LaRouche Interview with Dr. Jack Stockwell
June 24, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend
 

This is the transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's interview with Jack Stockwell on Salt Lake City's KTKK radio on June 24, 2023.

Stockwell: Lyndon! Hey! Gosh, we got the boss himself! I was mentioning that earlier this morning, that that, of course, was one of the terms used for Stalin. They called him "the boss," and I thought, "Oh, we got the boss himself this morning," and I thought, "Oh, I don't really want a connection, you know..."

LaRouche: laughs

Stockwell: We don't need that moniker. But at the same time, well, what a treat!

What a treat. I was expecting Lonnie Wolfe, who always gives us a good show, and we get the man himself. The man himself, who, possibly, could be the guy who brings down the Democratic Leadership Council, and starts getting some kind of a clean-up operation going on, back there in Washington.

LaRouche: Well, that's a minor, but important part of my objectives.

Stockwell: Well, I was, as I was opening my program this morning, I was talking about this thing in the New York Times, on Sunday, with Kellogg Brown & Root, and the little piece of logistical wonderment that they picked up at the expense of the American taxpayers, and how the connection with Halliburton, and Cheney, and how these people don't even seem to make any attempt anymore, to hide what they're trying to do, or hide what their agenda is. They're just flat out doing it, despite the fact that the latest article in Newsweek magazine, where they still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Iraqi scientists are now saying -- or what they are finding, instead of weapons of mass destruction, are all of the documents from high-level Iraqi leaders, from the second half of the 90s, telling everybody to destroy everything.

So, you know, it's not just what's in the morning news, it's what's in the afternoon news, it's what's in the evening news, as it just continues to unfold. Things that you were saying years ago, things that everybody is starting to pick up in the press. Everybody's talking about the Straussians. There was even a German article about the Straussians yesterday. And then, you know, how much longer, how much longer are the Democrats in Washington going to sit, motionless, and do nothing at this incredible opportunity ...

LaRouche: Want to get the little behind-the-scenes picture?

Stockwell: Yeah, please.

LaRouche: Okay, go back to Huntington, the same Huntington who wrote the Soldier and the State, the same Huntington who talked about the war against Islam, and that sort of thing.... He wrote a book called the Crisis of Democracy. And this was done in conjunction with his dear friend Brzezinski, who was the actual acting President, or the supervisor of the Presidents, under the Carter Administration.

Now, as a result of that, in 1981-82, there was the formation and consolidation of an organization called Project Democracy, based on the ideas of this fairly certified fascist, Samuel P. Huntington. And this organization, which was installed in the Congress, between the two parties, became a cross-party organization, which did a lot of destruction.

Now, in the process, you had this fellow Scoop Jackson, and his followers, who had been right wing Democrats, tied to Moynihan, and tied to Averill Harriman. And these guys moved in, with some people who had, shall we say, organized crime family connections, and they set up the Democratic Leadership Council, which is a right-wing, generally anti-people, pro-suburbia, anti-people organization. And this is running the Democratic Party.

So, you have the situation today, which, on the Republican side, in addition to ordinary Republicans, that is, farm-belt type Republicans, whom we know very well, generally are fairly sane, they may be a little bigoted, but they tend to be sane when it comes to reality.

Then you have Scowcroft, and what he represents in terms of the Republican Party, which is a very well-defined group of people. And then you have John Dean, who, as a lawyer, of some prominence, is key in the Republican Party's efforts to plan for the coming elections, and so forth.

Now, these guys in the Republican Party, typify the opposition to Cheney and the neo-cons.

You look on the Democratic Party side. I've got a problem. I've got one of the nine potential rivals, that I have, Kerry, Senator Kerry, who is intellectually, potentially a rival. But he flim-flams, as he did on the case of Iran-Contra, when he had the thing by the neck, and he backed down. And he didn't pursue the thing. Now, on this issue, he's doing the same thing. We had Cheney by the neck, and what does this guy to do to us? Kerry flim-flams again. Now, he talks about, "Bush should have known." We have the proof, and Kerry had the proof that it was Cheney who lied, and Cheney is the Vice-President, who is quite, under our law, is impeachable for high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States government, in using lies to promote the United States to go into a war.

Stockwell: All right, I have interrupt you for a moment.

[traffic break]

Stockwell: All right, we're back. We've got about 15 minutes left in this first hour. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche. A last minute surprise, and glad to have him on the program today. Before we went to the traffic break, Mr. LaRouche, you were making some rather demonstrative claims regarding our Vice-president. Crimes and misdemeanors against the United States government.

LaRouche: Sure. The problem, my problem is the Democratic Party. As I indicated, I've got Republicans, they're not my supporters, but we happen to coincide in our views in many important points, on this issue. On the question of war. I find myself sharing the opinions of most of our senior, retired and serving flag officers on the Army side, and the Marine Corps side.

Stockwell: Well, more and more of them are retiring.

LaRouche: Or being retired.

Stockwell: They're stepping down, they don't want to be a part of this.

LaRouche: No. Well, this goes to the other side. Now, because ... my problem is the Democratic Party.

Now, Kerry's a good guy, in some respects. He's an intelligent person. But the way he's been behaving, does not qualify him for vice-president, let alone President, but he's a part of my picture. I've got a lot of other people, in the Democratic Party, who I'm looking at as elements of either my government, or as key collaborators in my government, which is to be installed in January of 2005. Anyone who's serious about the Presidency now, is thinking in those terms of January 2005. Otherwise, you're not running for President, seriously, in present terms.

But none of these guys are qualified to be President. Some of them will admit it. They're running for other reasons, for President, and that's fine.

Stockwell: What about Kucinich?

LaRouche: Kucinich is a little bit flaky. He sometimes takes the right side, but he has no particular guts or consistency. He does have a constituency, and that constituency is not unimportant, in the total spectrum of things. But he is not a viable candidate.

Stockwell: What about Vice-president?

LaRouche: No. No, at my age, the vice-president must be qualified to become a President. I set the program into place, and, if something happens to me, we've got a Vice-President who's prepared to continue the program. But I have to define the program.

Stockwell: Right.

LaRouche: We don't have a man in the country who can define the program the way I can, the way it's needed.

Therefore, I have also Republicans that I'm concerned about, in terms of the configuration of government. Some I would wish to co-opt into government, because they have a useful function to perform.

Stockwell: Well, is there a Republican that you would pull in as a Vice-President?

LaRouche: Not at this stage. You know, there might be a shake-up on that side, as well as the Democratic side. We're going to get rid of the DLC. That must be done.  Put them into a side-pocket, some place.

Stockwell:  Because it seems that the real Democratic leadership in Congress, Senate or the House right now, seems paralyzed by the effects of the DLC on them, because the DLC, from what I can understand, or what I can interpret, seems to be motivated, or at least driven, by the same dynamic that is driving the Republican arm.

LaRouche: We've got two things here.

First of all, Bill Clinton probably is thinking somewhat in the direction I am, about these matters. Not fully, but in some points. Then you have people who are candidates, or potential candidates, like Jay Rockefeller, who is coming up, talking like he might be about to announce a candidacy.

I look at the collection. You have people like Sharpton, people like Kucinich, and others, in part of the roster, who really are not serious candidates for President. They have a role to play, will be treated with dignity, because they aspire to the office, but mainly they have a money problem. They will be controlled by doing nothing which cuts off supplies of money they hope to have, to fund their campaign, and their future political influence in the party, and American politics.

Then you have other people, like Kerry. Kerry, and others, they either lack the perception, or the guts, to take on the DLC. Now when you realize what can happen...

We're on the verge of going perhaps into a war in Iran, which these nuts around Cheney are perfectly capable of plunging into, if they're not stopped. We have a financial crisis beyond belief, which is erupting in the world. We're waiting for Freddie Mac to collapse, or something like that. It's on the way. We have the crazy head of the Federal Reserve system, Alan Greenspan. He's bringing money down into a hyper-inflationary area, it cannot continue.

Stockwell: Well, they'll probably drop it again today.

LaRouche: I know; he's insane. He's absolutely insane, because what he's doing is this: And this is a dirty operation by a bunch of people I know. And some other people I know are very much concerned about it.

What is happening now is, by driving, dropping the interest rate, the prime rate, the discount rate, the way he's doing it, he's creating a hyperinflationary bubble, for the purpose of trying to pump financial asset growth into financial markets, to prop up Freddie Mac, and things like that. Now, what he's doing, by this hyperinflationary bubble, you would say: well, anybody who knows something, you'd think they were insane to do this. But sometimes people are not insane technically, they're insane morally. And what I think we've got on our hands is, people who are morally insane, powerful behind-the-scenes financier interests, like the type of group that formed the Bank for International Settlements back in 1931.

These people, by dropping the interest rates, are bringing what remains of the sucker money, back into financial markets, on the prospect of, oh, there's going to be a boom, we're going to make some profit.

Then what happens?

Stockwell: It always shoots back up.

LaRouche: When you reach down to about a quarter percent interest rate, then, boom! we have a crisis, and then they shoot the discount rate up to 7 to 10 percent. And they are going to reap a harvest of dictating to the world the terms of recovery, unless we prevent that.

Stockwell: Well, if they shoot ... if they drop it again... I've got to go to traffic, real quick, but when we come back, if they drop it another quarter, like they're expecting to do this week, and then, of course, that's going to feed the hyperinflationary spiral even more, and then the only way to cap that off, like you said, jump it back up to 7 to 10 percent, which will stop any kind of possible recovery going on at all. Then there will be the economic collapse that everybody's been talking about lately happening, and then, as a result of that, that's the perfect time for the dictatorship.

