From Volume 3, Issue Number 41 of EIR Online, Published Oct. 12, 2004

Latest From LaRouche

LaRouche PAC Press Release

MAYORS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE RIGHT: — CANDIDATES MUST ADDRESS PHYSICAL ECONOMY

Oct. 8—"The mayors and elected officials who held a press conference in Cleveland, Ohio Oct. 4, are right," said Lyndon LaRouche, founder of LaRouche PAC, today. "The Presidential debates must address the 'real problems' the American people face, starting with infrastructure and physical economy."

LaRouche was referring to a press conference by leaders from the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties—Republicans and Democrats—who urged President George Bush and Senator John Kerry to address domestic and economic issues that are critically affecting the citizens of this country. LaRouche's political action committee, which is actively campaigning in Ohio in support of Democrat John Kerry, is highlighting the very same issue, in a mass pamphlet entitled "It's the Physical Economy, Stupid!"

Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, put it this way in the press conference: "What's relevant is, how are we going to address the job loss? How are we going to rebuild our economic base, especially in the urban centers? How are we going to address reinvestment in our infrastructure? ... Those are the issues that are on the agenda and should be the ones we are pushing during the debates—to force the candidates to talk about them in real terms, not just made-up phrases about how they are thinking about a program."

Added Steve Burkeholder, Republican Mayor of Lakewood, Colo., "During the past 15 months, we've heard much about the Federal investment in rebuilding the infrastructure overseas, yet we haven't heard an honest discussion about what the candidates are prepared to do to rebuild our own aging infrastructure."

In stating his agreement with the mayors, LaRouche urged that the real issues of jobs and infrastructure development, which the mayors and other officials identified, be taken up in the Presidential debate to be held in St. Louis tonight—as well as at next week's debate, which is explicitly intended to be devoted to the economy.

For more information, or to see the LaRouche Physical Economy pamphlet, visit www.larouchepac.com. or call toll-free, 1-800-929-7566.

LaRouche PAC Press Release

LAROUCHE: LATEST DEBATE PROVES BUSH IS A LIAR

Oct. 9—"The President is a liar," said leading Democrat Lyndon LaRouche in response to the Oct. 8 Presidential debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. "Whether the President knowingly lied, or lied because of some junk that was fed to him, he lied to the American people, and we cannot afford to have a U.S. President who lies."

Some of the leading lies from the October 8 debate were:

1. Challenged on his rush to war without a plan for the peace, President Bush said, "Of course, I listened to our generals."

This is an outright lie, since General Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, had publicly said that several hundred thousand troops were necessary to secure Iraq, and he had been "retired" as a result.

2. Several times throughout the debate, President Bush said that his Administration had created 1.9 million jobs in the last 13 months and that "we're growing," and "small business is flourishing."

This is an outright lie or hallucination. First, over 80% of the jobs allegedly created were "computer projections," i.e. virtual jobs, imputed to new businesses assumed to have been started but which have never been surveyed by the Labor Department to know if they exist or not. Second, the overall job figures have gone down since Bush took office, by at least a net 600,000 jobs, and by many more manufacturing jobs. Senator Kerry is right that President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to see a collapse in jobs during his term.

Thirdly, there is no growth in the economy, unless one counts debt as growth. Poverty has increased by at least 4.3 million people since President Bush took office, reaching 36 million people according to the ridiculously low standard upon which the government statisticians compute. Many major urban centers have a poverty rate of over 20%, due to the collapse of manufacturing jobs, with the major city of Cleveland having a rate of over 31%.

3. When confronted on the shockingly inadequate security and economic infrastructure required to protect the country against terrorism, such as hospital infrastructure, first responders, and checking of cargo at ports and airports, President Bush claimed that he had tripled spending for homeland security.

This is an outright lie according to government figures, which show that the Homeland Security Department spending went from $19.7 billion in FY 2001, to $36.5 billion in FY 2004. More importantly, of course, it was inadequate to the task, since, as Senator Kerry said, this level of spending has left the necessary infrastructure inadequate to handle day-to-day life, much less an emergency.

