You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Wilkerson on Cheney
Wilkerson on Cheney
This is one of those must watch discussions, and Wilkerson is a Repub., one who Truly is what once was or as close as possible, but nary exists anymore and for a long time! One of the extremely few who speak out for the Country on that side of the politics of the Country!
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."
Hyper-nationalist Cheney got rich at Halliburton then "Co-President" with Bush June 7, 2010
Wilkerson on Cheney Pt2: Cheney's support for pro-industry "regulators" maybe his main damage to America June 8, 2010
Wilkerson on Cheney Pt.3: Cheney wanted to use downing of a US plane as excuse to start a new cold war June 10, 2010
Wilkerson on Cheney Pt.4: The greatest shift of wealth from the middle class to the top 1 percent June 11, 2010
- jimstaro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
A man who signed on to the PNAC documents which called for America to become the world's police force. All they needed was a "new Pearl Harbor" to launch their plans. Along comes 9/11. What a stroke.
Here is World Trade Center 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZsA3xb2kOA It housed the CIA and Secret Service. It fell in 6.5 seconds on the afternoon of 9/11. Its collapse was ignored by the 9/11 Commission.
Any questions?
What Larry Wilkerson says in that video is very important for what he also says about Rumsfeld and while it might be important to focus more on Cheney, Rumsfeld is definitely and clearly NOT someone to neglect, forget, dismiss, .... From what Larry Wilkerson says, both of these criminals evidently are very equally wicked, aka [evil].
The historical overview that Larry Wilkerson provides on those two criminals, war makers, ..., and traitors, is very important; critically so.
I often said that it was obvious enough that GW Bush really was neither President nor C-in-C, but, instead, Cheney was; while having used the title of VP to try to hide the fact that he was more President and C-in-C than Bush ever was or could be. Cheney probably couldn't have gotten the election, whether it was obtained Constitutionally or as it did happen with Bush, by treasonous appointment. Cheney was too unknown to the public, while the public knew, well, they evidently did not know the Bushes, really, but they knew of the Bushes; "thanks" to traitor Bush Sr, who had earlier been President (not a real and Constitutional one, but still wore the title).
Anyway, what Larry Wilkerson says of Cheney and his connected-at-the-hip buddy Rumsfeld is not explicit confirmation of my view regarding who the real President was during the Bush Jr-Cheney administration, but it certainly lends strong credibility to the fact that Bush didn't run anything while having the title of President pinned on him by more traitors bearing the title of Supreme Court judge(s). We could say "justices", instead of judges, but it wouldn't be fitting to refer to the traitors in this manner.
This view is why I will either never or else seldomly refer to that administration as the Bush administration; usually, or always, referring to it as the Bush-Cheney or the Bush-[Cheney] administration, the square brackets to infer which of the two I believe really ran the White House. Cheney didn't run it alone, he had his connected-at-the-hip buddy Rumsfeld in a convenient position as well; in addition to some or several other neocons.
What does "cons" refer to in neocons? It should not be "conservatives", for this'd be oxymoronic. But cons as in criminals, fraudsters, ... would most definitely be fitting. They are not conservative Republicans; they extremely corrupt the Repub. Party. The party would still be corrupt, but certainly no more than the Dem. Party is; and the former might be less corrupt than the latter. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons corrupt the party more, perhaps much more.
They take evil to neo-heights or -extremes.
Henry Kissinger is a very wicked individual, but according to what Larry Wilkerson says in the video on Cheney, he and Rumsfeld are much worse. This should cause a nationwide human earthquake to happen in the U.S.!
Human earthquakes occur when large numbers of people gather for PROTEST demonstrations. This one might be a massive lynch mob, or several of them across the country; or at the residences and offices of these two extremely criminal and evil ... creatures.
Anything about anyone of these criminals is about them all, even the ones we don't know about, behind the scenes and outside of government, we're seeing that with the corporation criminality and more!!
I agree with you, but my first post was only with respect to the first video being titled "Wilkerson On Cheney", and the title of this page, which is the same as for the first video. So my first post was not with any intention of inferring that other people aren't highly guilty. And I'll now provide a little commentary about some of the other criminials to avoid causing displeasure, say, for people like you.