[traffic break]

Stockwell: Okay, we have about 7 minutes left. My guest, surprise, at the last minute, Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic candidate for President in the next election.

Of course, we've been saying that every election. Maybe this is the one.

LaRouche: It is. We're at the point... You know, we've gone through a period of illusions, since about 1964, since the aftermath of the assassination of Kennedy, since the beginning of the Vietnam War.

Stockwell: And it's a shame we never got to see what he was really capable of doing.

LaRouche: Yeah! But the key thing here is, the American people have gone through an illusion. You find that the upper 20 percent of family income brackets, have increasingly dominated the political scene. The lower 80% are sitting outside, either growling and snarling, or begging, with things becoming worse and worse. Our educational system is disintegrating. All these things have been going on, and the answer has been, when these questions are raised, well, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Well, I can put the toothpaste back in the tube. Anybody who's technically qualified can put the toothpaste back in the tube.

But these guys are going on the basis you cannot reverse the trends which we have come to accept. And this is a limited part of the population. They, however, are used to control the political parties, as an opinion group, with the help of the mass media, and therefore, our nation has been increasingly insane, in terms of its political processes, and its leading public opinion, over the recent period. I've been fighting against that since the middle of the 1960s. Recognizing where we were headed if we didn't change. I've been demanding the change, and I was right every time. But the people said, no. Or at least the intellectuals. They said, we're going to go, the way we're going. Don't try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Now, we come to the end of the road. There is no highway. They've come to the cliff, and the bridge ain't there. So, now they have no choice. Either they go down the gulley, into the greatest depression the world has ever seen, or they do it my way. And I'm finding around the world, as in the new developments around the meetings between China and India, or my meetings in Turkey, my meetings in various parts of the world, my India conference, recently, I'm finding there is more global acceptance of what I represent, in terms of U.S. foreign policy, than ever before.

Stockwell: Well, I see it in the world headlines. Stuff that you were talking about years ago, now are becoming headlines regularly in major international newspapers. And it's not only just the reporters of these various papers, from various nations, capitals, but their own government leaders are calling you in for these discussions.

LaRouche: Well, the problem I have, is, I've got so many people in the United States, who are parochialist idiots. They think, that the United States does not depend on developing its relations with other parts of the world, especially Eurasia, to get out of this financial crisis. Therefore, some people ask me, "what are you doing travelling around the world?" And I have to say to them, "Hey, idiot," saying it lovingly, of course, "Don't you realize this system is collapsing, and that we depend upon coming to an understanding with other nations of the world, on rebuilding the monetary/financial system to get us out of this mess?"

Stockwell: Well, most Americans see the rest of the world, as objects of our hand-outs, that have been lining up at the back door of Massa's house for a long time. And most Americans simply are ignorant to the point that they don't understand that we're finally got to the point where we are sticking our hand out, at Massa's door.

LaRouche: It's called a consumer society. We're consuming the product of the world.

Stockwell: That's it. And we're slowly denigrating to the Third World status, if we're not already there, and without some kind of community economic rebuilding program, especially after the model you've been talking about -- because I think I've examined everything out there, this is the only one that makes any sense -- we're not even going to have a hand left to hand out.

LaRouche: The key thing is, the United States can deal with this problem. I can deal with it as President. None of these other candidates can, it's obvious.

Stockwell: Well, they're certainly not talking about.

LaRouche: Well, they couldn't deal with it. Intellectually, they're incapable of dealing with it. They could follow, but they couldn't lead. And right now, we need someone in the Presidency who is a leader, coming into the Presidency, who's a leader.

Stockwell: Speaking of following, I understand even Congressman Waxman was handing out some of your leaflets.

LaRouche: In a sense. Waxman, I think, and a few other people, in the Congress, agree with me. How much they stick their necks out to associate with me, publicly, now, is a question.

Stockwell: Well, as long as the DLC is maintaining the control it is, over the Democrats, very few of them are willing to do that.

LaRouche: You know. Cheney would be out now, except for the DLC control over the DNC. The facts we have -- such as the basis for the impeachment of Cheney. We probably wouldn't have to impeach him. He'd run to resign, on health reasons, or his wife, who is his ventriloquist, would the words "resign" in his mouth.

But he'd be out now. And this pile of neo-cons around him, including Rumsfeld, including Bolton at the State Department, Wurmser at the State Department, Libby, Marc Rich's attorney, interestingly enough -- all these guys would be out. And we would have a new situation, which would not be perfect, but at least we'd have rationality in the debates within government -- which is probably a big step upwards from where we've been the past couple years.

