Scott Horton

Summary

Podcast Summary: Part Of The Problem – Episode Featuring Scott Horton

Release Date: December 23, 2024
Host: Dave Smith
Guest: Scott Horton
Podcast Network: GaS Digital Network

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Part Of The Problem, host Dave Smith engages in an in-depth discussion with renowned libertarian author and activist Scott Horton. The conversation delves into Scott's latest book, "Provoked," exploring its impact, reception, and the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

---

Book Promotion and Reception

Promoting "Provoked": Scott Horton begins by sharing his experiences on the book tour for "Provoked," highlighting the extensive interviews and debates he has participated in to promote his work. He emphasizes the anticipation surrounding the audiobook release, mentioning that chapters on figures like H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton are nearing completion.

Reception and Criticism: Scott addresses the overwhelmingly positive reviews his book has received, contrasting them with the negative one-star reviews on platforms like Amazon. He attributes the poor reviews to "angry trolls" and "Russian talking points," pointing out the lack of verifiable purchases in these negative comments. “None of the one star reviews have a verified purchase under their name. They’re all clearly just angry trolls from Twitter who came to lie,” Scott asserts ([03:42]).

---

U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Consequences

Impact on Middle Eastern Conflicts: The conversation shifts to the U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts, particularly focusing on Iraq and Syria. Scott critiques the U.S. government's strategies, arguing that policies like supporting the Kurds and engaging with Israel have exacerbated regional tensions. He states, “America is the most powerful government in the history of the world. They can do a lot more bad than other people could,” emphasizing the disproportionate impact of U.S. actions ([05:25]).

Supporting Adversarial Groups: Scott highlights the unintended consequences of U.S. alliances, such as the support for Kurdish forces in Syria, which has strained relations with Turkey and hindered the U.S.’s ability to extricate itself from the region. He also critiques the support for Israel, suggesting that it often comes at the expense of broader American interests. “You think Joe Biden's America? I mean, just because the moneyed interests of Delaware decided they wanted him to be their Senator back in 1973 doesn’t really mean anything,” Scott remarks ([14:42]).

---

Critical Examination of Terrorism Definitions

Moral Equivalence and Double Standards: A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the concept of "moral equivalence" in defining terrorism. Scott and Dave argue that Western governments often apply different standards when labeling groups as terrorists based on political alliances. Scott points out the hypocrisy in how certain acts are condemned when perpetrated by adversaries but ignored or justified when committed by allies. “Moral equivalence… You’re morally equivalent to a bunch of suicide bombing, head chopping scum,” Dave interjects, underscoring the inconsistency in threat perceptions ([66:36]).

Noam Chomsky’s Perspective: The hosts reference Noam Chomsky's view that terrorism is often defined based on proximity and political alignment, not on objective criteria. This leads to a broader critique of how U.S. foreign policy selectively targets threats while ignoring similar or worse actions by allied nations.

---

Historical Context and Propaganda

Iraq War and Al Qaeda: Scott provides a historical analysis of the Iraq Wars, explaining how U.S. policies contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). He details the role of leaders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the flawed justifications used to engage in prolonged military interventions. “America took the Shiite revolution to Baghdad. They didn’t just kick out Saddam; they de-Shiitened it,” Scott explains ([27:06]).

Media and Propaganda: The discussion also touches on the manipulation of media narratives to justify military actions. Scott criticizes how figures like Colin Powell propagated false connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to garner support for the Iraq invasion. “They needed Zarqawi to still be alive,” Scott asserts, highlighting the strategic use of propaganda to sustain military efforts ([27:15]).

---

Modern Implications and Ongoing Conflicts

Syria’s Fragmentation: Scott analyzes the current state of Syria post-Assad, describing the fragmentation and the rise of various militant groups. He critiques the swift actions of nations like Israel in seizing territories, labeling such moves as opportunistic and destabilizing. “It’s manifest destiny, baby. Let’s do it,” he remarks on Israel’s immediate colonization efforts following Assad's fall ([22:14]).

Enduring U.S. Presence: The conversation underscores the challenges in withdrawing U.S. forces from the Middle East. Scott questions the necessity of maintaining American bases in Syria, given the changing dynamics and the reduction of direct threats. “Why do we need Americans at the Altam base to sit on that highway to prevent the weapons coming in?” he questions ([20:03]).

---

Debate Highlights and Future Topics

Debate with Kathy Young: Dave recounts Scott’s debate with Kathy Young, praising Scott's performance and highlighting the strong impact of his arguments. “It was pretty funny that in the final vote she only got the guy she came with,” Dave notes, emphasizing Scott's effective dismantling of opposing viewpoints ([40:33]).

Upcoming Discussions: The episode concludes with a preview of future topics, including shock therapy and color-coded revolutions, promising listeners more insightful analysis in subsequent episodes.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Part Of The Problem offers a thorough critique of U.S. foreign policy, spotlighting the unintended consequences of military interventions and alliances in the Middle East. Through Scott Horton’s analysis, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and moral ambiguities inherent in international relations and the pervasive impact of propaganda. The conversation serves as a call for consistent and objective standards in defining and addressing terrorism, advocating for a more principled and less interventionist approach to global conflicts.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Scott Horton on Amazon Reviews: “None of the one star reviews have a verified purchase under their name. They’re all clearly just angry trolls from Twitter who came to lie.” ([03:42])

• Scott Horton on U.S. Power: “America is the most powerful government in the history of the world. They can do a lot more bad than other people could.” ([05:25])

• Dave Smith on Moral Equivalence: “You’re morally equivalent to a bunch of suicide bombing, head chopping scum.” ([66:36])

• Scott Horton on De-Shiitening Iraq: “America took the Shiite revolution to Baghdad. They didn’t just kick out Saddam; they de-Shiitened it.” ([27:06])

• Scott Horton on Syria's Fragmentation: “It’s manifest destiny, baby. Let’s do it.” ([22:14])

---

For those interested in a critical examination of U.S. foreign policy and its ramifications, this episode provides valuable insights and thought-provoking discussions.

Transcript

[Scott Horton]

Alright, let's be real. If you're a content creator, blogger or an entrepreneur just getting started, the last thing you want to do is spend hours building a website. That's where Bluehost comes in. Their AI tools make custom WordPress sites in minutes. No coding, no stressing. You also get built in marketing and e commerce tools to grow your business and with faster loading you can secure the bag without the lag. It's never been easier to launch your website. Go to bluehost.com now to get started.

[Dave Smith]

You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you? Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Memorable moments like these are key to building your business and your brand. Brands like Headley and Bennett use Klaviyo's marketing automation platform to turn their customer data into more personalized connections across AI powered email, sms analytics and more. Making Every Moment Count Build smarter digital relationships with your customers and make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at k L A V-I-Y-O.com what's up? What's up everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am very happy, as I always am, to be joined by the great Scott Horton. Scott has been everywhere lately promoting his wonderful new book Provoked. It's been very cool to see you kind of getting your flowers over this book. I I kind of knew this was going to be one that was going to make a big impact and it's been cool to see you doing debates and on all of these shows. How's it been so far since last we talked I think the book had just come out. But how have you been enjoying the book tour so far?

[Scott Horton]

Well, I can't get any other work done because I'm just doing nothing but interviews. But whatever. I I worked for no money for two and a half years so now I got to sell the thing so I'm doing a lot of that. I know everybody's really anxious for the audiobook to come out. I have recorded the H.W. bush chapter and about a third I guess of Bill Clinton. Think so those sections should be getting mastered and posted on my sub stack which is Scott hortonshow.com sometime soon I hope. I need to talk to my guy and catch up and then I have tried to block out some time this weekend. Think like Thursday through Sunday. I'm going to try to knock out as much of the audio book as I possibly can. That's going to be a substack series before it's on audible because it's going to be like 45 hours long or something. I don't know. So. But, but that's happening. So I know a lot of people really prefer the audio version. It is coming. But yeah, I don't know, man. I sold quite a few. It's done much better than my previous books, that's for sure. And I've been getting on shows like outside of the libertarian movement, but you know, left wing and right wing shows as well, trying to get the book out there for people. And you know what, people seem really receptive of it. And I haven't heard any sound criticism yet. Just a bunch of Russian talking points. Talking points. And you know, like if you look on Amazon, they're all really great reviews, except all of the one star reviews. You could tell none of them have read the book at all. They don't cite anything in there. One guy says, well, it was good at first, but then he starts saying talking points, right? Like, give me a break, dude. He goes, I checked it out from the library. This book isn't available in any library in America, dude. And there's, you know, they say verified purchase under the comments, right? None of the one star reviews have a verified purchase under their name. They're all clearly just angry trolls from Twitter who came to lie, but none of them even, you know, it's so lazy. Seems like they could just buy the Kindle and quote something, you know.