Bush Jr was a puppet during the years he was [appointed] as US President. He's still a war criminal, as well as being criminal in terms of the criminal national policies the Bush Jr-VP [Cheney] administration cooked up for us and which have consequences reaching beyond US borders; although, the leaderships of the affected countries are also complicit, so guilty.
Pupppet President Bush Jr did not decide most things attributed to him, as if he was the decider, and he did not cook up the idea to be in a children's classroom in Florida the morning of 9/11. About the latter, other people cooked up the trip and it, when we're sufficiently informed, was clearly not only as a PR stunt. They used it as a PR stunt, or a distraction, or both; but they also cooked up the trip because they knew he couldn't handle the response, or, and really, the lack of response, to the 9/11 attacks. Whether people want to believe it, or not, it is part of the very considerable evidence that has been very carefully determined for 9/11 having been an inside job; not just criminally allowed, but also an inside job. The former, alone, would be quite treasonous, but there's certainly enough evidence that's been carefully determined for an inside job attack. Some foreign "actors" were involved, but there were people in powerful positions in the US who made sure the 9/11 attacks would happen without interference; except for UA flight 93, which was shot down and then crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
And it provably wouldn't be a case that set a precdent in US history.
People who knew what they wanted to happen when the attacks occurred needed the puppet President out of the way.
And when this puppet President declared orders and new policies, he did as he was directed to do. This of course means that he's still criminally involved, but it also means that he did not lead the crimes.
There were plenty of criminals and there are a new bunch of them today, and they're not only civilians. There are also highly guilty and treasonous people in high military ranks.
In terms of the Bush Jr-VP Cheney administration, alone, there are obviously Bush Jr, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, as well as Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rover, Ashcroft, and others, who are all criminals. But as Lawrence Wilkerson points out, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been working on putting the US on extreme war paths and provoking or initiating wars since they entered the Gerald Ford administration; as well as getting the US to commit other war crimes, or being certainly complicit, such as selling bio. and/or chemical weapons to Iraq, f.e.
There are other people who are similarly guilty and Zbigniew Brzezinski is among them, but what Larry Wilkerson said about Cheney and Rumsfeld is important to keep note of. It's not information to be discarded.
And like you said and probably most people already know, there are many Corporate America chiefs who are guilty in all of this; extremely guilty.
There are also extremely guilty "think" tanks. The CFR is one of them. The AEI is another example.
If the Carlyle Group is not a corporation, then it's nevertheless extremely guilty in all of this, as well.
The total number of extremely criminal elites is ... MANY anyway. Henry Kissinger is one. Zbigniew Brzezinski is another. And ... woes, there are MANY.
We can point them all out and still won't get anywhere. There is no feasible way to indict and prosecute these people. They can be indicted outside of the US, but won't be indicted in the US, and they won't be prosecuted anywhere. The or certainly enough of the most powerful US elites will make sure of this. They are powerfully protected by civilian and high-ranking military people in the govt. And there are powerfully influential corporate people who contribute to this enforced protection scheme.
If we come to win, then it'll most likely be like some people have been saying and which is that it'll be due to the evil-leaning elites causing their own downfall or demise; instead of it being to actions ordinary citizens undertook. If citizens vote for real change and throw out all of the rogues in Congress, then, then maybe the ordinary people would be able to win through their combined actions.
I hope that happens, but am not very optimistic about it.
Quote: "This is one of those must watch discussions, and Wilkerson is a Repub., one who Truly is what once was or as close as possible, but nary exists anymore and for a long time! One of the extremely few who speak out for the Country on that side of the politics of the Country!".
The comments in this and my first post are with respect to only the first video. I have not listened to the other three, or any others with Larry Wilkerson speaking.
I'm not sure he's a true Republican. While there are some reasons, a couple anyway, to believe that he is partly this, there certainly aren't enough.
He speaks of GHW Bush as if he was a good President; of James Baker as if he was a good Secretary of State; and of Colin Powell as if he's great. But they're ALL WAR CRIMINALS, traitors, racketeers, liars, .... Actually, maybe Powell is not a racketeer, but he's still a war criminal and traitor. Even if he's not a traitor in a witting way and, therefore, it might be thought of as being accidental, say, there's certainly the appearance of treasonous conduct with him.
