From Volume 4, Issue Number 43 of EIR Online, Published Oct. 25, 2005

Latest From LaRouche

LaRouche Interview:

'We've Got To Get Cheney Out Now!' — 'He Could Go Out This Week.'

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Oct. 18, on the internet radio station Republic Broadcasting Network ( by Greg Szymanski who hosts the program "The Investigative Journal." Szymanski interviewed on Aug. 12 LaRouche for an article which appeared in the Aug. 27 issue of the internet journal American Free Press, and Szymanski's own website

GREG SZYMANSKI: Welcome to today's edition of The Investigative Journal on the Republic Broadcasting Network. I'm your host Greg Szymanski, and we're going to get right to business today: We have a special guest, somebody that I enjoy talking to, interviewed him for a print article several months ago. An astounding, astounding — he could give us a background on American politics, in our social-economic system, and things that are going on now in the Bush-Cheney Administration, that few of us can, because of his involvement for years and years. He ran once as a Labor Party Presidential candidate, and a number of times for the U.S. Senate: We have on our show Lyndon LaRouche.

Mr. LaRouche, are you with us?

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I'm with you.

SZYMANSKI: You know something? I'd like to start somewhere, basically with a statement that you made on April 22, 2005—it was in Executive Intelligence Review. And you said, that "an increasing number and a variety of relevant specialists have been joining an international chorus, which is warning, in effect, that an ongoing systemic economic collapse of the world's presently reigning monetary-financial order has now entered its terminal phase." Okay? And, I want to talk about that statement. You say, it's now entered a terminal phase, as of 1998 to the present time. Tell us, basically, your feelings about our situation financially in this country, and what's happening?

LAROUCHE: What I was referring to specifically, was that in 1997, or, go back to actually 1987 to get the picture. Remember that in October of '87 we had an equivalent of a 1929 stock market crash. And the difference was, that at that point you had Volcker, who was Federal Reserve Chairman, going out of office; you had Alan Greenspan coming in. And Alan said to people in the Fed, "don't do anything, till I get there." And what he did, is, he introduced funny-money, that is, financial derivatives, as a kind of inflation.

What happened in '97-98, was that the funny-money system blew out. It blew out in the failure of LTCM, Long Term Capital Management, which was a hedge fund operation based largely in government bonds of Russia. But these two events, '97 and '98, represented effectively the sign the system was about to go. At that point, Bob Rubin, who was Treasury Secretary, and Clinton and Rubin and others agreed, we've got to have a new financial architecture for international system because of this crash.

Then, somebody pulled something out of the basement of the White House, and moved toward impeachment of Clinton. That got Clinton off the case. However, the condition became progressively worse, and with the collapse of the IT bubble, finally, in the spring of 2000, by the time George Bush was actually becoming President, this thing was on the way to collapse.

Now, these kinds of collapses are not things you can predict mechanistically.

SZYMANSKI: Now, when you're talking about this—if I could just interrupt for one second; when you're talking about this collapse, are the American people feeling it, in their pocketbook? Or is this something going on way behind the scenes?

LAROUCHE: Oh, sure! No, no, they feel it, but they pretend not to, because they're told it isn't happening. For example, take the lower income brackets, take the lower 80% of family-income brackets in the United States, their physical condition of life, that has been deteriorating since about 1977-78, has been progressive. We've had a loss of institutions, loss of the railroads, whole sections of the country that used to be producer parts of the country, such as Michigan, western Pennsylvania—

SZYMANSKI: Mr. LaRouche, hold that—hold that thought, we have to take a break. And we'll be back in three minutes with Lyndon LaRouche. He's going to give us some solutions out of our financial problems, on the Republic Broadcasting Network. [commercial break]

[off air] Hello, Lyndon?


SZYMANSKI: Feel free—you have the whole hour, so we just have a couple breaks. But just feel free to tell me about the whole situation financially, like you always did; then go into some solutions, and I want to get into Cheney and everything. But whatever you feel is important, just go with it. Because, I know that you had that radio webcast, that I wanted to talk about that, also, what you said on that. So, feel free to pick up where you left off talking about the collapse, and the—what was it?—the poor's situation since the '70s has been deteriorating.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, right....

