Today's Anniversary: Nixon in China

[runningdownthatdream]

Thanks for the link -I have found a clip from youtube. I am not sure how many studies there have been of Vice-Presidents, there is an assumption that they don't do much except ceremonial duties while waiting their turn to occupy the top job -Cheney comes across as the most 'activist' VP in recent memory, but also the most intellectually superior. I can't agree with much of what he says but there is no denying the quality of his intellect; when he was interviewed on the BBC once he completely shredded the arguments being put to him, so anyone taking him on needs to know what they are talking about. Cheney was undoubtedly committed to the security of the USA, whether or not his policy choices have guaranteed it is not so clear.

In the clip below which appears to undermine the diplomatic efforts of Condoleeza Rice against his activist solutions, he argues it was right to physically obliterate the 'reactor' being built in Syria just as it was right to overthrow Saddam Hussein to eliminate the cultivation of WMD that would fall into the 'wrong hands'. The nuclear genie has been out of its bottle in the Middle East for years, but attempts to develop a nuclear option in the region show how difficult and expensive it is -no state can decide to 'go nuclear' in year zero and have a credible threat in year ten. In addition, Iraq was a stable state like Syria -courtesy of the 'stability of terror' in which people were literally terrified of expressing themselves, and has been replaced by a state where hundreds of people are killed each month in bombings, where the northern region of Kurdistan is on the way to becoming a separate state, and where more radical and violent Jihadi groups are feeding the civil war in Syria, even if they failed to make an impact on Iraq itself. I don't know how this can be thought of as a positive outcome of the 2003 invasion, which in any case, had no final solution other than a utopian belief that Iraq would experience a 'democratic revolution'. Indeed, as Dick Cheney says at the beginning of the excellent four-part documentary that aired on the BBC last year -'Anyone was better than Saddam Hussein' -not to mention the chilling words of Tony Blair -'I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East'.

definitely comes across as an intellectual but one who is completely set in his opinions and worldview. This is a man who decided a long time ago to choose a path and stick with it without variation. No doubt a lot of that has to do with his previous shiftless existence - almost like he had to ground himself and in so doing chained himself to a rigid way of thinking. I think he doesn't trust himself to be flexible. Cheney is an empire builder in the worst kinda way - the eschew diplomacy, assume the worst, kick in the door, and take what you want way. While today's world calls for softer, subtler methods of empire-building via economic unions (EU) and brotherly protectorates (US-Japan-Philippines etc). He's an 18th century character living in the 21st century.

[Stavros]

Unfortunately there are plenty of politicians around who believe that if you want something you should go out and get it and not let anything stand in your way, I don't think it is particularly 18th century. Cheney is interesting because he was such an activist VP, but also because he represents that belief the USA needs to be pro-active, pre-emptive and aggressive in its pursuit of its interests. I don't think it is particularly subtle, yet he is certainly more interesting than, say, VP Biden.