Jeff Steinberg om Lyndon LaRouches vurdering af udviklingen omkring situationen med Rusland, Syrien, Obama og bombningen af Læger uden Grænser-hospitalet i Kunduz, ud fra et standpunkt om de nødvendige kulturelle ændringer, der skal til for at vende forandringerne i det 20. Århundrede omkring. Engelsk udskrift.
TAKE PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION NOW:
GLASS STEAGALL IN, OBAMA OUT
MATT OGDEN: Good evening.
You’re joining us for LaRouche PAC weekly webcast for October 9, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be your host tonight. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and by Jason Ross of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we, together with a number of others, had the opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche briefly before filming this recorded webcast.
What I would like to begin with is just to make the point: that this has been a week of mobilization by the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement across the country, both with our continuing intervention into New York City, and with the deployment of a number of activists into Washington, D.C., including a number of activists from the Manhattan area, who descended onto Capitol hill on Wednesday of this week, to saturate Congress with Mr. LaRouche’s newest statement on the urgent necessity for the immediate action to shut down Wall Street with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
This statement had quite a substantial impact on Congress, which is, itself, in the midst of total chaos in the wake of the resignation of John Boehner, and now with the surprise withdrawal of Kevin McCarthy from the Speaker’s race, who was the nominated, or assumed heir apparent, of John Boehner to replace him as Speaker of the House. This has thrown the entire Congress into chaos, and they were desperately in need of the leadership that LaRouche PAC was there to provide.
The text of this statement is the following, and I think it’s very short, and very concise, and it’s worth beginning our broadcast tonight by just reading this in full. It’s titled “For the Urgent Attention of Congressmen, Senators, and Other Members of the United States Government”:
Oct. 5—Key responsible Congressmen and Senators (and there are some), and other U.S. government representatives must meet at once, to issue Findings of Fact and Statements of Commitment roughly as follows, for immediate enactment into law, and into immediate effect.
- There is now an acute emergency which threatens to kill millions of Americans, primarily, and also citizens of other countries.
- This is due immediately to the bankruptcy of Wall Street. Wall Street is totally and irremediably bankrupt. The successive Bush and Obama bailouts and the rounds of “quantitative easing,” have only succeeded in making all of Wall Street’s values valueless, and finalizing its bankruptcy.
- If Wall Street is permitted to blow out again on its own terms, as now appears imminent, the result will be the worst panic in history, which will close down everything that remains of the U.S. economy. We will have mass death, on the order of the Black Plague which wiped out one-third of the population of Europe. Another Wall Street bailout, which Obama will demand if he is permitted to remain in office, would trigger a hyper-inflation just as deadly.
- Hence, Wall Street must be closed down pre-emptively by U.S. Government action, in the spirit of what Franklin Roosevelt would do if he were alive today. (Although the crisis he faced was far milder.) Only activities compatible with a strict Glass-Steagall standard must be allowed to continue.
- The Federal Government must issue U.S. dollars as credit to preserve the lives of the population and employ all the employable, in the spirit of Roosevelt’s kindred actions with Harry Hopkins.
- Over the slightly longer term, U.S. Federal credit must be used to rapidly raise the level of productivity of U.S. labor, through increased energy-flux density with scientific and technological progress.
- Finally removing Barack Obama from office would be an excellent starting-point for these urgent reforms.
So that went out all over Capitol Hill this week, and also across the country, with rallies from San Francisco to Manhattan, and elsewhere in between. And Obama is increasingly being isolated and abandoned by members of his own cabinet, vis-a-vis the Russian intervention into Syria; the split by Hillary on the TPP, distancing herself now, officially, from Obama on that, and also, with the dramatic announcement by Doctors Without Borders that they will be pursuing an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed with regards to the sustained bombing, for over one hour, of the Afghan hospital. And that’s something that we will get into later in this broadcast.
So, in that context, I’d like to begin tonight’s broadcast by asking Jeff to respond with Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on the institutional question for this week, which I’ll read as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche. There are strong rumors that Vice President Biden will enter the race. Some observers believe key individuals associated with President Obama are supportive of Biden’s nomination. Some Obama campaign veterans are successfully helping Sanders’ fundraising campaign. In your view, is there a concerted effort at the White House to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton?’
So, I’ll let Jeff give Mr. LaRouche’s response to that.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.
