scenario >> good evening everyone is a troubling time to talk about this subject but the events of the day, the month, the past six weeks, it makes us think how we stand in the middle east. i like to talk about the three threats to the united states that emanate from the persian gulf, iran, saudi arabia and al qaeda. talk about the islamic

militancy emanating from there. . . >> desirous of an accurately educating the citizenry about the islamist threat confronting america.

today americans simply do not have what washington called a right understanding of the threats that the persian gulf region. in my writings i have sought americans with the nature of these threats. whether from iran in its coreligioususes in iraq in lebanon be the vicious marshall anti-christian, anti-jewish and antiwestern brand of islam theology exported under saudi arabia's official impromater or the other sunni islamists lead and incite. and i also argue the united stateses government under both parties is fighting an islamist enemy that does not exist and, therefore, it is employing policies that run to america's traditions and so its best interests. the islamic enemy is stuff of farce, they shia, sunni. they are an band of fanatic

neolists and ready to sacrifice my lives because my daughters go to university, iowans hold presidential primaries every four years and because i, may god forgive, have one or more sam adams after work. with such an enemy existed for he would be at most a lethal nuisance and not the national security threat today to lesser or greater degree by iran, the saudi islamic imperialism and the movement symbolized and inspired by osama bin laden. this farcical view of american islamic enemy is, unfortunately, endemic in u.s. political parties much of the u.s. and western media and perhaps most damaging much of the academy especially in our most prestigious universities. it is my judgment that this view is almost entirely without substantiation.

and if it continues to be washington's working assumption, america will slowly but surely be defeated to the loss of prestige, blood solvency and political cohesion. we will lose not because these are threats are stronger than we are, that's certainly not the case. america's myopic indeed givening elite and its media accumulates have taken enemies who are each in military capability and at most the punitivi 5-foot tall even in jack booted sandals and made them tall foot strong growing behemoths. the three threats i'm going to speak about are those posed by saudi arabia, al-qaeda and its allies. taking these three threats each of which is based in the persian gulf, let us first look at the smallest, at least threatening threat that which comes from iran. since our terrain embassy was seized in 1979 and america was

humiliated for more than 400 days the islamic republic of iran has been the bedouin noir of the u.s. elite. the hostage holding created a hatred of iran among ordinary americans that is easily exploited by u.s. politicians, journalists, academics and pro-israel organizations. so successfully have these scare mongers have been, so successful have these scare mongers in hyping what they often call a nazi-like iranian threat, in fact, that in all of american history, there probably has not been a nonthreat like iran that has been more feared by the average american. look at iran and what you see. first, we see a relatively small island of shia muslims surrounded by a sunni world that despises them. and would rather kill them than all the americans, britains or israelis they can get their hands on. second, we see in iran that in

the last decade has been virtually surrounded by u.s. military bases. and knows that its access to the high seas can be shut almost instantly by the u.s. navy. and third, we see an iran whose energy production has peaked and with the economy it supports is steadily declining. in cold war terms then, iran is fully contained by opposing powers but then again so is iraq and that did not stop an unnecessary disastrous war. ah, you might say, but what if iran gets a nuclear weapon, my answer there is no if about it. iran will get a nuclear capability. if we had been serious about stopping it, we would have stopped our european allies from selling iran the necessary elementary technology in the 1990s. the iranian leadership, moreover, has heard nothing from washington, israel, and much of nato for the past 20 years

except threats of regime change and preemptive strikes, has experienced little but reality of u.n. sanctions and most recently has seen more than 400 u.s. congressmen and senators turning on their own president by standing and cheering a 2010 speech in washington by benjamin netanyahu calling for a war on iran. it has also seen, as we're seeing today in egypt, western governments encourage their nice, safe and politically naive college students to twitter young iranians, to urge a political revolution without a care about how many of those iranians would guy in the streets as a result. given this context, in terms of political reality, iran's leaders would be truly negligent if they would not have a defense against the most militarily potent nation so tehran will certainly get a nuclear weapon

but then what? well, my response would be to ask so what? iran does not have the ability to hit the united states with such a weapon, while we certainly can insixteen rate persia and the shias will not supply to the extremists who would most likely use it against iran than against the west but will they not use it against israel, you ask? and i would say only if iranian leaders are the most stupid men and women allah ever created. israel possesses a largely unaccountable wmd arsenal and it would use it if tehran was even remotely thinking about a first strike. indeed, iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons still leaves it a shia island surrounding by hostile sunnis, u.s. military bases and u.s. target peers focused squarely on it. in other words, with or without

