In this issue:

The following exchange took place during the discussion following Lyndon LaRouche's June 9 webcast. This question was posed by a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives, who sits on a committee concerned with the Iraq war. It's on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The complete transcript of the webcast can be found in InDepth this week.

The Death of al-Zarqawi

Question: Mr. LaRouche, President Bush, Tony Blair, and Mr. Rumsfeld have all hailed the death of al-Zarqawi as a critical victory in the war in Iraq. And somehow that would seem to be true if our principal enemy in Iraq were indeed al-Qaeda. However, many others, most specifically Congressman John Murtha, have pointed out that the nature of the conflict in Iraq has now moved not to a war against terrorism, but a full-fledged civil war. I'd like your overall assessment of that situation. Would you call it a civil war?

And also, I know you have proposals of your own in this area, but we are right now looking at John Kerry's call for withdrawal by the end of the year, and want to know if you think that there is any viability to his approach?

LaRouche: I would make a very simple statement in part on this, though it requires more attention, of course. I would say, well, since we have an act of murder committed—and this was simply an act of murder, which settled absolutely nothing. Killing individuals does not settle issues of this type. Whether he was or was not a Shia agent or whatever, is irrelevant. That killing was a Nazi-like act of murder, and that is what we've been protesting against in the United States, and talking about the barbaric acts, about some action organizations in military and operation sections in the CIA in the past. This is what we said we must not do. You do not go out and take out people for political reasons, because they're your enemy! Because what you do is you sow dragon's teeth. You spread the disease. You spread the conflict. We didn't have to do it. Somebody wanted to do it because they had a political ego trip they wanted to make. Period!

Now, that is all the more reason for supporting Kerry's motion. Because the United States government under the present administration can't be trusted with anything that looks like war, or occupation of war. We've got to get the United States government out of that area, for the simple reason that one of these Congressmen will simply not say: The U.S. government under its present Presidency can not be trusted with the conduct of war, or the declaration of war. It's corrupt, we should have impeached it! And whatever happens to us, if we don't impeach it or get it out some way, we're guilty of everything it does. And the American people have got to wake up and stop being children on this question.

No, Kerry's right. We have to take drastic action to get us out of there, because the guy we've got loose in there is a raving lunatic, a homicidal lunatic, and he's going to make everything worse. Whatever is bad by pulling out, is less bad than allowing Bush and company to be involved in that area. You're saying, I'm saying, implicitly, you've got to impeach the guy. Or get him to resign. That has to happen. I'm not sure the United States can survive in the coming year, if we don't impeach these two characters in the meantime. And sooner is better than later.

That's the situation we have. You've got to be realistic. Don't say, let's formulate the issue, let's discuss the issue. The point is, with this jerk in power, this lunatic up there—even his father can't get to him—get him out of there! The only reason we don't want to get him out first is because we don't want to leave Cheney in there! Get Cheney out now! It can be done, if the requisite number of people in the Congress decide that the nation is more important than their special agendas.

If they really cared about the United States, they would get Cheney out now. And what's already in the Fitzgerald brief, contains the essential evidence for a bill of impeachment against Cheney, in what's in that brief alone. In that brief, he stated a motive for a crime committed by his subordinate. It's like the famous case of the Death in the Cathedral. The king said, get me rid of this priest, and some soldiers went out and killed the priest. Was the king guilty? Of course he was.

Cheney committed a crime, he's impeachable. Get him out!

Also in this week's InDepth:

* "Iran: The Offer Is on the Table," by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

* "Iraq: Will It Be Peace or a New Dark Age," by Hussein Askary