I think the reality of the situation goes way, way, way beyond the question of whether or not the Team Obama, the core group of advisors plus the President himself, have it out for Hillary Clinton, because there’s ample evidence that that’s absolutely the case. And, in fact, it’s been the case since the moment that President Obama offered Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State, which she unfortunately, very foolishly accepted. And so, is there animus between the Obama and Clinton machines, and family? No question about it. But we’re in a different universe. We’re almost on a different planet right now from the standpoint of the upcoming Presidential elections and events that are much more immediately at hand.
President Obama and the entire inner circles at the White House are in an absolutely frantic state of mind, and under those kinds of circumstances, one can expect that this President will make the kinds of colossal blunders, dangerous blunders, which could lead to general war,—and in fact, there are many indications of exacting that trajectory—and alternatively, will result in the kind of meltdown that will finally catalyze the long, long overdue drive to get him out of office.
Recently, when President Obama spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, there was a state of total shock and disbelief among the diplomats present, when they realized that Obama’s words were full of nothing but lies and hypocrisy. The United States was engaged in a bombing campaign in Syria, which was in violation of the most fundamental concepts of national security, of national sovereignty. The Syrian government did not invite the United States in. There was no United Nations Security Council action, and in fact, there has been no action by the United States Congress giving the President any authorization to carry out any military operations overseas.
So, in effect, the President’s behavior is completely lawless, completely irrational, and generally speaking, sociopathogical. And this is nothing new. Back in April of 2009, Lyndon LaRouche, in a nationwide and internationally telecast webcast, warned that the President had a severe narcissist personality disorder, and that the danger was that if he were allowed to continue in office unchecked, this would lead to a complete breakdown, and to a state of general war that could lead to a thermonuclear war of extinction.
Now we’re on the very edge of exactly that process. As Matt mentioned, we had a large delegation up on Capitol Hill several days ago, and in that discussion process that occurred with many, many members of Congress—around an outdoor rally and around a lot of private discussions—the striking shift in mood, particularly among Democrats, was that when we said: Obama must be removed from office, we can’t wait out the clock and run out the duration of his Presidency, Wall Street is bankrupt, the system is about to blow, and we are on the verge of thermonuclear war—the general response was no longer “Oh, c’mon, that’s impossible. It’ll never happen.” Now people wanted to stop and talk, and the question was not should it be done, but the question was how do we do it.
So, you’ve got an Obama White House that is increasingly being isolated from the rest of the world. You’ve had in the past days a pattern of response to the actions taken by Russian President Putin in Syria, where, instead of this pattern of permanent war, never-ending conflict, with no effort whatsoever to actually solve anything in a decisive way—the Russians have come in and are prepared to use military force, combined with diplomacy, to wipe out the Islamic State, and any other allied Salafist, jihadist forces, and this is a different mode of action.
What President Obama represents is the fact that, for the entirety of the Twentieth Century, we’ve been operating under a continuous degeneration of culture, and of intellectual and moral depth. We’re now at the point that we’re one and a half decades into the Twenty-First Century, and the disastrous course of the Twentieth Century has not yet been reversed.
You go back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the beginning of a century of perpetual war and economic breakdown, a collapse of productivity, and you see that mathematics replaced morality and physics and other science, as the basis for all major policy decisions. Clearly you had moments of exception: the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency in its entirety was a dramatic exception to this. But from the moment that Franklin Roosevelt died, we have been on a downward trajectory. We’ve lost the ability to expand productivity in the real economy. The levels of morality have gone downward with every successive generation, and now we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, with both the Obama Presidency and with the level of overall cultural morality here in the United States.
Now, in our discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche,—and I should say, by the way, that this is now Thursday late afternoon, and we’ve prerecorded this broadcast, so there may be events over the next 24 hours before you’re viewing this broadcast that change things rather dramatically; it’s the nature of the period that we’re in, that things are changing on an hourly and daily basis.
But Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche recounted the fact that they were watching a show on German television on Wednesday evening, which was a kind of interview/interrogation of German Angela Merkel. Now as those of you who’ve been regularly following these broadcasts, and have followed the LaRouche movement over the years, are aware, we’ve been harshly critical of Frau Merkel: that she’s not been an effective Chancellor. She’s presided over some of the most disastrous decisions that have been made in Germany in the entire postwar period, such as the complete dismantling of Germany’s nuclear power sector.
