All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton and our first guest on the show today is Philip Giraldi.
He's a former CIA and DIA officer and, uh, writes for, he's a contributing editor over there at the American conservative magazine.
That's amconmag.com.
He writes for us at antiwar.com of course.
And he's the executive director of the council for the national interest foundation.
Their website is cnionline.org.
Welcome back to the show, Phil.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, Scott.
How about you?
I'm doing good.
I appreciate you joining us here today.
Lots to talk about.
Uh, the, uh, top headline on antiwar.com is this piece in Haaretz.
Obama granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory in his speech yesterday.
Uh, and then, uh, Netanyahu apparently rejected whatever pretended demands existed in that, uh, major diplomatic victory that he'd already won of a speech, Phil, what happened there?
Well, you know, this, this whole, I listened to the speech live yesterday and I, I imagine you might have too.
Um, it's, it's kind of like, um, that Japanese story, what Rashomon, where, uh, it's told through the eyes of a number of different people that were participants in, in an event and everyone had a different version of it.
Uh, that's kind of what I'm seeing in the press coverage today.
Um, the New York times, uh, the Washington post, the associated press are, are all pointing to the fact that, or the, the allegation, uh, I think it's more an allegation than a fact that, uh, Obama was, um, uh, pushing Israel to recognize the 1967 borders as a, um, as a basis for negotiation.
I didn't pick up any of that.
He was talking about that and he was recommending that 67 borders would be a good starting point, but he put absolutely no agenda out towards achieving that, and he put no teeth into it because, uh, virtually in the same breath, he told Israel that he would protect them in the United nations, and we all know that the billions of dollars they get every year, uh, is sacrosanct, it's untouchable.
So there's, there's actually absolutely no way that, uh, that, that this story, uh, should be appearing that he was pressuring Israel.
And I think Haaretz has it right.
That essentially it's the other way that this was, uh, a speech that in some ways had certain trappings in it to make it look a certain way, but the fact is that it's a, it's a victory for Israel.
Yeah.
Well, you know, speaking of the appearance of it, I actually didn't get to hear it live because I was just starting up an interview is going on out of the corner of my eye at the time.
Uh, you know, live on the radio and I didn't get a chance to see it, but what I did see was one short clip of him talking about the 67 borders and you got to hand it to the guy, you know, he's no George W.
Bush, or maybe he is George W.
Bush in this way that he knows how to say things in a way to get people to believe the soundbite.
He said it like he really meant that thing about the 67 borders.
But then as you say, when you actually get to the context and the substance of what he's talking about, he doesn't really mean that at all.
Sort of like when he went to Prague and the Czech Republic and he said, you know, uh, rid the world of nuclear weapons and heaven on earth and love and friendship and Coca-Cola for everyone.
And then the second half of the speech said, yeah, we're putting in those anti-missile missiles and radar stations here and there's nothing you can do about it.
It was right there in the actual substance of the speech, but what everybody picked up on in the headline was this, you know, uh, Reagan-esque magnanimous moment, you know?
Yeah.
I think that's, that's basically it.
That's the way he, that's, I think why he labored so, so heavily on this speech, uh, because there were a lot of tricks in it.
And I think the tricks are basically to, to leave a certain impression while at the same time, not changing the substance.
And I, I don't think, uh, there was any substance change in, in terms of, uh, uh, Israel Palestine policies.
If I were a Palestinian, I would be very depressed.
I mean, he said, you know, basically he wanted to give them a state that had sovereignty, but, uh, but speaking out of the other side of his mouth, he said it would be demilitarized.
I mean, you know, having a military is a, is an essential aspect of sovereignty.
So, uh, I, I think, uh, the Israelis were the big winners on this because even the context of the 1967 comment, uh, Netanyahu has made it clear that he's going to blow that off.
He, uh, uh, his cabinet approved yesterday, 1500 new housing units in, uh, East Jerusalem.
Well, it's a really, you know, interesting to analyze, but very successful dialectic, right?
Where Obama gives Netanyahu everything and Netanyahu says, yeah, right.
I, how dare you?
I'll tell you what, here's how it's going to be.
And there he's already won before he even complains.
That's right.
He's won.
He's won the game.
He knows he's won the game.
Uh, no matter what, I guess they're talking right now as we speak in the white house, but, uh, it doesn't make any difference what Obama tells him because Obama cannot put any pressure on him.
So the fact is that, that, uh, Netanyahu, uh, who admittedly has his own problems with, uh, his government coalition, which has a lot of, uh, wing nuts in it.