Stockwell: Well, we have .. We're coming up to the NBC news break, that we need to go to for about 5 minutes. And so, we will put you on hold, and have you hang around while we go to news, and get a couple commercials.... And hopefully we'll have you for about 45 more minutes. Normally, you're here until 9 o'clock Mountain Time, but we have a little bit of a health advertisement, that's the last 10 minutes of the hour, so we'll continue until then, with you.

There are several more issues to talk about. The thing I'm really, I think, the most concerned about, right now, is what the Fed is about to do, and we want to get some more information from you, your take on, on this student uprising, trying to blame stuff on the students, the growing power of the Shia in Iraq, and the move there towards a theocracy, and how all these things may, these boys may get their World War III yet.

[break]

Stockwell: Well, before we get further into the program, Lyn, I would like to of course offer my services as press secretary, once you get in there.

LaRouche: laughs. You'd have fun, wouldn't you?

Stockwell: Are you kidding me? I would have more fun doing that than what I'm doing here on this radio station.

LaRouche: You just solved a problem. Laughs. Oh, great.

Stockwell: I would set people straight so fast, they wouldn't even know what questions to ask.

LaRouche: The press secretary of the United States, at this point, or what it's going to be, is going to be a very interesting office, because the main thing, you're dealing with foreign policy, everything that comes out of the White House is foreign policy, largely, or implies something for foreign policy. Therefore, we have to have a very sensitive view, much more sensitive than heretofore, of what's going on in other nations, in which the United States policy will be crucial to those nations. And that's going to determine a lot of the cooperation we get from other countries on things.

Stockwell: What a lot of my listeners would like to hear, is how is cooperation with these other countries, going to affect their take-home pay here?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, we need a new credit system. We have to put this thing in bankruptcy reorganization. The same way you'd put the East Podunk bank into bankruptcy reorganization. You need the bank, you need the function, you want the fellow sitting there doing the job, but he's bankrupt. So, we step in, and we reorganize things for him, put him in receivership, and help him build up to solvency again.

Stockwell: Especially if he's providing a very good service.

LaRouche: Yes, exactly. That's the whole point. Because most of a country's affairs are run on a fairly private basis. That is, you have the local businessman, you have the need of the insurance dealings with the retiree, or health, insurance. These things are very personal things, which require a lot of local attention, and the government depends upon having referral from the local representatives, to a higher level, whenever the thing is potentially getting out of control. In other words, an emergency.

But the government cannot be in the positive of meddling in all the details. Therefore, we need those traditional institutions of government, and business, to take care of the ordinary course of business, in the small. And government can limit itself to dealing with what government should deal with, which is the overall long-term problems.

Stockwell: How would people in Utah, be benefitted, one way or the other?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, I've got a big project, and the project runs through all the Americas. It's one that people in Utah are quite well acquainted with I think, at least senior people--the water project, the Great American Desert. We have a strip, which runs up to the Arctic Ocean, and down into the--between the two Sierras in northern Mexico, which is an area of water shortage, or water management shortage. And therefore, we need to take the Great American Desert area and develop it, and its potential for the future of the country: new cities, forestation, so forth--more green, a lot more green. That's one project. And that's going to determine, for Utah, what's going to happen.

This goes together with large-scale transportation projects such as magnetic levitation rails. It means nuclear plants, because we need to produce fuels, hydrogen-based fuels, using fuel cells and various kinds of hydrogen combustion for aircraft, for local vehicles; we need more effective local energy generation and distribution. So these kinds of things, which probably about 50% of what the total national economy should be, are either government projects, or government-franchise projects, which become the basis for reconstruction of a lot of our utilities. We used to have public utilities which were safe places for people to tuck their money for the future, their retirement. We don't have that any more. We've destroyed that. We have to rebuild that. And we want participation, private participation in these kinds of the projects, which government will protect by regulation, so they can prosper.

And that's, for a state like Utah, that kind of process coming through: water projects, transportation projects, power distribution and generation, better education, health-care system--these kinds of things which affect the Federal government directly, or the states directly, or the local communities directly--but with government's backing, these are the kinds of things that are going to shape the future, combined with heavy emphasis on high rates of technological.

Stockwell: Okay now, when you said, there a moment ago, that the government would protect these industries so that they could get the job done, what did you mean by "the government would protect them"?

LaRouche: Well, for example, paper money is an idiot.

Stockwell: In that it knows nothing.

LaRouche: It's an idiot; it doesn't know what it's doing.

Stockwell: Okay.