SZYMANSKI: [back on air] We're back on The Investigative Journal. I'm your host Greg Szymanski—I won't hold it against you, if you can't pronounce that last name. It took me a long time, too, and I want to tell you this: Polish jokes are allowed on this show, as long as it doesn't violate the party line (does that sound familiar?).

You know, we're really lucky today. We have a man that—when I sit and talk with Lyndon LaRouche, I have some feeling of trust. I have some feeling, that he has a background, has an understanding of what's happened in our country. He's been involved in the political scene for over 50 years. And it's a delight sometimes to talk with a man that's knowledgeable about what's happening, is not afraid to tell the truth. I'm looking at a picture I always keep by my computer, with a picture of George Bush smiling like Alfred E. Newman, and it says, "Darn Good Liar." And, you know, when I talk to Lyndon LaRouche, I feel like I'm getting the true picture.

Now, tell us Lyndon, we picked up about the economic collapse of our country. But, tell us what Cheney and Bush are actually lying to us about, in our economic situation?

LAROUCHE: Well, just about everything. I think Bush's capacity for lying can be overrated, because I really don't think he knows what he's saying a lot of the time. So, a man who doesn't know what he's saying, it's hard to accuse him of being a liar! He does lie sometimes, but that's—at other times, I see him looking at the words coming out of his mouth, and he, too, is wondering where they came from! [both laugh]

But Cheney, however, is, I think frankly he's a sociopath. In the recent period, he has been on the verge of going down. However, he's a very dangerous guy to have around, because he is a sociopath, and he doesn't react like normal people do. So therefore, the fact that he's now cornered, and he's really very seriously cornered, on this Valerie Plame case—and some other things—means that he's going to be a little bit more dangerous than usual, if he has a chance to do so.

So, we're at a point where he's about to go? But, is he going to go? I don't know—but I think the chances are that he will. And I think that there are a lot of people in the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party, who say, it's time for him to go.

SZYMANSKI: Now, what's going to—let's say Fitzgerald's indictments come down, and Cheney does leave, or he's pressured to leave, in the Nixon vein, where they realize that it's better to take the easy road out: What's going to happen then? Will that have a positive effect, just by getting Cheney out, without Bush leaving? Or, what?

LAROUCHE: Well, getting Cheney out will make it possible to have a positive effect. And I think the sense of relief will be important. For example: You have two things that are going for us. We have a non-neo-con Republican-Democratic cooperation in the Senate. It's not "love time," but it is serious cooperation. These guys realize that they have responsibility for the country; they don't always act the way I think they should, but they do that sense. With Cheney out of there, and with that neo-con crowd out of control, like getting rid of DeLay in the House is also important, Abramoff and so forth, you have a change.

Now, people in Washington know, that we're in trouble, deep trouble. They know the economic system is in deep trouble. They know we're at a breakdown. Look, General Motors going down, the entire auto industry going down: That's not a joke. The air travel industry collapsing; the aircraft-manufacturing industry in deep trouble, except for the military contracts that keep the thing alive. Our municipalities are collapsing—we can no longer balance our budget, we're operating at a loss. The Federal government can not pay its debts, we're living on credit from foreign countries. Foreign countries, themselves, in general, in Europe for example, are operating below breakeven.

So, we're in a terrible mess, and we have to do something about it. There are things we can do—

SZYMANSKI: Tell me why the Senate isn't acting? Are they all bought and paid off by the neo-cons, right now?

LAROUCHE: No. No. There are several things. First of all, partly, it's ideological: You have to remember, the generation which is in power in the United States is not my generation. They were born, generally, after 1945, they're now between 55 and 63-64 years of age, most of them. They're running the country. My generation is generally out of the picture in terms of active, day-by-day control of the economy and leadership.

SZYMANSKI: Now, tell us the difference between how your generation ran the country, and how it's being run now, and what's the stark difference in reality here?

LAROUCHE: We came from, with all our faults, we came from an American tradition. And Franklin Roosevelt reawakened us to that tradition. Hoover sank the economy, not through the 1929 crash, but the way he handled the crash. And he collapsed the economy by about half, physically, during the remainder of his term as President.

Now, Franklin Roosevelt saved us. He took us from the bottom—we weren't as far down as we are now—but he took us from the bottom, then, and within a period of time, by 1940, he had built us back to a potential, which meant the greatest economy the world had ever seen. That potential enabled us to defeat Hitler—and without us, Hitler would not have been defeated.

