Description

Peter Van Buren returns to the show to discuss Donald Trump’s decision to meet with Kim Jung-Un to open relations between the United States and North Korea. Van Buren explains why he thinks this is a monumental decision and why there’s real reason for (cautious) optimism and wonders whether this could be Trump’s Nixon-goes-to-China moment. Van Buren then addresses the number one issue on the table: is North Korea actually willing to discuss giving up their nuclear weapons? Van Buren gives a detailed look behind the curtain into the process and workings of the state department and his former colleagues in Seoul, South Korea. Scott and Van Buren then discuss the pitfalls of the Bush and Obama administrations’ approach to diplomacy with North Korea. And before he signs off Van Buren tells Scott why he thinks more is being made out of Russia’s newest nuclear weapons than is really there.

Peter Van Buren worked for 24 years at the Department of State including a year in Iraq. He is the author of “We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People” and the novel “Hooper’s War.” He is now a contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash, The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.; LibertyStickers.com; TheBumperSticker.com; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I’ve only been a member of this site a few hours but it seems a lot of you, like me, are fans of Rick Rule and investors that share similar contrarian investment philosophies, well what’s more hated in the market than North Korea? This is a video with great insights from contrarian investor Jim Rogers on the increasing liberalisation of markets in North Korea and the potential opportunities for ballsy contrarians especially considering there is no stock market so you will have to go there directly to do business.

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • When J. K. Rowling mentioned a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK, the audience at the PEN Literary Gala applauded. But unlike much of the left, she knows that taking away freedom of speech threatens everyone, including her, and she rebuked the people who clapped. “Just a moment: Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot.” The people who applauded were doubtless the same ones who objected to PEN’s free speech award to Charlie Hebdo. While they’re not likely to be convinced by any argument, she may have gotten others to think about the danger in today’s spreading hostility to free speech. That’s what counts.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It took me a while to understand that Trumpism isn’t really about the issues. Not even the issues of anti-immigration and protectionism. It’s about the Chosen One, the Great Leader, the Messiah. When people think things have gone badly wrong, they often turn to someone who will set them right by taking command. The outrageous things he does have only increased his popularity. He boasts, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” When this mentality takes hold, there is no right or wrong for the Leader. When he does outrageous things, that merely proves nothing will stand in the way of his will. Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Khomeini: They’ve all known the trick of harnessing the tribalist mindset. The specifics they offered didn’t matter so much as the promise that nothing would stand in their way. They can’t do anything horrible enough to turn people against them, except for failing. Telling Trumpists that he’ll do horrible things or that his policies will hurt everyone is beside the point. They expect him to “make America great again” by sheer force of authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies