JASON ROSS: Good evening. Today is July 31, 2015, and you’re joining us for our regular Friday night webcast here at LaRouche PAC. My name is Jason Ross, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeff Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review.
This week, Lyndon LaRouche has been very emphatic about the threat of war; emphasizing since the Policy Committee discussion on Monday that unless Obama is removed from office or stripped of any authority, that he has the August Congressional recess to spark a confrontation with Russia, which could lead to general warfare, thermonuclear war leading to the extermination of civilization in a matter of hours. He said then, on Monday, that it would be a situation “where Obama will be free to launch war without any opposition. And that’s extremely dangerous,” LaRouche said. “That war would mean probably a thermonuclear war. Russia would not launch the war, but Russia would be prepared to react to the launching of that war immediately. And that’s the situation, and this can mean the extinction of a lot of people on the planet.”
So, the pretexts for this are multiplying; the dangers are multiplying. The set-up of an ISIS-free zone on the Turkey-Syrian border; the strengthening push of Right Sector in Ukraine; the phony UN Security Council resolution on MH-17; the expanding sanctions against Russia; the scrambling of fighter jets in the Baltic nations to follow Russian planes between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad. Or, consider the missile defense system being constructed in eastern Europe, which was supposedly to deal with the threat posed ostensibly by Iran; which is moving full steam ahead despite reaching a deal with that nation.
Russian President Putin spoke about this in a recent interview with Swiss TV. He said,
“The process of starting a new arms race again from the moment of the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the ballistic missile defense [abm] treaty, because this agreement was a cornerstone for the entire international security system. And when the U.S. withdrew from it and began to create a missile defense system as part of its global strategic weapons system, we immediately said we will be obliged to take reciprocal steps to maintain a strategic balance of power.”
President Putin went on,
“We are developing strike systems capable of overcoming any missile defense system. I want to say something very important: We are doing this for ourselves, to insure the security of the Russian Federation; but we are also doing it for the rest of the world. Because this strategic stability ensures the balance of power.”
The Russians have made it very clear that they won’t roll over and die if it comes to war; they will respond.
So, how to achieve this ouster of Obama? LaRouche has pointed to the potential role of Hillary Clinton, who has the ability to stop Obama; to stop this danger by telling the truth. The truth about Benghazi, the attack on the American facilities there on Sept. 11th, 2012. Since that attack, Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have been on the ball on this issue, from the period immediately following them; including a press conference that we’re going to play a clip of. On Nov. 2nd, 2012, Jeff Steinberg and Lyndon LaRouche gave a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to address the situation there.
And now, we’re going to see a clip from that event.
(See original footage here, and the original transcript in EIR with available graphics here.)
STEINBERG: “It goes without saying that the President of the United States owes us a certain number of answers to some very obvious questions: What did he know? Was he briefed in advance? Is it actually conceivable that, as we go into the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there were no briefings provided to him in his Presidential Daily Briefing, or that there was no special briefing provided him by John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism advisor, as to the fact that there was a heightened risk, and there ought to be a beef-up of security in many places, but certainly Libya was one of the obvious ones. and in Benghazi in particular? There was this mountain of reports piling up over a period of six months or more, indicating that the security situation was out of control, and the Libyan government had no capacity whatsoever to deal with it.
“So, that’s one area—and I think simply these documents, which, as I say, are a select, but representative indication of just how much was known about how bad that situation was—that needs to be answered by the President.
“Yesterday afternoon, there was a background briefing for a select group of journalists at the CIA, and you’ll be reading a lot in the papers today about what the CIA tried to do, did or didn’t do; but still, there’s absolute silence from the White House, and particularly from the President. Urgent Cables to Washington …
“Now, the other thing is, the day of the attack itself.
“There were three e-mails that were made public. Initially, they were leaked to Reuters, and released to the general public. And there’s been no effort whatsoever by anybody in the Administration, to disclaim the legitimacy of these e-mails. So, the first of them (Figure 5) arrived in Washington at 4:05 p.m. Washington time, and you can you see that the names are blacked out of the people who received the e-mails, but you can see the indication that quite a few of them went to obviously different locations at State; this one, NSS.eop.gov, is the National Security Staff at the Executive Office of the President, in other words, the White House Situation Room. And then, you have the FBI, the director of National Intelligence, several locations at the Pentagon.
