LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
LaRouche Says Charges Against Cheney Constitute Grounds For Impeachment
The following article was issued as a press release by Lyndon LaRouche's Presidential campaign committee, LaRouche in 2004.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 7In the midst of a growing mountain of evidence that Vice President Dick Cheney led a battery of senior Bush Administration officials, in repeatedly using what was known to be a forged document from a foreign government to corral Congressional and public support for the Iraq War, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche issued a sharply worded statement insisting on a full investigation documenting exactly what Vice President Cheney knew, when he knew it, and precisely what he did contrary to what he knew to be the truth.
The charges against Cheney are centered on the fact that the Vice President repeatedly used documents, allegedly from the government of Niger, purporting to show Iraqi government efforts to purchase large quantities of uranium precursor, "yellow cake" from that African nation, long after he learned that the documents were forged.
On June 2, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself "cited forged evidence about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear materials."
In a statement released through his national spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman, LaRouche was quoted as saying,
"Let there be no mistake about it. The nature of these charges constitute hard grounds for impeachment. The question has to be taken head on. It is time for Dick Cheney to come clean. I want to know exactly what Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it. The charges are grave and specific and leave no wiggle room. Determining who knew what and when is, at this time, an urgent matter of national security."
Freeman, citing LaRouche's own track record in challenging the avalanche of disinformation and "spun" intelligence products thrown up by the Straussian neo-conservative network inside the Bush Administration, to launch the recent war against Iraq, said that LaRouche was uniquely positioned to hold not only the Administration itself, but also the other Democratic Presidential candidates, accountable for their uncritical endorsement of what amounts to an ongoing fraud against the Congress and the American people.
She said that the chronology of events documented in the Waxman letter, indicates that Vice President Cheney was among the first Administration officials to be informed that the Niger documents were forgeries, and that he nevertheless continued to assert the Niger-Iraq uranium story as fact. "This kind of witting, repeated fraud against the Congress and the people of the United States represents a crime of the highest order. And, as such, I can tell you that Mr. LaRouche will see to it that a determination is made and made quickly, and that he will not back off until appropriate and severe action against those perpetrating this fraud is taken."
Appendix: Chronology
*Sometime in late 2001, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency received a series of documents on the letterhead of the Niger government, detailing repeated attempts by Iraq to purchase vast quantities of uranium oxide "yellow cake," a precursor for nuclear weapons.
*In early 2002, Vice President Cheney requested that the documents be investigated and, as a result, a former U.S. Ambassador to African countries was dispatched to Niger.
*Sometime in February 2002, officials of the CIA, the State Department and the Vice President were informed by the ex-Ambassador that the documents were forgeries. The fact that the documents were forgeries was reported around the Bush Administration.
*Nevertheless, on Sept. 24, 2002, Bush Administration officials and CIA officials briefed Congressional leaders that the Iraqis were attempting to purchase "yellow cake" from an African country. The same day, the Office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair published a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, foisting the same false information about the Niger uranium purchases.
*On Dec. 19, 2003, the U.S. State Department published a one-page fact sheet, disputing Iraq's weapons declarations to the United Nations Security Council, again citing the Niger sales of "yellow cake" to Iraq.
*During January 2003, every top national security official of the Bush Administration, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and President Bush, himself, cited Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials from Africa, in briefings, interviews and, in the case of George Bush, in his State of the Union address.
*On March 7, 2003, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered testimony before the United Nations Security Council, in which he exposed the Niger documents as shoddy frauds.
*Even following the ElBaradei public revelations, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on March 16 on "Meet the Press," repeated the Iraq nuclear material lie.
The next day, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote his first letter to President Bush, demanding an accounting of the repetition of proven fabrications.
LaRouche to European Youth Movement: 'Popular Opinion' Is the Enemy
This is an excerpt from a presentation given by Lyndon LaRouche to a cadre school of the international LaRouche Youth Movement in Wiesbaden, Germany, on May 31, which will also appear in the New Federalist newspaper. The complete speech is archived on LaRouche's campaign website: www.larouchein2004.com.
The worst enemy, of humanity today, is popular opinion. And, what's the idiocy! The person who protests against injustice, says, "This is contrary to popular opinion!" But, it is popular opinion which controls their behavior, so that they actually demand, and support the institutions, which are responsible for the oppression. They'll say, "It's not fair!" What is a gladiator going to say, in the Roman arena, when he goes in to kill or be killed? He said, "The decision was not fair." The Roman arena, the gladiator system, was itself unfair. So, to complain about the unfairness of the gladiator games, is foolishness. The existence of the games, is what the foolishness is. The existence of the games is the evil.
Our political process, in Europe and in the United States, is, to a large degree, a farce! They call it "democracy." It's a farce! And, you know it by the effects. You can not get a government elected and stable, which will continuously do, that which is useful for the benefit of present and future generations.
Let's take the case of health care. What happened to health care? In the United States and in Europe? They cut it! Why? In orderand partly, because they were Malthusians; they were environmentalists; they wanted to reduce the human population. They wanted to kill off the old people, and the chronically illand they've done a fairly significant job in that! In 1973, they had the HMO bill, which said that, no longer, does the individual, who has paid in, perhaps to a health-care fundno longer do they have a right to health care: What comes first, is the stockholder, who bought into the corporation, which took over the health-care system, and they must be paid first, even if it means killing the patient. Or, denying them the care they need.
This is done by popular opinion. This is called "liberalism"; called "contemporary liberalism." It's called "free trade." By which societies are destroyed. A totally irrational system!...
We Are Degenerating
So, what you've been experienced to, in your lifetime, since 1964-71, the world you've lived in, is a different one, than the world we lived in before, in Europe and in the Americas. We are degenerating! Our problem, is to reverse that degeneration. Go back to ideas, which were commonplace and accepted, back then, in the postwar period in Europe, or in the Americas. And, reverse this crazy liberal system, which resulted in these horrors, which we face today.
We really don't need to invent a new system. We have to go back, essentially, to the system that worked, and make improvements on the basis of that system, rather than trying to design a completely new system. Because, there's a relationship between the way the Hill-Burton law was passed, and they way medicine works. So, it was not designed on the basis of some accountant coming up with a scheme. When you get to these kinds of policies, throw the accountants out!
You have to think in terms of scientific principles: What are the principles of medical practice? What are the principles of health care? What are the principles of preventive medicine?
For example, take preventive medicine: Today, we have a population in the United States whose life expectancy has increased probably ten years, over what it was, at the end of the war. Ten or more years. Now, that's the good part. The bad part is, when people become older, they become more susceptible to diseases which we associate with advancing years. Therefore, when people become olderand a large part of the population becomes olderthat means you have a new category of health care, that is required, to meet the fact that older people now require more health care, which is attuned to the aging generationthe post-65, post-50 (actually) generation.
Therefore, you need to have a factor of more emphasis on preventive medicine, preventive care, which is one of the things which is being eliminated by the present so-called "reforms" in medical care. Preventive care is not being attended to. You get lists. You go to a physician for a diagnosis. The physician makes a medical diagnosis. But then, he has to submit the diagnosis to insurance companies, or government authorities. The insurance companies will take this diagnosis, and they'll put it through a computer. And, they'll say, "This person will be treated for this disease"the diagnosis made by the computer, and the accountantnot by a physician! The physician makes a diagnosis of his examination. He then forwards that, according to an approved form, to the agency which authorizes the treatment, and the payment for the treatment. That agency is like an accounting firm type, which now processes it with their computer, and says, "This patient will be treated for this disease and only this disease, and will get this amount of treatment, this surgery, and only that. If they're still sick, that's too bad. They go on the street."
And that's what you have now. What is done in this process, this signifies that there is preventing of preventive medicine. Because competent physicians and institutions can anticipate, by a thorough medical appreciation of the patient, the life-style, the conditions of life, and so forthcan anticipate what their problems may be. What problems are developing. What they have to do, to care for themselves, to prevent these problems from arising.
Now, actually, preventive medicine, in these categories, will do more to lower the actual experienced disease rate, and the cost of medicine, than by not doing it. Preventive medicine is generally much cheaper, than curative medicine, after the problem erupts. This is eliminated. And therefore, we're in a period, where people have been tending to live longerthat means they're somewhat healthier, that's why they live longer. But, at the same time, they do develop organic diseases, which they're susceptible to, which are foreseeable, and against which they could take precautions, and for which they require care of some kind or other, or assistance.
If we provided that, we would lower the incidence of serious diseases, which kill people.
Deliberate Decadence
So, the problem here, is this decadence. And, this decadence is largely deliberate, as you've seen, by what's happened in health care and education, and other things.
And employment! For example, it's pure idiocy to have 4-5 million unemployed in Germany! There's no reason for it! It's insane! Because the cost of not employing people who are productive, with all the shortages in society, is crazy!
Think of what you need. Take the railway system in Germany (the United States is a total disaster): The railway system is being destroyed. The public-transportation system is totally being destroyed. Whole parts of Germany are being destroyed by neglect of basic economic infrastructure. The Stadtwerke are in jeopardythese are an essential part of the infrastructure of the whole economy! They're not being maintained.