a nuclear, iran is contained. it can continue to dabble with its violent surrogates in the israel/muslim war but it could not pose a military threat to the united states. before moving to our so-called saudi friends, let me say that there is one serious iranian threat to the united states, but only if we and/or the israelis strike iran first. thanks to more than 35 years of near criminal negligence by the u.s. executive and legislative branches in the areas of border control and domestic security, both iran and it's lebanese hezbollah surrogate have created a large clandestine infrastructure in the continental united states. one which works with similar networks in canada, expo and the caribbean. the iranians are too smart and u.s. military power to use this network to strike first in america. but it clearly is designed to allow tehran to respond with violence here if iran is attacked by the united states or

by our israeli allies. now, for saudi arabia and the other gulf arab tyrannies that govern the states adjacent to what we too often forget is referred to by the sunni world as the arabian gulf. let me first say that i view saudi arabia and to its lesser degree it's fellow tyrannies is the nation state that is protest the most dangerous to the united states and to the west generally. yes, russia and china are threatens to the united states. but they are threats washington openly acknowledges, closely watches and assesses and is fully capable of defending america against. saudi arabia, however, is a serious threat, indeed, one more dangerous than iran. toward which our governing elite and both parties turn a blind eye. our elite deceitfully pretend that riyadh is a close and reliable loy. it keeps america's security energy dependent on its enemies

by relying on the saudis to play a pro-u.s. role in the u.s. oil market and it endangers our economy by allowing the saudis by buying an ever larging share of our out of control federal debt. in addition, the saudis over the past 30 years have built a largely effective lobby which is as pernicious and corrupting as opec but more quiet and subtle this. it employs u.s. ambassadors, generals and senior intelligence officers to argue its case in the congress and the media and the "wall street journal." needless to say it's assisted by our oil and arms-making corporations whose concerns have less to do with u.s. security than in making sure they keep their seats on the saudi gravy train, that is even now hauling away another $60 billion worth

of u.s.-made arms. due to these factors, u.s. leaders never tell americans the truth about the kingdom, which is that since the 1970s oil boom started an enormous transfer of western wealth to the peninsula, the saudis have quietly exported a brand of sunni islam that has radicalized much of the historically defined sunni middle east region and which is now arabizing muslim population in places like indonesia, malaysia, pakistan, afghanistan, india, the balkans, the north caucuses and sub-sahara in africa. last year in nigeria, for example, will saudi and gulf missionaries have labored and spent a large sums of money a large group there to for its local agenda to name the united states as its number 1 target for, quote-unquote, america's oppression and aggression against muslim nations,

particularly, in iraq and afghanistan. and because of its blind support for israel, close quote. more immediately dangerous for the west, however, are the saudi-funded -- saudi regime funded regimes of the clerics in the united states and europe, especially in the united kingdom. for more than 30 years, the saudis domestically religious establishment which controls education, social policy, and missionary work has brought western muslims to the kingdom for theological training in its religious universities. these meant return to the west to preach what only can be described as a marshall-oriented islamist imperialism, a vision of the world that's wholly islamic which for the west would mean that christian and jewish population could convert, accept subordination to islam or face elimination. these saudi-trained teacherers are prominent in mosques in the united states and in europe and have secured positions as

chaplains in western universities, prison systems and militaries. this is not to say, let me stress, that all american or european muslim communities share this marshall and expansionist orientation but it's much to say these clerics have obtained enough positions in the west and have enough access to muslim youth through multiple media vehicles to have a growing -- to have a growing impact. they are now influencing some young muslim males in the west in a pro-jihad direction. in much the same way they have for years influenced them in the middle east, asia, and africa. those who doubt this would be well served in reviewing the escalating number of militant-related activities that have been uncovered and stopped in the united states since 2007. to note the growing number of u.s. -- young u.s., canadian, australian and british muslims who are going abroad to fight

and train under al-qaeda's banner in somalia, yemen and afghanistan, and also to note al-qaeda's very successful recruitment of talented u.s. citizen muslims to run media operations targeting muslim communities in the english speaking world. and the saudis, too, are the bridge from our second source of concern in the persian gulf, the sau saudi kingdom to its brotherhood tyrannies, namely osama bin laden, al-qaeda, their allies and the increasing numbers of muslims inspired by each. when all is said and done, osama bin laden is not an anomaly in saudi arabia. rather, he's the poster boy for its educational system successes. fortunately for the united states and the west, bin laden has matured as a defensive and intestimo intestimo intestimony -- intemperant.