[Dave Smith]

But no, yeah, well, I said it to you the, the last time you were on the show and it's been just more kind of proven true because you've been doing more and more of these appearances. But it is kind of amazing to me where it's like there seem, it seems like, yeah, there just is no counter argument that's really out there. There's. There's basically two different things that you, you will encounter. This is what I've found to be true also as it relates to Israel, Palestine conflict. But over the last, you know, few years talking a lot about Ukraine and then over the last year talking a lot about Israel, it's like either either one of two things, either they will give you some BS version of history which if you know anything about it, you're already like, yeah, but you're leaving out so much, you know, the information here or you, or you're just making a claim about history that's not true. And whatever, it's either that or it's just, you know what I get on Twitter every day? The laziest, sloppiest. Oh, you're repeating Russian propaganda. Oh, you just love terrorism. You just love jihadists and that. That's why you're critical of Israel. And it is, after a while, almost a little bit flabbergasted. Like, you're just like, that's all. That's all you got, really? Like, who could be persuaded by that? Who. Who would look at that and go, like, you know, I did. I did just read Scott's book, but I don't know. This guy says it's all Putin propaganda. So I guess I'm on this guy's side now. Or, like, does anybody just watch? I just listened to Dave do a debate on Israel, but then, I don't know, this guy on the Internet said he loves terrorists, so I guess that. So, like, who is this going to work on? It seems so. Like, it's like watching the Kamala Harris campaign. Like, is this really what you guys are going with? This is it, yeah. All right.

[Scott Horton]

The same thing for all of Ukraine's PR efforts, or at least the pro war side. All their PR efforts on Twitter this whole time have been to just immediately curse out anyone who disagrees with them at all. When the whole dynamic here is we're the Americans and we're the ones supporting everything that's going on there. You might say, like, but, Dave, don't you know that Putin actually really is bad because of this thing? And that should change your mind to agree with me instead. It's like burning hell Smith from. From the first encounter. It's like, how is this supposed to, you know, help solidify support for Ukraine when you're telling at least half the American people to, absolutely, we should all burn in hell for our refusal to support Ukraine. Bur hell, like, I don't know, maybe we just don't. And. And probably most of them are Americans, and they just think that's how to win a Twitter fight. Always is to just come turned up to 11. But I don't know, it doesn't seem to be creating more sympathy from. For Ukraine that I could tell, you know?

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, no, 100%. And, you know, I was. I. I got into a Twitter back and forth this morning with a guy who was. He was young. He's like 22 years old, and I guess just graduated college. And he was. He was arguing with me over the Jeffrey Sachs Tucker interview, which I want to get your take on in a sec, but. So he's arguing with me. And I was trying to, as I tend to do, especially, like, if you're 22 years old, typically, I just have A little bit more sympathy for anybody making a bad argument. You know, man, I'm lucky Twitter didn't exist when I was 22, because I would have been, that I would have been the type to try to like, win arguments on Twitter too, and I wouldn't have known what I was saying and it'd be embarrassing in hindsight. So like, I kind of. But, so I was, I was trying to be fairly kind. And he said at one point where he goes, and he might mean this, I think genuinely in his 22 year old mind, but he just goes, why is it that guys like you and, and Jeffrey Sachs never seem to get nearly as exercised about Vladimir Putin doing something wrong as you do about when the US does it? Right? The example he used, he goes, where's your outrage about the military bases that Vladimir Putin has in Syria? Or something like that? And you know, I was trying to almost explain to him because I do think there are, there are some number of people who will look at that and go like, yeah, it does seem like, you know, this is, you're the blame America first crowd. Like, you're always on that side. And, and I tried to explain to him, I was like, well, listen, there's an obvious reason for this. It's because we are all Americans and America is the most powerful government in the history of the world. He said something in the comment like, well, why don't you care about, you know, Putin's expansionism, whatever exactly he means by that. Well, because no matter how you slice it, US Expansion dwarfs the Russian Federation's expansion. And also I'm an American. And also the, the forever wars have degraded my country tremendously, like, profoundly. And so I do think sometimes, almost that's what gets people tripped up. It's like, yeah, but everything I hear, it's the social psychology of like. But I just keep hearing you say America bad. But that doesn't make me feel very comfortable. What makes me feel comfortable is you saying other people are bad. Yeah, these Dirka Durkistan guys, they're bad, you know, yeah, like that. So I do think that almost needs to be reminded to people sometimes that it's like, this is not, you know, the way I always say it is like, oh, look, everybody, we all accept that the war in Iraq was wrong and that we were lied into it and it was a disaster. Everyone accepts that. Now, that doesn't mean I'm saying I'd rather live under Saddam Hussein in Iraq than I would under George W. Bush in America. That doesn't mean I'M saying, I think the people and the music and the culture of Iraq is way bigger, better than America's. You know what I'm saying? Like, none of this logically follows. It's just that in the conflict of the. The war in Iraq, the second war in Iraq under W. Bush, clearly the US Was the bad guys. They were the aggressors. You know, like, it's just. I think this should be. When you have a fully formed brain, fairly easy to. To accept.

[Scott Horton]

Well, and look, I mean, just because somebody won an election to be the president doesn't mean that they are, you know, the ultimate representative of the American people. Like, you know, Bill Clinton is our uber congressman, and we have all, like, given our ascent to him to be our divine king for a while or something. In fact, no, the guy was a felon who should have been in prison before he was ever sworn into the presidency. You know, I think a lot of us now, I've never interacted with her, really. I should, but I've known her story, you know, back when the rest of the major media was covering it up, only the Wall Street Journal would tell the story of Juanita Broder, who Bill Clinton had savagely raped and punched in the face and bitten on the face while he raped her and then mocked her as he. When he left the room. And she told his story so credibly, so consistently, for she tried to, like, cover it up and bury. She wasn't trying to get publicity out of it. It was only when it was dragged out of her. In fact, I'll tell you, as long as I'm ranting about it, she lied to the same grand jury, the. The Paula Jones civil lawsuit grand jury that Bill Clinton had lied to, and said that, no, I don't know what. You're out. Never happened, whatever. But then it went to the federal grand jury under the special prosecutor. And Juanita Brick's son was a lawyer, and he told her, mom, you can't lie to a federal grand jury. Civil lawsuit is one thing. Federal grand jury doesn't matter what the subject is. Doesn't matter that you're the victim and you're talking about somebody else. You. You cannot lie in any way. And so. And she couldn't plead the Fifth because there was. She hadn't done anything wrong to cover up. So she went in there and told the truth, and that was the only time it came out. And then when she sued, she sued for $1. I don't even think it was for $1. It was just for her FBI file. That was all she sued for, was her FBI file. And she's known as a tennis nut on Twitter now and is, of course, a Republican activist now. And, you know, Bill Clinton's lawyer goes, any claim that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick in this hotel on this day in 1978 is false. I was like, well, wait, which part of it you're saying? Because she still was going by her maiden name, Hickey, at the time, she wasn't Juanita Broadrick yet when he savagely bit her on the face while he raped her. Anyway, what I'm really trying to say here, Dave, is that when Bill Clinton burned Waco, that wasn't America burning Waco. That was Bill Clinton and the national government, the army and the FBI burning Waco is what that was. And when Bill Clinton bombed Bosnia or, well, and bombed Serbia and, you know, twice in 1995. Well, in 94, 95, and then again in 99, that wasn't America doing that. That was Bill Clinton. In fact, he had no authority whatsoever. The Congress didn't authorize that, never mind declare war. It wasn't even authorized at all. He just does whatever he wants. How is that America? And so this is an elementary mistake, right? To say this is blaming America. America is a place with a bunch of people living on top of it. It's, you know, also sort of happens to be the name of the government, but not really. And as libertarians, of course, we like to discriminate and. And point out the discrepancy there. Of course, the government poses as the country, calls itself the country, you know, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that. And as long as it's Bill Clinton, same difference when you're talking about W. Bush or Barack Obama, for that matter, Donald Trump or anybody else up there. Joe Biden, for Christ's sake. You think Joe Biden's America? I mean, just because the moneyed interests of Delaware decided they wanted him to be their Senator back in 1973 and they kept him there, doesn't really mean anything. Doesn't really reflect on the rest of us at all. You think, look at Lindsey Graham. I think Lindsey Graham sits in the US Senate, America's House of Lords, because that's what the people of the United States of America want. No, somebody has done this to us, right? Like we're victims, you know, or innocent bystanders at best, in the selection of Lindsey Graham to be our overlord. And if you stop and think about. If anybody stops and thinks about this stuff, For a minute. Of course it's obvious and all these kind of claims fall apart. And yeah, like you're saying, and there's a great Noam Chomsky quote and I'm sure you can find some right winger quotes like this too. Then yeah, of course I'm criticizing my own government. I live here. These are the people that I'm ostensibly responsible for. At the very least, I gotta suffer the consequences of the decisions they make. But then if this is anything like a democratic republic in any way, where the people have sovereignty in any way, then yeah, the grown ups are supposed to shout about it when the government is lying and stealing and murdering people and causing terrorists to kamikaze into our towers.

