The True Legacy Of Dick Cheney In His Own Words...Sort Of
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much and feel too little.
More than machinery, we need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat.
As if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
You've got to say, I'm a human being.
God damn it.
My life has been.
You have meddled with the trial forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regimate your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
You're beautiful.
I love you.
Yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
Ha ha.
It's showtime.
It's time to buckle up for making sense of the madness.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmese here.
And as I would imagine the majority of you are aware by now, Dick Cheney passed away, I believe it was either yesterday or the day before.
And as I've stated before on this broadcast and on other broadcasts, I'm not here to dunk on people.
I am not here to disparage the dead.
That's not what we're going to be doing.
In fact, what we're going to be doing is we're going to be talking Dick Cheney and what his true memoriam or legacy was and is.
And for the most part, okay, when we are talking about Dick Cheney, we are talking about globalism, imperialism, authoritarianism under the guise of freedom and quote-unquote democracy.
Okay.
And the reason that the title of this is, in his own words, is we're going to go back to 2004 when Dick Cheney, for almost an hour, spoke before the World Economic Forum at Davos.
And yes, he is introduced by Klaus Nuchwab.
And that's why Klaus is in there.
So look, we're not here to talk about, you know, wherever Dick Cheney is.
We are here to talk about his legacy and really the system's legacy because this guy, before we even get to Davos, there are two major clips.
You know, you just saw this in Memoriam, right?
We're going to go back to it.
You notice it's from the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.
And people who were paying attention, who were around back then, my generation, hopefully, although a lot of my generation were just asleep and just numbed to everything, but 9-11 and what the news was telling them.
That's about it, right?
And really, a lot of my parents' generation and beyond that to the boomers.
Because even my parents' generation, I'm Tanlin Gen X, they were still around Gen X.
Yeah, younger parents.
What has happened past that is that people have unfortunately become more ignorant.
The world has become more authoritarian, more unstable, especially the Middle Eastern region.
Yet, Dick Cheney doesn't really see it that way.
And there are some parts within this Davos speech, especially when he starts talking about Israel and Palestine and a free state.
So much of this is based on that terrorism narrative that has crumbled over the last 20 plus years.
Now we're in 2025, and very few people still buy into that.
But it's making a comeback.
We've talked about that.
We've talked about how that rhetoric is making a comeback.
At the same time, Trump's about to meet the Syrian president, who, after the overthrow of Bashir al-Assad through our intelligence networks for a decade plus, multi-generational.
And that's why this is also important because Cheney is a multi-generational globalist in a lot of senses.
And when I say multi-generational, I mean multi-administrations through different bureaucracies, right?
Everybody knows about Cheney and Enron.
All right.
But there was so much more to Cheney with Halliburton, with other private contracting firms, okay?
With the globalists in general from something like the CFR, which we're going to really open with here.
But not only the CFR, you see, via the first Reagan administration and that executive office, he was also able to manipulate one of the most important aspects of why we have become more track, trace, database, authoritarian, anti-constitution, all these different things.
And that's the National Programs Office or Continuity of Government.
I mean, don't get me wrong, like guys like Mike Benz that talk about USAID and all these things.
That's important because that's a funding mechanism.
And it shows a lot of the shell organizations.
But at the end of the day, when it's being run by these internalized, unaudible, unauditable government organizations, that's really where we get into a multitude, a multitude more trouble.
Okay.
So we're going to let Dick Cheney speak for almost an hour.
Obviously, I'm going to be cutting in and throwing in my two cents and asking you guys questions.
We do got the super chats going.
This is probably going to be a pretty long broadcast.
So if you'd like to get your super chat in, if you are watching live right now on YouTube, remember, we are remonetized.
We're trying to make that into a viable thing.
Until then, we do really need your support.
I want to thank everybody out there who continues to support the broadcast.
$5, $10, $15.
It does mean the world to me.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Big donors.
Big shout out to marigoldresources.com.
Again, buying or selling the business, doing something in that regard.
My man McGreevy has you covered.
Go check him out over at that website or you can call him.
You see the number right there.
He also has a great independent media operation right here in the Quad Cities, River CitiesReader, RCReader.com.
You can even get print of that.
And I'm going to ask you to not follow me on X. Please don't follow me on X. I've been asking in the last several videos.
Again, I think we're two more down from the last video.
We're down to 159.
So, whatever you do is don't get the raw feeds.
Don't get the other news that maybe I don't cover here.
Right?
Like, we may or may not talk about the pipe bomber down the line.
This is Stuart J. Hooper's take on the Cheney legacy.
Again, he's a very smart.
I got to get him on as well.
But please don't follow me on X. Maybe that'll get me some followers.
So let's start right here.
In Memoriam Richard B. Cheney, this is the Council on Foreign Relations mourns the passing of Richard B. Cheney, a life member since 1982 and the member of the Council's board of directors from 1987 to 1989 and again from 1993 to 1995.
A steadfast steward of the council, Cheney brought to our community the same seriousness of purpose, strategic insight, and commitment to public service that defined the distinguished career in government and the private sector.
Now, let me talk about the significance of that.
And then he does get a full send-off from Elliott Abrams.
Elliot Abrams, one of these established government guys that's been around since that Cheney era, now saying there will never be a Palestinian state.
Now come into play, Dick Cheney's own words.
Back in the day, late 90s, early 2000s, there was still a very large sect of conservatives and the mainline Republican Party that simply were not down like a clown, Charlie Brown,
with organizations like the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, that were very aware of Rockefeller-esque global influence and moving away from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and what we have done here, the true America first stuff, and moving into the field of globalism.
All right.
And Dick Cheney is a huge part of that.
Now, we're going to play this clip really quickly.
I don't know what documentary it comes from, but it reminds me of, again, if you come from my era and my generation, like you would sit at school and you'd watch one of those documentaries and they talk to you like this, it's very bland.
It's what the alternative media, it's what those people were probably watching that were aware in church groups and book clubs and things like that.
But right here, Dick Cheney talks about his relationship with the Council on Foreign Relations directly to David Rockefeller in a very just like haha, funny, funny manner, because he knows what a negative connotation that would be.
So let's put this on.
A special televised meeting of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations provides a window to the real story.
The speaker, Vice President Dick Cheney, takes a question from David Rockefeller.
Vice President, I just enjoyed so much your whole speech, but I was particularly pleased that you gave such a strong endorsement for the free trade agreement for all the Americans.
Subject that has been of great concern to me for many years, and particularly recently.
And I think it's absolutely essential for the strength of our economy.
Rockefeller's role in the drive for an FTAA was a lot more central than he portrays.
Rockefeller cultivated Latin American leaders who could be counted on to support such a proposal.
Both the 1994 Miami Summit and the FTAA proposal were conceived and nurtured by a Rockefeller-created network.
Prominent among the organizations sponsoring the Miami event were the Council of the Americas, founder and honorary chairman David Rockefeller, the Americas Society, Chairman David Rockefeller, the Forum of the Americas, founder David Rockefeller, the Institute for International Economics, Financial Backer and Board Member David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, founder and honorary chairman David Rockefeller.
Rockefeller's influence also extends to the current administration.
He was chairman emeritus of the CFR when Vice President Dick Cheney once served as a director, a relationship that Cheney concealed during his congressional career.
It's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations.
As Pete mentioned, I've been a member for a long time and was actually a director for some period of time.
I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.
It's a big funny.
It's a big haha.
You understand?
You get it?
You get my concern.
And the thing is, the joke is on the American populace and really the global populace when you look at it.
I mean, look at the straightforward devastation done to the Middle East, whereas basically our military-industrial complex playground, our playground, for how long?
It continues to be.
That's how long.
I mean, a lot of this technology that's now making its way back to the United States, whether we like it or not, pioneered there.
The biometrics, especially.
Not the United States, that's a global thing.
We've talked about it with WorldCoin and what was done to Iraqi citizens.
Okay?
So I want to go quickly over to our first super chat.
The only guy that'll give the 6-7 up front and off the nuts says, sir, Alexander Full.
Glad you're here, always relating it and throwing relevantly up front, God bless, thank you for that bit of gibberish with the 6'7.
We love to be hipping with it over here on the show, and we love to have the support.
So I want to go to this next clip, and this is going to show you that Mr. Cheney here, and this is from Fabled Enemies.
That, you know, again, about 9-11.
Well, of course, Cheney has other parts in my films via 9-11 and some questionable activity in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center.
