his war against the united states 10 years after 9/11. he spoke about his book at the philadelphia free library. >> good evening, everyone. i think it is perhaps a troubling time to be talking about the subject but the events of the day of the past month perhaps, six weeks, requires us all i think to rethink how we stand in the mideast. so tonight i'd like to talk about the three threats to the united states that emanate from the persian gulf. iran, saudi arabia, and what i call al qaeda -ism. in speaking tonight about the persian gulf, and our war against the islamist militancy emanating i want to start with words george washington used to describe new national governments responsibility to ensure that americans clearly understand the threats they face at home and abroad. i am sure the massive citizens
of these united states meanwhile, washington told john j. in 1796. and i believe they will always act well, whenever they can obtain a right understanding of matters. let me say that i share washington's fate and essentially sound common sense of americans. except perhaps that of the coming generation whose male members seem unable how to put a baseball cap on so the brim points for. i am not saying when our national government under either party is capable or even desirous of actually educating the citizenry about the islamist threat confronting america. today americans simply do not have what washington called a right understanding of the threats from the persian gulf region. in my writings i've sought to acquaint americans with the nature of these threats, whether from iran in its religious in iraq and lebanon, the vicious
martial, anti-christian, anti-jewish and anti-western brand of islamic theology exported under saudi arabia's official, or the forces of osama bin laden, al qaeda and other sunni islamists lead and inside. i also argued the united states government under both parties is fighting an islamist enemy that does not exist. and, therefore, it is in policies that run counter to america's historical traditions come and so to its best interests. official washington's islamic enemy is the stuff of hollywood farce. be they shia or sunni, the islamist are a limited band of fanatical is ready to kill widely and indiscriminately for the pure joy of murdering. and ready to sacrifice their lives because my daughters go to university, iowans hold early presidential primaries every four years, because i, may god forgive me, have one or more sam
adams after work. would that such an enemy exist, for he would be at most a lethal nuisance and not a national security threat posed today to lesser or greater degree iran, the saudis islamic realism, and the sunni islamist movement symbolized and inspired by osama bin laden. this view of america's islamist enemy is unfortunately endemic in both u.s. political parties, much of u.s. and western media, and perhaps most damaging much of the academy, especially in our most prestigious universities. it is in my judgment this view is almost entirely without substantiation. if it continues to be washington's working assumption, america will slowly and surely be defeated through the lost of prestige, but, financial solvency, and domestic political cohesion. we will lose not because any of these threats are stronger than we are, that certainly is not
the case. america's myopic governing elite and its media acolytes have taken enemies who are each in military capability, at most a puny five-foot tall. and made it into 10-foot tall and still growing behemoth. the three threats i'm going to speak about are those posed by iran, saudi arabia and 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, least threatening threat, that which comes from iran. since our tehran embassy was seized in 1979 and america was humiliated for more than 400 days, the islamic republic of iran has been the bipartisan u.s. governing elite. the hostage holding create a hatred towards iran that is easily exploited by u.s. politicians, journalists,
academics, and pro-israel organizations. so successfully had the scare mongers been, so success on the scare mongers been in hiding what they often call a nazi like iranian threat come in fact, that in all of american history there probably has not been a non-threats like iran that hasn't been more feared by the average american. look at iran and what do you see? first, we say relatively small island of shia muslims surrounded by a sunni world that despises them. and would rather kill them and all the americans, britons, or israelis they can get their hands on. second, we see an iran that inelastic it has been virtually surrounded by u.s. military bases. and knows its access to the high seas can be shut almost instantly by the u.s. navy. and third we see and about his energy production has peaked, and with the economy it supports
steadily decline. in cold war terms then, iran is fully contained by opposing powers. but then again so was iraq and that did not stop an unnecessary disastrous war. i, you might say, but what if iran gets a nuclear weapon? my answer is there is no if about it. iran will get a nuclear capability. if we been serious about stopping it, we would have stopped our european allies from selling iran the necessary elementary technology in the 1990s. providing leadership, moreover, from has heard nothing from washington, israel and much of nader for the past 20 years, except threats of regime change, and preemptive strikes, has experienced little but rarely of u.s. u.n. sanctions and most recently has seen more than 400 u.s. congressmen and senators turned on their own president by staying in cheering any 2010 speech in washington by
netanyahu calling for war i not run, on iran. it has also seen as we are seeing today in egypt western governments encourage their nice safe and politically naïve college students to twitter young iranians, georgia political revolution without a care about how many of those iranians would die in the streets as results. given this context, in terms of political reality, iran's leaders would be truly negligent if they were not seeking an effective defense against the constant threats from the world's most militarily potent nation's. so tehran will certainly get nuclear weapons. but then what? my response would be to ask, so what? iran doesn't have the ability to hit the united states with such a weapon. while we surely can't incinerate persia. they she is will not supply the sunni extremist to be more likely to use it against iran and 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 all i've ever created. israel possesses a large multifaceted and wholly accounted for, unaccounted for our sin. it would surely use it if tehran looked like it was even remotely thinking about a first strike. indeed, iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons still lead to a shia island. in other words, with or without a nuclear weapon iran is contained. they can continue to die with its violent circuits in israel, but cannot post 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 their criminal negligence by the u.s. executive and legislative branches, in areas of border control and domestic security, both iran and its lebanese hezbollah circuit after a large clandestine infrastructure in the continental united states. one which would for similar networks in canada, mexico and the caribbean. the iranians are too smart and too afraid of 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 year if iran is attacked by the united states or by our israeli allies. now for saudi arabia. and the other gulf arab tyrannies that governed 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 lesser
