Date:      Sun, 31 Jan 1993 11:52:21 est
From: "John Covici" <covici@ccs.covici.com>
Message-Id: <2b6c03cd.ccs@ccs.covici.com>
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Reply-To: "John Covici" <covici@ccs.covici.com>
To: uunet!css.itd.umich.edu!pauls@uunet.UU.NET
Subject:   EIR Talks with Lyndon LaRouche 01/27/93
Status: RO

   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with Lyndon LaRouche. Want stations in your area
to air a weekly briefing from LaRouche? Call them. The EIR
Press Staff will provide them with a weekly tape for
broadcast. Or they can pull it down from satellite using the
coordinates below. Including breaks for ads and news, each
broadcast is one hour long. 
   The following interview will be broadcast on satellite
from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern this coming Saturday night. 

Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W      |     Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC  or     Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
3:1 Companding, Flat        |     Wide Band Video Subcarrier    

   EIR Talks with Lyndon LaRouche 
   Jan. 27, 1993 
   Interview conducted by Mel Klenetsky 

   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s
``Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm on the line with Mr.
LaRouche. Both Mr. LaRouche and I have a bit of a sore throat,
but I think we're in better shape than the Clinton
administration. 
   First of all, the Clinton administration is just starting,
and already we're seeing several crises. We have the crisis of
Zoe Baird, the crisis now of gays in the military. 
   Mr. LaRouche, what do you think Mr. Clinton has to do to
ward off these crises piling up one after another? 

   LAROUCHE: Well, the problem that Clinton faces is a very
simple one. As I think most people have realized by now, there
was no recovery in the end of 1992. The ``Bush Recovery'' simply
never happened. And Clinton and company made the mistake,
perhaps, of allowing that hoax by Bush to be tolerated. 
   So Clinton is inaugurated, and suddenly everything that the
Bush administration's failures have bequeathed to him, comes
tumbling in. Clinton's crucial problem is the fact that he has
{no economic policy} for recovery. 
   For example. He has a commitment to cut the budget. On the
budget deficit, apart from a proposal to increase the energy tax,
that is, the fuel tax, essentially, he seems to have nothing in
the wind so far. 
   There's a great to-do about Hillary Clinton's being put on
top of a task force to cut medical expenses, but the reforms
which the Clinton people are talking about, in broad terms,
would, as a number of observers have emphasized, cause, at least
over the initial five years, a significant increase in public
expenditures for health care, without increasing health care, in
fact, reducing it. 
   So what Clinton's done, is that since he has given up--at
least temporarily--on the idea of any economic stimulant for the
U.S. economy, he is sitting there with the walls of the economy
tumbling down, unemployment or layoffs increasing, things
becoming worse, the world situation becoming worse, economically
as well as otherwise; and all he is doing is throwing in the
fulfillment of a few among many of his campaign promises.
Abortion, gays in the military, this talk about this health plan,
which is unworkable. 
   I do not know what is going to happen, but they are trying
to do something that {cannot} be done. It is just unworkable. You
cannot fly to the Moon by wax and wings from the surface of the
Earth. It just cannot be done. And that is pretty much what
Hillary has been stuck with. It may lead to a family quarrel. 
   Clinton has got himself caught in an impossible, insoluble
situation. He has to change his policy, but the only thing that
will make a domestic policy work, is to take on the Federal
Reserve, the one thing that Clinton so far seems unwilling to
consider. 