So, we came out of World War II, as the world's leading economy, beyond the dreams of anybody who'd ever lived before, in terms of our power. Now, Truman ruined it. He didn't ruin it all at once, but he ruined a lot of things.

SZYMANSKI: What did he do, specifically?

LAROUCHE: Well, what he did is—Roosevelt had a plan and a policy, using our power, we could put the world pretty much together at the time, and avoid future wars. With Roosevelt, you could deal with the Soviet Union successfully, you could deal with China. You could deal with the so-called developing sector. You could deal with Europe. But Truman got together with Churchill—who was soon out of office, but still an influence—and they decided they were going to take the nuclear capabilities—and Truman just found out about these nuclear capabilities after he got to be President, but Churchill was already on the case. And they were determined to use the nuclear arsenal, of the British and United States—which the British and United States headed jointly—to run a preemptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union. And we started to go down that road.

Now, we dropped two bombs, the only two we had, on Japan. So that meant we had to build up an arsenal for what Truman was talking about. Well, by—oh, 1948-49, by the time we got into the mess in Korea, the Soviets had already developed nuclear weapons—which meant preemptive nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union, was not the easy task that they had thought it was going to be. And then, the Soviet Union developed a thermonuclear weapon before we did! So that called that off. And Truman was taken out, and told not to run again. And Eisenhower came in and saved us.

Now, the Eisenhower Administration wasn't perfect, but it did save us from a lot of evil things.

Kennedy, by the time he caught on to the job, they assassinated him. And we were plunged into the Vietnam War.

SZYMANSKI: Now, you said, "they assassinated him." Now, do you firmly believe that he was taken out by people in our government?

LAROUCHE: Well, there's a group associated with our government, which is actually international. I've referred to them, and others do, as the spoon-benders. These are the kind of guys who think they can walk through walls by using their imagination. They're crazy, but they're dangerous. There's a section associated with this in our military, including part of the Air Force.

SZYMANSKI: Now why did they want Kennedy to go, in your opinion?

LAROUCHE: Well, they wanted to start a new—Kennedy had committed himself to a Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt orientation, to growing the economy at that time. He was also opposed to the Vietnam War. They were determined to have the Vietnam War. He sabotaged it. He humiliated Robert McNamara: He put him on the White House steps, and made him say we were going to withdraw from Vietnam. And that, apparently, was the sign to kill him.

But, the killing—if you take the temper of the times, in 1962-63, in that period, the knives were out already. Look, de Gaulle, was repeatedly under assassination attack, from old Nazis of the type who were associated with these spoon-benders. You had many assassinations in Europe. You had the beginning destabilization of the Adenauer government, to get him out, because he was a Christian, and in the government, the CDU people that got him out, and the British, didn't want a Christian in that position. De Gaulle was in deep trouble.

So, we went into a period of—a new phase: What happened was, you had people who had been born under Truman. Now, of course, people four, five years old don't know much about politics, usually. But, by the 1950s, they were being conditioned, those who went to suburbia; the atmosphere of what was called "McCarthyism" in that period, was really hideous. And these young people were trained, in a way, where they became what we call in philosophy, Sophists. They were told, there is no truth, there is only public opinion, that sort of thing. And therefore, when they got hit with the crisis, the Missile Crisis of 1962, the Kennedy assassination, the launching of the Indo-China War, many of these young guys went crazy. They became known as the 68er phenomenon, the rock-drug-sex counterculture. That sort of thing.

So, you had a generation which, in a sense, rejected the Roosevelt tradition, the American tradition, of agro-industrial progress, scientific and technological progress, that sort of thing. As a reaction, you had, Nixon came in, because many Americans of my generation were enraged at these youth! They were enraged, because they saw them attacking the country, attacking the values of the country, and so forth. And so, this impulse, from even Democrats, hating this phenomenon of 1968, went over to Nixon. This was used to create the attempt to make a dictatorship here, under Nixon. That got jammed up. But we're still suffering the damage.

Now these young guys, who are the generation born after 1945-46, these guys began to tear down the country. And you saw this, the mood among young adults, now in their 20s, approaching their 30s, under Carter (really under Brzezinski), destroyed the country!

SZYMANSKI: How, in a sense—you know, in your generation, I see a manufacturing mentality, I see a production mentality. Now, in the 68 generation, in the generation now, how did they destroy it, not only governmentally, but socially? What has happened? What's changed here?