degree its fellow arab peninsula journeys as the nationstate that is perhaps the most dangerous to united states and the west generally. yes, russia and china are threat to the united states, but they are threats washington openly acknowledges. closely watches and assesses, and is fully capable of intervening america against. saudi arabia, however, it is a serious threat. indeed, one more dangerous than iraq. toward which our governing elite in both parties turns a blind eye. our elite deceitfully pretend that riyadh
is close and reliable ally. it keeps america's security depended on its enemies by relying on the saudis to play pro-u.s. role in the world oil market. it endangers our economy by allowing the saudis to buy an ever larger share, up her ever more out of control federal debt. in addition, the saudis over the
past 30 years have built a highly effective lobby in the united states which is as pernicious, effective and corrupting as i tacked a more quiet and subtle. this lobby implores former u.s. ambassadors, generals and seniors, senior intelligence officers to argue its case in the white house, the congress and the media, especially in "the wall street journal." needless to say, this lobby's work is enthusiastically 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 up hauling away another $60 billion worth of us-made arms. due to these factors, u.s. leaders never tell a 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 status of quietly exported a brand of sunni islam that has
radicalized much of the historically defined sunni middle east region and which is now in places like indonesia, malaysia, pakistan, afghanistan, india, the balkans, the north caucasus, and sub-saharan africa. last year in nigeria, for example, where saudi and gulf missionaries have long labored and spent large sums of money, an islamist group known as vocal hartmut amended thereto for local agenda to name the united states as its number one 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, closed quote. more into a dangerous for the west, however, are the saudi funded activities of the circuit islamic clerics in the united states in europe, especially in
the united kingdom. for more than 30 years the saudis domestic religious establishment which controls education, social policy, and missionary work has brought western muscle to the kingdom for theological training at its universities. these men returned to the west to preach what would've can only be described as a martial oriented islamic nihilism, a vision of the world as holy islamic which for the west would mean that christian and jewish populations could convert, accept subordination to islam, or face elimination. the saudi trained preachers are prominent in mosques in the united states and in europe, and have secure 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 martial an expansionist orientation. but it's very much to say these trained clerics have attained
enough positions in the west and have enough access to muslim youth through multiple media vehicles, to the 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 influence 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 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 man in somalia, yemen, and afghanistan, and also to al qaeda's very successful recruitment of talented u.s. citizen muslims to run media operations targeting muslim committees in the english-speaking world. and the saudis, too, are the
bridge from our second source of concern in the persian gulf at the saudi king and its brother tierney's to the third. naming osama bin laden, al qaeda, their allies, and increasingly numbers of muslims inspired by each. when all is said and done, osama bin laden is not an anomaly of saudi arabia. rather come he is the poster boy for its educational system successes. fortunately, for the united states and the west, bin laden has matured as a islam is not like the muslim brotherhood. offenses and and tolerant ones. even with these differences, the saudis overseas mission activities are an indispensable aid to a kite's organizational, military, and media activities. through expatriate saudi preachers, islamic ngos, and direct funding by riyadh for
local organizations, the saudis have great muslim communities in most areas of the world that are alienated and even -- 80 nihcm and even hateful towards the west. and so these committees are environment for hosting an al qaeda presence. in the balkans, in india and bangladesh, in the north caucasus in south asia, in north america and europe, and in sub-saharan africa these preachers, ngos, and doses of saudi cash have for decades prepare the ground for al qaeda and its allies. to the -- to the sounds realize this? of course they do. we must always keep in mind the only islamist terrorist or insurgent attack they disapprove of are those that occur outside the kingdom. inside the kingdom, rather. a final point to make on this symbiotic saudi arabia al qaeda relationship outside the arabian peninsula is that saudi
activities abroad release outside of the need to fund, staff and manage the humanitarian, educational health services wing comes like those that are run by hamas, hezbollah, and the muslim brotherhood. and, therefore, they are allowed to focus on spreading the organization and planning military activities. bin laden, al qaeda and their allies and those that inspired in our the third of the persian gulf threats and they are i think the most dangers 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 cold war threat to american because the u.s. bipartisan governing elite has uniformly refused to accept reality. from the first bush to clinton to george w. bush, to barack obama, americans have been told they are 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 line. we are being attacked because of our elites half-century record of relentless intervention in the muslim world. it is in a candidate impact of 50 years of interventionism that we find the main motivation of americans islamist enemies as well as the principal organizational glue that provide the unity to the movements always fragile cohesion. the islamist motivation is to be found in the perception of u.s. foreign policy as an attack on the islamist region and its followers. this is a view that is held not only by those carrying ak-47s, but extensive polling by reliable western pollsters is reliable. binary 80% of all muslims worldwide, young and old, moderate, milton, men and women, now no america must accept the
islamist indictment of the anti-muslim and 10th of u.s. foreign policy. but to avoid military defeat, economic ruin, and ultimately 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 other policies motivating them a? i can do no better than list sexual poses bin laden enumerate in late summer 1996, into which he is held closely for the next 15 years. i would also note that four of the six policies motivate to a greater or lesser extent our foes in iran and saudi arabia. according to bin laden come america's declaration of war on islam and the muslims is clear in the following facts. first, the u.s. military and civilian presence on the reagan
peninsula, second, u.s. and western exploitation of muslim energy resources. third, the u.s. military presence in muslim lands outside the peninsula. fourth, u.s. support for nations that oppressed muslims. especially russia, china and india. fifth, endless and unqualified u.s. support for israel. six, u.s. support and protection from muslim tierney's. it is policy, not lifestyle that has caused the war on 23 august, 1996. and yet nearly 15 years on, there has been no public contention by any clinical figure, save ron paul and dennis kucinich, that islam is are motivated by anything more than a blind unless in a cultural local religious hatred for america and the west. why is such the case?
