LaRouche on Cleveland Radio:
Cheney and Blair are in the same boat ...
And it's sinking
July 18, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend

Councilman O. Mays: Good evening. And good evening to my radio listeners. Your host tonight is none other than Councilman O. Mays, and sitting in the studio with me is T.J. Dowell (ph), and my guest will be none other than the renowned, and the electrifying, Lyndon LaRouche, who will be my guest tonight. And a man that has a view on not only national, but international involvements throughout the United States and this country. So that will be my guest, and I do anticipate your calls tonight. The call in number is 578-1300. Give me a little time to kind-of dialogue with my guest, and set the tone for tonight.

As I always start my program, with this saying, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

And also, my short course in human relations: the six most important words: "I admit I made a mistake." The five most important words: "You did a job well." The four most important words: "What is your opinion?" The three most important words: "If you please." The two most important words: "Thank you." The one most important word, which we seldom use, and it is not used as well as the others, or, not as much as the others, and that is "we." The most important word is "we," being inclusive, as opposed to being exclusive.

The least important word, "I," and the word is used more often than any other, of the words you heard me articulate a few minutes ago.

As I said at the beginning, my guest would be none other than Lyndon LaRouche, an individual that is running for President, and one that is really uncovering, and also delving into a lot of things that are going on in the world. So, I'll give you an opportunity to listen to him, and also an opportunity to talk with him by way of the telephone. So, again, I do appreciate my guest being with me, and good evening, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Good evening.

O. Mays: And how are you?

LaRouche: I'm frisky.

O. Mays: Okay. I do have sitting in the studio tonight another friend, and I guess, co-host of mine, is none other than T.J. Dowell. Good evening to you, T.J.

T.J.: Hello. How are you, Councilman?

O. Mays: I'm fine. Okay, I've got all of the kind of salutations and stuff out of the way. So, we're going to get right down to business. Mr. LaRouche, I know that you are -- to kind of get you warmed up and before I begin to delve into some questions I would like to ask you, I would for you to tell my listening audience, just who is Lyndon LaRouche, and tell us a little about who Lyndon LaRouche is, and what he's embarking upon.

LaRouche: Well, first of all, as a Presidential pre-candidate, as it's called, for the Democratic nomination, I'm running either first or second -- latest support is second -- in terms of popular support for the nomination at this time. I'm stirring up a lot of fuss with my targetting of Vice-President Cheney, as a man who should be impeached, and the assumption that his impeachment would sort of clean out some of the neo-cons, who got us into the war in Iraq, and will get us into other wars, unless they begin to be removed.

O. Mays: Okay, let me just stop you there. You're saying that Cheney, Dick Cheney, should be impeached. Can you tell my listening audience that may not be cognizant, what you're saying? Why do you feel that he should be impeached?

LaRouche: Because he lied, knowing that this specific information about the alleged Niger contract for nuclear material -- that is, the so-called yellow cake -- to Iraq, was a fake. Having that information, he and his associates...

O. Mays: How did you -- do you know that for a fact, that he had this information, and that he lied to, I guess, the American people, and to the President? Or, if he was not cognizant as well, and how did he come to know about this information?

LaRouche: What is established by witnesses involved -- who've confirmed this -- he was among the first to ask for an investigation of this information. Then his associate, this Mr. Joseph, was the key person -- he's another Richard Perle associate -- was the one who pushed those words, those famous 16 words, onto the State of the Union address. This, according to Congressmen, many Congressmen, is the additional information, being disinformation, which pushed them over the edge, in allowing the war to go ahead.

So therefore, the United States is now engaged in a war, based on a willful lie, by the Vice-President of the United States. That, under our law, is a high crime, it's an impeachable offense.

O. Mays: And, you said, how did you say he came about this information?

LaRouche: We don't know exactly how he came about it first. Let me give you the background on this, as we know it now.

At some point, after the inauguration of the present Prime Minister of Italy, Berlusconi, there was agreement from Italy to assist the United States in cooperating on this anti-terrorism, and so forth. During this period, someone caused, someone in the Rome Embassy of Niger, to craft a false report, which was passed through Italian sources, military sources...

O. Mays: Niger is in Africa, is that correct?

LaRouche: It's an African country. It's one of the three notable African countries which produce this raw material ore, which is used, with reprocessing, to give you fissionable uranium, as a material.

