic candidate.
Hillary is the hardcore militarist.
So times are changing.
Yeah, the social psychology of it all is what's most fascinating to me, where if Obama can make the massive anti-war movement of the aughts shut their mouths, Hillary can turn them all into a bunch of Truman-ite, hardcore militarist pro-warriors with just a couple of endorsement speeches.
Oh, this is what we believe now?
We're all a bunch of Cheney-ites now?
Okay, fine.
As long as it's Team Blue, Team D, then let's do it.
Yeah, I mean, there's a zealotry out there to be Trump that seems to me to sort of border on the unhinged, right?
I mean, this idea that...
And we've seen this over the past week, that Trump is...
If you open any of the major newspapers, you will come away with the understanding that Trump is a Manchurian candidate.
He is a puppet of the Kremlin, right?
And these are not fringe publications saying this.
This is the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Atlantic, Slate.
These are mainstream establishment news outlets and they're accusing Trump of being a tool of a foreign power.
It's a very weird role reversal because the left is now shading into McCarthyism.
And if I could just make a plug for my magazine, one of the few left-wing magazines that's spoken out against that has been The Nation, which released an editorial this week decrying this trend of the left towards McCarthyism.
It's really quite extraordinary how Trump has made people who are normally pretty sensible, like Paul, well, you and I would disagree on Krugman's economics, but Krugman is a professor at Princeton.
He's not insane.
But even Krugman is floating this Trump is Putin line.
That's very bad news.
Yeah, well, and of course, what's funny about all this is that when Trump escalated it by saying, hey, Rush, if you're out there, why don't you go ahead and serve up the missing emails?
First of all, it's obviously a sarcastic crack that they decided to glom onto and pretend, oh, see more proof that he's in it with the KGB and all this.
But they didn't understand that all he was really doing was stealing all the headlines away from Hillary Clinton's convention for another day and making it all about him and making the only references to her be in terms of emails and hacking and national security.
There was a great article at CNBC.com or something, I think, about this that showed how all these people, all these liberals who are joining in on all this McCarthyite witch hunt stuff, they're all puppets on Donald Trump's string in the first place.
He knows that he's immune from any criticism that he's some kind of commie agent under the Kremlin.
He's a businessman from New York.
He can't red bait a Republican.
That's why only Nixon can go to China.
The same reason only Trump can get along with Putin, right?
If Hillary got along with Putin, oh, it's treason.
But if Trump does, he can say, no, look at me, I'm a Republican.
No Democrat could have ever done that.
But it was no problem, really, for Nixon to do it, or it was somewhat a problem with the China lobby or whatever, but he had no problem really facing them down.
He basically said to the American people, I'm Dick Nixon, you think I'm a red?
And they said, no.
And he said, all right then, I decided it was in our national interest to get along with the red Chinese, okay?
And they said, okay.
So this whole, you know, let's go on a McCarthyite witch hunt is absolutely bound to fail anyway.
And they're completely ridiculous.
They're as ridiculous to think that they can get away with using that against him as they are to think that there's anything to it in the first place.
Well, I hope you're right.
I know you're right on the second cap.
That is an absolutely made-up story.
You know, I don't think that it's going to catch on in terms of affecting the vote, but it certainly is a narrative that the establishment has wholeheartedly embraced.
And, you know, there's even sort of a darker movement afoot here.
And here I point to an article you may have seen in the Los Angeles Times last week.
It was released in the run-up to the Cleveland convention, and it was by a young neocon who I will not mention because I don't want to give this person any more attention than he seeks.
But this neocon, probably the most unscrupulous neocon writer out there, wrote an op-ed in the LA Times basically sketching out a scenario in which he hoped the American military would overthrow President Trump.
So this is a call for, you know, sedition, plain and simple, by a, you know, a pretty well-known neocon analyst.
So, you know, we have red-baiting on the one hand, and then these calls for, you know, a coup on the other.
And the LA Times published it.
It's not just this scumbag neocon you're talking about.
The LA Times editor said, Yeah, let's run this.
He's really about the worst of them, too.
It's about the worst, probably.
It's such a tough call there.
Who's worse on the neocon movement?
At first I thought you were going to say Frank Gaffney or Michael Ledeen, but then, no, I know what you're talking about.
But yeah, no, I mean, well, that's the funny thing about it, right, is they all pretend that Donald Trump has this, you know, really solidified and terribly educated Buchananite philosophy, when, of course, he doesn't.
You know, he just goes more or less by what sounds right to him in a George W. Bush kind of a way.
And, I mean, he does, he does seem to have more of a nationalist perspective than one that, you know, really celebrates the role of the UN in the world or whatever like that.
But there's no reason to think that he's going to read the Riot Act to the military and the CIA and just force them to scale back everything they're doing in the world.
He's not going to do that.
I mean, come on.
It's not like he's Ron Paul up there who says, oh, you can try to overthrow me if you want.
I'm ordering all troops home from everywhere.
I mean it, you know.
There was someone who you knew he meant it when he said what his first day in office would be like in terms of withdrawing troops.
