Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 1/25/24 Brad Pearce on the October 7th Attacks

Episode Date: January 28, 2024

Brad Pearce joins Scott to talk about the work he’s done digging into the claims that the IDF was responsible for much of the devastation on October 7th. Pearce explains the history of Israel’s evolving doctrine for preventing and avoiding hostage situations to help us better interpret what happened that day in Southern Israel. Discussed on the show: “A Hannibal Directive by Any Other Name” (The Wayward Rabbler) “A Series of Failures Proves That Israel's Security Concept Is Obsolete” (Haaretz) “Screams without proof: questions for NYT about shoddy ‘Hamas mass rape’ report” (The Grayzone) Brad Pearce is a writer focused on international relations and politics. He writes at The Wayward Rabbler. Follow him on Twitter @WaywardRabbler This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Moon Does Artisan Coffee; Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For Pacifica Radio, January 25th, 2024. I'm Scott Horton. This is Anti-War Radio. All right, y'all, welcome the show. It is Anti-War Radio. I'm your host, Scott Horton. I'm editorial director of anti-war.com. And I'll throw the book, Enough of,

already time to end the war on terrorism you find my full interview archive well as of today more than 6,000 of them now going back to 2003 at scothorton.org and at youtube.com slash scott horton show and you follow me on twitter if you dare at scott horton show now right introducing brad pierce the wayward rabler that's the name of his blog on substack where he wrote this this very important piece, a Hannibal directive by any other name. Welcome back to the show, Brad. How you doing? All right. I'm doing well. Thank you for having me back on. Well, I'm really happy to have you here. And it's a very important piece of journalism.

And people may be more familiar with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mottes' work at the Gray Zone on this subject. But I know that you've been writing about this since really the very beginning of the current round of fighting in October. and that is the question of Israeli-friendly fire and embellished atrocities. And you really make the connection between the two here. So can we start with, I guess, your understanding of what it is that Hamas actually did that day, and then we can get into the comparisons to some of the embellished narratives? Okay, well, I mean, firstly, yeah, I've been more on the atrocity propaganda side of it, Max was well ahead of me on, you know, suggesting that Israel may have itself caused a large

number of civilian casualties. But, I mean, in short, I mean, it's hard to say exactly what happened since it's been so thick with, you know, disinformation. But what we can assume here is that, you know, mostly what Hamas did was actually what you would consider a military operation that was largely aimed at, you know, bringing hostages back to Gaza. I think the one thing that people are struggling with is that there's just absolutely no way that they thought that the Israeli defense forces would fail in the way that they did because no one ever makes a plan expecting your enemy to perform as poorly as Israel did. And then from there, Israel was, you know, at best, extremely irresponsible about avoiding Israeli civilian casualties. And further, just an

absolutely insane number of general people poured in from Gaza, according to the Wynet News report, You know, they would say at least 20,000 people, which, you know, I find hard to believe, but the IDF also couldn't believe it, which is, you know, literally couldn't believe it, which is part of what caused them to make so many bad decisions. Now, I've seen some telegram footage of Hamas, certainly committing atrocities, killing Israeli civilians at their kibbutzs and on the roads and their, I guess, credible reports. of them throwing grenades into shelters, this kind of thing. There's scenes from the rave where there's, you know, a giant pile of bodies where apparently they've all been shot at point-blank range, this kind of thing. So they didn't only attack military bases, right? They did kill civilians that day, or do you disagree with that?

Well, I mean, the first thing I would say is that Hamas are basically terrorists, whereas Israel wants us to believe that the IDF are the most moral army in the world. So I think it's reasonable to, you know, hold them to different standards based on what they're claiming about themselves. But, you know, the one video I saw that was very credible, yeah, was Hamas shooting the people on the road, which probably, I mean, it's obviously wrong to kill civilians. I would assume that that did actually have the military utility of they, you know, didn't want them to call in to Israel's 911 or whatever to say terrorists had breached the country. But, you know, in a lot of these situations, we can't really be sure who did anything. You know, for example, in that terrible New York Times Screams Without Words article, in one of the instances they talk about, they specifically say the people were in civilian clothes and, you know, we're carrying knives and a hammer. So, you know, there's no reason to believe that was any sort of professional military group as opposed to just random lunatics, basically.

