Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 3/8/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 13 Mar 93 21:8:42 GMT

EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE

Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

   EIR Talks With Lyndon LaRouche 
   March 8, 1993 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

     MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We
are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 

    - The Destabilization of Germany's Southern Flank -

     Mr. LaRouche, before we begin to discuss the World Trade
Center bombing and the recent arrests, I would like to
discuss a particular incident involving the Secretary General
of the Italian Socialist Party, Bettino Craxi, who was under
pressure, and who held up a copy of {Executive Intelligence
Review} and an article in {Executive Intelligence Review,}
which began to go into the recent destabilization that is
taking place in Italy. 
     Can you please give us some developments in terms of
that article? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, as we have discussed in
previous broadcasts, the crisis in Italy is engineered from
the outside by a network which is Anglo-American in character
and Freemasonic in flavor, that is, the British Freemasons,
together with the Southern Jurisdiction types in our own
country, are key in orchestrating this destabilization in
Italy. This is being done as a part of the operation which
London orchestrated, together with Gorbachov, in launching
the Serbians, partly through London, partly through
Gorbachov, partly through people like Brent Scowcroft and
[Lawrence] Eagleburger, who are close collaborators of these
Serbians, to start a war on the Southern Flank of Germany.
Because suddenly, at that point, in 1989-1990, Mrs. Thatcher
announced that Germany was the major danger; and therefore,
Bush and Thatcher blew the greatest opportunity in 20th
century history by turning away from the opportunity to
develop Eastern Europe and Russia along new lines, through
economic cooperation, and instead used Russia, in part--that
is, Gorbachov and Marshal [Dmitri] Yazov--to launch the
Serbians in this hideous war against other peoples of former
Yugoslavia, the Milosevic group. 
     The destabilization of Italy is part of this operation
against the Southern Flank of Continental Europe,
specifically, most directly, against Germany, launched by
Mrs. Thatcher and her crowd, the recently deceased Nicholas
Ridley, for example, Conor Cruise O'Brien, and so forth, and
complicit people in the United States. 
     But to understand this properly, you would have to go
back to about 1976, but certainly back to the beginning of
the Reagan administration and the negotiations we had with
the Soviets at that time. 

     Q: What were those negotiations? 
     Can you bring people up to date in terms of the current
situation in Italy? What is the scandal, and what is at
stake? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: They are simply trying to destroy and
discredit all the parties. That is being done through a law
which was imposed by the occupying powers, the
Anglo-Americans, at the end of World War II, in which, under
pressure, Italy passed this law, under which there can be no
competent financing of parties without resorting to things
which are considered illegal or quasi-illegal; and that is
being used just to pull down the system at this point. 
     But back to 1981. For various reasons, due to certain
developments we had with the Reagan administration in the
transition period in 1981, elements of the U.S. government
asked me to open up a back channel to Moscow which agreed to
explore my proposal for what became known later as the SDI. 
     After various negotiations, that back channel began in
1981, and you cannot understand the present history, the
present crisis or even the way the [Berlin] Wall fell,
without understanding the implications of that back-channel
negotiation which occurred between the two governments
through me. 
     Just to review the situation: essentially, the problem
at that time was that, under the existing policy, which was
the nuclear deterrence policy, we were getting to the point
that first strike was becoming a great danger because of the
development of precision missiles, shorter range missiles
with precision warheads, the development of Soviet
submarines, the missile submarines off our coast, which meant
that both superpowers were placed in a situation in which a
launch of a few missiles against their territories, because
of the so-called electronic pulse effect, which would pin
down their missiles, would have to decide to go to total war
within a matter of a couple of minutes of warning, and that
was the situation which we addressed specifically from the
military side. Could we not agree to develop defensive
weapons systems based on new physical principles, which would
remove this growing danger? 
     What I added to this, apart from emphasizing that the
kind of weapons that [Gen.] Danny Graham was proposing cannot
work for this purpose--we'll get back to this. 
     [commercial break] 

     Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the past ten
years of strategic policy of East-West affairs and their
implications for the current crisis in Italy. You were
starting to develop that situation that you were involved in,
ten years ago. Please continue. 
     MR. LAROUCHE: For those who are not familiar with it,
what I indicated in this back channel, was to talk, through a
channel, to the highest level of the Soviet government on
behalf of the U.S. government; not to commit the U.S.
government to policies, but rather to explore possibilities;
and the possibility we explored was my proposal, number one,
that we use what are called new physical principles, i.e.,
lasers and so forth, as a strategic anti-ballistic missile
system, and that both sides develop it in order to eliminate
the danger of a first-strike provocation under these
conditions of new technologies developing then. 
     To this, the Soviets ultimately agreed; they agreed that
that would work, that that was the way to go. 
     Secondly, I proposed that the two nations agree to share
the civilian applications of these new technologies with the
idea of promoting--not only between themselves but among
others--a worldwide economic boom based on growth of
productivity. 
     The Soviets agreed that that would work, but they said
that they would not accept it because the United States and
its allies would outpace the Soviet Union in this. And I
warned them. I said, ``Your system won't work, because if you
don't go this way, the way you're going now, your system will
collapse in about five years, beginning with a breakdown in
crucial parts of the Eastern European economies, on which
your economy depends.'' 
     Of course, it did not happen in 1988, it happened in
1989; but it happened. 
     The situation was thus created in two steps. 
     First of all, one should understand that it was never
the intent, at least from the middle of the 1950s, for either
of the two superpowers to actually go to war. There were
options such as those of Ogarkov later, where the Soviets
actually considered the possibility of war, but the general
intent was {not} to go to war. 
     The intent was, to use the horror of thermonuclear
warfare as a way of shaping global politics and as a way of
controlling local warfare which we used to call, in those
days, surrogate warfare. 
     When the crisis came in 1989, at that point, if Thatcher
and Bush had not blown it, we would be out of the mess now.
What they did, was to reject my proposal, which I made
particularly on October 12, 1988, indicating the imminent
breakdown of the Soviet system and the reunification of
Germany, and indicating policies to be followed for that case
in respect to, particularly Poland, as well as Germany, and
then offers to be made to the Soviet Union. 
     They did not follow that policy. I made a specific
proposal at that time which was called the Productive
Triangle proposal, which paralleled a proposal made by a
German banker, a Deutsche Bank banker named Alfred
Herrhausen, who was assassinated on British orders,
incidentally. 
     So that policy was rejected. What they did instead, was
to loot Eastern Europe. They ruined the Polish economy. The
Polish people are living under worse conditions than they
lived under during the previous twenty years or so under
communism--far worse. The Russians are being driven into a
state of rage against the United States because of the crazy
policies we have imposed upon them through [Jeffrey] Sachs
and others. 
     We are now getting back toward a conflict between Moscow
and the West, a conflict which is based not on a return of
Bolshevism, but of a Russian Empire. It is not coming
instantly, but it is building up, it is coming up, week by
week, month by month, and the current April crisis in Moscow
will be part of that process. 
     What has happened, because the United States and
Britain, under Bush and Thatcher, unleashed various regional
wars, such as the Balkan war, which they sponsored with
Gorbachov, is that we have gone back to a new version of the
kind of conflict which existed prior to 1989. 
     What we have, is regional warfare in the form of
irregular warfare, spreading throughout the planet. The
election of Hekmatyar as Prime Minister of Afghanistan means
that the former Soviet state of Tajikistan is now in the
center position of a new North-South war of tremendous
proportions, potentially; and what we are seeing is the
outbreak of global irregular warfare, as we call it,
including forms such as terrorism, and including terrorism
against the United States itself, often by some of our allies
as well as some of our putative adversaries, as a general
condition of life. 
     We are headed for a kind of World War III which does not
mean a thermonuclear exchange between what are really still
two superpowers from a thermonuclear standpoint. If you count
the divisions that the Russians have and the divisions the
Western allies have, that becomes obvious. But we are headed
toward wars typified by the present atrocities by this
fascist group headed by Milosevic in Serbia; and that is the
characteristic of this period. 
     In that circumstance, the destabilization of Italy, the
attempt to destroy the nation-state, the attempt to set up
one-world forms of government, all that [Jimmy] Carter
nonsense, which Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen represent; this is
pushing the world deeper and deeper into a kind of a New Dark
Age, something like but much worse than the kind of chaos
which prevailed in Europe during the middle of the fourteenth
century. That is what the Italian crisis is really all about. 

           - How Economics Determines Politics: -
   - How My Policies Could Reverse the Coming Disaster -

     Q: You might characterize these developments as a New
Yalta, and in contrast to this New Yalta policy, you have
proposed several policies which call for economic
cooperation. 
     You mentioned two periods: the 1982 period, when you
presented what you had called the Mutually Assured Survival
doctrine, a Strategic Defense Initiative proposal for
economic development, and in 1989, you proposed the
Productive Triangle. 
     How do those two policies differ from what is actually
taking place in terms of the past ten years in terms of
economic policies, and how could those policies have created
a different context? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: The point is, economics determines
politics--not in the way the communists argue, but in other,
very simple terms. It is determining politics, for example,
in the United States. 
     This weekend, the SPD, the Social Democrats, who had
ruled the German state of Hessen, were not defeated but took
a big loss, about an 8 percent drop in their vote, and they
are a minority government in the State of Hessen. 
     The big increase was for the so-called right-wing party,
the Republikaner. This Republikaner growth and the collapse
of the SPD and the collapse also of the CDU, the Christian
Democratic Party, reflects a desperation on the part of even
the German population. The fall of the Mitterrand government
or the Socialist government in France, which is due soon,
will reflect the same thing. You will probably see a growth
of the right-wing party of [Jean] Le Pen there, as well. 
     In the case of Russia, the fact that we did not
orchestrate a general global expansion of infrastructure
investment, railroads, power systems, and so forth, as part
of a global recovery, meant that {we have virtually lost} the
opportunity; and the forces of chaos and desperation and hate
are taking over. 
     Probably, we have still one last chance. And the chance
is to implement my policy as I formulated it, which certain
people in Russia will recognize. If that policy, the Triangle
policy, is not implemented, we are, {within a very short
period of time}--maybe a year, maybe months--before an
{unbreakable,} hostile situation develops anew between Moscow
and the West. If that situation develops--that is, if in the
minds of the Russian government and people what is called in
German a {Feindbild,} a hatred, like two dogs who will kill
each other whenever they see each other will develop; that
kind of hatred you cannot reverse. And we are a very short
distance, in terms of historical time, months, maybe a year,
maybe two years, probably less, before that develops. 
     {The only thing that will stop that,} is a reversal of
policy to adopt explicitly the policies that I put forward
particularly in 1988, 1989, and very early 1990. If that is
not done, we are headed for the worst strategic situation in
the twentieth century history of the world. 

- How Thatcher and Gorbachov Unleashed the Serbian Fascists -

     Q: There recently occurred the death of a particular
individual, Nicholas Ridley, who played a role in terms of
attacking Germany, and you had a great deal of criticism of
that. 
     What was the significance of the Ridley policies, and
how did you offer an alternative to that? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: Ridley was nothing but the bark of the
Margaret Thatcher dog. He was her minister and even though
she was a rather nasty person, she as head of government in
Britain, could not say openly, diplomatically, the kinds of
things she could have some of her ministers say. 
     So she had this scoundrel, Conor Cruise O'Brien and
Nicholas Ridley, one of her ministers, spew out this venom,
talking about a Fourth Reich. Many people will recall, if
they look back at the newspaper files, they will find that it
was this Fourth Reich formulation and the negotiations
between Thatcher and Gorbachov to unleash the Serbian
fascists and the kind of genocide and other war crimes being
committed in Yugoslavia today. This was all the same package.
You will find certain Israelis who were supporting the
Serbian fascists in this genocide, were using the same
formulation: ``Fourth Reich,'' ``Fourth Reich.'' 
     And Ridley, who was otherwise a completely unimportant,
inconspicuous figure, now dead of cancer (poor fellow),
unfortunately will go to his grave as being one of the
scoundrels of post-1989 world history. 

 - The World Trade Center Bombing and the Israeli Mossad -

     Q: We have had some recent arrests in the World Trade
Center bombing, arrests which start to point the finger at
Muslim terrorists. What is your analysis of these arrests,
and do you think that this might be used by certain forces to
whip up hysteria against Persian Gulf leaders such as Saddam
Hussein? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: Let's look at this from the FBI
standpoint. 
   First of all, the FBI was under tremendous political
pressure to make an early arrest. They made one. The FBI
however, of course, has {not claimed} that the fellow they
arrested, the renter of the car or the van, was the bomber.
They have not claimed that. However, that has been strongly
implied by the press, and we have had this Islamic nonsense
coming out of people who are {chiefly} assets of the Mossad. 
     So what we have had on television, as in the case of
that phony operation--unfortunately bloody--which the Mossad
or at least those interests set up in Waco, Texas, with the
entire media domination of the United States, is the idea
that there is Islamic terrorism loose, this sort of thing,
which is entirely orchestrated by the Mossad as a propaganda
campaign, playing upon the fact that [FBI Director William]
Sessions and the FBI and the U.S. government are under
tremendous pressure to come up with a quick arrest and a
quick solution. 
     Unfortunately, from a technical standpoint, the whole
thing is ridiculous. Somebody may have used some Jordanian
Arab--not a Palestinian, but an Arab--as a patsy in some way;
for example, some Mossad agent. There is a big debate over
this now in certain press circles today. A Mossad agent is
indicated as having hired him to rent the truck. That is all
speculation at this point. 
     But certainly, that bombing could not have been done by
a bunch of Arabs. This is a highly sophisticated operation.
There are a few people, a few teams in the world, that could
have done that--relatively few. Most of them are known; this
was not simply done by that blind, 80-year-old sheikh. That
sheikh is a British intelligence asset. We have his pedigree;
he is British intelligence. He was brought into the United
States in 1991 by the State Department and protected by the
State Department, up until these recent events, up until a
few days ago. So the man was a protected State Department
asset actually owned by British intelligence out of the old
Arab Bureau network. 
     This whole thing is a can of worms. It is not the true
story. It is not leading in the direction of the true story.
This World Trade Center bombing is an act of terrorism
against the United States, like that we saw in the strategy
of tension in Europe in the late 1970s. 
     [commercial break] 

     Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the World Trade
Center bombings and the recent arrest and certain
inconsistencies which have come up in that regard. Please
continue. 
     MR. LAROUCHE: The problem here, is who could have done
that kind of bombing? That was a highly secured facility, as
private facilities go; the chance of doing that without an
accident, without being detected and blowing the whole
thing,--that is quite an interesting proposition. 
     The other thing that seems to be confirmed as factual,
is the use of ammonium nitrate as the explosive charge. The
interesting thing about ammonium nitrate is that about 200
pounds of plastique would have about the same amount of
explosive power of 700 pounds of ammonium nitrate. And the
ammonium nitrate would have to be in some kind of a slurry,
which would probably add up to about 1500 pounds, or
something like that. 
     So you are lugging something around which is pretty big
and also fairly tricky. Many people would know about this
stuff because many people have worked in mines or used
ammonium nitrate as an explosive for various kinds of
purposes. It is a very common kind of explosive. But to
handle it in these circumstances and not have it go off in
the wrong way, not have it have all kinds of problems, is a
tricky operation; it requires an expert to set up an
explosive charge of this type, with the right timing devices
and so forth. Then you have the proposition of cracking the
intelligence screens, finding the flaws in the intelligence
screens in the World Trade Center itself and exploiting those
or manipulating them in some way, so as to use[?] the crack
in the screen to get the job to come off without
pre-detection and to come off successfully. 
     We are talking about a very large team. We may even be
talking about up to 70 people being required, specialists of
various kinds to do that in a highly compartmentalized
operation, that is, in which one part of the team may not
know what the other is doing or what the target is. 
     This is a kind of job for which, if, say, some Arab
country wanted to have it done against the United States, it
would cost them somewhere between a half-billion and a
billion dollars to pay for getting that job done. So we are
not talking about something that a few Arabs, or one who
needs his 200 bucks back, is going to be involved in. He
would never sign for a truck in his right name, if he were
going to do it; he would not worry about his deposit; he
would have vanished. 
     So this whole thing is certainly not a very professional
job by the FBI; but one has to understand the pressure which
they are under. But the other part, of course, is that
everyone who was puffing this Islamic terrorist angle, for
which there is no credibility whatsoever, was one of these
Mossad or Mossad-linked types. 
     For example, you had Uri Dan on television: Mossad. You
had Neil Livingston, Mossad agent, Halevy sidekick, a Mossad
agent--not a member of the Mossad, but an agent of the
Mossad. And so forth and so on. A parade of these guys. Now
you have Roy Godson, an old adversary of mine, who is a part
of the same thing, spreading the same garbage. And that is
not the situation. Somebody else has done it; it is done
against the Clinton administration, just as that dirty
operation that was done down in Waco, which was run out of
Australia, of all places, in order to set that thing up--out
of Australia. And used a convicted a felon as the complainant
to get the thing moving. 
     These are operations to destabilize the United States
under President Clinton; and that is the only way to
understand it. 

   - How the ADL Corrupts U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies -

     Q: One of the important figures in the Waco, Texas
event, someone who appeared on television, who was a member
of the Cult Awareness Network, and who has been recently
arrested, Galen Kelly, who was also involved in some
developments with a member of your association, Lewis du Pont
Smith, a kidnapping attempt on Lewis du Pont Smith. 
     Can you please give us a sense of how the Cult Awareness
Network operates in this kind of situation? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The Cult Awareness Network is a group of
throwaways who serve as a front for kidnapping for hire. They
do it for groups like the American Family Foundation and they
work very closely with the Anti-Defamation League. 
     The way this story developed, the Waco story: There was
no basis for this kind of dog-and-pony show, bloody show,
that was put on by the A[lcohol], T[obacco], and F[irearms
bureau]. The problem is that their intelligence was
penetrated by the ADL's friends. Misled (I will get to one
illustration of how that is occurring). 
     But here is the story on this. 
     The case in particular starts {in Australia.} A fellow
called Isi Leibler in Australia who is an ADL asset, who has
recently been disowned by the Mossad, and his circle, have
control over certain sections of the Australian government.
Through a department of the Australian government, a
misinformational report was sent--very alarming and very
electrifying--to the U.S. State Department. The U.S. State
Department, because it involved weapons, turned the case over
to ATF. ATF, which had been penetrated by the ADL and CAN,
its intelligence section contaminated by that, was then
misled by a guy called Rick Ross, according to the reports a
convicted felon out of, I believe, Arizona, a jewel thief,
who had been working as a kidnapper for hire for CAN. 
     Rick Ross was put forward as ``the expert''; and then,
of course, into it came Galen Kelly on television backing up
Rick Ross in talking about this case down in Waco, Texas. 
     At about the time Galen Kelly was on the air this past
week backing up Rick Ross (his crony among the kidnappers'
ring), {he was indicted} for kidnapping a woman in
Washington, D.C., and carting her across the state line to
Virginia, and then discovering that he had kidnapped the
wrong woman and taking her back to Washington and dumping her
on the streets, leaving her very angry and making very loud
complaints back last year. 
     So this is the character of the operation. These, of
course, are enemies of mine. We hope to get them fully
exposed. 
     There is also a case in San Francisco, in which a police
officer, now a former police officer by the name of Gerard
was working closely with an ADL asset by the name of Bullock.
What happened then was some paperwork from secret police
files turned up in the possession of South African government
agencies, and this went through the San Francisco Police
Department, according to the public record on this, through
Gerard, to Bullock, and Bullock passed a lot of this stuff
over to the ADL. 
     The ADL has unlawfully penetrated police and law
enforcement agencies all over the country to mis-direct them,
to manipulate them, and to get information unlawfully from
them, for use in various cases such as the shipment of this
information to Israel against the two Americans, one from
Chicago, who were arrested in Israel on the basis of this
information, and to South Africa. 
     And this case of the penetration of ATF, which may lead
not only to the embarrassment of ATF, but which may lead to
its downgrading, is a result of this penetration of ATF by
ADL and related types; the contamination and subversion of
our police forces by the ADL. 
     We see this also, of course, in the World Trade Center,
the same thing. We see through the news media a massive
contamination of law enforcement and security forces, who are
[manipulated] by misinformation agencies, such as the ADL.
The case of former government official Roy Godson is an
example of this corruption. I see very little difference
between a Roy Godson and a Jonathan Pollard who is now
sitting, shall we say, in the basement at Marion Federal
Prison. 
     These people are breaking the law, we are tolerating it,
and these are some of the things we suffer as a result of
letting these people get by with things like this. 

            - The World Trade Center Bombing: -
   - A New Yalta Alliance Between Washington and Moscow -
     - Could Lead To an Unholy Crusade Against Islam -

     Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche,'' and if
people want to send in questions to Mr. LaRouche, they can
send in questions to ``{EIR} Talks With LaRouche,'' P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
      Mr. LaRouche, earlier, we mentioned a strategy of
tension. Would you say that there is a strategy of tension
taking place in the world, looking at the kind of conflict
that we are seeing throughout Europe, and now the conflict
that we see in the United States of America? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, there is. And this particular case,
the World Trade Center bombing has all the earmarks of that. 
     In the last days or so, this weekend, this Hekmatyar,
who is a part of the same network as that fellow Kansi who
was identified as having shot up the CIA center; this
Hekmatyar is an asset of the Saudis and the U.S. government
and the British. He was used as the extremist, a
drug-pusher, political force, in the U.S. operations with
Karen McKay and other people in Afghanistan, as opposed to,
shall we say, the more moderate, the more rational, the more
sane Afghanis who wanted the Soviets out. 
     Now Hekmatyar, with Anglo-American and Israeli support,
has managed to put himself in the position of Prime Minister
of Afghanistan, which means that Hekmatyar and Afghanistan
will now deploy its intervention into the former Soviet
republic of Tajikistan, the so-called ``roof of the world''
republic, from which many things which have upset world
civilization have erupted. This is a strategic threat to
world civilization. 
     What is in progress, is the following. 
     Some people, in the context of this East-West agreement,
aim to find a kind of a New Yalta agreement with Moscow as
Bush and Thatcher negotiated with Gorbachov, who is now out,
and to make such an agreement with either Yeltsin or his
successors in the near future. 
     The idea is to develop a common adversary for this. The
common adversary of choice is Islam; and these sections of
Israel are key in this situation[?] of trying to define Islam
as the enemy. 
     The Islamic population in the world, next to Christian
population, is the largest religious group in the world. What
is intended is to declare war on not only the Arabs, but
Islam. That means Pakistan, Iran, it means a large part of
the population of India. It means Indonesia, it means
Malaysia, it means part of the Philippines, the Moro
[Liberation Front], for example, in the Philippines--it means
real hell. It means a real crusade of that type, an unholy
crusade. And that orchestration is taking place, and this is
the kind of thing which is in progress, which threatens to
plunge this planet into a dark age. 
     That is what the significance is, not necessarily of the
bombing of the World Trade Center, because I do not think
that was done by any Arabs or any Islamic interests; it was
done by somebody else much closer to home--a highly skilled
intelligence capability closer to home; but rather, through
the orchestration of publicity through the news media and
through the pressure on the FBI, what is being done is to
help create in the American people a {readiness} to enter
into an alliance with Moscow on a New Yalta agreement for a
{jihad,} so to speak, against the Islamic population of the
world. Race war, or religious warfare. This is absolute
lunacy. This is a crime. 
     We should have to recognize that the trigger point, the
detonator point, for this lunacy, was that the United States
and Britain put a British asset, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
in Iran. That is when this started. Then the United States,
over the objections of the Afghan patriots, stuck this
drug-pusher, this corrupt scoundrel, Hekmatyar, with Saudi
support, in charge of the Afghan Resistance--that is, with
our support. He has now come to power; he is now a strategic
destabilization factor, and we are now playing that game with
these kinds of scoundrels. 

     Q: In terms of the Muslim and Arab world, recent
developments have brought a certain amount of sympathy,
specifically in the cases of Bosnia and also the plight of
the Palestinian refugees. 
     Are you saying that whoever is behind this World Trade
Center operation or the orchestration of it, is trying to
reverse that sympathy, and create a new target? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: Not really. Yes, in part, but that is not
the purpose. That is obvious. 
     You have to look at the Waco [Texas] operation and the
World Trade Center bombing as of one piece. That is the way
terrorism works. Forget who the perpetrator is. You may catch
the perpetrator, and then you have to catch who is behind the
perpetrators. That is the way these things go. You have to
look at it from the top. 
     This is targeting one thing: It is targeting the Clinton
administration, and I am very concerned about the security of
the President with this kind of targeting going on. 
     We have heard Lord Owen, the British ambassador,
screaming the most undiplomatic screaming against the United
States on the territory of the United States over this
policy, not just the Bosnian policy, but over the British
policy of creating this one-world order. And [President]
Clinton, who may not be the most profound in his thinking, is
going on the basis of saying he would like to be re-elected;
and he is thinking about being re-elected, at least
instinctively, while he is President. And he is trying to
respond to this, and that in a way which seems to him to be
the response of a guy who wants to be re-elected. So he is
doing things--he is backing off like a weathervane, often.
But he is doing things; and he represents a destabilization
factor from the standpoint of certain Anglo-American
[Establishment] and other circles, and they are not
particularly happy with him. 
     They have made that very clear, particularly from some
of the neo-con[servative] attacks on Clinton for not having
the right Jew. He had enough Jews in the administration, but
they said he did not have the right Jews, and that kind of
stuff. 
     So I think this is an attack against the American
people, but it is specifically a political attack against the
Clinton administration, to frighten it, and to intimidate it. 

          - Agriculture Secretary Espy Responds -
                - to Grass-Roots Pressure -
 
     Q: One of the more interesting developments coming out
of the Clinton administration is a speech that the Secretary
of Agriculture [Mike] Espy made at the National Farmers'
Union saying that he would implement a debt moratorium
policy. 
     How does this particular debt moratorium to the FmHA,
the Farmers Home Administration cohere with the policy
directions that you have been trying to get the Clinton
administration to adopt? 
     MR. LAROUCHE: Of course, I have been for this kind of
measure for years. It has been a feature of my efforts. In
1979-1980, many people will recall the efforts I made on
behalf of this sort of thing in agriculture; then in 1984
Billy Davis and I did a program on this issue, what was going
on in that region. 
     But in particular, back in September of this year,
following the significant result--we had a technical victory,
a Democratic primary victory in North Dakota--we operated
from North Dakota where we had this support to initiate this
particular movement. 
     It took time to build it up. We had a former state of
Washington Supreme Court judge who volunteered, together with
some other people who were distinguished public citizens, who
formed a Blue Ribbon Commission, to hear evidence in North
Dakota and South Dakota from former government agency
officials, testifying to the illegality of the way in which
some of these FmHA agricultural loans were set up, and other
testimony about how they work. 
     [commercial break] 

     Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing Mike Espy, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and his recent discussions of
possible moratorium on farm foreclosures. Please continue. 
     MR. LAROUCHE: What we did, following this investigation
by Judge Goodloe's Blue Ribbon Commission, is to take the
facts which had been developed in those hearings and present
them in a number of locations, including before Rep. Kika de
la Garza's committee and also, of course, in North and South
Dakota and elsewhere. 
     This resulted in the initiation of legislation for an
investigation of a moratorium in these matters, in, first,
the North Dakota legislature, and then, following that, [by]
12 Senators and 12 lower house legislators in South Dakota.
Just recently there was a hearing in Pierre, South Dakota,
attended by 150 people testifying at the hearing on the
matter. 
     What we did, of course, was to not only lay out the
evidence; but one of the key bankers who was involved in this
swindle is a banker from Minnesota named Carl Polhad, who is
very much organized-crime related. I mean Meyer Lansky/Kid
Cann-related in his background. He is one of the biggest and
dirtiest sharks in Minnesota. He is part of the Minnesota
Democratic-Farmer Labor Party machine. 
     So his representatives were there at the hearing, and at
that hearing it was laid out exactly how dirty Carl Polhad
is, and how he has contaminated and controlled this guy
Levitas, who was used by him and his circles, and how he
controls Sarah Vogel, the agricultural commissioner of North
Dakota. Polhad is a key figure in these loans; he is looting
these farmers with the aid of this illegal operation. 
     So this stirred up quite a fuss, and at that point, Mike
Espy, who was aware of the issue, decided to take the steam
away from our organizing effort with our legislation building
up and simply say that {he} was going to take an initiative
in this direction to suspend all foreclosures that were not
already in the courts, and to set up an independent
commission, a board, to which people could write their
complaints within the next thirty days, to have their cases
reviewed. 

   Q: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. We will return next week
with ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' 

                           - 30 -
THE PRECEDING TRANSCRIPT WAS PROVIDED TO FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
BY EIR NEWS SERVICE, INC.  FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE EIR
NEWS SERVICE, P.O. BOX 17390, WASHINGTON, DC 20041. 

EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE IS BROADCAST SATURDAYS FROM
7:00 PM TO 8:00 PM EST VIA SATELLITE: 

Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W Trans 3, 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC 3:1
Companding, Flat 

             or 

Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W Trans 2, 7.5 mHz Wide Band Video
Subcarrier 

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]