These three examples by no means exhaust the President's lies, which included his insistence that his "lower taxes on the rich" tax plan is necessary to protect small business; his claim that Senator Kerry's health plan would hand all decisions over to the Federal government; and his denial that he owned a timber company (which was, in fact, listed on his 2001 tax return).

For more information on President Bush and Vice-President Cheney's lies about Iraq and the economy, see larouchepac.com.

LaRouche in Dialogue:

WE ARE THE SPEARHEAD FOR A NOVEMBER VICTORY

Here are excerpts from the discussion that followed Lyndon LaRouche's opening remarks to the webcast on Oct. 6.

Question (From Missouri State Rep. Juanita Walton): Mr. LaRouche, I feel that you think, to overcome election fraud, we have to get as many Democrats out to vote as possible. But, what about the computers that are being used for voting that we know can cause massive fraud? How do we address this?"

LaRouche: I think there's only one way to deal with it, and that is to have an overwhelming, mass turnout. Youth are the answer. Look, for example, we are getting a very good result in Ohio, where we've got a special emphasis, now. We've picked out Ohio as one of our concentration areas, because the Ohio-Michigan area, it touches Pennsylvania and northern Kentucky, are typical. We also have something different on the West Coast, and something different in Texas, and whatnot.

But, in this area we are getting a storming of turnout for youth and other voters. The registration turnout is massive. Now, what we are hitting, is exactly what the enemy thought would never happen, including the Democratic Party enemies. Some people in the Democratic Party wanted to limit this to the "usual" voter—you know, who voted in three out of four of the last Federal elections—ignoring the lower 80% who haven't voted, because they're disgusted, and ignoring also the youth layer, 18 to 25, because they're also estranged.

Now, what we're getting, and we're getting it because of the a catalyst of our activity in Ohio and Michigan, we're getting, especially in Ohio, we're getting a massive—. Our people are deployed, singing and so forth, our youth, or otherwise. They go out and they're organizing, in the way they organize. People come around and now the Democratic register teams, which are not able to do much otherwise, have gotten onto the fact that if they come around to where we're doing the organizing, they can work the crowd and get the signatures for the registration. And, we're getting a lot of that.

So, the key thing here is, we're acting as a spearhead, because we know there's a lot of gutlessness on the part of the Democratic Party. We know that the Democratic Party does not know how to deal with youth. They don't know. They parade them; they organize them, like cattle, and try to parade them into an event! That is not the way you organize youth.

What you do, is you turn them loose and hope they don't set fire to something. We do a little better than that, but, the point is, you use the youth as a catalyst, and use other groups, who will work with youth on this basis, as a catalyst. We have to turn out the vote. The number of non-voters in this country, who should vote, is disgusting.

We are getting, in some areas of the country—now, Ohio is crucial. Ohio is the pivotal state, because it was the richest state in the country at one point, and now it is one of the poorest. Western Pennsylvania, Michigan—these areas. What we saw around Louisville: That area is a very good area, because it has some trade-union people and so forth, in that area, as a constituency. It has issues and can organize. Arkansas has a potential. You have Texas, has potential. We are running a very serious challenge to DeLay down there, with people who are opponents to DeLay, who are able to put a factor in there, with our organizing, which otherwise wouldn't occur.

Arnie Is a Fascist

For example, one of the big problems of this campaign has been Kennedy's in-law, Schwarzenegger. When Schwarzenegger came on, Clinton went in there, in a normal way to support the Democratic cause against this fascist. And, this guy is a fascist, period. His policies are fascist. His pedigree is fascist. His background is fascist. He's fascist on every question, including women and so forth. But the Democratic Party said, "No. We're not going to fight." Our youth movement, in the Bay Area and Los Angeles area, where we had forces we could concentrate, fought. We won! In every other area of the state, the Democratic Party threw the election to Schwarzenegger. And, it's that throwing of that vote to Schwarzenegger which is the curse hanging around the neck of the entire Democratic Party campaign, from that time to the present, which is the key problem here.

You have a certified idiot, George Bush. The guy's a psychopath! You saw him! Now, Justin Frank gives you some of the parameters to understand, when you think this guy's nuts; you got a good psychiatrist, who comes around and says, "Yeah, you're right, he really is nuts." Then you see Cheney, and I tell you he's a sociopath. You've had experience in politics, you know what these sociopaths are like. And, he's an extreme case! So, you have a psychopath and a sociopath running for President and Vice President.