So, this was later determined to be false, by any number of sources -- this information. But this information was transferred to the Israelis, to the United States government, and to the British government. So, when people talk about various sources, they're talking about the same source, the Rome Embassy of Niger. Transmitted by Italy, which shared this information with three countries, at least: Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

In this period, the Vice-President, according to the testimony of a number of officials, who investigated, corroborated each other, had access to this information, and used it. He pressed, together with others, but he personally was responsible for pressing the adoption of this information as part of the charges against Iraq, as a pretext for going to war. This information was false. Members of the Congress say they were induced to support the idea of going to war, solely because of this added information, which was false information. That is an impeachable offense.

O. Mays: Okay. So now, was there some point in time that you became cognizant of this, or did you talk with the Niger President, or intelligence office, to ascertain this information?

LaRouche: Well, we had also sources such as Joe Wilson, the former U.S. official who was sent by the CIA to Niger -- he'd been formerly an Ambassadorial rank individual in Africa. So, he was sent to Niger to investigate the story, and determined on the information that he had received at the time, from the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, that this information was false.

Parallel, a U.S. General officer, also went there, and made the same investigation. Then other sources and so forth, have demonstrated that this was false information.

This is now before the Congress. The testimony has been given. This is the basis for charges that lies were used to induce a war.

For example, Senator Kerry, in one connection, made this point: that he had been lied to. This was the lie; the lie was actually from Cheney.

So, we have up to the point of actually sending Cheney to prison, we have all the evidence that would actually been sufficient for an indictment, in this case an active impeachment, or an act preparing for an act of impeachment, against the Vice-President.

O. Mays: Okay. Now, let's not switch gears, but let me just identify. This is Councilman O. Mays, the host, and you are listening to, the voice whom you've been listening to, is none other than Lyndon LaRouche. And he also is a candidate for President of the United States.

We're talking about some of the things that, that's happening here in reference to, that propelled us into the war in Iraq, and that the President of the United States in his State of the Union address stated that there was weapons of mass destruction, and that also Saddam Hussein was seeking, or was purchasing, uranium from Niger, and he feels that that was, Vice President Dick Cheney was cognizant of this information, and had this information, and knowing it was false, but however, it still wound up in the President's State of the Union address.

Now, having said that, -- and the call-in number is 578-1300, if you wish to speak with us tonight -- let me just ask this question, Mr. LaRouche: The Prime Minister Blair, I assume he's still in the United States, he met with, I guess, the President, and also met with Congress, to vindicate that he has the information that Bush and everybody else was espousing, was accurate information, and he's trying to vindicate it.

So, I'd like for you to tell me your take on that, as well as, I understand the chief inspector from Britain, they found him dead, and so, can you elucidate on that?

LaRouche: Well, first, Blair obviously had exactly the same information from the same source, that the United States received it: that is, it was determined by our intelligence services that the information, as I say, which was false information, was concocted, ostensibly, within the Niger Embassy in Rome. That this information was not immediately turned over, in its raw form, to governments, but the information in the so-called document, which was later proven to be forged. And this document was given simultaneously to governments, passed on to governments, Israel, the United States, and Great Britain.

So, when the Prime Minister says he has information from a corroborating source, it is not a corroborating source, it's the same source the United States got the same misinformation from. And the Israelis also got it.

So, in this case, which you referred to today, the death of Kelly. This official, British official, was the one who made the allegation that Alastair Campbell, the propaganda minister, so to speak, personally for the Prime Minister of Britain, Blair, that he had "sexed up" -- that's the term they used -- "sexed up" the information to make a case where there was, with raw information, really none.

Now this fellow [David Kelly] was found dead today. And it's a big scandal. This is going to blow the British situation up.

We now have a situation, with the buildup of the reports from official sources, more and more members of Congress, and so forth, going at this case, the heat is on Cheney -- and some other people, like Joseph, Dr. Joseph. The heat is on Blair similarly. Cheney, and Blair, are in the same boat. And politically speaking, that boat is now sinking. Both of them are on the edge of going down.

O. Mays:: I'm going to ask you to pause for a moment, and would you be amenable to accept some calls.

LaRouche: Why, sure.