i believe it is because america's governing elite are addicted to intervention. it is sadly their default response to international affairs your witness, for example, obama, clinton and mccain intervened on both sides of today's egyptian crisis. from obama to speaker boehner to senator mccain, from "the new york times" to the "washington times," from fox news and national public radio, and for most of the u.s. and entry, too many of the top passers of the christian evangelical community, u.s. leaders, left, right and center believe there's no political problem, war, gender equality, efficiency, revolution, ethnic conflict, election, or religious clash that does not require direct american involvement. and this, whether or not, they
can identify either a single genuine u.s. national interest at risk the in making this claim i do not suggest i can read minds or hearts of those who have for three decades designed our disastrous foreign policy on the muslim world. because no one has such divine insight to take as my guided general washington's assertions that the abusive men can only be known or guessed at by their words or actions. using this metric, our leaders pervasive bipartisan and doctrinaire and interventionism emerges into sharp relief. u.s. intervention that is the islamist main motivation for fighting america. why u.s. citizens can debate if the policies status quo should be kept or one or more other policies should be amended or abandoned, maintenance of washington's rebellion 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 fast case of
self-deception, using eventually calamity for the nation. indeed the united states today may stand at a historically unique positions. no other great power in my memory has faced the situation in which is likely to be attacked at home in a manner at least as and probably more severe and 9/11. and have no means with which to respond to the enemy any militarily telling manner. having already destroyed the infrastructure of al qaeda and the taliban, we are bereft of meaningful military targets and are left with only 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. after a second attack and the nazis, the choice to washington would be one of two. either standing motionless in a quivering but in potent rage, or
launching attacks that would make the late professor huntington's warning of a clash of civilizations all too prissy and. 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 in iraq known as the search is unraveling as u.s. casualties resume, sectarian violence grows and more elections come and go. the war in afghanistan is lost beyond recall, and president obama has marooned our military forces, making them dependent on resupply routes, hostile russian in pakistan territory. pakistan is in genuine danger of going the way of afghanistan with unfortunate consequences for nuclear proliferation. mujahedin bleed through from iraq is already visible in
jordan, syria, turkey, lebanon and gaza. in addition, the islamist insurgency in somalia and algeria have been rekindled but the symbolic mother jean nearing victory. similar insurgencies of a fairing that building by tally are underway in yemen, southern thailand, in the north caucasus. the major cities of hindu india have been attacked by islamist fighters, and the islamist movement in western europe is going. and in britain has driven the traditionally stoic security services to the point of public despair. as for the united states, and loud and long ago delineated al qaeda's war and for defeating in three concise phrases. first, to take offense of economic situations internationally to help lead america to bankruptcy. second, to spread out u.s. military and intelligence forces
to exhaust the reserves. 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 worries as the metric whether there is any reason for bin laden and al qaeda to be discouraged about the progress they have made in the war that began in 1996. now, let me move to discussing how we begin. the best foreign policy advice for the bomb a dash of the obama administration has been heard by anyone who has flown on an old -- and airline. each passenger is told that in case of emergency place your oxygen mask on first and own and help others with theirs. i have referred to this commonsense destruction in my books and i believe in his continuing direct pertinent to u.s. foreign policy. before america and a few of our
allies who will fight and defeat the expanding islamist movement and defeat it we must, and fortunately with more military power than we had used today. washington must put its own political and foreign policy houses in order. america can help no alliance partner or other foreign nation and to israel to its own history of tradition. indeed, until this reentry 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 reentry is an approach that is more independent and less interventionist. if there be one principle more deeply but in the minds of every american jefferson wrote, in 1791, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. in america do with iran and with saudi arabia, as well as its war
with islamism, we are losing because our bipartisan governing elite and its academic apologists have turned mr. justice guidance on its head, much to the nation's detriment. because of his interventionism, which the founders would have damned to hell, we as a nation are mired in a nearby but in the persian gulf region that is conducive to an endless war with muslims. foreign policy is at base of a great multiple options to use to protect genuine u.s. interests and independence and always unpredictable world. but what americans celebrate independence day this shot a big night at president obama nor senator mccain will have the moral 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. oath 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 bring the u.s. economy, american presidents, republican and democratic have groveled, beg and even publicly vowed to the tyrants of the peninsula in a desperate quest for more oil. the same presidents, moreover, have so enormous of is that treasury that america is now further in the thrall of the same arab tyrants who, with china, by the largest part of our debt, i can on the market there are few better definitions of abject foreign policy than one that put u.s. energy and financial security in the hands of in sandy but because of such leadership, american side have lost control over the peace or war decision. if anti-saudi unrest in the camden eastern province ever
since it curtails oil production, u.s. forces will deploy there to defend and secure the saudi police state and restore the flow of oil. and the reality of an odd medic war for oil goes be on the arab world. currently mexico is one of our top oil suppliers and is creeping toward the status of a failed state. and by 2015 the united states will import 20% of its crude from the niger delta region. in production in either place in both already have insurgencies, is significantly reduced, u.s. soldiers and marines almost certainly will deploy to restore production. if you think insurgencies in iraq and afghanistan are nightmares come waiting to u.s. forces are fighting in the niger delta 27,000 square kilometers of swamp and forest. as for mexico, i can only think that our governing elites criminal failure to enforce the indispensable component of national defense, known as effective border control, has
set america up for tragedy of shakespearean projections -- proportion. and one that once i will unfold on rapidly and bring with it the strong possibility of significant violence to the united states. americans also have lost control of peace or war decision because their lives have involved an almost constructively in the unending and an integral religious war between arabs and israelis. ignoring and even ridiculing the founders explicit guidance to avoid getting americans involved in other peoples wars. both parties not only have an office in this middle east conflict but have involved us in other peoples religious wars. can they be any better definition of an insane foreign policy? than the one that did they find the united states not only involve to the hilt, and is irrelevant religious war, but politically backing and fanatically arming both of the
major antagonisms in the work of israel and saudi arabia. by being israel's cash cow, and a questioning protected, and the only protector of the fundamentally anti-american saudi state, washington has created a situation which america will be drawn into any arab-israeli war that includes any arab state beyond palestine. no matter the wishes or the interests of the american people. having all but negated the ability of the united states to abstain from wars for oil, and major was between arabs and israelis, the u.s. political elite has completed an axis of doom for americans to its apparently limitless seal for overseas democracy crusading. a perversion of what america stands for that can only lead to war and more war. the american elite in iraq has destabilized the entire region. creating new threats to oil supplies and making prices largely unpredictable.