But, she made the right decision under enormous public pressure, to not go into a xenophobic attack against the urgent needs of the refugees flooding into Europe from North Africa and from the Middle East, escaping the devastating wars that President Obama, and before him President George W. Bush, were absolutely responsible for.
So, Merkel was under vicious attack from some of the interviews on the question of why she was tolerating the flow of these Middle East refugees into Germany. And why didn’t they just simply create refugee camps on the outskirts of Europe in the Middle East; virtually concentration camps? And so Merkel, in her own quiet way, held her ground; and Mr. LaRouche’s comment was that basically she steadfastly maintained the view of the majority of Germans. If you didn’t have Putin taking the actions that he has taken in Syria and elsewhere, and if you didn’t have a majority of the population in Germany sticking with the view that it’s time to open your arms and help out these refugees who are fleeing from wars that are not of their own making, but came from the disastrous policies of the West — particularly from Britain and the United States — we would be on the very edge of war; if not already in a general warfare situation at this moment.
You’ve got a stark contrast in personal experience and personal morality between President Obama and President Putin. Obama was brutalized as a very young child by his Indonesian stepfather; who was by all accounts himself a killer, and who brutalized both Obama’s mother and himself to the point that eventually the mother decided to get him out of there and send him back to Hawaii. These kinds of experiences can run very deep in your psyche; and can produce the kinds of socio-pathological behavior that we’ve seen. The case of the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan, which we’ll take up a bit later, is but one example of this.
So, we’re faced with a degenerate culture; we’re faced with a Wall Street that is thoroughly and completely bankrupt; and must be put through bankruptcy elimination. It’s got to be completely shut down. And we’ve got the problem, that, on the Republican Party side, you have a sick spectacle of candidates running for office. And on the Democratic Party side, while you have individuals who have certain credibility and talent — Martin O’Malley quite clearly is aware of the immediate urgency of Glass-Steagall and the need to put Wall Street in its place; but there is an enormous gap — Mr. LaRouche emphasized this, that there is no one candidate who can be counted on to actually do the job. To present a comprehensive solution to the gravest crises, that this nation and the world have faced in memory. And therefore, what you need is an array of candidates who bring a certain kind of view and talent to the table; so that we can establish a Presidency under very grave circumstances that assembles the kind of necessary talent to be able to do the job.
Now in fact, certain things must happen immediately; and cannot wait for the Presidential primary elections, the conventions, and the elections in November of 2016. What we need immediately — right now — as preemptively action before Wall Street blows out; we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is by no means the total solution; but it is the indispensable first step. Glass-Steagall reinstated; full and complete bank separation will accomplish two things immediately. It will wipe out Wall Street, because once you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling activity, and make it clear gambling debts will no longer be bailed out by taxpayers; at that moment, that entire Wall Street gambling bubble will evaporate. It’ll be clear that nobody is going to bail it out; that it could never, ever be bailed out. It would be an act of moral horror to bail it out; and therefore, it will just disappear. And under those circumstances, it will almost certainly mean the immediate demise of Obama. Either Obama signs Glass-Steagall into law, which is highly unlikely; or his effort to block it on behalf of a Wall Street that’s already dead, will mean that he will be drummed out of office. He will cause such an enormous backlash, that’s been building and building and building for so long already; that he’ll be gone. So, Glass-Steagall as a first step towards adopting the entire array of Franklin Roosevelt American System solutions to this crisis, is absolutely indispensable in the short term.
And the mood in the country is shifting, particularly among certain patriotic institutions. The Pentagon is well aware that President Obama represents an horrific danger of war confrontation with Russia. And now the center of gravity of that danger has shifted from eastern Ukraine to Syria; but the danger remains the same. Secretary of State Kerry is trying to do certain things with the Russians to maintain a certain war prevention, war avoidance dynamic. And he has institutional backing for those actions; otherwise, I doubt he would be simply taking them on his own. But all of these measures, as useful as they are, are simply holding back the tide. Wall Street must be put out of its misery; Obama must be removed from office. The 25th Amendment, which provides for the means to remove a President who is no longer mentally fit to serve, is the most efficient means to carry this out.
But we are talking about events and actions that are going to have to be taken right away; immediately in the coming days ahead. Because if those measures are not taken, and if the holding line actions being taken by people like Angela Merkel, with all of her flaws and weaknesses, in Germany; if there were to be a pushback against what President Putin is doing in Syria right now, then we’d go over the edge. And the driving factor in all of this, again, is that Wall Street is finished; it’s bankrupt, it’s doomed, it can never be put back together again. And either Wall Street is put out of its misery, or we’re headed for a moment of total and absolute chaos. You had, for example, in Thursday’s Washington Post, an article by none other than Larry Summers — who was the architect of the end of Glass-Steagall; and he has an article called “The Global Economy in Peril”. In the article, he says that the whole policy of QE [quantitative easing] can’t be done again; interest rates are at zero, the Fed has no ability to do anything. The only option is to begin investing in capital investment in the real economy. Now, Larry Summers is a numbskull; and the idea that he’s even acknowledging the desperation of the present situation, tells you where things really stand right now. So, we need Glass-Steagall immediately; that will bring about the end of the Obama tyranny, the Obama Presidency. And nothing short of those measures is going to even remotely come close to solving the problems that are staring us right in the face.
ROSS: Well, let’s take up the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan. As I’m sure everyone is aware, on Saturday, the U.S. military struck a hospital that was run by Doctors without Borders; commonly known by its French acronym MSF (Medecins sans Frontieres), in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Destroying part of it, killing 10 staff members, 10 patients, including 3 children, and injuring 37. This is a hospital that the coordinates of it had been communicated by MSF repeatedly to the U.S. military, Afghanistan, NATO — including only a short period before the attack. After the bombing started, MSF tried to alert the U.S. military and yet the bombing continued for another 30 minutes. So, I wanted to read some portions of a speech that was given by Dr. Joanne Liu, the President of Doctors without Borders, and ask Jeff to comment; put this into context for us. So, Dr. Liu said:
“On Saturday morning, MSF patients and staff killed in Kunduz joined the countless number of people who have been killed around the world in conflict zones and referred to as ‘collateral damage’ or as an ‘inevitable consequence of war’. International humanitarian law is not about ‘mistakes’. It is about intention, facts and why.
“The U.S. attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz was the biggest loss of life for our organization in an airstrike. Tens of thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most. Today we say: Enough. Even war has rules.”
Dr. Liu said, “This was not just an attack on our hospital — it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts — including patients, medical workers, and facilities. They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.”
She said, “It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected. And yet, 10 patients including 3 children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.
“The facts and circumstances of this attack must be investigated independently and impartially, particularly given the inconsistencies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened over recent days. We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces.”
She said, “Today we announce that we are seeking an investigation into the Kunduz attack by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. This Commission was established in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions and is the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.”
So, I’d like to ask Jeff to put this into context, and let us know how to think about this.
STEINBERG: First of all, Mr. LaRouche completely endorses the need for the kind of investigation that will presumably be carried out by this body under the Geneva Convention; because it would be a terrible tragic mistake to carry out an investigation that works from the bottom up. This was a policy action, and ultimately it was a policy action of the Obama administration; and as Mr. LaRouche put it, it is characteristic of the state of mind of the President himself. I don’t have to remind regular viewers of this broadcast about the Tuesday kill list sessions; or about the fact that at least four American citizens have been willfully put on those kill lists and murdered without any due process whatsoever. These are crimes against the U.S. Constitution, crimes against humanity.
So, that’s the character of what we’re dealing with. Remember the decision that was consciously made by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and former French President Sarkozy, when they had Muammar Qaddafi actually ready to be detained; and the decision instead was made to kill him. To have him murdered in cold blood in order to accelerate the kind of chaos that ensued; and particularly the targeting of Russia and China that followed off of that. So, these are important contextual factors to take into account, that cry for a full-scale actual independent investigation.
Now, one that I think must be factored in, as this serious investigation goes forward, is that there’s a recent prehistory of relations between President Obama and Doctors without Borders. Back six months ago, during an earlier phase of the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Doctors without Borders put out a policy statement in which they said that unless the entire TPP agenda relating to pharmaceuticals was changed, they would campaign aggressively against it; because the agreements that were under discussion — some of which were leaked by Wikileaks, and that’s about the only transparent public revelation about what this treaty actually says — but in the section relating to pharmaceutical patents, effectively they shut out the ability of generic drug manufacturers to actually do their job. And the Doctors without Borders estimate was that one-half billion people would be shut out of access to vital, lifesaving generic drugs under the terms of TPP. To my knowledge, there’s been no change in that aspect of the treaty, which the Obama administration rammed through earlier in the week. So, you’ve got a context here, where what happened with Doctors without Borders, issuing a clarion call to defeat one of President Obama’s signature legacy efforts cannot be ignored when you have to deal with taking into account the psychology of this President.
Now, I think it’s also very important to once again look at the events that are going on, the backdrop — the psychological context — for understanding this brutal attack in Kunduz. Because look, the initial comments coming out of the administration; they made no attempt whatsoever to deny what happened. They just simply tried to issue a blanket statement that the Taliban took over Kunduz, and therefore, everyone living in that city could be presumed to be a terrorist. Now, I mean, that kind of madness is, again, unfortunately typical of the kinds of squirming logic that are used by this White House, this President to justify actions that do belong before the International Court of Justice for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
So, then in contrast to that, you’ve got the actions that the Russians have taken in Syria. They’ve been invited in officially by the Syrian government; they have formed a treaty agreement, in effect; a Memorandum of Understanding among Syria, Russia, Iran, and Iraq, to decisively go after and wipe out the Islamic State, the Army of Conquest, the al-Nusra Front — all of the groups that share a radical Salafist, jihadist commitment. And so, whereas the United States and the so-called coalition of 60 countries has been playing both sides of the fence; carrying out minor little incidental attacks against the Islamic State, supporting the Kurds here a little bit, doing certain other things. Those same countries have been instrumental in actually going after and supporting the Islamic State, because as President Bush said way back in the summer of 2011, “Assad must go.” The Saudis are behind the Army of Conquest; they created it, they’ve poured money and weapons into it. They’re part of the so-called coalition against the Islamic State; but the core of the Army of Conquest — backed by the Saudis — is the al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda. So, in other words, the United States is part of a coalition which has absolutely no intention whatsoever of eliminating the threat to humanity posed by the Islamic State.
You have members of Congress — most recently Tulsi Gabbard — who said, look you might not like everything that Russia does, but back in World War II, there was an agreement that the threat to mankind represented by Hitler and the Axis powers was so great, that the only viable option was to work with the Soviet Union, to work with Stalin, to defeat Hitler and defeat the Nazi cause. And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized, it was in fact the Soviet involvement that was decisive in defeating Hitler. If it were not for the suffering of the Russian people — 22 million killed, for starters — and if it were not for the kinds of actions at places like Stalingrad, the outcome of World War II would probably have been very different; even despite Roosevelt’s Arsenal of Democracy.
So, now you’ve got Russia moving into Syria. And very clearly, if you study the 2nd Chechen war, which took place soon after Putin became President, if you look at the 2008 Georgia war, you know that the Russians aren’t going in there to fight to a stalemate. They are going in there for a total victory; whereas the United States has not even entertained the concept of total victory in the period following the death of Franklin Roosevelt. We had a total victory concept in World War II; we abandoned it. Vietnam was the new Rand Corporation conflict resolution, systems analysis mode of warfare; where mathematics are the dominant factor. Never a concept of victory. The real crisis going on right now between the United States and Russia in Syria has nothing to do with no-fly zones, or areas of operation, or anything like that. The difference is that Russia is going in for absolute, decisive victory over the terrorists; and as Lavrov said pointblank in his discussions with Secretary of State Kerry very recently, he said, “If it walks like a terrorist, if it quacks like a terrorist, then it is a terrorist; and we’re going to treat it that way.” So, these shades of gray differences between al-Nusra, the Army of Conquest, and ISIS, are outside the Russian concept of war.