Uh, but you know, at the same time, this guy is supposed to be a statesman.
He's supposed to be someone who is looking forward in terms of his, his country's genuine interest.
And I can't see a glimmer of that.
I mean, uh, Netanyahu basically is a, is a kind of gutter politician and, uh, that's all he'll ever be.
Well now, so that brings us to your most recent article at antiwar.com Phil, some questions for BB.
And I, I think, um, I'm not sure if this is one of them actually, maybe in the context of a couple of them.
Uh, he really is a lousy leader from the point of view of the Israelis, right?
I mean, it seems like the Likud party has this still call it clean break or whatever you want policy that says, well, we're just going to be the toughest bully in the neighborhood forever attitude, which can't possibly be a good long-term strategy for the existence of this state, right?
I mean, what am I missing there?
I, and I think you have to compare them to someone like George W.
Bush, uh, someone who basically is driven by certain ideologies and certain, uh, prejudices that give them a, a tunnel vision in terms of how they look at the world and how they look at relationships with, with other countries.
And, and, uh, they think that, uh, ultimately that being tough is, is enough.
Uh, but the fact is, you know, the demographics of the Middle East are changing, the politics of the Middle East are changing, uh, Israel and the United States are basically isolated in the Middle East and, uh, maybe come September, they might be isolated at the United Nations and elsewhere.
So it's a, you know, all these things are shifting and yet we can't wake up Netanyahu to the fact that, that these shifts are permanent and these shifts are going to be things that he has to deal with.
And, and, you know, and Obama comes across as no prize.
He's a lot smarter than George W.
Bush and he, and he can package and nuance these things very well, which Bush couldn't do, but the fact is that it's the same old song.
I mean, we're not seeing anything different here.
Well, you know, I still can't figure out the puzzle why Obama even decided to start out his presidency with this, because all he's doing is just showing weakness, showing up to a fight, talking loud and then getting beaten up, you know?
Well, he's basically, you know, he, you know, he's, he's a, he's a typical product of his environment, University of Chicago, uh, liberal, uh, they think that they can, uh, change reality, uh, by, by virtue of good ideas.
And I think he came in with that.
And he, of course, he had the good ideas.
He's, he's a smart enough guy.
He, he's known for a long time that the, uh, what the Palestine Israel situation is all about, uh, and, and he maybe thought he could accomplish something, but the fact is you're right.
He's wound up making America even weaker and looking, looking even more stupid.
Yeah.
I mean, it seems like bad politics, uh, cause now he's just, uh, angered all the pro-Israel interests in the democratic party as well by appearances.
Yeah.
Same soundbite looking different to different people again.
That's right.
That's the Rashomon story.
Again, the, uh, the different people are looking at different things.
And even, uh, strong supporters of Israel obviously look at what he said and they know, Hey, we got 90% here.
And, uh, but they want a hundred percent and a hundred percent would have been him not mentioning, even mentioning, uh, 1967 borders, apparently Netanyahu called Hillary Clinton before the speech was made, this is interesting because Netanyahu clearly knew what was going to be in the speech.
Uh, you know, this has so much for American, uh, diplomacy and, uh, he called up, um, uh, Hillary Clinton and shoot her, but, uh, apparently trying to get her, get her to have Obama take 67 out of the speech, but they wouldn't do it.
So it's, uh, it's quite amazing.
You know, wag the dog.
Uh, this guy, uh, calls up the secretary of state and chews her out.
Yeah, it really is amazing.
I mean, uh, this country is what the size of Maryland or something.
And we're the biggest empire in the history of the solar system.
How does that work out?
I don't understand.
Well, I, I, I have failed to understand this for a long time, but it's a, you know, it, it ultimately comes down to domestic politics and, and, uh, there's a perception within, uh, the minds of many politicians that you, you don't cross the Israeli interests and, and, uh, you know, there's a lot of good reason to, to, to feel that way.
There have been a number of congressmen, a number of media figures who've, uh, who've taken the fall for that reason.
Well, you know, I'm not trying to encourage them or anything, but I wonder also, why don't they just kill and, or, you know, ethnically cleanse, force March, everybody out of the West bank and just take it while they're waiting for.
Why do this over generations slowly at this?
I mean, it's ridiculous, isn't it?
This whole thing is like a twilight zone episode.
Well, I think that that is the plan actually, but except they're not going to March them out.
Um, try to make their lives so miserable that they leave voluntarily.
And that's what has happened to me, right?