even with these dibs however, the saudis missionary activities are an indispensable aid to al-qaeda's organizational, military and media activities. through expatriate leaders, the saudis have created muslim activities in most of the world that are alienated from and even hateful toward the west. and so these communities are continual environments for hosting an al-qaeda presence. in the balkans, in india and bangladesh, in the north caucuses in north asia, in north america, in europe, in sub-sahara and africa, these preachers, ngos and doses of saudi cash have for decades prepared the ground for al-qaeda and its allies. do the saudis realize this? of course, they do. we must always keep in mind that the only islamist terrorists or

insurgent attacks that the saudi leaders disapprove of, are those that occur outside of the kingdom, inside the king, rather. a final point to make on the symbiotic saudi arabia/al-qaeda relationship, outside the arabian peninsula, is that saudi activities abroad relieve al-qaeda for the need to fund staff and manage a humanitarian educational health services wing like those that are run by hamas, hezbollah, and the muslim brotherhood and, therefore, bin laden is allowed to focus on spreading his organization and planning military activities. bin laden, al-qaeda, and their allies and those they inspire then are the third of the persian gulf threats. and they are, i think, the most dangerous to the united states. they are the most dangerous not because they are more powerful than the united states, nor because they are supported by all muslims, they are most dangerous -- they are the most

dangerous gulf origin, that the elite has uniformly refused to accept reality. from the first bush to clinton to george w. bush to barack obama, americans have been told that they're at war because al-qaeda and its allies are motivated by hatred for our liberty, way of life, and democratic institutions. this is a palpable, lethal lie. we are being attacked because of our elite half century record of relentless intervention in the muslim world. it is in the cumulative impact the 50 years of interventionism that we find the main motivation of america's islamist enemies as well as the principal organizational glue that provides a modicum of units of the creation. it's to be found in their perception of u.s. foreign policy is an attack on the u.s. religion and its followers. this is a view that is held not only by those carrying ak-47s

but extensive polling by reliable pollsters is reliable, by nearly 80% of all muslims worldwide, young and old, moderate and militant men and women. now, no american must accept the islamists' indictment of the anti-muslim intent of u.s. foreign policy but to avoid economic ruin and widespread domestic violence, u.s. leaders must acknowledge and then explain to americans that this is the muslim world's perception. and that u.s. security requires all of us to accept the hard truth that perception is always reality and what the policies motivating the bin laden inspired islamists be willing do no better than the list the six policies bin laden enumerated in 1996 and to which he is held closely for the next 15 years.

i would also note four of the six poles motivate to a greater or lesser extent are posed in iran and saudi arabia. according to bin laden then, america's declaration of war on islam and on muslims is clear in the following facts. first, the u.s. military and civilian presence on the arabian peninsula, second, u.s. and western exploitation of muslim energy resources, third, the u.s. military presence in muslim lands outside of the peninsula, fourth, u.s. support for nations that oppress muslims, especially, russia, china, and india. fifth, endless and country qualified u.s. support for israel, sixth, u.s. support and protection from muslim tyrannies. thus, it is policy, not lifestyle, that is the cause this belly of lad war declared on the united states on 23 august, 1996. and yet nearly 15 years on there

has been no public contention by any public figure save ron paul and dennis kucinich that they are by a blind blood lust and a cultural hatred for america and the west. why is such the case? well, i believe it's because the government's elite is addicted to interventionism. it is sadly their default response to international affairs. witness, for example, bin laden, mccain intervening on both sides in today's egyptian crisis. from obama to speaker boehner, to senator mccain, from the "new york times" to the "washington times," from fox news to national public radio and for most of the rest of the punditry to many of the top pastors of the christian evangelical community, u.s. leaders, left, right and center believe there

is no political problem, war, gender equality deficiency, revolution, ethnic conflict, crooked election, or religious clash that does not require direct american involvement. and this whether or not they can identify even a single genuine u.s. national interest at risk, in making this claim, i do not suggest they can read the minds or hearts of those who have for three decades designed our disastrous foreign policy in the muslim world. because no one has such define insight, i take as my guide general washington's assertion shatt views of men can be known or guessed at by their words or actions. using this metric our leader's pervasive interventions emerges in relief. it's the islamist's main motivation for fighting america and while u.s. citizens can