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, I think in the Noam Chomsky quote that you're, you're referencing, he said something which I always thought was really a really great example where he was like, imagine if you were like a very high ranking, like Soviet, in the Soviet government in the time that Stalin's committing his worst crimes. And all you can go on about, which is what they used to do is the human rights violations of the Americans. They used to love to do this under, under Stalin's Soviet Union. That is the, oh my God, look at, they have segregation in the south, they mistreat black people. They started this conflict or that conflict. Look how awful the Americans are. Can't you just look at that and be like, okay, but wouldn't it be a little bit more valuable use of your time to point out that you are working for Joseph Stalin? You know what I mean? And so obviously it's very convenient that this is where your moral outrage goes to. And likewise, it's just, it's so hard for me to sit around, you know, on, on a panel with some, you know, Piers Morgan or someone like that just going off on all the crimes of Vladimir Putin and how awful he is and kind of like, all right, but you know, I am a citizen and a non voluntary taxpayer of the world empire, the most war hungry country in the world. Maybe Israel gives us a run for our money, but they only do it because we give them a money for their run. So we only do it because they.

[Scott Horton]

Demand that we do it.

[Dave Smith]

Well, okay, but anyway, yeah, it is, it's hard to just be like, obviously, I think as an American, your role would be to criticize the American government first because they do claim to represent us and they force us to fund their operations. And then on top of that, they're also just the most powerful world empire, the most powerful government that's ever existed. And so they can do a lot more bad than other people could. You know, it's like when people say like, oh, you know, Vladimir Putin wants the entire world to be speaking Russian or something like that, which of course he's never said. But you go, yeah, well he doesn't have the power to do that. He doesn't even have the power to take Kiev, evidently. So, okay, let's deal with who actually has the power and the desire rather than just some abstract claim that they have the desire. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Prolon. Forget everything you know about fasting. Prolon by El Nutra is the only patented fasting mimicking diet that combines the benefits of prolonged fasting with a science backed nutrition plan so you can hit your health and weight loss goals without actually having to give up all that food. I know people, you, if you're anything like me, you've probably heard about all these intermediate fasting diets. This is what you got to do. If you're like me, you're not going to actually give up food. So now you can check out Prolon, a revolutionary plant based nutrition program that nourishes the body while making cells believe that they are fasting. And all of this starts with Prolon's five day program. Snacks, soups and beverages all designed to keep your body in a fasting state. It's unlike anything you've ever experienced. And right now Prolon is offering part of the problem listeners 15 off their five day nutrition program. Just go to prolonlife. That's P R O L-O-N L I F E.com P O T P for this special offer prolonlife.compotp for 15 off their five day nutrition program. All right, let's get back into the show. Okay, I do, I want to talk to you a little bit about because there were certain areas of the book that I wanted to get into but I kind of feel it would be a crime against humanity to have you here and not talk about Syria a bit because this is obviously is a part, a substantial part of the story of your new book and it's a huge, huge part of the book that you wrote previously to that enough already. Which I do think I highly recommend everybody. If you haven't read enough already, make sure to buy it and read it. The book is phenomenal. It's every bit as great as Provoked. I mean it's just perfect Hortonian storytelling. And giving real, real history. But even if you have read the book, it's worth going back and rereading the Syria chapter just to have a little bit of background. So you're kind of up to speed of like, where were we right before the Assad regime just fell? But I have not talked to you on air since, since this happened. So where do you, what are your thoughts on, on Assad fleeing the regime change finally coming to fruition and the Western media celebrating? And even as we played on the last episode here, we were going all over this CNN hoax story about the, the freed prisoner, but even participating in what is essentially an Al Qaeda propaganda campaign to, to rehabilitate the image of these in Iraq fighters who are now in Syria and to kind of, I don't know, celebrate, like, isn't this wonderful that Bashar Al Assad has fallen and Al Qaeda is in Damascus? It's pretty wild to watch.

[Scott Horton]

I know, man. I'm, I don't want to make like a bunch of wild predictions because I, I really just don't know what is going to happen. But I think it's clear that even now the Syria really doesn't exist anymore. I don't know what they're going to call whatever part of it Al Qaeda comes to rule. But America is in alliance with the Kurds in the east, in the northeast, with the YPG Kurds, and cannot leave because the Turks would very much like to cleanse and, and kill and, and remove them. And now I don't know if Trump has a different relationship with Erdogan that he could prevent that with language rather than actual boots on the ground. I'm not so sure. But that it's a huge disincentive for the Americans leaving. On the other hand, they have broken the Shiite crescent. Iran can no longer use Syria to transport weapons to Hezbollah and, and Syria itself, the Alawite regime there that was allied with Iran. So this was the whole point, as David Wormser put it in 1996, why we need to expedite the chaotic collapse to Syria is to break this chain of Shiite power. And so that much is done. So why do we need Americans at the Altam base to sit on that highway to prevent the weapons coming in? I don't know we need that anymore. Even according to, you know, the empire's own perspective on that. There's protecting the Kurds and, you know, they're keeping the oil and the wheat out of the hands of the Assad regime. I don't know if they're going to turn those resources right over to Al Qaeda. Now, of course, the Israelis are carving out a chunk. They've taken Mount Hernan and, and area, you know, up to and surrounding it, and stopped about, I think they said, 20 kilometers from Damascus. So what's that, about 15 miles or something from the capital? They got settlers already coming in and saying, come on, let's colonize this land. It's manifest destiny, baby. Let's do it. Raring to go. It's amazing to see, you know, civilians, you know, coming in, talking about, all right, put a stake in the ground right there. This is ours now. Raises questions about what quick.

[Dave Smith]

It's amazing how quick they move to do that. Netanyahu made a speech the day that Bashar Al Assad fled, or maybe it was the next day, just saying, like, oh, we're taking this land, we're moving further. You're like, oh, you don't have to let this thing cool off for a week. You get to just move in right away. It's like, oh, I think I'm starting to see why we were supposed to hate Bashar al Assad so much.

