Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR



'Cheney Should Resign
Or Be Impeached'

July 27, 2003 (EIRNS)—Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed this morning on WVAZ-102.7FM, Clear Channel, by Chicago talk-show host Cliff Kelley. Below is the transcript of the interview. Subheadings have been added.

Kelley: It's 7:24 (a.m.). This is Sunday, July 27th. We are so pleased to have now on our live line now—He has done so much as far as speaking out relative to government, and doing research, and through his excellent publication, EIR, Executive Intelligence Review. He is also a Presidential candidate for the United States of America, for the Presidency. He is Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Good morning, Mr. LaRouche!

LaRouche: Good morning.

Kelley: We have a number of things to cover here, but the first thing that I'd like to talk about, is the fact that you are up front in making a lot of information—a lot of news, I should say—in saying that there are charges against the Vice President, Dick Cheney, that constitute grounds for impeachment. Would you give our listening audience, Mr. LaRouche, some facts on that, please?

LaRouche: Well, the first thing, of course, the up-front issue, is the yellow-cake issue, which has been fairly well advertised in various media, and has been covered by a number of members of Congress so far. This—I'm pushing, of course, for his impeachment. But immediately, I would prefer that he resign. Because his resigning would save a lot of grief. And would, essentially, I mean the chain-reaction elimination of that whole pack of neo-conservatives in the Defense Department, the State Department, and so forth, and Lawrence Libby in his own office. So this would be an improvement.

Bush is still a problem, but I think Bush, out from under the control of Cheney's crowd, would be less of a problem to manage, if we got rid of the rest of that pack of so-called neo-conservatives. That's what I am concentrating on. I am looking at this from a standpoint—from a Presidential standpoint. What would be the most efficient way of quickly getting this present situation, which is leading to new wars, under control very quickly. And getting rid of Cheney quickly, would be the most efficient, quickest, and most painless way of doing that much. Other things, we'd have to do beyond that, but that we'd have to do now.

Kelley: So you're saying then, that his resignation or impeachment—whichever, you say, is necessary, primarily based on keeping this country out of additional wars that are unnecessary for our security?

LaRouche: More than that. I would say—you look, for example, at the military situation in Iraq. Now that was a mess, and our professional military—both those who spoke out as serving officers, and the special retired officers, who are freer to speak—had described the incompetence with which this whole war with Iraq was done. Apart from the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should have been left in the United Nations.

But going to war—assuming the war had been necessary—what was done was total military incompetence. And now we see that we're in an ongoing, irregular war, that is a resistance-type war by the people of Iraq—and about 2 million of them are capable of conducting that kind of war, against the occupation forces. We have lost the popularity of the United States internationally because of this. It's getting worse all the time.

And therefore, we have to, in a sense, not merely prevent new wars. We must change the policy, and bring about a Middle East peace, particularly with the Israel-Palestine issue. We must clamp down on that, and get the actual Road Map through.

Kelley: Before we go into the Middle East and the Palestinian situation, Mr. LaRouche. You are saying some very interesting things here.

You're talking about the United Nations and what role they should have played. With Bush's father having been an Ambassador to the United Nations, and, I presume, having some influence, it would seem to me as though, he would tell his son, "Listen. This is the way to go."

That's the only reason we knew, because Cheney, and Wolfowitz and Perle, and all these people, were talking about bombing Iraq back in 1991! The old man wouldn't do it. And of course, Clinton wouldn't do it, primarily because the United Nations wouldn't go along with it. Why do you think—and if I'm wrong, correct me—you are telling me that Cheney is really running things. And that he has more influence over Bush than his father, or anybody else?

LaRouche: I think more influence, in a sense, than Bush, the father. But the other problem is, the problem down on the Bush family side down in Texas. And I think, they are hanging on—well, they're hanging by their fingernails, knowing that Cheney should go, but wondering if dumping Cheney wouldn't ruin the chances for re-election of the incumbent President. And I think they have a lot of financial interests tied up in hoping to be able to control the next Presidency, because they know there's a financial depression coming down, and whoever controls the Presidency may be able to bail their friends out. So they are, in a sense, clinging to the idea of the re-election of the incumbent President, and think that dumping Cheney—while they may approve of the idea of dumping the bum, may be a bad idea for young George's re-election chances....

