03/19/08 – Justin Raimondo – The Scott Horton Show

Welcome back to Anti-War Radio and Chaos 95.9 in Austin, Texas.
I'm Scott Horton, and our first guest today is Justin Raimondo.
He's the editorial director of AntiWar.com, writes behind the headlines three times a week at AntiWar.com slash Justin.
He's also the author of An Enemy of the State, The Life of Murray and Rothbard, and Reclaiming the American Right, The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.
Welcome back to the show, Justin.
Great to be here.
You've kind of been in hot water lately over your recent couple of articles, which I guess don't declare outright support, but in which you declare that you are rooting for Borat Obamia.
And, you know, I just began the show discussing John McCain accusing Iran of training al-Qaeda, and I think I might be leaning in your direction here.
I could see how you might want to lean toward a lesser of evils, but I also think you probably need a chance to explain to all those people who are basically calling you a traitor and saying that you've stabbed Ron Paul in the back in order to favor Barack Obama.
What's going on?
Well, what's going on is that Ron Paul is not running for president.
You know, John McCain has the Republican nomination, so people who want to change our foreign policy now have two choices.
It's either John McCain or it's going to be Obama.
Now, of course, Hillary could get the nomination, in which case we would have two pro-war candidates, and that's how the neocons want it.
And notice, I mean, you know, you have to look at what the neocons are doing and then do the opposite.
I mean, that's a pretty good rule of thumb right there.
So what you're saying is the fact that he's a liberal interventionist is overlookable, I guess?
He's not a neocon?
I mean, I would disagree with, you know, your characterization of, you know, Barack Obama.
I mean, I do not think that his first impulse is to intervene.
His first impulse is, you know, diplomacy and talking to people that we have never talked to.
For example, Hugo Chavez.
I mean, he wants to talk to Hugo Chavez.
That's good.
He wants to talk to the Cubans.
That's also good.
So, I mean, I support that, and I don't see how anybody who supports Ron Paul could not support that and not see an improvement, at least in our foreign policy.
Now, of course, Ron Paul and, you know, the Apollyons have their own agenda, you know, their own domestic agenda, and I mean, I don't take a position on that one way or the other.
Of course, you know, I do agree with them, plus, we don't endorse candidates.
You know, I'm not endorsing anybody, you know, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, or anyone, but I'm simply commenting on why Barack, I mean, why do you think he's so popular?
You know, all these people who are attacking him, I mean, why has he, you know, like, risen up and, you know, gotten all these people to, you know, vote for him?
Well, it's because he's perceived as the anti-war candidate, certainly.
Right, and plus, he seems authentic.
I mean, he's a real person.
Well, now, he is an establishment candidate.
I mean, he's certainly not a Ron Paul revolutionary, but I guess you prefer the old establishment to the new one, or what?
Well, which would you prefer, World War III or talking to the Iranians?
I mean, that's really the question.
So, you know, John McCain is elected President of the United States.
We are in for at least four years of some pretty big wars.
Are you ready for that?
Well, yeah, I don't think anybody who questions your position is necessarily arguing for McCain, but Obama has refused to rule out bombing Iran.
Obama has said, look, we want to talk to Iran, but if they don't do what we say, you know, we will not let them become a nuclear country.
So, if his negotiation doesn't work, it sounds like he's open to the idea of starting a war against the Iranians.
Well, you know, I actually did point that out in my talk to the group here in San Francisco.
There was a commemoration of the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, and I did bring that up, though I didn't mention Obama's name specifically.
But, I mean, it's pretty clear who I was talking about.
But I don't think it's fair, you know, to say that he is going to bomb Iran if we don't do what, you know, they want us to.
I mean, he wants to negotiate, so who knows what the outcome of those negotiations will be.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't think anybody wants a nuclear Iran, you know?
We don't want another country to have nuclear weapons.
In fact, we want, or rather, I want, you know, all countries to drop their nuclear weapons and start disarming.
So, I mean...
Right, but you don't support America enforcing that.
Well, no.
But, I mean, you have to admit that them having nukes is not a good outcome.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I'd agree with that, too.
And I guess the basic point here is that we're dealing with the theory of relativity.
Ron Paul didn't win, and this is what we have to choose from.
And now, I guess another part of this that is maybe not so clear is that you really differentiate between the kind of establishment foreign policy advisors who surround Obama and the War Party.
And the War Party, I guess that's, in a sense, a kind of general term.