                       - The Gay Issue: -
          - ``Clinton Will Be Caught in a Buzzsaw'' -

   Q: There is quite a bit of a storm around this gays in the
military question. There are some 14 million children, for
example, who are being raised in the context of so-called gay
``marriages'' at this point, and it seems to be raising the issue
to the American people in a way that is creating a storm. 
   Is there an issue here, or is this totally a reaction to
something else that is going on, to the economic situation? 
   LAROUCHE: It is both. First, you see as the Colorado
referendum and some other near misses in the same direction in
other parts of the country indicate, there is a counter-reaction
against the gay upsurge of the past two decades. 
   Remember, the history is that the gays came out of the
closet in about 1970-1971, beginning with a session, a
conference, at NYU, at which a prominent psychiatrist took the
podium to come out of the closet, and in the course of that
conference, induced that particular group of psychologists, to
reverse the hitherto prevailing view that homosexuality was a
neurotic sickness or neurotic disorder, not a biological or some
similar problem. 
   We have had this upsurge in the Rainbow Coalition business
of gays. The gay issue has been posed, to some degree certain
aspects of feminism as well as lesbianism, as something akin to a
racial minority issue. That is, often, in the early days, the
feminist lesbians would compare women to a nation and speak of
women's black nationalism, that is, feminist nationalism or
feminist lesbian nationalism. Those were brushed aside; but the
general thrust is that. 
   There is a reaction in the population against granting gays
and lesbians, so called, the same kind of special consideration
which most of us--at least, those who are not racists--will
submit are required for Black, Hispanic, and other minority
groups. 

   [Commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, can you pick up on the discussion of the
issue of gays in the military? 
   LAROUCHE: The point is, that the very militant gay approach,
to try to invade and take over large areas of social life and to
impose what might be called a gay ideological standard on many
areas of life, has gone far beyond any legitimate concern for
protection of the rights of the person who may happen to be
homosexual, that is, to protect their human rights as human
beings, as human individuals, into something which is ideological
and which is quite objectionable, including hypersensitivity in
the cases of child molesting, which is the area which frightens
and infuriates people in many parts of the country. The child
molesting cases now come under the protection of gay rights
lobbies. And that, particularly where deaths of children are
involved in this sort of thing, has infuriated many. 
   It has also, of course, as everyone knows, infuriated the
so-called ``religious right,'' and so forth. 
   Thus the gays, by overreaching, in the eyes of many people,
have convinced many parts of the population that a halt has to be
called to this, that this is absurd, and that they're demanding
altogether too much, and going into areas they should keep their
noses out of, in terms of policy. So there is a reaction; and
what we are seeing is intersecting the Colorado Resolution and
this issue in the military, and the refractions from Sen. Sam
Nunn. What we are seeing is that gays have gone too far, and
there is going to be a counterreaction against them of great
significance. This is going to mean that Clinton finds himself
caught in a buzzsaw. 
   
                - The Defeat of Proposition 64 -
   - Means That Millions of People Are Dying Unnecessarily -

   Q: A short while ago, associates of yours were involved in
putting Proposition 64 on the ballot in California, which simply
would have said that AIDS is a communicable disease and that it
has to be treated as such, which would have included universal
testing. You and your associates were met with enormous
hostility, especially by the gay community, and they were called
``homophobic.'' Is it the case that AIDS is a gay issue, or is it
an issue of disease? 
   LAROUCHE: Well, when you get mass [AIDS-related] deaths of
children in Africa, we cannot say that these children are engaged
in sexual practices--not infants. 
   There has never been any scientific basis presented to
suggest that HIV transmission is a specifically sexual matter. It
is not a venereal disease in the sense that gonorrhea, syphilis,
and so forth are. Of course, any disease of that nature tends to
be transmitted by intimacy, by bodily fluids, by perspiration and
so forth. All of these things have been noted in an NIH report on
various kinds of secretions. 
   In animals, the AIDS-like viruses are transmitted by things
like horseflies among horses, cows, even the case of media visna
in sheep has been transmitted by aerosols and so forth, among
crowded sheep in huts in the wintertime in Iceland, for example,
which is the famous case from the late 1940s, early 1950s. 
   We were fighting against the disease. We were up against two
things. The major thing we were up against, [was illustrated by]
Surgeon General Koop in October of 1986 in a rather famous
tirade, in which he said AIDS is a dangerous disease but we
cannot afford to fight it, in effect. And so, the government has
put out a lot of lies about this disease, in order to avoid
public pressure which would have forced the government to spend
admittedly many billions of dollars in fighting the disease. 
   What was used by certain forces in the attempt to prevent
this proposition from going through, which would have actually
stormed the country, it would have gotten the country as a whole
demanding this kind of attention to this dangerous disease, was
that homosexuals were used by people like Patty Duke and so
forth, in mass demonstrations (I think something over 100,000 in
one in the Los Angeles area and about 80,000 or something--a
parade against me--in San Francisco, led by a group calling
itself ``Nazis in Leather.'' You can imagine what that looked
like on national television.) So this was used to say that I was
a homophobe and I was out to kill or force homosexuals out of the
closet through testing. We didn't specify mass testing; we simply
required that the existing public law on dangerous communicable
diseases had to be applied by the State government to this
disease; and they used the homosexual movement as a political
vehicle to stop Proposition 64. 
   As a result of the success of using that homosexual movement
for that purpose, many people, including homosexuals, who would
be alive, are going to die. Millions of people are dying of the
AIDS-related problems today, who would not have died if our
proposal had been implemented. 
   Also, for example, among that, we have to include this
upsurge in the epidemic of tuberculosis, which is a byproduct of
the same conditions in the environment, in which the spread of
HIV, etc., is being brewed today. 

      - The LaRouche Comprehensive Health-Care Proposal -

   Q: AIDS today, because of its widespread activity, very much
fits into any kind of national health bill that might be
proposed. What is the difference between your approach to health
care and the kinds of things that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
administration seem to be tossing around? 
   LAROUCHE: I think that the Clintons have been suckered,
totally suckered, into an ideological package which, from any
standpoint, is totally unworkable and totally incompetent. 
   As I have mentioned before, one thing that Bush did which
was good--praiseworthy, shall we say--was his vetoing of this
Oregon Plan, which is pretty much that toward which anything in
the direction of Clinton's proposal would have to go. What this
means essentially, is: deny needed medical care to your
grandmother in order to distribute free band-aids to your
grandchildren. Kill granny, to provide cheap medical care for the
grandchildren. 
   There are many problems in the medical health care area. The
{major} problems are as follows. Number one, the real household
income of the average American today, is, in real terms, that is,
in physical terms, lower than that of 1967-68. If you compare
marketbaskets of purchasing power, you will find that the
American of 1967-68, in, say, the skilled/semiskilled blue collar
category as a reference point, that he and his family were much
better off then, than it is today. 
   Therefore, the costs of medical care {appear} to rise,
because the GNP, in constant terms, has actually fallen, per
capita. 
   Secondly, we have a 20 percent shortage in the number of
beds available in hospital care, relative to the need. So 20
percent of the people, at least, are not getting the care they
require, because we don't have the capacity. We have the
malpractice insurance crisis, which has driven doctors out of
medical practice and has raised the cost of medical practice by
hospitals and by physicians. The insurance costs are
skyrocketing, the premiums, and people have to pay for that. 
   On top of that, the government and other agencies have taken
a limiting view of trying to control costs by regulation, and the
cost of the paperwork and administrative effort on the physicians
in a hospital, who try to keep track of these regulations, both
Federal and insurance company, has become almost a bigger element
of cost in medical care, than the actual cost of delivering the
medical care itself. 
   On top of that, we have the rising cost of real estate and
rising interest costs in past years. The financing costs of
buying equipment and so forth, have gone up tremendously, and
this non-medical element of medical costs, has come in and caused
a zoom in medical costs. 
   If you wanted to deal with the medical situation
effectively, from a cost standpoint, you would say, first of all,
generally, you've got to raise the income of Americans, because
that's a part of your problem. You've got to increase the number
of places available for medical care. Otherwise, you're not going
to help anybody. You've got to tackle this business of the
loading of clerical costs on physicians in hospitals. You've got
to look at the costs of financing charges, which are coming out
of people's medical care, and take some of these extra elements
off the back of the medical profession, expand the medical
profession, cut this problem of malpractice premiums. Get into
that. Cut these insurance premium rates, and then you will find
that we can get back to something which is the state which Mr.
Clinton perhaps would like to reach. But if he doesn't attack it
this way, rather than the way he's going at it, he's going to
fail terribly. 
   There is no way that Hillary Clinton or anybody has such
powers or magic, that they're going to come up with anything that
works that is not a disaster, given the parameters they are using
at present. 

   Q: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been looking at the
plans in other countries, such as Canada and England. Is there
another model that you have looked at, that you would recommend
that we go to, or is there some variation of these plans that you
would recommend? 
   LAROUCHE: I would go to the model we had in the United
States as late as the early 1970s and the kind of medical
delivery system we had then. That worked very well. The best
model, of course, of the social programs in providing health care
was, of course, the German model, again of that period or even
somewhat later. The German model of the '70s, perhaps, was a far
superior model to anything in North America or in England, in
covering all the bases which presumably Mr. Clinton and Mrs.
Clinton would want to cover. 
   But again, there are other aspects which are non-medical
aspects which are the big factors here, the big factor being the
parts of the medical insurance costs, practice insurance costs,
the high interest rate, the effects of that, the financing
charges on hospitals and the actually lower real income per
capita of the most of the population. These are the non-medical
factors which I think are the premium ones that have to be faced.

  - The Increasing Politicization of the Justice Department -

   Q: Let's move on to another issue here. We just saw Mr.
Clinton withdraw his nominee for Attorney General, Zoe Baird.
What is the real issue there? Zoe Baird was accused of hiring
illegal aliens, and this caused quite a bit of protest in the
American population, it seemed. 
   What are we to be concerned with? Is this the concern, are
there other concerns that we should be looking at more, in terms
of picking an Attorney General? 
   LAROUCHE: Of course, I disapprove of what Mrs. Baird was
exposed as having done, which she admitted to. But on the other
hand, two things I have to realize first of all, then get to the
substance of the issue. 
   First of all, it's typical of the modern Yuppie to do that.
You'll find Yuppies all over the nation are scrambling around,
trying to cover themselves legally, because so many Yuppies
around the nation are in the same fix to some degree or another,
that Mrs. Baird found herself in. 
   So if people voted for a Yuppie administration, at least by
a plurality, including Mr. Clinton, who is a perfect image of a
Yuppie in there, they should not be surprised if some of the
people he nominates, have Yuppie habits, which include the
typical Yuppie habit of which Mrs. Baird was accused. 
   Secondly, the way that Mrs. Baird was exposed, was through a
fellow who is a famous radio voice, I guess, a mass media voice,
called Rush Limbaugh (I tend to call him ``Bush'' Limbaugh
because of, shall we say, what really is running him. Sometimes I
wonder what's dirtier, his mouth or his mind? He is of that
type). But Limbaugh was used to leak this story. By whom? 
   Well, I'll tell you by whom: a group in the Justice
Department, which included the former Attorney General's circles,
that faction, the Thornburgh faction in particular in the Justice
Department; and the [Oliver] ``Buck'' Revell faction, which is
revolting against [William] Sessions and tried to oppose the
Sessions reforms of the FBI in the FBI itself. 
   So these fellows wanted to get Baird. Why? I don't think it
was because of Baird herself, but rather because she represented,
as the discussion before the congressional committee indicated,
an attempt to clean up and reform the Justice Department system,
along the lines indicated in the six-part series recently run in
the {Washington Post.} These guys did not want the Justice
Department reformed. 
   
   [COMMERCIAL BREAK] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, what was the {Washington Post} series
about? 
   LAROUCHE: During the course of the Reagan-Bush years, there
was stuck into place in the Justice Department, especially under
former Attorney General Thornburgh, a real nasty bunch, which
came in with the appointment, for example, of people from the
Burns Summit law firm. Burns was the number two man in the
Justice Department under [Edwin] Meese for a while. Meese I think
was rather credulous and went along with this stuff. But he
didn't carry it to the extreme that some others did. 
   So you have Burns of Burns Summit, and the Thornburgh crowd
as such in there, who became a hit squad, trampling on the rights
of everyone. And with the transformation in the Supreme Court and
therefore in the Federal court systems, through bringing in
people who are opposed the U.S. Constitution openly, people like
Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is an open opponent of the Federal
Constitution and favors instead a Confederate Constitution, that
is, the constitution of the Confederacy in philosophy, things
went completely out of control. 
   We have violations of law. We have people who in many cases
are guilty, but they were not given justice; that is, they were
not fairly tried, their rights were not protected. There was no
effort to go through the admittedly more costly business of a
fair trial, but they just railroaded people. Through
plea-bargaining and so forth, people were often convicted who
were not involved, because somebody would make a deal with
somebody to go light on them if they would turn on some other
people, and they will begin to invent a few associates and a few
fellow accomplices, and some fellow who may be in their circle,
that's his guilt, but who is not actually guilty of what he is
accused of, but he is convicted. That sort of thing. 
   As well, the increasing politicization of justice, in which
the Justice Department, out of political motives (like the
Internal Revenue Service out of political motives) goes after
someone to try to ``get something'' on them, and if they can't
catch them in something, in an investigation, they try to entrap
one way or another, or even make up the charges outright, which
is an increasing tendency, though I think perhaps a not-yet
significant, but is becoming so. 
   So any incoming administration, Democratic machine and so
forth, recognizes that the one thing they have to do, is to clean
that Thornburgh machine out of the Justice Department and the
FBI. They find an ally in Sessions, who is willing to reform the
FBI, which brings him into opposition with people of a more
thuggish disposition, like ``Buck'' Revell, and you have the old
Thornburgh machine in the Justice Department. What's to stop
this? 
   So the way [that Revell/Thornburgh machine] moves to stop
it, is by saying we're going to knock off one after the other,
every Clinton appointee who has the light in their eye about
reforming the Justice Department and bringing some justice back
into the justice system. 
   I don't think that Zoe Baird was necessarily a great person;
but despite the foible in which she was caught, she was committed
to doing something in the direction of reform of the Justice
Department. This machine in the Justice Department is going to do
everything possible to try to prevent any credible new U.S.
Attorney General from taking over, who might reform the system. 

    - ``Rehnquist Represents Pre-Abraham Lincoln Justice'' -

   Q: Some of the backers of Zoe Baird, were individuals who
probably did more than any other to push this Confederate system
of constitutional law. Maybe you can explain that a little bit. I
think people understand the difference between some of the
policies of the Confederacy and some of the policies of the U.S.
government in the American Revolution, but how this applies in
terms of constitutional law, may be a little be unclear, and I'm
thinking of Lloyd Cutler. 
   LAROUCHE: Look at particularly the death penalty cases.
That's the only way we can really, shortly, briefly, and
summarily identify it. 
   In the Commonwealth of Virginia and the state of Texas, you
have statutes pertaining to death penalty convictions, which
limit the numbers of days within which, following trial and
conviction, a convicted death row inmate may bring in new
evidence for consideration by the State court system. You have 21
days in Virginia, and about 30 days in Texas, for example. 
   Take cases in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in which
evidence is later developed which shows not only was the
defendant innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced to
death, but that he was sentenced, because the state prosecution
suppressed evidence which they knew and had which would have
shown he was not guilty. 
   If the defendant, months later or a year later, is able to
extract this information suppressed by the prosecution at trial,
and tries to appeal his death sentence, in Virginia, for example,
he will get no hearing in the courts. If he then goes under his
Fourteenth Amendment rights to the Federal court, under
Rehnquist, the Rehnquist court will say: We don't consider this,
because the states have the right to make their own laws. 
   What Rehnquist represents in this respect, is a pre-Abraham
Lincoln conception of justice. This is like the Dred Scott
decision, saying that if the state deems slavery acceptable, that
a slave who escapes to a non-slave state, must be extradited to
be re-enslaved. And they are saying the same thing here: If a man
is a Federal citizen--and under our law today, a citizen is not
just a State citizen, but a Federal citizen and the law is or
should be, that no state can violate those rights which a citizen
has guaranteed as a civil right or a natural right under Federal
law. 
   Rehnquist says no. And we have people being fried on death
row, whom both the State and Federal system--the Federal
courts--{know} to be innocent or to have what's called colorable
claims to innocence, that is, reason to have a re-trial, or
extensive rehearing of the evidence. They go ahead and execute
those people in a rush job rather than take measures to protect
their rights as Federal citizens. And this philosophy is
sometimes called the ``New Federalism;'' and during the 1980s, we
began to stack the Federal court system with these judges, like
Rehnquist, or judges of the Rehnquist philosophy, who are
Confederate in their way of thinking. They are states' rights
extremists who have no respect for the Federal Constitution as we
heretofore have understood our Federal Constitution. And that's
where the problem lies. 

         - ``I Should Have Already Been Out of Jail'' -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, this is the fourth year of your
incarceration. Thousands of legal experts around the world have
indicated that, in terms of your case, you're a political
prisoner. What can be done, what are you doing, to reverse this
wrong? 
   LAROUCHE: Well at present, we have, in the Federal case,
every element of the prosecution's case in chief is proven to
have been fraudulent. That is, the prosecution {lied} in every
point of relevance to the charges in the trial--that is, what is
called the case in chief--they lied. No question: they knowingly
lied. They suborned perjury from key witnesses and all of the key
witnesses in the trial, lied. The prosecution {knew} they were
lying. We have proofs that the prosecution either specifically
suborned that perjury, or that the prosecution knowingly,
wittingly, condoned it. 
   So, there is nothing left of the case, in terms of evidence.
The problem is, that the Federal courts in the Fourth Circuit are
doing everything to try to jam up and to {refuse} to face the
simple fact, that the whole set of charges against me and my
associates, was now proven to be and to have been nothing but a
pack of lies and perjury. 
   This is characterized in the court papers, which are on the
public record, as one of the most outrageous cases of
prosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the court in recent U.S.
history, because it involves so many people at such a high level;
and because there was {not a shred of basis of fact} for any of
the charges for which my friends and I were convicted. 

   Q: Do you have any motions before the court? 
   LAROUCHE: Events are in motion now. They are stalling as
much as possible, and I should have been already out, long
sience, on the basis of the current paper in there, the current
motions in there, there is more than adequate basis for striking
down the verdict, or at least turning me loose while the hearings
proceed, on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to show
that in this case or in a new trial, the verdict would be
nullified. 

   - ``President Clinton Needs a Philosophical Standpoint'' -

   Q: Perhaps some of the changes in the Clinton administration
will have an impact on this kind of situation in the judicial
part of the government. 
   Turning for a moment to foreign policy, for the first time
in many years now, or several years at least, [Russian President
Boris] Yeltsin has indicated that he is totally unhappy with Bill
Clinton and his positions in terms of Bosnia and Iraq. Can you
give us some sense of what the differences are between Yeltsin's
position and Clinton's position, and what should be a proper
approach to these two areas of the world, which are blowing up in
everyone's face? 
   LAROUCHE: Well, it's not so much that. That is not a
difference in position. It is a difference in the positions in
which they find themselves, not their positions. I hope I make
myself clear. 
   It is not that Clinton has a foreign policy, I don't think
he has a foreign policy. I don't think that Yeltsin has a highly
flexible foreign policy. So they don't have conflicting
positions; they are in different positions. Clinton is
essentially captured by the foreign policy Establishment of the
outgoing Bush administration in foreign policy and by certain
things in motion in Britain and France, and Yeltsin is in the
position of facing a changing set of circumstances inside the
former Soviet Union. 
   The two issues are this for Yeltsin, and this is very
important to understand. First of all, the policy of the United
States and Britain, the IMF policy, the Jeffrey Sachs policy for
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, is not only not
working and could never have worked, but is causing a kind of
patriotic nationalist flashback against the West, throughout the
hard-liners, as not limited to but reflected by the military
leadership. 
   The military leadership and many Russian voices are saying,
that the Anglo-American Empire is collapsing, that the United
States is rapidly disintegrating as a world power, will not have
power much longer, and are saying that therefore, while they are
in reduced circumstances strategically, they are saying that they
have reached the point, that they are no longer going to tolerate
in 1993 what they freely submitted to, withholding all their
objections, in 1990, 1991, and 1992. 
   Thus, Clinton faces the fact, that the Russian Empire is
coming back {rapidly,} and coming back because U.S. policy and
Anglo-American policy toward the entire world, including the
former Soviet Union, over the past years, 1990 through 1992, has
been {criminally stupid.} They have done all the things they
should not have done. They have thrown away the greatest
opportunity in twentieth-century history for some kind of world
stability and security. They blew it! And Clinton is coming in
apparently continuing to adhere to the Bush policy or in part,
which blew this. And with that circumstance, with the U.S.
economy collapsing, and the Russians knowing it, say ``We don't
have to put up with this any more. We're now going to start
coming out in the open.'' Therefore, Yeltsin is under tremendous
pressure from this faction in the Russian Establishment with
saying, ``We don't put up with it any more.'' 
   Remember, the Russians in 1990 and 1991: They were the ones
who supported Bush completely on Iraq. Now they say they don't
any more. They're saying that Iraq, the Balkans, and other
things, are simply a part of U.S. attempts to maintain its empire
by pre-emptive force, which would mean that the U.S. would also
go to pre-emptive force inside conflicts in parts of the former
Soviet Union. The Russians say, ``We're not going to tolerate it.
That's where we stand.'' That is the mess that George Bush has
dumped in Clinton's lap, a mess which Clinton so far seems not to
have understood. 

   Q: Let us take Bosnia first. Mr. Yeltsin and the people
behind him, are now saying that they back Serbia and they would
oppose any kind of American military intervention into Bosnia.
The Clinton administration seems to be talking in the direction
[of military intervention], along with its European allies. What
can be done in Bosnia, to resolve that conflict? 
   LAROUCHE: First of all, don't believe everything that
Yeltsin says. He knows how to lie, as many of our leading
political figures in the world do. Cyrus Vance lies, Lord Owen
lies, Kissinger lies, Carrington lies--they lie all the time.
Never try to interpret someone's statement as if it were a
sincere position; most of they time they're lying. It's a simple
fact of life. 
   Yeltsin is not lying entirely for Russian reasons. The
faction in the West which wishes to keep the Serbs going in
Bosnia, which includes circles in the UN, goes to Yeltsin and
says, ``Mr. Yeltsin, why don't you threaten us a little bit, so
that we get the pressure off our back of those who want us to
intervene in Bosnia?'' 
   So don't forget that. Never discount that. Mr. Yeltsin is
partly lying. The Russians are not--a lot of them may have
sympathy for the Serbs. They have a longstanding relationship
with the Serbs. There were already Soviet forces in there from
the beginning, beginning with [Marshal Dmitri] Yazov in
1990-1991. There were forces which were backing this Serb option
then. Yes, there is a Russian commitment by certain factions to
the genocide the Serbs are perpetrating in Bosnia and elsewhere.
But the Russians don't yet feel confident enough to go
threatening World War III over the Balkans. Maybe down the pike,
if we wait long enough, that would be the case; right now, we
have our window of opportunity to reverse this mess in the
Balkans. And I fear that it will have to be done by use of some
force, to demonstrate that we mean business, since we haven't
meant business on this for a long time. 
   But the Russians nonetheless say, ``Don't do it, we'll
become angry.'' In this case, we should follow our political and
strategic and moral instincts, and not be put off by this kind of
talk and say, ``Well, we'll treat you right, too, but we're not
going to tolerate genocide, we're not going to tolerate crimes
against humanity.'' And that's the way to approach it. 

   Q: The Croatians have begun military counterattacks, and at
this point, the real question is: What kind of intervention: a UN
intervention, a European intervention, what kind of intervention
can stabilize that situation? What has to be established there? 
   LAROUCHE: You can't stabilize the situation, in the sense of
some kind of stability which does not involve some display of
intervention and change in force. The military operations in
Croatia are occurring, I believe, in opposition to the government
in Croatia of Franjo Tudjman, who has adapted totally to the
Anglo-American/French line in recent years, and who has
suppressed apparently all those factions in Croatia which said,
``Let's not submit to this terror, let's not submit to these
atrocities against our people.'' 
   Remember, this fighting is occurring either in Croatia
itself, against enemy-occupying forces which are committing
atrocities and have committed atrocities against Croatians, or is
occurring in areas of Bosnia where the Serbs are killing and
committing atrocities against tens of thousands of Bosnians and
Croats and the Croats in that region. 
   So what you have, is sort of a spontaneous reaction among
the military with popular support among Croats, somewhat in
opposition to what the government of Croatia itself is saying. 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, in the final minutes of this show: We have
been discussing the world crisis in Bosnia and in Iraq. We are
seeing geopolitical considerations which perhaps are leading to
world war, as you have indicated before. Some people see these
events as events against the Muslim populations. We are seeing
historical reactions that perhaps will lead us into a world war. 
   What do you recommend for the Clinton administration, how
can President Clinton possibly reverse this onslaught and this
drive toward war? 
   LAROUCHE: The problem is this. It's very difficult for
anyone to make a series of recommendations to Clinton, as a
series of tactical form of strategic measures which are going to
avoid war. 
   You have to get into the philosophical questions, because
you have to react as government to reality as it unfolds. And the
situation which unfolds, will contain many unpredictable
elements. So you cannot come out with a simple laundry list or
menu of measures to be taken in sequence, and say, ``That will
get us out of war.'' You don't know what you're going to have to
do. 
   But you can, from a philosophical standpoint, determine what
your philosophical posture and what your physical and related
capabilities must be, to sustain that philosophical posture. That
is what Clinton lacks. He has no philosophical posture which
would enable him to thread his way through an increasingly
dangerous and complex world situation. 
   What Clinton has to do, and what anyone has to do, to avoid
war, is to recognize how the previous two world wars occurred. 
   The First World War occurred for only one reason: because
the British wanted it. The British were the war criminals of
World War I, and no one else. But they happened to be among the
victors supported by the United States and France, and therefore,
they were not brought to book for their war crimes in World War
I, which killed more people than World War II; but rather, the
Germans, who were the losers, took the brunt. And the mythology
is, the Germans caused World War I--which is crap. The British
did it, because they were not going to allow France, Germany, and
Russia to enter into a system of collaboration which would unite
the European and Asian Continent in the process of economic
development centered around railroad building. That is why World
War I occurred, because if that had happened on the Continent
peacefully, Britain could not divide and rule the Continent, and
Britain could not maintain an Empire against such a force. 
   Now, in the case of World War II: admittedly, Hitler in
Germany was a major factor in that war, particularly after 1938.
The Anglo-Americans {stopped} supporting Hitler in 1938; but up
through the Munich agreements, where Chamberlain met with Hitler
at Munich with Daladier; up until that time, the Anglo-Americans
were supporting Hitler in power against any opposition within
Germany. They brought him to power. There was the
Anglo-Americans' bringing Hitler to power, including George
Bush's father, who played a direct role in this, as well as
Harriman, as well as the Churchill crowd; they brought him into
power and thus made World War II inevitable. 
   If we say, that Europe cannot unite with Asia, in an
economic development program based on American-System principles
of credit, then we're going to have World War III--that simple.
And as long as Clinton capitulates to the Federal Reserve System,
which exemplifies that point of view, and says the Federal
Reserve System is a vital interest of the United States, we're
going to have World War III. 

   MEL KLENETSKY: Thank you very much. This has been {Executive
Intelligence Review'}s ``Talks With Lyndon LaRouche. I'm Mel
Klenetsky. We will return next week for further discussions with
Lyndon LaRouche. Thank you. 

-- 
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com