Lyndon LaRouche gave this presentation to an audience of more than 300 people, in Washington, D.C., on July 2; it was simultaneously broadcast over the Internet. A more than three-hour dialogue with those present, and those listening around the world, followed. A Windows Media archive of the complete four-hour event is available on LaRouche's website, larouchein2004.com. The discussion period has also been transcribed.

When I rose this morning at about five o'clock, I had some messages from Europe, plus my usual overnight briefing, and I was reminded that today is a turning point in world history. First of all, 140 years ago, the fate of the United States was being decided on the battlefield of Gettysburg, on the same date.

Today, or this week, starting Monday, there's a change in the policies of Europe, which will be a change in world policy. And, whether they know it in Washington, or not, it will be a confrontation with the government in Washington, now. The assumption of the position of leader, for the coming six months of the European Union, by the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and his address which he delivered yesterday, defines a change in the world economic and financial situation, a policy change.

As a result of efforts, which I've been involved in, in Italy and elsewhere, including votes taken by a majority of the Chamber of Deputies of Italy, resolutions coming out of the Senate of Italy, and other things in other parts of the world, and with the initiative of the Minister of Economy and Finance of Italy, Giulio Tremonti, there was presented to the European Union yesterday, by the Prime Minister of Italy, a proposal for the implementation of a large-scale infrastructure program for Europe, as a recovery program, based on  what is called the European Investment Bank.

This European Investment Bank will do what many people in many states in the United States wish would happen, under the present economic conditions: And that is, large-scale infrastructure programs, in necessary infrastructure, as in transportation, power, and so forth--water management--in order to stimulate employment on long-term projects financed through the European Investment Bank, which will be outside the monetarist control of the European Maastricht agreements, the so-called Stability Pact agreements.

Now, there'll be a fight about that. Delors, a former minister of France, spoke on this; others spoke on this. This is going.

Not only is this happening, but at the same time, in Asia, especially as result of the recent visit by the Prime Minister of India to China, on an official state visit, there will be an acceleration in infrastructure-building programs throughout Asia: That is, large-scale programs in China are already under way. New programs are being  negotiated; major projects, India and China; Southeast Asia, the Mekong development project is a major project under way. There are large-scale projects which will involve Europe, as well as Asia. And this means that Asia is committed to a program of recovery, which is not entirely unlike what Franklin Roosevelt did, from 1933 on, from his inauguration as President. That is happening in Europe. It is not adequate, of course. But, it shows the sign of the times.

Similarly, in the United States, despite the government in Washington, despite a lunatic Alan Greenspan, throughout this country, the states of the United States know they're bankrupt. Forty-six, at least, of the fifty states are in a virtual state of bankruptcy: They can not raise the taxes, to balance their budgets! And, if they don't, something is going to collapse inside the state economy. Some states are moving with small-scale infrastructure proposals, in that direction. But, there is no Federal support for it.

So therefore, under these conditions, and with the imminent total collapse of the present world monetary-financial system--to which I'll refer a little bit later--this means we're at a turning  point in world history, comparable to the crisis periods of the 1930s, but much more severe.

The U.S. Today, and Under FDR

Now, what I shall address today, are several points, which are interrelated. First of all, I wish to make clear, the similarities and differences, between the problems faced by the United States with the inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt during the 1930s, and today. That, then as now, the world is dominated by the imminent, general collapse of the existing world financial system. Then, it was the Versailles financial system which was collapsing. Today, it is the floating-exchange-rate monetary system, established between 1971 and 1972. Nothing can prevent these systems, in their present form, from collapsing.

The collapse is more or less immediate. And what Alan Greenspan is doing, is actually criminal. That is, what Alan Greenspan is doing right now: He's got a hyperinflationary drop of the discount rate. This hyperinflation is a trap, to lure suckers into financial markets, for one last go. Soon, one of these bubbles, or more of these bubbles, will blow out. Credit derivatives bubbles; mortgage-based securities bubbles; similar kinds of bubbles will blow. At that point, the present plan is, to run the interest  discount rate up to, say, 6, 7, or 10%; which means, that all of those suckers, who have expressed their confidence in the present financial market, will be looted.

We will have businesses collapse. State governments collapse, everything collapse, if Alan Greenspan and his crowd have their way. I know what they're up to.

So therefore, this is the kind of situation we face.

We also, of course, as you know, are involved in wars. How did this come about? Compare the two periods: Compare what Roosevelt faced, and what we face today. Then, we had a crisis, a threat of fascism in Europe. There was a conspiracy by a group called the Synarchists, which is a front group for a group of bankers, to establish a fascist dictatorship--a so-called Synarchist dictatorship--involving France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and also the United Kingdom.

At that time, to prevent this from being consolidated, President Franklin Roosevelt had discussions with Winston Churchill, who later became Prime Minister, or was becoming Prime Minister, in this period, to try to prevent those inside the United Kingdom, who intended to cooperate with Hitler, with fascists in France, with the Franco regime, with the Mussolini regime, and with the Hitler regime, especially with Göring. To establish a coalition which would take over Eurasia, and, with the cooperation of the British Navy, challenge the United States and conquer it.

Under those conditions, there developed a cooperation among two gentlemen who didn't like each other at all: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. But they recognized, they had to have a coalition of forces to prevent this catastrophe from occurring. Churchill had communicated to Roosevelt, his intention and commitment to take the British Navy to Canada, if England were overrun. It didn't happen. But Roosevelt treated the commitment as serious. And, the United States' policy was oriented in that direction. We stopped it.

But, at a later period, we had a similar situation: We've had, in the recent period, we've had something like the Versailles system, or worse: the floating-exchange-rate monetary system, which is now disintegrating. This system has inspired some people, like the fascists, the Synarchists of the late 1920s and 1930s, who launched the Hitler effort, to launch a similar effort inside the United States. The effort is centered on those we call the “neo-conservatives.” Not only the neo-conservatives inside the Republican Party, gathered around Dick Cheney, the Vice President;  but the neo-conservatives, also, who are their buddies, inside the Democratic Leadership Council, and those corresponding sections of the Democratic National Committee.

The Democrats Were ‘Neutralized'

The reason we went to a war in Iraq, was because the Democratic Party was neutralized, by the belief, that Cheney had the evidence, that Iraq was getting nuclear weapons. Cheney knew there were no such nuclear weapons. Cheney knew the story about Niger “yellow cake” going to Iraq was a fraud. And yet, with that knowledge, he pushed that argument, in order to convince the Congress to subside, and to allow the war to go ahead.

The Democratic members of the Senate, who should have stopped the war, did not do it! They consented to it. We're now in a war, which is a mess, for which there is no solution. The President of the United States is talking about a long period of occupation, which we can ill-afford. There's also the threat of a war against Iran, spreading around the world: Because the Democratic leadership in the Congress did not have the honesty and guts to exercise their Constitutional responsibility to prevent this war from occurring! And when they squawk about the war, or squawk about the issues, they're committing a fraud: They didn't stop it when they could have. No one moved against Cheney on his fraud. They all talked about how bad the President was.

You can't impeach this President! You can't convince him of intent! He's not smart enough to know what his intent is! You want to stop the war? Get Cheney out! Any serious person knows that. And if Cheney goes, Rumsfeld will go, his so-called “Chickenhawks” will go, and we will have a new opportunity to rescramble and reconfigure our national policies.

The point is, this is fascism. What Cheney represents--or, I think--Cheney's a dummy; I think his wife is a ventriloquist. She's the smart one in the family. What Cheney represents is the same kind of threat that Adolf Hitler represented in 1933-34, and beyond. If we don't stop it now, we'll find out what happened in Germany, as our own experience, now. And therefore, that's the issue on the table.

The issue right now, is not who is going to win the November 2023 elections; not who is going to be President in 2005. The issue is: Are we going to get to that point, without going to Hell, instead. We have to change the politics of the United States, now, on two points. As Roosevelt did then, in a much more serious situation now, we have to deal with the economic crisis, which is destroying our people and threatening the world. We have to deal with the war threat, which can take us down the road, that took Germany under Hitler--or something worse. These are the two questions, which we must deal with this year, not next year, not ten months from now, not five months from now. Now!

And therefore, we have to change the Democratic Party, at the top, by getting the present right-wing gang out of control of the Democratic Party! If we don't, and those candidates who will not do that, ain't worth shucks.

Let's take the case, for example: There's only one of these nine, who are my putative rivals, who are worth mentioning: And that is Senator Kerry. The others are not necessarily bad people, but they do not represent a serious proposition of contention for the nomination for the Presidency. Kerry does, in a sense. He has certain points in his favor. Unfortunately, so far, Senator Kerry has played the role of Hamlet.

The ‘Hamlet' Problem in American Politics

Now, let me just go through this issue of Hamlet, because it's a typical problem in American politics. We have a lot of Hamlets in politics. I used to accuse Bill Clinton, whom I liked and I still do, of playing the part of Hamlet. Now, as we know, Senator Kerry, has a rather distinguished war record. He's not a coward. Neither was Hamlet. Hamlet was a swordsman. When his father was murdered, he was out slaughtering Poles! A swordsman, and a professional soldier: He ran his sword through a curtain, without even knowing who was standing behind it, and killed poor Polonius. He was a warrior. But, as he says, in this Third Act soliloquy of his, after going through the threats to Denmark, his kingdom at that time, and saying, “But thus, when we shuffle off this mortal coil, what becomes of us?” What happens to us after death? This thought, he says, makes cowards of us all. It doesn't make a coward of me; but it made a coward of Hamlet.

And, in a sense, it made a coward of Senator Kerry. When he had a chance to speak out and say who was responsible for the fraud of the Iraq War, when he could have said “Cheney,” he didn't. He pointed at that poor President, who can not be convicted of intent, George Bush. What do you want to do: Get rid of poor George Bush, and get Cheney as President? Do you want to get the fool out, in order to get the devil in? Not good politics. That's the kind of situation we face.

The economic situation is similar. We face an immediate crisis. Now, some people say, “Europe's a problem. Asia's a problem. Those guys overseas. They're the problem.” They're not the problem! They are a problem. I know them better than you do. I deal with them. I have been dealing with them. Many of them are my friends, or many of them I talk to. I spend a good deal of my time overseas, or dealing otherwise with leading circles in foreign countries. What any decent Presidential candidate of the United States would do!

Because the main business of the United States, as a world power, is to account for our dealings with foreign nations: to the south of our border; Africa; Eurasia; dealing with China; dealing with the Korea situation; dealing with Japan crisis; dealing with India; dealing with Russia; dealing with Western Europe. Where are our politicians, on these questions? Nowhere. They're sitting here talking about how good they're going to be--saying nothing.

Now, I've been dealing with that.

Now, what's the situation? We have, presently, the most important and largest-scale program of economic expansion ever dreamed of in human history, now beginning, in Eurasia. China, for example: the largest water projects in history; Southeast Asia and China, the Mekong project, one of the largest water projects in history; China is launching one of the largest railroad-building projects in history; India's now in discussion with China on one of the largest water projects in the world, the Brahmaputra power project, on the borders of Tibet and Assam.

Europe knows that it's bankrupt, unless it can export to Asia. The biggest export market for Germany, is China. The next largest export market for Germany is India. The survival of Western European economies depends upon increasing their output, largely through export and trade, and chiefly to Southeast Asia.

Africa is subject to genocide: Without a recovery, in the Americas and without a recovery in Eurasia, it will be impossible to reverse the genocide which is going on in Africa.

These are the kinds of things which confront us, which should confront a President.