But you mean it much more specifically than just, you know, the people in D.C. who make policy.
Right.
I mean, I'm talking about the neoconservatives, who are a well, you know, well-funded, well-organized, and well-recognized group.
And they are supporting McCain.
And they're outright opposed to Obama, aren't they?
They, I mean, they go to National Review online and look at Today.
Every article is, you know, about Obama.
And, you know, it's very interesting that now, you know, they're raising this Reverend Wright boogeyman, just like they did with Ron Paul and, you know, his supposed extremist supporters.
I mean, look at their methods.
It's all very similar.
Guilt-buy associations, smearing people, digging up second- and third-hand associations to tar him with, you know, links to, quote, extremism, unquote.
Now, is that Hillary Clinton dragging that stuff up, or is that the neocons?
Huh?
You know, like, these guys are the most extreme people on Earth, you know, and I'm talking about the neocons.
I mean, they want to start World War III.
How extreme can you get?
And of course, no one's talking about, you know, John McCain's association with John Hagee, who is a real nutcase, and is openly anti-Catholic.
And of course, the reason for this is because the media is liberal, and they, too, are anti-Catholic.
They hate Catholics.
They hate the Pope.
They hate the Church.
And of course, you know, John Hagee wants to call for, you know, the scarlet harlot, you know, of Rome to be driven from our shores, as he often does, whilst also endorsing John McCain.
It's okay with them, because they love John McCain, too.
Yeah, that is interesting.
I mean, Hagee really should be controversial, and he's not, compared to this Reverend Wright.
Well, of course, I can tell you why, but you already know why, because he's defending Israel, and the lobby is protecting him.
And, you know, the media doesn't want to cross that line.
Yeah, and overall, he's basically a general supporter of American Empire here, there, or anywhere else, whereas this guy, Reverend Wright, was denouncing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, denouncing aggressive war.
Right.
And so, you know, it's interesting that that's what's controversial, you know, attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I mean, what kind of a society are we living in?
Now, a few months back, though, Justin, didn't Robert Kagan write something in the Washington Post saying, ah, Barack Obama doesn't seem so bad to me?
Right, I mean, I didn't read that, so I can't really comment on it, though I did hear about it.
Yeah.
But, yes.
I mean, the problem with the neocons, right, is that they're hard Wilsonians.
They believe in liberal foreign policy, only they really, really mean it, they claim.
But they're not ideologically really different than Obama, other than more violent, but they basically agree with him about, you know, the entire premise of collective security and all that kind of thing.
Well, you know, I mean, I find these labels tiresome, liberal, conservative, I mean, you know, how relevant are they?
Well, when it comes to like Wilsonians, for example, they mean to remake the world with force.
And if you're a hard Wilsonian, then that means you're willing to kill even more people.
Right.
So that's the difference between liberal and conservative.
Well, that's the difference between the typical liberal interventionist establishment at, say, you know, most of the guys at the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, and the guys at the American Enterprise Institute.
Right.
I mean, how many troops, you know, does the CFR really have?
I mean, if you look on the left, you can see that, you know, the reaction to the war has driven these people in a non interventionist direction.
And I mean, I doubt very much that if Obama is elected president and then, you know, the next week he turns around and sends troops to Kosovo, that that would be very popular with his base.
In fact, they would probably freak out.
So true, although Bush ran on a humble foreign policy and immediately turned around and everybody came with him.
Well, I mean, we're talking about Republicans who are different, you know, the Democrats, you know, liberals tend to be more contentious.
And, you know, as some wag once put it, you know, I don't belong to any organized party.
I'm a Democrat.
So, I mean, there's a lot more, you know, ideological diversity on that side of the spectrum than there is on the right these days.
I mean, you know, here you have Rush Limbaugh telling his, his flock to vote in the Texas primaries for Hillary Clinton.
I mean, why do you think that is?
The reason is because they can beat Hillary.
They're afraid of Obama.
And for a very good reason, because 70% of the American people oppose the war and they want to keep that war going no matter what, even if they wreck the whole country, they could care less.
So you talked in your speech, the video, by the way, if anybody goes to antiwar.com slash Justin today, you can find the link to the video of Justin's recent speech at the San Francisco peace vigil.
And in that speech, you talked about the danger of war with Iran that, and something that neither Obama or Hillary are talking about, even as they somewhat rhetorically oppose war with Iran.