[Scott Horton]

There you go. And in fact, you know, Netanyahu and Joe Biden both gave speeches taking credit for Al Qaeda's victory and saying, yeah, it was because, you know, various parts of their speeches, you know, from Biden's point of view, keeping the Russians bogged down in Ukraine and giving license to Israel to hit Syria and Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria and in Lebanon as much as they please, etc. Etc. And then Netanyahu himself said, yeah, that's right, you know, we. We're doing all this damage to their forces in the lead up to this, softening up all these targets for them. And then. And that was the true history. What happened and then. So who took over? I think it's worth delving into this a bit, Dave, that what we're talking about here for, for people is, you know, maybe too young because we're, you know, living far in the future now. But go back 20 years ago when America invaded in Iraq War Two. What happened was, as I am often want to detail, America took the Shiite revolution to Baghdad. They didn't just kick out Saddam and de botify the government, they de soonified it is what they did. They kicked all the Sunnis out of Baghdad in a horrific, you know, sectarian cleansing campaign. They gave the capital city and control over the nation state to the Shiite supermajority that had been previously oppressed by the Sunnis well, that drove the Sunni population and especially the powerful sheikhs who were losing their, you know, status and, and protection of the national government. Push them into the arms. Well, first of all, push them to insurgency and then secondly into the arms of the crazies, the bin Ladenites who came from all around. You had the previous bin Ladenite movement that America had helped to support in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya, and who are now coming. And you had, you know, a whole new generation of terrorists come from Saudi Arabia, from Libya, from Syria, Iraq. You know, there's a study there, a pair of studies in 2005 by the Saudis and the Israelis. So this is a whole new generation of fighters coming. The, the guys who fought in Afghanistan were essentially the travel agents sending the youth to fight a whole new generation of bin Ladenite fighters to go to Iraq. So this became known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. And the most prominent leader was a guy named Abu Mosab al Zarqawi, who people should know, it's very important, had previously told bin Laden, no, I don't want to join your group. I want to kill the king of Jordan, not Americans. So that's my thing. And then also he'd been wanted by Saddam Hussein, but the war party made up these lies. Older listeners will remember the story that Saddam Hussein gave Zarqawi treatment in the hospital and a wooden peg leg after he'd been wounded in Afghanistan. And this was supposedly the connection between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. Well, that was a damn lie. And Colin Powell, he knew he was lying when he went to the UN in January of 2003. And he said, let me tell you something. There's this guy's Arkawi, and he's Al Qaeda. No, he had told bin Laden, no, I don't want to fight you, fight with you. I want to do my own thing. So he's still been law knight in a way by, you know, politics and, and, and, you know, religious fervor and sectarian discrepancy and whatever, but he wasn't part of the movement, which was the claim. And then Colin Powell said, and you know what, Dave, too, he's in Iraq. And of course, he was being overly broad and general in his statement when he said that, knowing that most Americans don't understand that Saddam Hussein only controlled about four or five cities and not at all his own. His own country at the time. In fact, Zarqawi was safe up in Kurdistan. And I'm finding out more about this, but apparently he was under the explicit protection of the American friend Barzani at the time. I don't know exactly why, but I do know, and it's widely reported by more, more sources than you would think. There's so much good journalism and I'm not sure who to give the most credit to first or what for this, but people can find a ton on this where the military and I guess maybe even the CIA wanted to kill this guy before the war. They knew that he was a danger and George Bush wouldn't let them do it. And they begged over and over and over on all different occasions for permission to kill him and, and Bush wouldn't let him do it because they needed the talking point. This was the pretend connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They needed Zarqawi to still be alive.

[Dave Smith]

It's kind of like, kind of like having Bin Laden and Tora Bora pinned down there and allowing him to escape into Pakistan because you don't get your, you don't get your bonus war without that.

[Scott Horton]

That's right. So, yeah, if America had already killed Bin Laden and already killed Zarqawi, then why do we got to kill Saddam? He doesn't have anybody to give chemical weapons to anymore.

[Dave Smith]

Just by the way, just for people who are. Might be a little bit younger. But it just, it can't be overstated that this was what the entire Iraq War propaganda campaign relied on. Because it wasn't just like, oh my God, Saddam Hussein has these weapons. It was that he has these weapons and he's involved with Al Qaeda, he's going to pass them off to Al Qaeda and then the mushroom cloud will be over Kansas or whatever. You know, as ridiculous as that sounds now, immediately after 9, 11, this was something that really, it was effective propaganda. This moved people to be like, oh, all right, well we can't, we can't deal with that reality, so we have to go invade. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is my Patriot supply. Obviously there's a new administration that will be sworn in soon, but as great as that may be, as excited as you may be, you know that there's still some time left on this administration and things have been wacky for the last few years and might get wacky again soon. That's why I always have an emergency food supply from my Patriot supply. Right now they're offering a hundred dollars off their three month emergency food kit. It's got 2,000 calories per day for three whole months. Plenty to get you through even a prolonged emergency. All of their food kits last up to 25 years in storage, plus they come in rugged weatherproof buckets. You want to have an emergency food kit in your home like I do. Just so you know, if disaster strikes, you will be prepared. That's why you got to go to preparewithsmith.com to order your three month emergency food kit now. All right, let's get back into the show.

[Scott Horton]