So, the idea of cutting expenditures, for these categories of public expenditures, is idiotic! Because, paying for these expenditures, does what? You pay for somebody who's productive, or a group of people who are productive, as a group. You employ them, as opposed to leaving them unemployed. All right, first of all, you pay them an income. But, they're producing more wealth than the income they're receiving. So, the amount of national wealth is increased more rapidly than cuts in their salaries.
So, it's insane! As this Lautenbach proposal, back in 1931 showed: The secret is to create mass employment, largely in basic economic infrastructure, which governments can organize quickly. There are always public-infrastructure projects to be completed; water projects to be straightened out; power production and distribution to be improved; mass transportation to be increased; medical care to be improved, public medical care; education to be improved. There are always large projects, which need to be done, for the future of the nation. These will be beneficial to the nation: They will be more benefit than they cost.
So, it is insane, not to have public efforts to employ the unemployed, put them back to work. And the obvious thing in Germany, the first objective in Germany would beif I were the Chancellor: 3 million more jobs! Period. Assigned in these categories, where government is capable, of either providing the employment, on the state, or municipal level. Or, where government can organize the private sector to expand its employment, in these same kinds of areas. And, with 3 million more jobs in Germany, the budget would balance. And, the amount required to be spent, to create these jobs, would be less than the economic benefit of the jobs, themselves.
So, it's insane. But, you have this crazy Stability Pactor the "Mental Instability Pact," it's better calledwhich prevents that from happening. And the Chancellor does not dare challenge the Maastricht agreements, at least on this point, which would be the obvious thing that a head of government or state would do, in a depression. I mean, after the lessons of the 1930s Depression, for example, in the United States, and other depressions, we have learned that this method works: That, in a time of crisis, you have to take the long-term view, and the state has to intervene on a long-term basis, to create public credit; direct it to these kinds of projects, to stimulate the regrowth of the economy, knowing, that over the 10-, 20-year period, that this will pay out fine. So therefore, the credit, which was generally cheap, government credit, is well worth spending. But, then have along this idea of free trade. Under this, you can't do it: "You have to let 'The Market' decide."
This comes back to another point: Why are virtually all economists proven incompetent, now? Why am I sometimes the only competent economist in the world, at least in Europe and the Americas? Why? Because economists today believe in money. I don't believe in money.
See, people base the idea of measuring an economy on "The Market." "How is the financial market doing? What are the stocks doing? What are the bonds doing?" "What are my investments doing?" "Is the market value of my house increasing?" (Even though the house is getting more dilapidated all the time!)
If you look at my "Triple Curve" representation of what has happened since 1966 in the United States, and then, also, in Europe and elsewhere: You had the total amount of monetary market values have been going up, in a curve, accelerating; the monetary emission to support this financial market has been increasing, to a hyperinflationary degree, presently; while the physical output of society per capita, has been collapsing. So obviously, there's something wrong with money! Or the way it's being used.
Now, money is useful, but money in a proper system, unlike the European system of Anglo-Dutch liberal parliamentary democracy: Money should only be created by governments, who are responsible for issuing it, and managing it. Why? To prevent this from happening! To prevent financial values from increasing, while the physical values go down. The function of regulation, and control of money, taxes, other kinds of regulation in an economy, is to force money to behave itself! That money values shall not increase, or not be encouraged to increase, more rapidly than the physical values are increasing. That's the way you have a stable economy.
But this leaves no room for profits from financial speculation. And, what happens is, in the world today, under the free-trade system and the reforms which recently occurred, the free-trade system says, that the money values, the financial-market values, shall predominate. And everything shall be done, to make the stockholders happythe speculative stockholders. Because they don't have long-term investments. They come like mosquitoes, from one investment to the next. So, that's the problem.
So, popular opinion, by accepting these kinds of idea, denies a principle of truth, of truthfulness, by rejecting the idea of hypothesis; by losing their mental moorings in the kinds of so-called "popular culture," which corrupt and destroy minds today. The population becomes its own worst enemy. And, to the extent that it intervenes in society, it makes the worst choice. And, then it blames the politicians. And, if it gets angry enough with the politicians, it brings in a dictator, who will really do the job. That's what happened before; that's what's threatened now.
The Legacy of Christianity
So, we in European civilization, have, largely as a result of the legacy of Christianitywhich is based largely upon the Classical Greek culture, known to the Apostles of Christ, as typified by the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paula culture which, despite all the evil done to it within the Roman tradition, in particular, achieved the highest rate of improvement in the human condition, in all known history. This culture: European civilization. Therefore, when we're true to ourselves, our object is to share the benefits of our culture, with people of other cultures. To do that, you have to understand our culture itself, its best features. You have to understand the difference between man and the animal. For example, look at the problem in Asian society. Look at the large mass of people, who are murderously oppressed, kept ignorant, without progress, while a relative minority of the population prospers on the back of people who work almost as herded human cattle, to provide the food and so forth, for that sort of culture. That's wrong.