“In other words, there was a burst transmission from the embassy in Tripoli, that was received in Washington in various official locations at 4:05 in the afternoon, Washington time, and the content of it was ‘Subject: U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi under attack. The regional security officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots. Explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi and four COM personnel [Chief of Mission] are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The operations center will provide updates as available.’
“Now, unless I have trouble understanding English, I don’t see anything in this initial report that talks about a demonstration, or talks about large crowds of people showing up at the consulate to protest a video. There were clearly incidents like that going on in other places, including in Cairo, but this initial report, which was the basis on which the CIA, according to their account yesterday afternoon, went into action, and actually marshalled up a team of people who were at a separate building, a mile away in Benghazi, deployed over to the consulate to try to basically rescue the people who were there.
“About 50 minutes later, a second cable e-mail came in to the same list…: ‘Update No. 1: U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. diplomatic in Benghazi has stopped, and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.’
“Then, the last of the documents made public, that came from Tripoli to Washington, on the afternoon as events were unfolding, simply says: ‘Update: Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack. Embassy Tripoli reports that group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli.’
“So, this, to my mind, raises another very significant question that is very disturbing. How is it possible that on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that the President deployed UN Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on five different ‘talking heads’ Sunday morning interview shows, to say that this was not a terrorist incident, that this was a spontaneous mob upsurge in angry reaction to a video. A video that probably very few people in Libya even knew existed, given the chaotic conditions in the country. The idea that everybody was walking around with access to the Internet, and closely monitoring an obscure video that was never even made public really—a few excerpts were released—the idea that somehow or other, there was a spontaneous mass outpouring of people at the consulate to protest this, is preposterous. They knew, they knew on Sept. 11, what was actually happening.
“I haven’t even mentioned the fact that there are confirmed reports, as of yesterday, as of the CIA briefing, that there was an unarmed surveillance drone that was in the air over the compound, over the consulate, and also nearby, a mile away at the CIA annex. And there was live-stream video—fine, it was grainy, but there was live-stream video coming back to Washington. We don’t know whether anybody in the White House Situation Room was monitoring it. A Presidential spokesman yesterday claimed that nobody was watching it, and to my mind, that goes to the question of competence, and why was there no concern, at the very highest level of our national command authority, to deal with a crisis that was ongoing. There was no way to know whether this thing was over or not.
“And so, five days later, Ambassador Rice went on five national TV shows and lied to the American people. Two days after that, President Obama himself appeared on the ‘David Letterman Show'; and several days after that, was interviewed on ‘The View,’ and after that, appeared before the world community in his address before the UN General Assembly, and repeated the same lie; he tried to change the subject, and divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. consulate had been targeted for a terrorist attack, and that a U.S. ambassador and three other officials were killed. And it had nothing to do whatsoever with a video, with a mass protest demonstration.
“From the very moment that Washington was alerted to what was going on, it was clear that it was an armed attack by a group of 20 or so people, and there was a follow-on attack that occurred at the CIA annex later in the day.”
ROSS: So, that was Nov. 2nd, 2012, less than two months after the Sept. 11th, 2012 attack there. I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to give us an update on the importance of this, in regards to the war threat today.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks Jason. Well, I think for starters, we’re now nearly three years beyond when that press conference occurred, and when the Sept. 11th, 2012 attack occurred in Benghazi, and we are still, yet, to have any plausible explanation, or answer to any of the questions that Mr. LaRouche and I posed at that National Press Club briefing: from President Obama, from Susan Rice, who is now of course the National Security Advisor to President Obama. And so, we’re in a situation today where quite a bit of additional information has come out. None of it has come from the White House, but this puts the question of Hillary Clinton very squarely on the table.
In the spring of 2014, Edward Klein came out with book called Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas, dealing with the rather tumultuous relationship between the Obama and the Clinton families, and there was a particular chapter in that book that was based on interviews, with a number of people who were directly involved in the events of Sept. 11th, 2012, including people who were in close proximity of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and people who were on the ground in Libya.