I mean, it's been going on for 40 years, like Christian population of palace of, uh, of Israel, uh, most of the, uh, the, the Christian Arabs, uh, Christian Palestinians have left because, uh, being Christian, they had many of them relatives in other countries and they could emigrate relatively freely.
So they, they made their lives miserable enough where they all left.
And, uh, that's, I think the way Israel works at, if we make their lives, uh, terrible enough, then they're going to go.
Yeah.
I mean, I just wonder, you know, if, okay, if they did that tomorrow, Obama would still protect them in the UN and everywhere else, no matter what, anyway.
Right.
There, what, there would be no consequences as far as Israel's relationship with the United States.
Right.
Well, we saw last weekend, they shot 20 people who were unarmed.
Uh, and, uh, Obama the next day, the state department supported them.
So, yeah, I think the answer is, I mean, they could, uh, you know, USS liberty, I mean, they could, they could attack a U S ship and kill 34 American sailors and it doesn't make any difference.
So you tell me, I don't know what the line is that Israel could possibly cross that would make a U S government say, or do anything.
I don't know what that line is.
Yeah.
All right.
Well now, so I want to talk about a point number one, which, you know, I don't know what else to say to that.
I mean, I agree with you.
They could probably just start using hydrogen bombs on people and we still wouldn't do anything about it.
They started a war with Iran.
I mean, I think the deal is that, well, we don't want you to, but I guess if you do, then okay, or whatever is basically the tacit understanding right now.
Isn't it?
I think so.
Yeah.
They, uh, and, and there's no question that they started a war with Iran.
We will get sucked into it.
Yeah.
And it probably would go nuclear, not because the Iranians have nukes, right?
Because we have.
All right.
Well, um, so, and, and this goes to the point number one in your piece at antiwar.com from the other day, uh, yesterday, I guess, uh, Israel has the strongest military in the middle East.
And this is something that, you know, I don't know, people are, they're so used to the propaganda of besieged poor little Israel that, you know, they may never have actually heard facts about the strength of the IDF as compared to, uh, you know, neighboring states at all.
Phil, can you fill them in?
Yeah.
Well, Israel does have the strongest military in the middle East.
I mean, even in terms of sheer numbers, Israel's a tiny country, but it has a very active reserves and it's a reserves train and it can feel 750,000 soldiers.
Uh, none of its neighbors have anywhere near that, not even Egypt.
And, um, I was doing a little research a couple of days ago on, on what kind of equipment and everything Israel has.
Uh, Israel has, uh, has, uh, 300 modern, uh, uh, fighters, uh, supplied by the United States F-16s and F-15s.
It has over 5,000 tanks.
It has, uh, uh, several thousand pieces of mobile artillery.
It's, uh, and, and all of this stuff is state of the art.
The United States, when it sells equipment to Israel, sells them to the best and most, it sells, it gives them the best and most modern military equipment that it has in the arsenal.
When we sell a jet to the Saudis, for example, or the Egyptians, or even the Turks who are in NATO, uh, we take a lot of the avionics off.
So these things are not quite as capable as the stuff that Israel has.
Right.
And I know from watching weekday wings that the F-15, which has been around for, I don't know, a generation and a half or something, uh, they just keep upgrading and upgrading and upgrading those things.
So the F-15 Eagle of back in the day is nothing compared to the one nowadays can kill you from way far away, hundreds of miles away, they can kill you.
There's no top gun dogfight about it.
And, you know, that's the same kind of capability we give them.
Yeah.
And they're going to be getting the new F-35, uh, fighter developed at tremendous cost by the U.S. taxpayer, and we are giving them 20 of them.
And in fact, there was some talk in Congress about giving them 20 more.
Uh, you know, this is, uh, uh, you have to look at these things and wonder what is going on here.
Um, and, and, uh, you know, it, it's, it's scary that, that, that this little country and its, uh, lobby in the United States has this incredible grip on what we do and we do things that are not in our interest anymore.
And, and we get in trouble in places because we get involved in these relationships.
And, you know, it's just, uh, it's something that I, I don't even know if I can explain it anymore.
I just, it's, it's so scary.
Well, I mean, the simple math of it really is that, um, basically extremely rich right-wing Jews finance about half the cost of the Democratic party and on the right in the Republican party, you have the Christian Zionists who are trying to force Jesus to come back and kill everybody faster because they just don't want to die alone.
They want us all to die with them.
Uh, you can see it going on this coming weekend.
People want to believe in this so bad.
It's ridiculous.
