From Volume 4, Issue Number 31 of EIR Online, Published Aug. 2, 2005

Latest From LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche on 'The LaRouche Show'

'Silencing Cheney's Guns of August'

Lyndon LaRouche made a special two-hour appearance on EIR's The LaRouche Show on July 30, to mobilize against the threat of what he identified as Dick Cheney's "Guns of August," the threat of a nuclear attack on Iran. (For the complete audio archive: The program was hosted by LaRouche's Western States spokesman. We present here the first question and answer.

Harley Schlanger: Well, let's begin with the immediate danger, which you identified in a release the other day, as "Cheney's Guns of August Threaten the World." This came out after a leak appeared in the American Conservative magazine. I just want to read a couple sentences from this leak, because this is what you responded to. It's from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, who wrote:

"In Washington, it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq, are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the U.S. Strategic Command, STRATCOM, with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." And the little missive ends with the following: "As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the U.S. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning, are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing, that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack. But no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Lyn, how did you respond to this?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, I didn't respond just to that. I was involved in an investigation. And I went to a number of sources, which I didn't identify later, because of the nature of the discussion. But I went to people in the intelligence community, some in the diplomatic community circles, and also into the Congress, into the Senate in particular, to get their view on this matter. As a result of this, I had to conclude, knowing what I knew on background, that actually Cheney was headed to go to war, probably during a period of August recess of the Congress—that's the month of August—hmm? now entering. And I understood the reason why.

I also understood, from my conversations with these various circles, directly and indirectly with whom I consulted, that none of them were going to blow the whistle. But the only way we're going to stop this thing, is by—somebody had to blow the whistle. And, it's not entirely unusual in my case, I was the one to whom the fingers pointed: You (me, that is) blow the whistle.

I did.

And I think I probably should have, for other reasons, not only because I was by a process of elimination the only one in this U.S. circle who was prepared to actually blow the whistle the way I did, but because I have certain special qualifications, which other people in the intelligence community and in the Congress and the Senate, lack. And, understanding some of the background, some of the reasoning, why a Vice President Cheney, the thug, would actually try to push this, like Hermann Goering did in pushing Hitler into the dictatorship with setting fire to the Reichstag—with trying to pull this stuff: with cooperation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has obligingly orchestrated a terrorist incident, spreading internationally, out of London—out of London itself—which is actually the ongoing precedent under which Cheney, under his specifications, as reported by these sources, would actually launch World War III.

And that's what it is: Nuclear World War III.

An attack on Iran of this type, the type that Cheney has sent to STRATCOM to carry out, that kind of attack would not stop in Iran. And a nuclear attack of that type, in particular, would not stop anywhere. That is Hell on Earth.

But let's go into what the reasoning is behind this.

Could Cheney Do It?

There are several precedents for this, which have to be looked at, to understand how in modern European history, things like this can happen. In other words, how, in the history of the United States and in modern European history, can what Cheney is up to doing—starting nuclear World War III—how could that happen, in this way? Not merely, could Cheney do it? Well, he's an idiot, he's a pathological figure. Yes, he could do it, as a person. But, how could he get by with trying to implement it? Why wouldn't the checks and balances in the system prevent him, and say, "Throw that guy out, now! Frog walk him into retirement!"

So, it didn't happen. All right, why not? Well, look at the precedents: You have, the most famous precedent is 1931-1933. That is the period from the installation of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank, which is a part of the whole Young Plan negotiation: This establishment of the Bank for International Settlements set the stage for bringing Hitler into the Chancellorship in Germany. It took a couple of years to do that, but then, in January 1933, Jan. 30, Hitler was brought into the Chancellorship. That didn't make Hitler a dictator. That made Hitler a Chancellor. Many fools in Germany didn't think that was serious. There were fools in the top German military, some of whom later died as a result of the July 1944 events; who died because they walked away from Berlin, and away from the existing Chancellor [in 1933], at the time that the existing President of Germany, Hindenburg, was about to put Hitler into office. They walked away! And they died, as a result of what they did, many of them.

