Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 3/30/23 Dave DeCamp on Bakhmut, Nord Stream and the Escalations over Taiwan

Episode Date: April 1, 2023

Dave DeCamp was back on Antiwar Radio this week to discuss some of the week’s biggest foreign policy news. They discuss Ukrainian President Zelensky’s recent comments about what would happen if Russia takes the eastern city of Bakhmut. They then move on to Seymour Hersh’s report about a joint U.S.-German coverup of the operation to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines. They also talk about the Taiwanese president’s visit to the U.S. and review some of the recent provocative changes to America’s Taiwan policy. Scott ends the show with a recording of the video version of his Iraq War II chapter from Enough Already to mark the anniversary of the war. Discussed on the show: “Zelensky Says if He Loses Bakhmut, He Will Be Pushed to ‘Compromise’ With Russia” (Antiwar.com) Scott’s interview with Seymour Hersh “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline” (Seymour Hersh Substack) “THE COVER-UP” (Seymour Hersh Substack) “The Redirection” (The New Yorker) Iraq War II Video Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com and the host of Antiwar News with Dave DeCamp. Follow him on Twitter @decampdave This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; 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, March 30th, 20203, I'm Scott Horton. This is Anti-War Radio. All right, you guys, welcome the show. It is Anti-War Radio. I'm your host, Scott Horton. I'm the editorial director of anti-war.com and I'm the editor of the new book, Hotter than the Sun,

Time to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. You can find my full interview archive, almost 5,900 of them now. Going back almost 20 years to April 2003 at scotthorton.org and at YouTube.com slash Scott Horton Show. And you can follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show. All right.

Introducing this week's guest It's our news editor at anti-war.com, Dave DeCamp, and he is also the host of the podcast, Anti-War News, as well. Welcome back to the show. How you doing, Dave? I'm good, Scott. Thanks for having me back. Very happy to have you here. We've got lots of important news to cover. The top story reads, Zelensky says if he loses Bachmut, he will be pushed to compromise with Russia. And that's in reference to this interview that the Ukrainian president gave to the Associated Press. Do tell. Yeah, so what's interesting about this is that Zelensky's saying if they lose the Dombas city of Bakhmud,

where that battle has been raging for months and months since about August 2022. So a long time, Zelensky is saying if they lose that city, he's going to be pressured to compromise, not just from, you know, his western backers or other countries. He's saying Ukrainian society will feel tired and will push him to have to compromise with the Russians. He's saying that if he loses this city, he might be forced to sign some kind of deal with Russia that would recognize their territorial gains. That's what it sounds like he's saying here. So this is a pretty big admission from Zelensky. I think this is the first time I've seen him really discussed the idea of having to make a compromise with Russia because his demands for any kind of peace talks.

are for Russia to pull out of all the territory that they control and to even have war crimes, tribunals before talks can even happen. So very maximalist demands, but here he's talking about compromise. And, you know, the Russian side, they have very maximalist demands themselves. They're saying now, you know, any peace deal must recognize what they call the new territorial realities, which doesn't just include, you know, the territory that they control in the Donbass, but also Kurson and Zaporosia. So, you know, if Ukraine does have to negotiate with Russia, it seems like they're standing to lose a lot more territory than if they negotiated earlier in the war. And Zelensky is also saying that he wants to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was just recently in Moscow, who's looking to mediate some kind of peace deal, even though President Biden and, you know, the White House came out against a ceasefire before she went to Moscow.

They said they're against a ceasefire in Ukraine. They're against a pause in fighting. So, but Zelensky seems like he still wants to talk to Xi. But then on the other hand, you know, the fighting is still really raging here. And Russia is throwing in a lot of forces into Bakhmud. You know, they're closing in on the city, but the fighting's still going on. And, you know, it's tough to say when they'll actually lose this city. But we'll see how, you know, things play out in the next few weeks.

Another thing Zelensky said over the weekend was that he cannot launch a counteroffensive unless the West provides more weapons. And I believe the last time I was on here, we were talking about a Ukrainian official speaking to the Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Ukrainian government official saying basically the same thing. So now we have Zelensky saying it publicly. So he's putting out, you know, a lot of doubt in Ukraine's war strategy. maybe he's preparing for the eventuality of having to talk with Russia.