They're not pointing out that, well, as you often say, we're just a border incident away that as long as we're in Iraq, the likelihood of war with Iran just keeps going up day to day.
Well, you know, I have to correct you.
Obama has been recently bringing up the Iran thing.
And that's why my, you know, rooting for him has, you know, increased in volume.
Because if you look at his, his response to the 3am in the morning ad, he at one point, you know, attack Hillary for voting to turn the, the Revolutionary Guard as you know, an officially designated terrorist organization, and said that she was saber rattling against Iran.
So in spite of his past pronouncements on that subject, he is now moving just like his base toward a more consistently anti interventionist position, not that he's a consistent anti interventionist, you know, a sense of, say, Ron Paul, but events have an impact on people and, and people can evolve.
And so, so he is.
Well, and although I think the point in your article that I was referring to was about how the occupation of Iraq is itself could be a major cause of war with Iran, just the fact that we're there.
Well, I mean, that's something that that's a point that neither of them are making.
So that's why we got to get out of the room, you know, like Iraq and Iran.
I mean, if you know, we are constantly, you know, attacking them, you know, like rhetorically saying that they're aiding the insurgents.
And, you know, there are always incidents in the Persian Gulf, and we're baiting them in Lebanon.
And of course, you know, we now have a border with Iran, the US and Iran share a border, our conquered province in Iraq.
And, you know, there's 1000s of miles of border there.
So at any moment, war could erupt.
And now did you see this thing about john McCain, in Amman, Jordan yesterday in a speech and on the radio, accusing the Iranians of training al Qaeda until at least a few different times until Joe Lieberman corrected him?
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, there you have it, you know, you have a GOP candidate for president being corrected by Joe Lieberman.
I mean, that just pretty much tells you what the state of the GOP is today.
On the fact that, you know, he's supposed to be Mr. foreign policy expert.
And yet he doesn't have even the most basic grasp of who's who in Iraq at all after all this time.
Well, you know, I think he actually does.
But he's getting on in years.
And, you know, when you get older, God, you may not understand this yet.
But, you know, you tend to forget and you tend to misspeak and you tend to get a little confused.
So I mean, I'd like to see a 3am in the morning ad, you know, directed against John McCain, it should be very effective.
You know, we can't wake him up.
Right?
Yeah.
Good.
He reaches for the phone and is talking on his dentures and grabs his dentures instead of the telephone.
There you go.
There's a good one.
Yeah.
All right.
Now.
So well, let's let's go on about McCain here a little bit more.
You've made the parallel you talked about how Teddy Roosevelt is his hero and and what that really means in explaining kind of the John McCain mindset.
I think for whatever reason, the people on TV just love this guy so much that I know it's work, too.
I hear people say to me, you know, well, what about this guy, McCain?
He seems like a pretty decent guy.
He's a straight shooter.
Right.
And and I think maybe people would benefit from your explanation about what it is about McCain's mindset besides his his ignorance or or his his old age, leading him to make mistakes.
What is it about his basic premise that is so worrisome to you?
Well, I mean, look, John McCain's hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was the avatar of the early stages of the American empire.
And he personally participated in the Spanish-American War.
He was I mean, he was a great you know, he was a great hero of bluster.
I mean, he was all about blustering, you know, and getting up there on the stage and pontificating, you know, talking about national greatness long before the national greatness conservatives started writing about their theories.
I mean, and of course, you know, Roosevelt was a great fan of state power.
He hated big business, or at least portions of big business.
And he didn't hesitate to use the power of government.
And he was no conservative, which, you know, he's very far from being a conservative.
In fact, he was a revolutionary.
And as far as his foreign policy is concerned, I mean, he openly said that we have got to uplift the savages of this world.
And it's our duty, it's our manifest destiny.
And he was willing to plant the flag and American in in a foreign soil, you know, on many occasions, and of course, so will John McCain.
And, you know, back during that time, there's so many speeches I've read about, it's time for America to grow up and be a man.
And the first thing about America growing up and being a man is we need a world class Navy.
And that's really the world that John McCain grew up in, right is Theodore Roosevelt's Imperial Navy.
Right?
I mean, that, you know, that was Roosevelt's big thing, Teddy Roosevelt's big thing, and also the other Roosevelt, by the way, who was the Secretary of the Navy.
And, you know, a navy was a symbol of, of America's imperial grasp, that it could reach across the world, and, and invade invade any country it chose.
So, I mean, that's what he's all about.