Right. So then when they do invade, and as I say, they took the Shiite side in the civil war and that pushed the Sunnis to insurgency and into the arms, of course, of the worst, the bin Ladenite kooks who traveled from all around, sprung from Saudi prisons and wherever to fight against the Americans in this horrible war. And so out of the 4,500American soldiers that were killed in the war, and that's soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and guardsmen and whatever is right around 4,500. 4,000 of those guys died fighting the Sunni insurgency, the worst part of which was Al Qaeda in Iraq. The other 500 were killed by Iraqi Shia. They always lie and say that Iran killed them, but that's a lie. A separate story for another day. But hang on. So this, these were the guys who killed so many of our, our guys, the suicide bombers and the roadside bombers of Iraq War two. That was essentially who our guys were fighting there. Then what happened was because they wish they hadn't put the Shiites in power in Baghdad who after all, are allied with Iran. And instead of being compliant with American wishes and telling Hezbollah to stop being friends with Iran and telling Syria to stop being friends with Iran and the rest, instead it just empowered Iran. And so they couldn't do, they couldn't reverse the civil war in Baghdad and they couldn't launch a regime change war in Tehran because that's just biting off way more than the Pentagon's willing to even try to chew there. So what do we got? Well, we do our consolation prize in Damascus. And so that was why they went after Bashar al Assad in Damascus into beginning in 2011 when the Arab Spring broke out. And that's. And then it was literally Al Qaeda in Iraq that crossed the border into Syria and became Al Qaeda in Iraq in Syria, otherwise known as Jabbat al Nusra. Well, that's the group that we have now. Their leader, Jelani is the guy who was sent by Baghdadi, who was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq to go and create the Syrian branch. And that's exactly what he went and did. Now in 2013, the Iraqi dominated faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq in Syria split away from the Syrian dominated faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria. So Jelani was focused more on the west of the country and focused on fighting Assad and, and his army in Damascus. Whereas Baghdadi decided he would consolidate control over eastern Syria in by the spring of 2013 and then one year later rolled into western Iraq. Everybody remembers the iconic picture of the long line of Toyota Helix pickup trucks with their headlights on and full of, you know, with their beds full of jihadis rolling into Mosul. And so that was what that was the caliphate. So Bush's war that turned all of western Iraq into sort of lawless, ungoverned, wide open jihadistan. And then Obama's war to support them in Syria led then to the rise of the caliphate that had conquered all of eastern Syria and western Iraq. Then Obama had to launch Iraq War 3 to blow it back up again because having Baghdadi up there like Bin Laden himself on the balcony declaring a dictatorship and all that was too, too much. So that was Iraq War III that Obama started in 14. And Trump fin his first year in office in 2017 was basically done by the end of 2017, a little bit into 18. But so Baghdad was the one who just lines up 17. Well, in fact, he had him laying down on a basketball court and machine gun 1700 Iraqi Air Force cadets. There is other footage of him taking, you know, his, his captives, lining them up, just shooting them in the head and dropping their bodies in the river. And so it's an absolute horror show when people talk about, you know, they, they blame Hamas. This is isis. This is America's guys. America and Turkey and Saudi guys in Iraq are the ones throwing gay men off of roofs and all of this just crazy stuff. The, the great Middle Eastern reporter Patrick Cockburn called them sort of like an Islamist Khmer Rouge. That's Pol Pot and his commies that took over Cambodia in the late 70s. And we're known as like the maddest mad men whoever control the state, right? Lord of the flies on pcp, out of control communist auto genocide they call it. The government killed 2,3 million of their own people in the thing. And I don't mean starved him, I mean murdered them all. Just crazy. And so that's how ISIS was. And I say all that, Dave, to say that Jelani has been to finishing school, right? He is now under the public relations tutelage of the United States and Turkey. And it was a few years ago now, three, four Five years ago. God, that Martin Smith from, from Frontline. We maybe even talked about this on your show then. Yeah, yeah, Martin Smith from Frontline tried to. That's PBS documentary, foreign policy type thing, you know, serious documentary program. Did a whole thing to rehabilitate the guy. I think we were joking at the time. They must have been listening to my show because I used to say, you see how this guy has a long beard and a turban and looks just like Osama bin Laden sends fleets of suicide bombers and head choppers out to do suicide bombings and head choppings. And you see how this other guy wears a three piece suit and shaves his chin every morning. And yes, controls a murderous army, but is quite literally a secular dictator who protects all the ethnic and religious minorities in the region. You see how one is different from the other. You see how the beard is one thing and the mustache is another. Like you should have been able to tell the difference between Osama and Saddam back in the last war. Well, this is who we're talking about when we're talking about Bashar Al Assad. And yes, a three piece suit is a reason enough to pursue to prefer Bashar Al Assad to Muhammad Abu Al Jelani, right? So then what they do, they dressed him up in a three piece suit with the vest and everything. And they had put him on front line going, look at me, I'm wearing a three piece suit. They didn't shave his chin, but he goes, look at me, I'm a sophisticated Western democrat now. And so his men are not, as far as I know for certain are not doing head choppings right now. They didn't use suicide bombings in this offensive. They didn't need to. They certainly did in the last war. But they have obviously been instructed to dial down the lunacy if you want to hold on to the power. And so, because look in this, the whole root of Al Qaeda's war against the United States, as long as America's here to blow up their caliphate, ain't no point in building one. There ain't no point in even trying to overthrow your local king. If America's going to come and back him up, or if you succeed, they're going to come and blow up your caliphate anyway. That's the whole discrepancy in the fight over whether we should target the near enemy or the far enemy. And Zawahiri and bin Laden and their other leaders of their movement decided we gotta target the Americans first. We gotta get them angry like a bull to chase after the red scarf into Afghanistan so we can bog them down, bleed them to bankruptcy and force them out the hard way. Unfortunately, Trump and Biden learned their lesson and. Well, unfortunately for them, I mean, in their narrative, Trump and Biden learned the lesson, got out of Afghanistan before total bankruptcy hit us. So the getting is still good there. And so the, and then. But what happened with Iraq War 3, Dave? They built the caliphate for the forum, but then they blew it up again. So if you were like in Al Qaeda doing the near enemy, far enemy argument, looks like the far enemy argument is winning. As long as we build a caliphate, there's no point in doing it because the Americans will come blow it back up again unless we work hand in glove with the US And Turkey and Israel to do it and we have their full permission and we dial down the head choppings and suicide bombings a little bit it and then we get to have what we want because Israel especially, but also America and Turkey are more than happy to break the back of Shiite power in the region and this Alawite government and its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah. So for them, the price is worth it to put these guys in power. Now my thing is this, and first of all, Jelani is an, he fought against Americans in Iraq War two. So that should be the end of the argument, right? This is high treason for America to support this group at all, regardless of public relations, you know, PowerPoint series that they had to sit through or whatever they still are loyal to or, or, you know, they never renounced. They said that people said they renounced Al Qaeda. They just like distanced themselves from Al Qaeda. They never like truly renounced their oath to that movement. And these are the guys who knocked down the towers.

[Dave Smith]

Well, I just want to say, because I made this point on my last episode and I should make it with you here too. So I was, I was bringing up your debate with Kathy Young, which I did say is maybe the most one sided debate I've ever seen. There's been some pretty one sided one. You had a pretty one sided one with Bill Kristol too. But it was pretty funny that in the final vote she only got the guy she came with. That's just pretty hilarious. And she just did a terrible job. She doesn't, you know, she's awful. But there was the moment that I think most people remember as kind of the funniest moment of that debate was when she said like, you know, she said something in the portion where you guys get to go back and forth and she goes like, you know, we don't have to get into the Azov Battalion. We could save that for another time or something. And you were like, of course you don't want to get into it. And you asked her how much they ha. They love Adolf Hitler on a scale of 1 to 10, and. And then gave her the answer, which was 10. But there was this moment where she. She goes, well, yes, you know, in her Eastern European accent or whatever, she goes, yes, they, they started as a neo Nazis, as a Nazi organization, but they've evolved from there. And it's just, it's amazing that I, I said, it's almost as if, like, I think the example I gave on the show yesterday was like, if. Imagine talking about, like, the Ku Klux Klan this way, which, by the way, like, I don't know, I haven't heard anything about Ku Klux Klan violence in a long time. I don't really think it's a violent group anymore. But if anyone, if you ever told me, like, oh, this guy joined the Klan. And I went, yeah, but you're thinking like the old clan. You'd be like, wait a minute, I'm sorry, dude, you're still joining the Ku Klux Klan. And this is the Klan, a pretty awful organization historically, but, I mean, we're talking about Nazis and in this case, Al Qaeda. And yet somehow you can attempt to do a rehabilitation campaign on these. These groups. I mean, it is, it's so, it's, you know, one of the things that. It really does expose the war hawks so much because it's like, wait, but these are the groups that you rely on to justify every goddamn war. Every war. It's just because, oh, you're weak. You're you, you know, Scott Horton, you're Neville Chamberlain, and you just want appeasement. But I'm really tough and I recognize that everyone's a Nazi or everyone's Al Qaeda. And yet, yet you will sit here and actually, you can't make this up, that you will run, cover and work to rehabilitate the image of both Nazis and Al Qaeda. This is just unbelievable.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, look, we're still at war in Somalia in the name of Al Qaeda. We stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years in the name of Al Qaeda. Launch an aggressive war against Iraq in the name of Al Qaeda, but support them in Libya. Support him and. And wage horrific drone wars, literally, honestly, against Al Qaeda in Yemen and Pakistan for a minute before turning right around, finishing the job, mostly in Pakistan, but then turning right around and backing Al Qaeda again in Yemen.

[Dave Smith]

And I should, I should also remind people, by the way, again, because I know I do. We do have a lot of young people who listen to the show and I, I, you know, it's, I'm not a young person anymore and so I do kind of forget. Like this is, to me, this is all like very recent history, but I guess, you know, it's, it's multiple decades or at least has been going on for, for over 20 years. But the, I, I cannot stress enough the entire justification for the war in Afghanistan because if people. Again, Scott also wrote a book about Afghanistan called Fool's Errand, also a highly recommend, really great read. And really, if you read these three books, by the way, if you get, if there's nothing else and you're interested in American foreign policy, read Fools. Aaron, enough already. And Provoked. And you are going to have a huge comparative advantage to almost anyone you're talking to this stuff about, but this. Okay, in Afghanistan, there it's by the end of 2001, right? So September 11, the towers come down almost immediately. The special ops missions start in Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda camps are blasted very, very quickly. By the end of the year, there's basically no more like, like real Al Qaeda camps left in Afghanistan. But the justification for why we had to embark on a regime change war against the Taliban was that, well, listen, which, because if you think about it logically, it's kind of like going after a landlord because someone you rented an apartment to committed a murder. Typically we don't really blame the landlord for renting the apartment to them, especially as you detail in the book, when afterward the landlord was willing to take talk and negotiate and figure out how to extradite the wanted party. But the justification was like, nope, they rented to Al Qaeda once, which means they could rent to them again in the future. And we simply cannot allow Afghanistan to be a country where Al Qaeda could plot the next 9 11. Now forget the fact that lots of 911 was not planned in Afghanistan. And but if you just take this logic, and yet now we can give them Syria. We can hand them their own country. I thought this whole thing was, was predicated on the justification that they can't be given a safe haven. What, like they can't plan attacks in Syria? Or is it because Jelani is saying nice things about Israel or putting on a suit? Now we don't have to have the concern that they could like magically in, in Syria they can't plan attacks, but only in Afghanistan they could.