LAROUCHE: They were brainwashed. First of all, the sheer terror—remember, young guys raised in society, which they believed—

SZYMANSKI: Lyndon, can you hold that? I got some music in the background, we've got to take a break for three minutes. I'm going to get back with Lyndon LaRouche, on the Republic Broadcasting Network. I'm going to tell you how to get ahold of his website. I'm Greg Szymanski... [commercial break]

We're back on the Tuesday edition of The Investigative Journal. I'm your host, Greg Szymanski: We have a powerhouse on the political scene, Lyndon LaRouche, with us today. He's been around for over 50 years. Seen everything from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the administration presently in power. Lyndon, I just want to let people know how to get ahold of you, so they can read more about your positions right now. It's A great website. And you can also call, and ask questions and talk to Lyndon's organization, at 1-800-929-7566. And we have a short segment here, and then we have a whole 'nother half-hour that Lyndon's going to provide us to some solutions to the economic situation and the political situation we find ourselves in today.

But, first I want to take a caller. He's Jeff, from Massachusetts, and he had a question about the Federal Reserve System. Jeff, you're on The Investigative Journal.

Caller: Ah, yes. Lyndon, I'm a history buff myself. And the fact of the matter is, what caused our Depression was two things: Number 1, it was the creation of the Federal Reserve at Jekyll Island. And the creation of the IRS. Because, you see, when you start —

SZYMANSKI: I thought you had a question.

Caller: Yes, my question is: What do you think about the solution of, a) getting America out of the Federal Reserve? And b) getting America out of the United Nations?

LAROUCHE: Well, I'm not worried about the United Nations. That's not really a problem. It can become a problem; some people wanted to make it one. But that could be avoided.

The question of the Federal Reserve System is, in a sense, moot right now. Because, presently, the entire banking system of the United States, and of most of the world, is hopelessly bankrupt. It's bankrupt for reasons that you can consider this recent hedge fund blowouts. Most of the major banks, such as J.P. Morgan, so forth, are heavily operational in the area of hedge funds. The international hedge fund bubble is about to blow.

Now, we're in the situation worldwide, in which the entire financial derivatives system is about to blow out. It's what you're seeing in terms of the General Motors crisis, similar crises. That means, that either we go into chaos, rather soon. Or: The Federal government reacts to this, by putting the entire Federal Reserve System under government protection. Now that means, that the U.S. Treasury, in effect, would take over the Fed, and treat it like any other bankrupt. Now, that does not mean, we're going to have one bank in the United States. It means the subsidiary banks of the Federal Reserve, which compose it, the private interests, are going to be put through bankruptcy reorganization. They're going to keep their doors open; they're going to function. Some things will be frozen for a time. Some things will be cancelled, like financial derivatives obligations—get just cancel 'em, get 'em off the books.

But we need the banking institutions, in order to keep the country functioning, to keep the businesses going, to protect the savings of people. Now, the Federal government is the only institution that can do that.

Now, what that would mean, in a sense, would be you would actually federalize the Federal Reserve System, by putting back under the Constitution, in which the power to create money, located entirely in our Presidency; but the power to authorize the creation of money, located in our Congress, especially in the House of Representatives: That these authorities would then, as Hamilton prescribed, would then constitute a system of national banking—a system of private banks, but under the coordination of a national central banking system, which would be national, not private, as distinct from what we have now. The United States presently has a semi-private banking system, and that is controlled, effectively, by large financial interests, not really the Federal government.

In Europe, you have universally today, private banking systems. The European Central Bank is really—it's raping Europe!

So therefore, what would happen is, in this crisis, is that the Federal government would have to take over the Federal Reserve System, in receivership, to keep the doors open. It would then restructure the private banks, or many of them, and put them back in business as private banks. But in the meantime, it would establish Federal control over our money, as prescribed by the Constitution.

SZYMANSKI: Now, are the Bush and Cheney Administration now taking steps toward this, or what are they doing?