John McCain was brought up as, you know, an aspiring Caesar.
And that's what he aims to be.
It's sort of like to a man with a hammer, everything's a nail, man with a skateboard, everything is a curb to a man with an imperial Navy.
Everything is a country waiting to be bombed from offshore.
There you go.
Oh, wow.
Everything's just a target floating around there in the world, I guess.
Oh, man.
Yeah.
So yeah, I gotta say that John McCain really worries me too, because he seems like he's, well, he's a lot like George Bush only without the depth or the sincerity.
Well, I mean, actually, he's not at all like George Bush, because George Bush was a, was an, you know, an empty chalice waiting to be filled.
And of course, the neocons did that after 9-11.
But John McCain has very definite ideas of what he wants to do.
And he doesn't need the neocons to urge him on, though he does have that.
And he is, I mean, look, it's not just in the Middle East that he wants to start confronting enemies, both real and imagined.
I mean, he wants to go after Russia, the longtime enemy of Russia.
And he would involve us in every border dispute along the Soviet periphery, in Central Asia, and in Eastern and Central Europe.
And, you know, we would soon be involved in a new Cold War.
And of course, remember, Russia has nuclear weapons still.
Yeah, thousands of them.
You're right.
And plus, they have another thing, and that is plenty of resentment against the West, which is rising in Russia, and for a very good reason, because we're lording it over the Earth.
And of course, Putin says this explicitly.
He said at one point that the U.S. doesn't want allies or friends, it wants slaves.
You know, which is a bold thing to say, but undeniably true.
And Bush, even though the Bush administration has basically been treating Russia badly, for the most part, their rhetoric isn't as heated as McCain's.
He's talked about, oh yeah, we ought to kick him out of the G8, and we ought to protect Georgian soil forever, and all kinds of things that go much further than what Cheney said.
Right.
I mean, if you like George W. Bush, then you'll like John McCain, because he's Bush on steroids.
And so that's what's going to happen there.
I mean, that's, that's, you know, that's more than half of the reason why I'm rooting for Obama.
Because, uh, uh, you know, if, if we get McCain, I mean, get ready, because it's going to be a long, bumpy night.
Well, uh, tell me this.
Is there a degree at all to which you prefer Hillary Clinton to John McCain?
I think that they're virtually identical.
Um, I mean, I think that Hillary would probably expand the war in Iraq, you know, and continue Bush's policy.
Um, but I think that any president, uh, you know, that, you know, like our next president is going to be preoccupied with internal matters.
So it looks like the economy is heading for a rather big fall.
And, uh, so I think that, you know, that's going to keep them busy, at least for a while.
Do you think that the problems with the economy are going to, uh, force the, the, uh, empire back into kind of rebuild mode and, and kind of tone things down?
Or, I mean, there was a great depression before and they got a world war out of it.
Didn't hold them back.
It got the whole thing started.
So, right.
I mean, that is the great danger.
And that is that the elites will use.
I mean, that's what happened last time is that they solved the whole problem of masking the depression with more military spending, more government control.
And, uh, so yeah, you know, we may get a major war because of that.
But I think that, you know, like initially that the president will have to turn his or her attention to, you know, domestic matters, um, you know, after the inauguration, which are, you know, like around, around that time, things should be pretty bad economically.
Now, uh, at anti-war.com, you push a lot, the idea of reclaiming the old right.
And your new book, in fact, reclaiming the American right is just being republished right now.
Right.
Uh, what is exactly, does that mean the old right, the anti-war right, Justin?
Well, if you look at, you know, American history and the history of American politics, you can see that the, the anti-war sentiment has gone back and forth.
At one time it was left-wing, uh, in, in the 1930s, it, you know, was considered a sign of right-wing extremism.
And then with the cold war, it was back to being left-wing again.
Um, with the end of a cold war, you saw many people on the right, uh, self-described, you know, conservatives like Pat Buchanan saying America come home.
And so you had this whole movement of the old right of the old 1930s style America first type of conservative, uh, you know, rising again.
So, you know, you saw that with, uh, you know, uh, past campaign for president, but you also see it now with Ron Paul, who explicitly invokes that tradition and seeks to revive it.
Uh, and so, you know, there are magazines around like the American conservative Chronicles magazine.
I mean, there's a whole movement out there of people on the right who are explicitly anti-imperialist who want a republic, not an empire as Pat titled one of his books on foreign policy.