[Scott Horton]

I mean, look, let's pretend that they're right, that no, we've tamed Abu Muhammad al Jalani, right. He's the sweetest little Al Qaeda guy that you could ever have take over a state for you. If that's really true, then one of his men will soon kill him and replace him. Right? Like, come on, you really just get on the phone and take orders from the Israelis every day, dude. That's what his people are just going to be perfectly happy with that. That. Now look, America, Israel and Turkey helped them defeat their immediate enemies. But now what like anybody really thinks everything's going to be fine. All the different kinds of Christians, all the Shiites and all the Alawites, they're all going to be safe. It's going to be a diverse, multi ethnic, wonderful new Islamist Al Qaeda state there. You know, they've ruled in the Idlib province for the last 10 years. But that, that's a pretty homogeneous area and a, a rural area. It's not the same as ruling Aleppo and Hama and Homs and Damascus, right? And, and Latakia and all the areas, especially in the western part of the country where you have more Shiites and Christians. I don't know that they're just going to go around cutting everybody's heads off for refusing to convert and all that. But it's not going to be pretty. At the very least it's going to be Libya st. Ongoing strife and civil war for the long term. And again, America is going to stay in the east. And, and look, I think honestly, if Dave, if, you know, on the scale of, from, from what Bin Laden on one side to Baghdadi on the other, Zarqawi is on there somewhere. Like J. Is maybe on like the, maybe he's the nicest of those four Al Qaeda character, you know, leaders there. Maybe he's the least worst of all of them. But this is a continuum on the far revolutionary, Salafi, crazy spectrum of Islamic revolutionary thought, right? I mean these guys are, they are not democrats. Nothing like it. And so if, if he is not going to meet out the ultra violence, he'll probably be replaced by somebody who will. I mean you look at again the, just to go back 10 years to ISIS and again when Baghdadi broke away, he was by doctrine specifically meant to be much worse and was like so chauvinist against the Shiites. The only good Shiite is a dead Shiite. This kind of thing. I don't think Jelani is necessarily, maybe he never was that ideological, but he did kill Americans in Fallujah or at least claim to, you know, fought against Americans in Iraq War two. And. And his men committed all kinds of atrocities during the war 10 years ago. Like I say, all this stuff about softening him up. He was already the devil. The fact that Baghdadi was even worse than him, they use that to try to rehabilitate him back then, but it didn't really work because he was obviously so plainly also a bin Ladenite marauder. You know, it's really much more in the meantime, since they've been sort of camped out in the Idlib province, that they've really embarked on this further rehabilitation campaign to try to get Western audiences to accept him. Man, you should see the thing in the New York Times. This is the most absurd thing. They're like. Well, they. They're not chopping people's hands off for smoking cigarettes in public. So that's pretty progressive.

[Dave Smith]

There you go. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear. Sheath uses moisture wicking technology to create underwear that keeps everything breathable and uncomfortably comfortable for you downstairs. You guys have heard me talking about them for many years. At this point, they are the best pair of boxer briefs in the world. The only pair of underwear that I ever. The only pair of underwear that I ever wear is Sheath Underwear. And on top of that, they're a longtime sponsor of this show, and the company is run by great people. So go check them out@sheath underwear.com use the promo code problem for 20% off your order. Sheathunderwear.com promo code problem for 20% off. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, there's. There's your.

[Scott Horton]

There.

[Dave Smith]

They're basically pushing dei. I mean, there you go. We haven't even seen the heads chops off. Well, it is. So Jeffrey Sachs was on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday, stealing my thunder. Stealing it certainly. Certainly a little bit. But he. It seems to be somewhere, you know, not quite, maybe not quite the outrage storm that our buddy Darryl created by daring to question whether the biggest bloodbath in human history was a perfectly great thing. And everybody on our side did everything right, you know, but. So one of the things Jeffrey Sachs said, which I have. I have seen characterized on Twitter as vile anti Semitism. Jeffrey Sachs clearly hates Jewish people. I know. It's too. It's all just too ridiculous. But he. He said. And I will say, you know, when he said it, I did. Obviously, I loved it. But I was like, oh, he really just said that. But he Just goes. He goes, you know, the US Decided to outsource their foreign policy to Israel, and it's been an utter disaster for not just the United States of America, but every single way that this conflict is touched. And then he went into the long history of the, you know, the last. What is it, 13 years in Syria, right? 13. I'm not good at math.

[Scott Horton]

When he went back to the clean break. Yes. What Netanyahu wanted ever since mid-1990s, by the way.

[Dave Smith]

What a kind of wild admission. I don't know if it's an admission exactly, because you. When you were debating General Wesley Clark, it seemed like he was. I remember I said to you on the phone afterward, it seemed like you were debating like a screen door in the wind. Like, it's just kind of like, would you hold still so I can kick you open? Like, where are you even going here? But he did at one point just say, you know, you brought up the fact that he's most famous for this seven countries in five years quote. And, hey, remember that? And he goes, oh, no, no, no. This goes back to the early 90s. He's like, no, no, no, no. Wolfowitz had this plan long before that. So I don't exactly even myself know where the origin of the kind of. Of clean break, seven countries in five years strategy came from. However, it's been here for quite a long time. And it's. Anyway, there's really something to kind of see, but there is like a kind of fundamental dynamic here where obviously, I understand where people don't like the way it sounds when you say, hey, we outsourced our foreign policy to Israel. And the response is, oh, you're blaming the. The Jews or something like that. Even though it's not. This is not a comment on Barry the Dentist on the Upper west side of Manhattan. This is a comment on the neoconservatives and the Likud Party. That's fairly specific. But there's this great quote which you have. You have in. It's in enough already. I'm blanking on the name of the guy and his position, but the Israeli. It's on video, if anybody. We played it before on the show. But where. And I'm sure you'll remember this because you have it in your book, but where the Israeli guy was saying that they will treat wounded al Qaeda guys, but they won't treat wounded Hezbollah fighters. Do you remember who. Who was.

[Scott Horton]

It was Frame. Halevi.

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, yeah.

[Scott Horton]

Interview with Mehdi Hassan on Al Jazeera.

[Dave Smith]

Yes. And so he's basically saying that they were talking about how like on the battlefield if Al Qaeda members are wounded, they will give them medical attention. Hezbollah, on the other hand, they will not. And he goes, well, why not? And he goes, well, al Qaeda are not our enemies. Hezbollah is our enemy. We're involved in a conflict with Hezbollah, but not with Al Qaeda. And then he's kind of like, whoa. I mean, but that's crazy because there are our enemies and the whole reason we're in this war on terrorism is because of that. But I will say to almost perhaps if Israel was not just a fat welfare mom for the United States of America, like if they were self sufficient, I could almost accept that and go, hey, I think it's kind of. Listen, after all, we're not, at least in that clip he's talking about giving medical treatment. I'm kind of of the belief that you give medical treatment to everybody, even horrific mass murderers. Like I don't, you know what I mean? Like, I think if you're serving a life sentence in prison, we still give you medical treatment because that's kind of the way civilized people do things. Regardless. It's like, like I think to get at the point that Jeffrey Sachs was making, it's just like, why is it that Israel's allowed to have that opinion? And yet then why can't we say the exact same thing and go, okay, but our enemy is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is the enemy of the American people and Hezbollah is not. And Bashar Al Assad is not. So I think like what Jeffrey Sachs is or what is some evidence to point point that his assertion is correct is that we, we are somehow through many different forces in a political situation where we are not allowed to think in our own national interest in the way that Israel is about these conflicts. Like they can sit there and just say, hey look, we got two guys here, right? We have Bashar Al Assad and we have Al Qaeda. Well, Bashar Al Assad's our enemy because he allows the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. But Al Qaeda is not our enemy. Why on earth can't the Americans be allowed to do the same thing and just say, well, quite the opposite for us. For us, Bashar Al Assad never hit any towers in Manhattan and neither did Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, look, that, that's all we're talking about is America's interests in Israel's interests are separate and different. And you can't get more blatant than what you're talking about right here. Their enemies are the Shiites, ours are the Sunnis and the radical vanguard edge of America's own Sunni terrorist mercenary army that in fact if we would just tell our allies to stop backing them would probably dry up and blow away mostly if America and our friends would quit taking their side in these things and, and you know, doing things that also motivate people to, to turn against us. But it wasn't, as you say quite correctly, it was not Iran or Syria's Assad Baathist regime or Hezbollah in Lebanon that knocked our towers down. That was the Bin Ladenites that did that. And then so what do the neoconservatives do? Was the same thing they've been doing for 25 years. Dave. Michael Ledeen would go, yeah dude, we have to take on the terror masters in Tehran. Well, what do you mean the terror masters? They go, well don't you know Iran is the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism. H, that's a little vague. How come you didn't say they're the world's greatest state sponsor of Al Qaeda? Oh, it's because Al Qaeda suicide bombs Iranian Shiites to death, chops their heads off. Oh, I get it. They're the enemies of our enemies. So instead you come up with this crap about terror masters and greatest state sponsor of something or other when what your really talking about is they back Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Okay, yes, well then back in Hamas makes them equally as guilty as Benjamin Netanyahu. So I don't want to hear another word about that. And backing Hezbollah, it wasn't even Hezbollah, it was sort of proto pre Hezbollah that blew up the American marine Barracks in 1983 where Reagan acknowledged he shouldn't have put them in the first place. But also that same day Israel knew it was going to happen and refused to warn their American best friends and, and benefactors in the whole world that it was going to happen. And anyone can read this in the book By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky that's named after the way that the Israelis make you think everything that you think about Israel is by lying to you. Because they're liars, because they have to be, because they're guilty of theft and mass murder all the time. And so they have to lie to make themselves look better. So By Way of Deception is the name of the book. It's by a former Mossad agent named Victor Ostrovsky. And he talks about how the Mossad guys said to each other he was there and they said, ah, that's what The Americans get for sticking their nose into our business in Lebanon, Let them get bombed as the American Marines were killed, 240 of them. So if we still have to hate Hezbollah for that, then I still get to hate Israel for that. They might as well have helped Hezbollah do it then. The same damn difference. What would the Israelis say if America knew that somebody's going to truck bomb and kill 241 of their IDF? And when we kept that secret from them, they do a regime change in Washington D.C. and put the other party in power at the next election is what they would do. They start an extra war and make sure we lose it just to rub our nose in it if we dare do that to them. So yeah, the Shiites didn't do anything else. You know what? What? Zabidna Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser at the time of the Iranian revolution. And so if anyone was humiliated by the rise of the aola, the seizing of the hostages and all of that, it was him. He's the one who helped advise Carter that you better announce the Carter Doctrine to save face after this absolute humiliation, his personal humiliation. But hey, by 1993 he was taking money from, I think it was ConocoPhillips to advise that America ought to build a pipeline from Azerbaijan, from Baku, Azerbaijan, where they're tapping into the Caspian Basin oil there and ship it across Iran to a terminal in the Persian Gulf. This would be a good way to begin to bring Iran back in from the cold and normalize relations with Iran, said Zbigniew Brzezinski. And who vetoed it? Dave? Israel vetoed it. Bill Clinton stupidly said that he wanted to bring Saddam Hussein back in from the cold and normalized relations with Iraq. And I'm not saying that was the wrong thing to do. I'm saying he was stupid to say that out loud. Because as soon as he said that out loud, the Israelis and the Kuwaitis began mobilizing to prevent it. And everyone's familiar with the fake alleged assassination attempt against George H.W. bush in Kuwait by truck bomb. Everyone's heard that a million Times. George Bush Jr. Saying oh, he tried to kill my dad and all this stuff never happened. The whole thing was fake. Seymour Hirsch debunked it in the New Yorker magazine. It was just a whiskey smuggling ring. In fact, if you search my name and whiskey smuggling ring and assassination of Bush Senior something or other like that on Twitter, I bet you can find where I posted screenshots of that entire New Yorker article from the archives for You. There's there.

[Dave Smith]

Well, in George W. Bush's defense, he. It not being true doesn't mean he didn't believe it was.

[Scott Horton]

Oh, that's true. Yeah. I think he had no idea. I'm sure he doesn't. He has no idea who Seymour Hirsch even is. But. So that was fake. But when it came out, see, Clinton had been under pressure. This is in first, you know, like 100 days, early 93 and not long after the Waco massacre. And Martin Indick, who had been an advisor to Yitzak Shamir from the Lud Party, the former prime minister of Israel. Bill.

[Dave Smith]

Former former terrorist. Before that.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dave Smith]

Or maybe not just before that, but yes, during that.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, and during that too, probably. Yeah. And. And the guy who intervened to. To help get Bush senior unseated for Bill Clinton in the first place. But Indic had a policy called dual containment, and Bill Clinton was holding off. Bill Clinton still thought that he could try to bring Saddam Hussein back in from the cold to balance against Iran because after all, all he used to work for Ronald Reagan until he crossed H.W. bush and got smacked down. But that doesn't mean that we have to keep him on the outs forever. But the Israelis said, yes, you do. And Martin Indick on is on Israel's behalf, said, listen, America, partially at Israel's behest, beat up Iraq's army so badly In Iraq War One, in Desert Storm, in 91. But now Saddam is not powerful enough to balance against Iran. So now America must stay in Saudi Arabia to balance against Iran and Iraq. And that's the dual containment policy. And that then became the number one motive for Reagan and Bush and Bill Clinton's mercenaries, Al Qaeda, to turn against the United States of America, staying in. In Saudi Arabia to bomb and blockade Iraq after, you know, the, after the, the failed Shiite uprising of the Bush senior year and then the status quo that Bill Clinton inherited, he was trying to resolve it. Instead he stayed, he inaugurated the do. After the fake assassination attempt against Bush senior, Martin Indic gave a speech where at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the spin off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, inaugurating the dual containment policy that got our towers knocked down. About as simple as that. And it was all for Israel. The other, the number two thing on Al Qaeda's list for motives to attack the United States States was support for Israel and their mass murders of women and children in Palestine and Lebanon. So number one on the list was an American policy in Saudi Arabia and Iraq that was insisted upon by Israel and Iran. That was insisted upon by Israel. And then the second thing was just supporting Israel itself literally. And, and not just being a nice Jewish boy minding his own business, but constantly murdering people and stealing people's property.

[Dave Smith]

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Qualia. As we age, everyone accumulates senescent cells in their body. Senescent cells cause symptoms of aging such as aches and discomforts, slow workout recoveries, sluggish mental and physical energy associated with that middle age feeling. Also known as zombie cells, these are old, worn out and not serving useful functions for our health anymore. But they're taking up space and nutrients from our healthy cells. Much like pruning the yellowing and dead leaves of a plant, Qualia Senolytic removes those worn out senescent cells to allow the rest of them to thrive in the body. Take it just two days a month. This formula is non GMO vegan gluten free and the ingredients are meant to complement one another, factoring in the combined effects of all the ingredients together. It also comes with a 100 day money back guarantee. This clinically tested two day rejuvenation regimen may hold the key to unlocking cellular health and revitalizing aging aging tissues throughout the body. New research on aging and longevity, including a clinical study on Qualia Senolytic, shows that senolytic supplementation can play a huge role in enhancing how we age. Resist aging at the cellular level. Try Qualia senolytic. Go to qualialife.com problem for up to 50% off and use the promo code problem at checkout for an additional 15 off off. For your convenience, Qualia Senolytic is also available at select GNC locations near you. One more time, it's qualialife.com problem that's Q U A L I a life.com/problem for an extra 15% off your purchase. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, it seems like that's has the pesky little habit of pissing a lot of people off off when you do that. You know, as I've, I've mentioned a bunch on the show, but it is the claim that Iran is the, the, the global leader in sponsoring terrorism is one that. So you hear this a lot. I, I remember, I mean Karl Rove used to go on Fox News and say this all the time. Iran is the number one supporter of terrorism. And you know, know that when he was saying it, he was just counting on everybody's Fox News watching dad. To not know, just counting on you to not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite and not even ever ask that question. And, and obviously what you're supposed to think of in Your head is 9, 11 that you're supposed to think like, oh, these guys are funding the terrorists. I do. Ben, Dominic, I debated him on this topic, Meghan McCain's husband there. And he made this claim and I, I just followed it up by asking what evidence there is of that. You're like, where's the point to this? To me, like actually show me where there's like, like, I'm not even saying it's not. If you want to call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations, okay, you could say, sure, fine, I'm not going to argue with you on that. But like show me the actual study that said like went over like US Money that goes toward terrorism, Saudi money that goes toward terrorism. Like even forget the shins, the shirts, vers or whatever, like where. And he had nothing. He was just like, well this has been reported and lots of. And you're like, oh, okay. Anyway, I'm just, it's just this claim that gets made. But of course I do think that the ultimate point for, for libertarian non interventionists like us is, is like it's what Noam Chomsky said back in the day, which I always thought was he said it very well that he goes, what is really the definition of terrorism? Well, it's terrorism when they do it it and it's counterterrorism when we do it. And that essentially is, you know, like, if you want to like trying to make some type of moral distinction between the evils of terrorism and what Israel's doing to Gaza right now is the only difference is that they're doing it from a government and one of the governments that is allied with our government. That's the essential difference there. I mean, it's like I, you know, it's what is even like the Webster's definition of terrorism, like acts of violence to encourage a political change or something like that. And nope, okay, that seems to pretty clearly fit the definition. So you know, the, again, I don't think it's not like blame America first here. I think what you really are arguing in this book, and I think what is kind of the through line throughout all of your work and throughout all of my commentary as well, is that it's just like, look, if we're going to be in the business of morally condemning people, fine, but let's just have one Standard and apply it to everybody. You know, this is what the, the Zionists say. Oh, you're, you're, what's the term?