Right. And so talk more about that, that, you know, once the fence was breached, it is clear, I think you wrote about, there was this poor Filipino worker who was behind. headed but a tie worker but yeah it's not clear at all who did that but it was you know random people in plain clothes i mean the thing if you know anything about how human functions you know how dangerous humans are when they get into any sort of mob mentality like this especially people that have been you know abused for a long period of time there's you know always really bad excesses in any situation like this but you also just have to figure that it's the most irresponsible people within Gaza's entire society that would go running out of the fence

in this situation, whether that be, you know, children that had never been outside of the fence before, hardened criminals that wanted to loot or, you know, random rapists that wanted to rape someone, it's not going to be the, like, most responsible, normal people

that go running out there and become, you know, a looting mob, basically doing a pog against Israel. Well, you know, and look, for people listening on the radio,

today and making assumptions. I'm certainly no apologist for Hamas, and neither is my guest. I actually, as many know, have an extended family member who was caught up and killed in this thing, apparently by them and who was an innocent civilian, not a combatant. And regardless of that, I would still feel the exact same way about it. Anyway, as you said, they are terrorists. They have a history even of suicide attacks and killing civilians. And we're going to talk specifically about some of the embellished atrocities here and possibly the casualty numbers. And I think it's important for a lot of different reasons. But one of them is, is it calls to question the motive of Hamas in waging the attack the way that they waged it. For example, I have a friend of mine

named Cohen, who we kind of had a conversation going back and forth on Twitter there about, you know, my original argument that Hamas did this in order to provoke this terrible reaction. And then in order to provoke all the counter reactions and all the destabilization in the region and the re-politicization of this issue when all attention had been turned to Eastern Europe, for example, and the Abraham Accords were getting pushed through over their dead body and this kind of thing, right? But then, you know, my buddy was saying that, geez, it looks to him like they were just trying to take hostages and that it wasn't so much meant to be this massive terrorist attack against civilians. That only kind of got made up after the fact. But it sort of seems like, you know, yes, they attacked civilians in large numbers and also it was embellished by the Israelis. I don't know if it was embellished enough that it really calls into question the purpose of the attack or not. It seems to me like it's both, you know, the taking the hostages as well as provoking. I mean, they know they're messing with Benjamin Netanyahu here, these guys, you know? Yeah, so, I mean, I was the first person that published anything thorough on the just horribly corrupt rescue organization Zaka after this all happened.

And they're a major source of atrocity propaganda. And that was on October 18th. And, you know, at the time I did say that it appears that, you know, the intention. of Hamas was to provoke Israel, you know, into overreacting in a way that was going to cause all of these problems and cause them to go charging like a bull into Gaza, which they ended up being more careful about invading Gaza than I kind of expected that they would have been. And so, you know, you have to imagine that that was part of what they, that what they were intending. I mean, at the same time, like Hamas themselves, I mean, not that really trust whether

or anything, have claimed that, you know, Israel turned out to be a paper tiger and that they, really did not expect the attack to go like this. So, I mean, I would assume it's kind of both of them. But, you know, I mean, we know, or at least according to Wynet, Israel blew up 70 cars returning to Gaza. So, I mean, we know a good amount of the destruction was caused by Israel's response. Yeah. All right. So now let's talk about that. First of all, we have in the media this is kind of this ridiculous smearpiece in the Washington Post, where this reporter went and took random cooks from Twitter and Reddit making whatever claims she claimed they claimed and then trying to associate that with good journalism about the friendly fire here and about some

of the embellished stories that the Israelis told, which is really transparent and unfair if anybody wants to read that post story critically. But then the counterpart to that at the same time is this YNet story, which might as well be headlined, the Washington Post is full of it. This stuff is true, as hard as it is. And I think step one of the story before the friendly fire and the embellished atrocities is the absolute disarray in which the Israeli military leadership and internal security force leadership found themselves when, you know, Hamas just completely poned them, first of all, through all of their high-tech surveillance equipment and through their breaching the gate or the fence around Gaza at so many different places. And