And so it's a substantial and growing and intellectually serious movement.
And so that's a good development.
And now, uh, one thing that's strange about this story is that basically in trying to reclaim the right for the old right, the true conservatives, it's basically an attempt to reclaim the right for classical liberals.
Right.
Well, how does that work?
Well, I mean, look, you can't have an empire such as we have and have small government, you know, the ostensible goals of people on the right self-described conservatives, um, on the home front conflict with their foreign policy.
Um, empires are hugely expensive and not only that, but an empire has to be run pretty much by a single person at the top, and that is the president of the United States.
So right there, you have two contradictions, uh, with, you know, a traditional conservative philosophy, which is that, you know, like adherence to the constitution, uh, and not this monarchism that, you know, the Bush administration, uh, you know, like pretty much epitomizes and, you know, you have big government, which is of course the opposite of what conservatives say they believe.
So government keeps expanding and rank and file conservatives keep saying, well, why we had, we just had eight years and how come we're almost bankrupt?
So, uh, you know, of course, people like Ron Paul point out that a 5 trillion, no, what it's a $3 trillion war.
That's the that's the name of a new book by, uh, Joseph Stiglitz and a, and a coauthor on, on the cost of the Iraq war.
So how are you going to pay for all this?
Well, debt, and of course you see the dollar plummeting.
Uh, so in the pursuit of empire, people on the right are giving up every other principle that they ever believed in.
And then they're turning around and going, what's going on?
Why are we intellectually bankrupt?
And why, why are we being defeated?
Well, I mean, you know, the answer is pretty obvious.
Yeah.
It seems like it.
Well, and, and I guess that's the, one of the points that you make there about the consolidation of power in the executive branch, uh, during wartime and, and, uh, in order to prop up the empire overseas, that's the lesson that modern conservatives have seemed to have completely missed.
Or most of them is that war is the health of the state, I guess, unless you lose the health of your opposing state, but, uh, that assuming that you can keep going, that this is what destroys federalism, the separation of powers constitution, uh, the bill of rights.
Well, it doesn't seem like conservatives care about the bill of rights anymore.
I mean, you know, you have to remember that, you know, the same thing happened at the beginning of the cold war when, uh, the late William F Buckley jr.
Who was then, you know, a mirror lad wrote an article for commonweal magazine in which he, you know, talked about, uh, yes, you know, our libertarian heritage is wonderful.
And, you know, we need freedom and, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
But now that, you know, communism is rising, we have to accept what he called a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.
I mean, he listed high taxes, the CIA secrecy, you know, et cetera.
We have to accept big government for the duration.
He wrote in, in commonweal, I believe it was in 1952 at the dawn of the, uh, cold war.
So that's what conservatives pretty much did.
Um, and, and then the cold war ended and it wasn't long before they had to sacrifice their principles yet again, after nine 11, you know, there was only a brief, uh, brief period, you know, between say 1989 and 2001 in which, you know, conservatives were allowed to follow their natural inclinations and notice that during that period, they became markedly anti-interventionist in which the Republican Congress, uh, almost pulled funding from the Clintonian invasion of Kosovo.
Right.
And, uh, that was why Bush ran on the humble foreign policy in 2000, right?
He, he felt he absolutely had to say that he doesn't want to be the policeman of the world, even though I don't, I mean, he's George Bush's son obviously didn't mean it.
Well, I mean, you know, who knows what he meant, but, uh, you know, he soon reversed course and, uh, but that was politically necessary in the, in the election of 2000.
Right.
That was politically necessary.
So you can see where the right would be normally and naturally.
Um, but, uh, you know, after nine 11, that all changed.
Well, and that's because they have this new permanent enemy to replace the Soviet union in, uh, what is it?
McCain calls it radical extremist as well.
You know, it was kind of funny after Republican debates where they were all sort of saying the same words, but in different order.
Yeah.
Like radical extremist Islamism and Islamist radical extremism.
And it was like, what are you guys talking about?
You mean Osama bin Laden, right?
Yeah.
Well, no, they don't mean that what they mean is anybody who's an Arab, you know, who, you know, I believed in Allah or whoever.
Well, now the war party obviously wants to lump together anybody who's opposed to the U S or Israel in any sense into one big enemy.