LAROUCHE: No. They're on the way out. Cheney, as we speak this week, is in danger of going out. I don't think he's going to go out immediately—though he could. He could resign in a fit, anytime he wanted to. And the case that's being pushed by Fitzgerald, before the grand jury, has before it now the kind of evidence which could clean out the entire Vice President's operation. And alo—

SZYMANSKI: Lyn, if I could break in here, I may mention one thing: I remember, about several months ago I talked with a couple people in Chicago, and wrote a story that these indictments were coming down, and I took heavy criticism then for not—for writing that story without providing the sources, who didn't want to go public, but it's all coming true now. And, I want to ask you this: Do you feel it's going to be another Nixon scenario?

LAROUCHE: No—it could be. I proposed it. You know, Greg, I've had some influence in this process, in—oh, particularly since the end of last year, or even before then. It came up during the period of the Kerry campaign, especially after Labor Day of last year. So, since that time, with one sequence of events and another, I've been playing a more significant role.

SZYMANSKI: Okay, Lyndon. You know what? We're going to get into that significant role you have with the Senate, the people you communicate with. And we'll be back with a full half-hour, a long segment with Lyndon LaRouche, somebody you have to listen to, somebody I trust the opinion, on the very serious and complicated financial issues facing our country. On the Republic Broadcasting Network. [break]...

We're back on The Investigative Journal, I'm your host, Greg Szymanski. And today we have my guest, Lyndon LaRouche, someone that's been involved in American politics for a long, long time. I want to give you his website again, and phone number, so you can read all about the many things Lyndon is talking about today—so many things we can't cover on this show. We're going to try to do our best in the next half-hour, but you can log on to Lyndon's website at Or, if you'd like to call, you can get ahold of him at 1800-929-7566.

And Lyndon, you've had a long and storied political career: Maybe America's ready for you, now. Do you have any future plans to get involved on the Hill, at all?

LAROUCHE: I'm involved. I'm now, already involved enough, and I'm the kind of guy who will tend to do whatever seems likely he should do. So, that's about as far as I'd go right now. But, I am heavily involved. I'm very concerned with the outcome of things that are going on on the Hill, right now.

SZYMANSKI: And tell us what's going on. What are you concerned about? What's really happening with some of these Senators, like Kerry, McCain? Are they really fulfilling their obligation of serving the people?

LAROUCHE: Oh, I don't know—I wouldn't put it that simply. Because I don't like to put guarantees on other people, because I don't control them. And what I don't control, I say, I can't assure people of!

SZYMANSKI: I guess, I could ask then, what's your opinion about that?

LAROUCHE: Well, I have a very strong opinion. I think many of these guys—and not all of them have been "good boys"—are now in a position, they realize the seriousness of the situation facing our country. This economic crisis, which they all know—they may not know it as well as they should, but they know it—and with the most failed war the United States has ever involved itself in, in Iraq; and the plight of the soldiers we have there, which, we can't get 'em in, and we can't get 'em out. We could, but we'd have to change policy. So, the military crisis, as it affects so many of our people who are in military services, or associated with people who are, our military institutions, our members of Congress who are associated with, care for the military institutions—ranging from certain Republicans who are involved, like Charles Rangel on the Democratic side—they're all concerned.

So, we're united now, by an understanding, we have an international monetary-financial crisis, the system is coming down; and we have a strategic crisis in Iraq, which is of this administration's making, which is the worst in our military history. So, this has caused a lot of people to unite, and agree with me on one thing: We can not keep going the way we've been going. We have to change.

SZYMANSKI: You're talking about spending in Iraq, and the way our economy's going. Correct.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Not the spending. It's the fact that the financial system is collapsing. This whole system, internationally, is about to disintegrate! In the biggest—

SZYMANSKI: When you say, about to disintegrate, what's going to be the first big sign? Is it going to be a housing crisis, General Motors?

LAROUCHE: Already here. It's all here. We are in a process of collapse, now. It is not something that is going to happen, it is something that is already happening. When people talk about collapse, they think about the end-phase of collapse, when everything is flat. I talk about collapse when it's happening, not after it's happened. Some people want to talk about a collapse, at the point after it's happened. I'm talking about a collapse at a time you can still deal with it, you can still stop it.

SZYMANSKI: Now, you were talking about the Federal Reserve solution. Are there any other solutions that you would have?