LaRouche: If you look at the history of the U.S. economy, since, say, 1966, we've gone on a spiral of an increase in so-called financial-asset values per capita, but we have a collapse in physical-asset values per capita, as we see in agriculture; as we see in the conditions of the lower 80% of family-income brackets. This has been accompanied by a monetary pumping, by an idiotic Federal Reserve system operation, under a floating-exchange-rate world system, which--this thing is collapsing! We're bankrupt because the financial claims arising from so-called financial assets, monetary obligations, far exceed anything that can be paid on the basis of our physical output. Therefore, government must regulate this process, this monetary emission, which it is responsible for, in such a way that money does not run ahead in terms of nominal value of the increase of physical values of long-term capital and consumption by the population.

Stockwell: When you have an economic cooperation going on between a community of nations, there are those who express fear that their own sovereignty might be absorbed into what would become a monolithic world-centered government that would suddenly forget that there is an America any more.

LaRouche: Well, this fear reflects a degeneration of our culture and our education system. Now, in the time that we used to have Classical culture. And the Classical culture was based on certain characteristics of the human mind which differentiate the human being from the ape. And much of the thinking today, particularly under modern empiricism, or positivism--people no longer know, or are sometimes unable to demonstrate--the difference between a human being and an ape.

Now, language is not something that belongs to a dictionary. You can not find the essence of a culture in the definitions given in a dictionary. Language involves the use of irony, of metaphor. These ironies and metaphors reflect the accumulated experience of a nation which uses a certain language, or develops a certain language. People are able to participate in government, in self-rule, through the exchange of ideas, which depends upon these characteristics of a language, which are not simply the dictionary meanings of terms. Therefore, you can not get a progressive society, one which is technologically and culturally progressive, without reliance upon the sovereignty of a nation, in terms of that culture which is language centered. We need a high level of use of language, culturally. This is the thing that defines a people. This is how people are able to exchange ideas, to understand their own government, to understand the world. And therefore, it is cooperation among sovereign nation-states which is essential.

From the beginning of our history as a nation, we were, from the beginning, a melting-pot nation. We agreed that we had to have a language, a literate form of English, as the common language to unify our nation. But we are a melting-pot nation, which assimilates gifts from other cultures, and has from the beginning. Our interest as a nation is not an empire; we're not an imperialist people. We have a few nuts among who think they are. We want a world, to our south, to our east, and our west, which is based on sovereign nation-states, which have the same conception of sovereignty, or we've had traditionally.

And therefore, the idea of being able to cooperate with other cultures, national cultures, is the basis for putting this planet in order. Nothing else is going to work. Any other idea is a piece of insanity. And when you see these people like Cheney, these dangerous idiots, trying to homogenize the world into an American empire, dictating the bedroom habits and everything else of everybody else in the world, you see what a danger these guys represent. Not because they're bad--they are bad--but they represent a cultural menace; they represent a moral degeneracy of our nation. It's that moral cultural degeneracy which Cheney, in a sense, and his wife typify, and which Leo Strauss, their inspirer typifies. This is the great danger, internally and abroad, that kind of thinking.

So therefore, if we as a people, put our act back together again, we're going to insist on Classical education back in the schools; we're going to insist on Classical science; we're going to insist on scientific and technological progress; we're going to insist on the participation of the average member of society, in understanding what it is we are doing, and get them involved in democratically deciding that they like what we're doing, or if they don't like it, communicating back to us in ways we will appreciate.

Stockwell: All right. Traffic break....

All right. Let's go back to the Middle East, and the possibility of war with Iran. The leading ayatollah of Iraq, who kind of has been, not in hiding, but isn't the social bug that Saddam Hussein was, is decrying the continuing American occupation, because the...

[tape change]

...because they're trying to be policemen now instead of soldiers; and the growing problems that are taking place in Iran; and admitted assassination discussions against Yasser Arafat coming out of Israel. Is there a way to bring this to a peaceful conclusion, or are we still looking World War III square in the face?

LaRouche: Well, we've got two things we've got to do to stop this mess. One thing, we're got to get rid of Cheney and what he represents. That has to go.  think there are some people in the Administration, around the Administration, who recognize that. I think perhaps some of the older Bush people recognize that: Cheney's got to go.

Stockwell: Like Scowcroft.

LaRouche: Yeah. Well, that's an example. But, very specifically--because if we allow this dictator, this overlord of the President, presently, to continue his usurpation of power, with his crum-bums in there, with the destruction of our military--all these things that are going on--if we allow this to go on, we are going into Hell.

Now, what we're concerned about--and I speak not just for myself, or my opinions as they are projected upon others--but what I know people are talking about in important circles, around the world, as well as among our own people here: that we have to now--the thing that we have to work on right at this minute, is to force Sharon to submit to the Road Map. The only people in the world who can that are the people of the United States. The person who has to make that decision, is the incumbent President of the United States, President George W. Bush, Jr. He has been reluctant--I think he probably despises Sharon by now, as a menace--he knows that this is a problem. He's afraid of some of our crazy Zionists anti-semitic fundies, anti-semitic Zionist fundies--that's great! Elmer Gantrys of the world unite! You have to lose but your brains. This problem frightens him.

And if the President of the United States gets his Irish up, and says, "I will not put up with this Sharon thing any more. There will be peace in the Middle East now." If the United States, under George Bush, does that, and gives Powell and the other relevant people the authority to proceed as that indicates, I think we can stabilize the entire Middle East. That would mean, of course, dumping Cheney, to implement that. It means, once you decide you're really going to do that, Cheney is finished. His power's gone, and he's out soon.

Now, on the question of Iraq: We're looking at, probably--what is it going to cost? Hey, let's just occupy the place--we don't have 10 good divisions, which would take as an occupation force. Even if we had the divisions, when you take kids of 17 out of school, buy them from their parents on a grant, put them into a camp to do video training and point-and-shoot exercises, and send them out as a force, to a place like Iraq, you've got a desert version of Vietnam. So, what we have is incompetent troops, with our generals and colonels commanding troops that are largely incompetent. Because they haven't been properly trained. We have our Corps of Engineers people, who are the most crucial type of military unit for Iraq now, are doing traffic cop direction on the streets of Iraq.

For us to go to a war against Iran, and trying to force Russia and China on this question of Iran--this is a non-starter. This leads to Hell.

But my view is, as I dealt with this when I talked to people in Turkey, on my recent visit there, and India also, in a different way, earlier, the question of Middle East security depends chiefly, on the willingness, at this moment, of the President of the United States to step on Ariel Sharon and what he represents. In that case: the firing of Cheney and the Chickenhawk crowd, the neo-cons, from the government, ousting them in various polite ways, or not so polite, will give us the option that even under this President, who is otherwise a disaster on his own, the institutions of the Presidency, with the help of the Congress, and I think a lot of the Congressmen would cooperate, will do the things to prevent us from getting into a growing war in the Middle East. I think it will work.

That's my objective, and that's my best guess.

Stockwell: Would that mean increasing the number of soldiers over there, or decreasing, and getting them out of Iraq.

LaRouche: No. I think we have to go back to the UN Security Council. We have to make some fundamental changes in our approach to Iraq. We will require cooperation of other countries. I'm sure we can get it, if we take care of the Middle East problem, the Israeli problem. If we do that. But we do have to change our military. I intend to change the military. I'm thinking in terms of selective service, in order to produce a quality military--not that I intend to have wars--but I do not intend to lose the capability of strategic defense of the United States. Therefore, I want a quality military. I want to use the military. I want to use the military system, recruiting system, to upgrade sections of the population which need to be educated and trained, as I saw from World War II, where this worked fairly well. We took people from the swamps and streets, or swamped streets, you brought them into the military for 16 weeks of training, and so forth. And you produced a quality of citizen who was useful in the postwar period, as a result of that military training. I believe we should do that.

I believe we should also attract people into the military from all walks of life, and let those who decide they like the military, stay in as regular officers, or as reserve officers and top-ranking non-commissioned officers. With that kind of thing, and with an engineering orientation of the type that General MacArthur represented, with his efforts back in the 1930s and in his practice in war--with that kind of situation, I think we will have the kind of military institution we need. Under those conditions, I think there will be no war. But I think having a strategic defense, which is also a Lazare Carnot-Scharnhorst tradition kind of strategic defense, with the emphasis on engineering--that kind of defense will be one of the pillars of cooperation which prevents future war.

Stockwell: Speaking of future war, Russia, China, North Korea--these things keep coming up on the radar screen constantly, as being potential enemies, at a much more serious level than the Iraqi Republican Army, a decade or so down the road.

LaRouche: Well, I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of somebody making a mess of it and setting something off there. But if, for example, if I were President right now, or if the President were to let me do what I can do, together with some key people in our government, there would be no problem in North Korea. There would be a problem, because the North Korean regime has certain characteristics, which one has to know and be sensitive about, but I have, right now, I think I would have the full support of leading forces in South Korea, in my support for their program, and their appreciation of what I'm projecting. I think that many people in Japan, perhaps not the present Prime Minister, but more senior institutions of the--we'd cooperate. China certainly I know would cooperate. Russia would cooperate.

Therefore, if the United States has an intelligent policy in this area, I know that I could, with those cooperating agencies and institutions, I could solve the problem. Not permanently. It will take a generation of building things to make North Korea the kind of place that we would be happy to talk about. A generation of development has to occur. But in the meantime, we could stabilize the situation. We would develop the railroad system from Pusan to Rotterdam, by the Siberian route, and by the so-called China Silk Road. This would be the greatest impulse for growth in Eurasia that we've ever seen. So that if we deal with this situation in North Korea intelligently, on the basis of these railroad connection, from Pusan, and also [inaud] from Japan, into Europe, those trade routes, as development corridors will give us the impulse of great growth, economic growth, at a time that the world needs it.

Stockwell: All right, we've only got a few minutes left... So I do have a few people here who wanted to talk. Let's get them on here for a moment. Doug, you're on with Lyndon LaRouche.

Doug: Mr. LaRouche, it's a privilege to talk to you, and besides the fact that you're running for President, and bringing up issues, the first time I really knew about you was, I met some of your people at an airport. They were dressed in suits and ties, and passing out your EIR report, and the first time I remember your ad, which was about Kissinger, and it just was an awesome ad, exposing him as a Soviet traitor, and spy in America. And then, I had the privilege to work with John DeCamp on the Franklin Coverup, and I know your organization was the only national organization to support his investigation of the CIA, and the Vatican's involvement in the child abuse, Satanism, and murder in Nebraska, nationwide. And I wonder if you could address that issue today, because it's still going on, as you know.

LaRouche: These problems exist. My view is, sometimes you, I'm not much on single issues, I don't think they work. Single issue politics usually backfire on you. What I think is, if we build institutions, which are responsible, based on a certain philosophical basis, those institutions will deal with those kinds of problems.

The problems we face in these areas -- like the Kissinger problem. Kissinger's a well-known problem. He's a nasty piece of work, he's decaying right now, he's about to disappear from the scene, through natural causes. But he's been one of the nastiest killers we've had in this country, and done some very dirty things, against us, because of his ideology -- people are trained.

But I think many of these problems, which I'm very concerned about, and I do respond to, when I think I can do something about it, or think that attention needs to be called to it. But I think a lot of these problems, which we put under the heading of single issues, are better addressed by building institutions, and backing those institutions.

For example, law enforcement. I think the Justice Department needs a major reform, in order to get the kind of law enforcement orientation nationally, which is fair, and which we need. Drug trafficking, for example. The United States is duplicitous on drug-trafficking. The United States institutions have fought against drugs, drug-trafficking, but they've been for them, in the sense of supporting Soros, and his ideas about drug-trafficking.

So, these kinds of problems are, in many cases, are the result of the bad functioning of institutions. I think the nation has come to a point, of a time, of ripeness for revival. That if a President of the United States, calls the people of the United States, to take charge of these problems themselves, through state and local institutions, with Federal backing, the problems will be solved. And rather than try to pick these things off one by one, go at it. If there's a crime that's been committed, investigate it. If there's a conviction to be had, do it. But single-issue politics I don't think will work.

Doug: Well, as you know, the Bush Administration has been very heavily involved in the Franklin coverup, in the fact that they were criminals involved in the crimes against the children, and then, of course, they used the institution of government, both local, state, and national, to cover it up, and protect George Sr. and his pedophile propensities.

LaRouche: I know. That's exactly the problem. And this is typical of government. Typical of the frauds perpetrated by government.

Stockwell: Well, you know, it's a kind of a leadership thing, too. Because, when you don't have a national leader that really inspires the cooperation, and some kind of step forward, rather than a bunch of knee-jerk reactions that end up in laughter, but a real step forward by the American population themselves, to recognize the problems, to go out there and grapple with with their own hands, as one would expect to occur in a republic, when the leadership is lacking, the people just perish. Without vision, the people perish.

LaRouche: Well, the basic problem, as I've seen, and the question just posed goes to that point: If the people know that at the highest level, in government, there will be a responsiveness on things they think are unjust, or wrong otherwise, the people will call these things to the attention of relevant channels of government. It is the duty of the people of the highest position in government, to make sure those channels exist, and to make sure every investigation which should be made, is made. And go without fear or favor, to a just conclusion, and a just decision.

I mean, there are two things. If there's wrong done, wrong has to be brought to account. But at the same time, we have to deal justly, shall we say, with the wisdom of Solomon, or the wisdom of Titus, the famous Titus Roman Emperor, we have to deal honestly, and fairly, in these matters. And as long as the people know that we're going to respond to any information which should be brought to our attention, we have the channels they can go to, we do respond. And if they know that, if we have to crack down on someone, we're going to do it justly. We're not going to do it with a spirit of vengeance, we're going to do it with a spirit of building reconciliation.

Doug: Lyndon, speaking of vengeance, isn't it true that Kissinger wrote a letter to the Justice Department, and ordered them to go after you, because you were exposing him, and that's why they framed you, and put you in prison for many years?

LaRouche: Well, it was a little more complicated than that. Kissinger was acting out of personal hatred of me. He hated me for, oh from 1973, for example, so that was not new, with him. What happened was, he went to certain institutions, and they decided that I was getting too much power. I was getting close to major victories in elections. And they said, we've got to get rid of him. And Kissinger's pitch was, he went to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for example, with the backing of Katherine Graham of the Washington Post. And these institutions said, we're going to get him. And they moved to kill me.