O. Mays: Our first caller would be Cedric. Cedric, you're on the air with Lyndon LaRouche.

Cedric: Good evening, everybody.... Mr. LaRouche, while we are suffering the increasing tyranny of this protection racket that the government perpetrated 9-1-1 for, you are saying to us that the Vice-President is impeachable, for a lie, that a country might have a bomb. Let's not go there. Let's go here.

Money is a government program. Money is a government program the people can vote to receive. As President of the United States, would you be immediate [] to do away with the present tax stupefying, and mandate that improved public welfare policies, of people receiving mandatory income, at all times, irregardless of circumstance -- say, $5,000...

O. Mays: Okay, we got your question. We got other callers, and we want to get as many callers as we can. Let him answer your question. Did you hear the question?

LaRouche: Yes. The point is, we're now in a depression. That's a fact.

Cedric: My question is this right here.

Mays: We heard your question.

LaRouche: We're now in the depression. Therefore, we are in a situation which is comparable to that which Franklin Roosevelt faced when he was elected, and about to be inaugurated as President. We must launch, immediately, emergency programs to deal with the massive unemployment, and impoverishment, in this country. We're going to have to have a multifarious group of programs. We're going to have to have various programs for increased employment in public works, and in other forms. We're going to have to jack up the health-care system again. We're going to have to jack up the welfare system. We're going to find new ways to create jobs for people who are considered unemployable.

O. Mays: Okay. He had said something, and we're going to try to get some short answers as well, as well as ask them to ask short questions. He said something about the suffering, the racketeer something. Do you feel there's racketeering going on in the White House?

LaRouche: Well, I'm not sure about racketeering. It's bad enough, you might call it racketeering, if that's your choice of words. But it's certainly.... I think the President's rather dumb, but I think that the President is being manipulated, being sort of a dumb fellow, he's being manipulated by people whose intentions are, shall we say, malicious.

Mays: Do you really feel that he is being manipulated? Do you feel that he is a part of, and he's being the President of the United States, and he should suddenly surround himself with people whom he can trust, and that would give him accurate, as much accurate information as possible, in that he is the head of these United States, and that he's going to have to blame some of this, and not putting all of this on his untutoredness?

LaRouche: Well, I think this man, personally, can be as mean as a yellow dog, particularly on his record on executions in Texas, where we don't know how many people he authorized to be killed -- that is, he didn't interfere with it -- who may have been innocent.

So, there's a certain streak of meanness in George W. Bush. There's no question about that.

But I don't think he has the mental power, to really know what he's talking about. When I heard him babbling the other day, about this and that, and so forth, the poor man does not really know what he's doing.

Mays: Okay. Well, let's take another call. Ted, you're on the air.

Ted: Yeah, I can agree with that last point. The President said a day or two ago, that we had to go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't let the arms inspectors in, when, in fact, that was completely false. So, I can see what he's saying there, about the President sort of flailing around, not knowing what to say, because of lack of mental faculties.

But, when we took up the intelligence, the cooked intelligence, which is pretty clear, it is pretty clear, wouldn't you agree, Mr. LaRouche, that the plan to invade Iraq has been, the people behind this, were the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank, a lobbying group, that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz belong to, have been long planning an invasion of Iraq, to seize oil supplies? And I think that's the wider context. The cooked intelligence, the lies, the distortions, were all designed to whip the American people into a frenzy against Iraq, to realize these long-standing and grand imperial ambitions of the Project for the New American Century. Would you agree with that?

LaRouche: Not quite. Halliburton and Bechtel, which are two firms closely associated with George Shultz and with the Vice-President, are a bunch of thieving carpetbaggers, and they're out to steal everything in sight. But, the motive for this particular attack, goes back to 1990-1991, when Cheney and others, in the first Bush Administration, were turned down on their proposal to use the fall of the Soviet Union as a way, opportunity, to create a world empire, with military power. What Cheney has done, since Sept. 11, 2023, is to use the occasion of the Sept. 11 event, to push the President of the United States, and others, into going with a series of wars, which is not just Iraq. It's not just Afghanistan. It's now, we're now on the verge of a war against Iran. We're on the verge of a nuclear attack, or something of that sort, on North Korea. There's no limit to this.

This thing has to stop. The reason I've gone for the impeachment, because I know that if we don't get Cheney, and what he represents, out of government soon, that we're going to be involved in more wars, which are a worse mess than we're already involved in, in Iraq.

