31. oktober 2015 – Den kinesiske viceudenrigsminister Li Baoding medbragte til drøftelserne om Syrien i Wien et firepunktsforslag til en politisk løsning af krigen i Syrien. Iflg. Xinhua var de fire punkter de følgende:

* Li sagde, at Kina indtrængende opfordrede alle sider i Syrien til at indgå en omgående våbenhvile med en forpligtelse til at bekæmpe terrorisme.

* Han foreslog, at Syriens krigsførende parter, under opsyn at FN, skulle have omfattende, inkluderende og ligeværdige dialoger for at træffe arrangementer til politiske overgange.

* Li sagde, at FN bør spille hovedrollen som formidler i krisen i Syrien.

* Han foreslog også, at genopbygningsprocessen i Syrien skulle begynde, for at lade de krigsførende parter se fordelene ved fred, når krigen først er afsluttet.

Li Baodongs fremlæggelse af Kinas firepunktsinitiativ om Syrien fulgte efter en dag med drøftelser i Beijing mellem kansler Merkel og den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang. »Det vigtigste er at gribe chancen for at implementere en politisk løsning og etablere en ligeværdig, åben og inkluderende dialog«, sagde Li Keqiang til reportere under en fælles optræden med Merkel den 29. okt. Premier Li bemærkede, at mange globale ledere har kommet med forslag til, hvordan man skulle takle krisen i Syrien, rapporterede Reuters. »Vi håber, at vi kan sammensætte disse forslag, og, især gennem FN, denne organisation, fremme løsningen af det syriske spørgsmål«, sagde Li og tilføjede, at Kina fortsat ville spille en »konstruktiv rolle«.

»Vi har brug for en diplomatisk, politisk løsning«, sagde Merkel. »Det haster med at finde den. Der er i det mindste tegn på et format med drøftelser, der vil bringe de nødvendige deltagere sammen.«

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Jeg mener, at vi er i virkelig fare, hvis et kollaps af systemet sker uden en reform af Glass-Steagall for at beskytte den almindelige befolkning fra dette, vi kunne virkelig ende med massive drab af hidtil usete dimensioner. Jeg mener, at hvis dette skete i Europa, oven i flygtningekrisen, så tror jeg, at vi kunne få borgerkrig i Europa, og vi ville sandsynligvis få en borgerkrig i USA.

Så jeg mener, at incitamentet for at ændre politik, mens der endnu er tid, er gigantisk, og den optimistiske tone er, at alternativet allerede er på plads.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Flygtningekrisen kan kun løses på en eneste måde: Der må omgående sættes et reelt udviklingsperspektiv for Sydvestasien og Afrika på dagsordenen, som vi i vores rapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« har foreslået. Potentialet hertil eksisterer allerede gennem Kinas politik om opbygningen af Den nye Silkevej, også kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«. Fr. Merkel bad under sit seneste besøg til Kina den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang om hjælp til at klare flygtningekrisen, og denne gav en garanti for, at Kina ville hjælpe med til at stabilisere de lande, hvorfra flygtningene kom. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

31. oktober 2015 – En russisk Airbus A321, der flyves af selskabet Kolavia under handelsnavnet Metrojet, styrtede ned på den egyptiske Sinai-halvø tidligt i morges og dræbte alle 224 passager og personel. Ifølge forskellige nyhedsrapporter havde flyet, der var en route til St. Petersborg, Rusland, nået en højde af 30.000 fod, da piloten foretog et nødopkald. Dernæst faldt flyet hastigt og mistede 6.000 fod på under et minut, for derefter at forsvinde fra radaren. En egyptisk sikkerhedskilde på ulykkesstedet sagde til Reuters, at flyet havde ramt jorden i mindst to stykker, skønt andre rapporter siger, at lig af passagerer er blevet fundet så langt væk som tre mil fra hovednedstyrtningsstedet. Ifølge nyhedsrapporter har man allerede bjerget både cockpit-stemmen og optagelser med flyvedata fra vraget.

Næsten omgående efter styrtet. Den egyptiske affilierede til ISIS hævder at have skudt flyet ned i en erklæring, der siger, at det var hævn for den russiske bombning i Syrien. Russiske regeringsfolk har imidlertid afvist denne erklæring. »Denne information kan ikke anses for troværdig«, sagde den russiske transportminister Maxim Sokolov. »Vi er i tæt kontakt med vore egyptiske kolleger, med flyvemyndighederne i dette land. I øjeblikket har de ingen informationer, der kan bekræfte disse historier.« Den form for skulderstøttede våben, som en terroristgruppe kan forventes at være i besiddelse af, er ikke effektive mod mål, der flyver højere end 15.000 fod. Alt imens andre midler til overlagt nedskydning af et rutefly i luften ikke kan udelukkes, så synes russiske regeringsfolk at hælde mod en teknisk fejl som årsag til styrtet.

Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har beordret premierminister Dmitry Medvedev til at danne en kommission for at undersøge tragedien, og Ruslands Undersøgelseskomite har anlagt en kriminalretssag imod flyets operatør. Ligeledes har Putin udpeget 1. november som en national sørgedag for ofrene.

29. oktober 2015 – Det virkelige problem kan ses af Obamas oprørende militære provokationer imod Kina tirsdag (27. okt.): Obama er fast besluttet på at lancere en atomkrig. Hvad vil der ske med os (organisationen), hvis vi ikke siger dette og fører kampagne på dette grundlag? Se på falskneriet med Obamas angreb mod Kina! Se på hans blodige poter! Han må fjernes! Under principperne for det amerikanske præsidentskab, kan han fjernes fra embedet – og gør vi ikke det, kommer vi hurtigt ind i en stadig farligere situation.

Man kan ikke fjolle rundt og forhandle, eller sige, »Nej, jeg tror ikke på det!« Lad være med at gå rundt og spørge, hvordan vi skal gøre det – han må holdes tilbage, eller vi er alle døde.

Vi må sætte det først på listen over sager: Kald det ikke for noget andet: mord er mord! At sige noget andet er at lyve. Obama er i bund og grund en morder, en massemorder. Hvis man vil redde USA, så må man sige dette, eller man kunne selv blive den næste, der ryger. Og hvis man ikke bruger den slags sprogbrug, også på gaden, er man i vanskeligheder. Sandheden er altafgørende: Obama er en morder!

Enhver, der forsøger at bagatellisere Obamas krigstræk mod Kina: sig til dem, at de er hjerneskadede. Folk bliver myrdet af Obama, mens du går rundt og hvisker og prætenderer intet at vide.

Til de mennesker, der hyler, at »Det er ikke ham; det er systemet«, så fortæl dem, »Nej, det er Obama«. Hvis man ikke siger, at det er Obama, har man ikke ret til at have en mening. For, hvis man dømmer folk til at retfærdiggøre, at de bliver myrdet, har man ingen rettigheder.

Det her er mord, slet og ret mord! Beviserne er entydige, og hvis man ikke siger det, hvad er man så? Et konfliktsky skvat!

Folk er bange for, at Obama også vil dræbe dem, hvis de mishager ham. Men, den eneste måde at redde sig selv på, er: Accepter ikke dette! Hvis man giver efter, eller billiger, at folk giver efter, skriver man måske selv sin egen dødsbillet. En opvisning i manglende rygrad!

For at vinde en krig, må man besejre fjenden. Obama overgiver sig ikke, med mindre han besejres. Dette er et akut spørgsmål, ikke noget, der kan udsættes, ikke noget ’på sigt’. Hvis man ikke har tilstrækkelig rygrad til at gennemføre det, så betyder ens mening ingen ting. Og Kongressens hidtidige passivitet er en fordømmelse af deres moral. De forstår ikke, at de, som alle mennesker, en dag skal dø. Vil det blive som væsener, der har været uden værdi for menneskeheden – eller som soldater, der ved, at de er dødelige, og er forsigtige med, hvordan de tilbringer denne tilstand som dødeligt væsen, for at redde menneskeheden? Fejhed er aldrig andet end afskyeligt.

Obamas massemorderiske krige i Mellemøsten – krige, der bygger på løgne – har forvandlet offerlandene til Helvede på Jord. Situationen i Tyskland er på randen af en eksplosion, hvor, på trods af en enorm udladning af næstekærlig hjælp gennem de mange frivillige og hjælpeorganisationer, men hvor, simpelt hen pga. det ekstremt store antal flygtninge – ti tusinder om dagen – der kommer til Bayern fra Østrig, man har nået grænsen mht. husly og personel. Den største forhindring for en løsning – en kombination af et forceret program for opførelse af offentlige boliger og en ny Marshallplan for Mellemøsten og Afrika og en forlængelse af den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen – er Schäuble (den tyske finansminister, -red.). Hans fastholdelse af det Sorte Nul, et budget, der balancerer, er det, der bærer ved til fremmedfjendskhedens bål som en tendens i dele af befolkningen.

Dette er i færd med at udløse et bagslag, der truer med at bryde koalitionsregeringen. Det er allerede koldt i Tyskland. Det er blot et spørgsmål om tid, før et flygtningebarn fryser ihjel i en interimistisk lejr. Vores Fredags-webcast vil indeholde dramatiske optagelser fra krisen. Vi har præsenteret anklageskriftet mod Obama – vi behøver ikke gentage beviserne. Vi må satse på en dramatisk effekt, der vil få publikum til at forandre sig, og handle!

30. oktober, 2015 – Det følgende er hele teksten fra den fælles udtalelse, som 17 nationer blev enige om sammen med EU og FN, og som blev offentliggjort i dag i Wien efter en række politiske møder på minister-niveau, der fandt sted med den hensigt at finde en politisk løsning på striden i Syrien. Det næste møde vil finde sted indenfor to uger.

Udtalelsen

Møde i Wien d. 30. oktober, 2015, Kina, Egypten, EU, Frankrig, Tyskland, Iran, Irak, Italien, Jordan, Libanon, Oman, Katar, Rusland, Saudi-Arabien, Tyrkiet, De Forenede Arabiske Emirater, Storbritannien, FN og USA – ”deltagerne” – mødtes for at diskutere den alvorlige situation i Syrien, og hvordan volden hurtigst muligt kan bringes til ophør.

Deltagerne havde en åben og konstruktiv diskussion, som dækkede flere vigtige punkter. Omend der stadig er grundlæggende uenigheder blandt deltagerne, nåede de dog til en fælles forståelse omkring det følgende:

1) Syriens enhed, uafhængighed, territoriale integritet og sekulære væsen er grundlæggende.

2) De statslige institutioner vil forblive intakte.

3) Alle syreres rettigheder uanset etnicitet og religion skal beskyttes.

4) Det er bydende nødvendigt, at alle diplomatiske bestræbelser på at ende krigen accelereres.

5) Adgang til humanitær hjælp vil blive sikret i hele Syriens territorium og deltagerne vil øge støtten til internt fordrevne syrere og til syriske flygtninge og deres værtslande.

6) Da’esh (Islamisk Stat) og andre terroristgrupper må besejres, i overensstemmelse med FN’s sikkerhedsråds og deltagernes beslutning.

7) Deltagerne indbyder FN til, i overensstemmelse med Geneve II Konventionen om Syrien og FN’s sikkerhedsråds Resolution 2118, at sammenkalde repræsentanter fra den syriske regering og oppositionen for at indlede en politisk proces, der kan før til en troværdig, inkluderende, ikke-sekterisk regeringsførelse fulgt op af en ny forfatning og valg. Disse valg skal udføres under FN-tilsyn i overensstemmelse med korrekt regeringsførelse og ifølge de højeste internationale standarder mht. gennemsigtighed og redelighed, frit og fair, hvor alle syrere, inklusive syrere i udlændighed, er i stand til at deltage.

8) Denne politiske proces vil være ledet af Syrien og ejet af Syrien – Syriens befolkning skal bestemme Syriens fremtid.

9) Deltagerne vil sammen med FN udforske mulighederne for og gennemførelsen af en national våbenhvile til en afgjort dato i overensstemmelse med denne genoplivede politiske proces.

Deltagerne vil bruge de kommende dage på at formindske tilbageværende uenigheder og bygge videre på de fælles standpunkter. Ministre vil mødes igen indenfor to uger for at fortsætte diskussionen.

Havde det ikke været for Vladimir Putins intervention, ville menneskeheden have været færdig. – Lyndon LaRouche.  

25. oktober 2015 – Lyndon LaRouche taler om diskontinuiteter, afbrydelser – om afgørende vendepunkter – der fundamentalt har ændret kursen og den potentielle retning af menneskets historie til enten det bedre eller værre.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

29. oktober 2015 – Præsident Obama bevæger USA stadig nærmere til global krig mod Rusland i Europa og Mellemøsten og mod Kina i Asien. Han ønsker at myrde et massivt antal mennesker, og han gør det gennem udflugter og ’snigende missioner’ (dvs. missioner, der gennemføres i smug, uden nogen debat og uden korrekt bemyndigelse, -red.) med det formål at sabotere enhver reel diskussion i USA. I stedet for at komme med regulære erklæringer om den vedtagne politik fra Det Hvide Hus, gør Obama det i form af lækker gennem anonyme regeringsfolk længere ned på rangskalaen til diverse nyhedsorganisationer. Hvis Obama ikke bliver stoppet gennem en forfatningsmæssig fjernelse fra embedet, vil en atomkrig blive resultatet af en eller flere af disse konfrontationer:

* Wall Street Journal rapporterede i går, at NATO overvejer at udsende på en fremskreden post et stort troppekontingent i Polen og de tre baltiske stater. Den plan, der er under overvejelse, omfatter udsendelse af en bataljon, omkring 800-1.000 mand, under NATO-kommando i hvert af de tre lande. En light-version af planen går ud på at sprede en enkelt bataljon hen over alle fire lande, men 15-20 % af soldaterne ville i alle tilfælde være amerikanske. Det forlyder, at tyske regeringsfolk giver udtryk for tilbageholdenhed og under private diskussion siger til deres allierede, at de ikke vil true Moskva som en permanent fjende, eller smække Moskva ude af Europa. Begge versioner af planen vil i Moskva blive opfattet som en provokation, hvad tyskerne meget vel ved, men artiklen henviser til unavngivne amerikanske regeringsfolk som kilde, en indikation på, at det er Obama, der har indledt en diskussion om dette fremstød hen imod atomkrig.

*I en anden artikel, der bygger på anonyme lækker fra Obamaregeringen, rapporterer Reuters, at det var Pentagon, der gjorde fremstød for provokationen i Det sydkinesiske Hav, under hvilken destroyeren USS Lassen sejlede frem til inden for 12 sømil fra de kunstige øer den 26. okt. i en »frihed for sejlads«-øvelse. De siger, at Pentagonfolk har krævet en sådan aktion for at udfordre Kina siden maj måned, men at det var Det Hvide Hus og Udenrigsministeriet, der »bremsede« det indtil denne uge. Men aktionen byggede på en anmodning om »muligheder« fra forsvarsministeren Ash Carter – der trods alt er udnævnt af Obama – angiveligt for at respondere til den hurtige opbygning af disse øer. Det er den samme kampagne hen imod atomkrig, som Obama er engageret i, i Europa.

* Underhåndsudvidelsen af USA’s krig i Mellemøsten følger den samme fremgangsmåde, hvor Obama overvejer at udvide USA’s militære operationer i Syrien og risikere et sammenstød med Rusland; og i Irak, hvor regeringen hævder, at amerikanske tropper ikke er involveret i kamp, selv om en amerikansk soldat er blevet dræbt og fem andre såret i kamp, og med Carter, der lover mere af samme slags.

De følgende »Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning« er blevet udarbejdet efter drøftelser med Syriens myndigheder. Den svenske organisation Syriska stödkommittén för demokrati besøgte flere regeringsministerier og myndigheder i Damaskus i december 2014. Ulf Sandmark fra det svenske Schiller Institut var en af delegationens deltagere under det ugelange besøg i Syrien. Hussein Askary er formand for Schiller Instituttet i Sverige og desuden redaktør for Executive Intelligence Reviews arabiske hjemmeside, hvor dette dokument er tilgængeligt på arabisk:

http://arabic.larouchepub.com/2015/10/24/752

og på svensk:  http://www.larouche.se/node/4134

Fønix-projektet Syrien. Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning

Af civiløkonom Ulf Sandmark og Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttet

Det er håbet, der gør mennesker til mennesker.

Håbet om genopbygning mobiliserer den skabende evne hos alle mennesker. Det forsætter mennesket i en sindstilstand, hvor det er Skaberen nær.

Ved at løfte blikket mod genopbygning og udvikling efter krigen kan Syrien allertydeligst demonstrere det menneskesyn, som står i skarp kontrast til den ondskab og meningsløse ødelæggelse, som fjenden personificerer. Man demonstrerer det ikke blot for sig selv, men også for omverden, og ikke mindst for de fjender, som således vil forstå, at deres krigsførelse ikke fører til noget bedre for dem selv. Syriens planer om genopbygning medfører, at de fjender, der kan tænke, forstår, at de kan få en bedre fremtid ved at samarbejde med regeringen, end ved at fortsætte krigen.

Syriens håb om en fremtid er dets stærkeste våben imod fjendens pessimisme, desperation og umenneskelighed.

Hvem håber, og hvem gør ikke?

Med skabelsen af BRIKS har halvdelen af menneskeheden organiseret sig for at skabe en fremtid for sig selv og menneskeheden. BRIKS-samarbejdet har endelig været i stand til at tilføre kraft til håbet fra Bandung-konferencen, den Alliancefri Bevægelse og 77-gruppen og at hæve verden ud af fattigdom og kolonialisme.

I modsætning til Syrien og BRIKS, så er den vestlige verden domineret af dets finanssystem, for hvilket der ikke findes noget håb. Værdipapirerne i det globale finanssystem, der beløber sig til en værdi af to millioner milliarder dollar (eng.: 2 kvadrillioner), er, for over 90 % ’s vedkommende, ren spekulationsgæld. Dette er et pyramidespil uden sidestykke i verdenshistorien, og det er blevet holdt oppe af konstante kapitalindsprøjtninger fra centralbanker og statsbudgetter. Finanssystemets desperate situation har presset Vestens politikere til at tillade en finansiel udplyndring af ikke alene borgernes opsparinger, men også af realøkonomien.

Denne udplyndring har ført til den græske krise, men den har haft en endnu mere grum effekt i den Tredje Verden. De vestlige banker vil ikke længere med samme lethed kunne udplyndre BRIKS-landene. Metoden til at komme BRIKS og andre selvstændige lande til livs er derfor den destabilisering og det kaos, som terrorister og regionale krige kan sprede i hele Centralasien og ind i Kina, Indien og Rusland for at ødelægge disse nationers lederskab og modstand. Nu er det Syrien, der står i forreste skudlinje for denne politik, der bærer navnet geopolitik, og som er det gamle, britiske imperiums metode til at holde konkurrerende eller fremvoksende verdensmagter nede. Eftersom USA støtter den britiske geopolitik, indgår der også trusler om anvendelse af atomvåben i afpresningen, og verden står de facto på randen af en total katastrofe.

Det er desperationen og håbløsheden hos den vestlige verdens finanssystem og de gamle kolonimagter, der projiceres ind i Syrien og andre krigsramte lande i form af støtte til terrorismen og til politikken for regimeskift. Det, der grundlæggende set kan standse krigspolitikken, er en løsning på finanskrisen gennem en bankreform og en genoplivning af den vestlige verdens realøkonomier.

Disse forslag er blevet fremlagt af den amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, igennem deres internationale bevægelse, Schiller Instituttet. Mange vestlige politikere kommer nu med tilsvarende forslag for at løse finanskrisen. Det store håb for verden er, at BRIKS-landene nu kraftfuldt gør fremstød for en sådan økonomisk udviklingspolitik. Sammen kan disse kræfter få Europa og USA til at vende sig bort fra krigspolitikken. Syriens heroiske modstand imod imperiepolitikken føres derfor både på det militære og økonomiske plan. Det forener alle de mennesker i verden, der håber på en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden.

Hvordan skal man betale for genopbygningen, når nationen er ruineret efter krigen?

Den frihed for hele nationen, som Syriens kamp tilsigter, er grundlaget for Syriens økonomi og ret til at skabe kredit og penge. Folket, jorden og de naturlige ressourcer besidder et enormt potentiale. Med en genopbygnings- og udviklingsplan skabes der et endnu større potentiale.

En enlig bonde eller virksomhedsejer kan have brug for kredit fra en anden for at kunne virkeliggøre sit potentiale. En fri nation kan selv beslutte sig til at virkeliggøre sit potentiale. Det sker derved, at nationen udsteder kredit til sig selv, med nationens egen, fremtidige udvikling som sikkerhed. Dette kræver et særligt finanssystem, der kaldes et »kreditsystem«.

Ironisk nok var det netop et sådant kreditsystem, der gjorde det muligt for USA at blive grundlagt og overleve sine første år, og igen overleve, under Abraham Lincolns lederskab, under borgerkrigen og atter engang, under Franklin Roosevelts lederskab, fra og med 1933 og igennem Anden Verdenskrig. Dernæst anvendte Vesttyskland og Sydkorea det samme system til sine genopbygnings-mirakler efter krigen. USA befinder sig nu i en stor, finansiel krise på grund af, at man har forladt dette fungerende system, og nu er man også imod, at BRIKS-landene anvender det.

Det amerikanske kreditsystem blev skabt efter sejren i 1786 i Frihedskrigen imod kolonialismen. Efter råd fra daværende finansminister Alexander Hamilton gav Kongressen en kredit til en nyetableret Nationalbank, der koordinerede genopbygningen. Værdien af nationens valuta og al statslig gæld fra krigen blev hurtigt stabiliseret, når kreditterne dirigeredes videre til de projekter, som regeringen havde prioriteret. De selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, som blev engageret til at udføre projekterne, kunne komme i gang med det samme ved, at de fik del i kreditten. Gennem denne fremgangsmåde kunne man fuldt ud mobilisere og hurtigt udvikle landets egne ressourcer, på trods af, at landet netop havde været igennem en mangeårig krig.

Grundsynet i Hamiltons kreditsystem var, at økonomien værdisattes ud fra det fremtidige potentiale, og ikke ud fra nuets ruinerede situation. Ud fra en sådan synsmåde er Syrien rigt og kan selv finansiere størstedelen af den genopbygning, som kan virkeliggøre Syriens potentiale.

Hvordan skaber man kreditter i traditionen efter Hamiltons system til genopbygning?

Udgangspunktet for et kreditsystem er den genopbygningsplan, der trin for trin beskriver, hvad nationen planlægger at have gennemført på forskellige tidspunkter. Med denne plan som grundlag kan staten udstede de nødvendige kreditter for at sætte al tilgængelig arbejdskraft, maskinkapacitet og tilgængelige materialer i arbejde. Staten giver så tilladelse til, at projekterne kan startes op, og sørger samtidig for, at der er kredit til rådighed til projekterne. Projekterne kan ledes af enten privatforetagender eller statslige myndigheder.

Til udstedelsen af denne kredit har staten behov for både centralbanker og særligt etablerede Genopbygningsbanker. Den syriske nation kan, på samme måde, som Egypten gjorde det, da man lod folket finansiere den Nye Suezkanal, udstede medejerbeviser i Genopbygningsbanken, der er særligt beregnet til syriske borgere i hjemlandet eller i udlændighed.

På denne måde får genopbygningsbanken en egenkapital til udstedelse af kreditter. Den syriske stat bevarer majoritetsindflydelsen i Genopbygningsbanken.

Ud over denne normale mekanisme til udstedelse af bankkreditter vil man yderligere få brug for en Hamilton-kreditgivning ved, at Centralbanken skaber kredit, som den låner ud til Genopbygningsbanken. Med denne kompletterende kreditmekanisme vil staten have tilstrækkelig med kredit til at kunne gennemføre den hurtigst mulige genopbygning af Syrien.

Når regeringen har givet grønt lys til et projekts opstart, overfører Genopbygningsbanken kreditten til en konto for projektet. De myndigheder eller foretagender, som af regeringen har fået til opgave at gennemføre genopbygningsprojektet, betaler sine leverandører og arbejdere med disse kreditter. Dette fortsætter, indtil projektet er færdigt. Alle nye sedler og kreditter fra Genopbygningsbanken har da fået en sikkerhed i form af det fuldførte projekt.

Hvordan kan de private banker mobiliseres til fordel for genopbygning?

Retten til at skabe kredit er en vigtig naturressource for en nation, som staten må anvende for at gennemføre genopbygningen. Det er helt afgørende, at kreditterne ikke vandrer videre til spekulation og pyramidespil, som i den vestlige verdens globaliserede banker i dag. De syriske banker må derfor begrænses i deres aktivitet derigennem, at de ikke må drive nogen form for investerings-bankaktivitet, såsom selvstændig handel og handel med værdipapirer. Det drejer sig ikke om at forbyde handel med værdipapirer, men det må holdes totalt adskilt, både ejerskabsmæssigt og personelmæssigt, fra enhver kommerciel bankvirksomhed.

Fra den amerikanske præsident Roosevelts tid i 1933 og frem til 1999 fandtes der i USA en sådan bankopdelingslov (Glass-Steagall Act), der foreskrev en total separation, og så længe, denne lov var i kraft, opstod der ingen systemisk krise for de amerikanske banker. Hvis man snarest gennemfører en sådan bankopdeling i Syrien, kan de kommercielle banker mobiliseres til fordel for genopbygning. Kun herved vil tilskud af kredit fra Genopbygningsbanken kunne gencirkuleres i bankerne og skabe ringe i vandet i realproduktionen. Desuden må kreditterne fra de private banker, så længe genopbygningen finder sted, være strengt rationerede således, at de dirigeres til det, som behøves iht. genopbygningsplanen, til sådanne kategorier af lån, som er nødvendige for virksomhedernes og menneskenes reelle behov.

Med et reguleret, kommercielt banksystem kan Genopbygningsbanken benytte sig af private banker til at formidle sine kreditter til kommissionerede virksomheder og udbetale pengene. I dette tilfælde henvender virksomheden sig til sin lokale bank, som igen henvender sig til Genopbygningsbanken for at få den kredit, som er godkendt til projektet.

Må nationen gældssætte sig til udlandet for genopbygning?

Nationens egen skabelse af kredit i Hamiltons tradition kan sætte alle indenrigsressourcer i fuldt arbejde, men kan ikke betale for det, som må importeres til genopbygningen. Til dette kræves først og fremmest udenlandsk valuta fra eksportindkomster, men dette vil heller ikke være tilstrækkeligt i de første år. Nationen må optage store lån i udenlandsk valuta for at kunne importere de maskiner og det udstyr, som behøves. Hvis lånene kobles direkte til genopbygningsplanen, kan denne gældssætning gøres både langfristet og tilpasset projektets tilbagebetalingsevne. Disse udenlandske lån bør også kunne holde en lav rente, eftersom lånene er værdisikrede gennem deres binding til reelle projekter. Syrien kan ikke regne med at kunne få større lån fra den vestlige verdens kriseramte finansinstitutioner. Derimod er der mulighed for at finansiere import af vigtigt maskinel, selv midt i en stor finanskrise, gennem bilaterale handelsaftaler med enkelte, interesserede vestlige lande. Med denne fremgangsmåde kan en sådan nation indgå en aftale om at skabe en kreditmulighed i sin egen valuta til eksport af landets maskiner og varer til Syrien. En række af sådanne bilaterale aftaler med interesserede nationer kan klare anskaffelsen af udenlandske varer til genopbygningen.

BRIKS-nationernes Nye Udviklingsbank er nu i færd med at blive opbygget i overensstemmelse med det nye paradigme for en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. BRIKS har det udgangspunkt at udstede kredit ud fra projektets fremtidige potentiale og ikke ud fra den nuværende betalingsevne i de lande, der ønsker at påbegynde projekterne. De samme principper vil også blive anvendt af de mange andre fonde, der er blevet skabt for at realisere bygningen af Den nye Silkevej. Her bør et frit Syrien have store muligheder for at skaffe lån i udenlandsk valuta til vigtige, store infrastruktursatsninger.

Eftersom gældssætningen i det nye paradigme mod-svares af de nye projekter, der gennemføres, er det en god gældssætning. Jo mere af en sådan gæld, der tilsigter at realisere landets potentiale, desto bedre. En sådan gæld bliver ikke en lænke, men en målestandard for, hvor meget Syrien satser på fremtiden.

Hvilket syrisk fremtidspotentiale kan udløses af genopbygningskreditterne?

1. Folket som bærere af alt potentiale.

Hvis man ikke prioriterer sikkerhed for fødevareforsyning, nødgenhusning, sundhedsydelser, uddannelse og arbejde, kan hele folkets potentiale ikke udløses. Til dette kræves der den bredest mulige mobilisering af nationens tilgængelige ressourcer fra de statslige myndigheder, helt ned til mikro-niveau. Lokale forvaltninger må, foruden budgetmidler, også kunne få del i statens dirigerede kreditgivning fra Genopbygningsbanken. Dette vil kunne igangsætte alle lokale kræfter og ressourcer til genrejsning af skoler, lægehuse, el og vandforsyning, såvel som den hurtigst mulige forøgelse af lokal produktion af mad og andre vigtige fornødenheder. Særlige kreditter bør dirigeres til tidligere ejere af industriforetagender og landbrug, der er blevet ødelagt i krigen, såvel som også til entreprenører, der vil starte nye foretagender. Terroristernes målrettede ødelæggelse af alle lægemiddelindustrier viser, hvilken strategisk betydning disse har, hvilket også er gældende for den omstridte olie-, gas- og petrokemiske sektor. Også den videre forædling af bomuldsproduktionen og andre landbrugsprodukter i f.eks. Syriens berømte tekstilindustri udgør en stor genopbygningsopgave, sammen med hele den øvrige industrisektor. Særlige arbejdsbrigader bestående af arbejdsløse kan også finansieres på samme måde for at bygge det, der er behov for, og samtidig arbejdstræne de arbejdsløse til stadig mere kvalificerede opgaver. Hærens ingeniørtropper kan udgøre kernen i disse arbejdsbrigader og gennem disse genopbygningsprojekter fortsætte med at forsvare det syriske folk.

2. Genstart af tidligere fungerende infrastruktur og erhvervsgrene med potentiale.

Genopbygningsbankens kreditgivning kan finansiere det store behov for at reparere den vigtigste infrastruktur: energi, el-systemet, vand og kommunikation. Kreditterne kan udvides, indtil alle tilgængelige, kvalificerede arbejdere, maskiner og materiel er i fuld anvendelse. På denne måde kan genopbygningen organiseres på den mest effektive måde med tanke på de muligheder, der er for en fremtidig infrastruktur. Genopbygningen kan direkte orienteres mod skabelsen af en ny infrastrukturplatform på højeste niveau af teknik og produktivitet.

Erfaringerne fra krigen med håndteringen af den mest avancerede teknologi for fly, robotter, elektronik og maskiner kan gøres til udgangspunkt for videreuddannelse og civil tilpasning i nye industrier, baseret på denne teknik. En målorienteret udvikling af den kemiske industri, der er baseret på råvarer fra gas- og olieindustrien, kan fremme nye industrier for videreforædling, for fremstilling af kunstgødning, plastikprodukter, pulverjern og højteknologiske produkter. I BRIKS-landenes nye paradigme vil den kerneteknologiske industri, der blev bombet i stykker af Israel, også blive genopbygget til produktion af energi, afsaltning af havvand og indtræden i iso-topforskningens nye økonomiske æra.

3. Den nye teknologis potentiale i genopbygningen.

Man må give særlig kreditstøtte til mulighederne for at skabe et teknologisk spring, når man alligevel skal erstatte udstyr. Eksempelvis kan nye jordkabler til erstatning for ødelagte el-ledninger kompletteres med IT-ledere af fiber. Målestokken for den energi, der bør prioriteres, er energigennemstrømningstætheden. Præcis som en øget energitæthed hos soldatens våben, mht. præcision og kraft/cm2, øger effekten mod fjenden, således er også energitætheden i den fredelige arbejders teknologier parameteret for at øge produktiviteten og finde det højeste potentiale for realøkonomisk gavn.

4. Projicering af de Nye Silkevejes internationale udviklingspotentiale ind i Syrien.

Muligheden for at forbinde transporten på Middelhavet, Det indiske Ocean, Det røde Hav, det Kaspiske Hav og Sortehavet har været grundtanken i præsident Bashar al-Assads visionære strategi »De fem Have«. Udviklingsdynamikken i BRIKS-nationernes tilvækst, og mange initiativer til udbygning af de Nye Silkeveje både til lands og til vands, kan projiceres ind i Syrien, hvis denne vision gøres til udgangspunkt for Syriens nye infrastrukturindsats. (jvf. EIR’s kort) Det drejer sig ikke udelukkende om transport, men om internationale udviklings-korridorer, der tilfører Syriens gamle Silkevejs-handelspladser ny, langsigtet tilvækstkraft. Ud over jernbaner bygges korridorerne som et bredt bælte med anden infrastruktur, både pipelines, vandprojekter, industri og landbrugszoner og nye byer. Det Nye Silkevejsperspektiv er så gennemgribende, at Syrien kan påbegynde planlægning for i samarbejde med nabolandene at udvikle og udnytte vandressourcerne, gøre ørkenen grøn, mildne sandstorme og tilbageerobre store ørkenområder til dyrkning og bosættelse på maksimal måde.

Hvordan projiceres de Nye Silkeveje ind i Syrien?

1. Forbindelse til Bagdad og Teheran

Kinas strategi for »Ét bælte, én vej« for at udbygge de gamle silkeveje til udviklingskorridorer med moderne transportsystemer har ikke kun til hensigt at nå frem til Europa, men også via Iran at nå frem til Egypten og Afrika over land. Jernbanen fra Teheran til Kairo vil blive bygget over Kermanshah til Bagdad, Amman og Akaba. Med den planlagte forbindelse over Sharm el-Sheik når jernbanen helt frem til Kairo. Med bygningen af en relativ kort jernbanestrækning fra Deir ez-Zur til den irakiske grænseby Abu Kamal opnår man jernbaneforbindelse fra Bagdad, men det betyder mere end dette. Det betyder, at den gamle Silkevej langs Eufrat atter gøres til Syriens øst-vest-udviklingskorridor og giver ny energi til Aleppos ødelagte industrizoner. En sådan jernbane bygget i samarbejde med Irak åbner en direkte jernbaneforbindelse fra Syrien til Basra og vil være et stort skridt i virkeliggørelsen af De fem Haves strategi derved, at den etablerer en direkte kontakt mellem Den arabiske Golf (den Persiske Golf) og det Indiske Ocean.

