![McCarthy: I went to my doctor this morning, and was late leaving his office because he couldn't stop talking about the war and how much he can't stand what Bush is doing. He said his mother can't stop talking about how afraid she is of Bush. He's about 60, so she must be about 80. This fear of Bush is hitting all generations. No one wants this war except him and Lady Macbeth Cheney and her husband and their people.
EIR: Lyndon LaRouche has been stressing that the Democratic National Committee leadership is the war party, but the people who vote Democratic are against this war.
McCarthy: That's why I thought during the Vietnam War, that it had to be challenged within the Democratic Party. We had to take it to the voters in the Democratic primaries. The Democratic Party at that time was primarily responsible for our involvement in the war. From John Kennedy's Administration through Lyndon Johnson's, the number of military personnel had increased from about 900—who were there at the end of the Eisenhower Administration—to about 17,000, who were only supposed to be there as advisors to help bring "democracy" to Vietnam. By 1965, Lyndon Johnson was escalating it, under the advice of [Dean] Rusk, [Robert] McNamara, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Gen. [William] Westmoreland. I had some doubts about the intelligence we were getting almost from the beginning, but as the criticism of the war mounted, Lyndon's people became more defensive, and the language of their defensive response more violent. Our motives were questioned—they called us "Nervous Nellies." But all of their assessments didn't add up.
For instance, a critical point came in February 1965, when Secretary of State Rusk advised 25 or 30 of us in the Senate that Gen. Nguyen Khanh, who then led the government in power, was leading a strongly supported, stable government, which would be effective for a long time to come. Rusk spoke to us at about 9 or 10 o'clock at night. When we picked up the morning papers, we got the new…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bpc7nm4rtcchhdq5sfxyrujl/bafkreianx65wutddahwmldokh5ddwn53pihxr34rocbzkd4czhkebggh3e@jpeg)
McCarthy: I went to my doctor this morning, and was late leaving his office because he couldn't stop talking about the war and how much he can't stand what Bush is doing. He said his mother can't stop talking about how afraid she is of Bush. He's about 60, so she must be about 80. This fear of Bush is hitting all generations. No one wants this war except him and Lady Macbeth Cheney and her husband and their people. EIR: Lyndon LaRouche has been stressing that the Democratic National Committee leadership is the war party, but the people who vote Democratic are against this war. McCarthy: That's why I thought during the Vietnam War, that it had to be challenged within the Democratic Party. We had to take it to the voters in the Democratic primaries. The Democratic Party at that time was primarily responsible for our involvement in the war. From John Kennedy's Administration through Lyndon Johnson's, the number of military personnel had increased from about 900—who were there at the end of the Eisenhower Administration—to about 17,000, who were only supposed to be there as advisors to help bring "democracy" to Vietnam. By 1965, Lyndon Johnson was escalating it, under the advice of [Dean] Rusk, [Robert] McNamara, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Gen. [William] Westmoreland. I had some doubts about the intelligence we were getting almost from the beginning, but as the criticism of the war mounted, Lyndon's people became more defensive, and the language of their defensive response more violent. Our motives were questioned—they called us "Nervous Nellies." But all of their assessments didn't add up. For instance, a critical point came in February 1965, when Secretary of State Rusk advised 25 or 30 of us in the Senate that Gen. Nguyen Khanh, who then led the government in power, was leading a strongly supported, stable government, which would be effective for a long time to come. Rusk spoke to us at about 9 or 10 o'clock at night. When we picked up the morning papers, we got the new…
EIR: You once told me that you ran for President to avoid a French Revolution. McCarthy: There was no way for the people to express their opposition to the war and associated policies within the framework of our system of government, to make hard political judgments, and take full responsibilities for those judgments. Before I entered the race, the mood was of protest and dissent. One example is the changes I saw at the University of California in Berkeley, where the mood changed from mere dissent to, after our campaign began, large numbers of students prepared to support and participate in the political process. For nearly 20 years, before the test of 1968, I had emphasized, especially in talking to students, the need for a revived sense of vocation in modern society. I had emphasized that acceptance of professional status carries special responsibilities and obligations, including the obligation to take risks; and that we should expect politicians, if the issue is important enough, to show a similar sense of profession, and to understand the obligation to take political risks when necessary. At all times, but especially in 1968, and again, if it is possible, especially now, the role of the Presidency must be one of uniting this nation, not of adding it up or putting it together as a kind of odd-sized jigsaw puzzle. To unify this nation means to inspire it. We need to develop a sense of character in the nation with common purposes and shared ideals, and then move on as best we can to achieve limited or great progress toward establishing a sense of justice. By virtue of what happened in the first two primaries to challenge the Presidency, changes were made in our country. A public judgment was passed with reference to the war in Vietnam—and not as a separate issue, but as one which had to be dealt with in the configuration of problems in which it occurred.