Then on the other hand, the tanks are arriving, the German leopard tanks, the Challenger 2 tanks from the UK. They're getting a few dozen of them, not as many as they want. So maybe they could be still preparing for a counteroffensive. But I think Zelensky, what he's putting out, has been interesting to see because we haven't really seen it throughout the war. All right. Well, I mean, I wonder just, and I know it's hard when you're just reading the text, of the Associated Press, and that's a translation anyway, but did it seem like maybe he's really just playing hardball

and he's trying to tell the West, I need more weapons now? Or is he really just kind of confessing that, geez, the game is just about up here? Yeah, I mean, that could definitely be part of his strategy trying to get more weapons. He also said in this interview that the U.S. understands if they stop supporting us, we're going to lose. And, you know, he's been asking for more weapons. and, of course, his defense minister and all the other Ukrainian officials. See, it's hard to say, but I do think the fact that he's saying, you know, Ukrainian society

is going to push him to compromise with Russia, I think is some sort of admission that they are exhausted. We see all these reports that they're sending in these reserves and Tabak Mood that are barely trained and are just getting killed right away. Don't even know how to fire a rifle, really. And then, but it does look like they are holding back a few hundred thousand people. people to maybe potentially launch a counter offensive. So, you know, they could have some steam left. But, yeah, I think, you know, it could be an acknowledgment of just the reality of the situation.

And it's not what, you know, our media has been telling us all along here. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing. It's just like with Afghanistan and, well, with all of these wars, there comes the realization that what? It's not working? And we're leading. Oh, and our friends are all being killed? Oh, gee, you guys said everything was fine.

But, yeah, that's how it often goes. As the Kurds, screwed them over enough times. But listen, so it's anti-war radio. I'm Scott Horton talking with Dave DeCamp here right now about the war in Ukraine. And you mentioned that the tanks had arrived, and I read your piece, too, about longer range rocket artillery, And I guess I'm not exactly sure what this is. They're rocket-boasted dumb bombs, but with satellite guidance kits on the tail that are now, you know, in increased mileage.

I guess they're not supposed to reach into Russia, but they're supposed to be able to reach deep into the Donbass into Russian held territory in the east there. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. These are bombs made by Boeing that they've been pushing the Biden administration to send them for a long time. they're called the ground launched small diameter bombs. I like, wait, let me stop you for just a second. Boeing has been pushing for a long time because they care so much about the Ukrainians. Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, exactly. So the Biden administration, they announced in February that they're going to send these longer range missiles here, and they have a range of up to 94 miles. So that's almost twice the range of what Ukraine has been using with the high Mars rocket systems that have a range of 50 miles. So it is a pretty significant. upgrade in range. And when the U.S. first announced they were sending them, they said it might not, it could take months and months to deliver them. But then here we have the Russians saying that

they downed one. And then just looking back, you know, Boeing again, because they care so much, they were, you know, really pushing the Biden administration to send these. And they were saying last year that they could have them ready by spring 2023. And here we are on the spring. And Russia says that they're shooting them down. Yeah. Well, I'm not so sure about that. You know, both sides have claimed huge success rates at knocking down the other's incoming missiles and rockets. And I know that there's some of that. I know that you can calculate, you know, artillery trajectory to hit back at where the piece came from in the first place, that kind of thing. But shooting bullets out of the air constantly with no effort, yeah, I don't really believe either side when they claim that very often, you know.

If they claim to much smaller percent, I might buy it. But they claim majorities a lot of the times, and it's just not plausible to me. Not that they're all supersonic, but still, they're small. Yeah, that's true. They do what we say, that they shoot down a ton of the missiles, both sides. Both sides just claim that ridiculously. Anyway, it's anti-war radio. I'm Scott Horton on Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles here.

And I want to talk a, I want to ask you, Dave, about the UN Security Council. And do I have this story right here that? America is determined to launch a new investigation to get to the bottom of the Nord Stream pipeline bombing and the Russians are stopping them? No, the Americans are doing everything they can to prevent an independent inquiry into the Nord Stream bombing. Oh, I got that backwards. Oh, that's so interesting.

You know, I interviewed Seymour Hirsch, and it was an hour-long thing, so people have got to go check the archives. We didn't play it on the radio here in L.A., but people want to hear the Hirsch interview. It's at Scott Horton.org. Go ahead. Yeah, so this was, I think, on Monday night, Russia brought this to the UN Security Council. Russia, China, and Brazil voted in favor of having an investigation, and then all the other nine members abstained from voting.