Don't you think we could defeat those easily, under normal circumstances? You think any less competent President ever existed, as compared to this poor dummy, mean-spirited dummy in the White House now? I was thinking of putting cotton batting around the thing to suppress the screams until the election is over.

We threw it. And the Kennedys, and others, blew it! When they should have fought, they didn't fight. We came in. And, when Bill Clinton came in seriously, and convinced Kerry to be more serious about trying to win, the campaign changed. So, we're coming from way behind. We should have been at this stage we're at now, in May or June of this year.

But, I think with the crisis, we have the potential. The turnout for the debate, with a cliff-hanger, where Kerry actually did, relative to Bush, a good job. Not as good as I would have done, in terms of taking the issues; but, on the issues he did well, he did very well. And, he showed Bush up for a psychopath to an international public. I think Edwards did fairly well. I don't think it was a cliff-hanger in the sense that Kerry did a cliff-hanger against Bush, because I don't think Edwards understood, that Cheney is a sociopath. He probably has not run across that kind of thing in the courtroom in his career as a litigator. So, he didn't know how to deal with a sociopath.

You tell a sociopath he's a coward. "Why are you afraid to tell the truth, Cheney? Why are you afraid to tell the truth? Why do you keep telling lies? Why are you afraid to tell the truth?" A sociopath would blow up. And what we wanted was a blow-up. And what the Democratic Party appeared not to want is a blow-up. But, to deal with Cheney you had to cause a blow-up. To deal with Cheney the way Kerry dealt with Bush, you had to risk this explosion. And the way to risk the explosion is to make the guy unmask himself. And he didn't do it.

So, I think the key thing here—we're coming from behind. It's our own fault. It's the Democratic Party. We have to, at this point, count on trying to use the youth factor as much as possible. And trying to use also, in a state like Missouri, the spill-over factor that we can get in some states, to spill out over quickly into other states. Because the key thing we're up against, is a psychological factor. The people are more than ready-ripe to turn out to vote. They're not inspired to turn out to vote. What they need is examples of successful campaigns which they can use.

The most effective thing so far, to this effect, apart from our youth work, would be to work with others in the Michigan-Ohio area, where we had full cooperation with development Democrats, so, we were able to do what we should do with our limited forces. I think Kerry's dealing with Bush opens the case, because now, no one can deny it. We have to exploit that. But the only way we are going to win against the fraud is, right now, overwhelm the ballot by turning out the youth, and getting people to be turned out, by the youth turning out.

Iraq, and Strategic Defense

Question (From East Orange, N.J. City Council President Zachary Turner): I was pretty impressed last night with Senator Edwards. But, I wasn't comfortable with his international policy. So, my question to you basically will be, what would be your plan to exit out of Iraq?

LaRouche: The problem there is that, both Kerry and Edwards are trying to look like good machos. Kill, kill, kill. I don't think the President of the United States should say, we're going in there to kill anybody. Kerry obviously has a distinguished military record, of a certain type at a certain level. But, he's not really a strategic thinker. What should have been said—and I don't think Kerry or Edwards could have carried the ball on that one; we have some military people who could—he doesn't understand the principle of strategic defense. You don't kill anybody! You may end up killing somebody, but you don't go out with the desire to kill people! That's wrong.

The modern policy of strategic defense was developed in several ways. It was developed in part by the defeat of Napoleon in Russia. The interesting thing was, the Russian generals, originally, under Czar Alexander I, intended to say, "We're going to stop Napoleon at the border." And, some Germans, Prussians, including an in-law of Friedrich Schiller, based on the studies by Schiller of the Netherlands War and the Thirty Years' War, said, "No. The way you do it is you have a staged retreat to draw Napoleon's forces into a position where they can be defeated, crushed."