And, uh, you know, this is the kind of thing that, uh, makes it where, as you said, in Congress, the understanding is you just don't cross the Israel lobby because you're not going to win.
They're going to win.
And they'll finance the guy against you in the next election and they'll beat you.
And that's just how it goes.
A lot of, uh, congressmen, senators have said so on their way out, you know?
Yeah.
That's the problem.
They all say it on the way out.
And, uh, what we need is a couple more Ron Paul's who, who at least talk about these issues more openly on the, when they're in office, but you know, it's a, it's a, it's a scary process.
It's just, it's like, uh, somehow we started out as a constitutional Republic a couple hundred years ago.
And, and now we've turned into an empire with a chief executive in charge and the chief executive, by the time he gets there has all these, these debts, he has to repay to, uh, various constituencies.
And one of the most powerful constituencies, of course, is, is the Israel lobby and, uh, you know, uh, how do we get there?
I mean, don't these, not these congressmen when they go to bed at night, worry about what they've been doing to their country?
Uh, I, I just, I don't know.
The thing is, it's a long time coming, right?
You know, it was very red, white, and blue.
Well, and maybe a little bit of, you know, union Jack red, white, and blue colored Americans who built this empire.
But then it's just too unwieldy.
There's, there's no way that, uh, you know, any one think tank can really run at all.
And so, I mean, you see what happens.
The neocons just decided, well, we'll just make our own dozen think tanks and take over DC.
It was that easy.
Yeah.
And it probably wasn't even that expensive and it's, it's amazing.
Yeah.
I guess, you know, you, when people have a real agenda, uh, and most people really don't care, most voters really don't care on most of these issues.
I think that, uh, it's quite possible for a small group to take over.
Yeah.
Uh, pretty simple fact.
Uh, I'm trying to remember, uh, the name of the neocon and it's, oh, it's right on the tip of my tongue.
Phil, uh, wrote a thing about how to do a coup d'etat and get away with it.
And basically in a, in a Republic or in a, you know, constitute under a constitutional system and basically sounded just like what the neocons did after September 11th.
And it's, you know, it ends with, if you, if after two weeks, nobody says anything, you did it, you know, or something like Ledeen.
Uh, no, it wasn't Ledeen.
It's, uh, he's more obscure than that.
More of a, uh, intellectual, uh, I'm sorry, but, uh, yeah, I mean, it really does seem to be that.
And, you know, this is the same thing goes for, you know, if you're Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland or whatever, too, right.
You just go in there and take over Congress and take over the agriculture industry with uncle Sam's machine gun in his hand, you know, doing your bidding.
Well, you know, I mean, I guess everybody, anybody could have predicted that, um, that ultimately the, the American Republic would ultimately get corrupted by money because we're, we're a rich country.
We always have been.
And that was obviously what was going to bring us down.
And then, you know, you look at examples of the Roman Republic in its last century and everything, the way it went, it was the same thing.
It was the corruption of money and the corruption of power.
And, uh, in spite of the fact that the Romans, uh, had anticipated this and built all kinds of safeguards in their systems and our founding fathers did the same thing.
It happens because when people really wanted enough and there's enough money floating around, uh, they're going to basically be able to take over.
Yeah.
I'm trying to remember, uh, which founder it was that said, yeah, as soon as the people figure out that they can just vote themselves a portion of the treasury by being, uh, you know, uh, factional constituency bidding that way, then that'll be the end of this, you know?
Yeah.
I think that was Madison.
Yeah.
Very well could have been.
All right.
So, um, there's so much to talk about, even just still in this article before we get to a broader issues of, uh, you know, Syria and Osama bin Laden and Pakistan and different things I want to ask you about.
But, uh, I wanted to mention a point number four in your article, your most recent piece at antiwar.com some questions for BB and it's about Israeli spying in the United States and, uh, including even, uh, Mossad, uh, apparently having, uh, at least for knowledge of the September 11th attacks.
And I was just wondering if you could sort of give us, uh, I see your first link in this, uh, paragraph is to, uh, your piece, the spy who loved us, uh, or the spy who loved me at, uh, the American conservative magazine, which I highly recommend to people, but it's one of you sort of give us, uh, maybe the short summary version of Israel spying in the United States and perhaps even touch on the, the nine 11 thing as you do in this paragraph here.
Yeah.
Well, uh, the Israel is, is, is of among friendly countries to the United States has for a long time in the country that spies most actively against, against us.
And essentially this is, there are two types of spying here.