Then, when Hitler was appointed Chancellor, many of the Germans, including a lot of the so-called "left," the Social Democratic and other left, said, "Don't worry, Hitler's going to be a joke, he's going to be gone soon. Everything's going to be fine." Then, Goering, who was then the head of the German state of Brandenburg, used his position to set fire to the Reichstag. The burning of the Reichstag, at nighttime, was used as a pretext for establishing a dictatorship, very much in the same spirit that happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and what is projected now: That there is a project, essentially, of repeating 9/11—and that is in the discussion! They're saying, in the discussion, if an event happens in the United States, which echoes 9/11, then we're going to drop nuclear weapons on Iran, and a lot of targets in Iran. That's the Hitler precedent.

You also had a similar situation which is even more relevant, in 1939. When, just before Sept. 1, the Hitler government set into motion a series of operations blaming Poland for an act of terrorism, and thus starting the invasion of Poland on the pretext of Polish terrorism. The terrorist attack was actually done by German agents, who were set up, as patsies, to blame Poland for a war-like attack on Germany. Same kind of thing.

A terrorist attack, probably orchestrated this time from London, by the Blair government—or people whom the Blair government is covering for—to set up a situation in which the United States, using Israeli assets, which will comply not because they agree, but because they feel they have to go along, as well as the British, for setting up what would be a world dictatorship, comparable to the Hitler dictatorship. That's what's in process.

Now, this is not unprecedented. We had—for example, let's take two world wars: First of all, let's take World War I. Now, World War I was set up by the King of England, Edward VII, who, prior to his death in 1910, set into motion, both earlier as Prince of Wales, and later as King, the operation which became World War I. Now, there were incidents and provocations, such as the Balkan war provocations, used in this. But the intention was to start World War I! They may not have intended fully what happened as a result of starting it, but they started it. And it was done on the initiative of a then-deceased Edward VII.

Now, why was it done? It gives you some insight into what's going on now. When Abraham Lincoln defeated the Confederate agents, that is, the Confederacy itself, which was a British operation, set up to destroy the United States, by forcing it to divide between North and South and other things, to create a division of competing states where a United States stood, and have a sort of a perpetual state of warfare between the Confederacy and the remains of the Union. That was the plan. It was done from London. It was planned and orchestrated by Lord Palmerston, and also, in a sense, by Jeremy Bentham before then. And Palmerston was actually a student and protègé of Jeremy Bentham, the man who controlled the traitor Aaron Burr.

So, this was set up as an operation from about the 1820s into the actual outbreak of the Civil War. Now, at the end of the Civil War, where the United States had had a victory over Britain, over Lord Palmerston, by defeating Palmerston's puppet, the Confederacy, and also causing the defeat and expulsion of the dictator of Mexico, the terrorist-monarch who was sent in, the Hapsburg Maximilian.

So, this established the United States as a world power that could not be attacked with impunity in the same way that had been done by the British, before. So, at that point, in 1876, after about ten years of peace following Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, the United States had emerged as such a conspicuously great power, as the model for agro-industrial society. That in 1877, you had a series of transformations of government policies: Bismarck in Germany—the Bismarck reforms, including the social welfare reforms—were done under the direct influence of the chief economist of the United States, who was the world's leading economist at that time, Henry C. Carey. And Carey, personally, in Germany was involved in the orchestration of the setting up of these reforms, by Bismarck.

You had a similar thing, under Carey's direction, in Japan, with the so-called Meiji Restoration, which established Japan as a modern industrial power. Same kind of thing. You had similar things in France, after Napoleon III, the stooge for the British, was dumped. You had similar things in other parts of the world.