The System Is Bankrupt

The problem today, is, that everyone is afraid to take on the IMF directly. In the case of the recent meetings which occurred in Europe this week, with Berlusconi addressing the European Parliament in his new position [as President of the European Union], the problem is: Are these fellows willing to move on good projects, like many states, are willing to move ahead with proposing good projects, of infrastructure-building, under present condition? I think about seven of these states have significant projects they're now discussing. They're not willing to bite the bullet on the big question. The point is, the present world monetary and financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. There's no way, by small reforms, within the present world financial-monetary system, that this world economic can continue to function.

This world banking system is bankrupt! The leading banks of the United States are bankrupt! Now, that means that the Federal Reserve System is bankrupt! We have a similar situation in the banks of Europe, with very few exceptions: They're bankrupt. Outside of China, pretty much, the banking systems of the world's banks are bankrupt. That means the IMF is bankrupt! It means the World Bank is essentially bankrupt! And it's bankrupt, because its policies have been bankrupt since 1971-1972.

Now, what do we do, under these conditions? There's no way we can pay off the world's debts. There's no way we can reschedule the world's debts and manage them. It can't happen. Much of this debt, has to be wiped off the books. Without that, there's no recovery.

What do we do? We do two things. First of all, we say that the fundamental obligation of government is the general welfare of its people, both the present generations and posterity. The fundamental responsibility of government, is to accomplish this in a sovereign way: to use the sovereignty of government, and the sovereign powers of government, to protect and promote the general welfare, and the welfare of posterity. Therefore, when we're faced with a bankruptcy--for example: The local bank or a local firm is going bankrupt, and that institution is essential to that community, we step in with the power of government, and we put that institution into receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization. We keep the institution functioning; we work out a program, under which the institution will continue to function, and recover from its diseases and problems. We will write off what we have to write off, in terms of paper, but we will keep these institutions functioning, for the benefit of the general welfare.

We will intervene to take measures, to increase employment, as Roosevelt did. And the only place that government can do an effective job, in increasing employment, is in basic economic infrastructure: transportation, water projects, reforestation, power generation and distribution--things we need very much these days. These projects, as Roosevelt used these methods, will work, and have worked in the past. That's what Europe is talking about. That's what many states are thinking about, inside the United States today.

So therefore, to bite the bullet means, with the IMF bankrupt, that the governments of the world, the sovereign nations of the world--which are the owners of the IMF, politically--as sovereign powers, must put the IMF into bankruptcy reorganization. They must also prepare to put the banking system of the United States into bankruptcy reorganization. We can not have chaos; we can not have people dying, because of a breakdown of the financial system. We must maintain order. And we must have a recovery program, to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Now, therefore, the big problem before the world, is the fact that, while many governments, including those of Europe today, or groups of nations in Europe today, are willing to proceed on infrastructure projects, which are viable, and needed, they are unwilling so far, to take on the big nut: And, the big nut is: Who is going to reorganize a bankrupt international monetary-financial system?

That is where the United States, which has now been transformed from what it used to be--the greatest productive power on this planet--into a consumer society, which is a parasite, a predatory parasite, upon the world, and upon its own citizens. That's where the United States becomes crucial: Because of our history, and because of the power we represent, a President of the United States, calling leading nations of the world now, to put the IMF into bankruptcy reorganization, for a general world effort at general recovery, will work. That's where the United States is indispensable. And that is the kind of leadership, the President of the United States must show.

There are certain things, in our position as a world power, where we should use that power, not to become an empire--we have no business becoming an empire--but the fact that we have great power, great influence, means we must use that power, not merely for our own advantage, but for the defense of humanity. Because we can call nations together, to make decisions, they were otherwise unwilling or lack the courage to make. The same thing is true in Asia. Great projects are going on in Asia. But taking on the IMF system, putting it through bankruptcy reorganization, which is required, is what they're not prepared to do--without the consent or backing of the United States. And, we need a President of the United States, who will do that. We need a candidate for President of the United States, a President in the wings, who will assure them, that that is going to happen. Otherwise we're not going to get through this mess.