this seems to be the consensus in the media. I don't know if it's a limited hangout, but it seems like the people in charge really had no idea what was going on for hours and hours and hours. Is that your correct understanding, too? I mean, that's definitely what the YNet article says, and it certainly seems credible. You know, it was a known thing among people that follow Israel's security that they had become increasingly reliant on technology. And, you know, there are those of us, including myself, that are skeptical of being too reliant on technology. So there was always the risk that it would fail in this fashion. You know, what they describe is absolutely incredible. They talk about how they were

in Israel's main command center that they called the pit. They were relying on public TV news reports on telegram channels. They were going to the WhatsApp, chat groups of kibbutz is that people were calling personal friends to get targeting information. It's absolutely out of control. And yeah, even six hours in, they didn't know what they were facing. And I mean, I think it must come back to a high degree of incompetence. But, you know, with governments, it's really hard to read where they, exactly they are on the incompetence evil matrix, because usually governments are some combination of both.

But I really don't think that, you know, I'm not one of these people. that believes that Israel, like, wanted this to happen and intentionally let it happen for an excuse to, you know, attack Gaza, especially because they never seem to struggle to find an excuse to attack the Palestinians if they're so inclined. Yeah, you got that right. And, you know, it's just kind of looking backwards at it that people say that and it makes sense on the face of it. And yet it also makes sense that what they're doing now is a massive overcompensation for the complete and total failure of the Netanyahu doctrine, right? It's not just something bad that happened. It was the entire scheme that fell apart. And so now the prime minister needs a new and different legacy.

If it isn't going to be lasting Abraham Accords, it's going to be some new beachfront property in Gaza or something. Yeah, so something that a lot of Americans don't realize is that Israel actually has a very robust media environment. I mean, it's all primarily Zionist, but, you know, they are really highly critical with their government. They do really good investigations. There's a lot of really good dialogue. And yeah, there have been many people saying that this shows how bad Netanyahu's policies fail, that their, you know, Fortress State idea itself has failed.

A big one, too, is that, you know, they, because of internal political issues, they won't clamp down on settlers in the West Bank that keep, you know, basically doing programs against Palestinians. So they had moved a bunch of their units to the West Bank. to protect Palestinians instead of just arresting the settlers so they weren't even guarding their border properly. That's what gets me is people keep saying Israel has a right to defend itself and it's like, yes, they should have done so then. Like bombing civilians in Gaza is not defending yourself. Yeah, it's Brad Pierce. The Wayward Rabbler is his blog on Substack on anti-war

radio here today. And we're talking about his piece, a Hannibal directive by any other name. Brad, what is a Hannibal directive? Okay, so in 1986, there was a famous kidnapping in Israel where an IDF soldier was taken into Lebanon. And so they set up a protocol that basically says that they're allowed to put an IDF hostage's life in danger in order to stop the kidnappers from taking them, you know, back and being held hostage. And the way the IDF would describe this is that this, for example, allows you to snip out

the tires of a car that they're fleeing in, which sounds reasonable. And, you know, they will specifically say it never has allowed you to do an air strike, you know, that would kill everyone in the car. It's never allowed you to, you know, it never applied to civilians. It never authorized killing, you know, Israelis in any way. The lead ethicist of the IDF's Code of Ethics, you know, called it unlawful, unethical, and horrifying that they intentionally shelled this Kvotsbury. It's called where they, you know, shelled it with a tank knowing 14 people. were inside. Anyway, it was always highly controversial in Israel. They argued about it for, you know, 30 years. And then it was allegedly repealed in 2016. But they replaced it with something that the public,

you know, the text has never been made public. So we don't know what their current actual protocol is. But within Israel, it's now quite widely considered that at least in some instances, they, you know, followed this and decided that it was better to kill the hostages instead of dealing with them being hostages. Hey, y'all, I got a new coffee sponsor, Moondose Artisan Coffee at Moondoseartisan Coffee.com. When I wake up in the morning of feeling my brain is all dried out, I need to pour a hot mug of rich, tasty coffee all over it to get it back working again, like 10w30 for the noggin. Though not necessary, it helps if the coffee tastes good. Well, Moondos Artisan coffee does taste good. They get the best beans from all around the world, and they don't burn them.