LAROUCHE: Well, sure. We have to get rid of this administration. We have to re-craft it. That can be done on short notice. What the Fitzgerald grand jury is doing, and some other things related to that in the woodwork, would get rid of the Cheney apparatus, and the WHIG apparatus, that is the Iraq War apparatus. And, that would isolate the current President, who is really not much there, would isolate him from the Cheney phenomenon, which is the real danger here. Get Cheney out. Get George Shultz out—get the machine, the Halliburton machine out, and people like that. Get the money machine behind the derivatives, get them out! And put the country back in the control of a Presidency, which itself is controlled by a sense of the interest of the country. That could not be the case as long as Cheney has any control, and his crowd has any control, over the Presidency. The President is a complete incompetent.

So, my view is, we've got to get Cheney out now. He could go out this week. He could go out later—.

SZYMANSKI: You've called Bush incompetent, many other names; you've called Cheney certain things. You've called the Congress "gutless" at times. What do you mean, when you say, we have a gutless group of people controlling our country, right now?

LAROUCHE: For example: In the spring of this year, I warned of what the implications of an onrushing collapse of the automobile industry would be. We talked with the Congress about pension crisis, which we now have. The Congress, in the spring, listened to what I had to say, many were interested—but they didn't do anything. Now, more airlines have collapsed; the price of petroleum at the pump is three times what it was before; we have a general breakdown of the system; we're going to have hyperinflation in food and everything else, as it goes on; our transportation system is collapsing; our auto industry is about to go out of business—that is, the U.S. side of manufacturing automobiles; we're probably going to cut out the majority of our parts manufacturing for automobiles in the United States.

We're going to close down whole sections of the country, from northern New York State, western New York, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and so forth. We're going to aggravate the condition of housing in the states around the country. We're facing the biggest housing-mortgage bubble in history, which is ready to pop—and any big crash will pop the mortgage bubble, and you'll have houses that are going in some areas, they're really tarpaper shacks, glorified with Hollywood construction, going for $1 million mortgage, and the market value will drop to $250,000, $150,000—and this can happen rapidly.

So, we're going into a degree of depression, beyond belief!

Now, all of this was clear. I warned about it. Many people in the Congress agree with me on this. But the decision was, not to do anything. So now, here it is October, going on November. I was talking about this in April—and the thing is coming on fast.

So, the problem is, is that there's a certain reluctance, inertia, within the Legislative branch of government, particularly because the House of Representatives doesn't function. That could be fixed too, with getting DeLay out of there. So, that's the kind of situation.

But, you have to understand one thing: Our system of government is a Presidential system. The House of Representatives and the Senate, especially the Senate, can do great things for the country. But when it comes to a major crisis, a crisis where executive decision is required, as opposed to merely legislative decision—without an effect Executive branch, we can't function. As long as we have a Bush-Cheney Administration, we do not have an effective branch. And unless the Senate is willing to take on the Bush-Cheney Administration directly, it can't do any of the things that have to be done.

SZYMANSKI: There were two things I was interested in: One, was the possibility, there's been talk about a coup in the military, that's going on right now. And that's ever since certain things have happened—a four-star general was fired, strangely, recently; Other talks about certain people in the military rebelling against the Cheney moves, first into Iraq, and then talk about him planning nuclear attacks, with ordering STRATCOM to prepare nuclear attacks against Iran; and now, this talk about Syria.

Bring us up to date about what's going on, the best you can behind the scenes from your knowledge, with Cheney's action. Even though he's on the rocks right now, is he still moving towards any kind of move towards Iran or Syria?

LAROUCHE: Well, see, Cheney is not an entity unto himself, he's a tool. He's not a very intelligent person, he's a thug. But you sometimes have thugs, as in the mafia, exerting power over ordinary people. He's actually controlled by a financial group. And he does represent a group in the military which we call the spoon-benders. These are the wild-eyed nuts, who have more power than is good for them. Or good for the rest of the world. And they're on a killer course.

He also represents a group internationally, an international financier group, which believes that government must be reduced to a pitiful also-ran, and eliminated in most cases. What they want is an empire, based on globalization. And they don't want government to interfere with the power of the international financial institutions.

So you have this financial element, combined with a certain corrupt element in the military, which is powerful; certain large corporations which are instruments of the same thing.

Then, you have the honest military. For example: Now, like you get a reflection like the 90-9 against torture, in the Senate. Now this is a reflection of a patriotic impulse, inside the institutions, including the military, saying "We're going to put the check on these nuts, these wild-eyed, killer nuts, these Nazi types, which are pulling these operations."

In the meantime, Cheney and his crowd are for spreading wars, not to win wars, but for spreading it! To destroying whole sections of the world, by turning these sections of the world into what they call "failed states," as they've done with Iraq; as they've done with Afghanistan; as they plan to do with Syria; plan to do with the entire Middle East area.

So, you have the conventional, shall we say, the "traditional" layers, in government and around government, "Hey! We've been sleeping here. These guys are taking over!" and resisting—that's good. They don't resist well enough; they don't have an executive impulse to fix the problem. We don't have an FDR in the White House. You have to have somebody with that kind of decision-making capability, backed up by our institutions, and we could do things.

Now, my view is, that if you get Cheney out—and the charges against him are substantial, valid, and very serious. He's crippled already. He's not rendered toothless. He's not toothless by any means—he could start World War III tomorrow, with his friends! But, he is on the verge of being defeated.

SZYMANSKI: If he's on the verge right now, what do you think his reaction is going to be, knowing who's behind him, knowing [overtalk]...

LAROUCHE: He's going to want to kill! He's going to want to start a war, and kill somebody. He's a thug!

SZYMANSKI: Now, first talk was Iran. Now we're tearing Syria. What's your thinking?

LAROUCHE: They want that. They're targetting Syria for no good reason, because they want to spread the war. They're not in a position—for example, let's take the case of Israel. Israel, even under Sharon, has hesitation about going into Iran. They also have tremendous hesitation about going into Syria. Because any Israeli, including Sharon—maybe Netanyahu's different—knows that, you go into Syria, you're going to destroy the whole territory, and nobody's going to live in that territory, including the Israelis. So therefore, he does not want to go into Syria. Israel has been on the verge of a treaty with Syria for a long period of time. It's never been realized, but it's always been lurking there, as a potentiality. Because an agreement between Israel and Syria could mean stabilization of the region.

Iran, they're less reluctant to go along, but they don't want to do it. Because Iran has never been an enemy of Israel. And they don't want to make it an enemy of Israel. They would rather have it as a partner—they've had a partnership with Iran for a long period of time, the Israelis.

So therefore, Cheney is pushing, nonetheless. Since they can't get—they're jammed up on this preemptive war against Iran, which some of us jammed them up on. So now, they go to this thing on Syria, saying, we can do it "el cheapo," and start the thing in Syria and then spread it from there. The excuse, of course, is: We've got troops in Iraq. We have no way of getting them out, really, now—that is, on force, efficiently. The country's blowing up. The British have lost control of the Basra area, which means evacuation by way of Kuwait is not feasible, really, now. You have evacuation by way of Jordan, is not functional for related reasons. And we're getting to the point, we're going to have to get the troops out! How're you going to get them out? Well, someone says, "Well, let's have a war with Syria. We're move the troops out from Iraq into Syria."

So, you have things like that. We're in that kind of situation, where Hitler-style madness, in terms of policy, is radiating from people around Cheney. And that's why I say—

SZYMANSKI: Now, you're calling for the solution to be, to rid us of Cheney. Let's say that does occur: How do you see this Iraq situation playing out, then? What are our options?

LAROUCHE: Well—let's take the case: you have Tim Collins, a British colonel, who's an advisor to the Conservative Party in England. You have General Odom, who's a high-ranking general, in retirement, but very influential still in the United States. Odom has stated very clearly what the situation is: We have to reorganize our approach to Iraq. Forget this phony government they've organized now. We have to avoid a civil war inside of Iraq. We have to negotiate with the Iraqis for them to agree on something that will enable us to get out. Pull our troops into reserve areas, where we're no longer on the streets of Iraq, but we're in hedgehog areas—waiting to back something up, but also waiting to get out.

If Cheney is gone, with the initiative we have now in the Congress—I mean, if Cheney's people are gone, for example, if Scooter Libby is gone; if the whole pack who are suspected of being the guys who did this job to Valerie Plame; if these guys are out, then Cheney is a weakened dog. And he may go out, because he was in the middle of all of this. Cheney is the guy who planned the operation, which violated the law, in the Valerie Plame case. He is the guy, by rights, who should be in prison! He's now damaged goods. He's weakened. Every day he's weakened, he's weakened more. I would hope by the end of the week, that he's so weakened he can't pull off an operation.