[Scott Horton]

Moral equivalence?

[Dave Smith]

Moral equivalency.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah.

[Dave Smith]

When? First of all.

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, exactly. Moral equivalent. That's exactly what I'm saying, dude. You're morally equivalent to a bunch of suicide bombing, head chopping scum.

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, right.

[Scott Horton]

That's what I meant to say. You heard me.

[Dave Smith]

Well, it's also like, it's like. Well, I didn't, I mean, I never said it was equivalent. I think it's actually much worse. Like, I don't know, like there's this. My whole point is that it's not equivalent, actually, that you've killed far more people. But it's wrong for the same reasons. You know, it's like. And so, yeah, that's the, it's, it's funny because I've heard people even use this, this line of attack. Well, they say moral equivalence and then sometimes they'll, they'll accuse me of moral relativism. And I'm like, I really don't think you understand what these terms mean. What, what I'm saying is the opposite of moral relativism. It is you who is implying, who is embracing this moral relativism as if it's somehow different in character.

[Scott Horton]

Well, it's been fascinated by that. Right wingers have always done this since the 1990s. This was the thing I used to listen to them say on talk radio all the time. Time was the liberals, they insist on moral relativism about everything. And then as soon as someone says Israel, they go, you claim there's moral equivalence. And that if somebody on this side does the exact same thing as somebody on that side, then somehow it's the same thing. That's crazy, huh? It's a very same people, even sometimes in the very same conversation.

[Dave Smith]

Agreements, you know, and a lot of these objections, they almost roll into each other. Because the other one that I get all the time is when people will say this what about ism Thing. Like if someone brings up the crimes of Vladimir Putin and you bring up the crimes of the US Government. Oh, that's what about ism or something like that. But there is, it's like the example I try to give. It's like, hey, so, so me and you are libertarians, right? So we hate taxes, we oppose taxes. Now, let's just say hypothetically, every country in the world had a 90% tax rate, except one country that had a 10% tax rate. And then somebody was like criticizing that country and going, well, don't you hate them, Dave? You're against taxes. And they have a 10% tax rate here. And I go, well, I mean, yeah, but everyone else has a 90 and they only have 10. So that. And they'd go, what about ism? And you're like, well, no, I mean, I'm just saying put this into context here. That's all. So, again, I think a lot of the criticisms, like, even. Even when Piers Morgan or whatever, Zionist or someone will say, you know, hey, look at all the crimes of Vladimir Putin. He's arrested journalists, he's done this. He's killed innocent people. He's an authoritarian. Look at these awful crimes that Hamas. It's like, yeah, we're not really arguing with that. We agree that stuff's all wrong. The question is like, it's more like, but why are you being a moral relativist about this? Like, why is. If we're gonna. If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of Vladimir Putin is all the worst things he's ever done. Fair. Okay. Why does that not also apply to George W. Bush? Why does that not also apply to Barack Obama? Why is it when they come up, the first thing I shouldn't bring up is the hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent people who got slaughtered directly because of their foreign policy. Let's just have one standard and apply it to everybody. That seems reasonable to make.

[Scott Horton]

Yep. And look, there must be. I'm not thinking of great examples, but there must be examples of what about ism, where that's a real thing. Where it's essentially just a cheap attempt to change the subject. Right. Where it's like refusing to allow somebody to score their point in the argument by changing the subject to something else that somebody else did, when really that's sort of a red herring and doesn't really affect the argument itself. Where you can make a real good argument that America is in no position to enforce the world law when America does nothing but break it and continue to set precedents by which other countries break it, too. I mean, it's, I think, a really highly important thing. Not just a symbolic thing, but an important thing that when Vladimir Putin declared war in Ukraine, he invoked, W. Bush's, first of all, Bill Clinton's separation of Kosovo from Serbia in the name of an ethnic conflict there. He invoked W. Bush's claims of weapons of mass destruction since Zelensky had talked about canceling the Budapest memorandum. And then he invoked Barack Obama in Libya. And so. Oh, in fact, it turns Out I have a responsibility to protect, I have to intervene even in, to violate national government sovereign borders in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis from breaking out against this, this helpless minority, whatever. And so he was invoking three different presidents in a row, breaking the law to do whatever they wanted for what they saw as America, or more aptly Israel's national interests. And, and then he said, okay, well I guess I can do exactly the same as you. And it was the precedent used to be the, the law supposedly said you have to have an agreement on the UN Security Council to start a war because all the victors of World War II sit there. And the fact that China and Russia are on it, it is, means it's a balance against the west. And the fact that Britain, France and the United States are on it is a balance against the east. That they don't get to just start wars and do whatever they want without some kind of consensus being made that this is what has to happen. And so that was why Bill Clinton just went around it in Serbia and why Bush just went around it in Iraq and why Obama just went, well, he didn't go 100% around it in Libya. He just lied to the Russians to get them to abstain and promised it was just a no fly zone and then launched a full scale 9 month long regime change war.

[Dave Smith]

It's almost, it's almost like the international rules based order is just a smokescreen for American empire.

[Scott Horton]

That's right.

[Dave Smith]

But that's it. Okay, listen, I gotta wrap there. Of course. Once again, I did not talk to you about any of the things that I planned and wanted to talk to you about. So we'll do this, we'll do this again soon. No, it's not.

[Scott Horton]

Once I start talking about the clean break, you know how I am.

[Dave Smith]

Well, listen you guys, you gotta, you gotta pick up a copy ofProvoked. Provoked Book.com is the site that you can go to to get it. Is that the best place to get it or is it help you more people from Amazon?

[Scott Horton]

Yeah, that'll forge onto my website and then yeah, that, that link will give me an extra little boost there if you buy it from the link@scott horton.org.

[Dave Smith]

There and of course anti war.com the libertarian institute.org where else can people go to follow your great work?

[Scott Horton]

Work? Well, I'm on all the podcasters and video sites. The Scott Horton show and I'm on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.

[Dave Smith]

All right, brother, always great talking to you man. And I, I, I'm gonna say, I promise next time. We're. We'll set up another one in the next week or so, I promise. We're going to talk shock therapy and color coded revolutions. Barring. Barring the world not doing something crazy in between now and then when I have to just talk to you about that. So hopefully everyone can just stay a little bit stable in these foreign conflicts so we can get into the history of those two things. Because I really want to talk about that.

[Scott Horton]

That never works, by the way. Where the world holds on for you, so you can catch up real quick. Yeah. Welcome to my world.

[Dave Smith]

All right. Well, thank you, Scott, and thank you to everybody for listening. Catch you next time. Peace.