it also has cost american taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars, has killed more than 4500 of our soldiers, wounding 30,000 more and has set the stage for a potential regionwide sectarian civil war. a few more missions accomplished like this one in the democracy building realm will bankrupt our nation. the still pending threat of another war to impose democracy, this time in iran, which is of course a more representative states and washington fascist arab ally, would be negative achievement of peshawar would be billed as a war to liberate the oppressed iranians were to stop the threat 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 unnerving reality that 300 million americans could wake one morning soon to find themselves at war with iran because a man named netanyahu
are ahmadinejad decided to expand in a religious war in which no genuine u.s. interests at stake. as i noted, our participation in such a war would produce iran sponsored terrorism in america and just might tip really unite the entire muslim community, 1.4 billion people if you're counting, in the jihad against the united states. america's bipartisan governing elite and with the support of the media and the academy have brought the united states taste to face with a war at every turn. war over oil, war over religious conflicts, and worst impose secular democracy on people who will fight it to the death. the situation is surely the antithesis of what the founders intended when they designed a system made to limit the chance of arbitrary government that leads inevitably to tierney.
the founders knew and contemporary americans are painfully learning that there are few better definitions of tierney that one finds a nation repeatedly led into wars were no national interest are at risk by the person believes, ambitions, or even wins of a single individual in his our closest advisers. to have a shot at making 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 already collapsing bid at an empire. how to retrieve the blank check commitment 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 from securing greater energy self-sufficiency. fear is induced by the bp oil leak should not keep telling halted. and demands for protection, the gulf of mexico, or the sun the oil-rich pacific waters off california at the cost of dead soldiers and marines should be ignored. beyond oil, america has no national interests in the persian gulf, eyre peninsula region. save the freedom of navigation which the u.s. navy can assure. as our dependence on foreign energy declines this will become much clearer. self-sufficiency will also allow americans and the west to stop protecting the gulf and other muslim tyrannies. regimes the clout economic destiny, steadily export religious hatred for us, and descartes advocacy of freedom and.
to be pure and even spectacular hypocrisy. for america and its allies, it will also end the current cool reality that sees a portion of the price parents pay at the pump, flow from oil-rich arabs and islamists insurgents were 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 elections. a backbone with which to end its opine and surely illegal abdication of the executive branch of its sole power to declare war. and thereby restore constitutionality, and, therefore, sanity to the u.s. warmaking process. infamously, no congress has declared war since december 8, 1941. and yet we have repeatedly seen america dragged into wars because one man and his advisers 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 apply the troops and beat their chest if the war goes well, or they can snipe at and undermined the president if the war goes belly up. our postwar history is littered with failed wars, initiative by the president in which divide americans amongst themselves, perhaps the restoration of the founders intent, the issue of warmaking, will allow americans oath to win wars abroad and not where you can against other at home. third, united states must stay out of other peoples wars, particularly their religious wars. america, for example, now stand as the abject loser in the israel hezbollah conflict, the israel-palestine war, the economic strengthening of hamas and the israeli invasions of gaza. indeed, america is in partners
into bin laden and the islamist movement echoes of its absolute backing of israel which requires among other things the coddling of the arab tyrannies. america, and i would suggest year, must withdraw from this savagery. no final aspect of western life for security would be negatively impacted if israel or palestine, or both, disappear tomorrow. this reality ought to receive great intention today as a politician becomes lebanon's prime minister, the saudi seek to spread their malign influence by replacing our aid, mubarak, and the egyptian me tyranny towards the muslim brotherhood, all of which was 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 patent absurd contention 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 neoconservative and pro-israel citizens and their journals. these men provoked a war based on the idea that a democratic state could be great in muslim iraq that would be less than wholeheartedly anti-israeli. in doing so, saddam, a shield for the israelis, and israeli security, were permit a compromise from the moment the us-led invasion of iraq began. moreover, this is not a fixable situation. because of potentially -- because a potential iraq regime and path towards israel exists only in the minds of pro-israel u.s. citizens, these are the men
and women who at days end our israel's most hateful 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 into a to washington's waste of both paper we're now in a situation where the cost of support for israel is or soon will be measured in the lives of american parents of children. that cause i think will quickly become obvious, at board, 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 a possibility of embracing democracy.
a phrase used ad infinitum by u.s. presidents and other western leaders. no small republican like our own has the right to spend the lives of its young and military crusade for patently unobtainable abstractions such as giving liberty, justice, gender 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. but a governing elite that does not intend to win the wars it starts. it refuses to allow the full use of the conventional military wars, taxpayers have bought to protect their country and their children. u.s. foreign policy been must revert to what it was before the cold war gave licensed u.s. politicians become democracy mongering 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 to but one thing. it must protect america so as to allow for the domestic expansion of liberty, freedom, and 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 democracy abroad have a track record of making us less safe, not more safe. indeed, washington's interventionism and it's more recently in the muslim world have impoverished, and treasure, but, domestic political unity in what mr. lincoln called the rightful example, the rightful influence of our republican example. to protect the precious legacy our ancestors have built here in north america, over the past four centuries, we in america
must return to the founders goal for our country. that being the well-wishers of freedom and independence for all, but to champion and the vindicator only of our own. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, michael. i have a feeling we're going to have some questions after that speech. i would encourage you to phrase your question as a question and we will take one per person only. second row. know, the one behind you. we will get to you. >> thank you. i am confused about the relationship between the saudi royal family and al qaeda. can you explain that a little bit more, and to particularly how -- what is interest of the
saudi royal family to establish al qaeda cells in the united states? how does that work? why is it being done? how far hasn't progressed speak with the saudis are inoffensive, almost imperialist purveyor of sudan. they are indeed the people who want to build worldwide. enliven is more of a defensive jihad is wanting to take back the land that he believes were taken from islam. the saudis and the muslim brotherhood in egypt and elsewhere are both sponsoring and paying for subversive activities, and, indeed, are trying to make the world entirely islamic overtime. the relationship with bin laden and the saudis is always a cloudy one. they have disowned him, they say. but i think you will 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 still to contribute money to bin laden and other islamists. certainly wealthy families and the wealthy muslim families arounaround the world continue o that. the saudis are shielded by smiling, speaking english, holding hands with the president in the rose garden, but the taliban is not far from being what saudi arabia would be without the royal family. the taliban was educated by saudi educational, educationists come if you will. >> another question right in front here. >> they bragged about how much, how 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 in the west was an economic target. and other parts of the world they don't like good muslims watching sports in pakistan, but in the west and the economic, they determine and, of course, part of the culture of people who are not on the borrow things, tend to exaggerate. but they're convinced the are responsible for the mess is going bankrupt. if the u.s. government does things is not going to go bankrupt what's going to stop them from attacking what is drawing u.s. troops from afghanistan, et cetera? >> i don't think i missed saying it, sir. i think i described bin laden's first priority as to take advantage of the economic conditions internationally to try to help that process along to bankrupt us. that is clear his intention.
he knows, he has 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. we seem to be doing quite well without. [inaudible] >> there's no way to do it until we tell the american people the truth. and we began to fight the enemy that exist instead of the enemy that our politicians want us to believe them. once we tell the american people that's what the government does and not have a live, perhaps we can have a rational discussion. but until then we will keep spending money without much affect. for example, we have spent 50 billion, $100 billion on gadgets at airports and crossing points around our country. so now we are fully capable of
stopping a guy carrying a bomb wearing and i level -- i love osama t-shirt as long as he comes through miami core niagara. if he happens to drive a 13 or 18 to pick up truck across the border from mexico to houston, we don't have a prayer. so, who we are well on our way, you know, what do they say, those cargo aircraft alms cost $4500. i bet we spent over a billion in beating of our defenses. but it all starts in recognizing the enemy, and we haven't. >> can you talk more about what you just mentioned, the crossing in from mexico and canada? you said that hezbollah and iran have already established an infrastructure. >> i think is a great deal of evidence. you read what the fbi has written about, publicly there
are strong al qaeda death or hezbollah organizations in north carolina come in new york, montréal, los angeles temptation to establish when the iranian intelligence service to keep an eye on the shah and his followers. it's not talked about very much. the bush administration talked about saddam having a terrorist capability here. and, of course, he didn't but the iranians, absolutely have a presence. >> thank you. on our left in the third row. >> i have a question, or ask for a comment on the failure of the intelligence community which is part, you know, rapidly grown in funding and also in power in the united states. and responsible for these wars
were engaged in. >> the intelligence community can't declare war. no one declares war anymore. so let me step back for a minute. the intelligence community is particularly the cia is a security enhancement of the president of the united states with intelligence committee does authorized by the president, so the idea that somehow the cia in the community is a rogue organization is kind of nonsense. and using the absolute knavery, if you will, of the president of the united states, mr. obama, blaming the intelligence committee for not telling him this stuff is going to happen in the middle east. for the past 30 years the intelligence committee has reported that the tyrannies in the middle east live on an ice age. they will be just fine as long as the brutal and repressive and nothing out of the ordinary
happens. if he knows is a theory of his senior advisers or the his ability to see the work as it is rather than he wants it to be, i suspect the own intelligence failure was an inability to predict the date the guy let himself up in tunisia. justice of the intelligence failure in 9/11 was mr. clinton's failure to kill bin laden when he had multiple chances in 1998-99. and the reason the wars going on in afghanistan today is because mr. bush didn't kill bin laden when the commute had identified his presence in 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 had. >> we need to move on. there's a gentleman right behind you. >> i thought your presentation
was very courageous, very intelligent, and is there any way -- i would like to go through it again. is that available? >> this one is all marked a. i can surely send a copy if they want to put on the website or sent to people who requested the i don't think that is a problem. >> this is on the podcast as well. you can download probably within a week. >> thank you. >> you present some very interesting points about alternative approaches to foreign policy and domestic policy. can you tell me what kind of following and what kind of support we might see in terms of congress, or in terms of the executive branch, with anything that you have laid out speak with i don't think we will see
any of the. i think mr. paul is the only who speaks on this but the one thing i would take his 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 to think that the quality of our leadership in both parties is a bad in this particular time that the only thing that is going to get us off the mark, either on foreign policy, 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 attacked 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 sank the uss cole in 2000, and then 9/11. and after each one of those things i thought the american government is not going to let this grow and fester forever. and it never did. and i guess i would say i am resigned to waiting for the calamity that will trigger a change. >> why did we pull back in tora bora? you hear. we were talking about that at the time. they said that, kerry said that everything triangulate, they knew exactly where he was, that it had to do with the general, the generals. >> the generals -- if there is a blessing from all this war, and perhaps the next generals will not be bureaucratic paper pushers, they will send their troops die on the ground, the generals when we had bin laden
caught in the tora bora mountains decided 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 into the mountains to give him. gary was on the greco sent the names back to us and we did the name traces. my people to the name traces on the two gentlemen. also them fight with bin laden against the soviets, and both of them were commanders for the local "osama bi mujahedin tribar derek lowe 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. the only reason he did is we didn't use the 6000 marines and the 10th mountain division that were nearby and eager to go. >> more questions.
>> yes. i wanted to ask you about bin laden. you said one of his issues was that we are 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 for him, not a minus. so could you explain that? >> the argument is that until recently at least we have exported oil at prices less than the market would have required. and so there was an amount of theft. he's an economist in part by trying and there's a long discussion of how much other commodities have gone up. until recently oil had not approached the growth in other commodities. the idea is that both, that we took, we are taking oil out of the market prices. but as important, that muslim
governments are kowtowing to us by selling oil at 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 the reasons they're so focused on the place. >> very good presentation. but to the point of, it seems to me that you are advocating until we get to more, or become an isolationist country again, that kenny it flies in the face of how we have become so interconnected globally. so, 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 candle. but i also think that isolationism is a sore. i think america has never been isolationist. if you look at the scholarship in the last 50 years that look at the interwar period from 1919-1941, america was never more fully engage in the world economically, educationally, scientifically. non-intervention does not mean fortress america. it means trade, it means international cooperation and climate activities. it means all of those things. non-intervention means i think is not becoming involved in problems in which we have no interest, which we have basically very little knowledge. and at the end of the day, don't impinge on our interests. i think we have, certainly in my lifetime, seen a bloating of
will be called national interest. you know, freedom of the seas and now freedom of the error for transportation. certainly unfortunately energy is a national security interest, but to be a parent of a 20 year old who is considering the marines, to think that someday i might have to face a dead son because my government thought it was worth spending his life so mohammed can vote would be very painful, i think. and so, i don't think i am arguing for isolationism. i think i'm arguing for perhaps a better definition of what's really in our interest. ..dictatorships,
israel's security is compromised -- the compromise of its security that began with the destruction of saddam is multiplied because any government that follows those three governments is going to be, a, less effective, b, more influenced by domestic islamists. i would doubt, for example, that egypt would renounce the treaty but they would be less willing
to expand it or further that cooperation, and they certainly would not be willing to kill egyptians who are trying to help the palestinians. so i think we really -- the other thing, if i can say it quite sincerely -- what i take away from the egypt situation is the utter failure of the american educational system to prepare americans for how the world is and not how we want it to be. the idea that any responsible politician in either party or in the media would expect a democracy to emerge in egypt is either a signal that they don't know american history or they have no respect for what we've accomplished in 800 years since running mead. and, of course, the media is a
cheerleader for these people. who do they interview? they interview egyptians who are middle class english speakers? so what impression do we get that they want a secular democracy? does it make sense in a time of turmoil, violence and perhaps instability for a prolonged period that 32 million muslims in egypt would reach for democracy in like a religion like islam, it seems like our education has really left us in a bind. i was on fox earlier this afternoon. i had people -- i just finally kept my mouth shut. [laughter] >> because the host was insisting that cairo was on the verge of becoming philadelphia
in terms of governing itself. i see hands but we have time for only two more. the lady in the second row right here. >> the media reported that there was a cyberattack on iran nuclear facilities that originated with a joint american-israeli faction. could you give us an insight on who or what is behind that? and what is -- is it still going on? is it still a threat? >> ma'am, i've been out of the government for six years. but just listening to the media, it's apparent that u.s. officials are extraordinarily concerned about what they're calling cybersecurity. and i also know from my own time in government, the military was ordered to develop a very vigorous capability to attack
cybertarget. and i've read that it was either a u.s. or is an israeli or a joint effort to go after the iranian computer system or whatever it was. but i don't know that for a fact, you know, all i can give you is speculation. except that over the last few years, i was still working at the agency, cyberwarfare was becoming -- a password, you know, very important concept and it was attracting large amounts of funding. we're going to take one more question all the way back there but i would point you to an article that was in times magazine a few weeks ago about this virus between israel and the u.s. and i believe siemens which i believe makes the
generators that were sabotaged. >> could america really get listen to what you're saying? i have a feeling in america has grown to be able to -- are they going to go on for a long time until we get this matter under control? could america, for instance, survive that they've grown up to and could america grow with a proper policy? would they not by targeting different groups that america judges pernicious -- potential
pernicious in the country anticipating what they could be doing in the future? >> sir, you've asked three questions already so we'll answer one of those. thank you. >> if i understand correctly, you want to know if we could possibly change policies? >> he's asking you now. one question please. >> it seems there's really no choice for america to do it at this point. >> i see. let me answer that -- that is certainly a common certain. i'm now 58 and perhaps one of the biggest changes since i was a boy was that when i was a kid, america could do most anything, whether it was go to the moon or win the cold war and now everything is too hard. it's too hard to reduce the deficit. it's too hard to change foreign policy. it's too hard to change the border.