And remember, Cheney, you know, you talk about transparency, certainly not with 9-11.
He and Bush testified to a rigged commission together, not under oath, and were never held accountable for it.
Okay?
So again, we're not here to do anything but state the facts and show you who these people are and who this person is.
And he was someone, again, with that knee bent to the altar of globalism.
And I talked earlier about the continuity of government program, aka the shadow government.
Right here is a subsection of Fabled Enemies that shows you that these shadow government planes, COG planes, E-4B planes, were at the scene of both the second strike of the World Trade Center, can be verified, and also at the scene of the Pentagon attack.
Should be investigated, should be talked about.
Not really.
But the expansion of COG was through one of those innocuous government bureaucracies called the National Programs Office.
Let's talk about it.
They are part of the continuity of government plans in case of an emergency.
This program was launched in the early 80s, headed by none other than George Herbert Walker Bush.
Was being made to consolidate continuity of government programs across several major departments of the government under one office, which turned out later to be called the National Program Office.
As I understood it, this office fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Vice President.
Then Vice President George Bush was the first in charge.
On 9-11, this program was put into effect.
This next one happens a lot these days, it seems like a story that is both reassuring and scary at the same time.
This morning, we learned that the Vice President wasn't the only one sent to an undisclosed location on September 11th, that an entire backup government was and is still there and may be there for as long as anyone now at least can imagine.
Traveling in Iowa, the president, for the first time, discussed a secret ongoing operation designed to keep the federal government running if Washington is paralyzed by a terrorist strike.
I still take the threats that we receive from al-Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously.
The operation was first reported by the Washington Post and confirmed to CNN by several administration officials.
The shadow or bunker government involves roughly 100 senior staffers from every cabinet department and major government agency, operates primarily out of two secret bunkers in the eastern United States, and is charged with running the executive branch if communication with Washington is severed.
The secret plan took shape in the minutes and hours after the September 11th strikes as Mr. Bush took a cautious route back to Washington.
And now, nearly six months later, administration officials are scrambling to get more telephone lines and high-tech computers into these secret bunkers.
And at least one member of the Bush cabinet is being kept out of Washington at all times under heavy security, just in case this so-called shadow government is activated and needs a leader.
Despite it being on television and in numerous papers, most people continue to deny that a shadow government even exists.
Now, what if I told you that Dick Cheney was the reported head of this group on the day of 9-11?
President Bush cracked jokes about it at a prime rib dinner.
The vice president has been moving among secret locations to provide continuity of government.
A year ago, Dick was running the country, Bush said.
Today, he lives out of a little suitcase.
Cheney has been part of the succession program since its inception.
To reduce the possibility of decapitation, the National Program Office was directed to create a new program to assure the continuity of government.
It was known as the Presidential Successor Support System, or PSQ.
Dick Cheney, Edwin Meese, Tip O'Neill, and Dick Thornberg all have been in a line of succession by virtue of their offices.
But our sources say the NPO gave them additional responsibilities under the new system.
Cheney would arrive at the emergency center before the Pentagon was attacked.
Shortly after 9.30 a.m., the President's national security team is in the Situation Room, a secure communications center in the basement of the West Wing.
Vice President Dick Cheney is there, along with National Security Advisor Condaleez Rice.
I arrived at the PIAC at about 9.20 a.m.
I was not.
I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming in to the Pentagon.
There was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, the plane is 50 miles out.
The plane is 30 miles out.
And when he got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president, do the orders still stand?
And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?
Last night they came into the Pentagon.
When you arrived at 9.20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, does the order still stand?
It's probably about five or six minutes.
So about 9.25 or 9.26.
The 9-11 Commission would cover this up by saying Cheney did not arrive in the emergency operating center until more than 15 minutes after the Pentagon strike.
So again, you know, there's some dispute at that last park, but he's the shadow government guy.
So here's what we're going to do.
I promised you we were going to do it in Dick Cheney's own words.
I'm going to be jumping in from time to time, but this is Cheney Davos 2004.
We're going to make you watch the two-plus-minute intro from Klaus Schwab.
Let's get the thumbs up.
Subscribe, share if you are new.
Ring the bell if you're not.
Remember, we're hoping for those super chats.
We will go to them periodically if they come through.
Dick Cheney, in his own words, via Klaus Nachwab and the World Economic Forum.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are honored today to have with us Vice President Dick Cheney, who has often been referred to as the most powerful Vice President of the United States in recent history.
Mr. Vice President, you can look back at a career that includes high-level public service as a congressman, as a White House Chief of Staff under President Ford at a very young age, and Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993.
But you look also back at a career as the CEO of one of the Fortune 500 companies.
Now, as the Vice President of the United States of America, you play a crucial and critical leadership role in the war against terrorism.
Last year, Mr. Vice President, on the brink of the Iraq War, the atmosphere here in Davos was very dense and very emotional.
Today, I think we have some signs of hope.
The atmosphere here is much more upbeat.
And the time has come for the international community to bond together and to deal together in addressing the new challenges of the 21st century.
We are delighted and honored, Mr. Vice President, to have you here in Davos on one of your very rare overseas visits.
As the head of the Senate, you have to stay usually in Washington.
And we are very eager to hear your assessment of the state of the world and how the state of the world could be improved.
I would also welcome very cordially Mrs. Cheney, Mrs. Lang Cheney among us, who is a who, as you know, is an author and has chaired important institutions, particularly related to charity.
Mr. Vice President, we look forward to your important message and we want to hear from you how you see the world evolving.
So let me just start with the Schwab introduction.
First of all, he wouldn't be wrong to talk about the actual power of Dick Cheney.
Remember, by this time, we're several years into the first Bush administration.
We are post-the invasion of Iraq.
And as Dick Cheney will tell you, we are now after the fall of Saddam.
Okay, so all those things, very, very much real.
He also points out the wife, and yes, we understand that cordialness, but then talks about the organizations in which she's involved.
And you've got to realize, especially with his daughter and his daughter's role in the whole Russia, Russia, Russia, January 6th insurrection, Johnny nonsense.
You know, false narrative.
Apparently, there's new stuff on the pipe bomber coming out, folks.
I'm waiting on it.
We'll see what happens.
But all the Johnny nonsense, it's a nepotistic ideal set.
It's the altar of globalism.
And remember, this is the globalist public forum.
This is their spin-doctor place.
And there's going to be plenty of freedom and democracy spin here.
There's never a mention of constitutional republics or individual liberties.
No, no, no.
It's always just freedom and democracy.
But the most important thing is always going to be security.
Okay.
Well, Dick Cheney, in his own words.
Well, thank you very much, Professor Schwab.
I'm honored to join all of you this morning and to be in such distinguished company.
I am grateful to the World Economic Forum and to the Swiss government for hosting this important event over the years.
I see some old friends here and many good friends of the United States.
To all of you, I bring the best wishes and the best wishes of the American people and President George W. Bush this morning.
As we came into the valley yesterday, the setting reminded me of the Mountain West, the part of America that I call home.
This is the best kind of place to come when you want to draw back from the daily rush of events and focus on matters of large and long-term consequence.
And calm deliberation is the spirit of this conference to see beyond the political pressures of the moment and to take the long view.
Recent events give us many reasons for optimism.
The capture of Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a new democratic constitution in Afghanistan, Libya's decision to abandon its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the recent warming between India and Pakistan, and the return to robust economic growth in the United States and Asia.
So, you know, I just want to lead with his lead.
When he talks about the long view, he's telling you the truth.
I mean, this is a neocon.
When we talk about neoconservatives, that really means, you know, authoritarian fascists.
I don't know what else to say.
They're willing to do whatever because of their ideal set, in a long view sense, you know, and American dominance, their team's dominance, is the most important thing.
Okay.
If you listen to what he says here, again, with some foreshadowing, you know, Iraq, still a mess.
He's going to talk about their constitution and their road to democracy.
And all that ends up being lip service over the past two decades.
We all saw the quote-unquote exit.
That wasn't a real exit.
We still, you know, one of the legacies that isn't discussed, especially with all this, is the rise of privatized mercenary groups in those regions for how long?
But one of the things he will talk about is NATO in particular and the European alliances.
But again, I digress.
Let's let Dick Cheney speak in his own words.
These all point to a future that is more hopeful than many people believed possible just a year ago.
And think what has happened in Europe in recent years.
Progress and cooperation that could not have been imagined just a few generations ago.