But, you know, I was Googling around and I actually found a criticism by Paul Gottfried, one of the founders of the paleo conservative movement, uh, where he was criticizing Ron Paul, um, basically saying that Ron Paul was naive that, that, uh, the way that, uh, Paul said that, listen, if America wasn't over there in the middle East causing all this trouble, we wouldn't have any trouble with these people that that ignores the real threat that a radical Islam actually does pose, et cetera, like that.
What do you say to that?
Well, look, I mean, people like Paul Gottfried and a lot of my paleo friends, um, are, are frightened of Islam and, you know, for a very good reason, because they see that, uh, you know, the inroads, you know, especially demographic inroads, but it's making in Europe.
I mean, that frightens them, but I mean, how are we going to really solve that problem?
Uh, I mean, how are we going to make Western Europeans reproduce faster by what, you know, by putting, you know, like Viagra in their water supply.
Yeah.
Pass a law.
It'll change everything.
Right.
I mean, so, I mean, you know, these problems, paleos have a, have a penchant for whining about problems that are insoluble.
It kind of reinforces their, you know, their, their, a pessimistic view of life.
Yeah.
Well, it sort of seems to me like the, the actual, you know, Osama bin Laden types, people who are that radical in their, uh, religious beliefs, they don't really have much to offer other than, you know, a violent defense against somebody else trespassing.
But in terms of, you know, here's the great future that Osama bin Laden has in store for the Middle East or whatever, he doesn't have anything that they want.
No, I mean, you know, he wants Andalusia back, but I mean, how many people really care about that?
I mean, look, these, these people are people like everywhere all over the world.
They want running water.
They want three squares a day, and they want to listen to American music on the radio, at least their kids do.
So, I mean, these are the weapons that, you know, we actually need to use against radical Islam, and that is the same weapons that brought down the Soviet Union, and it didn't even need to be deployed by any government.
And that is the power of our culture.
Of course, the, you know, the paleos hate our culture, and, and, and their, their critique of our, you know, of, of modernity parallels, you know, the Islamist critique.
We see that at National Review sometimes, too, where they say, gee, I hate the way they suicide bomb people, but I really do appreciate their critique of our society over there.
Right.
I mean, you know, the lack of piety, you know, the, the open licentiousness, I mean, all these things, offend Osama bin Laden, and, you know, you know, like many conservatives.
And in fact, didn't somebody write a book about?
Oh, yeah, yeah, actually, I think you're right.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I confused those two.
I take that back, Mr. Panuru.
Right.
And so, I mean, you know, like, their whole critique is similar.
So I guess, you know, I mean, who knows what's going on there?
Of course, you know, I have a similar critique, you know, I think that, you know, modern society is, you know, pretty much depraved.
But, I mean, you know, what can you do about that?
Well, not use state power against it.
Right, right.
And of course, certain forms of depravity are okay by me, but we won't go into that.
Well, you know, the neocons claim that what they want to do is spread liberty around the world.
So it seems like if you really do want to spread liberty, and, you know, the neocons aren't, well, some of them, I guess, sort of are culturally right wing like that.
But most of them, they claim that they're trying to spread American modernity.
And it seems like if that's really the case, you don't want to force it on people, you want to sell it to them.
Right.
And that's what we're talking about.
I mean, especially if liberty is the product, then it ought to be a mutually beneficent, you know, no aggression required type exchange.
I mean, look, you know, Osama bin Laden has no vision to offer anyone except a totally negative one.
And what ammunition he has, we have given to him freely.
I mean, he has no power except that which he leeches off of us.
For example, those ships that are now patrolling the Lebanese coast, the US warships.
I mean, that kind of confirms what he is saying, and that is that we are out to destroy Islam.
We're out to occupy their lands, exploit their people, take their oil, and, you know, smash their religion.
And so there's the same confirmation if we look at what is happening in Iraq, and our threats against Iran, so that young people, I mean, that really is, you know, the future of the Middle East, and that is the young people of the Middle East, which way are they going to go?
And we are actually making it easier for Osama bin Laden, as Michael Schur points out in his three books.
Like, he has a new book out.
Marching to Hell.
Yes.
And, you know, he makes the same point.
I haven't finished it yet.
So far, it's excellent.
All right, everybody, that's Justin Armando.
He's the editorial director of antiwar.com, and his 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right, is just being republished by, I'm sorry, what's the name of the publisher again there, Justin?
It's the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Okay, and you can find that at amazon.com.
Thanks very much for your time today, Justin.
Thank you.
All right, everybody, this is Antiwar Radio.
We'll be right back with James Bovard.