debate if the policy status quo should be kept or one or more of the policies should be amended or abandoned, maintenance of washington's prevailing assumption that muslims hate americans for who they are and how they live and not for what the u.s. government does in the islamic world will lead to nothing less than a vast case of self-deception using -- yielding eventually calamity for the nation. indeed, united states today may stand in a historically unique position. no other great power in my memory has faced the situation in which it's likely to be attacked at home in a manner at least as and probably more severe than 9/11. and have no means with which to respond to the enemy in a militarily telling manner. having already destroyed the known infrastructure of al-qaeda and the taliban, we are berift of meaningful military target and are left only with the most likely default response. attack iran no matter who attacks us or attack symbolic

targets such as population centers in afghanistan and pakistan or holy places such as mecca or medina. thus, after a second attack in the united states, the choice for washington would be one of two. either standing motionless in a quivering but potent rage or launching attacks that would make the warning of the "clash of civilizations," all too prescient. and america today, i think you will agree, the foregoing analysis is not mainstream. indeed, i've often heard it dismissed as pathological. and yet more than 14 years after al-qaeda declared war on the united states, the cynical act of political expediency. and as more elections come and go, the war on afghanistan is lost beyond recall and president obama has marooned our military forces, making them dependent on

resupply routes that traverse hostile russian and pakistani territory. pakistan is in genuine in danger of going the way of afghanistan with unfortunate consequences for nuclear proliferation. and the mujahedeen bleed-through is already visible in jordan, turkey, lebanon, and gaza. in addition the insurgency in somalia and algeria has been rekindled and the insurgents spreading into west africa. similar insurgencies of varying but building vitality are underway in yemen, southern thailand, and the north caucuses. the major cities of hindu india have been attacked by islamist fighters and the islamist movement in western europe is growing and in britain, has driven the traditionally stoic security services to the point of public despair. as for the united states, bin

laden long ago delineated al-qaeda's war aims for defeating america in three concise phrases. first, to take advantage of economic situations internationally to help bleed america to bankruptcy, second, to spread out u.s. and intelligence sources and flexibilities and third to strip away america's allies and to disrupt domestic political unity in america as much as possible. i will leave it to the audience to decide, using these three war aims, as a metric whether there's any reason for bin laden and al-qaeda to be discouraged about the progress they have made in the war they began in 1996. now, let me move to discussing how we can begin to blunt the threats from the persian gulf. the best foreign policy advice for the obama administration, in fact, for any u.s. administration has been heard by anyone who has flown on an airliner. during the preflight safety

briefing each passenger is told in case of an emergency place our oxygen first and only then help others with theirs. i have referred to this commonsense instruction in my books. and i believe in its continuing direct pertinence to u.s. foreign policy. before america and the few of our allies who can fight -- who will fight, rather, can defeat the expanding islamist movement and beat with must and more military power than we've used to date. washington must put its own foreign policy and political houses in order. america can help no alliance partner or other foreign nation until it is reanchored in its own history and traditions. indeed, until this reanchoring occurs, america cannot even help itself. to achieve this goal, we must return to the governing doctrine crafted by washington and the other founders in foreign policy, the key to reanchoring is an approach that is more independent and less

interventionists. if there would be one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every american jefferson wrote in 1791 it should be that we have nothing to do with conquest. in america's dealings with iran and less obviously with saudi arabia as well as with its war in islamism we are losing because our bipartisan governing elite and it's academic apologists have turn mr. jefferson's guidance on its head much to the detriment. because of this interventionism, which the founders would have damned to hell, we as a nation are mired in an environment in the persian gulf region that is conducive to an endless war with muslims. foreign policy is at face about creating multiple options to use to protect genuine u.s. interests and independence in an always unpredictable world. but when americans celebrate the

fourth of july that the senator and john mccain will have the courage to tell americans the truth which is that over the past 35 years both parties have consciously eviscerated u.s. independence on the single most important foreign policy issue, the decision about whether or not to go to war. both parties, for example, have failed to move the united states closer to energy security since the first saudi-led oil embargo in 1973. instead of freeing the u.s. economy from the arab-held dagger pointed at its heart, american presidents, republican and democratic, have unmanfully groveled begged and even publicly bowed to the tyrants of the arabian peninsula for their quest for oil. the same presidents have so enormously overspent the public treasury that america is in the thrall with the largest tyrant