There's, there's the spying to define it, to find out, uh, secrets in terms of, uh, policies, uh, or, uh, defense secrets or, or defense technologies, that kind of thing.
Uh, and then there's the other thing, which is commercial spying.
Uh, the Israelis, uh, are very active in the high tech area, telecommunications, computers, that kind of thing.
And they're, they're very much reliant on, um, shall we say borrowing the technology from countries like the United States where the United States will put in all the money for research and development, and then the Israelis wind up with the product and then it's possible to sell it to India.
It's possible to sell it to China, possible to sell it to anyone.
So they're very active in these areas.
And, uh, in terms of nine 11, when nine 11 took place, the Israelis had an enormous spying operation going in the United States that was directed primarily against Arabs who were living here, Muslims who were living here.
And, uh, uh, there are a number of incidents that were recounted, uh, very capably by Justin Raimondo in his book, uh, demonstrating that they, they seem to have prior knowledge and that they were dancing and celebrating across from, um, Manhattan while the, shortly after the plane hit the, uh, hit the towers, the first plane hit the towers.
So it would seem that there was prior knowledge and whether they knew the entire, uh, scenario that was going to be playing out or not is by no means clear, but it would seem at least certain aspects of it were known to them.
And, uh, I point out in my question to Netanyahu, I said, you know, you, you spy actively against the United States.
You might've known in advance about nine 11, isn't it time that we'd be honest about the level of Israeli spying and that we stop it, and if you don't stop it, uh, we should take steps like, uh, excluding your products and, and your businessmen from our market.
Right.
All right.
Now, uh, I got to change the subject to, uh, Pakistan, you know, of course, uh, the day I hit the road to move back to Texas is the day that they announced they killed Osama bin Laden and all of this.
And so I figure, you know, you're a CIA guy, former CIA guy lied to me.
Tell me the story about Osama bin Laden and what happened there in Pakistan, Phil.
Well, there, you know, there are a number of stories that kind of intersect here, but the fact is that, um, it was a complicated intelligence operation.
They obviously picked up one phone call and were able to make linkages from there.
And I re I pointed out in a blog item I did for the American conservative that, um, a lot of these steps in this process had to involve Pakistanis.
Because, uh, you know, American CIA officer from, from Kansas or an American CIA officer from just about anywhere is not going to blend in very well in, in some of the more remote regions of, of Pakistan.
So essentially they had to recruit Pakistanis.
They had to involve Pakistanis, uh, as, as people who would surveil these, uh, bin Laden couriers, and they had to use Pakistanis to, for example, get the lease on the, the, the apartment they were using to observe the, uh, suspected, uh, villa where he was staying.
So there are a lot of funny threads to the story that haven't come out yet.
Um, in terms of, uh, you know, how it went, you have to admire the mechanics of it in terms of the way they collected the intelligence and the way they staged the raid.
But of course there is a major political price that's being paid for this.
And, uh, also we're hearing contradictory stuff like, oh, you know, bin Laden, he was still running the show from his place.
Uh, but which is stupid because if he had been running the show from the place and he would have been a resource of, of what Al Qaeda was doing, they would have tried to capture him so they could debrief him.
And they didn't do that.
Clearly, clearly the rules were, the orders were to kill him and that's what they did.
So there are a lot of things in the story that don't quite make sense even now.
And I don't think we'll ever really know what exactly what happened or what the decision making was.
Now, the big controversy is over, uh, the fact that he was not found in the guest house of some tribal leader up in, uh, north of Waziristan on the roof of the Hindu Kush mountains up there.
He was, uh, living in the suburbs right outside of Islamabad and, uh, right near the military academy and all these things.
So it must have been a ISI operation to keep him there.
And depending, I guess, on who he asked, therefore we got Obama.
Yeah, that's, that's one of the stories coming out now.
Yeah.
Well, I, I think the fact is that, uh, there certainly was some level of cover up.
I don't, I don't think that this all could have happened, uh, without somebody in the system covering up for Obama and, uh, Obama, Osama and helping him.
And, uh, but the fact is, I don't think there's any evidence and I don't think they will develop any evidence that people higher up were approving of this or that this was some grand strategy to screw the United States or anything.
I think that's going to be a fishing expedition and, and the people that want to attack Pakistan now, I mean, this is just, this is insanity.
Uh, the war in Afghanistan is not going well.
Uh, and, and admittedly, uh, Pakistan is playing a double role in it.
And we've known that for years.
Uh, it's just one more argument why we should have ended this war about five years ago.
Yeah.