Jernbanen fra Bagdad og Teheran vil også føre handel over land fra Kina og Centralasien til Syrien. En stor gren af Den nye Silkevej fra det vestlige Kina og Centralasien passerer Teheran. Desuden bliver en landrute fra Indien og Pakistan mulig via det iranske jernbanenet, som er bygget frem til Zahedan lige ved det pakistansk/indiske jernbanenet, som engang i fremtiden vil blive åbnet.

Jernbanen fra Teheran åbner desuden for forbindelse til landene ved det Kaspiske Hav som næste trin i »De fem Haves strategi«. Transporterne fra Rusland på den såkaldte Nord/Syd-korridor, som har forbundet St. Petersborg med den iranske havneby Bandar Abbas, og senere desuden med havnebyen Chabahar på kysten af det Indiske Ocean, går både på og langs begge sider af det Kaspiske Hav og vil også blive en forbindelse til Syrien.

Via Basra kan det omtalte højhastighedstog fra De forenede arabiske Emirater til Kuwait med forlængelsen forbindes til Oman og Yemen. Alle disse handelsveje vil, ligesom den gamle Silkevej, blive projiceret ind i Syrien mod Aleppo, og dernæst kommer udviklingskorridoren til at fortsætte til det krigsramte Idlebs industrizoner og Latakias Middelhavs-havn, der må udbygges.

Næste skridt bliver bygningen af jernbanen fra Deir ez-Zur til Tadmor/Palmyra, den legendariske Silkevejs-by, hvor Silkevejsfestivaler-ne afholdtes hvert år før krigen. Denne manglende forbindelse vil skabe en jernbaneforbindelse fra Teheran og Bagdad direkte til Damaskus og Beirut.

2. Forbindelsen til Kairo

Egyptens dynamiske udvikling, med den Nye Suezkanals planlagte, gigantiske, nye industriområde, kan trækkes ind i Syrien, når den nye jernbane fra Kairo til Amman åbnes. Den gamle jernbane fra Amman kan genopbygges som en højhastighedsbane til Damaskus og de store byer Homs og Hama og op til Aleppo i nord. På denne måde kan også søfarten fra landene ved Det røde Hav og hele Afrikas østkyst via havnen i Akaba få en jernbaneforbindelse til Syrien. Egyptens planer om jernbanesamarbejde langs Nilen mod syd vil også øge kontakten ikke bare med Sudan, men også Østafrika via Etiopien, som har verdens højeste, økonomiske tilvækstrate.

Når Hejaz-jernbanen genopbygges med højhastighedsteknik, kan Damaskus atter blive udgangspunkt for rejser til Medina og Mekka. Via denne jernbane kan desuden forbindelsen fra Yemen åbnes, og også fra Afrika via Yemens planlagte tunnel under Bab el-Mandeb til Djibouti.

Fra Egypten vil også den påbegyndte bygning af den arabiske gasledning blive færdig og blive forbundet med den planlagte nye gasledning fra Iran til Syrien, så alle tilsluttede lande både kan eksportere deres egenproducerede gas og tage den gas, som de behøver til forbrug.

3. Forbindelsen til Europa og nordpå til Sortehavet og Rusland.

Når grænsen mod nord åbner, vil Syrien igen kunne blive den store korsvej, så snart bygningen af højhastighedsjernbanen fra Europa til Kairo åbner. Det vil tilføre kraft til alle de krigsramte storbyer: Aleppo, Hama, Homs og Damaskus. I alle byerne kan et lokalt trafiksystem bygges med den nye, tavse magnetteknik på piller. Denne teknik giver højere hastigheder og højere energitæthed samtidig med, at det kan bygges hurtigt, idet man undgår problemer med ikke-udgravede arkæologiske fund, der standsede tunnelbaneprojektet i Damaskus. Det vil forbinde byerne og deres regioner i en bred udviklingskorridor fra nord til syd gennem hele det vestlige Syrien.

Også Kinas handel med Europa via den Nye Silkevejskorridor gennem Iran og Tyrkiet vil i Tyrkiet blive forbundet til den nord/sydgående korridor gennem Syrien. Mod nord vil Aleppo og den syriske nord/sydlige udviklingskorridor tiltrække handel fra Armenien og Aserbajdsjan og via disse, fra Rusland.

Landene omkring Sortehavet når direkte ind i Syrien gennem havnebyerne Samsun og Istanbul. Til Istanbul går den nye »Vikinglinje« med jernbanegods fra Litauens havneby Klaipeda, hvilket også tilknytter transporter fra Østersøregionen og Sverige.

4. Forbindelsen Middelhavet

Siden indvielsen af den Nye Suezkanal i august måned i år er nye, store strømme af varer fra Kina og Indien begyndt at komme til Middelhavet ad den Maritime Silkevej. Der er i øjeblikket planer om at bygge en række havne for at håndtere den nye varetilstrømning. Det gælder for Piræus i Grækenland og Taranto, Crotone og Gioia Tauro i det sydlige Italien. Forud for dette har man planlagt en udbygning af højhastighedstog mod nord til Centraleuropa gennem både Italien og Balkan. Kina deltager i planlægningen af en ny kanal gennem Balkan fra Thessaloniki via floderne Axios/Vardar og Drina op til Europas transportårer Donau, der tiltrækker trafik fra Rhinen i Tyskland. Dette åbner også op for transport til Syrien, hvis man udbygger havnene i Latakia og Tartous.

Hele Middelhavsområdet kan blive et udviklingsområde, der kan imødegå krisen med arbejdsløshed i både Nordafrika og det sydlige Europa. For at dette kan realiseres, har Schiller Instituttet udarbejdet en »Marshallplan for Middelhavsområdet«1, der indeholder mange af de fremtidige projekter.

1 Engelsk Specialrapport: Program for an Economic Mi-racle in Southern Europa, the Mediterranean Region and Africa: SE kort her: http://larouche.se/svenska/media/20120612-meditprog_en_0.pdf

Rapporten er oversat til dansk, se her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=3301

5. Tunneller, der planlægges mellem Tunesien og Sicilien og under Gibraltarstrædet.

Langs den nordafrikanske kyst skal Egyptens første kernekraftværk bygges med mulighed for afsaltning af havvand til ferskvand, til beboelse, landbrug og industri. Afsaltningsprojekter kan gennemføres også andre steder langs kysten, og frem for alt i Gaza. Tunesien har store, potentielle landbrugsområder i de store saltmarsker Sud. Siden begyndelsen af 1900-tallet har man haft forhåbninger om at fjerne saltet med vandprojekter og gøre en stor region i det sydlige Tunesien og det østlige Algeriet frugtbar, projekter, der med dagens teknik kan gøres endnu bedre og videre.

Andre store projekter, der er på tegnebrættet, er at lede vand fra det centrale Afrika og til det nordlige Egypten til området nærmest Libyen. Der ligger den store Qattara-sænkning under Middelhavets niveau, der således vil kunne fyldes med ferskvand, så der dannes en stor sø. Sammen med nye jernbaner og veje gennem Sahara til en stor havn ved Middelhavet kan en hel række byer bygges, og et stort ørkenområde befolkes.

Der er også det store Transaqua-projekt til afledning af vand fra Congoflodens øvre dele i en selvrindende kanal til Tchadsøens vandområde. Det indebærer enorme udviklingsmuligheder ved, at Tchadsøen reddes og et stort område i det sydlige Sahara kan genopdyrkes og udvikles. Gennem BRIKS-landenes Nye Udviklingsbank findes der store muligheder for at komme i gang med flere af disse projekter.

Muligheden er til stede for at inddrage Europa og USA i et samarbejde med BRIKS-landene om denne økonomiske udviklingspolitik, så man satser på en genopbygning af sin realøkonomi i stedet for fortsat at kollapse med sit syge finanssystem og sin krigspolitik med folkemord.

Henvisninger til kort m.v.:

Kort 1 over Verdenslandbroen fra EIR-rapporten »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« (»The New Silk Road becomes The World Land-Bridge«) http://worldlandbridge.com/

Den engelske rapport er på 374 sider. Pris 35 USD i digital pdf-format, med blødt omslag 50 USD.

Udførlig dansk introduktion til rapporten v/Helga Zepp-LaRouche: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=3777

Kort 2 fra EIR-rapporten på dansk, Et økonomisk mirakel for Sydeuropa, Middelhavsområdet og Det afrikanske Kontinent, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=3301

Kort 3 over projiceringen af Den nye Silkevej ind i Syrien (et noget større kort)

http://www.larouche.se/media/1650/view

Læs mere om besøget i Syrien (på svensk):

http://www.larouche.se/artikel/vad-jag-sag-i-syrien

Nærværende artikel »Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning« på arabisk:

http://arabic.larouchepub.com/2015/10/24/752

Og på tysk:

http://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2015/44/phoenix.htm

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

28. oktober 2015 – Leder i New York Times den 28. oktober retter hård kritik mod, hvad den kalder Obamaregeringens ”militære optrapning i Irak og Syrien”, fordømmer Kongressen for ikke at modsætte sig det faktum, at Obama er gået i krig uden Kongressens godkendelse og advarer om, at det kan føre til en direkte krig med Rusland.

”Obamaregeringen tager skridt til at udvide en militær-kampagne, som stadig er blottet for strategisk sammenhæng”, fastslår lederen i Times. ”I stedet for at modsætte sig en optrapning af amerikanske militær-styrker i den syriske krig, kræver flere fremtrædende medlemmer af Kongressen uansvarligt endnu hårdere fremgangsmåder … Pentagon fortsætter med at kalde militær-kampagnen i Syrien og Irak for en ’rådgivnings- og hjælpe’-mission, en beskrivelse, som var misvisende i starten af kampagnen, og som nu er absurd. Ved trinvist at øge sin militære rolle i en omfattende, kompliceret slagmark, bliver USA suget ind i en ny krig i Mellemøsten.”

Lederen siger derefter, at Obamas politik ”mangler juridiske rammer samt et opnåeligt mål”, og tilføjer: ”Med nogle få undtagelser, synes lovgiverne totalt uanfægtede over, at de tillader en præsident at gå i krig uden udtrykkelig tilladelse fra Kongressen … Brugen af hr. Assad, en morderisk leder, som har mistet enhver legitimitet, har  i princippet en indlysende appel. Men sådan en fremgangsmåde vil næsten med sikkerhed være katastrofal, fordi det vil føre USA ud i en direkte i krig med Rusland og Iran, som støtter ham militært. Selvom det skulle lykkes Washington at tvinge ham fra magten, kunne det tjene den islamiske stats fremmarch, noget, som kun vil føre til mere blodbad.

I går udstedte Lyndon LaRouche på ny et presserende nødvendigt krav om, at Barack Obama omgående må fjernes fra USA’s præsidentskab ved forfatningsmæssige tiltag, for at han ikke skal føre hele planeten ud i en atomar udslettelseskrig. LaRouche henviste til Obamas seneste runde med militære provokationer imod Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav, hans eskalerende krig i Syrien og hans massemorderiske droneprogram – blandt andre – som typiske eksempler på den politik, der som en skrigende nødvendighed må bringes til ophør.

LaRouche erklærede under en diskussion i dag med LPAC Policy Committee:

»Jeg mener, at problemet her ligger i det faktum, at Obama … Obama er grundlæggende set i færd med at foretage træk, som han gør med operationerne ved Kina osv., og han er fast besluttet på at lancere en atomkrig. Og alle tendenser i hans adfærd går i den retning. For eksempel som angrebet på den medicinske facilitet [i Kunduz, Afghanistan]. Fyren er i virkeligheden en morder. Han er slet og ret en morder, og han bør smides ud af embedet.«

»Og hvis vi ikke siger dette og fører en kampagne omkring dette, så mener jeg, at verden som helhed, verdens folk som helhed, står på randen. Se blot på, hvad Obama er i færd med at foretage sig i Kina, med angrebet på Kina, som er en absolut forfalsket operation.«

»Obama viser sine fæle poter, eller sine blodige poter, i diverse operationer. Denne mand må trækkes ud, hans embedsperiode må annulleres! Vi har et præsidentielt princip, under hvilket han må klassificeres, og under hvilket han må fjernes fra embedet. Hvis vi ikke fjerner ham fra embedet, så vil vi komme ud i en meget farlig situation.«

»Den anden side af sagen er, at vi ikke har en Kongres, der er kompetent til at udtrykke sig, som det er nødvendigt. Gå tilbage til præsidentskaberne før denne. Vi har før haft disse. Man kan ikke være useriøs med dette og behandle det ved at sige: ’Vi må forhandle os igennem det her.’«

»Vi må sige, ’Nej!’ Og jeg mener, at vores organisation har evnen til at sige ’nej’. Og jeg mener, at vi må sige nej ved simpelt hen at opregne nogle af de forbrydelser, han har begået. Og sige: Disse forbrydelser, alt imens de ikke er afgjort mht. en endelig afgørelse, så er faktum, at kravet er, at han må underkastes undersøgelse for at demonstrere, hvorfor han ikke skal smides ud af embedet. Det er der beviser nok til.«

Den seneste tids række af forbrydelser, som Obama har begået, inkluderer bl.a.:

• Provokationen den 27. okt. med at sende et amerikansk krigsskib ind i Det sydkinesiske Hav, mens han lover at fortsætte med lignede provokationer til vands og i luften i den nærmeste fremtid. En direkte militær nærkontakt mellem USA og Kina bliver højst sandsynlig, hvis dette fortsætter.
• Lækken fra Obamaregeringen den 27. okt. til Washington Post, Reuters og andre medier om, at hans regering har en operationel plan på bordet om at sende amerikanske specialtropper og andre tropper ind i Syrien – en total overtrædelse af USA’s Forfatning og af International Lov – der blot venter på grønt lys fra præsidenten. Dette kunne føre til en direkte militær konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland på den mellemøstlige arena.
• Det amerikanske militærs overlagte bombning den 3. okt. af et Læger uden Grænser-hospital i Kunduz, Afghanistan, der resulterede i over 30 dødsfald, til trods for, at der på forhånd var udgivet fuld information om koordinaterne for dette hospital. Dette udgør en krigsforbrydelse, der berettiger til retsforfølgelse. Obamaregeringens skamløshed opmuntrede tydeligvis Det saudiske Kongerige til at udføre en lignende grusomhed imod et LuG-hospital i Yemen den 26. oktober.
• Det løbske, illegale droneprogram for drab, under hvilket Obama personligt udvælger og ved sin underskrift godkender det koldblodige mord på mistænkte terrorister og uskyldige tilskuere over en kam, som det for nyligt er blevet afsløret af websiden The Intercept.
• Obamas fortsatte og ubøjelige engagerende forpligtelse til at redde (bailout) det bankerotte Wall Street-system ved at tage livet af Amerikas fysiske økonomi og Amerikas befolkning – et system, der i stedet bør fjernes og erstattes med LaRouches økonomiske program med Verdenslandbroen.
• Obamas principielle ansvar for at skabe den flygtningekrise, der har bragt Europa til den yderste klippekant, gennem de illegale krige, som han og hans forgænger George Bush lancerede i hele regionen, og senest i Syrien.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i sine bemærkninger ved konferencen i Washington den 27. okt. med fhv. senator Mike Gravel, så har denne flygtningekrise nu nået kogepunktet og har konfronteret Europa med en knald-eller-fald-situation for sin blotte eksistens. Hele den Europæiske Union er ved at smuldre, stedt over for krisen, der er meget mere end en flygtningekrise: det er en massemigration og en eksistentiel krise. Den eneste løsning, understregede Zepp-LaRouche, er at bringe reel udvikling ind i Mellemøsten og Afrika ved at forlænge Verdenslandbroen ind i disse områder. USA og Storbritannien bør deltage i at sikre denne løsning, erklærede hun. Eftersom det var Det britiske Monarki, og i USA Bush- og Obamaregeringerne, der var årsag til krisen.

I går understregede LaRouche:

»Denne karl Obama må holdes tilbage, og hvis han ikke bliver det, er I alle døde, det er den risiko, vi løber. Og jeg mener, at vores fremgangsmåde må defineres ud fra disse referencerammer. Jeg mener, at vi må gøre dette drone-spørgsmål til det absolutte topspørgsmål. Hvis der er nogen, der siger, at det kan retfærdiggøres, er det en løgn – du narres til at godtage en løgn. Når man myrder folk, så myrder man dem! Og man siger ’du myrder dem’.