Ted: Well, I'm agreeing with you there. I'm saying, that the Project for a New American Century, these are longstanding plans. Now, I guess where you disagree with me, is the oil. You're saying it's beyond oil, and it's a move towards a global U.S. Empire. Is that correct?

LaRouche: Exactly. This is the same kind of problem we faced from Adolf Hitler and his friends, when Roosevelt made an agreement with a man whom he did not particularly agree with, politically, Winston Churchill, in order to prevent the British government from coming under the control of an alliance with what became Vichy France, Spain, Mussolini, and Hitler. And the United States intervened then, because of a certain group of people in Europe, who had this scheme. Today we have the same group of people, who were behind Hitler and his crowd then, the crowd that Roosevelt and Churchill allied against, the same group of people are behind what Cheney and his neo-cons represent today. So, it's a much nastier.

Ted: Can they really pull this off, given the fact...

Mays: Let this be your last question.

Ted: Can they really pull this off, given the fact that now, they're bogged down in Iraq, where over a third of the active-duty military has been bogged down there. Have they reached the end at this point?

LaRouche: Not yet. You're talking about nuclear weapons. These guys are determined to use nuclear weapons. In conventional capabilities, we don't have it. This thing is... we are bogged down. But the reason, what I'm concerned about....

Ted: They're certainly not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran?

LaRouche: They're determined -- well, you might have an Israeli nuclear attack on a nuclear plant in Iran, under the impetus of people like Cheney. That is one of the things, that's a real, live option. That's why I say, we've got to stop Cheney, and his neo-conservatives, now, before the damage becomes uncontrollable.

Mays: Okay. Thank you, Ted, for calling with those provoking ideas. Eric, you're on the air.

Eric: Hi. Lyndon LaRouche, hi. I'm just thinking about the war that we're facing right now with Iraq, and I'm wondering what your plan would be, to pull out the troops, to stabilize Iraq, and my other question would be, what damage this engagement do to United States credibility, and how will it impact us over the future?

LaRouche: Well, let me try to make the answer as short as possible, because it's a large question you're asking.

First of all, I believe we've got to clean the act up. We've got to go back to the United Nations Security Council, and reach an agreement on reconstruction of Iraq, giving Iraq back to its people. That's going to require some work, and cooperation. We should do that.

The other danger here, is that this thing will spread. It will go out of control. Remember, we have another danger here.

Eric: When you say it will spread, what do you mean by that?

LaRouche: That these guys are ready to go in Iran, they're ready to go in North Korea, they're ready to go elsewhere.

Eric: So, this is a follow-up to what you were saying previously?

LaRouche: Absolutely. Now the problem here, we're also stuck in another situation which is very important, on the military side. That is, the United States is being put through a new depression, which is about to bust out. Greenspan and Company are doing it. The danger is, we're about to have a blowout, in which ordinary people will find their bank closed, all their insurance funds and health care, cancelled, while a bunch of financiers come in and say, "We're going to cut you a new deal. We're going to give you a single world currency, gold-backed. We're going to control it, and you're going to obey us." There is an attempted political coup, financial coup, in progress. You have people around the Wall Street Journal, and so forth, who are involved with this. You've got Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, is up to his ears in it. So, we have a complex of problems, of which this military problem, and the problem in Iraq, is merely a very important feature.

Eric: But I guess the other, the other component to this, to my question, is pulling out the troops. I mean, how do we get out? And what's going to be the damage? Obviously, our credibility is damaged, but, I mean, what happens now to America, and its role as a superpower in the rest of the world?

LaRouche: We've got about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They're not really qualified for the job. They're young people who are not really trained for this kind of job.

Mays: You mean, not trained to do policing, because they've done what they were charged to do, and that was to go and kind of retain, or overthrow, Saddam Hussein, but they were not trained to do policing, and...?

LaRouche: No, they weren't trained for anything. They were trained in video training, on point-and-shoot capabilities, young kids, who do not have the conventional kind of military and engineering training, that you would required for qualified troops.

Mays: Let me just ask this, and then we're going to have to go to a break. Do you have another question? I can ask my question a little later on.