We know it in Europe; we have similar phenomena in European history. We fought against this. We fought against feudalism. We fought against this, with the dignity of the human individual, in the sense of man in the image of the Creator, in Europe. All the good things we did, were a result of that. If we look and understand European history, from the beginning, in Greek civilization, and look at the problems around the world, our concern is to give the world the best we have to offer; and to assist them, in elevating the condition of their masses of millions of poor. The population of China is 1.3 billion or more. The population of India is more than 1 billion. The population of Southeast Asia is very large, hundreds of millions, and in similar condition. The population of Pakistan, similarly. The population of Africa is also.
These countries are in misery. We have the knowledge, we have the power, we have the ability to cooperate with these countries, to create an order on this planet, which emphasizes the idea of man in the image of the Creator, as man is distinct from the animal. Therefore, it is our obligation, if our lives mean anything, to spend our lives, as we would spend money: Spend it wisely. Spend it for the future of humanity. Examine ourselves. Examine the history of our culture. Look at the kinds of problems I've briefly described to you, and apply that knowledge to the situation. And think of yourself almost as a missionary, or something else, of culture, who is innovating in other countries, as their friend, expressing here, in our own culture, the best we have to offer, and defining our relationship to them, and, in fact, we want to offer the best.
And they get happy, when you really do that. They may object at first, and say, "You're tampering with our culture." Or, "We had a good culture." Well, it's a stinking culture. They have many elements of their culture are very good. But, the mass of poverty is not good. The mass of desperate poverty is not good. A 3% HIV ratio in India, is not good! It's a marker of the other diseases. The HIV problem and other problems in Africa is not good. The health situation in Southeast Asia is not good.
Understanding Other Cultures
And we have the ability to change it. And that's what I've sort of dedicated my life toat least, it's crept up on me. I sort of believed this, for most of my life. But then, more and more missions kept crawling up on me, and I found myself committed to this, for the long term, and I've been at this particular work I'm doing now for over 35 years. It just started out as something I thought I had to do, and now it controls me! But, that's all right, I don't complain, I enjoy it.
But, that's the point. The key thing here, isit's only a summation of the points, which you've had in other discussions: That, you have to start in European culture. You have to understand what European culture ought to mean to you. You have to understand national cultures, within European culture, in those terms. And, with that understanding, of the implications of the difference between man and beast, you have to look at other culturesas Asian cultures, for exampleand look at them, from the standpoint of the fact, they are human; they have the same essential qualities that we have; but, they have a different, historically determined culture. And therefore, we must try to understand their historically determined cultural development, which is the context, within which they can work out these same kinds of ideas.
In the end, we should come to the same conclusion, the same conclusion about humanity. But, humanity for a long time to come, is going to still be composed, justly, of respectively sovereign nation-states. Our job is to create, to bring into being, a community, of respectively sovereign nation-states upon this planet. And, by understanding ourselves better, we will be better able to understand those of other countries, and find the pathways of communication and policy-making with them, which can bring this state of humanity into being. We desperately need it.
The one thing we have to be conscious of, in all this: We have to be conscious of the enemy of humanity: It's the generation of popular opinion, based on this form of corruption, which, renders society vulnerablegood societiesvulnerable to destruction.
If you have a sense, as I do, of the ups and downs, of European civilization, including that of the Americas over the recent 40, 50 years, you see that, in the postwar period of reconstruction, in EuropeGermany notablythere was a great upsurge of improvement in culture. There was a return to the influence of a Classical culture, revival of the Classical humanist education in schools, secondary schools. An improvement in the number of engineers; improvement in technologies.
Then, it began to go down. So, you have a sense of the ups and downs. And you can date it, say, the time of the Brandt Reforms: The destruction of the German Classical humanist education, was probably the beginning point of a decadence, a pervasive decadence, in the culture of Germany. You can do similar things in France; similar things in Italy. So, we have these episodes of ups and downs, ups and downs. Always, in a renaissance, humanity comes to itself, and has some sense what a human being is, a sense of human values. Then, you get into another phase, the so-called "popular-culture" phase, which took over the United States, in the middle of the 1960s: And you see a descent, a moral descent, and then a
physical descent of society. We have to understand, that this is the enemy. That popular opinion is the enemy. Popular opinion is what has to be changed. If you can change popular opinion, you can solve the other problems.
Thank you.
|