Who Are the Synarchists?

Now, let's go back a bit, and say, “Who are these guys, these Synarchists?” And it's literally an organization. Let me just tell you about it. I knew pretty much, back over the '60s and '70s, I knew what this organization was--I knew it descriptively, but I didn't have some of the fine points and details. And, as a by-product of my work with the Reagan Administration, in pushing my project, which was known as SDI, certain papers were declassified, and made available to me through the National Archives. I was told to get over to the National Archives, and pick up these papers which were being declassified, which were there for my edification.

And, this was a collection of papers, dating from the early 1920s, until 1945, on a subject of investigations by, in the United States, U.S. military intelligence, wartime OSS, and also French intelligence--French military intelligence and other branches of French intelligence. And this concerned a group, which was listed under the category “Synarchist/Nazi-Communist.” This is the group, which was behind the Hitler project, behind the Mussolini project, and so forth. A group which was assembled in that form, in about 1920, at the end of World War I. This is the group.

Now, this group has two levels: It has a political level of agents, and people like Cheney, the followers of Leo Strauss, the so-called neo-conservatives in the United States, today--whether in the Republican Party or in the leadership of the Democratic Party. The DLC, for example--are Synarchists, of this category, U.S. official category: “Synarchist/Nazi-Communist,” dating from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s. They still exist.

Behind the people, like the Cheneys and so forth, who are the tools of this group, are groups of bankers, financial interests, dating back from the 14th-Century fondi of the famous Lombard bankers, that caused the crisis of that period. These small groups of people, faced with a financial crisis, and with great power leverage from behind the scenes, will say, that in a crisis of this type, such as the Versailles system collapse, or the present collapse, that they know that governments, pressed, will tend, under pressure of the people, to take measures which are consistent with the general welfare of the people and the sovereignty of nations. Therefore, they say, “we have to prevent that.” And the way to prevent that, is to install a dictatorship, which will control the situation, under those kinds of financial conditions.

That was the case in 1928-1933. That is the case today. Small groups of financier interests--and I know many of them by name, and they're in New York and elsewhere, today--the same groups, that were behind the Hitler campaign then. And these are the groups whom the neo-cons represent.

So the problem is, the issue of this correlation between financial-monetary crisis, and war and fascism, or things like fascism. And every time we get into a crisis, in the 20th Century or now, these groups begin to move in that direction. The idea of setting up dictatorship and going to war, as a way of controlling a situation, to make sure that governments do not emerge which will make the reforms, which might hurt the perceived interests of certain financier groups. And, that's what we face, today.

So, my job is rather simple, at that point: I do know what to do. I do know who the enemy is. I do know what the general remedies are. I do have knowledge of what people in various parts of the world are thinking about this. I do know what the United States could successfully do, in providing leadership, which is not coming otherwise from the political circles inside the United States. And therefore, my job is to act as if I were President.

And, that's happening. It's happening, with the reception I recently received, for example, in Turkey. Or the reception I have throughout the Arab press. Or, my recent participation at a key conference in Bangalore, India. My meetings in various countries. These are the things I'm discussing with them--these kinds of options.

A Government with a Mission

I am prepared to be President of the United States today--except one problem: I need a government. Now, when I look at these candidates, and I look at other people, I'm looking in a very practical sense, “where's my government?” Now, a government, to me, means several things: It means, obviously, the obvious institutions of government, and we have those institutions. But I'm talking about a team. Remember, when Roosevelt became President in 1933, he went in with a program, called the New Deal, already so-called, and he went in with team. And the first 30 days--not the first 90, or the first 100--but the first 30 days were crucial. What he did in those first 30 days, determined the success of Roosevelt's Administration.