And realistically, you know, it didn't have a chance because on the UN Security Council, they need a vote from nine out of 12 members. And then the U.S. and China and the U.K., you know, the permanent members can veto anything. But, yeah, it shows, you know, how the United States just doesn't seem interested in trying to get to the bottom of what happened here. And, you know, you hear them all talk about green energy and climate change. You know, this was the largest release of methane gas, you know, in history. And it was also an attack on NATO member's infrastructure, which is what the alliance said after it happened. So you would think that the U.S. would be interested.

But I think we know why because of Seymour Hershey's report. that says President Biden ordered the bombing. And then we had this narrative appear a few weeks ago in the New York Times and other Western media outlets, kind of a coordinated story was put out saying, no, it wasn't the U.S. It was what they called a pro-Ukrainian group, just a very vague allegations. Hirsch, according to Seymour Hersh, that story was planted in the New York Times and elsewhere by the CIA who was ordered to come up with a cover story after Biden met with German chancellor Olaf Schultz in the beginning of March. If you remember when Schultz came to visit, it was very low key. There was no joint press briefing like there usually is between two

world leaders when they visit the White House when they visit with the president. It was quick. You know, they met for about 80 minutes. According to Hershey's sources, he quoted two sources in this article, they did talk about his Nord Stream report. And they said, all right, CIA is going to work with German intel to come up with the cover story. And what Hirsch concluded was that he doesn't know. It's not clear if Schultz was in on the original sabotage, but now he's in on the cover up, according to his sources. Well, and look, I mean, their cover story, I believe the part about, yeah, it took

him a couple of days to come up with this. And I guess they were really stuck, right? Because they couldn't come up with an actual yacht, as in a really big boat. where they could somehow plausibly fit their cast of characters in here. Because, after all, there's enough open source surveillance and what have you over the Baltic Sea there that everyone would know. So the best they could come up with is this little bitty sailboat. And I guess no one on the lie committee said people are never going to believe that this whole operation was launched from this little bitty sailboat. that's fit for you know a domestic lake not maybe maybe it is an ocean going sailboat but it's still

a lake sized one there's nothing special about it whatsoever and there's no way in the world you could have fit all of the men and explosives and you know whatever i guess they're saying decompression chambers and everything else that would have been necessary to do this hirsch's story that it was anti-miners that is sea mines uh that it was those guys in their team that did it far more plausible but you know as her said in his story he said they just need something to fill the space doesn't have to really be plausible it just have to give people something else to refer to and that's enough for the propaganda you know yeah and really muddy the waters which is what they did yeah um yeah because it first came out in the new york times and all the

other you know big u.s and european news outlets had similar stories um and you know that's what it is now And now you see all these write-ups, you know, in, like, say, Reuters or something about who bombed the Nord Stream pipelines. And it's always at the very bottom that it's like, oh, and Seymour Hirsch says it was Biden. But that's probably not true. And look, and people maybe don't know, especially younger people, might not know that this is probably the single most legendary and accomplished journalist in American history in terms of breaking these national security type stories. Not just my life. People remember my lie because it was such a big deal back during the video. Vietnam War, the horrible massacre there. But this guy has broken hundreds of stories like this

and of major consequence. It came up on the judges show the other day. The story about Saddam Hussein trying to kill Bush Sr. in Kuwait with a truck bomb in 1993 was a total hoax, perpetrated by the Kuwaitis exposed by Seymour Hirsch. You know, the most important article explaining American foreign policy post-Iraq War II in the last generation. It's called the Redirection. by Seymour Hirsch, explaining how well, we did too much for the Shiites now. We're tilting back towards Osama bin Laden back in 2007, Seymour Hirsch. And this is, and the guy that debunked the sarin attack in Gouda, in Syria, and on and on like that. He's the greatest reporter of not just our generation, but the last three generations.

And the New York Times and the Washington Post or whatever trying to call him a blogger. and play this down and act like he doesn't have a track record that people can believe in, you know? Not that he's perfect, but he's a hell of a reporter and deserves the benefit of the doubt on a story like this, or at least deserves, you know, a real credible mention in the Times and the Post about his claims there. And in a real investigation to see if they can verify or not, but instead they're interested only in carrying the water of the CIA, like always. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and he's been saying, you know, if reporters really wanted to ask a good question to, you know, the White House press pool, they could ask, you know, has the president ordered, you know, an investigation into this, an intelligence investigation into this? And I think it's clear that the answer is going to be no, because they know who did it. Right. And that's why they don't ask, he said, which is true. And then here they are at the UN Security Council. Russia banging their shoe on the table. That's a figure of speech. Demanding an investigation. America saying, no, we don't want one.