GHW Bush is a blatant traitor. James Baker is a traitor, but I'm not sure precisely how; due to knowing too little about him to be able to discern whether it was while he knew he was complicit in un- or anti-Constitutional actions and/or decisions, or if he wasn't aware of this. I imagine that he probably knew, but really don't know enough about his doings as Secretary of State, or in any other positions.
That's besides knowing that he headed or was one of the top people who lead the Iraq Study Group that came up with a report that referred to the strategic importance of "securing" Iraq's oil resources 63 times; and this is about securing the resources for western so-called national interests, really corporate interests, of course. This is according to an excellent article by Dahr Jamail several years ago; not long after the group's report became available for public knowledge of its contents anyway. His article can surely still be found at his website.
It would not be credible, at all, to say that GHW Bush didn't know that he acted in highly anti-Constitutional ways. He knows the Constitution well enough; or more than enough!
The reason I believe Colin Powell is a traitor is because he always folds after initially and correctly opposing criminal agendas, some (or many) anyway. He has a serious reputation for this and his initial opposition, which I suppose is less well known than what he says after folding, illustrates that these agendas, plans, dictates, ... are wrong; and he has, at least once, said that they were illegal, at first. Then, and like some obedient dumb dog, he becomes very complicit in these extreme crimes and supreme international crimes.
I've also read that he's been a war criminial since his "service" in the Vietnam War, but am not sure what his crimes were in this war.
Bush Sr was highly criminal before becoming the Director of the CIA and without first having served in any lower positions in the agency, which enough knowledgeable people have criticized the fact that this was permitted, and who said that it was a precedent; although, the CIA isn't an agency that's existed for very long, yet. It nevertheless existed long enough before he was appointed to the director. And he's become more criminal since that dark day occurred.
Lawrence Wilkerson has [some] traits of a true Republican, but he also strikes me as someone who's partly in denial. Perhaps they're dark realities he shuts out because he doesn't want to or can't let himself think about these; as if it's some sort of built-in and automatic, as well as subconscious, defense mechanism that causes him to keep these dark realities out of his mind, or at least out of anything he accepts to publicly state. If he also shuts it out of his consciousness, then maybe it's an automatic defense mechanism; like, f.e., for avoiding deep depression and/or suicidal thoughts.
I don't know what the reason is, but he certainly strikes me as being in denial about some very dark realities that are very important and which depict people guilty of very high treason, war crimes, and possibly (or probably ?) other crimes.
Ron Paul is perhaps the truest Republican of US politics, and he's not a perfect Repub., either. He's very true to what it means to be a Repub. in the US though. I might be mistaken but nevertheless believe that he might or probably would not speak critically of GHW Bush, James Baker or Colin Powell, while he probably also wouldn't speak favourably of or about them, either.
There might possibly be one or two other persons of present or former US politics, recent politics, who're more fully true Repub. than he is, but this'd still leave him among the top two or three. And, I'm not sure, but also don't believe that the others would include Lawrence Wilkerson.
Anyone who thinks people like GHW Bush, James Baker (I believe both also being members of the very criminal Carlyle Group, while GHW Bush certainly is), and Colin Powell are great is not a very true Republican. A very true one has to be highly Constitutional, as well as respectful and defender of the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, which is something to think about when considering US-Israel relations, f.e.
Larry Wilkerson says important things about the wicked Cheney-Rumsfeld pair, but is also inconsistent when it comes to who's rogue and who isn't. What he says that is true is simply true; just that no one should fool themselves or others about the three criminals he speaks in highly favorable terms about. We should not neglect or disregard his inconsistency.
To fully understand a person requires understanding or knowing about their strengths and weaknesses, their abilities and in- or dis-abilities, et cetera.
So everything he says in the first video should be considered alone, by itself. It needs to be complemented with information from people who know and have written and/or made documentary videos about the criminality of the three characters Larry Wilkerson speaks in strongly favorable about; and there's plenty of this information freely available online.