Eric: Well, I guess the big thing for me is, how this is going to impact the United States in the long term, because I guess the thing that I'm concerned about, is that as this thing continues to escalate, and as our credibility is now being eroded on the world stage, you know--what role do we, I mean, how are we going to be defined as a nation? Will there be attacks on this country, and on our interests in other countries? And I do want to say this: Councilman Mays has done an outstanding, good job. This is a man I have a lot of respect for, and I'm glad that you brought him on your program.

Mays: Thank you. Mr. LaRouche, do you want to answer that question? And then we're going to go on our break, and tell those that are holding on, please hold on and we'll be right back. And those of you participating callers, you can call and we'll be right back after this break. But, go ahead, and answer that, and we're going to go on a break.

LaRouche: Well, first of all, I have a lot of credibility among nations outside of the United States, because of the position I've taken. In the Arab world, and other parts of the world. If my policies, if I can state a policy, and state that the United States government will support it, which is a just policy, I believe that people in Iraq, and other parts of the world, will take my word.

If I say, we're going to the United Nations Security Council, to get a new deal on this, if I say our program is to give the country of Iraq back to its people, call the regular police force, call the institutions, call the people who were running the country beforehand, back to their jobs, do their jobs, get the country running, and we get out.

Mays: Okay, thank you. Hold on, Mr. LaRouche, and those of you that's holding on the line. We're going on our break and we'll be right back in a couple minutes. So, please hold on...[commercial break]

Mays: Okay, we're back on the air. And my guest is none other than Lyndon LaRouche, who's also running for the President of the United States. And we have been talking about some of the things that have happened, and are beginning to unfold now in reference to weapons of mass destruction, and also the uranium, and the President's State of the Union address. And sitting here in the studio with me is T.J. Dowell, and Tony Bell. So, Mr. LaRouche, we're back. And if you wish to call....

Mr. LaRouche, we're going to go to some callers. I'm going to ask my callers to ask succinct questions, and I'm going to ask you to try to give as succinct an answer as you possibly can, because I try to get as many callers as I possibly can. I know you're quite popular, and people want to talk to you.

Bernie, you're on the air.

Bernie: Thank you. Mr. LaRouche, [NAACP head] Kweisi Mfume emphasized an apparent apology from the Democratic Presidential candidates. He seemed to give no specific information as to how they feel about reparations for slavery. And my question for you is, how do you feel about reparations for slavery, and do you think that those other Democratic presidential candidates, should specify, in detail, how they would respond to that type of question?

LaRouche: Well, the question, of course, is, if anyone were to push for such a so-called reparations for slavery, the way it's being pushed by some people, it would never fly anyway. So, the point is, I question either the judgment, or something else, of people who make the proposal, because it could never happen, in that form.

What we have, is, we have a problem right before us, worldwide. We have a bankrupt United States, we have the lower 80 percent of the family-income brackets  in the United States are in disaster, we've got homeless problems beyond belief; we are becoming a junk shop. And we have great injustice in the areas of health care, in the areas of housing, education, and job opportunities and so forth. So, we have tremendous needs to be met. My view is, let's concentrate on leading with those things, which we can win, we can win with that, as Roosevelt did. We can win that game. Let's win it.

Mays: Okay, you can have another question, Bernie, and then we'll move on.

Bernie: Very quickly, because the issue of weapons of mass destruction was being discussed. I'm very troubled, that every person we see within the Beltway, the President and the Senators and everyone, will I take the smallpox vaccination in order to protect this country? The point being that we have an ongoing smallpox vaccination system. Richard Carmona was vaccinated, so was the President, so was 500,000 troops. Don't you think, Mr. LaRouche, that the Democratic Presidential candidates should clarify the issue, in terms of the intelligence? It seems to be undercutting national security to raise any uncertainty about whether or not that program should be ongoing, which is what it is today.

LaRouche: Well, the point is, we have a breakdown in our public health policy. This is part of what was introduced by Moynihan, and others, under Nixon, in 1973, with the HMO bill, which replaced Hill-Burton. We no longer have an efficient national commitment to protect the health of our citizens. We no longer have the facilities, which are honestly responsive to those conditions. We need that. There's no reason we can't have it. And we've got to bring it back.