'Just a Plain, Ideological Fascist'

Kelley: Cheney—what is Cheney's interest? We, of course, see that Halliburton had contracts even before Iraq was attacked, and so forth. We know he was running back and forth to the CIA. All that, of course, has been verified. But, what is his major interest, Mr. LaRouche?

LaRouche: Well, essentially, Cheney is just a plain ideological fascist. That's what he is. That's what motivates him, and Rumsfeld too, and that whole pack of neo-cons. Like Richard Perle, or Lewis Libby in Cheney's office, or Bolton, over in the State Department; or Wurmser over in the State Department. Wolfowitz, Feith, and so on. These guys are ideologically fascist.

Kelley: Well, if anybody wanted to question it, all you had to do is look at his voting record, when he was in Congress.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Kelley: Unbelievable. Unbelievable, the things that this guy voted for. And some times, he was even—out of 435 votes, he was one of five or six. I mean he was way out, you know. So, I understand what you're saying here.

LaRouche: Oh, see, these guys are controlled by a bunch of financial interests—look, it's the same crowd, a banking crowd, behind this, which was behind Hitler back in the 1930s. So, it's the same interests, who are using a new set of lackeys, and now Cheney is, maybe, not exactly Hitler, but in the sense, he is playing the kind of role that the Nazis played in Germany—he's playing it in the United States.

Kelley: Why do we want to bomb Iraq? Why do we want to go in and take over?

LaRouche: It's not Iraq alone. Iraq happened to be the handy target, that the plan for the war on Iraq was planned by Cheney and his neo-con friends back in 1990, 1991. The nuclear war aspect was planned. But what they are targetting is not just Iraq. Nor was it Afghanistan. They're targetting a whole group of nations, listed under the title of "axis of evil" nations. A total of about 80 nations are implicitly targetted for war by this Cheney policy.

What they're shooting for, is that we're on the edge of a general breakdown crisis of the present monetary-financial system, just as in the time that Hitler came to power in Germany. And in such times, certain financial interests would like to have a dictatorship, because if you have elected government in a financial crisis, elected government will tend to react as Franklin Roosevelt did—to protect the people, not the financial creditors. And the financial creditors say, "We're not going to have that." The financial creditors will say, "Let's have a dictatorship, and the people will have to eat the losses, and not us." And that, essentially, is what the issue is.

Kelley: So what they will actually do—what you are saying is, to just logically continue that same train of philosophy, Mr. LaRouche, you are saying that they actually want to—you are saying there are 80 nations involved?

LaRouche: That are targetted.

Ashcroft: 'Not as Smart as a Hitler'

Kelley: That are targetted. And ultimately, they would want to have a dictatorship and destroy the elective process here?

LaRouche: Look, we're in the process—look, an Ashcroft has that mentality. It's precisely the mentality—maybe not as smart as a Himmler, but he's got it going in the same direction. The Patriot Act, for example. The so-called Homeland Defense—what we did is that we stripped "normal" down, we stripped down normal law-enforcement, on the local, state and Federal level, which was a fairly decent machine. Now, our basic internal national security is in law enforcement. I don't often like all the things they do! But nonetheless, that's what we have.

They stripped it down, for this crazy, cockamamy idea of Homeland Defense, which doesn't work, and it stripped down the resources which we should depend upon. It destroyed the control of our security system, which included the intelligence system—that was also undermined for this process. So actually, we're moving in the direction of dictatorship.

And my view is, we've got to stop it now. We've got to stop it.

Kelley: Mr. LaRouche, where is the press in this? You know, just the other day, Newsweek—they, for once, congratulated the press for finally speaking out, and said, "Maybe the gag's been removed," when they start questioning Condoleezza Rice on some of the weekly shows, and some of these other people who have obviously been lying to the American public.

But all of this is going on, and the media has been almost a co-conspirator.

LaRouche: Well, you have to look at the media more carefully, because it's not quite that bad.

You've got two—you've got an opposition in the media, typified by the New York Times attack on Leo Strauss, which they picked up from me. They're not my allies, as you know. But, they happened to agree with me, in the fact that what is going on is nuts.