everything is too hard. well, life is hard. and when they talk about oil, imagine if we had done anything except moved daylight savings up three weeks in the last 40 years, perhaps we wouldn't be in the position we are today. there's nothing on the arab peninsula that's worth a dead marine except for oil. and, you know, i was saying to somebody earlier today that i have been surprised that americans who really value israel and its security haven't been among the most aggressive in pressing for american energy self-sufficiency. because if we do that, we can stop supporting these tyrannies in the muslim world and we can deny some of the glue of unity that holds our enemies together. but it's like everything else in life, it requires leadership. and leadership is more than cheerleading and, unfortunately,
i haven't seen a president, since mr. reagan, who is kind of worth of bucket of warm spit when it comes to being a leader. i guess we'll leave it there, folks. thank you for coming. [applause] >> thank you all very much for coming out tonight. [inaudible conversations] >> and for more about michael scheuer and his work visit non-intervention.com. >> kate buford, who is michael thorpe? >> he's a native american, partially white but partially native american. he's one of the greatest athlete. he's at the dawn of american's
organized sports. he sets a model and gold standard for american achievement that still stands today. >> when did he live? >> he was born in 1887 in oklahoma. died in 1953. so the first half of the 20th century professionally. >> did he play professional sports? >> yes, both nonprofessional and for professional. he played for the new york giants who are now the san francisco giants, last year's world series winner. he played for the canton bulldogs which is why the professional football hall of fame is in canton, ohio because of jim thorpe. if you walk in the front door, the only statue that you see in the center of the hall is thorpe. >> in his time was he as well-known as a michael vick or a brett favre today? >> oh, more. he was a multisport athlete. he won the gold medals in the
1912 olympics. he could do all of that. that's one of the reasons he still retains this status as the greatest multisport athlete because they don't allow athletes to play multiple sports anymore. and one of the reasons i wrote this book, he moves so large. people revered and him talked about him long after he stopped playing. >> what was the significance of his native heritage? >> huge. the playing of games as a young child. i go into the book. a cross-child he ran free and played free on the oklahoma plains. he learned strength, concentration, stamina, quickness, agility. and also this respect for physical effort. the respect for competition was instill by him by his father and
the competitive games. it was a huge influence, i think. >> who are his parents? >> the parents were hiram thorpe who was half white. his father had been a white hiram thorpe from connecticut. and his mother was a pottawattamie indian. jim was mostly pottawattamie for those viewers who are knowledgeable about indian background. all these are originally tribes who got removed and removed in the euphemism of the time to moved to oklahoma. >> how did he end up in pennsylvania. >> the carlisle pennsylvania, the carlisle industrial school was probably the most famous and prominent of a series of indian boarding schools set up to radically assimilate american indians into white society.
white reformers -- they saw the american indian race as dying out as threatened and vanishing, a popular word at the time. and sort of a combination of guilt and policy, they decided the best way to save this supposedly dying race because it wasn't really was to turn them into whites. the children -- >> turn them into whites. >> turn them into whites. to send them to these boarding schools, which they could not go home for five years. they were forbidem to speak their native languages. their hair in the case of boys was cut short. they were put into white uniforms and sent out to live with white families for the summers. it was radical assimilation. and parenthetically right now there's this very interesting movement going on sort of building with the internet,
facilitated by the internet, by facebook pages of the descendents of these boarding school students trying to retrace the memory of their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and piece together what they call this hole torn in their culture where they were forbidden to indulge or express their culture. anyway, jim went to the most famous of these schools. >> did he have to apply for it? was he chosen? how did he gets there? >> well, they were recruiting good athletes. the original superintendent felt that sports was a way for the american indian show on a supposedly equal playing field that they could excel and they could do as well as anyone else. like a metaphor for success, an acting metaphor. his father had despared of being able to control jim at this point. he was older. he was in his late teens. he tried every other school area
in oklahoma and his family sent a pretty famous letter now to the superintendent of carlisle in pennsylvania saying, i can't do anything with him. will you please take him. and he already showed signs of athletic promise, not nearly what he would later show but enough that he was allowed to go to carlisle and was put on a train and went off in 1904. >> when he did get back to oklahoma or de? >> he would go back in the summers once he'd been there several years. pretty much until he goes professional with the new york giants he will go back periodically. but not that much as he grows an adult man. he doesn't go back that often. >> what was his reaction to carlisle industrial school? >> well, quickly he loved sports. he really wanted to play football. he showed that he could excel at track and field very early so initially he was put on the track and field teams in 1907
but he kept pestering coach warmer -- soon to be famous coach who started out at carlisle. and he pestered warner to be put on the football team. well, at this point he was 5'8" and 135 points and warner kept putting him off and putting him off and long story short he makes that football team. he doesn't really start to shine until 1908. and sports really become his thing. and if you were an athlete at carlisle, it's a very interesting paradigm that we see now at all the major schools, you were a pampered person. you got a special training table. you didn't have to go to class as often as the others. warner had an athletic machine at play, which is very much a model, a template for what we take for granted now. >> what was the significance or tell us about the west point football game?