But they started to move to kill me in 1973, through the Justice Department. That didn't work. They moved to kill me a number of times later; it didn't work. Partly because some people in government thought that shouldn't happen. But that's the kind of thing. It was not just a personal thing. Yes, Kissinger had evil motives. He's essentially an evil person. But the problem here was, that institutions of government, and private institutions, agreed: they said, this guy is getting too powerful, we've got to destroy him now. And on that basis, Kissinger was able to get a hearing for his plea to destroy me, and things happened.

Stockwell: Doug, thanks for the call, buddy. An off-air call about Alan Greenspan, and is the Chairman of the Fed an impeachable position, or just a firing position? Are there other members of the Treasury Department that might also be in line for impeachment, who have by their collusion with the private banking circles, the financier circles, brought our economy to the point where it is now?

LaRouche: You have two categories of law, of federal law, which are applicable to cases of these and similar types. One, is the simple law on fraud. Fraud against the institutions of the Federal government, or each state or local government, but essentially federal government. Secondly, the higher level of fraud, whre the fraud is perpetrated by an official of the government, against the government.

For example, Cheney belongs to this second category. Impeachable offenses, on the basis of high crimes and misdemeanors. Which means he could be impeached, and then imprisoned, for his crimes, after impeachment. That is, the impeachment would not be the end of the matter.

Then you have the case of Greenspan. Now, Greenspan is in an anomalous position. He comes under the area between thse two categories of law. He has committed fraud against the American people, and government, through his position as Federal Reserve Chairman. But so did Volcker before him. But Greenspan is just a little more disgusting than Volcker.

He is accountable. But generally, in government, what has happened, is, having these powers to virtually destroy a person, government says, okay, if you will get out of here, just go quietly, and give us the evidence so that we can clean up the mess you created, we'll be so happy to get rid of you, we'll let you get out of this one. And that's what probably would happen to Cheney. Cheney would probably come up with a heart problem, and say, well, my heart problem will not let me go through this, therefore I have to resign at this time. And that's what I'm looking for.

But, if Cheney were to resign, under those conditions, conditions where he's faced with impeachment and imprisonment, he might just go quietly. If he goes quietly, the rest of the neo-cons are going to go with him.

Stockwell: Hold on just a second. We're going to get our last traffic update of the morning.

[traffic break]

Stockwell: Oh, we've got about 17 minutes or so, until the end of the hour. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche. We'll have him here for just a few more minutes. Jim Stroh is walking in... and we'll be talking to him for the last 10 minutes of the program.

Lyn, in the event of a big change, a big government change, either with you being elected President, or finding ourselves in the other end of the spectrum, dropping into a kind of totalitarian state due to an economic collapse, either one of them, we would want to be awfully cautious about a kind of a Talleyrand approach, to all of the bogeymen who have been running around out there, running this government for so long.

LaRouche: Yes. Well, you know, Jack, I'm a kind of a tough guy. I'm not a hard guy in the sense that I don't have any pleasure in imposing suffering, or vengeance on people. But I'm hard on the questions of our nation, and the future of humanity.

I think that the United States was a unique creation of people in Europe, who thought they could not form a true republic in Europe, under the conditions of the 18th century, and hoped that their sponsorship of people around Franklin, and the independence of the new United States, would be, as Lafayette put it, a beacon of hope and temple of liberty, to inspire Europe to do likewise.

Now, Europe came close to that, in the spring and early summer of 1789, the time we were getting the Constitution installed, with the constitution proposed by Bailly and Lafayette. But then the British used the same crowd, the ancestors of the same crowd that gave us Napoleon, that gave us Dick Cheney, and so forth today, the synarchists, as they're called. This crowd was able to turn the French crisis, into the Jacobin terror, and into the subsequent Napoleonic tyranny.

So, we have always stood for, what we were created to be, the model republic to be a temple of liberty, and beacon of hope, for humanity. My view is, those are our principles. These are correct principles, the correct aspirations of all humanity. We must be that. And my job, as President, is to bring the United States back to that. We must be that.

It is not the power we have in terms of physical power, the power to give orders, that's not important. It's our power to influence events, not by our whim, but by our example. By our sticking to what we were created to be. To be the first true republic on this planet, whose objective is, to prosper, but also to inspire, other nations to do likewise. And to form a community of republics, where we can get on with the business of humanity, and put back the bad part of the history of humanity behind us.

And on that I'm tough. That I will not compromise on that issue. We have a long term historic objective, it's what I've inherited, so to speak, from my predecessors who headed the country, and what I would to bequeath to those who follow me.

Stockwell: Well, you have my vote.

LaRouche: Thank you.

- 30 -