So they have covered it. You have other press that covers it. The problem is, you have an impression from CNN, and impression from the Murdoch press, from the Conrad Black press, which gives us the impression that the media is all for this war. But you look behind the scenes, you find the local press, you find the people like the Los Angeles Times, other press—they say things at times, which tend to organize resistance against the war. Then, of course, on the Cheney issue.

We've got the Cheney issue going on the yellowcake. That is now planted firmly in the mind of the Congress, and in the minds of many people in the United States. And the yellow cake issue is not going to go away.

The Sharon Factor

Kelley: It's 7:41 [a.m.] I'm Cliff Kelly, this is the Cliff Kelly Show...We are continuing our conversation with Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., and we are very, very pleased to have him with us.

We talk about the press, Mr. LaRouche. I just want to commend you and all of the people who put out the Executive Intelligence Review, because you have some great information in that. So keep it up, all right?

LaRouche; We shall do that.

Kelley: OK. Let's go to something you were going to mention earlier, and I took you off the train of thought, and that was the Middle East. The road to peace.

Before you talk about that, I just want to say, what does this attack on Iraq, how does that figure in with Israel? The first person that I heard that mentioned the name "regime change"—the word, "regime change"—was not Bush, it was Ariel Sharon. He was in the White House.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Kelley: And in fact, it was very interesting, because the press was talking about an independent Palestinian state, and Sharon said, "We don't even have to talk about that right now. That's way down the road." He was speaking over Bush at the time.

How much of this war in Iraq—this illegal war, has to do with the interests of Israel?

LaRouche: Well, the connection is indirectly. People are trying to say that Israel somehow controls the United States. That's not the way it works.

What you have, is that you have an international fascist group—in which Netanyahu and Sharon and Shamir, happen to be the fascist party in Israel. That in the United States, for example, we have Richard Perle and his friends—the neo-conservatives. They also are fascist of exactly the same pedigree as Sharon, Shamir, Netanyahu. Netanyahu is probably ideologically the most dangerous, and worst. Right?

Kelley: Yeah.

LaRouche: So therefore, you have a connection between U.S. policy and Israeli policy, but the connection is not Israeli control of the United States, what it is, is the same party—the same bunch of fascists from Europe, and from the United States, and Israel.

You have also in Israel, other people who are the traditional labor Zionist people, and those who are honest, shall we say, peace-lovers, in the tradition of Nahum Goldman.

So you have different tendencies in Israel. You have some lunatics. We have a few in our own country, as you know. And they have them there.

The problem is, the tilt of power from, money from the United States, is essentially to back the fascists. So therefore, you have a fascist government, that of Sharon, in control of the nuclear arsenal of Israel. Under these conditions, if the President of the United States would put his hands down on this thing, and say, Israel is not going to use those nuclear weapons against anyone, then we could have peace in the Middle East. And the Europeans and others would support us in whatever is necessary to bring about peace.

The problem is, the President of the United States hasn't got the guts to do it. Clinton came close to doing it, but he didn't have the guts to go through with it. He was frightened, and I don't blame him too much for that.

Kelley: Well, that's what I was going to say, Mr. LaRouche. I don't think anybody would have the nerve to say that who's in power to stop it.

LaRouche: I would.

Kelley: Well, yeah, you would. That's true.... But this whole nuclear arsenel you are talking about. You know that Israel is not even a signator to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty. We don't say anything about that.

LaRouche: Well, that was created. But this is not created by Israel. Remember, Israel got its yellowcake from Niger. And they got it from France, from Niger.

Kelley: Right. And a lot of that technology, of course, from South Africa. But the other thing is interesting. When Mordecai Vanunu did start talking about what was going on in Jamona, when he was making a press conference in Paris, the next day he shows up in Tel Aviv, and nobody knew how he got there.

LaRouche: We can—guess how!

Kelley: Yeah. We know how.

LaRouche: But the point is, you've got an international crowd. It's not Zionists as such. But you've got an international crowd, which are—the specific fascist group, are followers of Jabotinsky, and a worse group from Poland, who were tied to Jabotinsky.

Kelley: OK.

LaRouche:—who even tried to cut a deal with Hitler. They said to Hitler, "If you will drop your anti-Semitism, we'll support you!" And this crowd of pro-Hitler, Jabotinsky-types were real out-and-out fascists. They were then, and they are now.