Well, now Ron Paul, uh, was on TV saying, well, you know, you know how these things go.
I'm afraid we're going to end up trying to actually go to war with this country that, uh, you know, David from might get his way or something.
Do you think that's a real danger?
Uh, I think that, uh, that's a lunatic fringe position right now that, that, uh, anyway, Robert Kagan.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Kagan or somebody like that, or, or, uh, uh, crystal bill crystal might have that view, but I, yeah, I, I think that, uh, obviously the, the can of worms you would open by any kind of military action against Pakistan would be frightening.
And, uh, I, I think that, you know, the, the scariest thing about this is that we probably don't know a whole lot about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and where it is and, and how to get at it.
And so it, I think that's the thing that will inhibit any kind of action that, uh, the uncertainty about what might come if we were to try anything.
Uh, I mean, it's so frightening that it's even hard to imagine that, uh, that these, these idiots at the neocon think tanks could, could even come up with it.
But as you point out, they are coming up with it.
Yeah.
Well, you know, it was back in oh seven, uh, that, uh, Kagan and Ohanlin from the Brookings institution, which means liberal and centrist and moderate and reasonable, uh, just like when he wrote the book about why we need to attack Iraq back in 2002, um, those two wrote that piece for the New York times saying, Hey, look, you know, it's a hard truth, but we might just have to do this.
And boy, people in DC love that kind of talk, right?
It's an insurmountable challenge, but we will prevail.
Yeah.
Well, it's, you know, it was, they, they say, uh, was, uh, when, uh, general Patton, they used to refer to him as old blood and guts, but it was the soldiers would say it's our blood and our guts.
Right.
And, and that's the thing about people like Kagan.
Uh, you know, that's, uh, it's never going to be his blood or his guts.
And it's easy to say, yeah, let's take out Pakistan.
All right.
Well, so now let me ask you about the, uh, I guess America's abortion of the Arab spring in Libya right now.
It's been two months.
The war powers act time is up.
Law doesn't count.
Nobody ever really thought it did.
And Obama's going to keep it up, but what is he going to keep up?
What are they going to do?
I'm looking for somebody to tell me some reasonable way out of here that DC could buy into.
I mean, I say call the whole thing off yesterday, of course, but just, uh, that they could buy into that makes that they don't leave Libya, the giant Bay of pigs stab in the back disaster for the people we've been trying, the U S has been trying to back there.
Well, you know, I think what they're doing, and I'm not really sure about this, but I think what they're doing is they're just trying to buy time and they think that there's going to be a departure of Gaddafi in one way or another.
Uh, I'm, I'm sure you saw some of the reports that were in the media.
I think yesterday about two of the Gaddafi's children fleeing the country.
And, uh, those reports apparently are quite credible, uh, from what I've heard.
So there is, there are signs that things are kind of breaking up on him and he's going to look for a negotiated solution or some way to depart.
Now, if I were Obama at this point, I'd be hoping that the, you know, the dice will fall the right way on this, uh, because there, there is no military solution to it.
Uh, apart from, uh, you know, declaring war and going in with several divisions, that's just not going to work.
So the fact is that, yeah, he's, he's gotten himself in a quagmire.
He knows he's in a quagmire and, uh, it's just like the, you know what, in his speech yesterday, we were talking about what to do about the middle East.
He's going to throw money at people.
Yeah.
We're going to, we're going to forgive a debt of $1 billion.
What is that going to do to Egypt and, and what, you know, and, and, and these Arabs, uh, if you read the Arab, uh, media today, the Arab, uh, media is insulted by this, this idea that they can be bought again.
And, and so he's going to, he's going to hope for that, that Gaddafi leaves, he's going to wash his hands of it.
He's going to do a Pontius pilot and he's going to, uh, you know, lead them to their own resources.
And at some point he'll make a speech saying that he's giving them a billion dollars in debt relief or something like that.
And it's just a, you know, but this is, this is the game he's playing.
He's a, he's a skillful manipulator of language and, uh, he's, he's good at it.
Yeah.
Hey, uh, I wanted to throw in here, uh, thanks to seditious in the chat room.
Uh, he, he found it for me.
My lost footnote coup d'etat, a practical handbook by Edward Luttwak.
Oh, Edward Luttwak.
Yeah.
He's a funny guy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean, I don't know how close he is with all these neocons.
I'd have to ask Jim Loeb to do the family flow chart for me or whatever, but apparently this is a really kind of, well, what you do is you get your friends to take this and that position in the state department and this and that position in the Pentagon and this and that position in the vice president's office and on the national security council.