than china. one that puts u.s. energy in financial security in the hands of its enemies. because of such leaderships, americans find they have lost control over the peace or war decision. if anti-saudi unrest in the kingdom's eastern province ever seriously occur tails oil production u.s. will detour the police state and return the flow of oil and a reality of an automatic war of oil goes beyond the arab world. currently, mexico is one of our top oil suppliers and is creeping toward the failed -- the status of a failed state. and by 2015, the united states will import 20% of its crude from the niger delta region. if production in either place and both have insurgencies is ever significantly reduced, u.s. soldiers and marines almost certainly will deploy to restore to production and if you think the insurgencies in iraq and afghanistan are nightmares, wait

until u.s. forces are fighting in the niger delta's 27,000 square kilometers of swamp and forest. as for mexico, i can only think that our governing elite known as effective border control has set up america of a tragedy for shakespearean proportion, a tragedy that when it comes, will be of our own making and one that one started will unfold rapidly and bring with it the strong possibility of significant violence in parts of the united states. americans have lost control of the peace or war decision because their leaders have involved them almost inextricably in the unending u.s. war. even rid calling the founders to avoid getting americans in other people's wars. both parties not only have involved us in this middle east conflict but there have involved

us in other people's religious wars. can there be any better definition of an insane foreign policy than the one that today finds the united states not fully involved to the hilt in this irrelevant religious war but politically backing and frenetically arming both the major antagonists of the war, israel and saudi arabia. by being israel's cash cow and i'm questioning protector and the only protector of the fundamentally anti-american saudi state, washington has created a situation in which america will be drawn into any arab-israeli war that goes beyond any state other than palestine no matter of the wishes of the american people. having all but negated the ability of the united states to abstain from wars for oil and major wars between arabs and israelis, did u.s. political elite has compleetdz an -- completed its axis of doom

through the democracy crusading a perversion for what america stands for that can only lead to war and more war. the america's elite democracy crusading in iraq has destabilized the entire region creating new threats to oil supply and making prices largely unpredictable. it's also cost american taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars, has killed more than 4500 of our soldier children while wounding 30,000 more and has set the stage for a potential region-wide sectarian civil war. a few more missions accomplished like this one in a democracy-building realm will bankrupt our nation. and the still pending threat of another war to impose democracy, this time in iran, which is, of course, a more representative state than washington's islamofascist arab allies. war in iran would be billed as a war to liberate oppressed iranians or to stop the spread of nuclear weapons but in

reality, it would be like iraq no more than a war to protect israel. and in terms of american independence, just conjure for a moment the reality that 300 million americans could wake up to find themselves at war with iran because a man named most recent or mahmoud ahmadinejad both foreigners no american ever voted for decided to expand a religious war in which no genuine u.s. interest is at stake. as i noted, our participation in such a war would produce iran-sponsored terrorism in america and just might temporarily unite the entire muslim community, 1.4 billion people if you are counting in a jihad against the united states. america's bipartisan governing elite then with the support of the media and the academy have brought the united states face for face at war every turn, war over oil, wars over religious conflicts in which no genuine

u.s. interest is at risk and wars to impose secular democracy on peoples who will fight it to the death. the situation is surely the antithesis of what the founders intended when they designed a system meant to limit the chance of arbitrary government that leads inevitably to tyranny the founders knew and the americans are learning that there's a few better definitions of tyranny one finds a nation repeatedly led into wars where no international interests are at risk by the personal beliefs, ambitions or even whims of a single individual in his or her closest advisors. to have a shot at negating the persian gulf threats to america, u.s. leaders must be made to abandon their half-century binge of interventionism and begin to rebuild the politically cohesive financially solvent american republic to replace washington's already collapsing empire. the question, of course, how to

begin to retrieve the blank check commitments u.s. leaders have given to foreigners? let me suggest several ways of proceeding. first, america must accelerate conversion to alternative energy, expand nuclear power and further exploit fossil fuel reserves. in america, nothing should be allowed to deter the ingenuity and initiative of americans from securing greater self-sufficiency. fear is induced by the bp leak should not keep drilling halted and demands for protection for arkic rabtsz at the cost of dead marines should be ordered america has no interests in the arab peninsula gulf region save for the freedom of navigation which the u.s. navy can assure. and as our dependence on foreign

energy declines this will become much clearer. self-sufficiency will also allow america and the west to stop protecting the gulf and other muslim tyrannies. regimes that cloud our economic destiny, steadily export their het red for us and make it pure and hypocrisy. it will also end the current cruel reality that sees a portion of the price parents pay at the pump flow from oil-rich arabs to islamist insurgents who are killing their soldier children in iraq and afghanistan. second, the impossible must be done. congress must be made to find a backbone or be purged in coming election. a backbone with which to end its supine and illegal abdication to the executive branch of its sole power to declare war. and thereby restore constitutionality and, therefore, sanity to the u.s.