So we put them in power in Israel. We knocked out the Labor Zionists, You know, David Ben-Gurion may have been a rough guy, but he was becoming more and more cultured as he went along, and more and more people in Israel, in the 1970s, started dealing with that. More of them were saying, we've got to get peace now.

So it's not an Israeli—or Zionist impulse, that's the problem here. It's the problem of a fascist impulse, and people like Sharon are puppets who are used by people in the United States and Europe to promote their cause by using Israel's nuclear arsenel as a blackmail weapon to try to manipulate international politics.

What U.S. President Could Do

Kelley: Do you see at all the possibility of an independent Palestinian state under this particular circumstance.

LaRouche: Well, I don't know. Under my Presidency, it would happen. It would happen real quick.

Kelly; How would you do it?

LaRouche: Simply do what George Bush lacks the guts to do. If he says, that the United States is committed to Israel stopping this nonsense, and if the United States President goes to other governments, in Europe and elsewhere, and says, "We're going to do it, we want your backing," the President of the United States would have immediate, full, and efficient backing.

We would also put into place—not merely saying, cut out the nuclear nonsense—we would say, "Look, if you accept the deal, we're going to give Palestine and Israel a break, in terms of economic solutions to some of their problems, like water problems, and things like that." And we can do it.

So we would say, "OK, you guys behave yourself and you get a deal from us." And I would get, as President, I would have the cooperation of people throughout Eurasia and elsewhere, to do just that. We would deliver. And the secret here, is that you've got to have people who are believable in the Presidency especially, who can be believed, so you know, they say what they mean. And who will follow through their intentiones with action. And will offer people an honest deal, saying, "Look, if you give up your little, nasty impulses, we'll take care of you. But you've got to give them up."...

The Al-Qaeda Hoax

Kelley: We're back with Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Presidential candidate. We are so pleased to have him here today. He makes some great comments, and says a lot of things that other people, speaking of international events, would never mention.

One thing, when we talk about the safety of this country; and you are saying, we need to get Cheney out—and I totally concur with your reasoning there—Mr. LaRouche, Osama Bin Laden is hardly ever mentioned anymore. What would be your response to trying to stop Al-Qaeda. They are out there. They are doing very well. They are putting their group back together. And obviously, when we see what happened with the report on 9/11, we seemingly can't even stop what ever it is they may be planning to do to us next.

LaRouche: Well, the point is, the Al-Qaeda thing is partly truth, and partly myth. As far as Al-Qaeda and 9/11, that's a complete hoax. It has nothing to do with it.

Al-Qaeda originally comes out of the Al-Afghani tradition, it's a long story. But you could look it up. And then you have the development of what's called the Muslim Brotherhood. When the United States under National Security Adviser Brezinski, was planning a way in Afghanistan against the Soviet interests, at that point, the United States had gone to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and had asked them to assist the United States and Britain, in conducting this special operation in Afghanistan.

At that point, many people, including Muslim clerics, had mobilized people to fight against atheistic communism in Afghanistan, and had gotten many people to volunteer their services for it. So therefore, you had this Al-Qaeda phenomenon, which was mobilized largely by the British and U.S. intelligence services in U.S. interests, to run a covert war—not so concealed, in Afghanistan.

Now, at the end of that process, particularly after the end of the Desert Storm War, these guys were essentially cut loose—not entirely, but they were cut loose in the way of being controlled. Osama Bin Laden was a key figure used by the United States and the British for this operation.

Now, these guys are now running around loose, working for various people. Many of them tend to go, like opportunists, like some of our volunteers for these, you know, irregular forces—turn up in various places as fighters, because of their experience. And some of them—actually, this Taliban operation in Afghanistan—which is coming back into power. But that is a very specific phenomenon, with very specific characteristics, which our intelligence services do understand.

Kelley: Well, we're going to have to make that, Lyndon LaRouche Part Two, because we're out of time. But I'm going to remeber where we left off, because we are going to have you back.

LaRouche: OK.

Kelley: And I certainly appreciate you spending some time with us this Sunday morning, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., and we will be getting back to you.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Kelley: Thank you so much.