EIR: We last talked on March 8, before the war against Iraq officially started. Now, yesterday, Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks made a formal announcement that they have won the war. But the fighting is still going on. McCarthy: Bush's Administration reminds me of the Romans at the end point of their empire, who went and attacked Africa, because they needed something they could have a big celebration about when they returned. EIR: Bolton, Rumsfield, Cheney, they were all boasting. McCarthy: Was Cheney's wife, Lady Macbeth, with him when he emerged from the crypt, where, they say, he'd been keeping a low profile? EIR: They were threatening Syria, Iran and North Korea—that they'd better stop harboring terrorists and get rid of weapons of mass destruction. McCarthy: This is pretty bad. They're pretty full of themselves. The people around Bush have no understanding of history. The propaganda in the press creates the rush to war. I read one article in the Washington Post before the war started, which had eight paragraphs, and seven of them mentioned "weapons of mass destruction." I would say that we were using "pretty much weapons of mass destruction" ourselves. EIR: After talking endlessly about weapons of mass destruction, they just started saying "WMD." McCarthy: We're destroying the whole country with "PMWMD" then. One hundred million people demonstrated to stop the war before it even started. They haven't found one chemical or biological or nuclear weapon and they still went ahead. Sy Hersh has a good article in the New Yorker. EIR: He was your Presidential campaign's first press secretary, wasn't he? McCarthy: Yes, he was. The article exposes Cheney's conflict of interest, and not only Cheney's.
![EIR: Dissenters from the FDR legacy like the pro-war candidate Lieberman from the DLC [Democratic Leadership Conference] now.
McCarthy: The Democratic Leadership Conference is made up of Democrats who are really reactionary Republicans. Much as I hate to quote George Wallace, there really "isn't a dime's worth of difference" between them. You don't have any political dialogue or debate; one is just an echo of the other one. John Quincy Adams said our nation had to avoid the mere struggles for power. But that's what we're seeing between the two parties now, just a struggle for power. Lyndon Johnson said that if you can control the TV people, the newspaper people and the wire service people, you can control both political parties and that's what we have now. Look at these embedded reporters. The news media and the two political parties have become part of the military-industrial complex. They rule out open debate or a test of policy at the polls. There are no political elections, just struggles for power.
When I was in Minnesota last month I talked to Professor Disch of the University of Minnesota about the problems of the two-party system and forming a third party.
EIR: Isn't that what the people of Minnesota did when they got Ventura in as Governor and you had all those squabbles about the Reform party?
McCarthy: The people who started it weren't bad. They felt that the country was not being well governed by Republican or Democratic politics. But what was lacking was an image of what the mission of their government should be. But, how can we complain? A whole generation has never seen such a thing!
EIR: Can't the Democratic Party be changed, in the way you tried to change it in 1968, and Lyn is trying to change it now?
McCarthy: I would hope so, but I doubt it. After 1968, the great fear of the Establishment was that a President might be elected on the basis of a political dialogue of the American people. There was great psychological warfare against me. You k…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bpc7nm4rtcchhdq5sfxyrujl/bafkreiea4rcy7ad3in3umnxsxflnc2j5e3dk2oegxrmuedgiaezwxx6lwa@jpeg)
EIR: Dissenters from the FDR legacy like the pro-war candidate Lieberman from the DLC [Democratic Leadership Conference] now. McCarthy: The Democratic Leadership Conference is made up of Democrats who are really reactionary Republicans. Much as I hate to quote George Wallace, there really "isn't a dime's worth of difference" between them. You don't have any political dialogue or debate; one is just an echo of the other one. John Quincy Adams said our nation had to avoid the mere struggles for power. But that's what we're seeing between the two parties now, just a struggle for power. Lyndon Johnson said that if you can control the TV people, the newspaper people and the wire service people, you can control both political parties and that's what we have now. Look at these embedded reporters. The news media and the two political parties have become part of the military-industrial complex. They rule out open debate or a test of policy at the polls. There are no political elections, just struggles for power. When I was in Minnesota last month I talked to Professor Disch of the University of Minnesota about the problems of the two-party system and forming a third party. EIR: Isn't that what the people of Minnesota did when they got Ventura in as Governor and you had all those squabbles about the Reform party? McCarthy: The people who started it weren't bad. They felt that the country was not being well governed by Republican or Democratic politics. But what was lacking was an image of what the mission of their government should be. But, how can we complain? A whole generation has never seen such a thing! EIR: Can't the Democratic Party be changed, in the way you tried to change it in 1968, and Lyn is trying to change it now? McCarthy: I would hope so, but I doubt it. After 1968, the great fear of the Establishment was that a President might be elected on the basis of a political dialogue of the American people. There was great psychological warfare against me. You k…
Lyndon LaRouche's magazine, Executive Intelligence Review, had a two-part interview with Eugene McCarthy in 2003. Some of the interesting parts:
01.02.2026 21:34 — 👍 6 🔁 4 💬 1 📌 0