So, Putin is going in for the kill. Over the last 48 hours, Russia — in conjunction with Syrian military, as well as Iraq and Iran — has launched an air-land-sea total offensive against the terrorist infrastructure in Syria. It’s changed the rules decisively; it’s changed the likely outcome of the entire situation. And since the Obama administration and President Obama personally never abandoned the idea that the first priority is to get rid of President Assad and worry later about the consequences, what the Russians have done has stolen the moment completely. In warfare, victory is very often measured by the ability to anticipate and know what the other command is thinking and doing; and to move on a flanking basis way out ahead of them and catch them by surprise. That’s what happened this week. The fact that the Russians have launched cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets inside Syria from 900 miles away, from four ships in the middle of the Caspian Sea accessing Iranian and Iraqi airspace en route into Syria, indicates that there is a serious military operation here. Yesterday, the New York Times finally acknowledged that the Russian war plan in Syria has been mapped out in partnership with Iran and Iraq and Syria, and probably with Hezbollah, for at least the past four to six months. The United States was blindsided by and large to these developments, because President Obama — in his supreme arrogance — presumed that the “coalition” was the only game in town.
So, now the Russians have stolen the march, and are committed to a dynamically different policy; and there is a very strong possibility that the Russians will succeed, because they’re committed to victory. Whereas, the policies coming from the Obama administration and the Bush administration before that, were simply a commitment to perpetual wars; wars that ultimately get measured in the body count. How many people are killed? How long is the war sustained? How much infrastructure and economic capacity can be permanently destroyed? Already, much of the middle class of Syria, which was a modern secular large middle class country, have been driven out. So that the brain drain on Syria is in itself another major kind of crisis. These are the kinds of calculations that have dominated the thinking of the 20th Century: population wars; Malthusian methods of reducing population in absolute terms; breaking down any prospects for genuine scientific and technological progress and advancement; no increase — in fact a net collapse — of real productivity. That’s been going on pretty much nonstop since the death of Roosevelt.
So, Obama is carrying out a policy that’s doomed to fail; and could very well bring the world to the very brink of thermonuclear war. The Russians are carrying out a strategic and military flanking operation with a large element of diplomacy thrown in as well. Turkey has already worked out de-confliction agreements with Russia; and the acting Prime Minister of Turkey, Davutoglu, said yesterday that Russian/Turkish relations are perfectly fine. Syria will not interfere with the Russian and Turkish neighborly cooperation. There was a high-level military delegation from Russia in Israel, talking about the fact that Israel no longer has carte blanche to carry out bombing attacks inside Syrian territory against Hezbollah targets. So, you’ve got Iraq now saying that they want Russia to come in as the primary ally in the war against the Islamic State.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], Gen. Michael Flynn — whom we’ve talked about on a number of our recent shows — who came out and blew the whistle on the fact that Obama supported the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ultimately the Islamic State, and refused to take DIA warnings seriously because it interfered with his plans of overthrowing Assad; even if it meant being in bed with the very people who did the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and then did the Benghazi. So, General Flynn was interviewed several days ago on Russia Today; and he said pointblank “We must be working with Russia. Russia has more strategic interests in defeating the Islamic State in Syria than the United States does by far.” There are thousands — an estimate of 2500 to 5000 — Chechen and other Russian Muslims who’ve been recruited into the Islamic State, the al-Nusra Front, and are now fighting in Iraq and Syria. And if they are not defeated right there in the Middle East, they will go back to Russia; and Russia will be facing an absolute hellish situation. So Putin, whose parents suffered greatly during the 2nd World War, as almost all Russians did; Putin, who lost a brother in the 2nd World War, has that kind of sense of morality to be willing to wage a total war to defeat an enemy that is clearly the enemy of humanity.
So, if you put all of those elements together, and then go back to the question of the investigation, and the need for an investigation, into the hospital bombing in Kunduz; I think it’s very clear that the findings of that investigation, if they are allowed to consider the full top-down implications, will be extremely important and will be extremely bad news for President Obama.
OGDEN: Well, with that said, I want to bring a conclusion to this evening’s broadcast. I want to thank both Jeff and Jason for joining me here in the studio. And I think we can proceed with a substantial amount of clarity as to the dramatic nature of the current situation, and how important the intervention that LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement nationally have at this present time. So, the mobilization that we initiated this week I think will continue into this following week; and if you haven’t yet, please take the statement that I read at the beginning of the broadcast tonight — the Urgent Message to Congressmen and Other National Leaders — and circulate it as widely as you can. We need to continue to spread this as widely as is possible; and take the proceedings of also the Fireside Chat that Mr. LaRouche continues to do on Thursday nights and his discussion with the group up in Manhattan on Saturdays. And make sure that you are getting as many people as you can to study this in dept and to join our mobilization.
So, with that, I’d like to thank you all for listening; and stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.