war-making process. infamously, no congress has declared war since december 8th, 1941. and yet we have repeatedly seen america dragged into wars because one man and his advisors have decided it is the right thing to do. joint resolutions permitting the president to start wars are cowardly acts that surrender constitutional prerogatives and allow senators and congressmen to have it both ways. they can applaud the troops and beat their chest if the war goes well. or they can snipe at and undermine the president if the war goes belly up. our post-war history is littered with failed wars, initiated by the president in which divided americans amongst themselves. perhaps the restoration of the founders intent on the issue of war-making will allow americans both to win wars abroad and not wage them against each other at home. third, united states must stay out of other people's wars,

particularly, their religious wars. america, for example, now stands as the abject loser in the israel-palestine conflict, the economic strangling of hamas and the periodic invasions of gaza, indeed, america is in part losing to bin laden and the islamist movement because of its absolute backing of israel which requires among other things the coddling of arab tyrannies and its self-defeating blind eye for the saudis blatant and jihad spreading. america, and i would suggest europe, must withdraw from this savagery. no vital aspect of western life or security would be negatively impacted if israel or palestine or both disappeared tomorrow. and this reality ought to receive great attention today. as a hezbollah-backed politician becomes lebanon's prime minister, the saudis seek to spread their maligned influence by replacing our aid to mubarak

and the egyptian tyranny teeters toward the muslim brotherhood all of which like the occupation of iraq will further compromise israel's security. in addition, we are tied to the saudi tyranny only because of the moral cowardice of politicians eager for cheap oil and massive arms sales. we also must reject the contentious that u.s., western and israeli national security interests in the muslim world are identical. america is now shedding blood and treasure in iraq because of our country's neoconservative and pro-israel citizens and their journals. these men provoked a war based on the idiot idea that a democratic state could be created in muslim iraq that would be less than wholeheartedly anti-israeli. in doing so, saddam, a shield for the israelis, and israeli security, were permanently compromised from the moment the u.s.-led invasion of iraq began.

moreover, this is not a fixable situation. because of potentially -- because the potential iraq regime ambivalent towards israel exists only in the mines of pro-israel u.s. citizens, these are the men and women who at day's end are israel's most lethal enemies. the cost of unqualified u.s. support for israel long has been measured only in dollars and political capital. and as such, has been largely ignored by americans aline with the washington's radical ways. and we're in the situation where the cost of support for israel is or soon will be measured in the lives of american parents children. that cost, i think, will quickly become obvious, abhorrent and utterly unacceptable to those parents. fourth, finally, and i think most important, the u.s. government and its european

allies must stop trying to spread democracy abroad by military, financial, humanitarian or political intervention. no young american man or woman should die for the insane goal of giving the people of iraq and afghanistan of a possibility of embracing democracy. a phrase used ad infinitum by u.s. president and other western leaders. no small our republican government like our own has the right to expend the lives of its young in military crusades for unattainable zlugs gives liberty, justice equality and democracy to foreigners who do not want them and will fight them to the death. this is especially true when our youngsters' lives are spent as they have been in iraq and afghanistan, by a governing elite that does not intend to win the wars it starts. and refuses to allow the full use of the conventional military force taxpayers have bought to

protect their country and their children. u.s. foreign policy then must revert to what it was before the cold war gave license to u.s. politicians to become democracy mongers interventionists. foreign policy is meant to defend our country, not to define who we are by doing what our elites define as good deeds overseas. in america, foreign policy need do but one thing. it must protect america so as to allow for the domestic expansion of liberty, freedom, and the equality of conditions. if no additional foreigner ever votes in an election, americans, and i would say europeans would be no worse off. and practically speaking, our efforts to build democracies abroad have a track record of making us less safe, not more safe. indeed, washington's interventionism and its most recent democracy crusading in the muslim world has impoverished us in treasure,

blood, domestic/political unity and what mr. lincoln called the rightful example of our -- the rightful influence of our republican example. to protect the precious legacy our ancestors have built in america over the past four centuries, we in america must return to the founders' goal for our country, that of being the well wisher of freedom and independence for all. but the champion and the vindicator only of our own. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, michael >> you're welcome. >> i have a feeling we are going to have some questions after that speech. i would encourage you to phrase your question as a question and we'll take one per person only. second row, sir, the one behind you. we'll get to you.