Now, the new government of the United States, must be of that form. It must be a team. I have to have my team. And, there's a second team, I want to talk about, too. The interim team. My team is, picking things like Vice Presidents, key appointees. Appointees who will be selected for the same way that Roosevelt selected his key figures. Each will have a mission. And as a group, they will be a mission-oriented group, to solve the tasks. I'm also looking at people in government; I'm looking at people in the military, at other institutions, who I know are trustworthy, and reliable. Trying to find out who they are. And, select them as a team. On the day I walk into the White House, we will go in with a team, prepared to take over, the way Roosevelt did, and solve the problems.

Now, there's a second team that's needed: I'm not President, unfortunately--unfortunately for this nation. What happens if we remove Cheney and the Chickenhawks, the neo-conservatives? Well, we'll have a new situation in the United States. Remember, the people who took over the government, under George Bush, after Sept. 11, are a small group, relatively small--a few hundred people, at most, with a hard core of a few score. This is a rump government, a dictatorship. A junta is running a government for a President, who is not really a President. Who operates on the basis of emotions, which are not always pleasant, but the poor fellow does not really know what he's doing. He just knows he wants to be reelected.

And, for example, we want this fellow, who wants to be reelected, to do a job, about Middle East peace. We want Palestinian-Israeli peace, now; we need it now; we don't want this thing running out of control. We want to do something about this mess, which Cheney and Rumsfeld made in Iraq: This is a hopeless sinkhole. This is worse than Vietnam, in terms of its potential. It's a desert Vietnam. And, it's going to look more and more like that, as the days pass. This was a piece of stupidity beyond belief.

But going back to government: Who is opposed to this war in Vietnam? From what I can tell, most of the retired and serving flag officers of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps; and some in the Navy and Air Force, as well. Everybody of any competence, then and now, said this was a bummer. Under no conditions should the United States become involved in this war. They not only raised objections, they raised specific objections!

For example, to take the case of Iraq: Now, suppose there were a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, which there was not. There was no need to do so; it was not legitimate. No reason for it. But, suppose there were: What would this require? This would require 10 corps, plus. Ten corps. That is, a couple of heavy divisions in each, with auxiliary troops, including medical--all the rest of the stuff. Because, when you invade a territory, you are responsible, the minute you occupy it, to maintain it, and deal with it! The objective is to come out with a success! It is to come out with a pacification, a successful pacification of the territory you've invaded, and get out! The way we tried to in Europe. Move in, and get out.

That means you pre-assign a full corps, to each corps area, which is not merely for the purpose of invasion, but it's for purpose of occupation and getting out. You organize the institutions which you find on the ground. You don't try to bust them up, and start from scratch. You organize them, immediately. Find all the local leaders; get, in each case, get things functioning immediately again! Get the fire system functioning, the water system, the food system functioning, the hospital system functioning. Get things functioning and get out!

And, our military leaders who criticized this, spoke of this very clearly. They're still speaking about it, and the nonsense still goes on. You have one of my old enemies, an idiot, Bremer, in there as the czar of the country, making a worse mess of the thing, day by day. One idiotic decision after the other.

So therefore, we have, in our existing institutions, in this case, the military institutions--not only those in uniform, but those who are working as civilians, in that division, in the military services--who are competent, and know how to do the job. That's part of what we have. We have people who are senior diplomats, retired or serving, who are competent in these kinds of things. Who serve our government. Who are loyal servants of government, who can be called back in, to advise. They're there.

So, if we eliminate a few of these junta characters, who are dominating the government today: Send Cheney back to Wyoming to grow potatoes. Find someplace to dump Rumsfeld. Get these fools out. We have, in government, around this poor President, we have people, in the Executive branch, or who are associated with the Executive branch, who represent all the intelligence and capability needed to do an honest job, and keep things functioning--with some kind of policy directive. If we can shake the Congress back into some kind of shape, especially get the Democratic Party into shape, we'll do fairly well.

