Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney who coauthored a
book – apparently titled 'Exceptional' – seem at first blush to be on a tour
promoting the sale of the book. Two things they did lately in that regard were
to speak with the Weekly Standard on September 1, 2015, and to appear on
MSNBC's Morning Joe program on September 2, 2015.
Both events were written about by Michael Warren of the
Weekly Standard. The first article came under the title: “Cheney: Iran Deal Did
Not Begin With Bush Administration” while the second came under the title:
“Cheney: Congress Should Treat Iran Deal As a Treaty” and the subtitle: “It
should require two-thirds vote of the Senate to go in force.”
When someone is on a tour that is really a campaign not only
to promote a book, but also justify the decisions that were taken during the
George W. Bush Presidency in which Dick Cheney served as Vice-President, you
need a point of reference from which to start evaluating what powers the
thinking of the two authors at this time, and what used to power the thinking
of the entire Bush Administration.
To be honest, Dick Cheney could not have been more generous
in that he handed us a jewel of the highest value on a tablet that is made of
pure gold. You'll find the following give and take in the September 2 article.
Host Joe Scarborough asks: “Wasn't the world more stable with Saddam Hussein in
power?” And Dick Cheney responds: “No, when we took down Saddam, [Libyan
President] Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program.”
Do you know what this means, and where it came from? It
means that any country – say, Russia
or China or Iran or someone
else – can now use that example as precedent to bomb country A in the hope that
country B or C or D will backtrack on something it may or may not be doing.
What a horrifically lawless world this would be whose horrifically disfigured
features will bear the signature of the horrifically repulsive Jewish
mentality!
This kind of mentality started seeping into the American
debates when the Jewish pundits and their non-Jewish followers justified the
bombing of civilian installations in Iraq and Syria on the basis that if not
destroyed, these installations could have fallen into the hands of the
terrorists now sweeping the area.
To see how horrifically lawless and repulsive this argument
is, imagine India bombing Pakistan and “taking out” its leadership, the moment
it sensed that the neighbor was developing nuclear weapons. What do you think
would have happened? An extremist group – say, the Pakistani Taliban – would
have filled the vacuum. The result is that we would now be facing a situation
in Pakistan similar to that
in the Levant .
Go a step further and imagine China
acting in that same manner the moment that it sensed India was developing nuclear
weapons. Think of the millions of Indians who will say that because their
central government cannot protect them, they are breaking away to run their
territory the way they see fit. And in the effort to delineate the boundaries
of their territory, the various groups find themselves fighting civil wars that
look like the situation we now see in the Levant .
And yet, neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian installations that
were bombed by Israel
were military in nature. They were civilian installations built in the open for
the whole world to see, and whose purpose was to do work meant to serve the
populations of those countries.
Their being bombed reinforced the view in the mind of what
came to be called “terrorists” that the West is terrorizing them because their
governments cannot protect them. And so they decided to take matters in their
own hands. And the result is what we see in the Levant
today.
This is the situation that Israel has created in its immediate
vicinity using American weapons, money and diplomatic encouragement. It is also
what the Jews seek to create where Israel cannot go, using the entire
American military and its military-industrial complex.