Well, you know what, though? It didn't stop everyone in the major media from repeating the lie like a bunch of crazy mine of birds back when they blamed it on Russia. Obviously, Russia blew up their own pipeline. It was so widely agreed when they had no reason to even suspect that, much less conclude that at the time. And now what fools they're all made of, but it doesn't matter. Yeah, and it's a reminder of how much they lie, you know, with the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion just passed, President Biden, you know, was a champion of that invasion, and he defended it even after they went in in 2004 and later than that, I think all the way up to 2007. And when he was asked about it, you know, when he was running for president, he just lied. He said, nope, the second, you know, shock and all started, I opposed it. And it's just simply not true. So, you know, that's who you have running things is blatant liar. like Biden so it's not really much of a surprise yeah seriously i attacked uh desantis for being a hawk on twitter and someone said to me joe biden help get us into a rack war you moron and i thought yeah no

tusha he's just like dissantis in a lot of ways yeah vice versa um all right anyway 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 the email list at the bottom of the page at Scotthorton.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. Hey, y'all, Scott here, let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, Inc. Who knew? Artificial bank credit expansion leads to price inflation and terribly distorted markets. If you've got any savings left at all, you need to protect them.

You need to put some, at least, into precious metals. Well, Roberts and Roberts can set you up with the best deals on silver, gold, platinum, and palladium, and they've been doing this since 1977. Hey, if you just need some sound advice about sound money, They're there for you, too. Call Tim Fry and the guys at 800-874-97760. That's 800-874-970, or check them out at r-rbi.co. That's r-rbi.co.

You'll be glad you did. 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 Samburg, 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. It's anti-war radio. I'm talking with Dave DeCamp from anti-war.com. And before I let you go here, Dave, let me ask you about what's going on with the Taiwanese president's trip

to the Americas. Does that include the United States or what's this about the Speaker of the House and all the controversy here? Yeah, so Taiwanese president, Sai Ying Wen, she is stopping in the U.S. She actually just arrived in New York on Thursday. And this is how Taiwanese presidents have, you know, traveled to the U.S. before. She's going to Belize. She's going to Central America, where they have two countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei on the way. She's stopping in New York, which is where she is now. And then on the way home, she's going to stop in California. And it looks like she's going to meet with Kevin McCarthy, the House Speaker.

And according to Taiwanese media, you know, Taiwan convinced McCarthy not to go visit, not to go to Taiwan. Because they didn't want to repeat of when Nancy Pelosi went there in August. And China responded with their largest ever military exercises. They simulated a blockade. And they've kept up the military pressure on Taiwan since then. So they wanted to avoid a repeat. But China sounds like if Si does meet with McCarthy in California, they're going to do something similar just based on their warnings. And I think it's because tensions between the U.S. and China are so high over Taiwan right now.

They're really trying to show the U.S. and Taiwan that they're serious about this, that they are going to oppose these contacts, this increasing relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan as much as they can. can. So, you know, we might see another, maybe not as bad as when Pelosi was there. You know, they fired missiles over Taiwan when she visited. And McCarthy, you know, he's saying, oh, I still might go to Taiwan in the future. You know, these China Hawks just have no sense. Just can't understand that what they're doing is making tensions in a military conflict more likely over Taiwan. Yeah. And I mean, people just always want to start history with, you know, this morning, well you know the chinese they've been building up their military yeah well that's because of repeated american provocations all along and it's not to say that the communist party dictatorship and

china are a bunch of nice guys it's just they didn't really have reasons to militarize until we gave them to them they have every reason for example to be patient and reunify with taiwan someday except that america constantly forces the issue and, you know, gives the reactionary types in Taiwan more and more confidence to say brave things like they want to declare official independence, which is the one and only thing that's guaranteed to start the war, you know, or I don't know, the one and only thing, but which would be guaranteed to start the war if they ever, you know, went that far. So, and I guess this is something that you wrote about back a few months ago, Dave, was about how in the, uh, State Department documents. They've, you know, changed the policy by presidential directive here, where they're starting to now refer to all of Taiwan's consulate. They now talk about it like it's an embassy. And they talk about it in the language as though it's an independent country, in the language of the official government documents, as though it's an independent country and that kind of thing. So that's a pretty big provocation right there. And it lends itself towards the Americans kind of arguing themselves into a corner. they really are treating Taiwan like a sovereign nation and giving it a war guarantee when the policy had been much more ambiguous for 50 years before they took all the ambiguity out.

Yeah, and they act like they're not changing anything. You know, they say, no, no, no, we don't want to change the status quo, but it's just not true if you look at what they're doing. You mentioned, you know, the State Department, they've lifted restrictions on contacts between high-level government officials with Taiwan. And we just keep going in this direction. I mean, the big thing with Taiwan that could change things is the 2024 elections that are going to happen in January.

Because if the Kuomintang, the opposition party, wins, I think they're going to really try to reduce tensions across the strait with mainland China. Right now, President Ma, who was the president before Sai, from 2008 to 2016, he's in China. And it's the first time ever that a former, you know, current or sitting Taiwanese president since the Chinese civil war ended in 49, first time that a Taiwanese leader has gone there. And he's there saying, oh, we're all Chinese. You know, we got to get along. And he's still, you know, a member of the Kuomintang, a leader in that party. And so I think that's showing that's what they're going to go for is really reducing tensions. So it's going to be a big election. And of course, the U.S. in China, they're going to try to influence it in their own ways. but I think that could really change things and I think that's something

really to look out for. Yeah. All right, you guys, that is Dave DeCamp. He is news editor at anti-war.com and check out his great podcast, anti-war news at anti-war.com as well. Thank you, Dave. Thanks, Scott.

Scott Horton, Anti-War Radio. And now for something a little different, it's the 20th anniversary, and I still think it's so important. So here is the video adaptation of my chapter on Iraq War II for my book, Enough Already. Time to end the war on terrorism.

You can find it at YouTube.com slash Scott Horton's show. When George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, he essentially picked up where his father had left off when he supported and encouraged the Shiite and Kurdish uprising against Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baathist government and betrayed them.

George W. Bush welcomed them right in. The Iraqi so-called traitors who had fled to Iran and taken Iran-Side in the Iran-Iraq War and by 2003 had been living in Iran for 20 years. Invaded Iraq right on the heels of the Americans and they were the ones who ended up inherits. Now originally the American Viceroy had their plan to hand-pick different leaders from different regions and different sects and to create a very American-friendly government there. But in January of 2004, the Shiite Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sastani gave a speech where he said, if you believe in God, I want you to go outside and demand one man, one vote in our new Iraqi democracy.

Well, every Iraqi Shia complied and essentially threatened George Bush. You want to start this war all over again against the people who you invaded for and who stood back and laughed as you got rid of Saddam for them? And the answer was no. And at that point, you could essentially see the American mission in Iraq as subordinate to the goals of these Iranian-backed parties. particularly Skiri, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, now known as Iski because they won their revolution. Now it's just the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. And the Dawa Party, both of whom were sponsored by Iran.

They were the ones who wrote the Constitution in October 2004, and they were the ones who won the big purple-fingered election in January of 2005. Even John Stewart on The Daily Show was impressed with all these women in their purple fingers. But all it meant was the beginning of a civil war, because the Sunnis had everything to lose by losing their dominant position over the national government in Baghdad. Most of the developed oil resources in Iraq are down in the Shiite south and up near the Kurdish and Shiite Arab city of Kyrkoop, closer to the control of the Kurds and right now to this day under the control of the Shiites. So this meant when the Sunnis were losing their power

over the national government, they were losing everything and their right to loot the national oil revenue for their own benefit at everyone else's expense. This is a huge reason of why they fought so hard in the insurgency against the Americans and the Shiites. Now, of course, this created a huge opportunity for al-Qaeda, in Iraq, which had never existed before the American invasion, a land where there had never been a suicide bombing before became the land of the jihadists. Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who was not tied to Osama bin Laden. He had rejected bin Laden's invitation to join al-Qaeda. He wanted to focus on the King of Jordan, not America. And who was not tied to Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein had all points bulletin out for his arrest. But in Colin Powell's speech about why we had to invade Iraq,