Mays: Okay, let me interject a question here. Oh, you're gone. I was going to deal with that slavery stuff, and reparations, that he spoke about, and I was wondering whether he was alluding to the blacks. If that's what he's alluding to, the blacks should get some reparations, because this country was built on the backs, sweat, and tears and blood of black people. So, I assume that's what he was kind of alluding to.

Mike, you're on the air.

Mike: Yeah. I've got two questions. Why didn't we get enough help from other countries, and two, will this Iraqi thing help or hurt Bush's chances of getting re-elected in 2004?

Mays: Your question is, why aren't we getting aid and assistance from other countries?

Mike: Like France and Germany.

LaRouche: Well, because...

Mays: Well, I'll let him answer that question, but I have some comments on it too. Mr. LaRouche, do you want to answer that question?

LaRouche: Well, the point is, because we were wrong. We had no legitimate reason for going to war against Iraq. That is, no legitimate reason for taking the thing out of the hands of the UN Security council. There were no grounds, no urgent considerations, only fraudulent claims were made to justify that war. We are now finding ourselves in something like a Vietnam War, in the desert, with no prospect of getting out, with troops, increasing numbers of Americans dying every day, in that area, because we got into a war we should never have gotten into.

My concern is to get us out, get our troops out of there, but get out in a just way, such that we turn the country back to the people.

Mays: Okay, is there another question, Mike?

Mike: Yeah. My question is on weapons of mass destruction. Would [smallpox?] affect the United States and the rest of the world, and make it nuclear, would it contaminate the world, if something like that went off? Would it be like nuclear effect?

LaRouche: The problem now, the great problem now, is, the Cheney factor inside the Bush Administration, is committed to a policy of using nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons. That's U.S. policy of these guys.

Mays: Okay, T.J. Dowell.

Dowell: Okay, you talk a lot about Cheney. How much responsibility falls on the President of the United States, Bush, with all of these different issues, Iraq?

LaRouche: I put it another way. Bush is, of course, responsible for what he is, up to a certain point. My problem is, how do we save our country, and ourselves, from the mess which has been created by bringing this Administration in in the first place? Our job is to intervene, in our government, using the Constitutional means available to us -- otherwise, you're going to make a revolution, and start shooting, or are you going to use the Constitutional means, to bring about those changes, in the present government, which would get us through until the next election, the next inauguration.

Dowell: But, you speak of the Constitution, but do you think that right now, are we honoring the Constitution? It's apparent to me that the Constitution is being trampled all over, and our Constitutional rights are being totally violated.

LaRouche: Let's go back to 1861, with Abraham Lincoln. We had a Constitution, the Constitution was being massively violated, we had Presidents, a string of Presidents, including Polk, including van Buren, including Andy Jackson, including Buchanan, including Pierce, these guys were all virtually traitors. They were behind slavery, and Lincoln came along, and acted, through the Constitution, to save the nation.

Again, we had in the 20th Century, we had Wilson -- it was a disaster. Coolidge was a disaster, Hoover was a disaster. Again, then, Roosevelt saved the nation. Our Constitution is such that if we use it properly, when we the people mobilize around our Constitution, we can use that Constitution to bring about the necessary changes without going through some bloody revolution.

Mays: Well, let me just say this, and then we're going to get to another caller, here. Let me ask this question, and if people stand up, and speak up, and speak out, they are anti-America, they are not patriots, in other words, they're anti-America. What is your take on that?

LaRouche: Well, I think people are just being foolish. The question, the standard of politics, ought to be, I admit it isn't generally, the standard of politics ought to be truth. And the standard for a politician, especially a politician running for President, is to have the guts to tell the truth.

Now, we have politicians who like the truth, but they often don't have the guts to say it, for fear of reprisals, But I ...

Mays: And it's becoming very apparent, because I'm thinking there are some reprisals that are going on in Britain, as well as here in the United States, and people taking a fall. But hold that thought, and let me get to Dr. George, and then we'll take a call, and you can answer when you come back.

Dr. George, you're on the air.

Dr. George: Good evening, how are you?

Mays: We're fine. Go ahead.

Dr. George: Yes. This evening, I'd like to just make two very short announcements. I'm sorry I'm not there tonight, but at [civic announcements]

Mays: Thank you. I was asking a question in reference to the reprisals, and it kind of put the fear in people, and then, even with the fear of terrorism, so I'd like for you to address that, and address it as succinctly as you possibly can, because a lot of people are laboring under that, and then they'll tell you, you are anti-American, or you're not patriotic. But people have a right to be able to differ with people, without saying that they do not support this United States.

LaRouche: Absolutely. The problem is, we have people who are just plain frightened, because they feel helpless, they feel they have no recourse, they don't trust our Justice Department, they don't trust our justice system. They don't trust our government. I think about 80 percent of the American people do not trust their government, and that distrust is based on performance, especially over the past 25 years or so.

Now, the problem is, to find politicians who have the guts, to tell the truth.

Mays: If they tell the truth, ... Whom you're listening to. Councilman O. Mays is the host here, and my guest is Lyndon LaRouche, who's running for President, and he's addressing some questions that we put forth to him, about the panic that this country is in, and everybody's afraid to speak up, and things that are going on in this country. Please proceed.

LaRouche: Well, the point is, I've taken a lot of guff, shall we say, and even my government, several times, and we have a record on that, paper on that, my government, or sections of it, has conspired to kill me a number of times, and fortunately some other parts of the government stepped in, and I wasn't killed. What I got was threatened, beginning back in 1973, I was threatened precisely because I took a position on a policy, and they couldn't shut my mouth, and they decided they'd shut it another way.

Now, I understand that people get up against that. Most people aren't considered as much a danger to the Establishment as I am, but I know they're up against it. I know they back off. Therefore, it's my job, and it's the job of others who have the courage to do it, and the knowledge to do it, to speak up, and to set the example of defying this kind of blackmail of being called a traitor, or being called not patriotic, or being called against the mainstream, or something, simply because you tell the truth. I have the guts to do it. I've gotten by with it. Others can get by with it, and I hope I'm setting the example, where more people will show courage, and together, maybe we can give other people the opportunity to express their courage too.

Mays: And I hope so, because we seem to have jelly-backed Congress, and a jelly-backed Senate, and when I come back, you're listening to Councilman O. Mays. The call-in number is.... T.J. has a question to ask you.

T.J.: All throughout the week, I've watched the British Parliament condemn Blair for their involvement with Iraq, and the United States, and the whole deal. And they say some pretty harsh things about him. Why is it, that the same situation that happened here in the United States, happened, in Britain, we, I don't think, as a people, or even our Congress, or our Senate, has not stepped up, and actually criticized Bush as much as Blair's getting in his country. What do you think contributed to that?

LaRouche: As a leading Democrat said to me a couple of weeks ago, but for the lack of guts on the part of the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, and the Congressmen who are intimidated by the Democratic National Committee, Cheney would have been out weeks ago. That's a typical example.

The basic problem here is not the Republicans. The Republicans are the party in power, and there are a lot of bad Republicans. I mean, we should improve the Republican Party without DeLay, if you know what I mean.

May: You say the problem is not there. Where does the problem lie?

LaRouche: The problem lies in the development of a right-wing faction called the Democratic Leadership Council, which, over the past 20 years, has taken control, increasingly, over the Democratic Party National Committee, top down. That's the problem.

May: We're talking about those who are in power right now, Mr. LaRouche. We have Democrats in power, we have Senators, we have Congressmen, and they are not as aggressive -- to me they seem to be a lethargic, or lackadaisical, in their approach to what's going on in this country. Now, I just feel, and strongly believe, that if Clinton was in there, then Republicans would have been all over him and been ready to impeach him, and I'm saying that this Democrat -- and I'm not going to rely on something that's not sitting presently. I'm talking about what's sitting presently, this Democratic party that's sitting presently, and the Senate, and the Republicans, as well as the House -- are sitting dormant. And that they're afraid to get up and speak up, and hold some committees, or call for some hearings.

T.J.: And it also might contribute to what you talked about before, with past Congresswoman McKinney, when she stepped up, they punished her, and then there's also been a number of, or I know of one individual that had his show, that criticized Bush, and they pulled him off the air.

LaRouche: Well, look what happened to Cynthia's father. It was even rougher than what happened to her.

Mays: So, we're talking about...

T.J.: So, what happened to her father?