So, in point of fact, we know a great deal more about what occurred, what’s only missing right now, to fully corroborate and fill out this picture, is commentary from Hillary Clinton. Because that is sufficient, right at this moment, to block the drive towards war, a war that could become very quickly, a general war, and in fact a thermonuclear war that would represent the extinction of mankind.
We’re in a countdown because as of yesterday, the House of Representatives has left Washington, not scheduled to return until after Labor Day in early September; within several days, the U.S. Senate, a week at most, will also be gone, and so, you have an extraordinary dangerous window of time: August of 2015 could very well be the window that President Obama uses to provoke a confrontation with Russia, that would lead to a general thermonuclear war. And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our conversations earlier today, that war would be very fast. It would be over in a matter of hours, and the net result would be in all likelihood, the extinction of human life on this planet.
Now, that is a very, very, serious threat, and it’s therefore incumbent on Hillary Clinton, to step forward and say what she actually knows. Because only that kind of action in the absence of Congress being in Washington, can put the kinds of limitations, literally launch the impeachment process, or forced resignation process of President Obama, that is the necessary precondition to be genuinely confident, that we’re not on the cusp of World War III.
Now, we had the statements made by President Putin that Jason quoted a few moments ago. There are some other elements of this situation that are also worth taking note of: Russia, since the beginning of the drive for confrontation with Russia, beginning with the coup that overthrew the Yanukovych government in Ukraine and started the process of military actions, right on the border with Russia; from that point on, the Russian leadership came to the obvious and appropriate conclusion that there was a grave danger, that there was going to be a major war provoked against Russia.
And so not only did President Putin publicly say, last week, and on a number of previous occasions that Russia has the ability to launch an absolute, unquestionable, second retaliatory strike against anyone attacking Russia, but we know a great deal about what they’ve been able to accomplish. There’s been a substantial investment in the upgrading and modernization of Russia’s entire strategic nuclear force. There have been in the past months alone, dozens of incidents in which the Russian air force demonstrated the ability of fly strategic bombers into the airspace adjacent to NATO territory — all done in international airspace and in international waters, so there’s been no formal violations, of any sovereignty, but the message was intended to be delivered very clearly, that Russia understands that they are under threat of attack, and that they have an absolutely, unquestionable second-strike capability that will survive any kind of attack that they might be subjected to.
In recent months, there have been instances of Russian submarines being as close to U.S. coastal waters as the Gulf of Mexico; again, fairly and legitimately in international waters, but the message is clear.
This past week, Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy to be a persona non grata organization in Russia. They’ve been kicked out. And of course, NED is the “mother” of all of the color revolution organizations, all of the private-sector groups, like Freedom House and Human Rights Watch and all of the various entities are all tightly affiliated with and funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. The Vice President of the NED, Nadia Diuk, is part of the Banderist networks, here in the United States that are allied with Victoria Nuland, and allied with those Right Sector, literally neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who represent one of the potential instrumentalities for launching this confrontation with Russia.
So make no mistake about it: This period of August is not just something that we view as a particularly dangerous moment, but is something that is widely recognized. It’s recognized in Russia. There is a strategic analyst at the U.S. Navy War College, who released an email that he received from a European NATO official, saying that if we are lucky, we will avoid having a general war begin during the summer of this year. And parenthetically, the European NATO official said, “and furthermore, we’ll be specially lucky if it’s not a thermonuclear war.”
I had personal discussions with a number of NATO representatives posted here in Washington, D.C., and they’ve confidentially said that they are scared to death, about the density of NATO deployments and maneuvers right on the Russian border, in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea, in land areas adjacent. And so the danger of that kind of intense deployment, particularly under the circumstances where Congress is out of Washington, and there’s very little check and balance on President Obama. This is a matter of grave danger, possibly an existential issue, of survival.
Now in that context, what does Hillary Clinton know? According to the Edward Klein book — which is based on public statements and interviews conducted with a number of actual, live participants, eyewitnesses, to these events — we know that the State Department Operations Center was receiving updates virtually every 15 minutes, from the time of the first report of the initial attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, right up through at least 6 o’clock p.m., at which point it was known that Ambassador Stevens and one communications officer from his Embassy staff were dead. And of course, very soon after that, the assault on the CIA compound a mile away began, which resulted in two other people being killed.
