LaRouche Pac

Aug. 7 (EIRNS)-What follows is the text of Sputnik's article about the Sputnik radio interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche under the headline above.

Lyndon LaRouche's wife Helga Zepp LaRouche spoke to Sputnik about how U.S. atomic bombing in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was completely unnecessary and how the U.S. is preparing for another atomic war against Russia and China right now. For 70 years, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S. has been marked by reverence for the many victims who tragically lost their lives during the nuclear attack, but now an influential American international affairs outlet, Foreign Policy, has decided to spin the event, blaming the Soviet Union for what happened.

In his article "Did Hiroshima Save Japan From Soviet Occupation?" Sergey Radchenko makes it seem like the nuclear bombings were a godsend, and that the U.S. humanely intended to save Japan from communism. Following the publication of the provocative article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute Washington, D.C., spoke to Sputnik radio, saying that there is no justification for what the U.S. did in Japan.

"There was absolutely no reason for this bombing as there was already peace negotiation between the emperor and the Vatican at that time. The bombing was done to instigate horror and awe by Truman so that he could continue the era of imperialism," LaRouche said. "There are many people who have been warning that the U.S. and NATO are preparing a new war against Russia and China. There is a very serious escalation of the situation, making the month of August extremely dangerous as history shows most of the wars started in August, and the U.S. military has changed tactic in Syria last week and the U.S. army has gone into recess."

She goes on to say that the U.S. is busily preparing itself for war. Signs indicate that another nuclear war is getting closer and this time it will annihilate the entire human race. In order to prevent that from happening, LaRouche said that the U.S., Russia and China need to sit down and talk. Europe must apply pressure, and say that it will not be a part of such a war. "The leaders of the U.S., Russia and China must sit together and discuss the new international security architecture. We must overcome geopolitics if we don't want
to extinct ourselves."

Obama Devises New Legal Rationale To Justify Broader War

Aug. 10 (EIRNS)-The Obama Administration has crept another step closer to expanded warfare, using the same method evident a week ago when it announced that it had given the military the authority to attack Syrian government forces if they engage in combat against armed opposition groups trained by the U.S. military. A questionable policy change is hatched in the bowels of the White House and leaked
to a reporter via some anonymous official, rather than engaging the U.S. Congress and the American people on war and peace.

This time, the step involves the new legal rationale the Obama White House gives to explain the legal authority it believes it has to support the above policy, announced via unnamed source last week: Article II of the Constitution. "If Syrian government forces attack the Syrian fighters we have trained and equipped while they were engaging ISIL, the President would have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend those fighters," the unnamed senior administration official told The Hill. Nor does this just apply to the handful of vetted fighters that the U.S. military has trained; it covers the groups they come from and return to, which haven't been vetted. In fact, a U.S. official (the same one?), said the U.S.-led coalition already is providing those groups with air support against ISIS even though they do not yet have U.S.-trained rebels embedded with them. A diplomatic official told The Hill that some of the groups may target Assad-which would bring the United States closer to war with the regime.

According to legal experts consulted by The Hill, Obama's legal rationale is turning Article II on its head. Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former Congressional Research Service researcher, and other legal experts say Article II has been interpreted to allow a President to "repel sudden attack" against U.S. troops, the U.S. mainland, and its interests. Using it to defend Syrian rebels would not fit under that previous interpretation, he said. Stephen Vladeck, law professor at American University, said, "by that logic any person or piece of military equipment used by anyone on a side of a conflict with which we agree, is all of a sudden covered by Article II. And that cannot be right."

Though not mentioned by The Hill, such an interpretation could have dangerous implications for U.S. policy in Ukraine, where the U.S. has "assets," not only U.S. troops, but also Ukrainian national guardsmen from such neo-Nazi groups as Right Sector and Azov battalion that they've trained, and humvees, radars and other equipment that the United States has supplied to the Kiev regime for war against its own Donbass region.

Former Head of Defense Intelligence Agency Slams Administration for 'Willful Decision' To Build Up Jihadis

Aug. 7 (EIRNS)-Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), made an unprecedented, blunt accusation that the rise of the Islamic State (IS) was the result of a "willful decision,"-not an intelligence failure-by the Obama Administration.

Speaking to Mehdi Hasan, the host of Al Jazeera's "Head to Head," Flynn not only said that he read the 2012 DIA report that warned the Obama administration about the rise of the "Islamic State," and the creation of a "caliphate" by Syria-based Islamists and al-Qaeda, but also went further than any other recently retired military
official has up till now.

Flynn directly accused the Obama administration of making a "willful decision" to back the jihadis, when questioned by Hasan: Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it,
but who wasn't listening?" Flynn: "I think the administration." Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?" Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I
think it was a willful decision." Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."Later in the interview, Hasan brought up arms flows to the rebels. Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?" Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job ... but that ... my job was to ... was to ensurethat the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could
be."

The Flynn interview was published in the Levantreport.com, along with analysis that recounts how the State Department spokesperson, Maria Harf, and various newscommentators, such as the Daily Beast, belittled the DIA analysis and presented the report as insignificant. Flynn refutes that view completely, and he stressed that the DIA report was not only on-target, but that the Obama administration didn't "listen"to the DIA's analysts.

The Levantreport.com also includes an article titled "Why We Must Not Arm Even One More Syrian Rebel."

-###-

LaRouche Pac