Zarqawi became the connection between the two. And part of the excuse for the American invasion of that country. His small Ansar Islam group went right to war. They didn't name themselves al-Qaeda in Iraq and declare loyalty to Osama bin Laden until the fall of 2004, a full year and a half into the war. And these then were absolutely the very worst part of the Sunni-based insurgency that fought against the Americans and slaughtered Shia civilians at suicide bombings. This strategy on the part of al-Qaeda was to provoke a worse reaction by the Shiites

in order to, again, in terrorist terms, provoke a reaction and drive more Sunni-Arab Iraqis into the arms of the al-Qaeda led part of the insurgency. But of course, Zarkawi wasn't very good at math, and the Shiites had the Sunnis far outnumbered, and so his atrocities only provoked

a far worse sectarian cleansing campaign by the Shia, against the Sunnis, a sectarian cleansing campaign aided and abetted by the United States Army and Marine Corps. The Iraqi army, even as we know it today, was built out of the Bada Brigade, the private militia of the Supreme Islamic Council. They were trained up and turned into the Iraqi army

by General David Petraeus. And this is part of what had done so much to worsen the sectarian war there, a war that ultimately led to the deaths of approximately million people in 2007 as everyone has heard the surge worked but worked to do what in fact the only victory david petraeus has ever won in his life was over george w bush who he convinced if you want me to save you you have to accept the fact that we are not going to defeat the sunni insurgency we are going to accommodate them we are going to come to compromise with them and we're going to call that a win

when the violence decreases. The local Sunni population had already begun turning on the al-Qaeda guys and betraying and killing them as early as January 2006 because they were sick and tired of being bossed around by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians and Syrians. All David Petraeus did was show up one year later to get to the front of the parade and claim that he was leading it and pay the local Sunni tribal leaders

to kill and isolate those al-Qaeda guys, which did happen to great effect. to great effect. And then at the same time, America completely nonsensically turned on and attacked Mukta al-Sauder and his Mahdi army in Najaf in eastern Baghdad. When Mukta al-Sadr was one-third of the United Iraqi alliance that America had fought the whole war for, that we were putting in power. He remains a major kingmaker to this day, lending support to the Dawa Party and Supreme Islamic Council government. The leader Al-Madi, the Prime Minister of Iraq,

is from the Supreme Islamic Council. Approximately 500 Americans out of the 4,500, who died in Iraq War II, died fighting the Shia that they fought the war for, for no reason at all. Other than the idea was that Sauter was closest to Iran, and that somehow, if America could hurt him, then we would end up with more influence over Dawa and Skiy,

but it didn't work out that way. way. The Iraqi Shia, of course, these groups who've been living in Iran for 20 years had decided that they had a relationship with Iran next door and they didn't need the United States. George Bush's bet that they need our money and our guns more than they need their religious and geographical kinship with the Iranians next door failed. And America lost that race. And in the history of the year 2008, Bush said, can I have 50 bases? And they said, no. And he said, can I have 40? And they said, no and he said can i have 20 and they said no and he said can i keep any bases in iraq and they said no sign here and it was his lame duck end of his presidency he had no choice but to sign the

status of forces agreement that said that the united states would pull out by the end of 2011 forced to surrender by the very parties that he had fought the entire war to put in power thanks for the help now don't let the door hitching the ass on the way out everyone knows Iraq War II was bad. What was so bad about it was that a million people were killed, including 4,500 American soldiers and hundreds more mercenaries and other contractors, for the only effect of empowering Iran's favorite sons to take over the government in Baghdad, and turning the western half of the country, at least temporarily, over to thousands of new bin Ladenites, an entire new generation

and a battlefield moved from the eastern border of Afghanistan, now another thousand miles to the west into Mesopotamia and soon to spread into the Levant. Check out my writings at anti-war.com, my show at Scott Horton.org.

All right, you guys, and that was the video adaptation of my Iraq War II chapter from my book, Enough Already. can find the whole playlist at youtube.com slash scott horton's show and that is anti-war radio for today thanks very much for listening i'm your host scott horton i'm editorial director

of anti-war dot com and editor of the new book hotter than the sun time to abolish nuclear weapons find the full interview archive working on six thousand of them now over at scott horton.org and youtube.com slash scott horton's show and i'm here every thursday from 230 to 3 on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A. See you next week.