LaRouche: Oh, he really got hit. But he's a very courageous guy. But the problem is, it's in the Democratic Party machine, not necessarilly the Congress. You're going to see, now, and in the coming weeks, you're going to see more and more courage coming from Democrats and some Republicans. They are really going to stand up on their hind legs on this Cheney thing. I don't know how far they're willing to go, but you're getting a very good development inside the Democratic Party, in the Congress -- not all of them, but some of them. And they're showing real leadership. And I'm backing them all the way.

We also have some Republicans who are honest people, who, because they're honest citizens of the country, will stand up on their hind legs too. So, the situation is not hopeless, but we do have, as we've been discussing before, a devil of a lot of cowardice being shown among our politicians.

Mays: Well, you know, you're right, and that's what I would like to be inclusive, as opposed to being exclusive, in trying to define parties, Democrat and Republican.

We should stand and have some principles and morals, and if we are wrong, then somebody, -- I don't care whether it's a Republican or Democrat -- the Senate or the House, somebody should stand up and say, "You're wrong. Let's investigate this." And I say again, if it was Clinton in the White House, suddenly they would be all over him.

LaRouche: You're right. You were there, I was there.

T.J.: Yeah, they would have been.

Mays: Okay, I don't know what's happening to my callers. I see the line lit up a minute ago. Okay, let's move on. Mr. LaRouche, I know we don't have but a few minutes here.

So, let's get back to the inspections, and do you think -- you have traveled the world over, you're a renowned person, a world personality -- in your travel, in your involvement with other countries and Presidents and prime ministers, do you feel that there are weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, do you feel that we still have to labor under terrorism, that hovering over our heads, in the disguise they're trying to, I guess, deter us, where we will not see the big picture by laboring under this terrorism, keeping us frightened. I know that happened back in 1933, and here it is again in 2023. So, can you address that please?

LaRouche: I think the terrorism is exaggerated, in the way the term is used. There are problems of that type, which we try to deal with. I'm trying to deal with them. I have a lot of, shall we say, professional experience in that area.

But it's much exaggerated. Weapons of mass destruction? The United States has a virtual world monopoly on weapons of mass destruction. And we've got a bunch of lunatics, including Cheney, in power in the United States, who are prepared to use those weapons, and have said they are. So, therefore, yes, there are other problems. There were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq. I've gone through this again and again, and as Scott Ritter said, as others have said, Iraq after the Desert Storm was stripped of all the basic logistical capability to develop a weapons system, including a nuclear weapons system.

So, the danger that people talked about did not exist, except on a very small scale, certainly not a global scale. There was no global threat to the United States from Iraq. It didn't exist.

Mays: Okay, let me just ask this, because we're winding down here. Time really has flown by.

What should we be doing in Iraq right now, or to get it to operate effectively for the people of Iraq? And secondly, oh, if you were the President, how would you operate at present?

LaRouche: First thing, I would fire Bremer in the morning, or tonight. How would that do? And I would announce to the people of Iraq, that if I'm given the authority by the U.S. government, that we have a new policy, and the policy is to put Iraq back together, with its own people. We don't need 150,000 troops in there. We need some technicians, to help the Iraqi people to put their country back together. We can get help from other countries, including Europe. We do not need 150,000 troops in Iraq, if we have the right policy.

Mays: Okay, we have two minutes here. Let me ask you this: How can we create a new republic, and what are you doing in reference to that, and real quick and fast, and how are you rallying people together to support you?

LaRouche: Well, I've created an international youth movement, because the generation of young folks in the 18 to 25 age group, the university eligible age group, realize that they've been dumped into a society which has no future, and they know they have to work to change policies from what their parents have been doing, as bad habits, and get this nation moving back, and the world in general, back in the direction when things were actually functioning better. This is our hope.

These young people, properly mobilized, can change the temper of the nation, and can lead us back to success. My job is, to give them the opportunity to do just that.

Mays: Okay, whom you've been listening to is none other than Lyndon LaRouche. And your host has been none other than Councilman O. Mays, and sitting in the studio with me and asking a few questions is T.J. Dowell, and Tommy Bell. Mr. LaRouche, it certainly has been electrifying, and informative, to say the least, to have had you on my radio program. And I look forward to speaking with you in the near future. Again, I thank you for your contribution, and what you are doing to change this world.

So, do you have any parting words?

LaRouche: Yes, I hope that I see you again soon. I had fun meeting you once before, and I've had fun meeting you here. We'll meet again soon, I hope.

- 30 -