>> thank you. i'm confused about the relationship between the saudi royal family and al-qaeda. can you explain that a little bit more and particularly, how -- what is the interest of the saudi royal family to establish al-qaeda's intelligence in the united states. how does this work, and how far has it progressed? >> the saudis are an offensive, almost imperialist of islam. they are indeed the people who want to build the caliphate worldwide. bin laden is more of a defensive jihadist wanting to take back the lands that he believes were taken from islam. the saudis and the muslim brotherhood and egypt and elsewhere both sponsoring and paying for subversive activities. and indeed are trying to make

the world entirely islamic over time. the relationship with bin laden and the saudis is always a cloudy one. they have disowned them, they say. but i think you'll accept that things are never quite black and white in the arab world and especially in saudi arabia. parts of the royal family are said to contribute money to bin laden and other islamists. certainly, wealthy families and wealthy muslims around the world continue to do that. so the saudis are shielded by smiling, speaking english and holding hands with the president in the rose garden, but, you know, the taliban is not far from being what saudi arabia would be without the royal family. the taliban was educated by saudi educationists, if you

will. >> we have another question right here in the front here. >> the account that set off the package bombs bragged about how much it made america spend and disrupted everything. bin laden several times, which you haven't mentioned, was anxious to bankrupt the west. every target except the pentagon and the west was an economic target. other parts of the world they don't like to put muslims watching sports games in pakistan but in the west, there was economic and determined and, of course, part of the people who weren't on the borrowing thing tend to exaggerate it. are they convinced for responsible the united states being bankrupt if the united states does things that it looks

like it's not going bankrupt what will make them not thinking -- >> i don't think i missed saying it. i think i described bin laden's first priority is to take those things internationally to bankrupt us. that is clearly his intention. he knows for -- you know, he said publicly we can't invade milwaukee or words to that effect. their goal is clearly to make us spend money to the point where we don't have any left to spend. and we seem to be doing quite well with that at the moment. >> is there any way to stop -- [inaudible] >> there's no way to do it, sir, until we tell the american people the truth. and we begin to fight the enemy that exists instead of the enemy that our politicians want us to believe in. once we stop telling the american people it's what their government does and now how they live, perhaps we can have a rational discussion.

but until then we're going to keep spending money without much effect. for example, we've spent, what, 50 billion, $100 billion on gadgets at airports and crossing points around our country. so now we're fully capable of stopping a guy carrying a bomb wearing an "i love osama" t-shirt as long as he comes through miami or niagara. if he happens to drive a 13 or 18-year-old pickup truck across mexico to houston, we don't have a prayer. so we're on our way. what did they say those cargo aircraft bombs cost $4500. i would bet we spent over a billion in beefing up our defenses but it all starts at recognizing the enemy. and we haven't. >> can you talk a little bit more about the -- what you just

mentioned, the crossing in from mexico and from canada. you had said that hezbollah and iran have already established some sort of infrastructure? >> yes. >> what kind of evidence is there for that. >> i think there's a great deal of evidence. if you read what the fbi has written about it and has said publicly, there are strong al-qaeda organizations -- or hezbollah organizations in north carolina, in new york, montreal, toronto, vancouver. along with the iranian intelligence service to keep an eye on the young shah and his followers but it's clearly to have a dual use which is to strike back against us. it's not talked about very much. you know, the bush administration talked about saddam having a terrorist capability here and, of course, he didn't. but the iranians absolutely have a presence here. >> okay. thank you. on our left in the third row.

>> i have a question and ask for a comment on the failure of the intelligence community which is part -- you know, which has rapidly grown in funding and also power in the united states, and, you know, is a large part responsible, i feel, for these wars that we engage in and their suggestion? >> the intelligence community can declare war -- so no one declares war anymore so let me step back from that. the intelligence community, particularly, the cia, is peculiarly the instrument of the president of the united states. what the intelligence community does is ordered -- authorized by the president and the idea that somehow the cia and the community as a rogue organization is kind of nonsense. and you're seeing the absolute navory if you will of the president of the united states, mr. obama, in blaming the

intelligence community that the stuff was going to happen in the middle east. for the past 30 years, the intelligence community has reported that the tyrannies in the middle east live on a knife edge. they will be just fine as long as they're brutal and repressive and nothing out of the ordinary happened. if he didn't know that, it was a failure of his senior advisors or of his ability to see the world as it is rather than he wants it to be. i suspect the only intelligence failure was an inability to predict the day the guy lit himself up in tunisia. just as the intelligence failure in 9/11, of course, was mr. clinton's failure to kill bin laden when he had multiple chances in 1998 and '99 and the reason the wars going on in afghanistan today is mr. bush didn't kill bin laden when the community had identified his presence at tora bora in december, 2001. over the course of my career,