Og Obama er grundlæggende set en morder; han er en massemorder. Den aktuelle præsident for USA er en massemorder! Hvis man vil redde USA, så må man sige dette. Hvis man ikke siger dette, ja, så kunne du være den næste, der ryger.«

Med hensyn til dem, der har været så bange for Obama, at de har været paralyseret til handlingslammelse og til at tolerere hans nazistiske forbrydelser, erklærede LaRouche:

»Sandheden er af afgørende betydning: Obama er en morder, punktum. Hvis man ønsker, at civilisationen skal overleve, må man lukke ned for Obama. Ikke på længere sigt; lige nu.«    

22. oktober 2015 – I endnu et interview her til morgen, med Deutschlandfunk radio, om flygtningekrisen, sagde fhv. Bundeswehr-stabschef (2000-02) og chef for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002-05), general Harald Kujat (pens.), at, med mindre man adresserer oprindelsen til flygtningestrømmen, vil krisen fortsætte: »Vi må stoppe denne krig!« De er rigtigt, sagde han, at de russiske luftangreb, som alle sådanne operationer, skaber flygtninge, men det er et tegn på håb, at USA og Rusland nu har en aftale om dekonfliktion, og han håber meget, at Kerry-Lavrov-mødet i Wien i morgen vil bringe fremskridt, for USA og Rusland må samarbejde for at bringe denne krig til en afslutning.

Kujat udelukkede kategorisk enhver form for byggen mure omkring Tyskland og Europa for at holde flygtningene ude, hvilket, sagde han, ikke vil virke, fordi folk vil fortsætte med at komme, så længe der er krig i Syrien. Og Hæren har intet at gøre her, for i Tyskland siger Forfatningen tydeligt, at Hæren kun kan sættes ind til nationalt forsvar, eller i tilfælde af naturkatastrofer og store ulykker. Krisen omkring flygtningene er imidlertid ikke i disse kategorier.

Indstrømningen af flygtningene er ved at skabe en kritisk situation på Balkan, hvor små stater som Slovenien simpelt hen er blevet overvældet; men, sagde generalen, han kan simpelt hen ikke forstå visse andre europæiske landes afvisning af at yde hjælp, eftersom de er mindre udsat for tragedien. Hvis det organiseres på den rigtige måde, tilføjede han, kan den nuværende flygtningekrise løses af Tyskland og Europa; det er han fuldstændig overbevist om. Men hvis der ikke sker en forbedring af uroen i Mellemøsten, hvis de millioner af flygtninge, der stadig befinder sig i regionen, også kommer ind i Europa, vil europæerne ikke kunne håndtere det.

Foto: Flygtningestrømmen har fuldstændig overvældet Slovenien

28. oktober 2015 – Intense diplomatiske udfoldelser fra Ruslands side i løbet af de seneste par uger, inkl. med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry, har båret frugt med meddelelsen om, at Iran er blevet inviteret til at deltage i drøftelserne om Syrien i Wien, den 30. okt., efter en fælles aftale mellem Rusland og USA. Talsmand for Det Hvide Hus Eric Schultz sagde til reportere, »USA er parat til at samarbejde med enhver nation, inkl. Rusland og Iran, for at løse konflikten i Syrien«, og selv Saudi Arabien blev vundet over til at gå med til at invitere Iran. »Vore partneres synspunkt«, sagde den saudiske udenrigsminister Adel al-Jubeir i dag, »var, at vi burde afprøve iranernes og russernes intentioner mht. at få en politisk løsning i Syrien, hvilket vi alle foretrækker.«

Det ser ud, som om spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den syriske præsident Assad kan forblive i embedet, er taget af dagsordenen for Wien-mødet, der forventes at omfatte omkring et dusin deltagere, inkl. Rusland, USA, Tyrkiet, Saudi Arabien, Egypten, Iran, Qatar, Libanon, Frankrig og EU. Den saudiske udenrigsminister meddelte, at Saudi Arabien og dets allierede ville afholde et separat møde på fredag for at finde »tidspunkt og fremgangsmåde for Bashar al-Assads afgang«

Foto: Irans udenrigsminister Mohammad Javad Zarif, der nu vil deltage i drøftelserne i Wien.

27. oktober 2015 – EIR  leverede et nødvendigt chok til Washington, D.C. i dag på National Press Club, under titlen: »En afslutning på permanent krig og finansiel panik: Glass-Steagall og den Globale Silkevej«. Blandt mange andre gæster hørte og debatterede 35 personer fra ambassadestabe fra lande i hele verden præsentationer ved Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche og fhv. senator til den amerikanske Kongres Mike Gravel fra delstaten Alaska.

Missionen var at præsentere det umiddelbart tilgængelige, håndgribelige alternativ til krisen i den transatlantiske verden med økonomisk forfald og endeløse krige. Dette i en amerikansk hovedstad, der lider under økonomisk nedtrykthed og krigslede, og som skal vedtage nedskæringer af pensions- og sundhedsydelser samtidig med, at beskatningen af en befolkning, der er ved at gå under økonomisk, skal øges. Zepp-LaRouche og senator Gravel gjorde det klart, at, med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall i den transatlantiske sektor, sammen med en opkobling til den udviklingspolitik, som repræsenteres af Den nye Silkevej, samt en afslutning af Barack Obamas katastrofale rolle som præsident, kan krisen i USA og Europa vendes til en økonomisk genrejsning.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er hovedperson bag og forfatter til EIR’s udførlige specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«,  der har fået opbakning fra mange økonomiske institutioner i Kina og nu er udgivet som kinesisk bog, der nyder bred cirkulation i Kina. 

Mike Gravel var den senator, der brød Washington-reglen, da han i 1971 i Kongressen oplæste de såkaldte »Pentagon-papirer« om Vietnamkrigen (og således sikrede, at disse oplysninger blev optaget i Senatets journal, -red.), og som i 2007, under en præsidentkandidatdebat, udfordrede Barack Obama ved, med stor forudseenhed, at kalde denne for en kandidat for krig, inklusive atomkrig.

Gravel udfordrer sine kolleger i den aktuelle søvngænger-Kongres til at åbne op for Obamas hemmelige dronekrige, hans uautoriserede, evindelige krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, samt krigskonfrontationer rettet mod Rusland og Kina. Han sagde til forsamlingen, at han samarbejder med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, fordi han støtter konceptet med Silkevejens globale infrastrukturudvikling og den måde, hvorpå LaRouche-parret organiserer til fordel for dette. Han sagde:

»Vi befinder os i en ’Augusts Kanoner’-situation: Vi må have en fremgangsmåde over for Den nye Silkevej, som med en Marshall-plan.«

Med en beskrivelse af den forværrende flygtningekrise i Europa, som er skabt af Obama som det direkte resultat af hans krige, kaldte Helga Zepp-LaRouche dette for »de brændende skjorters tid«,[1] hvor ledernes skjorter brænder pga. krise, og hvor »en ny æra for menneskehedens fælles mål« kan initieres.

Under den timelange diskussion og debat fik gæsterne EIR-specialrapporter og tegnede abonnementer på EIR Alert-service. Zepp-LaRouche, Gravel samt Lyndon LaRouche blev interviewet af amerikanske og udenlandske medier.

I en senere diskussion efter forummets afslutning fokuserede Lyndon LaRouche på forummets centrale betydning som værende missionsorienteret. Han sagde:

»Hvad gør du for at skabe et højere udviklingsniveau for de levende og for dem, der følger efter? – Det er målestokken for din moralitet.«

»Wall Street er i færd med at ødelægge USA’s befolkning. Det påtvinger den amerikanske befolkning mere og mere fattigdom – ikke blot år for år, og sæson efter sæson! Det er en gift; skaf jer af med det. Obama er en morder af uskyldige civile, en krigsmager og en tyv. Hvad vil du gøre for at redde menneskeheden fra disse udyr?«

»Forsøm ikke, af mangel på lidenskab, at bringe i orden, hvad du burde have bragt i orden i din levetid.«

[1] Fra gr. Mytologi; den forgiftede skjorte, der brændte Herakles og fik ham til at kaste sig på ligbålet; en ’destruktiv kraft eller sonings-indflydelse’.

Her følger det engelske udskrift af hovedtaler v/ Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Mike Gravel: (en dansk oversættelse af Helgas tale kommer snarest):

Download (PDF, Unknown)

26. oktober 2015 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins og udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrovs militære og diplomatisk intervention i Syrien er hastigt i færd med at transformere situationen i hele Sydvestasien, og i realiteten i hele verden. I kølvandet på den syriske præsident Hafez al-Assads besøg i Moskva i sidste uge, Putins møde med formanden for det iranske parlament Ali Larijani under Valdai-klubbens begivenhed i Sotji, Rusland, og mødet mellem Lavrov, den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og ledere fra Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet og Jordan i Wien, er der nu fra flere sider diskussioner om fremskridt inden for internationalt samarbejde om krisen i Syrien, der grundlæggende set foregår uden om Obama.

En russisk, parlamentarisk delegation til Damaskus rapporter, at præsident Assad har indvilget i at afholde foreløbige valg i landet på betingelse af, at dette har befolkningens støtte, iflg. TASS. Medlem af det russiske kommunistparti Aleksandr Jushenko, der var med i delegationen, sagde, at Assad er »parat til at diskutere tilføjelser til Forfatningen, afholde parlamentsvalg og, hvis det syriske folk finder det nødvendigt, har udtrykt, at han er parat til at afholde præsidentvalg«, som Assad er sikker på at vinde, iflg. RT. Assad sagde til den syriske presse, at han venter besøg fra den russiske viepremierminister Dmitry Rogozin, formand for Dumaen Sergey Naryshkin og formand Valentina Matvienko.

Lavrov optrådte på et talkshow i Moskva lørdag, for at tale om situationen i Syrien og sit møde med Kerry dagen før. Han sagde: »Vi er parat til at inkludere den patriotiske opposition, inklusive den såkaldte Frie Syriske Hær (FSA), for at give den luftstøtte, selvom vi blev nægtet information om, hvor, iflg. amerikanske data, terroristerne er lokaliseret, og hvor den patriotiske opposition befinder sig.«

Fahad Al-Masri, talsmand for FSA (selvom der hersker nogen uenighed om, hvorvidt han rent faktisk er talsmand for FSA), foreslog et møde i Egypten med russerne. »Den Frie Syriske Hær er parat til en dialog med Rusland«, sagde han iflg. RT. »Vi må arrangere et nyt møde, så vi kan fremlægge vores holdning og diskutere vore fælles handlinger.«

Interessant nok sagde Lavrov, at Kerry havde forklaret ham, hvorfor USA havde afvist at acceptere en delegation under ledelse af premierminister Medvedev. »John Kerry sagde til mig: Ved De hvad, tag det ikke så bogstaveligt, for vi er i processen. Foreløbig er betingelserne for en sådan kontakt ikke forberedt. Lad os arbejde på ministerplan, og så vil vi være parate til at overveje jeres andre ideer«, sagde Lavrov.

Den præsidentielle talsmand Dmitri Peskov sagde til BBC fredag (interviewet skal faktisk udsendes i sin helhed mandag): »Desværre er det hidtil ikke lykkedes nogen af vore partnere at identificere en seriøs opposition, der ikke har forbindelse til terror, til ekstremistiske organisationer, til ISIL, al-Qaeda og andre. … Det er vigtigt at redde Syriens integritet, territoriale og politiske integritet, og ikke tillade, at hele regionen, inklusive de lande, der grænser op til Syrien, går ind i et mareridt af sammenbrud og terrorherredømme.«

21. oktober 2015 – Rusland udfordrer NATO på dennes sydlige periferi – dens egen sø, om man vil, hvis man da køber NATO’s verdenssyn – og alliancen er ikke glad for det. NATO’s vicegeneralsekretær Alexander Vershbow sagde til Financial Times mandag, at Ruslands deployering for at bekæmpe anti-Assad oprørsstyrker er en umiddelbar udfordring for Vesten, og sandsynligvis en længerevarende én. »Vi må tænke på de bredere konsekvenser af denne oprustning i det østlige Middelhav og disse luftbasers kapacitet«, sagde Vershbow.

Ifølge FT kunne Ruslands fornyede tilstedeværelse i Middelhavet blive højst forstyrrende: det åbner hele NATO’s sydlige grænse for russisk provokation, alt imens det truer med at begrænse den »navigationsfrihed«, der gør det muligt for NATO hurtigt og let at deployere militære aktiver. For USA, f.eks., kunne det komplicere evnen til hurtigt at projicere flådemagt ind i Golfen. Det ville have gjort en NATO-beslutning om at intervenere i Libyen-konflikten i 2011 langt vanskeligere at planlægge.

De siger også, at Ruslands tilbagevenden til Middelhavet »pludselig placerer hele Europa inden for rækkevidde af dets hastigt udviklende arsenal af skibslancerede krydsermissiler og ballistiske missiler«. Og NATO har ikke noget svar, som det udviklede for Østeuropa. NATO-embedsfolk indrømmer uden tøven, at den (opfattede) trussel fra Rusland former Trident Juncture-øvelsen. Moskvas strategi hænger på at udskære beskyttende »bobler«, siger en højtplaceret NATO-embedsmand: »Vi anser dette for en del af hele deres doktrin«.  FT rapporterer yderligere, at Ruslands Middelhavsflåde, f.eks., rejser børster med sine mest magtfulde, antiluftskyts s300 missilsystemer, der er blevet tilpasset alle skibe for nær de mindste skibe. »For NATO skaber det det, som militære taktikere refererer til som antiluftskytsområde, hvor flyvning nægtes – en flyveforbudszone – men én, der er rettet mod vesten.«

20. oktober 2015 – Hvis kansler Merkel er »den mest magtfulde kvinde i verden«, så bør hun rejse til Washington og få USA til »at sætte sig ved bordet« sammen med Rusland for at stoppe myrderiet i Syrien. Dette var de facto konsensussen mellem general Harald Kujat (pens.) og medlem af Forbundsdagen (MdB) Wolfgang Gehrcke under deres optræden i går aftes på Phoenix-Tv’s »Unter den Linden«-talkshow. General Kujat var chef for NATO’s Militærkomite fra 2002-05 og før det chef for Bundeswehrs generalstab; MdB Gehrcke var mangeårigt medlem af Vesttysklands Kommunistiske Parti indtil 1990, hvor han blev leder af det, der nu er Die Linke.

Selv om debatten drejede sig om flygtningekrisen i Europa, så bragte de to gæster hele tiden spørgsmålet tilbage til den kendsgerning, at »flygtningekrisen kun er symptomet«, men at årsagen er den brutale krig i Syrien, der må afsluttes. Studieværten forsøgte at holde spørgsmålet på flygtningene og kansler Merkels besøg i Tyrkiet, men Gehrcke brød ind med, at »ingen vil tale om årsagerne«. Vi indgår en aftale midt i Erdogans valgkampagne for at få en aftale som den, vi havde med Gaddafi, »som vi senere slagtede som en hund«, og efterlod os med det problem, vi har nu. General Kujat sagde, at aftalen ikke vil fungere; »nøglen er at standse krigen«. Udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers diplomati er vigtigt, »men nøglen er at få USA til at sætte sig sammen med Rusland for en gennemføre et fælles mål«.

Kujat var enig med Gehrcke i, at Tyrkiet er »indirekte involveret« i opbakningen til ISIS. Siden USA-Erdogan-aftalen bomber Tyrkiet ikke ISIS i Syrien, men kurderne (som var en urokkelig partisan imod ISIS). Russerne blev beskyldt for kun at bombe de »moderate« oprørere og ikke ISIS, »hvad jeg ikke tror, er helt sandt«, men Tyrkiet?

General Kujat kritiserede uophørligt, at »vore politikere« ikke ser, at vi har en stor interesse i, at USA og Rusland og Europa samarbejder om at afslutte krigen. At nægte at samarbejde med Rusland med den falske påstand, at Putin kun støtter Assad, er forkert, sagde han. Vesten behøver ikke forhandle med Assad, »det vil Rusland gøre for os«. Gehrcke nævnte, at den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov har foreslået humanitære korridorer for at bringe humanitærhjælp ind. General Kujat tilføjede, at han håber, vi vil arbejde sammen med Rusland og FN om fælles forholdsregler. Det er totalt elfenbenstårnstankegang at gøre alting afhængigt af spørgsmålet om Assad.

Kujat beklagede manglen på ledere, der har de tidligere kanslere Willy Brandts og Helmut Schmidts »fremsynethed«. Obama begik en stor fejltagelse, da han hævdede, at USA ikke vil forhandle med en »regional magt« som Rusland. Gehrcke opfordrede indtrængende Merkel til at rejse til Washington; og han tilføjede, »Hvis ISIS vinder, frygter jeg en verdenskrig«.

22. oktober 2015 – Emnet for dette års konference i Valdai Debatklubben i Sotji, Rusland, hvis hovedtale blev holdt af Putin, er »Samfund mellem krig of fred: At overvinde konfliktens logik i morgendagens verden«.

På podiet sammen med Putin var Reagans ambassadør til Moskva, Jack Matlock, fhv. tjekkisk præsident Vaclav Klaus og formand for det iranske Majlis, Ali Larijani. De talte hver især til forsamlingen, men deres bemærkninger er endnu ikke tilgængelige.