Support the show and support your brain at moondoseartisan coffee.com. Just click the link at the right margin at Scott Horton.org. Hey, guys, I had some wasps in my house. So I shot them to death with my trusty bug assault 3.0 model with the improved salt reservoir and bar safety. I don't have a deal with them, but the show does earn a kickback every time you get a bug of salt or anything else you buy from Amazon.com. by way of the link in the right-hand margin on the front page at scott horton.org.

So keep that in mind. And don't worry about the mess. Your wife will clean it up. Well, folks, sad to say, they lied us into war. All of them. World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq War I, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq War II, Libya, Syria, Yemen, all of them. But now you can get the e-book, All the War Lies, by me, for free. Just sign up for the e-book.

email list at the bottom of the page at Scott Horton.org or go to Scotthorton.org slash subscribe. Get all the war lies by me for free. And then you'll never have to believe them again. Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses, only in theaters August 29th. From the director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things Comes The Roses, starring Academy Award winner Olivia Coleman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Sandberg, Kate McKinnon, and Allison Janney. A hilarious new comedy, filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred, proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses. See The Roses, only in theaters, August 29th. Get tickets now.

Now, there was a report, I can't remember if it was Jerusalem Post or what, who had covered this previously. It may have been Wynette themselves that had covered that story, maybe a few different outlets did, but in one of those tellings, it seemed like it was just the commander on the scene decided, well just blow up the house but then you say in here no way they would have had to have orders from the very top at least the chief of staff of the army or the defense minister very likely the prime minister himself would have had to call that shot to say go ahead and blow up jewish Israeli civilians rather than letting them and in this case when you're talking about this house that they hit with the tank they got them surrounded right it's not even a matter of Hamas getting away with the hostages. It's like, what, we're in a hurry to move on to the next

stop or what? Yeah, well, in that specific instance, I mean, that still could have been one commander making a bad call on the ground. The issue is why not alleges that an IDF wide order went out to use this as a rule of engagement generally, which that absolutely came from the highest levels. It couldn't, no one else could give an IDF wide order like that. And it would make sense that he had heard that already that he had permission to go that far and so did yeah

man and then and how many people were killed in that so uh i believe 14 Israelis were 14 Israelis were inside and 13 were killed and then there were about 40 Hamas people inside and then

so from the very beginning all those casualties were blamed on Hamas which obviously they're somewhat responsible but they played this whole thing down they they lied or omitted the tank fire for at least a few weeks there, right? And so these people were held up as, you know, being completely burned and their bodies desecrated and so forth in the ISIS style by Hamas, right? Yeah. Well, and you know, even though the Israeli media

will cover this stuff, they go to really big lengths to frame it. So there was a different Wynet article that was, you know, about what is the Hannibal Directive. And they spent a seriously like a whole paragraph explaining that no matter what happens, it's always Hamas's fault of the people died. It's like, no, I'm pretty sure if they take a hostage and you airstrike the hostage, it is your fault that the hostage died. Yeah, it's completely crazy. And you know what? The good thing about responsibility is it's a quality, not a quantity, so you can divide it up however you want. You know, the hostage takers can share, can own their share and the people who order the air strike along with them, or the tank strike in this case. Talk about the fire

in the cars, because this is something that's very confusing to me still. I mean, we saw pictures almost immediately right out of the rave of all these cars that were burned. They seem to not be otherwise destroyed, and they also seem to be devoid of any bodies. It seems like the people had already, those particular people from that parking lot had already been either killed and their bodies removed or they had been taken alive. and then someone came and burned their cars then of course there's a whole other set of pictures of well and there's the articles that you talk about about the helicopters so you know I'll have you address that

but then there's all the pictures of I don't know if they're the same cars or not many burned cars in this parking lot many of them destroyed and look I'm not an army guy and I'm not a munitions expert but I've seen cars blown up by hellfire missiles and by rockets from helicopters, and they usually are blown to smithereens,

whereas these cars all seem to be very heavily damaged, but they almost seem like they just had been stacked on top of each other before and then moved. Like all of their roofs are caved in. They don't necessarily look like they've been strafed, but again, I'm not an expert. They've certainly all been torched beyond belief, but can you help me or us make sense of all this, Brad?

I mean, what I can tell you is that from the second that they showed that footage, you know, it seemed obvious to me that there was no chance that that happened with, you know, small human carried arms like rocket propelled grenades or whatever. So, I mean, I thought that was suspicious right away. And it also seemed apparent, you know, that that was where they had collected all of the various burned cars. But yeah, I also thought the damage pattern was strange, you know, with the ones that were returning to Gaza, the 70, they destroyed it was with anything you would destroy. them with, so, you know, drone strikes or artillery or whatever else. But yeah, I also thought that damage pattern was strange. And, you know, I was slow to believe that Israel actually did this. I'm actually less conspiratorial than a person might think. And yeah, I immediately said, like, there's just absolutely no way. Like, I don't know what happened to these cars, but this did not happen just from

Hamas showing up and, you know, firing at them. So I couldn't tell you, but it's amazing. me that Israel thought that they could show the world that and claim that Hamas had caused that damage. And it amazes me even more that it actually worked on a lot of people. Yeah. Well, now, it's still very puzzling, though, and unsolved mystery to me in a lot of ways. But can you talk about the different reports about the helicopters firing on the people? Because the way I read that, the most incriminating paragraphs really talked about them firing at anybody coming out. of Gaza. And then I guess there was a bit about them hitting cars headed toward Gaza, but the Wynet, the new Wynet story, I forget if the original thing I had read was Wynet or not, but

the new Wynet story sheds more light on that. Is that correct? Yeah, so the original story was from Heretz, and I have to admit that I thought that Max Blumenthal went too far extrapolating from this at the time. And it just basically said that some of the people at the Nova music festival were hit by helicopter fire and you know that could easily be a good faith accident in such a you know hot difficult situation but later they gave an order you know to the helicopters to kill anything that comes within our territory and I read that to not mean you know our territory as in Israel but our territory as in the section that you know you're controlling right now from the air and I mean that's basically a kill anything that moves directive and then they said that the they later

claimed that the Hamas people had been trained to not run from the helicopters because it would cause people to think that they were Israeli civilians, which, I mean, that hardly makes sense, except as an excuse for having shot a bunch of people that you shouldn't have or something. But yeah, so that was their claim, and it does seem as if they just assigned to the helicopters just not leave anything alive within the space they were covering. So to go back to what Hamas actually did, you write in this article, I think you may a pretty cogent point that possibly all the embellished atrocities that they came up with, which, in fact, I'll let you name a few of them off the top of your head for what you mean here,

and I know that many of them have been debunked. I think you're saying in here, if I read you right, that they didn't need to embellish all of this stuff just to get away with what they're doing in the Gaza Strip. Because he said, well, they didn't do what they want anyway. They'd come up with an excuse for that. they really did it in overcompensation for their implementation of the Hannibal Directive. This is really what they were changing the subject from, was the Hannibal Directive, which if the public had found out immediately about that, things might have been quite different.

Yeah, so I mean, a lot of what I deal with is, you know, narratives and propaganda and stuff like that and trying to assess the truth out of the media. But so something to think about here is kind of the only comparable, you know, American situation we have to what it appears. happened, you know, is the Waco massacre, except the thing with that is that, you know, they said these are like religious weirdos in a pedophile cult or whatever, and that's how the government justified what they did. But these are Israel's own martyrs that, you know, died on October 7th. So they really have to come up with something here to, you know, explain what happened. And yeah, to me, it absolutely only makes sense if they knew right away that they had caused a completely

unacceptable amount of friendly fire casualties so then you know from there we had uh the 40 dead babies thing which you know the gray zone exposed the guy that made that claim was like a settler terrorist basically and he didn't even make that claim uh he just said 40 babies some of them decapitated which wasn't true either then we had yossi landau from zaka who's been like the worst perpetrator claim that he saw you know a family tied up you know the children tied together on the table and torture to death in front of their tied up parents. There's the absolutely insane story from the New York Times scrims that words article about cutting a woman's breast off with a box cutter and then playing with it

and just all sorts of stuff like this that it's just absolutely out of control. And, you know, each time you use Twitter as well, each time there were all these people, I mean, the Barry Weisses of the world, as I said in the article, then, you know, they demand like, oh, how are people such monsters? How do they not now see what Hamas is and all this other stuff like this? And it's like, we understand the story and we don't believe it. It's not that we think these things are true and don't care. If you actually read the New York Times article,

you will see that they could not find a single person that had experienced this. And they only had, you know, vague witness testimony. And they didn't even prove that what, you know, what actually did happen they could attribute to Hamas. And witness testimony by people who are proven liars in other cases. Like one guy's making a claim about a rapy witness or was it a woman making this claim? It was the same person who claimed to have seen Hamas carrying around three heads of decapitated women, which never happened. And no one else in the Israeli regime claims that that happened other than her.