>> oh, yes, the west point football game. well, we fast forward to 1912. jim's last season with the carlisle industrial school. >> was he well-known as a college athlete nationwide? >> oh, yeah, at this point he is. 1912 he is. 1911, it's a long story, he leaves carlisle in 1909, goes to play minor league baseball in north carolina, never intending to go back to carlisle. wanting to break into the major leagues because baseball was the only organized sport then that you could make a living or make a career. he doesn't do that well in baseball so he's persuaded to come back to carlisle in 1911. he's bigger, he's heavier. he's in his 20s now. he hits the ground running and the football seasons of 1911 and 1912 and the track and field season of 1912, which then precedes the olympics in stockholm in the summer of 1912, he's a phenomenon. he's all over the newspaper. he's in all the headlines. so by the time that west point
game is scheduled, he is sort of the talk of the nation. and it was said in 2008, had there been a heisman trophy in 1911, 1912, jim probably would have won that both years. so he's a phenomenon in that game. and a symbolic games for many, many reasons. the west point is the army in that team and in that class of cadets are so many future world war ii generals. >> such as -- >> eisenhower. >> omar bradley. >> omar bradley. he's a reserve player. carlisle wins that game. and it's a tough, tough game and it's a phenomenal game. amazing. >> what did the carlisle coach tell his team before they played? >> according to several
accounts, pop warner -- and this can be exaggerated. but no doubt warner said to the team as part of his pep talk before the game, you are playing against the descendents of the people playing against your fathers in the so-called indian wars in the west of the land and go out and get them, and they did. >> did politics -- did political figures glom on to jim thorpe? and did he get involved in politics at all? >> later in life he did. not at this point that we're talking about. not at all. not in the '20s. at the time he gets to hollywood wood in the 1930s he place his last official sort of game in 1928. goes to hollywood wood, as did many athletes and the wonderful climate. and he goes to hollywood and he becomes a spokesperson for indian causes because this huge
dias are a of indians as well as sports stars gather out in hollywood. the advent of sound and film triggers the western serial one episode for 12 weeks and kids would go down and he plays in over 70 movies, maybe double that. some of the records have been lost. and because there's this big group of indian actors and stunt men and players in hollywood, he's the most famous of all of them. he becomes the spokesperson and he begins to speak out for -- on behalf of indian affairs. he also forms a casting company to pressure the studio to hire indians to play indians. even though it's stereotypical, if you want someone who could really fall off a horse or not some italian or some mexican or whatever. because the studios were none
too fussy. as long as you looked vaguely ethic you were okay and jim said give the jobs to us. >> did he die a wealthy man? >> oh, no, no. he made good money when he went to work for the giants. when he played in the high minors in 1920s. he made very good money. >> hollywood? >> hollywood, he made a living. he made a fairly decent living. this is the depression, remember. but indians were not paid as much as white extras. he fought for that as well. by the end of his life, no, he's got virtually no money. and very important to remember looking at the whole life and stepping back is that jim thorpe, as i said, is at the advent, the beginning of american sports. he's preradio. he's presports agent. he's preradio news reels. so none of these media amplifications of him exist. all there is, is newspaper
coverage which makes him loom even larger because he's sort of -- he becomes a folk hero whose exploits were handed down from father to son and these cadre of sports writers saw. he doesn't get the money like jack dempsey 10 years later a collegiate who turns pro. they made fabulous sums of money. nobody made that kind of money. >> who was mrs. thorpe. >> there was three mrs. thorps. there was one of his classmates at carlisle, issa miller, whom she married. >> a white woman. >> she was white but she claimed to be indian. because it was a school for indians, you're supposed to be american indian. and she fudged the records and got in but was not really indian at all.
they divorced about 1924, '25, and he married frieda kirkpatrick, who was much younger than he was. he had four children with the first wife. the first son died at age 3 and it was a horrible tragedy and i think affected him for the rest of his life. three daughters survived. second wife he has four sons. two of those sons survive today. they were divorced. and he married in 1945, patsy thorpe, who is the woman he is married to when he dice and she was quite a difficult person. >> why? >> she was fierce in her -- on the good side she really felt he got a bum deal and he wasn't charging enough in speaking engagements and he wasn't using his image good enough and she fought like a lion to get him a better deal and she also spent a lot of it. she almost scotched the deal for
warner deal, she bugged the studio they put a plug on it. when he died, of course, she then tries to find the vest burial place and in essence shopped the body around which is a bizarre story. >> you tell it and this is where jim thorpe pennsylvania comes from? >> uh-huh. >> just very briefly. >> there were two small towns with a total population of maybe 5,000. and they were dying. they had no jobs. they had -- it was post-world war ii. and they needed to consolidate and long story shot, patsy hears about these plucky little towns trying to save themselves. she's already tried oklahoma. she's tried shawnee. she's tried tulsa. the body keeps sort of moving around and she finally says to a
newspaper publisher, if you change your name to jim thorpe, consolidate, get their municipal services together consolidate and change your jame to jim thorpe you can have a body and i've seen the contract for the body and it goes to jim thorpe pa. >> is it still there? >> it is still there and the town has dutifully honored jim thorpe all the years. there's jim thorpe high school and they honored him years. they've done well by what they promised to do but the surviving children jack thorpe the youngest son just died a few weeks ago. that leaves two sons left. whether they carry on this battle, the lawsuit that was filed last spring, almost a year ago, to -- under the native american repatriation act get the remains removed and bury next to him of his father. >> what's the status of that case and where do you see it
going? >> the status with jack dying they got, as i understand it, a 30-day extension -- 'cause he was the only one who technically filed the suit to add on more surviving descendents, the two remaining sons and some tribal members. they were told by the court they needed to beef up the court in order to resubmit it. that's the last i spoke on jack's descendents. where i stand on it if the end result for jim to come back to oklahoma, i would like to think there's a win-win solution. that the town, jim thorpe, which has done so well by him could keep the name obviously and be the good guys in this and bring the remains back to oklahoma. whether that will happen or not, i don't know. >> were you able to talk with a lot of mr. thorpe's descendents for this book. >> yes, yes. all of his children. >> what are they doing? >> they're aged by this point. they had varied careers.
jack, who just died a couple of weeks ago, was a chief of a second fox tribe is the most who reclaimed his indian identity. he lives in shawnee. bill worked as an engineer for many years. he's retired now. dick worked for the government of oklahoma. he's almost to the texas border. grace thorpe, one of the daughters was a passionate indian rights advocate and indefatigable all her life. gay, the other daughter, worked for the american girl scouts and was also quite an advocate for indian issues. charlotte, the third daughter worked very, very hard for the supposedly reinstatement of the supposed olympic medals and trophies. they were all pistols. they were terrific people. >> we've been talking with kate buford, author of this new book "native american son: the life and sports legend of jim