So, suddenly the American System was becoming a power, in Russia and elsewhere, on the continent of Eurasia. And the British Empire was now being challenged—by a new system. Not the British System, not the so-called "free trade" system, but the American System of political-economy, as associated with the name of Alexander Hamilton, our first Treasury Secretary.

So, the concern was, the British had to find a new way to defeat the influence of the American System of political-economy. Various tricks of subversion were used. We had Lincoln's successor, was really a scoundrel, [Andrew] Johnson. And that ruined things. He was sort of the Harry Truman of this period—another scoundrel. But, in any case, we went through great internal disruptions, under the influence of people in the United States, banking groups and others, who were corrupted by their association with the Bank of England, such as the New York financial crowd.

But, nonetheless, we remained the American System. We remained a great power, despite all the disruptions we suffered during that period. And then, we had the assassination of a President [McKinley]. And this brought into power a Vice President, Teddy Roosevelt, who was a real scoundrel. His uncle was the chief of intelligence for the British-controlled Confederacy. And Teddy Roosevelt was trained by his uncle, the head, during the Civil War, of the British intelligence service for the Confederacy. So, he wasn't a good guy.

And apart from the Taft intervention, intermittent, Woodrow Wilson was also another Confederate scoundrel: He was an enthusiast for the Ku Klux Klan, in particular. And he used his enthusiasm—from the White House!—to promote the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. Done by the President of the United States! Woodrow Wilson!

Now, Coolidge and Hoover weren't much better.

Teddy Roosevelt: British Agent

So, now we have this situation: You had, essentially, from the assassination of McKinley, in the interest of Teddy Roosevelt—and I say "the interest of Teddy Roosevelt" quite advisedly: if you look at who the assassin was, who sponsored him, how he got into the United States, and how he got into Buffalo to do that job. Until Franklin Roosevelt, the United States was being self-destroyed under British influence. Roosevelt, who was consciously a descendant of his ancestor Isaac Roosevelt, who was a close ally of Alexander Hamilton—Franklin Roosevelt who maintained the tradition of Isaac Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton—became President.

Now, he screwed everything up in terms of the British plans: The British at that time, had a plan for going to World War II. This plan started back during the 1920s, at the time there was a negotiation, a naval power treaty negotiation among the British, Japan, the United States, and others. And the intent at that time, was to get the United States Navy to be cut down to a size which was pleasurable to the British Navy, and to Britain's ally against the United States at the time, Japan. It was at this time, that Japan adopted the policy, in alliance with the British, for the intended attack on Pearl Harbor, by Japan naval forces. So, in the 1920s, the early 1920s, this has already occurred.

You have the famous Billy Mitchell case, in the middle of the 1920s, where Billy Mitchell was experimenting, using large freighters as landing bases, for aircraft-based attacks on naval forces. Now, at the trial of Billy Mitchell, which occurred later, for his doing this, he defended himself, saying this policy was necessary to defend the United States against an attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan naval forces.

Now, go back, look up Billy Mitchell and look up the trial of Billy Mitchell, and you will find in some of the records that are published, this thing is reported. But look at the date. And look at the issue. And look at the fact that Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was at the trial, later said, that he regretted his role in the Billy Mitchell case.1

All right, so, at that point, going into the early '30s, you had people like the liberals in the United States, who were enthusiasts for Benito Mussolini. Anyway, so, they and the British were all for a Hitler project; they were for a Mussolini project—some of them objected to Hitler, because of his anti-Semitic policies, which Mussolini did not have at that point.

But, nonetheless, the British monarchy was committed to supporting Hitler. And not only the British monarchy, but many bankers in New York, including the House of Morgan, and Harriman, for whom Prescott Bush, the grandfather of our incumbent President, was chief official. And Prescott Bush, in conjunction with the Bank of England, through Brown Brothers (which was Brown Brothers Harriman at the time), supported the Bank of England head in putting Hitler into power in Germany.

Now, in the middle of all this, there was the discovery, after Hitler was in power, that Hitler was negotiating with the Soviet Union. And that Hitler's negotiation with the Soviet Union was tending to get the German military to push Hitler to attack westward first, rather than eastward first. And on this issue, and the probability that the German institutions would succeed, in pushing Hitler into a western attack first, many of the people, including people such as the father of President Kennedy, were supporters of Hitler through Goering at that point—and really, up to the edge of World War II, which is why Roosevelt fired him, from his position as Ambassador to London.

But there was a division in the British, which became the Churchill faction—Chamberlain was sort of on the other side, the "soft on Hitler" side—to break from Hitler, on the basis of a threat that an initial military attack to the West from Germany, before attacking the Soviet Union. On this issue, more and more people in the financial community who had supported Hitler, in the early part of the 1930s, turned away from Hitler as the war progressed, particularly in 1940, when the Dunkirk issue was posed. And Churchill, preemptively, announced that the British Navy would go to Canada, if there was a direct invasion of the British Isles by German forces. And that was the turning point in the whole process, under which the U.S. commitment to an alliance with Britain against Hitler, changed the course of history. Because, Hitler would otherwise have succeeded in setting up a world power for Nazism. It was the U.S. support for Stalin, in arming the Soviet forces for, for example, Stalingrad, and other things of that sort; and the victory at Midway over the Japanese, which established the ability of the United States and its allies to conduct a two-front warfare, which ultimately defeated Hitler.

So, that was the case. But that is part of the history. So, when you look back to 1939, where you have this secret intelligence operation, orchestrated by German services for a provocation, which was used as the pretext for Hitler's invasion of Poland, which started World War II, that, again, is the kind of thing we're looking at today, in what Cheney has threatened. That is, a group of forces, in this case intrinsically financier interests, which control governments, provoke governments to wars, as a way of dealing with a financial-economic, or related challenge their power.

Go back to earlier. Go back to earlier, before Cheney. Go back to 1763, and seven years before that: The British East India Company had provoked a war, which has many similarities—and not accidentally—to the war on Continental Europe, called the Seven Years' War. A Continental Europe which established British supremacy as an imperial force of the British East India Company—not yet the British monarchy, but the British East India Company—as a supreme force; and who gradually took over more and more of Europe, dominated it, and established what is still the present form of the international monetary system, that is the floating-exchange-rate monetary system, today.

A General Breakdown Crisis

And that's what the issue is. The issue is, that groups which control Cheney, such as the groups represented by Cheney's master, George Shultz, the man who put together the team under Cheney's direction, which became the George W. Bush government, that this crowd has reached the point, where the system which they control, the present international floating-exchange-rate monetary system, is now in an advanced stage of disintegration. It is on the verge of a catastrophic, final collapse. Not a depression, but a general breakdown crisis of the entire world system. At this point, they are impelled to go to war, to set up a kind of dictatorship, under which they can control, by dictatorial methods, the effects of a general collapse of the world financial-monetary system.

So, that is the precedent built into the structure of modern European civilization, of these three general wars on the continent of Europe, leading to a fourth one today, which is broader. And that's where we stand. And that's what I understood clearly, as the implication of the information I had received and corroborated on Cheney's plan to go to war, probably during August, using an August recess for that purposes:

Again, the famous "Guns of August," at a time when Europe was "on vacation," so to speak—morally, intellectually, and otherwise, in the past. For the third time now, forces of great power are aiming to use the month of August, for incidents which will set off world wars. That's where we're at right now. I recognize that, because I understood more clearly that anybody else, exactly what the implications are, of this present international monetary-financial crisis.

1. MacArthur was one of the five judges in Mitchell's court martial. He later said, "When the verdict was reached, many believed I had betrayed my friend.... Nothing could be further from the truth." MacArthur also said that had Mitchell "lived through World War II, [he] would have seen the fulfillment of many of his prophecies of air warfare."

All rights reserved © 2005 EIRNS