But this is the star witness for the New York Times. Yeah, well, you know, it's funny. Yossi Landau's a 9-11 survivor. And I didn't pick this up when I did my article. But, you know, he had said that he went rushing there because he was like a first responder type of person. And then the building collapsed and he got trapped under the rubble. I guess he told someone else at a different time. He was on like the 20th story of one of the Twin Towers when it was hit and gave a completely different story about that.

So, you know, beyond the fact that he covered for a serial pedophile for 20 years, he's like a proven liar about his own life as well. And then once again, the one guy was like a convicted of inciting racial hatred in the West Bank or something like that. And yeah, all of the people that they're getting to do this are some of like the worst people in the world when you actually look up who they are and what they've done and, you know, their history of. a lack of truthfulness. And think about how much racial hatred you'd have to incite to get indicted and prosecuted for that in Israel. That's incredible. Oh, right.

I think the Jim Crow South or something. Yeah, man. Oh, and, you know, we should reiterate that Max Blumenthal and Aaron Matte have the great debunking of that New York Times story where they go through, that's like really the authoritative fisking of those claims by Jeffrey Gettelman and the rest of them. And then, so this goes to my last question, which is something that you were tweeting about this morning, which is just the absolute refusal of the American TV and newspaper media to cover this at all. They just won't. And so to, I guess, the Washington Post readership and most Americans, if they heard anything about these stories at all, they would think this is the conspiracy theory rather than all the ridiculous made-up claims of the Israeli government and America's major media that never retracted.

them. Yeah. So, you know, I did that simply because I was working another short piece about that and didn't feel that the search bars of these sites was a good link to use. But yeah, the New York Times hasn't mentioned the Hannibal Directive since 2016 when it was repealed. The Washington Post has not mentioned it at all. And, you know, I can understand the fact that they don't want to give a voice to, you know, anti-Israel alternative media and stuff like that. But the editorial board of Heretz demanded an investigation into if the Hannibal protocol was implemented in the, um, Kavitsbury incident on January 8th. So you know that every newsroom in America gets and reads Heretz and especially has since October 7th. So I can appreciate them not dealing with other aspects of this, but the fact that Heretz editorial board demanded an investigation into if the Hannibal directive was implemented absolutely is newsworthy in and of itself. So there's no excuse. But the one thing I would like to say is it's not like some order went out through the media to not talk about this. People only become editors in the New York Times. in the Washington Post and USA Today and everywhere else if they're really good at knowing what they are

or are not supposed to talk about and are careful about this sort of thing. So it's implicit throughout the entire media environment in the U.S. to not expose things about Israel like this. It is not, you know, centrally being directed by anyone. Which is why they are really failing and are no longer the mainstream media. They're just the corporate media. The mainstream media is the alternative media. Now, for exactly this reason, that on Twitter you can find out that the Israelis are talking about this and you can see the contrast that wow the people at the Post and the Times in USA Today

and ABCBSNN must hate our guts they must have such contempt for us that they think that we can't read our rats on the internet yeah right exactly I mean and unfortunately for them I do read herets on the internet so man so you don't have to fly to Tel Aviv and get the news paper out of the box for a dollar 50 you can oh okay you can look it up online yourself um and you can find the wayward rabler on substack and here is his great new article a hannibal directive by any

other name a great rundown of the catastrophe of october the 7th that's brad pierce everybody thank you so much for your time on the show brad thank you for having me on all right y'all and that is anti-war radio for today I'm your host, Scott Horton. Find the full interview archive, 6,000 of them now going back to 2003 at Scott Horton.org. And you follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton's show. I'm here every Thursday from 2.30 to 3 on KPFK, 90.7 FM in L.A. See you next week. Thank you.