Deres tilstedeværelse forbinder Valdai-begivenheden med mødet i Wien i dag mellem udenrigsministrene fra USA, Rusland, Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien. EIR’s kilder siger, at Kerry og Lavrov havde været tilbøjelige til at invitere Iran til mødet, men besluttede ikke at gøre det, indtil visse interne uenigheder med Iran er løst. De drøftede også at invitere Jordan og Egypten, der er ledende sunni-magter – som også Tyrkiet er det – men som støtter den russiske mission imod terrorisme i Syrien. Egyptens støtte til missionen har været åben og udtrykkelig lige fra første færd. Jordans støtte er stiltiende, men velkendt.

Putins åbningstale er kun delvist blevet offentliggjort på engelsk. I de indledende afsnit advarede han imod »konceptet om det såkaldte afvæbnende førsteangreb« og sagde, at der sikkert var nogen, der led under

»den illusion, at den ene parts sejr i en global konflikt igen var mulig – uden uafvendelige, uacceptable, som eksperterne siger det, konsekvenser for vinderen, hvis der da er én … Tærsklen for anvendelse af magt er blevet mærkbart lavere.«

Senere spurgte han,

»Hvorfor er det, at indsatsen fra lad os sige vore amerikanske partnere og deres allierede i deres kamp mod Islamisk Stat ikke har produceret nogen mærkbare resultater? Dette er tydeligvis ikke et spørgsmål om mangel på militærudstyr eller potentiale. USA har tydeligvis et enormt potentiale, det største, militære potentiale i verden, men at snyde er aldrig let. Man erklærer krig mod terrorister og prøver samtidigt at bruge nogle af dem til at arrangere brikkerne på det mellemøstlige bræt i sin egen interesse, som man har lyst til.«   

25. oktober 2015 – I den nuværende, historiske fase, i hvilken så godt som alle antagelser om samfundet, der regnes for at være sikre, bliver forældede, og hvor alle fornemmer, at det handler om de helt store spørgsmål om krig og fred, om at være eller ikke være og om en nedstyrtning i kaos eller en ny, klassisk renæssance, hører Tyskland til de få aktører på verdenspolitikkens store scene, der kan være med til at afgøre, hvilken af de to alternativer, der bliver virkelighed. Således tænker foreløbig kun ganske få mennesker i Tyskland, hvad der imidlertid ikke forklejner sandhedsindholdet i denne erklæring. Naturligvis er Kinas verdenshistoriske rolle mere selvfølgelig; med Xi Jinpings »win-win«-perspektiv om den globale opbygning af Den nye Silkevej har det sat en fuldstændig ny model for udenrigspolitiske relationer på dagsordenen, der, for første gang i historien, viser en måde, hvorpå den katastrofale geopolitik, som allerede har ført til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, kan overvindes gennem gensidigt samarbejde til gensidig fordel. Og ligeså selvfølgelig er Ruslands rolle, der, med sit strategiske partnerskab med Kina og ligeledes med sin militære flanke i Syrien, har skabt en ny magtkonstellation i verden, der tydeliggør, hvor hult Obamaregeringens unipolære krav i mellemtiden er blevet. Præsident Putin har netop, i sin tale ved årets møde i Valdai-klubben, med temaet »krig og fred« understreget den fare, der eksisterer, hvis USA forsøger at bruge det amerikanske antiballistiske missilforsvarssystem i Østeuropa til et førsteangreb, der angiveligt skulle sætte en modstanders våben ud af spillet med moderne, nukleare højpræcisionsvåben, for således at kunne ændre den strategiske balance til egen fordel og påtvinge hele verden sin vilje, alt imens en sådan handling kun kan føre til en garanteret, gensidig udslettelse. Efter den succesrige atomaftale med Iran kan påskuddet om en angivelig trussel, der skulle komme fra iranske raketter, ikke mere opretholdes, alt imens denne trussel i virkeligheden aldrig har eksisteret. Til hvilket formål opretholdes da missilforsvarssystemet fortsat?

Putin, hvis egne militæroperationer i Syrien imod ISIS og andre diverse oprørere skrider succesrigt fremad, påpegede samtidigt årsagen til den til sammenligning fejlslagne, amerikanske militæroperation i regionen. Det skyldes netop en uopløselig modsigelse mellem på den ene side at ville skride ind over for terrorister, og så samtidigt bevæbne dem for, ved hjælp af disse, at styrte legitime regeringer. Man bør under ingen omstændigheder gå glip af den kosteligt ironiske behandling af samme tema om den forvirrende amerikanske politik over for terrorismen i Mellemøsten, i den seneste udgave af satireprogrammet »Die Anstalt« med henvisning til den rørstrømske udsendelse »Herzblatt« (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek#/beitrag/video/2583744/Herzblatt).

Og naturligvis påhviler det selve den amerikanske befolkning – den måske vigtigste aktør på den nævnte verdensscene – at sætte en stopper for og straffe de permanente overtrædelser af den internationale folkeret, der desværre er blevet reglen gennem fortsættelsen af den neokonservative politik fra Bush/Cheney-tiden og frem til den nuværende Obamaregering. Det handler om krigene i Sydvestasien, der byggede på løgne, og frem til droneangreb imod formentlige terrorister, uden nogen som helst korrekt retsproces, eller de berømte »kollaterale skader«, der, iflg. afsløringer fra den seneste whistleblower på websiden The Intercept, for op til 90 % ’s vedkommende har ramt uskyldige civilister.

Den undersøgelse i den amerikanske kongres, som flere organisationer kræver som en bydende nødvendighed, kunne meget hurtigt føre til, at præsident Obama stilles for en rigsret; Obama, der iflg. de offentliggjorte dokumenter hver tirsdag personligt sammensatte dødslisten. Det stormløb af flygtninge mod Europa, og frem for alt til Tyskland, er resultatet af disse krige og droneangrebene, der snarere har fremmet end inddæmmet ISIS’ fremmarch.

Historien har imidlertid på en særlig måde, netop på grund af flygtningekrisen, spillet den afgørende bold hen til Tyskland. Beredvilligheden til at hjælpe i betragtning af de mange fortvivlede menneskers nødsituation er fortsat stor hos et stort flertal af befolkningen. Men allersenest siden guillotinen, der demonstrativt blev medbragt til en demonstration, de, iflg. Forbundskriminalpolitiets oplysninger, omkring 500 overfald på flygtningehjem i år og mordforsøget på overborgmesterkandidaten fra Køln, Henriette Reker, er det også tydeligt, at grænselinjen mellem de »bekymrede borgere« og den rene ekstremisme, der ikke står tilbage for selv voldshandinger, er overskredet. Det truer med at gøre det til sandhed, som Putin for mange måneder siden advarede om, da han profeterede, at Vestens støtte til nazistiske organisationer i Ukraine ville føre til en udbredelse af sådanne organisationer i mange europæiske stater. Den ulykkelige situation for flygtninge i Slovenien, i hvilken mennesker i disse dage uden tøj, der passer til klimaet, gennes sammen som storforbrydere af fuldstændigt overdrevne sikkerhedsstyrker, uden at dette i mindste måde ville føre til, at trængslen stilnede af, er blot den øjeblikkelige registrering af en tragedie, der – hvis der ikke findes en løsning på et andet plan – inden for kort tid vil føre til en eskalering af situationen i hele Europa, for enden af hvilken kunne findes kaos og borgerkrig.

Der er en løsning på denne krise, men den kræver, at en hel række af fejlagtige aksiomatiske antagelser i de forgangne årtier i Vestens politik, og i Tysklands politik i særdeleshed, må korrigeres.

Den første, selvfølgelige konsekvens må være den omgående afslutning af krige under falske påskud. Tyskland har gjort sig til medskyldig i ikke alene den totale udspionering af egne borgere i samarbejde mellem BND og NSA, i den bevidste handling at stille militærbasen Ramstein til rådighed for droneangreb i Sydvestasien og en stiltiende og delvist eksplicitte støtte til Washingtons og Londons unipolære politik. Kun Tysklands ikke-deltagelse i krigene imod Irak under regeringen Schröder og imod Libyen under Merkel/Westerwelle har i det mindste reddet en lille del af landets ære.

Tyskland har på samme måde gjort sig til medskyldig, idet det i årtier har bidraget til IMF’s og Verdensbankens betingelsespolitik over for udviklingslandene, som har forhindret enhver form for virkelig udvikling til fordel for et gældsregime, der udelukkende kom det Britiske Imperiums finanssektors profitinteresser til gode, og for hvilket begrebet »globalisering« blot er et andet udtryk. Når millioner af flygtninge i dag ikke alene flygter fra krige på basis af løgne, men også fra fattigdom og sygdom – de såkaldte »økonomiske flygtninge« (»bekvemmelighedsflygtninge«) fra Balkan, fra Sydeuropa og fra Afrika – så er dette konsekvensen af denne politik.

Så længe Tyskland holder fast ved den samme monetarisme, der også er rettet mod Europa, med Schäubles »Sorte Nul«, dvs., at, for at tilgodese det hjernespind, der hedder et balancerende husholdningsbudget, må der skæres ned på daginstitutioner for børn, gymnastiksale, uddannelsesprogrammer, pensioner osv., for at forsørge flygtningene, og som går hånd i hånd med den brutale »nøjsomhedspolitik« over for Grækenland og hele Sydeuropa, så længe vil de sociale spændinger i Tyskland og i hele Europa vokse, til de eksploderer.

Og der findes en yderligere, dårlig, populær vane, som Tyskland må skille sig af med, hvis vi ønsker at finde en løsning på denne krise: Vi må smide den grønne ideologi over bord. Den forestilling, at vi kan spise de såkaldte udviklingslande af med »vedvarende, passende« udvikling – altså slutteligt slet ingen udvikling – og samtidigt kan bygge nye »Limes«-mure op omkring »Bastionen Europa«, må opgives. Vi må have reelle udviklings- og opbygningsprogrammer for Afrika, Sydvestasien og den sydlige hemisfære, som overvinder fattigdommen og underudviklingen. De gennem videnskab og kunst opdagede, universelt gyldige principper kaldes universelle, fordi de også gælder i udviklingslandene.

Om menneskeheden kan mestre de nuværende udfordringer vil afhænge af, om vi virkeliggør et nyt paradigme, som i kulturenes og civilisationernes mangfoldighed aktualiserer de højeste udformninger af det, som menneskehedens universalhistorie hidtil har frembragt. Og kun, hvis det lykkes os at bringe en dialog i stand mellem repræsentanterne for disse forskellige kulturers højeste perioder, vil vi i rette tid kunne imødegå den indskrænkede bogholdermentalitet og tåbernes enfoldighed med den storslåede idé om folkeforståelse og en forenet menneskehed.

Hvis Tyskland ville sige, at vi forlanger, at disse krige ophører, at en reel udviklingspolitik i fællesskab med BRIKS-staterne om opbygning af Verdenslandbroen kommer på dagsordenen, vi integrerer på kort sigt flygtningene, men vi udvikler deres hjemlande gennem opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, vi husker vor egen klassiske højkultur og indleder en dialog mellem kulturer med de andre kulturers storhedstid – så kan vi tyskere skabe historie.

Jeg er optimistisk, hvad det angår.

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Leder, 19. oktober 2015: USA: Obama kan og skal afsættes i denne uge

LPAC Fredags-webcast, 16. oktober 2015: De lækkede ‘Dronepapirer’: Brug chancen til at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, hvis vi skal redde USA. v/Jeffrey Steinberg

LPAC Fredags-webcast 23. oktober 2015

Link til the Drone Papers(på engelsk)

Jeffrey Steinberg og Matthew Ogden gennemgår intrigerne bag torsdagens Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton og den fortsatte uenighed og implikationerne af offentliggørelsen af Intercepts »Dronepapirer«. … American Civil Liberty Union har krævet officielle Kongresundersøgelser, især af de utallige civile, der er blevet dræbt som en del af dette program – dette målrettede dræberprogram – der alle er klassificeret under fjendtlig kæmperstatus til trods for det faktum, at der ikke engang er nogen, der kender identiteten af det store flertal af disse mennesker, der blev dræbt.   

Jeffrey Steinberg and Matthew Ogden reviewed the machinations behind Thursday’s Benghazi hearing with Hillary Clinton and the continued fall out and implications of the publication of the Intercept’s “The Drone Papers.”

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 23, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here of the LaRouche PAC Friday night webcast. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and we’re here to deliver the message that Mr. LaRouche had to deliver when we met with him earlier this morning; only a matter of hours ago. Now, last week, for those of you who watched this broadcast, we discussed in depth the content of the so-called “Drone Papers,” which were published by Glenn Greenwald’s publication, The Intercept, along with Jeremy Scahill last week. And based on documents that were leaked or were provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower, a second Edward Snowden, from within the drone program itself. The content of those papers is horrifying, to say the least; but the implications of the release of the Drone Papers are continuing to resonate. And the effect is continuing to grow; especially as pertains to Barack Obama, who has presided over this policy during the extent of his entire Presidency. The ACLU has called for official Congressional investigations, especially into the innumerable number of civilians that have been killed as a part of this program — this targeted killing program — who are all classified under enemy combatant status, despite the fact nobody even knows the identities of the vast majority of these people who were killed. And there’s also a press release that has been published and released by former Senator Mike Gravel and also former Democratic Presidential candidate from the 2008 Presidential primaries. This press release was published on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as Executive Intelligence Review, and is available. And again, Senator Gravel takes this directly to the point; that this is the murderous policy of the current President, President Barack Obama.

Now, this is what the subject of our institutional question is for this week; and we’re going to begin by reading the text of that question, and then I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, plus a little bit more additional background. So, the question reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, some officials within the Obama administration believe that the drone program is key to fighting the war against global terrorism. Others believe that the program is a clear violation of the US Constitution, and of international law. Please give us your assessment of the legal issues involved in the drone issue.”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. As Matt said, we had a very extensive discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today; and I’ll get into some of the more legal issues that are on the table here, but I first want to just read you some things that are not quite verbatim quotes, but very clearly reflect the major thrust of Mr. LaRouche’s response to this question.

First, he said, were it not for the recent actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, humanity as a whole may already have been lost. And this is clearly reflected in the British and Obama policies that came very close to triggering global conflagration, whether over the Ukraine situation or Syria. On the specific issues of the drone policy, what Mr. LaRouche said is if Obama is allowed to run loose, even on a reduced basis, it poses a grave danger to mankind. He gets by with murder; he’s a satanic figure, and he’s already been allowed to complete two terms in office. And furthermore, he is still killing people. The United States, under first Bush and now Obama, has become an unsafe nation with no competent leadership. Obama must be kicked out of office quickly, and Wall Street has to be shut down. If Wall Street is shut down, we can save the USA; but so long as Wall Street maintains its grip over the US economy, we’re doomed.

And Mr. LaRouche made direct reference to the personal aspects of President Obama, which he’s been identifying and actively discussing since the very early months of the Obama Presidency; precisely since April 11, 2009, when he delivered an international webcast and warned that the President had the personality of Emperor Nero. Someone, who had a severe narcissist disorder, and that this would pose a grave danger to the country and the world, if it went unchecked. Now, I think we briefly discussed last week, the fact that we know that one of the defining influences on President Obama during his early formative years when he was a preteen, was his stepfather in Indonesia; who himself was a real killer. He was brought back from graduate studies in Hawaii to participate in the Suharto coup and the mass bloodletting that followed. And there was household brutality, both directed against Obama’s mother and against young Barack Obama personally. These things have deep and enduring, scarring impact; and so much of the personality of the stepfather rubbed off on Obama. And we’re seeing the consequences of that in this drone policy.

I call all of your attention to the fact that in 2012, two reporters — I believe from Time magazine — published a book-length account of the 2012 Presidential elections. The book was published in 2013. And what they recounted was a conversation that President Obama had with some senior White House aides; it was after one particular incident in his long line of drone killings, where Anwar al-Awlaki — a US citizen — was killed in Yemen in a drone strike. Now, one could debate al-Awlaki’s role as a figure within al-Qaeda, and there are many things that could be said, but are not relevant to the topic here. The point is that an American citizen, by order of President Obama, was murdered in cold blood by a drone attack signed off on by the President; but as an American citizen, al-Awlaki was deprived of any due process. Now, mass murderers are subject to due process, to fair trials; but in this case, because he was on Obama’s kill list, despite the fact that he was an American citizen, he was murdered. Several weeks later, his 16-year old son was murdered, along with yet another American citizen, in drone attacks in Yemen. And, while the administration claimed that the murder of the son was not intended, but was a consequence of targeting others, it remains the fact that at least three now — I’m sure many more — American citizens have been murdered overseas by President Obama.

So, in this incident that’s recounted in the book by these two Time magazine reporters, Obama is quoted telling one of his close aides — boasting in fact — that it “Turns out I’m really a quite good, effective, killer. I never thought that I was going to emerge as a great killer, but here I am.” In the ensuing two years since the book was published, to my knowledge there have been no attempts by the White House to deny the accuracy of those quotes. They’ve attempted to explain it away, and complain instead about the fact that there are too many leaks coming out of the inner circle, but nobody has outright said that that was not Obama’s statement, those were not his words. So, you’re dealing with somebody, who clearly has the pathology of a killer.

Now, a week and a half ago, the German Bundestag, soon after the release of the “Drone Papers,” held hearings in which they brought two American former drone pilots to testify, and those hearings were serious and substantial. And, yet, here we are, two weeks after the release of the “Drone Papers,” and there’s not been a public hearing; there has not been a word to speak of, from any members of Congress. We know that there’s pressure from ourselves, from groups like the ACLU, for some kind of congressional hearings, but the fact of the matter is, that the dis-functionality of the two political parties, and the dis-functionality of Congress as the result of that, has meant that President Obama has literally been able to get away with murder, and continues to do so, right up to this moment.

So, the fact of the matter is, that the drone program, as we’ve now been given a very in-depth window into it, through the House Intelligence Committee’s review of the Executive Branch procedures — of the various Obama guidelines on how to manage the drone program — we know that none of these things have actually worked; that this is a reckless, “Murder, Inc.” operation, that violates a 1975 ban, signed by President Gerald Ford, against assassination. And the fact that these assassinations are simply referred to as “targeted killings,” does nothing to mitigate the fact that President Obama has been guilty of mass-murder. And there’s an entire structure of government that is complicit in that process. And the guilt spreads beyond the U.S. borders, and becomes clearly another clear bit of evidence that President Obama has been, from the very outset and remains to this moment, a British agent. Mr. LaRouche pointed to the specific role of Valerie Jarrett as one of the key British agents within the Obama inner circle. But let’s look a bit further at the testimony that was delivered before the German Bundestag. What one of the two drone pilots testified, was that there’s an entire international network that has all been involved in working up the targeting information, and feeding in key data to facilitate the mass-murder operations that are carried out under this drone program. In particular, there is a working intelligence-sharing alliance, known as “Five Eyes.” These are the national intelligence services, the technical intelligence services, of the United States — in this case, the National Security Agency — the services of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In other words, four countries: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are not just simply members of the British Commonwealth, but are countries where Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign; where in each case, those countries are run by a privy council that is appointed by, and reports directly back to the British Monarchy, in this case Queen Elizabeth.

So, you have the United States and the British Monarchy participating as a single, seamless entity, in gathering the targeting data that has been used in this mass drone killing program which began right at the very outset of the Obama Presidency.

And, again, what we heard in the Bundestag testimony, and we’re yet to see a moment of congressional hearings on this, up to this moment, is that those five agencies, with other assistance — the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) was involved in this program as well. They’ve developed the technique to use the GPS functions on cell phones to track down the exact locations of where a particular cell phone is, at any given moment, and in fact, the drone kill program targets cell phones, which have been “associated” with people on the kill list. But the ability to verify that the person holding that cell phone, at the moment, that the drone strike takes place, is the actual target, is something that doesn’t function. There’s very little evidence that there has been much consideration about whether or not they’re even going after the right targets.

So, in effect, we’re dealing with an even more out-of-control drone program, where all of the guidelines that were established by President Obama and the administration, at the very beginning, for how to conduct the drone warfare, fully implemented, it would not make any difference, from the standpoint that these are war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and represent instances of mass murder. The fact of the matter is, that even those limited guidelines — for example, if an individual can be captured and interrogated, rather than killed, that’s preferable — well, throw that out the window right away. There’s never been any effort, once you’re on the kill list, you are a target, and, within a 60-day period, if feasible, you will be gone after, and you will be dead, or perhaps someone else at that moment carrying your cell phone, will be dead.

So, the program is absolutely unconstitutional, is a clear violation of the UN Charter, and is not only illegal and should be the basis for President Obama’s immediate removal from office, but let’s go one step further. There should be no presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, whether in U.S. Federal Court, or in The Hague, for these heinous crimes. Now, the bankruptcy of the U.S. governing institutions, the failure of Congress to instantly take up this issue, the failure of the federal courts to act against this drone program in a decisive way, has meant that the prospect of justice under this situation right now in the United States, is gravely impeded.

So, what do we find out? In Germany, Somali family members and Yemeni family members of individuals killed in the drone warfare have filed lawsuits against both the German and American governments. There’s no attempt to get at justice in the U.S. court system, because of how badly the whole structure’s been corrupted since George W. Bush, and even more so under Obama. So, the situation is that families seeking justice are going to the federal courts in Germany, in Cologne, and are filing against the German and U.S. governments. The German government is clearly complicit in this. The Ramstein Air Force base is one of the major hubs of the U.S. drone operations, and it’s being done with the complicity and cooperation of the German government.

How far does it go? When we looked at the Bush administration’s illegal renditions and torture program, it took a long time to get to the bottom of it, and find out how many countries were complicit and were cooperating in this crime against humanity and war crime. So we’re dealing here with a matter of a bankruptcy and a failure of institutions to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities. And that’s where you, the American people, have an enormous amount of responsibility. The evidence against President Obama and the chain of command that he sits on top of in this drone mass-murder program is cut and dry. It’s been known for a long time, but now with the release of this hundred-plus page House Intelligence Committee review of the program, which contains previously-unpublicized details, the book of evidence is there. This President should be immediately removed from office. The crimes that are evidenced in this documentation alone go vastly beyond the crimes of Richard Nixon, that resulted in his forced resignation. Nixon was facing impeachment, was facing the activation of the 25th Amendment at the time that he wisely decided to resign. We’re in a situation, that is far more advanced and far more grave now, than we faced under Nixon back in the early 1970s. So it’s up to you to make sure that our institutions of government begin to function, and if we can achieve that, then this President will be removed from office, and the dangers associated with his continuing on the job, including the danger of thermonuclear war, will at last be removed.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just follow up what we’ve begun to discuss here. As I’m sure most of you are aware of, the hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives took place yesterday, at which Hillary Clinton was called as a witness. This has certainly been a central focus of attention for a number of months now, leading up into this hearing. However, after literally hours upon hours of questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hardly any of the Congressmen, in either party, managed to get at the true issues. There were significant questions that were raised, certainly. However, even those who did raise those questions, for the most part failed to pursue their lines of questioning to the necessary and actually relevant conclusions.

First of all, why does Hillary Clinton continue to insist on covering up for Obama’s role in directly ordering her, on the night of the Benghazi attacks, to lie about the events that occurred that night — even though it’s been proven multiple times that she knew exactly what was really going on, that there was clearly, this was clearly a pre-meditated attack against a U.S. Government compound on the anniversary of September 11th, carried out by jihadist militants, as opposed to the made-up story that was then echoed several days later by Susan Rice, of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. Why does Hillary continue to cover up for the fact that Obama directly ordered her to lie?

And secondly and maybe even more significantly in a broad sense, where did the policy that led to the events that night in Benghazi even come from? As former Chairman of the House Permanent — or the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, identifies correctly, in a book which he just released earlier this month, titled Architects of Disaster — The Destruction of Libya, the entire thing ultimately is Obama’s fault, in the continuing takeover of Libya, Iraq, and now parts of Syria, by these terrorist groups — ISIS and related — including those who attacked the compound that night in Benghazi, September 11, 2012, this is all a direct consequence of the decision that was made by Obama to invade Libya, to overthrow a sitting sovereign government, and to kill former President Muammar Qaddafi in cold blood. And, as Congressman Hoekstra makes the point, Qaddafi was our ally in the war on radical jihadist terrorism — very reminiscent of the policy now being carried out by Obama against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, today, exactly the same scenario. Makes you wonder where Obama’s true allegiances lie.

Now, as I said, the majority of the members of Congress who had the opportunity to question Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearing yesterday completely failed to address these two crucial points. But, virtually simultaneously with the hearing taking place on Capitol Hill yesterday, in Russia, in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin was addressing a gathering of the Valdai international discussion club in Sochi, and he did address precisely these issues, in very direct terms, denouncing Obama’s policy in Libya and in Syria, of supporting and arming the very terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow yet another sitting president, the government of Assad. And in addition, President Putin addressed the even broader question of the generally imperialistic outlook now being typified by Barack Obama, which is leading mankind right now to the very real danger of total self-destruction through global nuclear war.

What Putin started his speech by focusing on, was the question of the history of the fundamental notions of war and peace themselves. He said it’s a proper subject for a Russian president to address, since Leo Tolstoy wrote a book called War and Peace. But he said that for centuries, the concept of peace had been based on the notion of the balance of power, for better or for worse. But now, in a world of nuclear arms, and thermonuclear arms, he said, the traditional ideas of peace from this standpoint can no longer function. We need a new concept, a new paradigm, a post-war, at least, vision. He said any major war today would not bring victory to either party, but would only end in the guarantee of mutual total destruction. The only thing that’s protected humanity from this terrible fate, he said, over the last 70 years, are the principles of international law that were established under the framework of the United Nations following the Second World War, as well as the general sobriety and self-control of those leaders who have found themselves operating on a global stage, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis with President John F. Kennedy. However, he said, now we’ve reached a point where some powers are pursuing a model of unilateral domination of the planet, and the danger that a military situation may get out of control, and just such a mutually-destructive nuclear war be unleashed, has now become all too real. And the emergence of the doctrine of what he called the disarming first strike — be it nuclear or even non-nuclear — has further skewed this postwar balance of power and the system of international law, which has protected mankind since the end of World War II, and has further increased the possibility of the outbreak of a devastating global conflict. And he said, there are those who possess the illusion that there exists the possibility of victory in such a world conflict, without the irreversible, unacceptable consequences that would follow such a nuclear war. So for this reason, he said, you’ve seen a general weakening of the underlying psychological aversion to the idea of war itself, which has gripped previous generations; and the very perception of war has been changed, turned into an almost media entertainment. As if, he said, nobody actually dies in a conflict; as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed. But this is the reality of war.

It’s very significant, as I think Mr. LaRouche has pointed out previously, for President Putin, whose family died and suffered in the siege of Leningrad, the realities of what war means are much more real than what are generally held by those such as the American generation of an Obama or some sort. But I just want to read one quote from what President Putin had to say, just to bring this to the point of what necessarily needs to be addressed when we look at the background of what has brought us to this point. This is a quote; he said, “Why is it that the efforts of say our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the so-called ‘Islamic State’, has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, it’s not for lack of military equipment or capability. It goes without saying that the United States has a huge potential; the biggest military potential in the world. However, it is impossible to play a double game; to declare war on terrorists, and simultaneously try to use some of those same terrorists to arrange the pieces on the chessboard in the Middle East according to what you perceive as your own interests. It is impossible,” he said, “to combat terrorism in general, if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes, that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists. It is only an illusion that you can come in and get rid of them later; clean up the mess. To take the power away from them, or reach some sort of negotiated agreement with them. And the situation in Libya,” he said, “is the best example of this.”

So, as I said, this really goes directly to the point here. If you’re serious about fighting to eliminate the danger of global terrorism, then perhaps you should stop arming and supporting the very same terrorists who you claim to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow sovereign governments that are not to your liking. And to me this seems to be a somewhat more reasonable approach than running a drone program that ends up just killing a majority of innocent civilians; or perhaps releasing the 28 pages, documenting the role of the Saudis in supporting the 9/11 hijackers would be a good place to start as well.

But while Putin has made it clear that Obama’s policies in Libya were not exactly what they expected when they supported the UN resolution, this disastrous consequence that has taken place as a result of that invasion and that regime-change operation, is definitely not a mistake that Putin is going to let happen again in the case of Syria. And thus, we see the crucial and decisive actions that have been taken in the recent weeks in what’s being characterized by some as President Putin’s third Chechen war; because of the extent of the overlap and the interconnection between those whom Putin successfully fought against in Chechnya in 1999, and those who he is now fighting in Syria today, among the Islamic State and otherwise.

So, Jeff, I know that Mr. LaRouche has put significant emphasis on the importance of this historical view of the current situation during our discussion with him earlier today. And this is the type of background which he — Mr. LaRouche — has a very unique view of, due to his experience and his personal role that he played as a central figure that he played throughout much of this history. So, while many people have a tendency, including in the US Congress itself, to exhibit a very short-sighted and shallow insight into these types of questions — including even the questions concerning the current Benghazi investigation — maybe you could give a little bit of a deeper background and insight into what the true questions are that are at hand; along the lines of what President Putin was indicating in his speech.

STEINBERG: You’ve got to start from the standpoint of understanding the British factor, the British problem, and how that has impacted on the sweep of recent history. And it requires getting away from the idea that history is a string of successive events; these are processes, these are dynamics, and there are certain cardinal events that fundamentally alter the direction of history. And these are the things that people really have to grapple with to be able to really sort out and made sense of the deep, profound crisis that we’re going through right now. I think you’ve got to start from the fact — and this was a major subject of our discussion with Lyn and Helga LaRouche earlier today. You’ve got to start with at least a modicum of a sweep of recent history.

The fact is, that the last time that we had a viable and effective Presidency was with Ronald Reagan. And there were many caveats that have to be identified in terms of the Reagan Presidency. There was intention on the part of Reagan and on the part of an inner circle of close advisors and collaborators going into the 1980 Presidency — the elections and then Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981 — to fundamentally change the direction of US policy. We had been through a turbulent period of the 1970s; the watergating of Nixon, the end of Vietnam, the emergence of a Trilateral Commission government that brought us to the brink of nuclear war in the 1970s. The policy of that government and of the Council on Foreign Relations to being a process of controlled disintegration of the U.S. and world economy.

All of these had already taken place; and this was the backdrop to the beginning of a critical collaboration between Mr. LaRouche and President Reagan. There was a convergence of thinking and commitment to restore the American tradition; and to do it by presenting Presidential leadership. And it was in that context that on a number of leading issues, the leading one in particular being the LaRouche-Reagan collaboration on what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative [sdi]. That was a shaping directionality for a sweeping change in the US Presidency and particularly in the major US global relations. There was a very real prospect with the LaRouche-Reagan-Edward Teller and other collaboration around the idea of a joint Strategic Defense Initiative between the United States and the Soviet Union, with allied countries from both blocs involved, to bring an end to the threat of thermonuclear war. Reagan doggedly pursued that, even in spite of the fact that within his first 100 days in office, there was a serious assassination attempt against him. And of course, many of you may recall that that assassin, John Hinckley, came from a family that was intimately associated with the Bush family. So, right from the outset, within that first 100 days, Ronald Reagan was gravely wounded; he survived and, in fact, did continue in the Presidency. And the high water mark of that was the SDI policy. Reagan had also intended to make a dramatic break with Wall Street that was symbolized by the fact that he and some of his Kitchen Cabinet advisors were in depth involved in discussion with Mr. LaRouche over firing Paul Volcker and fundamentally changing the whole nature of the Federal Reserve System. And this became an issue that was a matter of outright warfare between Wall Street and London on the one side, and the Reagan inner circle on the other. The Reagan assassination attempt greatly weakened the Reagan Presidency and paved the way for George HW Bush to emerge as more and more of a dominant figure in the Reagan Presidency. They were never able to dissuade Reagan from pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative that he had worked out with LaRouche; but nevertheless, Reagan was weakened, and many things that were promised at the outset of the Reagan Presidency were never able to materialize because of British interference. And that included the fact that British agent Yuri Andropov came into power in the Soviet Union and put the kibosh on the SDI collaboration. The entire effort against Wall Street and against the policies of the Fed, were basically shut down at the point that Reagan was shot, and had to go through a prolonged period of recuperation. So, you had a real Presidency with Reagan, despite the Bush factor, and despite the consequences of the assassination attempt. And there was a period of four years or so where on a number of policy issues, there was a Reagan-LaRouche cooperation; many of the details of which are frankly yet to come out in public.

We had the Bush 41 Presidency that was a disaster. LaRouche was railroaded into Federal prison; and for all practical purposes was expected to die in Federal prison. And that would have very likely happened had Bush been elected to a second term in office. What happened, however, was that Bush was defeated for re-election; and Bill Clinton came in. And there was a level of collaboration once again with the Presidency; there was potential with the Clinton Presidency to revive some of the core ideas that had been running through the Reagan Presidency, and reflected back earlier on the successful Presidencies of John Kennedy and before that, obviously, Franklin Roosevelt. But, Clinton ran up against a buzz saw. The British launched literally warfare against the Clinton Presidency; they manipulated the First Lady to be a factor that further disrupted. You had the factor of Al Gore as Vice President; which was as bad a choice as George Herbert Walker Bush was for Ronald Reagan. So, in effect, the Clinton Presidency never lived fully up to its potential; and towards its concluding year, at the point that Clinton was about to make a significant move against the preponderant system of London offshore global finance, he was gone after. He was set up; his Presidency was destroyed. He went through House impeachment, and at the end of the day, Clinton made the gravest mistake of his political career, by signing the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

Now, what’s happened since that point, with the George W Bush Presidency for eight years, and then now with the Obama Presidency already for seven years, is that the British have been in the driver’s seat in the White House throughout that 15-year period. And so, what President Putin identified correctly in his Valdai speech, needs to be fleshed out much further. It’s got to be understood that there has been effectively a British-Wall Street takeover of the Executive branch of the US government. It’s come to be completely dominant over the Republican Party and over the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

So, if you step back and realize that the entire history of the United States has been a struggle against the British Empire, then you get an idea from a much deeper historical appreciation of how this process, how this dynamic has played out and brought us to the point that we’ve reached right now. Now, there are other examples that come up throughout history; even the history of the shaping events that established the American republic, its character, and the war against the British. At the very beginning of the 18th Century, you had a giant of a figure; one of the key figures who revived the entire Renaissance tradition in Europe, namely Gottfried von Leibniz. Leibniz was a key player in European political affairs. His interests extended to an extensive understanding and appreciation of China and of the commonalities between Confucianism and Western Christianity. He was moving to establish control over Britain to dismantle the empire system that was beginning to come into existence at that time. And it was with the death of Leibniz — and there were people waiting breathlessly to confirm that indeed he was dead. But with his confirmed death about 20 years into the 18th Century, that’s when the British Empire took off. Leibniz had been instrumental as an adviser in the British court, to establishing some of the key players who shaped and framed the United States; some of the leading governors who were sent over as Royal Governors from England during the period of Leibniz’s influence in London. You had Spotswood in Virginia; you had Hunter in New York. These were leading international republican figures, who were part of the Leibniz networks. Franklin was a student of Leibniz’s writings, and traveled to Europe in the 1750s to obtain access to some otherwise difficult to obtain writings of Leibniz. But Leibniz’s death was one of those cardinal moments in history that framed events that moved forward from there; just as there was a concerted move coming from the worst elements of the European oligarchy to crush the influence of the Golden Renaissance.

So, these kinds of critical historical events, which are really reflective of long-term processes, are the big challenge to be understood. If you’re going to shape history and define a viable future for mankind, then it’s very helpful to know from an historical standpoint, who are your friends and who are your enemies. In January of 1981, in fact on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Executive Intelligence Review, Mr. LaRouche’s flagship publication, issued a warning forecasting that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan within his first 100 days in office. This was not based on some kind of footprints of would-be assassins; but it was based on an understanding that the Reagan election represented a potential break from British control over the US Presidency that had been a dominant factor since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

We knew that at critical moments, the British have assassinated American Presidents in order to prevent break-out of the United States as a proper republican leader of the world. You had it take place early on, not with a President, but with a giant of the American Constitutional republic, Alexander Hamilton; who was assassinated by an undisputed British agent, Aaron Burr. You had the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which doesn’t even need any further elaboration; it was a British assassination carried out by Confederate networks, but operating out of British intelligence centers, including Montreal, Canada. You had the assassination of President McKinley, who was reviving the Lincoln-Hamilton tradition at a critical moment; and was pushing back against British imperial operations. His assassination brought Teddy Roosevelt, the favorite nephew of one of the heads of the Confederate Secret Service — headquartered in London — into the Presidency. You had the assassination of Kennedy; a British assassination, for again, reasons that are too obvious to have to deal with in any detailed explanation here.

So, it was on the basis of that knowledge and understanding of the sweep of the US fight against the British Empire forces in the world, that drove us to issue a warning that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan because of what he represented as a best hope for a return of the United States to its historic mission and its historic tradition and policy. We were, unfortunately, correct. It was about the 90th day of the Reagan Presidency that John Hinckley carried out the assassination attempt; and while Reagan survived it, it weakened the potentiality of the Reagan Presidency.

So, you’ve got to look at those kinds of historical processes and dynamics, and think through how these events play out. If you want to understand Benghazi, you can’t start on September 11th of 2012; you’ve got to go back to the fact that a British policy that was coordinated with rotten elements in France — the same elements that were directly involved in the attempts to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle a decade or two earlier — those elements, along with Obama. British directly, Anglo-French forces and Obama, decided to bring down Qaddafi and to unleash absolute Hell throughout North Africa and into the Middle East. Where were the weapons that fueled the Islamic State and the Nusra and other insurgencies in Syria coming from? They were coming from Benghazi; they were coming from the Libya that became an absolute Hell on Earth. An absolutely ungovernable area, because the British — with their French and Obama underlings — got rid of Qaddafi to unleash this process. To unleash a state of permanent warfare across the entire North African and Middle East and really the entire Islamic world.

So, if you don’t understand that British factor, it’s very difficult to understand why we are in the crisis that we’re in. If you understand that dynamic, and you understand that Obama — like Bush before him — was effectively a British agent; then you understand why it is an imperative that Obama is removed from office, and that the other major center of British influence in the United States — namely Wall Street, which is completely, irreversibly, unrepentantly bankrupt, has to be shut down. And that this is an urgent matter of life and death for the survival of our nation and for the world as a whole.

Putin understands the broad dynamics; he’s got to even further understand the real nature of the enemy. The enemy resides principally in London; and it’s the London controls and strings that are pulled in Washington, that are the major problem here in the United States. As LaRouche said in our discussion earlier, get rid of Wall Street; remove Obama from office. And that eliminates much of the British influence, the destructive influence, over the United States. Then we’ve got a shot at rebuilding the world and forging the kinds of alliances that are waiting for us: the BRICS alliance; the collaboration with Russia on bringing an end to this bloodshed and horror show throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The opportunities are all there, but step one is Obama must be removed. And now the book of evidence is there; it’s irrefutable, and Congress has to act. And secondly, Wall Street has to be shut down, cold; no compensation. Wall Street goes down; we put back Glass-Steagall, and learn the playbook of Franklin Roosevelt on how to rebuild an economy. If we can do those things, we’re in fine shape; the world is in fine shape. But if those actions aren’t taken right now, then we’re all in grave danger.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. And what I want to do to conclude tonight’s broadcast with, is to read something which I think sums up in very cogent terms what Jeff just concluded with. And this is the Presidential policy statement from Lyndon LaRouche that was issued on this website earlier this week. And what Mr. LaRouche says in this, which he issued following the Democratic debate, what he calls “A Brief Statement on the Nature of Our Current National Crisis; and the Proper Framework for Approaching This Vital Presidential Election” is the following; and I’m just going to read it verbatim, from the beginning of where he makes the points about what actions must be taken. He says:

“First, the defining issue for today is the fact that Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and there can be no serious improvement in the conditions of life for the vast majority of Americans until Wall Street is shut down altogether. The first and most immediate remedy for the bankruptcy of Wall Street is the reinstating of Glass-Steagall.

“The simple truth is that an honest appraisal of the disastrous collapse of real productivity in the US economy is that a large and growing majority of our fellow citizens are facing job loss, starvation, collapse of genuine health care services, the destruction of the educational system and an overall disintegration of basic infrastructure. This has accelerated under the Barack Obama Presidency, but it began before that, particularly during the George W. Bush terms in office.

“Any attempt to dodge this fundamental truth during the now ongoing presidential campaigns, by appealing to ‘issues’ or populist slogans, dooms the United States to total destruction in the very short term period ahead.

“Wall Street must be shut down totally. The entire Wall Street system is bankrupt. It must be ended. Then, we must do what Franklin Roosevelt did to overcome the Great Depression. Today, we face an even greater challenge, due, in part, to the decades of collapse of the productive powers of labor in this nation. Shut down Wall Street now, reinstate Glass-Steagall as a means of reconstituting viable commercial banking, and then begin a program of Federal credit to revive the productive economy, through capital investment in infrastructure and other vital programs. We must begin to reverse the collapse of our industrial economy, and we must train a new generation of young people to develop the skills to function in a modern, technology-intensive growing economy.

“This is what the 2016 presidential candidates must address. Any attempt to divert from this essential agenda is tantamount to surrendering to Wall Street and those who would see the United States disintegrate altogether.

“A segment of the American people, horrified by the clown show of last week, is demanding nothing less. Any candidate who fails to meet this standard does not belong in the race. This is not a popularity contest or a test of who can best pander to the worst pragmatic impulses of a beaten-down and terrified public. This is an election that will determine whether or not the United States still has the moral fitness to survive.

“I hear the American people crying out for a future minus the scourge of Wall Street. They deserve nothing less.”

And with that, I would like to thank everybody for watching our broadcast here tonight, and bring a conclusion to this webcast. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff, for joining me in the studio. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

12. oktober 2015 – Amerikanske BGM-71 TOW missiler, hemmeligt leveret til terrorister i Syrien af CIA via Saudi Arabien, bruges mod den syriske hærs og det russiske luftvåbens offensiv i det nordvestlige Syrien, skriver Washington Post. Offensiven har gjort hurtige fremskridt de seneste dage, med russiske luftangreb, der betegnes som “vedholdende og meget præcise” af selv den syriske, anti-Assad menneskerettighedsgruppe ’Syrian Human Rights Observatory’, og med den syriske hærs intense kamp på landjorden med overvindelse af kraftig modstand for at generobre betydelige områder.

Liz Sly (Washington Post) afslørede i morges, at et stort antal TOW missiler var blevet brugt, hvilket forsinker, men ikke stopper offensiven. ”Amerikanske anti-tank-missiler, der er leveret til oprørerne i Syrien, spiller en uventet stor rolle på slagmarken i Syrien og får konflikten til at ligne en stedfortræder-krig mellem USA og Rusland, på trods af præsident Obamas udtrykte ønske om at undgå en sådan”, skrev Sly. Dusinvis af videoer er lagt ud på You Tube, der viser oprørere, der affyrer amerikanske missiler mod russisk producerede tanks og pansrede køretøjer tilhørende den syriske hær, siger hun.

Kaptajn Mustafa Moarati fra Tajamu al-Issa militsen rapporteres at have sagt, at der kom nye våbenforsyninger, efter at de russiske deployeringer begyndte, og at de er blevet lovet yderligere våben. Sly sammenligner forsyningerne med de amerikansk-leverede Stinger anti-luftskyts missiler i Afghanistan, som blev brugt mod russerne, men (undlader hun at sige) som også skabte al-Qaeda rædsels-showet, som siden har plaget verden.

I mellemtiden har en embedsmand fra Forsvarsministeriet fortalt Fox News, at USA har kastet 50 tons ammunition til mindre våben og granater ned i det kurdiske område i det nordlige Syrien i søndags, men ikke til kurderne (da vores “allierede” Tyrkiet ikke ville synes om det). Dette er det nye “udstyr”-program, der erstatter programmet for “uddan-og-udstyr”, der totalt mislykkedes.

Foto: TOW-antitankmissil, arkivbillede, amerikansk soldat i Afghanistan.

Som hr. LaRouche understregede, har vi nu en chance for at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, der kommer internt fra det Demokratiske Parti og de amerikanske borgere generelt imod alt, hvad Obama og hans team står for. Det er den presserende nødvendige handling, der må udføres, hvis vi skal redde USA; og hvis vi skal opbygge et virkeligt kvalificeret præsidentskab til at erstatte Barack Obama i det Hvide Hus, som De forenede Staters præsidentskab. Engelsk udskrift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s October 16, 2015. You’re watching our weekly Friday night live webcast from larouchepac.com. And we are broadcasting live tonight, at our usual time; 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. And we thank you for tuning in. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine. And the two of us had the opportunity to meet with Mr. LaRouche earlier today; and had a very important and necessary conversation that we intend to convey the essence of to you. He had a very concise message; and our aim tonight is to get that across to our viewership.

So, we’re looking at the opportunity right now, as Mr.LaRouche emphasized, of catalyzing an urgently needed revolt from within the Democratic Party and the American citizenry generally, against everything that Obama and his team stand for. And this is the urgent, necessary action that must be taken, if we are going to save the United States; and if we’re going to build a truly qualified Presidency to take the place of Barack Obama in the White House as the Presidency of this United States. Over the course of this week, the evidence against Obama has only continued to pile up. This is very clear evidence; and we intend to present this evidence in summary form to you tonight. This will include, but will be exclusively, significantly number one: The release by Glen Greenwald and by Jeremy Scahill in their publication, {The Intercept}, of what they’re calling “The Drone Papers”; a reference obviously to the famous “Pentagon Papers” of the 1970s, which incidentally were read into the Congressional Record by former Senator Mike Gravel, who has appeared on several forums with representatives of the LaRouche Movement nationally, recently. Number two, you have the continued fall-out from the savage, deadly, murderous bombing of the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, under the orders and the command of Barack Obama; which the MSF organization is referring to explicitly as a war crime. And number three, in this context, we have the announcement by Obama just yesterday that he is extending the US perpetual-war military deployment in Afghanistan even further. And I know that Jeff will get into all three of these points more in depth tonight.

But first, what Mr. LaRouche wanted to begin tonight’s broadcast with, is the significance of what’s being referred to as the “insurrection” that has erupted from within a certain layer of the Democratic Party leadership — the Democratic National Committee — which came to a head around this CNN debate that was held in Sin City; Las Vegas, earlier this week on Tuesday. This insurrection is being led by none other than Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii, who is one of the five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Our viewers might recall that Tulsi Gabbard made herself an outright, outspoken enemy of the Obama White House about two weeks ago, by very prominently denouncing Obama’s World War III policy in Syria on national television; stating that 1) the overthrow of President Assad would be a grave mistake, akin to the overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. This is significant from Tulsi Gabbard, who is herself an Iraq War combat veteran. She called for the direct cooperation with President Putin of Russia in military operations in defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. This was in the image of Franklin Roosevelt’s cooperation with Russia during World War II to defeat Hitler and the Nazis; which is by the way an echo of exactly what President Putin himself called for in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
And this isn’t the only policy which Tulsi Gabbard has openly disagreed with Obama on; she’s also a major and outspoken supporter of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And this is a point that Mr. LaRouche stressed was very significant and must be emphasized.
So, it just so happens that Congresswoman Gabbard is at the center of the rebellion within the leadership of the DNC against the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is an ally of Obama. So, according to an article in Bloomberg today, which is titled “Insurrection Erupts at the Democratic National Committee”, this has, in fact, been brewing for quite some time; but it boiled over this week when Gabbard was dis-invited by Debbie Wasserman Schultz from attending the Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, because she had openly criticized the policy of limiting the number of these Democratic debates to only six.

Only four of them are before the significant primaries at the beginning of next year. And Gabbard also criticized the policy of punishing any of the candidates if they participated in any forums that were not sanctioned by the DNC. Now, what this is being called, and the adjectives that are being used in this Bloomberg article are “autocratic”, “dictatorial”, this policy by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And there’s an open coup that’s brewing against her leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And I’m going to ask Jeff to get into is the implications of this.

I’d advise that people read some of the coverage that’s in this Bloomberg article. One very significant quote is by another one of the vice chairs, a man named RT Ryback; a former mayor of Minneapolis, who is allied with Tulsi Gabbard on this issue. He is outspoken, saying Wasserman Schultz is operating with dictatorial, autocratic power over the Democratic National Committee; her leadership must be questioned. And he’s almost at the point of saying she should be kicked out as the leader of the Party. Ironically, this is coming on the heels of the exact same treatment that was dished out to John Boehner on the Republican side.
So, what I’m going to introduce Jeff with, is just a quote from this article. And I think this sort of summarizes exactly what we have the responsibility to address here tonight. “Says one Democrat with close ties to the Democratic National Committee, ‘The next Chair is going to have to burn the place down and rebuild it.” So Jeff, how do we do that?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think the critical thing to bear in mind here is that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is nothing other than a total clone and voice at the DNC for President Obama. Go back to the beginning of the Obama presidency. Initially, former Congressman and former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had been called by the White House, and had been asked to be the Chairman of the DNC, and had been told, “Wait by your phone, because you’re going to get a call from the President very soon.” He waited, and waited, and waited, and then several days
later, read in the newspaper that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz had been named instead as the party chairman.

As we understand this, this was the direct result of an intervention by Valerie Jarrett, by Michelle Obama, and it was a foretaste of many things that would follow from them. So, what she is doing to the Democratic Party is all being done on the basis of orders coming directly from the White House. Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas was a demeaning insult to the institution of the Presidency. That’s not to say that everything that the participants in the debate said was demeaning, but the whole way that the debate was organized by CNN, which has no qualifications whatsoever to actually be hosting a debate like this, was turned into some version of the Barnum and Bailey circus mixed with the
Gong show. Every candidate brought swarms of people, probably right off the floors of the casinos half drunk, and they were being encouraged to scream and razz and make all kinds of noise whenever their candidate had something to say. It was shameful, it was demeaning, and what Mr. LaRouche said is that this was organized by the British. This wasn’t even done directly by President Obama. This was the kind of stunt that’s meant to demean the office of the Presidency, and people who participated in this process were by and large victims of a set-up that should have never ever been allowed to happen.

Of course, this is the same CNN that bailed out Obama four years ago, when Mitt Romney was about to nail him on what had actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, but instead, you may recall Candy Crowley jumping in on behalf of Obama, and shutting down Mitt Romney mid-sentence. So what you have here is an assault against the appropriate decorum and respect for the Office of the Presidency, and even though there were a few comments by Martin O’Malley, on two occasions, openly calling for Glass-Steagall, the reality is that the entire event
was a shameless circus, and the best thing to do is to make sure that this is forgotten as soon as possible, and that there is never again this kind of insult to the Office of the Presidency by allowing this kind of clown show to occur.

And Mr. LaRouche, during his Thursday night Fireside Chat with supporters from around the country, emphasized that we’ve got to return the Presidency to a constitutional framework. We’ve got to have qualified candidates, and we’ve got to assemble not an individual, not some personality or popularity contest, but we’ve got to assemble a qualified team of people, a President, a Vice President, qualified people to fill out the cabinet, so that we can get away from the horror show of the last 15 years, where 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now 7 years of Obama, have all but effectively destroyed the institution of the Presidency.

Now the reality is that we can’t wait. The reality is that Obama must be removed from office in the immediate days ahead, and this is not a matter of trying to scramble around to find some pretext in which to do that, because Matt just mentioned at the outset, that the Glen Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill new publication, the Intercept, has published an extraordinary 8-part series, based on newly-leaked government documents. These documents were prepared after Edward Snowden had already dumped his material, and had already left government, and probably already taking refuge in Russia. But what these documents show is that President Obama is guilty of mass murder. The entire drone program that has been the hallmark, the entirety, of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program, has been conducted outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, outside of international law, and represents perhaps the single greatest incident of mass murder in the modern history of this planet.

Now, that may sound extreme, but I would urge all of you to not just read the 8-part series of articles, but to go to the links to the actual documents that reveal the true nature of this Obama administration, completely lawless mass murder campaign. One of the points that’s made right at the outset, in the opening article of this series, is that since 1975 — and you can go back to the history of the revelations about CIA crimes, the Church and Pike Committee investigations — during that period President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order and laws were passed, making it explicitly illegal for the U.S. President to order assassinations. And of course, President Obama, since the very beginning of his term in office, has been regularly convening Tuesday meetings at the White House, where they’ve been specifically developing kill lists of targets to be gone after. And so, rather than use the appropriate and accurate term of assassinations, President Obama and his team choose the word “targetted killings,” but the concept is identical.
Now, we’ve talked on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on these webcasts on Friday night, about the fact that General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was fired by President Obama in the summer of 2014 for being a major obstacle to the kinds of illegal programs the Administration has been running since the beginning – General Flynn was interviewed by The Intercept to comment on the documents and to comment on his own first-hand knowledge of this assassination program. General Flynn had been the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, for Central Command, and then became the head of the entire Defense Intelligence Agency. Here’s what he had to say about the Obama Administration’s program:

“The drone campaign right now really is only about killing. When you hear the phrase ‘capture or kill’, capture is actually a misnomer. In the drone strategy that we have, `capture’ is a lower case c. We don’t capture people any more. Our entire Middle East policy seems to be based on firing drones. That’s what this Administration decided to do in its counter-terrorism campaign. They are enamored by the ability of Special Operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert, in some shitty little village (pardon my French), and drop a bomb on his head and kill him.”

Now to hear President Obama, you would think that the White House program has been surrounded by Constitutional lawyers who’ve been studying every step along the way, to make sure that everything involved in this program is legal. In a speech at the National Defense University several years ago, President Obama discussed the program, and again, quote: “The United States has taken lethal, targetted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred-to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targetted, and why. About civilian casualties and the risk of creating new enemies. About the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law. About accountability and morality. Drone strikes, he concluded, are effective and legal. Now, it happens that under pressure, particularly after news reports about his Tuesday kill-meetings at the White House, caused quite a stir, the White House issued a policy document. It’s in the public record, it didn’t have to be leaked out. It’s called “U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counter-Terrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities.” I won’t bore you with the precise language of this document, but among the highlights, they say, “In every instance we prefer to capture rather than kill. We have precise standards for the use of lethal force, and these criteria include, but are not restricted to, near-certainty that the terrorist target is present, near-certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, an assessment that capture is not feasible at any time of the operation, an assessment that the relevant government authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not address the threat to U.S. persons, and an assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” And they say, “There must be a legal basis for using lethal force, and secondly, that lethal force will only be used against a target that poses a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
Now, the fact of the matter is that these were strict rules for targetted killing that were promulgated by the Obama Administration, signed by the President himself, and as documented in The Intercept series, by commentaries by people like General Flynn, this policy has been violated in virtually every instance. So even by the criteria that his own Administration set forth, President Obama has been guilty of carrying out what can only be described as mass murder. Now, there are procedures for dealing with crimes of mass murder.
Number one, to the extent that the President is directly implicated in these actions, this is cause for immediate and obvious impeachment, and perhaps, because of the urgency and timeliness of this, it would be more appropriate to simply invoke the 25th Amendment. If you have somebody who has been living under the cloak of apparent civility and respectable position, but who turns out to be a mass murderer, then you’d have to conclude that that person was suffering from a form of socio-pathological insanity. That invokes the 25th Amendment immediately. And so, that’s the situation that we’re dealing with. What Mr. LaRouche said, is in this case, you would want to remove that person, President Obama, from office immediately, and then immediately commence with criminal proceedings for the mass-murders that he’s committed.

Now, among the documents that were leaked to the authors of this series of articles, is a document that was prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, in April of 2012. It was called the Performance Audit of the Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). And what this audit by the House Intelligence Committee concluded, is that the entire targetted-kill program was rife with violations, with failures to live up to any of the standards that would be appropriate under the Constitution, or even under the Obama Administration’s own guidelines, and that basically there was a mad rush to try to line up as much money as possible for these drone-kill programs, and therefore there were shortcuts, there was misrepresentation of the program, and in fact since the September 11 attacks, the Defense Department has spent $67 billion on putting together the ISR infrastructure that the Obama Administration has exclusively used for the drone killing-program.

Now, other comments on this. Again, from General Flynn. He said that the White House, for expedient reasons, abandoned its own guidelines. There were no attempts to capture. There were no attempts to work with local governments on setting up the circumstances to capture. There was no attempt to live up to the standard that to be a legitimate target for these assassinations, the individual had to oppose an immediate and imminent threat of terrorist attack against the United States. And what General Flynn said, quote, “We’ve tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone, and put out a headline that ‘We killed Abu Bag of Donuts’ and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. It just made them a martyr. It just created a new reason to fight us ever harder.” Flynn went on to say that there was “way too much reliance on technical aspects of intelligence, like signals intelligence, or even just looking at somebody with unmanned aerial vehicles. He gave an example. “I could get on the telephone from somewhere in Somalia, and I know I know I’m a high-value target. And I say in some coded language, ‘The wedding is about to occur in the next 24 hours.'” Flynn said, “That could put all of Europe and the United States on a high-level alert, and it may just be total bullshit. SIGINT is an easy system to fool, and that is why it has to be validated by other INTs, namely like human intelligence. You have to ensure that the person is actually there, at that location, because what you really intercepted was the phone.”

And in fact, one of the things that was concluded in this in-depth House Intelligence Committee review of this drone-kill program was that in most instances, there was almost exclusively reliance on the tracking of cell phones, and so, very often, it was the cell phone that was the determinant of the location where the drone attack occurred. And in many instances, almost a majority of the instances, many innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time were killed, and immediately afterwards, even though these people were not known, they didn’t even know what their identities were when the drone-firing took place, they would immediately be classified as unknown enemy combatants. In other words, if you were there, you were de facto a terrorist, and it was de facto justified that you were a legitimate target for Obama’s assassinations.

Now, the documents also included a number of structural flow-charts. The point that the Pentagon and the CIA wanted to make, was that these programs did not involve a few people sitting around in a room, going through piles of what they themselves called “baseball cards” — photographs and biographical information on the people who were on the potential-target list. It was based on the data in these “baseball cards” that the President of the United States would sign the kill-order. And once the kill-order was signed — and by the way, it usually took on average 58 days from when an individual was identified by name to when he went through the process of investigation, surveillance, and his name landed on the President’s desk for a finding that this person should be killed. And then from that moment on, there was a 60-day time deadline for accomplishing the killing. I’m sure part of the reason for that is that every week there were more and more names being added, and the priorities were continuously shifting. But the fact of the matter is, that there was an elaborate chain of command through which this vetting process took place; chains of command within the military and the CIA. Then there was a chain of command which led up to what was called the Principals Committee, which are the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and heads of other agencies that have critical roles to play in this process. And then in every single instance, the ultimate decision was made and was signed off on by the President of the United States. So, in other words, every single person killed in this drone warfare program was authorized for assassination by President Obama.

Now, we know that there were a number of leading advisors, particularly John Brennan; who for the first four years of the Obama Presidency was the President’s Counter-terrorism Advisor right there at the White House — then he was made Director of the CIA. We know that David Petraeus, who was formerly a high-ranking military commander, brought over to the CIA, and who was found not only to have been engaging in an extramarital affair, but was caught passing massive amounts of classified documents to his mistress and biographer; and yet he only received a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, and to this day is still a key advisor to President Obama. Petraeus propagated a series of orders, establishing the chain of command and the operational profile of at least the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC] part of this kill program. But ultimately, everything landed on the desk of President Obama; and when he signed the kill order, the 60-day clock began to tick down, and that was when the operations in the field went into action.

We know, of course, that Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — clearly someone who had an association with al-Qaeda, was put on the assassination list; and yet, as an American citizen, he was denied any of the Constitutional due process that all American citizens are entitled to. And so, al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen; several weeks later, his 16-year old son and another American citizen were killed in another drone attack. The administration had to scramble to cover that up. And now there are at least some indications that Anwar al-Awlaki may have been targeted for cold-blooded murder; because he was an FBI informant, and in that capacity, knew certain secrets about how this whole process and program of targeting was working, and perhaps knew of certain government ties to al-Qaeda. We don’t know that, but there are court actions underway right now that may provide an even further light on the specific case of al-Awlaki. In Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan — those were the four major areas where this mass assassination was taking place; there were extensive drone bases, massive amounts of military equipment. But yet, in all of the instances, it would appear that more often than not, the criteria that the administration itself put forward were never in a single instance adhered to; and the collateral damage, the number of innocent people later, after the fact, posthumously declared enemy combatants was massive. We don’t even begin to have a total death toll, but for every individual on the Presidential-approved kill list, there were multiple numbers of people who were killed simply because they were in the immediate vicinity. And one aspect of the program evolved to the point that targeted assassination operations were conducted on the basis of activity profile, not even identification of specific individuals. In the case of Afghanistan, there were instances where drone-targetted operations were directed against weddings, simply because the drones detected a large number of young males holding up guns in the air and firing them into the air. Now that happens to be part of a fairly typical tribal wedding ceremony in Afghanistan; so we don’t know how many of these targeted assassinations were conducted on the basis of those kinds of activities.

Now, there was a report that was issued in 2014, that was done by General John Abizaid, who was the former head of the Central Command, and a lawyer from Georgetown named Rosa Brooks, who was a former attorney at the Department of Defense. And that report noted that there are “enormous uncertainties” in drone warfare, and that these uncertainties “are multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government. How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war; or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?” So, in other words, this program was completely out of control, off the charts; but was thoroughly embraced by President Obama from his first days in office – probably initially courtesy of people like John Brennan. But the fact of the matter is that a massive number of crimes have been committed. The official documents, including those classified documents leaked out to {The Intercept}, make it clear that there was an absolute, unambiguous chain of command. In other words, the way that law enforcement would map out the structures of a mafia organization that they were going to break up; and unambiguously, the godfather of this entire mass kill program was President Obama. And if that doesn’t constitute sufficient criteria for immediately launching impeachment proceedings or invoking of the 25th Amendment, then we’ve pretty much lost any sense of what our Constitutional republic is all about.

OGDEN: OK, I would like to just present the institutional question which we got in this week, which is very brief. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States is to extend its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. What is your opinion about the extension of our military presence in Afghanistan?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think first of all, you’ve got to consider the timing of this announcement. Regardless of whatever process there was, however long the deliberations were about making this decision, I find it extremely distasteful that the President chose to make this announcement just days after the United States had bombed the hospital of Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. There are new developments just in the last 24 hours, indicating that some American or NATO either tanks or APCs — armed personnel carriers — had arrived on the site soon after the bombing had ended, and had basically plowed through the rubble. And at least in the eyes of Doctors Without Borders, this was an attempt to bury and conceal evidence of a major crime that was committed. We spoke last week about the fact that Doctors without Borders had issued a call under the Geneva Convention for a top-down investigation, and they basically say that the actions that were undertaken under the auspices of President Obama, constituted war crimes.

So I think if you step back, and think about the thrust of what we’ve presented here in the last half hour or so, about the nature of the drone program, and then situate the bombing of this Doctors Without Borders hospital within that overall framework, I think you’ll see that this situation is completely out of control, and lawless. In fact, one of the commentators who have been noting the horrors of this incident has pointed out that it may come down to the fact that President Obama’s only legacy is that he will have been the only Nobel Peace Prize award recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient — because Doctors Without Borders has also been far more legitimately granted that award.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan since 2001, since soon after the 9/11 attacks, and here we are, 14 years later, still debating the question of whether or not we’re on the verge of the Taliban taking the place over again. I think that that 14 year process, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of well over $2 trillion, ought to raise some serious questions about whether this policy is advisable to continue indefinitely into the future, even past the Obama Presidency. And one of the ways that the argument is being framed, for why the U.S. should remain and why NATO should remain, in Afghanistan, is the argument that there’s more training, there’s more assistance needed, but the implication is that there’s only a binary choice: either we stay, or we go, as if there were no other options on the table, which is emphatically not true.

There are some senior retired U.S. military officials, and others, who have recently proposed that there is a viable alternative, and that you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a regional security arrangement which involves Russia, China, all of the countries of Central Asia, and as of their last meeting earlier this year, it also includes India and Pakistan. And it’s virtually a certainty, now that the P5+1 agreement has been ratified both here in the U.S. and by the Majlis in Iran, so that the sanctions will be lifted in the months ahead, that Iran will be the next member country given full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Just look at that on a map. Every country surrounding Afghanistan is a member of the SCO, and again, within a very short period of time Iran, which borders on Afghanistan, will be included in that membership. Right now, they’re associate members, so in effect they’re already part of the deliberations.

What about having the SCO, which has a strong vested interest in the security and stability of the area, working out a coordination with the US and NATO for a hand-off of security responsibility, as well as economic development responsibility, to the SCO? China, which was one of the initial sponsors of the SCO, has a critical vested interest, because the entire One Belt, One Road policy that is the cornerstone of Xi Jinping’s international outreach, requires stability in exactly that area around Afghanistan. You have countries that are of the same ethnic background. You’ve got Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Iranians, Persians, who form a major part of the population of Afghanistan. You’ve got Pushtuns, who are also across the border in Pakistan. India has historically played an extraordinarily important and close role with the government in Kabul, and of course, Russia is gravely concerned about the security of Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus region of Russia.

So, it would be a sane and natural policy for the U.S., for NATO, to enter into discussions with the SCO, and propose an orderly transition, and develop a coherent strategy for bringing this whole 15 year crisis to an end. If you in fact go back to the original Brzezinski plans for conducting covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which preceded by six months the Soviets coming into Afghanistan, you see that this area has been affected by an even more than 30 years of war uninterrupted process. So there is an alternative. There’s a thoughtful, diplomatic, economic, security alternative, and one must wonder, if this option is not being considered, whether the real concern here is to keep Afghanistan safe for the opium trade, because 95 % of the world’s opium supply, at enormous profits, is coming out of Afghanistan.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

What we’ve now presented in the summary course of this webcast tonight, was what Mr. LaRouche asked for. It is high time for the Obama policy to go. The evidence has just been presented by Jeff and myself here on this broadcast tonight, and that evidence speaks for itself. However, the task still remains, as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, that LaRouche PAC and responsible citizens across the United States, must also build a New Presidency, to lead the United States out of what is arguably the worst disaster that we’ve ever faced as a nation, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, and then eight more years of Obama.

It’s very clear, what Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts were about the Tuesday Democratic debate, and what Jeff said earlier about the CNN kind of clown show atmosphere that was created around that. But as people who listened to Mr. LaRouche’s fireside chat last night might have heard, he was also emphatic on keeping our vision clear as to what our responsibility as citizens is, not to just pick and choose among candidates, but to create what he calls a Presidency, and to conclude tonight’s webcast, I actually want to read what I found to be a very compelling section of Mr. LaRouche’s discussion on this question of the Presidency last night.

He said: “The point is that people usually think that we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, one President. We also get a Vice President. But on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, this is the President; now everyone’s going to listen to him. That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified to lead the nation, but no one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team based on the kind of team that we had when we composed a Presidential system. It also means we depend in the way that we can deal with certain members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth.

“You have people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the kind of people of the United States find they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit the requirements of the Presidency.

“Now the other part of that has a feature to it. When we create a Presidential system, we don’t create a President per se. We try, in the best features of our existence, in our history, our intention is always to introduce new concepts, more appropriate concepts, more brilliant, more fruitful than ever before. Maybe some people can come together as a team around that idea. They might be rivals, but our goal is to go to the higher level, the highest level of achievement, of the improvement of our system of government: to create a team of people who are qualified, and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it.”

So, lest we get too distracted by the personality contests, and all of the media hype that’s created by CNN and related organizations, I think it’s important to keep that idea is mind.

And that’s what Mr. LaRouche has devoted his entire career to, over the last 40 to 50 years of his public life. So we have the responsibility as leaders of the LaRouche PAC, and you have the responsibility as viewers of this broadcast here tonight, to cooperate with us in trying to bring that lofty and noble goal about.

I appreciate your attention to our broadcast tonight. I advise that you take the evidence that we’ve presented here, and let it speak for itself. Please share this as widely as you can. Get it around to your friends and neighbors, and continue to participate in all of the events that LaRouche PAC is hosting — from these Friday night broadcasts, to the Fireside chats with Mr. LaRouche, and the continuing activities in Manhattan, including the discussion that I know we will be engaged in again tomorrow, with Mr. LaRouche himself.

So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.