Now, there were two objectives that Napoleon could have marched to, Petrograd or Moscow. Napoleon fortunately made the worst possible choice, Moscow. So the Russian troops carried out the order, accepted by Alexander I as policy, not to decisively engage Napoleon's forces, but to retreat, rearguard action, all the way to Moscow. He finally got to Moscow in the wintertime. The joint was mined. The Russian forces, which had been conserved, by not going to a decisive battle with Napoleon, were sitting outside Moscow. The city blew up. Napoleon had to retreat. The forces which had been conserved, plus an asymmetric warfare force, mobilized the Russian people, fell upon the heels of Napoleon and destroyed his army by the time he reached back to Poland.

Since that time, as in the case of MacArthur's conduct in the Pacific, our role, as in the United States, our best people, always used the policy of strategic defense. We did not go out to try to deliver an attack, a winning attack, a crushing attack. Our long-term thing is political. We have to establish our security; therefore, let us not seek war. Let us try to force a situation, in which we can bring about peace.

Now, take the Middle East, for example. It is true the United States can not cut and run from Iraq now, because, you'd just make things worse. But the question is, how would we get out? The first stage came, and the problem after the error of going in, in the first place—the first stage, was, in the time that Bremer was ordered from Washington to discharge the Iraqi army and the Ba'athist politicians from government. Had he not done that, then the Ba'athist Army, now working under U.S. occupation, and the Ba'ath bureaucrats working under U.S. occupation, would have organized and stabilized the country. And, then we could have gotten out in a peaceful way. They did the absolutely worst possible thing.

Now, the problem here is, which was not said by Kerry and was not said by Edwards—I don't think either of them understood it really, or maybe they didn't wish to understand it. The problem here was that, the intention of Cheney to go into Iraq occurred during the first Bush Administration. And, it never changed. So, that the only reason they went to a war in Iraq, was because of a policy which Cheney had supported against President Bush's advisers, such as Scowcroft, during the close of the so-called first Iraq war, Desert Storm. So, that's why we went to war.

Now, if you want to talk about this thing, you have to talk about that. You don't talk about what the issues of going to war were. And, also the problem that Kerry has, he showed gutlessness in the Senate, political gutlessness—unlike Senator Byrd—he voted for an act empowering the President. It was a blank check, a signed blank check to President Bush, which Byrd correctly denounced. It's a violation of our Constitution. It's a violation of the War Powers principle of our Constitution. Kerry supported it, along with others, who acted in a cowardly, opportunistic manner! That's the inception of the problem. Therefore, they won't tell the truth.

The truth is—and where Kerry also goofed up, and where Edwards goofed up (they didn't talk to me, or they probably wouldn't have made that mistake)—they said, "You've got to kill people in North Korea." You're crazy!

We had a peaceful situation, in negotiation with North Korea, on all issues under Clinton. The Bush Administration came in and cancelled it! So, now we've got ourselves into a totally unnecessary situation with North Korea. We have insisted, under Bush, in perpetuating and aggravating that situation ever since. We participated in overthrowing South Korean governments, who wanted to cooperate, opposite to the Bush policy.

So, the point is, is that Kerry and Edwards did not tell the truth about the thing. Therefore they got themselves into a bind, and said, "We're machos, we want to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill."

Who Created Osama bin Laden?

Well, you want to talk about Osama bin Laden—who created Osama bin Laden? Vice President George Bush, together with Jimmy Goldsmith. They went and they recruited this guy, as an organizer for the Afghanistan war. They set him up in business, and then later, he was cut loose. But, he's still operating, and I wonder if the British are still running him.

And, why did, as Edwards emphasized, why did the United States cut and run when they had him in a box, and go into Iraq? Because the policy of the Bush Administration, under Cheney's direction, was to go to a series of nuclear armed wars, involving targets that included Jordan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and ultimately China and Russia!

Their policy is to set up a world empire, a world Anglo-American empire, which is a deal they cut with London, with Tony Blair, by a series of wars, which would destroy nation-states; end nation-states in Europe by setting up the European Union, to end the existence of nation-states in Europe! Finish off Russia by causing it to disintegrate, by operations from the North Caucasus and similar kinds of things. That's the policy.