You know, a guy who's running as top dog, as long as people are afraid of him, can get away with murder, in the face of cowards. Once you take away that aura of power, from a thug like Cheney, who has no substance, no intellectual substance behind him; no morality, and no popularity behind him; this guy can go from being conceived as the superman, to being a wimp sitting on the block crying.

SZYMANSKI: And that's a good analogy. A great analogy. I'd love to see it happen in the next week.

LAROUCHE: It could happen. And we hope it happens. And if it does happen, you're going to get a thing like—McCain, of course, is ambitious. McCain would like to be the replacement for Cheney, by being nominated to replace him. McCain would like dearly for that, and then he would run for President in the next election. That would be his way he would like to do things—particularly with a very weak, personally weak, President. But, I think other people in the system have different ideas, all going in the same direction. How do we get a Presidency, an Executive branch that can work? How can we patch something together? And I think that can happen now. It's not guaranteed—.

SZYMANSKI: But, what will Bush do, with Cheney not there any longer? What's his reaction? Are they just going to give him another script to read?

LAROUCHE: No, he might have a breakdown. He might decide to leave. He's not a very strong person. [as end of segment music comes up]

SZYMANSKI: I see. Well, listen Lyn, we're going to pick that up, and talk a few final things with Lyndon LaRouche on the Republic Broadcasting Network in our final segment. I'm Greg Szymanski, your host. [break]...

We're back for our final short segment on The Investigative Journal. I'm with Lyndon LaRouche, who's been real kind enough to spend an hour with us, and I believe it's been a good lesson in how we got to this point, and what we can do, to correct our situation both financially and our situation overseas right now in Iraq. Before I run out of time, let me give you Lyndon's website again, and a phone number....

And there's two things I'd like to talk to you about on the final, short segment, here, Lyndon. One, is that commercial we were just listening to, asking to bring the troops home now? Whatever happens with Cheney or not, is that feasible?

LAROUCHE: It is feasible. It has to be a process, and it has to be a policy. I've been talking about this with Arabs and others for some time, about trying to feel out what we could do, or what we could agree to do. I think we could pull it off. A change in the administration, with a temper of the people who would make the change.

You know, there are a lot of people who have not been fighting, who would actually agree with the issues on which we should fight. But they don't actually fight. And I think, that if we show that we have the guts, to get this Cheney thing under control—and that is still not a guarantee, that's a big "if," but it's a hopeful "if": If we do that, I think you'll see a change in the country, and I think you'll see a willingness, particularly among military people who will advise the American people on what is possible, on what we should do; and there are people out there who have that competence and that commitment: In that case, we can make it out of this mess.

SZYMANSKI: Now, two last things I want to get to. I want to get your short opinion here on 9/11. I've come to the conclusion that it's been a government inside job. What's your feeling about what happened there?

LAROUCHE: As I warned back the beginning of the year 2001, before Bush was inaugurated, I said, this guy is an incompetent; he's coming into a financial crisis which is already fully in process, since the collapse of the IT bubble. He's totally incompetent, therefore I'm looking at the potentiality of what Hermann Goering did for Hitler back in February of 1933: Somebody's going to set fire to the Reichstag, and use that crisis to establish dictatorship. Somebody set fire to some buildings in the United States, and somebody was there with a plan to make a dictatorship, called the Patriot Act. So, the evidence is there. That's what was done to us. Somebody did it—I know the type of person that did it. I don't know who the person was, but I know the type of person that did it, because of my experience with the history of these things.

And the problem with Cheney around, is that with Cheney around, and desperate, if he sees the capability of doing it, he'll try it.

SZYMANSKI: And you think he'll do it again?

LAROUCHE: He would do it again, if he saw the possibility of doing it.

SZYMANSKI: Now: Without—do you ever foresee—and I talk about this, write about it a lot—do you ever foresee the real, true culprits coming to justice in the United States, and getting to the point of finding out who committed 9/11?

LAROUCHE: What I see is the possibility of a different kind of justice: Is putting the people who should be representatives of our government, in power. And sorting it out from there.

SZYMANSKI: You know something? I'm going to have to take off, right now. This is our final seconds here, on The Investigative Journal on Tuesday. I want to take time, though, to thank you for being with us. We'll have you back again. An hour wasn't long enough. Lyndon, I really appreciate you being here. [closes with website and phone number]

All rights reserved © 2005 EIRNS