But we're talking about Donald Trump here.
Even when he's good on Russia, he mostly is just distinguishing himself from the rest of the world.
Exactly right.
I mean, he's very much a politician who just calls it like he sees it.
He's very much an instinctual guy.
And in a way, that makes a lot of sense.
He's a master of marketing.
I mean, that's been his whole career.
He's not a builder.
People in New York real estate circles don't have a lot of respect for Donald Trump.
The banks won't lend to him.
I mean, he doesn't have a bank in Manhattan.
What he does have is he's just a master of marketing Donald Trump.
And he's been able to build a fortune doing that.
And so it's really, in a way, not terribly surprising that he was able to roll these 16 other candidates with the ease that he did.
People who think that he doesn't have a chance in November are kidding themselves.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, we saw what he did to Jeb Bush.
And Hillary's running as Jeb Bush right now.
So place your bets.
So before we go here, I want to bring up this article.
I'm sure you saw this in The Intercept and a couple of other places about an email hack, this time of Richard Breedlove, the, I think, Army, maybe Air Force general who had been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe.
And he had been trying to do an end run.
And we talked with Zej Jelani from The Intercept about this on the show.
His Gmail account was hacked.
Yeah.
And he had been talking to Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, Wesley Clark, the former, also Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Army general, and talking to some professors.
And he was basically, well, on one hand, he was trying to figure out just kind of how to pressure Obama.
He was trying to do an end run around Obama and see if he could get some shoulder fire missiles sent from Pakistan, this kind of thing.
But I'm sorry, I'm not getting to the point.
The point is, he was trying to make Obama or find a way, to figure out a way to make him escalate the war in Ukraine.
And at one point, one of the professors he was talking to even said to him, pretty sharply, I think, well, considering the president has ordered you to not start a war, there may be kind of a problem there.
Richard, maybe you need to cool it a little bit there, buddy.
So here's my point.
Imagine, James, for one moment, that it wasn't Barack Obama, but it was Hillary Clinton who'd been in the chair.
There's no reason in my mind to think that Breedlove would have even been frustrated one bit.
She would have been putty in his hands.
Madam President, I think you would look really tough and strong and neat with the junta we installed there, and she would just do it.
I can't imagine her taking an Obama kind of reluctance in that situation whatsoever.
That's the thing that really gets at me.
You mentioned before, her idea is always to first turn toward the generals.
Not just them, but the worst of them, you know, Jack Keane and the ones who most want to pick a fight all the time.
Yeah, I mean, you're exactly right.
He's in office and not Obama.
Obama, for all of his faults, has tried to be cautious, especially with regard to the situation in Ukraine.
I mean, he told Robert Kagan, the arch neocon, held a fundraiser for Hillary last week.
At this fundraiser, he's reported to have said that he asked Obama, you know, why aren't you going full in in supporting Kiev?
Obama said, well, I don't think it's worth a nuclear war.
Kagan just rolled his eyes, as if to say, how naive is Obama?
But you know what, you're right.
If it was Hillary Clinton, we would be very deep into a hot war with Russia right now over territory that, frankly, neither Russia nor, at this point, Kiev wants.
Yeah.
Well, and of course, the best chance we have for a restraining influence on her in that way is Bill.
And he's the one who got us into this mess in the first place with all the NATO expansion.
And frankly, he's had a quadruple bypass and is kind of an old man now.
There's only a chance for a full eight years.
I mean, I guess he's rich and has good doctors, but he's had some serious heart problems.
And other than him, and this is something that you really talk about in your article, too, other than Bill, and not to exclude him, really, she's surrounded by nothing but a bunch of hawks.
And everyone around her is a yes man or woman.
And do you know of anyone who's like in her close circle Ben Rhodesian kind of way at all?
No, I can't think of a single person.
I mean, right now she's surrounded herself with neocons and liberal hawks.
And that's just those people.
That's a distinction without a difference, really.
They've all kind of converged into this all-purpose war party.
And Hillary's the head of it.
God help us.
Man, oh man.
Yeah, and no Ron Paul in sight.
Only Donald Trump in opposition.
So, that's a hell of a thing this 2016, I'll tell you, man.
All right, listen, thank you very much for coming back on the show, James.
I really appreciate it a lot.
My pleasure.
All right, so that is James Carden.
He writes for The Nation and for ConsortiumNews.com.
And you know what?
Bob Perry's just got such a great stable of writers over there at ConsortiumNews.com, guys.
Really, well, that's why you find him and also check out the committee for East-West Accord, the American committee for East-West Accord at EastWestAccord.com.
All right, y'all, and that's The Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives and sign up for the podcast feed at ScottHorton.org.
Help support at ScottHorton.org slash donate.
All kinds of great kickbacks, audiobooks and silver rounds and all kinds of wonderful things by following me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty check out ScottHorton.org or TheWarState.com.
You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Maybe you just can't stand the President, gun grabbers, or war mongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented LibertyStickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now and I didn't make up all of them, but still, if you're driving around and want to tell everyone else about LibertyStickers.com, everyone else's stickers suck.