Well, if I'm President, I wouldn't have a problem, would I? First of all, in the Arab world, I'm probably the only American politician the Arab world would trust, right now. The only one. If Kerry wants to get out of the problems in the Middle East, he'd better come and talk to me: Because I have the credentials, he does not. And he didn't help himself, the other way around. What we do then, if they would trust me, they wouldn't trust anybody else, and they'd watch me like a hawk, because they're very suspicious.

But we could get it, because we have to get one thing, and this is where Kerry and Edwards will not bite the bullet: You have to deal with justice for the Palestinians. You can not scream that the problem Israel has, is a bunch of crazy Palestinians. You've had a war going on, between Palestinians and Israelis, for some period of time. You had a relatively sane phase under the Labor government, and I dealt with the Labor government back in the middle of the 1970s. And we had a plan for a peace plan for the Middle East. At that time, Labor government leaders, including Shimon Peres, were supporting me and praising me for what I was doing: Because what I proposed is a development program, including water development and power development for the region, so that people would have enough water and power to live and develop together. That without a constructive economic development plan, there can be no peace in the Middle East.

You have to have a broker who sort of forces it down the throats of the parties. The only effective broker would be the United States, as Clinton correctly thought. He may not have handled it perfectly. He may have been misled on some points, but he had the right idea, of going in that direction. Only the United States can bring about the condition of Middle East peace. If you can not bring about Middle East peace between the Palestinians and Israelis now—and it could be done—you have no possibility of settling the general crisis in the Middle East today.

And with the circumstances we have now, in Iraq: You have Turkey engaged, by the threat from northern Iraq; you have the whole Transcaucasia area engaged, against Russia; you have Iran engaged; you have all the Arab countries engaged.

And the way this Darfur [Sudan] thing is being mishandled and misrepresented, including by Kerry, is part of the problem. The target is of certain people to try to destroy Egypt, by destroying Sudan. Garang is a U.S. agent. Garang's agents are part of the slaughter. That's the genocide—Garang, the U.S. agent, is supporting the killing in that area. The other agent is al-Turabi, who's a British agent, of Muslim Brotherhood pedigree. A former supporter of the government of Sudan. So you say the Sudanese government is doing it; it is the United States government that's doing it, with the British. They created the situation in which this happened. There is death occurring there. Yes. It should be corrected. But who's doing it? It's the United States government, who is as guilty as anybody else in doing it. And it's holier-than-thou "we're gonna get the government there": The purpose is, they're going to grab the water and oil of the region, from Sudan. And while they grab the water, they're going to collapse Egypt. You collapse Egypt, you want peace? You want Hell on Earth?

This is the kind of problem we have. As you say, you get into this situation, where it's obvious that what they're saying doesn't really make sense. It smells. You get uncomfortable about it. When you know the facts as I do, you know what the problem is. All they have to do, is say that I'm going to negotiate in this area. Ask me as a special negotiator for the U.S. government in the area, and we'd get some results.

Armageddon and Israel

Question (From Yarin magazine, a Turkish journal): Mr. LaRouche, what we have heard here is that Mr. Bush is much occupied with religious philosophies. Now, with all respect to every faith, we want to know, if a President claims that he gets divine revelations from God; if he thinks that to start the Armageddon war, Israel has to be victorious over its enemies as the first step, because that's what it says in religious prophesy; and if we hear words like "Push God to start Armageddon, by fulfilling all the preconditions of the incident, i.e., by crushing Arabs and Muslims because they're Israel's enemies," how are we to claim that these are the manifestations of a sane mind, and how do you propose that we react?

LaRouche: First of all, one should never accuse Bush, unjustly of having a sane mind. He doesn't. The guy is insane, frankly.

As for his Christianity, I've dealt with it here. Bush is not a Christian. He has a better claim of being the man from Mars. Or maybe a Jovian something-or-other cult. The man's not a Christian! Why do we say, because he says he's a Christian, we have some obligation to regard him as a Christian? He's not a Christian! He's an idiot! That's his religion.

No, the guy is a basket-case. However, the religion that he pretends to adhere to, which calls itself Christian, is not Christian either. It's like the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, who claims he's the Grand Inquisitor, the defender of Christianity. And he reveals himself to be Satan. So that, actually, in effect, you would say that Bush is better qualified, if anything, as a Satan-worshipper, than anything else.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS