Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 4/28/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 2 May 93 21:32:29 GMT

- ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

   The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
   Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
   The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
   To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
   Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

   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    

   EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE 

   ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche'' 
   April 28, 1993 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon
LaRouche. We are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from
Rochester, Minnesota. 
   Before we begin to discuss Bosnia and the Yeltsin
referendum, I would like to go to Clinton's domestic agenda
and the Waco holocaust. 
   Mr. LaRouche, Clinton's domestic program is falling
apart at this point. The stimulus package, the investment tax
credit--budget director Panetta is painting a grim picture of
the health program; a lot of pressure is being put on
President Clinton from Ross Perot to concentrate on budget
cutting; what would you suggest Mr. Clinton do, in order to
pull this domestic agenda problem out of the hat at this
point? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: As long as Clinton is stuck with the
``spook'' image of Ross Perot hanging around the White House,
Clinton faces a disaster on all fronts. There is only one
possible way--and I say only one {possible} way, it is not a
choice of several possible ways--to balance the U.S. Federal
budget, and to prevent the Federal deficit, the Federal debt,
from growing astronomically; {only one thing can be done.}
And that is to increase the number of well-employed taxpayers
by about 6-8 million Americans, out of the something like 18
million who are actually available to be employed, because
they are unemployed. 
   So if you take 6-8 million out of the 18 million or so
who are, according to Labor Department estimates, unemployed,
put them to work in infrastructure building jobs,
infrastructure repair jobs, and into high-tech jobs, by
re-expanding, say, the auto, aerospace and related capacities
for these jobs, then you will have a very quick increase in
the tax-revenue base, from both personal (household) and
business income. And you can do that, without any monkeying
around with tax increases, such as the BTU tax--other things
are going to fail. 
   If you try to balance the budget by {cutting} the
budget, what you will do, is you will cause an absolute
disaster, and you will end up with a bigger budget deficit
than you started with. 
   Now, I don't know what happened to Ross Perot's mind. Up
until the eve of the Democratic and Republican conventions,
before he dropped out, he was saying a lot of things which
were good observations, sensible observations. When he came
back, he came back as Johnny One-Note, with a kind of Senator
``Landfill'' Gramm line of ``cut the budget, cut the budget,
cut the budget.'' 
   I don't care how much clout Ross Perot may have
politically with his campaigns; the fact is, clout or not,
what he is proposing, would be an absolute disaster for the
United States, and an immediate disaster for Clinton. That
would ruin Clinton. Maybe Ross Perot's doing it thinking he
can pressure Clinton into committing political suicide so
Ross can be the candidate next time around--I don't know
what's going on; but it is an absolute disaster. 
   So what Clinton proposed, was only a toe-in-the-water: a
miserably small number of jobs, just to get the ball rolling.
What he needs is 6-8 million jobs; and that can be done the
way I indicated. 
   But the problem here, the political problem, is not just
the Republicans, who seem to be following that--I must say
that lunatic, Phil Gramm, who certainly has proved himself to
be a lunatic, with the Gramm-Rudman catastrophe, and the
Republicans seem to be following him. I don't know if they
actually are, or if they are just playing with him; but in
any case, that duck-billed platypus of the Senate, who looks
like a mammal but just lays eggs all day; his ideas must go. 
   But the other side of it is, you must take on the
Federal Reserve question. As long as you try to chain our
money supply to the Federal Reserve's whims, you're going to
get debt-money; that is, the national debt will grow every
time you try to put a dollar in circulation; and under Wall
Street's management, the money that goes out from the Fed,
won't go into investment in creating useful jobs; it will go
into speculation in the stock market and in the derivatives
market, into the already-overblown financial bubble. 
   So Clinton has to, at some point, face up to that. 
   Now, there is a certain amount of facing up to it, in a
certain degree, around the Clinton administration. They said
reluctantly that they were going to accept Wall Street's
pronouncement, that there was a recovery. Of course, there
never was a recovery; and Clinton and his Labor Secretary,
Robert Reich, and now Panetta, are making noises to indicate
that they never really believed there was a recovery, and
they also believed that the evidence shows there never was.
So, Clinton's only bet, politically, is to use the fact that
there never was a recovery, the pain, the depression in the
U.S. economy, rage by American people (just like the
Russians, who are enraged against Yeltsin's package), and to
use that rage as a way of hanging the donkey's tail on the
nose of the Republicans, who pulled this filibuster fiasco. 

     Why the U.S. Government Cannot Be Treated 
                     As a Household Budget 

   Q: One of the things that both Gramm and Perot seem to
count upon, is hoodwinking the American population into
thinking that you can balance the budget in the same way that
you balance a household budget. You have this ``common
horse-sense'' that they are appealing to in the American
population. 
   Why doesn't this kind of approach work? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it can't work. It's insane. 
   A national budget, a national economy, is based on the
use of credit to expand the economy. There is no way that a
household can use credit to expand its economy--that is, not
in any ordinary sense. It is the job of the national economy
to expand the economy, not the household. The household is
based on a fixed income, the income of its income-earners.
And they can do a number of things to increase their income,
or, in former times, you could use credit to rearrange your
circumstances to reduce the cost of living by prudent
investments in better ways or more efficient ways of living. 
   But the household has no ability to {create wealth}
within the household; the national economy {does.} The
household cannot increase the number of jobs within the
household. It sometimes does by getting the kids to do more
work and clean up, but that does not do much for increasing
the income of the household. 
   In a national economy, on the contrary, {job creation}
and {increase in productive powers of labor} through use of
better technology, is the watchword. In the national economy,
the ability of the households--or anybody else--to make a
living, depends upon government direct intervention, or
regulated sponsorship of, public and private utilities, such
as water projects, power projects, transportation projects,
schools and medical facilities, and so forth. Without those
{public works,} an economy does not work. 
   So a government has to expand itself, expand its
activity, through credit, to be able to provide public works,
and to provide an increased number of useful workplaces; so
the functions of the government and the household are
completely different. 
   Gramm appeals to one thing. First of all, most of the
college-trained economics profession today, are complete
monetarists, which means that they are completely
incompetent, and you should never employ a college-trained
economist for your business or your government, because they
are incompetent. They should be put away, and put out to one
side, where nobody uses them. Secondly, the idea of the
appeal to the household is to say to the family, ``Well,
there is no such thing as economics really. There is no
science of economics, it is only like a household budget.'' 
   This is like saying to the passengers in a 747, ``Look,
you've got this pilot up here. He claims to be a technician.
But there's nothing to running a plane. Any one of you guys
can run a plane. So let's heave the pilot out of the cockpit,
and let's get in there and run it ourselves.'' And that is
essentially what Gramm is saying; and he is appealing to the
populist impulse--a pathology within the American population. 
   Let me put it this way, let me put it very brutally. 
   You have a man who, if he has the leisure, will spend
most of his day in front of a television set watching soap
opera, watching that kind of fictional entertainment called
the television news broadcasts; watching MTV for his sexual
kicks, or things like that; and then watching hours upon
hours of sports. When that man gets up from his chair, and
expresses an opinion, and one is inclined to look at him and
say, ``Buddy, the way you waste your mind, the level to which
you bring it down in front of that boob tube, you want to
tell me that you have an opinion worth my hearing?'' 
   Unfortunately, many Americans wish to have an opinion
without thinking. And they like someone like that dummy,
Milton Friedman, or the cheap imitation Milton Friedman, Phil
Gramm, who comes along and says, ``Look, you can be stupid
and run an economy.'' Look at Gramm. He's stupid, and he
pretends he can run an economy; and look at the disaster he
creates. I think that is the answer to give to this stuff. 

   Q: The jobs that you are talking about: Clinton is
talking about summer jobs, he is talking about millions of
summer jobs. Of course, this stimulus package was not passed.
Is there a difference between the type of job creation
program that you are talking about, and the job-creation
program that Clinton has proposed? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, there is. But I would not pick on
Clinton too much on this. Clinton was trying to get his toe
in the water. And he was hoping to get the support of the
mayors, who are largely Democratic, and a few other local and
state people, to help him get this thing going, to get the
ball rolling. 
   I don't think anyone around the Clinton administration
who was really thinking, was serious enough to believe that
you could expand this kind of program, and meet the problem.
I think they all know, that you need major infrastructure
programs, and some kind of stimulus to large-scale industry,
as well as high-tech small industry, to get the economy
moving. I think they were just using this as a
toe-in-the-water, they were not using it {as a model} for
what was coming down. I think they do know, in the back rooms
there, that they do need large-scale, high-tech
infrastructure programs. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been talking about Clinton's
job creation program, and, while we shouldn't be picking on
Clinton, because he attempted to do something, he
nevertheless faces a very severe problem at this point,
because Congress is not even implementing what he wants. 
   So what does President Clinton have to do in order to
deal with this crisis? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I am a real loose cannon, and I
would suppose that if I were out loose--which would mean
exposing the fraud, at a very high level, which was used to
put me into prison, on the orders of former Soviet President
Gorbachov, back in 1986 through 1988, when he ordered that I
be put in prison by the United States as a good faith showing
by the incoming Bush administration. 
   If that's exposed, then I'm a loose cannon; and I can do
the job of catalyzing a general popular revolt, through aid
of leading circles around the country, which will set a fire
under the tail of the Congress. 
   The people inside the Democratic and Republican ranks,
who are giving Clinton the problem on this account within the
Congress, are my old enemies; and if they have to tangle with
me turned loose, with the story of the fraud created on a
mass scale to put me in prison, then Clinton's going to have
a freer hand for dealing, particularly because I am perfectly
willing and able to take on any dumb Republican who is so
stupid as to think that Senator ``Landfill'' Gramm, the
platypus of the Senate, has any sense on issues of economy. 
   That is actually the best. 
   The other thing, of course, is that the depression,
which is going into various kinds of new developments in the
immediate future. This depression, I'd say during the next 60
days, we are going to see some major turns. But this is going
to change things, and we are going to get heat on the
Congress by a very angry public, which does want a
job-creation program. And you're going to see that coming up
soon. 
   The problem is, the public is afraid of new taxes, and
as long as Clinton is frightening them with the bogeyman of
new taxes, he's going to find that he is alienating the very
voters who would support him on a job creation program and
would support him if he had to take on the Fed too. 
   But he's got to do some things, including, he must go to
work on this Waco business and expose the fraud in Waco.
Otherwise, he is going to be a dead-duck President, not a
lame-duck one. 

       The LaRouche Proposal to Tax Financial Derivatives 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, just one point before we come to Waco,
Texas. You spoke about taxes and the resistance to Clinton's
tax policies, especially the energy tax, where a lot of
people feel that this is hitting too hard at the general
public. 
   You have a tax policy, which is a little bit different.
You proposed a tax on derivatives. Could you please explain
how that would not affect the public in the same kind of way? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It doesn't affect the public in the same
way, of course not. 
   What is happening is, that when people talk about a
recovery, they're talking about a growth in speculative
financial assets around financial centers, and talking about
the growth of this derivatives market, which is a speculation
in options. It amounts to close to some under, perhaps, but
close to, a trillion dollars a day internationally, and the
biggest chunk of that is centered around American financial
institutions. This is {sucking the lifeblood}, in the same
way that Michael Milken and his raiders were doing, who were
stealing from people's pensions and so forth with junk bonds
and these acquisitions. It's sucking the lifeblood out of
industries, out of pensions, out of households--out of
everything. Out of our businesses, out of our farms--these
thieves. 
   I simply propose, that for the time being, we've got to
bring this thing under control. We should put a tax on it, a
sales tax on every turnover, by taxing the notional value of
the asset for which the option is being offered. That would
bring this thing under control screeching fast. 
   Nominally, this would more than cover the amount of
needed tax revenue to pay off the Federal budget deficit. Of
course, it wouldn't because the market would contract
considerably; but it would be a very useful tax, and it would
help to ensure that we could get some new credit in the
economy, without its flying off into space in some of these
Wall Street computer-generated fantasies. So it's necessary;
it's too complicated to go through the whole thing on a radio
broadcast, because you have to give the listener too many
facts with which they are totally unacquainted at the
present. But just say, it is a swindle; and I'm proposing
simply to tax the biggest swindle, a trillion-dollar-a-day
swindle going on in financial markets, as an alternative to
taxing useful things. 

          The Trilateral Commission's Economic Policy 

   Q: When President Reagan came into office, he said the
problem was Jimmy Carter and his economic policies. Now
President Clinton comes into office, and he says the problem
is the Republicans in the past eight years. 
   Is it a case of Democrat or Republican, or is there
something much more fundamental that's going on in terms of
the way the economy is collapsing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: In point of fact, what Reagan did, was to
continue Carter's economic policy! And that was the problem
with President Reagan's administration. 
   Bush, who is also a Trilateral Commission member like
Carter before him, carried out Carter's policy in the most
insane imaginable way. Even Carter can say, ``Look, I wasn't
that nuts, like Bush.'' And what ``Landfill'' Gramm is doing,
is also the Carter policy. 
   Actually, the Carter policy was a ``boll weevil''
policy. 
   Remember those Democratic ``boll weevils,'' that were
Democrats for Reagan kind? Phil Gramm was one of the boll
weevils. As a matter of fact, he was the leading theoretician
of the boll weevils. And what Gramm represents, is nothing
more nor less than the philosophy of Jimmy Carter. So there's
no business of these Republicans blaming Democrats for the
problem. 
   It was the Trilateral Commission, with their Volckers
and similar people, who brought this lunatic program into
being, and it doesn't make any difference whether it's a
Carter, whether it's some Bush League Republicans in the
Reagan administration, including Senator Landfill Gramm, or
whether it's Trilateral Commission member Bush; or whether
it's some Trilaterals coming in around Clinton. It's the same
garbage, and it has the same result. 

   Q: When was the last time that an American President had
a decent economic policy, and what was the difference between
that policy and the current policy? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: I think that President Kennedy's recovery
program was the last decent policy the United States has had,
in that sense. Lyndon Johnson was not incapable of producing
a good policy, apart from the fact that he was under
pressure. But Johnson was convinced that he had the rifles of
the snipers who killed Kennedy aimed at him should he get out
of line. His final statement to the press before he died made
that clear, and also, as the record shows, in his effort to
have his Justice Department overturn the Warren Commission
report, which President Johnson believed was fraudulent. 
   Johnson was afraid that the people who had ordered and
got by with the killing of Kennedy, had their guns aimed at
him. So if Johnson were capable of continuing a kind of
populist version of the Kennedy program, those guns convinced
him he shouldn't be. So with that qualification, I would say
that Kennedy was the last president who had a sensible
economic program. 
     
     The Anti-Defamation League's Criminal Activity and the
     Waco Case 

   Q: The Waco holocaust next. 
   The American population was riveted to their TV screens
as this horror unfolded. We now face a congressional
investigation or a number of congressional investigations,
and also Clinton has called for an investigation conducted by
the Justice Department and the Treasury Department. 
   What should they be looking for in this, what lessons
are there to be learned from this? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Briefly. First of all, look at the San
Francisco case, which has been somewhat narrowed in the San
Francisco jurisdiction. But the facts are out, that the
Anti-Defamation League, an organization which was the
trash-carriers for Gay Edgar Hoover when he was in there,
that is, what J. Edgar Hoover didn't dare do with the FBI,
they would farm out to the ADL and similar groups to do the
dirty work, as private organizations. 
   As a matter of fact, for a period of years, there were
even telephone connections. The telephone addresses of the
ADL offices were wired into the FBI offices. 
   The ADL--the Anti-Defamation League--as the record
shows, has penetrated, taken over, corrupted, law enforcement
agencies all over the country; and that brings us to Waco. 
   The Waco case originated in an ADL-Cult Awareness
Network alliance. Two private and very dirty organizations,
which penetrated and took over the intelligence function of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. And that has
been done essentially since 1986, in that case. 
   Under this arrangement, they manufactured a non-existent
case. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Waco
holocaust, and you have just brought up the role of the
Anti-Defamation League and the Cult Awareness Network. How
did they play a role in this crisis? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, they had taken over the
intelligence function of the ATF. Also, by the way, the ADL
and CAN are tightly integrated, together with a psychiatrist
by the name of Park Dietz with the behavioral studies unit of
the FBI, which is based out of Quantico, Virginia. That is
the unit of the FBI which did the bloody murder at the end of
the thing to keep the lid on this. 
   The way they manufactured it, is that at the end result,
they were using ``witnesses,'' the affiants, the sources, the
experts, who they were using to justify the initial ATF
shootout and then the later misinformation or lying, shall we
call it plainly, to Attorney General Janet Reno, as became
clear after her statement. 
   What they did, was they used a convicted felon by the
name of Rick Ross, convicted initially in 1976 as a jewel
thief, who has been working lately as a contract kidnapper
for the Cult Awareness Network. One of these people who run
around and face indictments for kidnapping. They're
kidnappers for hire, which is what the Cult Awareness Network
essentially is, apart from a propaganda organization. 
   They couldn't get the local law enforcement, or the
Federal law enforcement, in the Waco area to go with this
phony story that CAN was putting out. So what they did, was
they went to Australia. 
   Now the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, has an agent in
Australia, an agent who is tied to organized crime in
Australia, just as the Anti-Defamation League is tied to the
Meyer Lansky organized-crime mob in the United States, as the
case of Dore Schary, for example, an organized crime figure,
Hollywood producer, ADL head, exemplifies that. Or Kenneth
Bialkin, who is a partner with drug-runner Robert Vesco, who
is head of the ADL at this point. 
   All right. They went to Australia, to Isi Leibler, tied
to organized crime in Australia, and also an agent of the ADL
in Australia. Leibler had access to an agent who was working
with him, to brainwash a former member of the Branch Davidian
sect in Australia. They started about three years ago. They
have been brainwashing this poor creature by Korean or
communist methods--Chinese Communist methods--and the fellow
keeps telling new stories, making them up over the years as
he goes along. 
   So they cited this fellow as a source in Australia, and
had a branch of the Australian government assist them in
conduiting this pack of lies to a consulate of the U.S.
government in Australia. That consulate transmitted this
so-called affidavit to the State Department in Washington.
The Washington State Department transmitted this pack of lies
to ATF. 
   Now at ATF in the intelligence unit, you had
ADL-corrupted people, who were just waiting for that kind of
story. This lie from Australia was used then, to give
apparent credibility to Priscilla Coates from California, CAN
out there, and to the local jewel thief, and to the CAN
office in Texas. So they went ahead and said, ``There is a
mass suicide, Jonestown-type,'' or ``They're going to march
into town and shoot it up,'' and ``therefore, we have to make
an immediate raid.'' That was the original rationale. And so
they made the raid; and they came in shooting. That is why
people were killed, because {they came in shooting}--{with no
proper basis for that action in the first place.} 
   Now, once the action had occurred, it became obvious
that the ATF had done this, the FBI was moved in to clean up
the mess for ATF. What they brought in then, was another
unit, this Quantico FBI unit, the behavioral studies, which
is ADL--corrupted again. And this unit--we were betting all
the way along, that no one was ever going to come out of that
farm complex alive. 
   Because if David Koresh were to go into court as a
defendant in a trial, and his lawyers were to demand, in
pretrial motions, that the evidence be heard, including the
unsealing of the affidavits for the warrant, this would have
shown that the ADL and CAN, particularly CAN, had corrupted a
branch of government to bring about this holocaust. So what
happened, at that point, that Texas law enforcement experts
were saying, that is, before the holocaust occurred, were
saying that these guys cannot go to court, they can't be
allowed to go to court, because they're innocent, and no
Texas jury would convict David Koresh and his asociates, on
the basis of the actual evidence being presented. 
   The only way that the Quantico unit of the FBI could
continue to cover up for the ADL-CAN role in bringing about
this atrocity, was to make sure that nobody came out of there
alive, at least no leading potential defendant came out
alive, especially David Koresh. 
   And so they lied to the attorney general. They say they
told her everything, they didn't tell her anything, as it
came out later. They lied to her, in order to get the
permission to go ahead and wipe out most of the defendants.
So they started a fire. 
   How they did it? That is a secondary question. But they
created a situation, in which the fire occurred; and the fire
killed them. The distribution of the bodies, according to the
experts now, show that there was no concerted action in the
sense of one room or a group action by the members of the
sect, they were scattered all over the place, trying to deal
with the situation. And this fire broke out and spread
through the hay and the propane and the kerosene and whatnot,
and spread very rapidly as a fire like that can do--and
killed them all. They just couldn't get out of there, except
for six or eight of them who came out of there. 
   It was just hell. It was a holocaust. 
   The {irony} of the thing, is this Anti-Defamation
League-sponsored holocaust occurred on the anniversary of
Hitler's ordering the holocaust against the Jews of the
Warsaw Ghetto. And that point has to be made. 
   If Clinton allows these swine--the ADL, CAN, and its
friends--to get by with this, and try to put the blame on the
victims who can no longer defend themselves, then Clinton is
finished; he is a dead duck, not a lame one. And he'll never
be re-elected, I assure you. 
   But if he takes these guys on--the ADL and CAN--not just
take them on personally, directly, but just has the machinery
go into effect-- 
   [commercial break] 

                   ``Janet Reno Was Set Up'' 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, Janet Reno was told about some kind of
child-molesting to begin with, and the FBI's Sessions had
said that there never was any such proof of child molesting.
How was she fooled in this? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, she was just told. 
   The point is, she came in as the new Attorney General,
and mistakenly trying to get on with her assets, so to speak,
trusted the FBI officials who misled. She refused to believe,
at least in her mind, apparently, that these were absolute
foul balls, the kind of foul balls that Sessions has been
fighting factionally inside the FBI, foul balls of the type
tied factionally to Oliver ``Buck'' Revell, for example.
Sessions' enemies inside the FBI. 
   She refused to believe how bad these characters are; she
was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, well,
they're my people, I have to trust their word. 
   They lied to her--as Sessions said. 
   And the mistake in this case, of course, was that when
the White House capitulated in the middle of this process, on
pressure to keep Sessions out of this, and to let the
so-called professionals, ``the experts,'' in the FBI handle
it, that's when Clinton inadvertently--and Janet Reno by
buying into it--{inadvertently} allowed themselves to be set
up to allow a murder a holocaust of this type, a mass murder
of 86 people, to occur on their watch. 
   So Janet Reno was totally set up; and her only
culpability was to trust the officials who she was supposed
to supervise--trusted them as being honest people, not as the
liars they proved themselves to be very rapidly. And I'm sure
she knows that pretty well now, that these people lied to
her, in order to mislead her and the President, in order to
get a go-ahead to commit this mass murder. 
   The question is are they going to do the political thing
and cover up this murder, this holocaust, of 86 people by the
Quantico division of the FBI, for the sake of politics, or
are they going to go in and clean house? 
   And the only way to approach this, from a committee
investigative standpoint--which the White House must signal
to the appropriate agencies to go ahead with--is to clean up
this FBI penetration, and don't let some official from Israel
coming into Washington threatening no cooperation by Israel
with the United States unless the ADL is protected; don't let
that dissuade the United States government and its proper
agencies from cleaning this mess up. And the place to start,
is with that San Francisco case, and what it has brought out;
and look at the criminal association CAN, and the ADL's
involvement in Waco, from the standpoint of what is shown, in
a preliminary way at least, of course, by the San Francisco
affidavits. 
                   
   Q: Of course, the San Francisco case is a case where the
ADL is accused of spying on private individuals. Nine hundred
and fifty organizations, 12,000 citizens, which has created
quite an uproar around the country. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It's worse than that, Mel. 
   They didn't just spy on individuals. What they did, is
they broke the law massively. They received and transmitted
information which it is unlawful for private organizations to
have. That is, confidential law-enforcement information. They
not only received it, they {stole} it. They stole it by
breaking into computers, electronically, hacking them--to get
information they were not allowed to receive. They stole it
by having criminals who worked for them; that is, this guy
Bullock has worked {for years} for the New York office of the
FBI to do this. 
   The other point is, it is not just San Francisco; it is
not just spying on individuals. You have officials in the
police department in Chicago named, not by name but by code;
and in other police departments in the United States, and we
know, of course, in New York City, who are effectively
corrupt agents of the ADL, violating the law, cooperating
with the ADL, in transmitting information, for example, on
this fellow Hani, this South African, the Hani who was just
recently murdered. 
   {What they were doing, is the same thing the friends of
the ADL were doing with Jonathan Pollard, in taking
top-secret information from the United States government,
transmitting it via Israel, to Moscow, where it resulted in
the deaths of a great number of U.S. agents}--targetting
information, the most secret kind of information, which
Pollard was shipping to Moscow. And the ADL, in sympathy with
that same operation, has been running this kind of corruption
of law enforcement in violation of the law, for decades. 
   It is not simply spying on Americans. It is {law
breaking;} and they are being covered up and protected by
their agents in the top command of the Internal Revenue
Service, by their agents in the Federal Election Commission,
and so forth and so on. And the question is: this is the
biggest cover-up of law-breaking by the United States
government presently in view. And that's the ADL case. So
it's not just spying; it's breaking the law. And every
official of government who looks the other way on this issue,
on this penetration of state, federal, and local law
enforcement agencies, is condoning law breaking. And I think
the language is misprision [misconduct or neglect of duty,
especially by a public official--ed.] of a felony. So we
ought to go after the hides of people who cover up for the
ADL, as much as we do the ADL itself. 
   But it's a law-breaking operation, not just a spying
operation. 
   [commercial break] 

       Preconditions for Intervention Into the Balkan War 

   Q: This is ``{EIR'}s Talks With LaRouche.'' If you want
to send a question to Mr. LaRouche, you can send it ``{EIR}
Talks With LaRouche, c/o Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390,
Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
   Mr. LaRouche, there's a growing move for military
intervention in Bosnia. If there is a military intervention,
is this adequate to deal with the crisis there? What other
actions have to be taken, that will make such an action
successful, if such an action can be successful at all? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Three things have to be understood before
one approaches the problem. 
   First of all, the Serbian onslaught, first against
Slovenia but primarily Croatia, then later Bosnia, with
intent to go into Macedonia and Kosovo (that's already in
progress there), was launched by Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and
Mikhail Gorbachov, during 1990-1991. And it was launched
under the auspices of Mrs. Thatcher's program, which was
called the ``Fourth Reich program.'' 
   That is, Mrs. Thatcher, through the voices of such
advisers as Nicholas Ridley (a fellow who recently died), and
Conor Cruise O'Brien, argued that the German reunification
made Germany the major danger to the world, a ``Fourth
Reich'' in effect, because of Germany's economic power. And
they demanded that Germany shoot itself in the foot
economically, which the German government did, obligingly;
and they also unleashed Britain's Serbian assets; and these
are assets of British Intelligence, and have been, for a long
time. But they're also friends of some parts of the Soviet
military. 
   So with Gorbachov's backing, through Yazov, who was
supplying the weapons to the Serbs, the Serbian fascists
behind Milosevic were unleashed to commit crimes against
their neighbors, their former fellow Yugoslav citizens, with
the blessing of the Bush administration, the Thatcher, and
the Gorbachov administrations. 
   The U.S. agents in this, were Eagleburger and Scowcroft,
who were directly involved with the same crowd. Fitzroy
MacLean could give you the names and addresses on the British
side from London. 
   So it was a {geopolitical move} initiated by Britain,
with the cooperation of Gorbachov and Bush, which started
this bloody holocaust in the first place; and that's why it's
been protected so long. 
   Now secondly, there was a determination in February,
that they were going to have to go in in April militarily, to
bring an end to this; but they wanted to wait until after the
winter months and go in in April, because they knew that
there had to be a land component to any air strike. 
   The land component is actually giving arms to the Croats
and Bosnians, so they can defend themselves; and then to give
close support, with allied air force, to the ground action
which would be conducted principally by Croats and Bosnians.
That was the general plan for April. 
   That plan was delayed because of the crisis in Moscow;
they did not wish military action in Bosnia to upset the
referendum for Yeltsin at this time. That is why it has been
waiting. 
   Now, with all those fish frying, the danger is, that the
British faction will go along with a Clinton initiative to do
something in Bosnia, but they'll make a mess of it. They will
try to go to what is called ``cabinet warfare,'' rather than
decisive action. 
   The decisive action is: air support, yes; air action,
yes, against the Serbs; but this has to be taken in the
context of supplying adequate arms to the Bosnian and Croat
forces on the ground. Without that, the thing won't work. 

      International Geopolitics Must Be Brought To an End 
   
   Q: What are the economic components that need to be put
into place, so that we can see a viable former Yugoslav
economy, given what has happened, the devastation that has
occurred, in terms of infrastructure, and other things? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: I don't think we should say that quite so
quickly and quite so glibly. 
   The reason this thing was done in the first place, was
that, because of the kinds of policies which I was proposing,
and also, in parallel, a similar policy posed by the head of
Germany's Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen. 
   Now British Intelligence had Herrhausen
slaughtered--murdered, and had Detlev Rohwedder, another
German official {murdered,} in the same pattern, to
intimidate the Germans into not moving in that direction.
That direction is the direction which is parallel to,
overlaps, my program for the recovery based on the so-called
Productive Triangle program. 
   That Productive Triangle program, for which the British
murdered Herrhausen, Rohwedder, etc., and unleashed the war
in the Balkans; that program is at issue here. 
   You can have no economic program per se, unless you're
realistic. You have to say, that British-American geopolitics
and French geopolitics, {must be brought to an end.}
Otherwise, you'll never get an economic program. 
   The economic program is simple. It's the one I outlined
as what's called the Productive Triangle program. That's the
only thing that is going to work. But you're not going to get
an economic program, unless you call things by their right
name; unless you recognize that Thatcher, Gorbachov, and
Bush, are among the worst war criminals {in fact} in modern
history; and that you must recognize, that the geopolitical
schemes created by these criminals, is what gave us this
Balkan war, this mass slaughter, this mass rape, in the first
place. 
   Once you say that, then you can do the right thing. If
you don't say that, don't talk about economic programs.
Because if you want to talk about economic programs, you've
got to talk about why the correct one was stopped. It was
stopped by geopolitics, and by war criminals Thatcher, Bush,
and Gorbachov. 
                     
   Q: This certainly gives us a great deal to think about,
in terms of the Waco holocaust, and now Bosnia. Mr. LaRouche,
thank you very much. We will return next week with ``{EIR'}s
Talks With LaRouche.'' 

                           - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]