intelligence failures are generally the result of republican and democratic presidents failing to act in time on intelligence that they have. >> we need to move on. there's a gentleman right behind you and then we'll go to this side. >> i thought your presentation was very courageous and very intelligent. and was there any way -- i would like to read it and go through it again. is that available -- >> well -- this one is all marked up. i could surely send a copy to andy and if he wants to put it on the website or send it to people who request it, i don't think that's a problem, sir. >> well, this is being podcasts as well. you can download it in a week. >> i'm sorry. i forgot. all right. thank you. >> gentlemen, yes. >> you've presented some very interesting points about alternative approaches to

foreign policy and domestic policy. can you tell me what kind of following and kind of support we might see in terms of congress or in terms of the executive branch with anything that you have laid out? >> i think mr. paul is the only one who speaks on this, but the one thing i would tell you is i have toured the country quite a bit speaking. and people between the age of 24 and 36, 37 are very interested in doing more at home and less overseas. and so i tend topping that the quality of our leadership in both parties is so bad at this time that the only thing that is going to get us off the mark, either on foreign policy or debt or a number of other issues is calamity. they won't do anything until a disaster occurs. i hate to be that cynical or

that negative, but i've watched this for an awful long time, a very small portion of it, but i watched bin laden attack us, for example, in somalia in '94, twice in saudi arabia in '95, and '96. destroyed two of our embassies in east africa in '98. almost sink the cole in 2000 and then 9/11 after one of that the american government is not going to let this grow and fester and it never did. and so i'm -- i guess i would say i'm resigned to waiting for the calamity that will trigger change. >> why did we pull back at tora bora? you were here with gary who was on the jawbreaker team and we were talking about that at that time. they said that -- gary said that they had everything triangulated. they knew exactly where it was. that it had to do with the

general. >> the general -- >> the general pulling back. >> the general -- if there is a blessing from all this war it perhaps is the fact that the next crop of generals won't be bureaucratic paper pushers. that they will have seen their troops die on the ground. the generals, when we had bin laden caught in the tora bora mountains decided that it was bad public relations to lose our own troops, to do our own dirty work, if you will. and they found two afghan commanders to hire to go in the mountains to get him. gary was on the ground, sent the names back to us and we did the name traces -- my people did the name traces on the two gentlemen. both of them fought with bin laden against soviets and both of them were commanders for the local mujahedeen tribal chieftain who lived in the tora bora area. both of them were his commanders. so they were clearly going to be

a day late and a dollar short. they took our money, and they were a day late and a dollar short and osama got away. and the only reason he did is we didn't use the 6,000 marines and the tenth mountain division that were nearby and eager to go. >> more questions. bill, if you can get this blue guy in the crew neck that had his hand up but didn't. >> i want to ask about bin laden. you said one of his issues was that we were exploiting the oil from the middle east. it seems to me that it's a two-way street. the fact that we were dependent on the oil is a plus not a minus. so could you explain that. >> the argument is that until recently, at least, we have exploited the oil at prices less than the market would have required. so there was an amount of theft -- he's an economist in part by training and there's

long discussions of how much other commodities have gone up. and until recently oil had not apprched the growth in other commodities. so the idea is both that we took -- we were taking oil at below market prices but as important, that muslim governments are cowtowing us by selling oil to us less than market prices. oil remains one of the hardest targets for al-qaeda because they recognize it's our achilles heel but if they destroy a production facility in the middle east it hurts muslims which is one of the reasons they are focused on a place like houston, for example. >> mr. scheuer, you're a good presentation. >> thank you. >> but to the point -- it seems to me that you're advocating until we get to more -- or we become an isolationist country again, that kind of to me it

flies in the face of how we have become so, you know, interconnected globally. so, you know, what -- what are the chances -- what is the chance of that happening in your estimation? >> i think the chance of it happening probably is pretty strong as we continue to be punished and beaten at various wars and the american people decide the game is not worth the canal but i also think that isolationism is a slur. i don't think america has ever been isolationists. if you look at the scholar that looked at the interwar period from 1919 to 1941, america was never more fully engaged in the world economically, educationally, scientifically. nonintervention doesn't mean fortress america. it means trade. it means international cooperation and climate activities. it means all of those things. but nonintervention means, i thk,