You've seen the group around Scowcroft, the old Bush crowd: They've been behaving themselves on this thing; fairly well. You see people like John Dean, and his crowd: They're behaving themselves fairly well--not always doing the right thing, but they're sane. So, we have Republicans, as well as Democrats, who are perfectly sane. And if we remove this junta factor, and we realize what has happened to us, and we hate what has happened to us, and we try to get back to normal, during the next year and half or so--we can get through in terms of day-to-day management. We can restore our relations with nations in Eurasia; we can restore our relations with nations in Central and South America--so that you have another team. You have a team of capabilities of people who are serving in government, or who were associated with government, who can step in an advise this poor President what he should do.

And, the poor dummy! I mean, I'm not trying to hurt the man; the man may have hurt himself already enough. He was born dumb! But, he's the President! And we have to have the minimal crisis of our institutions; therefore, this President, preferably, should sit there. But, he should learn to do as he's told, by people who are wiser than he is; and rely upon them in one message. You know, how do you handle a dumb President? You say, “Now look, dummy! President Dummy; Mr. Dummy. Our job is to make your Presidency successful; while you have it. If you behave yourself, and listen to us, we guarantee you, you can go out here clean, and, have a nice retirement. And, be called ‘Mr. President,' after that, even after you're out.” That's the way you handle it.

And, what I propose to do with the poor dummy is to say: “Protect the guy. He's mean-spirited, he's difficult to deal with. You may have to talk to his mother about him--what we're going to do with him.” But, this is the President. We have to protect our Constitutional institutions. And the best way to do it: Get these bums out. And realize that we have a potential team already sitting there: people in government; in the Executive branch; specialist divisions; skilled people, who, when called into action, around a theme, an idea, are capable of keeping this ship afloat.

The ‘Acting President'

Under those circumstances, faced with an international financial crisis, and faced with the opportunities which are presented to the United States now, from Europe, and from Asia, in particular, with these opportunities, I'm sure that these fellows, without the burden of these neo-cons, and seeing the crisis we face, will to respond intelligently to our friends abroad. I have an idea what's happening in France. I'll find out more in the coming weeks and months. I know something of what's happening in Italy. I know what's happening in China and India. I know certain things about the Arab world, and I'm talking with leading diplomats and others around the world, constantly. I've got a good smell of what the world would like from the United States. I know the “deal,” as they call it, we can cut. I know the crisis we face.

We can get through this, quite well, even under this President, if we know how to play it. We'll send him out of office, in January 2005, saying, “Mr. President, you are ‘Mr. President.' You will always be ‘Mr. President' to us. Now go home and enjoy yourself.”

So, in that sense, I have to be the acting President of the United States, because we just don't have one handy at the time. We have a sitting President, and that's what he's best at--when he's not lifting weights or whatever--but, we don't have a candidate for President: Not on the Republican side, and so far; not on the Democratic Party side. Now, certainly, I would not deprecate Senator Kerry. I have a great deal of regard for him. I think his wife may be better than he is; she may be tougher. But, that's fine. He's a fine fellow. We'll work with him, for what he is. But, we'll not expect from him, what he's not. And, he is not a President for these times of crisis. And, the rest of them are poor losers, compared to him.

Now many of them may be useful. They may have useful roles. I mean, Kucinich--he'd never make a President, but he has an interesting constituency, which any political figure in the United States is going to pay attention to. Others of these candidates represent constituencies, which any person in high office is going to pay attention to. It's what you're going to work with. But, none of them come close to being President. And, none of them even come close to being a Kerry.

So therefore, for this period of time, I have to act like an acting President.

A couple days ago, this past Sunday, I gave a presentation at a meeting in New York City, to a few hundred people, which was videotaped and will be on the website soon. You can compare that with what I've said here, so far, today. It's a little bit different, but it's the same thing, essentially. It's complementary. So, you get an idea, of exactly what I stand for, where I'm going, what I think. And I think the best thing at this point, is to let you go at me, because what I've done, is given you an outline. And you may have some pungent questions to throw in, which fill the gaps.

(Click here to read a transcript of the discussion period.)

- 30 -