And then when the really big thing happens, you just change everything and get away with it.
And, you know, make sure that everybody's working together.
Everybody knows what to do.
So they don't have to communicate directly with each other about it and just change everything.
And I, it reminds me of that article that was, uh, written by anonymous in, and I don't know if they ever said who it was, but, uh, it was in salon.com back in 2002 called the state department's extreme makeover.
And it was about how Bolton and Wilms are had come in there and just turn the place upside down.
And Powell and armitage themselves were helpless against it.
It was just on.
Mm hmm.
Mm hmm.
Well, that's exactly what happened with nine 11.
Yeah, sure.
All right.
So, uh, Hey, can I ask you, let me, uh, ask you about this, uh, safe.
I'll Adele.
I saw Michael Shoyer talking on Fox news.
Like this was true.
Um, according to some guy named Noman Bennett man, who seems to be a CIA agent, according to my first couple of Google searches here, uh, so-called former jihadist guy, he says that this guy's now in charge of Al Qaeda.
He's a new boogeyman.
We're supposed to be scared of.
He had a pretty, uh, you know, frightening mug shot on TV there.
So, uh, you know, what do you make of all this?
Well, I mean, the, the neocon spin on this is of course that he's an Iranian agent so that Iran and, and, uh, Al Qaeda are going to form a, um, a league.
Um, which of course is so ridiculous that it's, it's not even worth considering the, uh, their, their justification for this was that he was held under house arrest by the Iranians after he escaped from Afghanistan.
Um, and so he must've been converted.
They assume well, as Shoyer even told bill O'Reilly, no, no, no.
See, they tried to turn him over to us, but Rumsfeld wouldn't exchange the Mujahideen all call communist terrorist cult, uh, in, uh, for him or bin Laden's son in that same, you know, great peace offer of 2003, because he wanted to use the MEK against the Iranians.
Right.
So they actually offered to turn this guy over directly to Donald Rumsfeld or, or the Bush administration back in 03.
Yeah.
Well, that's no surprise.
I did.
Yeah.
I didn't know that.
Although I did know that they were going to turn over some people.
I didn't know he was one of them, but, but of course now they're making the other leap in the other direction that he's a, he's being directed by Iran.
Well, is this guy even real?
I mean, what is this, what's the story here?
He's, you know, now, uh, the guy who replaces bin Laden in the terrible terrorist conspiracy against us.
Well, I mean, the whole thing is, you know, what kills me is they construct all these arguments.
And then they come up with something that completely contradicts the argument.
And they sustain the two arguments at the same time.
Now, if there's anything that anybody who follows terrorism agrees on about Al Qaeda is that it has over the past seven or eight years, decentralized completely, it's become a franchise and it's, it's locally run, locally operated and locally financed.
So, you know, that's kind of the thing everybody has been agreeing on.
Now, all of a sudden they shoot bin Laden and they discover that here, that's the guy that can't use a telephone, can't use a computer.
He has to work through couriers who have to walk for a week before they can go to a phone and make a phone call.
And this guy allegedly is masterminding a terrorist network.
I saw today that, what were they talking about?
That he was going to hit oil tankers.
And the other day it was American transportation hubs.
And you know, if I were to be looking at all these things, and if, if there's a scribbled note that they found near his body that says oil tanker, I mean, is that a plot or is that a plan to do something?
It's just, it's just, it's just an idea.
And this guy clearly was not in charge of anything, but because they executed him, they have to pretend that he was a terrorist mastermind and, and they had to, you know, shoot him because, you know, none of this stuff makes sense.
None of it fits together.
Yeah.
Well, they just need a, they need a, a idea of a centralized kind of James Bond conspiracy with the one evil guy at the top so that they can make him the poster boy for the whole thing.
You know, I, I, I suspect what you're saying is exactly right.
It's like the Han in the world war one poster, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
They, they need, they need a myth out there to justify the huge budget budgets.
They justify to have to justify what Obama is doing in terms of executing American citizens.
They have to, to justify all the stuff that's going on in the world.
And it's just, you know, at a certain point, one would hope this narrative kind of dies or, or people will realize it's nonsense.
But unfortunately we still seem to seem to be in, in this, this fear of terrorism mode, which drives everything.
And so they have to have a guy there as a figurehead.
Yeah.
All right.
Now we talked before, I guess, about how serious the empire might be about provoking a regime change in Syria and how, you know, certainly Netanyahu might be an idiot, but he ain't that stupid that he would rather deal with whatever comes next.
But I just wonder if you could tell me what you know about the protest movement over there.
To what degree is it, you know, a Western backed color coded type thing where America's pushing this one, cause it's against our enemy, where we're trying to contain obviously the revolution in Bahrain and in other places against our allies.
Or is it simply limited to sanctions and rhetoric about how Assad better reform or leave power?
Well, I think it's for real.
I think all these revolutions are basically for real.
And I'll tell you what I mean by for real.
I think that they're, they're, they're for real in the sense that they are popularly driven.
You, you have some people that are tech savvy at the top of this because the tools that they're using to get the word out and to, and, and to get the message to their followers are, are, are technologically oriented, uh, cell phones and, and Twitter and computers and, and internet and that sort of thing.
And some of this we've been facilitating in, in, uh, the Middle East.
We have, uh, our usual players from the national endowment for democracy and USA ID, uh, doing this kind of thing.
Used to be stuff that CIA did, but now they're doing it.
And, uh, but the fact is these revolutions are for real and, uh, they're, they're popular resentment for, uh, you know, people being held down and people being, uh, uh, living in police States.
I mean, this is a, this is a, a good, healthy reaction.
And if we don't poison the water by going in immediately and saying, no, we don't accept this group.
We don't accept that group.
I like we're doing with the, um, uh, Muslim brotherhood already in Egypt.
Uh, you know, this, this might have somewhat of a happy ending.
It's going to have probably a lot of real messy, uh, pluralistic governments that, uh, do a lot of stupid things, but it might actually have a good result.
And, uh, but you know, we're going to do our best to screw it up and we're always going to be going to the Israelis to see what they want in terms of, uh, who we support or who we don't support.
But I think Syria is for real.
And I think that Assad is, is extremely nervous about what's developing there.
Well, how weak is he think it's likely he'll fall?
Well, I don't know.
I, you know, people who know Syria a lot better than I do, uh, suspect that he's still fairly solid in terms of his security apparatus, uh, and that he's, he, he can hang on.
Uh, but of course they said that about the Shah and they've said that about Mubarak and it's, uh, you know, it, it, it, all it takes is just something that, that, that tips the balance in the other direction.
And suddenly when you, you're not having maybe a few hundred people in the street, you're having, uh, a hundred thousand, uh, suddenly things start to change.
Yeah.
Well, if only it could happen here, but I guess things would have to get as bad as it is.
And our, you know, puppet torture dictatorships, you know, to get us that mad, maybe not even then.
I was at, I was at a, um, uh, talk with, uh, with Bruce fine.
I know you've had him on.
Before.
And he's the guy that wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton.
Yeah, exactly.
And, uh, anyway, the discussion was something to the effect of, well, um, Obama has been really bad, but I guess it could get worse.
And, and Bruce and I looked at each other.
We figured the only way it could get worse is if he, if he were to steal the white house silver plate, you know, that they have dinner off of, um, nobody's stolen the silver yet.
That's the only thing that hasn't happened.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, uh, I'm sure it's on the list.
They got some more people to kill before they get around to the little stuff, you know?
Yeah.
But yeah, you know, actually it would be interesting, wouldn't it?
To see the investments of the different high level politicians and how much precious metal they're buying right now as they inflate the currency to destruction.
Well, the problem with the people at the top of the, um, of the pyramid, uh, they're not affected by any of this stuff.
I mean, you know, they, they're on a roll no matter where they go.
Like I noted the, uh, this, uh, chappy from the French guy from the, uh, uh, international monetary fund, uh, he was able to put up a million dollars in cash as a, as a bail bond.
Uh, and he did it like in one day.
And, uh, so this is a guy that's got reserves that you and I can't, I can't even imagine.
And I would imagine that, uh, if there's any possible way he can flee and get back to France, he will, uh, where he probably is sitting on another $20 million or something.
But these people don't live in the world that we live in.
Right.
Yeah.
Simple as that.
All right.
Well, uh, and we're going to have to leave it there cause we're already over time.
Uh, I really appreciate your time on the show as always.
Phil.
Okay.
Scott's good talking to you.
All right, everybody.
That's Phil Giraldi.
He's a former CIA and DIA officer contributing editor at the American conservative magazine.
And, uh, he's the executive director of the council for the national interest foundation, which is CNI online.org.
He also writes for antiwar.com and, uh, go to CNI online.org because there's some upcoming anti APAC events and, uh, things going on.
So, uh, check that out there.
Uh, this is anti-war radio and we will be right back after this.