Now, at 10 o’clock that night, according to eyewitness accounts, President Obama placed a telephone call to Hillary Clinton, and ordered Secretary of State Clinton to put out a press release, announcing that the attack on the mission in Benghazi had been spontaneous, and had been an outgrowth of protests over the release of a video that slandered the Prophet Mohammad.
Now as Klein pointed out, and as the several hundred pages of documents that were already released at the time of Mr. LaRouche’s and my press conference on Nov. 2nd, 2012, State Department, White House, Pentagon, CIA, DNI Office — all of the relevant national security agencies — knew that there had been a premeditated, planned-out, heavily-armed attack that had been launched. There was no protest demonstration. There was no connection whatsoever to the video. What had happened, is that the head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, had put out, number one, a call for attacks against the United States on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks. And he had put out particularly an order to seek revenge against the fact that number-three in al-Qaeda, a Libyan by birth, had been killed in a U.S. drone strike in June of 2012.
So in other words, it was transparently clear — it was clear in Washington by no later than 6 p.m. on Sept. 11th, 2012 — that the United States had been subjected to yet another deadly attack from al-Qaeda. Ansar al-Sharia was the local al-Qaeda affiliate in the Benghazi-Derna area. The State Department had produced in August of 2012, a detailed timeline of terrorist attacks that had taken place in Benghazi, in Tripoli, but particularly in the Benghazi area, for months and months leading up to Sept. 11th. The British Ambassador had been subjected to an attack on a car caravan, when he was visiting Benghazi. Things had gotten so dangerous that the Red Cross had pulled all of its personnel out of Benghazi. There had been previous attacks on the U.S. diplomatic missions in Benghazi; and one of the State Department documents, which obviously reflected intelligence shared with the CIA, with the Pentagon, and with the White House, indicated that emissaries of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been deployed into the Benghazi area, and had already recruited several hundred locals. Some of them were being transported into Syria, along with large amounts of weapons that had been captured by various forces when Qaddafi was overthrown and murdered, back in the end of 2011.
So all of this was known in advance. And when Secretary Clinton received the phone call from President Obama — according to the news accounts and according to Edward Klein’s book which was based on, again, interviews with people who were witness to that discussion — Secretary Clinton said, “Mr. President, this is not credible, we know what happened here.” Obama said, “Forget it, I want you to issue this press release.’ Hillary Clinton said, “I’ll call you right back.” She got on the phone with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. They mulled over what the implications were. Bill Clinton apparently obviously said the same thing, this is not credible, nobody will believe this, this is ridiculous. This was an al-Qaeda pre-meditated attack.
They considered the fact that it was September of 2012, less than two months away from the elections. At that time, President Obama’s re-election chances were by no means a certainty, and the President had campaigned aggressively on the fact that al-Qaeda had been destroyed, that the killing of Osama bin Laden had represented the routing of the organization. And much of his Presidential campaign in 2012 was centered on that one event, the killing of bin Laden, and the fact that al-Qaeda had been defeated.
Suddenly, Benghazi meant that in fact al-Qaeda had not been defeated, and if you fast-forward to today, and consider that al-Qaeda in Iraq morphed into the Islamic State, and the United States is back on the ground in Iraq, in Syria, now in Libya as well, fighting against a new iteration of al-Qaeda, you get an idea of the magnitude of the lie and the fraud that was told by President Obama, on that night when the Benghazi attack occurred.
We still don’t know what happened between 5 o’clock in that evening, when the President met with Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, and then retired to the East Wing, to the residence; and then to the 10 o’clock phone call that was made to Hillary Clinton. We really have zero idea of what the President was doing in that critical five-hour period. We know that there was no adequate military response, even though there were options that were available, options that could have at least been in place in Benghazi, prior to the time that the second phase of the attack began against the CIA Annex a mile away from the consulate that had now been burned to the ground, basically.
So at 10 o’clock that call happened. Hillary Clinton considered her options. If she resigned and went public, and made clear that the President had ordered her to lie, and that she was not going to do that, number one, Obama would be defeated for re-election, unquestionably. Number two, she would be blamed for it by most Democrats. And number three, whatever prospects she held out for a future Presidential run post-Obama, herself, would be down the tubes.
So she made a very unfortunate decision: She issued the press release sometime between 10 and 10:30 that night, and used the formulations that were ordered to her, by President Obama. The net effect is that we’ve been living a lie ever since, and now we’re at a point where that’s coming home to roost. There was an agreement reached just this past week, between Hillary Clinton and Trey Gowdy, who is the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, that she will appear to testify under oath, on Oct. 21st or 22nd. We now that some time prior to Hillary Clinton’s testimony there, her chief of staff as Secretary of State, Cheryl Mills, will be also called to testify. Cheryl Mills was the White House Counsel under President Bill Clinton.
So sooner or later, both Secretary Clinton and her key staff people are going to be forced to tell the truth, under oath, and the question is, will that truth come out in time to prevent the Guns of August from being unleashed?
It’s not a question of whether or not the truth will come out. Right now, we’re dealing with an account, that is from everything that we’ve been able to determine, highly credible and quite accurate. What’s missing is the eyewitness statement coming from Secretary Clinton. Regardless of the consequences, she has a profound moral obligation to basically correct the terrible mistake that she made, on the night of Sept. 11th, 2012. She knew what her options were, she knew one option was to go public, to resign; and to let the American people know what actually happened!
Now of course, she tried to do things “after the fact,” after she had committed that terrible mistake. The State Department did release hundreds of pages of documents. She was the first administration senior official, cabinet official to actually call the attack an “act of terrorism.”
President Obama refused to do that for quite some time. Susan Rice refused in her interviews on the 16th of September of 2012, to say anything remotely resembling the truth. She was ambitious to become Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton, who would have been the person you would have expected, to go on national television, one of her own diplomats, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, had been murdered, and she knew the score. But because she was being told to go on national television, and lie to the American people, she refused to go on television. Susan Rice did, and delivered the script exactly as it was formulated through a combination of State Department and CIA and White House NSC people. (By the way, one of the key State Department people involved in crafting the “talking points,” was Victoria Nuland.)
So here we are, it’s August 2015 in just a matter of hours. We’re in potential countdown to an Obama provocation against Russia, that could lead to thermonuclear war, and the pressure is on Hillary Clinton: Will you come forward, now, at this point — don’t wait till Oct. 21st or 22nd — come forward now, in the interest of the survival of mankind. If the chances of this happening were 5%, were 1%, what would be the right thing to do, if it was in your power to make sure that such a confrontation can be avoided? Could you possibly ignore the responsibilities, and defer from coming forward, right now, at this moment, and telling the truth? That’s what’s required.
It’s not even a question any longer, of whether or not the truth will ultimately come out of on this. She will be appearing, before Congress in a matter of months. I can assure you, that the Committee will be asking these questions. Carly Fiorina, who’s a Republican candidate for President, came out in the last 24 hours, and said that when she’s in a position of debating Hillary Clinton, the first question she will ask, is for a full and honest accounting, of what happened in Benghazi? What she knows about the actions and behavior of President Obama?
So there’s no doubt that this is going to be an existential issue for Hillary Clinton, particularly, as she still considers herself a serious candidate for President of the United States. This Benghazi issue cannot be postponed: It can happen in October, in which case the full extent of what she does will come out, whether she tells the truth, whether she lies and once again, makes the tragic mistake of falling on the sword, for President Obama, who deserves no such sympathy! Or, whether she comes out and tells the whole truth, October may be too late.
So, now is the moment of truth. Now is the point that we are calling Hillary Clinton to step forward, and in an open and public and transparent way, tell us what you know. You are in a unique position to bring down this Presidency, at a point where the survival of mankind may be actually what’s on the line.
ROSS: Thank you, Jeff. I think tonight, we’ll leave it with that. We’ll stick to this very focused message.
Thank you for joining us, thank you for your past and your future support: We have quite a job to do. Good night.