In the living memory of some in this room, Europe was a source of constant violence and threats that reached beyond the continent.
Today, in every direction from this city, Europe is united and peaceful, and this continent now stands as an example to all nations of economic success and democratic stability.
The success of modern Europe is one of the great stories of human experience.
It is also the story of a great and enduring alliance among free peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.
So, again, here's the irony here.
When you talk about European nations, even before you get to what he's alluding to, which is the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, all that, okay?
Europe is still rule by bloodline in so many senses.
You can sit there and pretend like the royal family doesn't do anything.
They do.
They do.
And you look at the Netherlands.
They do.
And, you know, he's going to talk about Saudi Arabia.
You don't think that Saudi Arabia, again, is another rule by bloodline deal?
It clearly is.
Do they have their internal coup d'états?
Yeah.
Do we have something to do with that?
Maybe.
When I say we, very small sect of that subclass within the Intel community, minions within this circle, actually.
Let's go back to Cheney.
Through six decades and 12 American presidents, the United States and Europe have faced monumental challenges and have overcome them together.
Because transatlantic ties held strong against the forces of fascism and imperial communism, our nations have been able to thrive in the pursuit of peace.
The subjects we talk about at gatherings like this: economic growth, the expansion of trade, new opportunities for our people, all reflect the confidence of free societies.
So, I mean, think about it.
He's at the World Economic Forum, where you've seen what they're truly about.
They're totally integrated into the United Nations, which he praises.
He's part of that CFR, which one of the reasons he wouldn't talk about is because people realize what a globalist network it is.
No, this is the altar of globalism through and through.
And the crown jewel is Europe because they're not free societies.
We're seeing that more and more with not only the deplatforming via speech, the censorship via speech, but the outright arrests in Europe via speech.
The call for a digital ID.
Actually, the Independent Media Alliance is going to be doing a broadcast on that, I believe, tomorrow.
If they just tape it, it'll be out the day after.
But I'm going to be out of town, so I'm not going to be able to do that one, unfortunately.
But I mean, that's they're not, it's not just trade deals, everybody.
It's not just global trade.
No, they built that European Union for an out-and-out bureaucracy at the altar of Zenu World Other.
And the confidence rests on the basic architecture of security that we've created together.
Today's generation of leaders has no greater responsibility than to protect our people against new dangers.
On September 11th, 2001, we saw the face of danger in our era with terrible clarity.
On that morning, in the space of three hours, 19 men carrying only box cutters and airplane tickets inflicted suffering and death on some 3,000 innocent men, women, and children.
This was a tragic loss for my nation.
But among the casualties that day were also citizens of more than 50 other countries.
So this is where it's hard for me not to get emotional because I think back to this time period 20 plus years ago when I had realized that this man and others like him and many, many others, whether they knew it or not, were lying to me about 9-11 and box cutters and bull.
And at the same time, right now, aside from all those United States citizens, New Yorkers, I get it, people in D.C., people on the plane.
I mean, again, a vast array.
It's at the World Trade Center.
So he's that whole globalism thing again, right?
He invokes all these nations that want to come together for this global, remember the global war on terror.
Is there any question what his legacy really is in his own words, even when you know he's lying?
And yet, for all the destruction and grief that it caused, September 11th gave us the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to us all.
There have always been small groups willing to use random murder to shock and intimidate.
Yet in crucial respects, the 21st century terrorism presents a new and far greater peril.
Today we face a sophisticated global network of terrorists who are opposed to the values of liberty, tolerance, and openness that form the basis of our societies.
Their hatred and sense of grievance are not directed at any one government or nation or religion, but against all governments, nations, and people that stand in their way.
So, in some ways, this is also one of those inversions of the truth where you tell the truth.
Because the quote-unquote truth of the matter is, yeah, this predator class that really does want this global society, this one-world order, okay, that they do want to consolidate the power.
Yeah, they're willing to do some pretty vicious things and have done some pretty vicious things.
And as far as I've seen, there's been no, you know, real repercussions for those things, which is extremely upsetting and telling.
But let's continue with Mr. Cheney.
And so we have seen further atrocities committed since 9-11 in Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Jerusalem, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Istanbul, Baghdad, and elsewhere.
Today's terrorists send young men and women on missions of suicide and murder and call it martyrdom.
They would as readily kill 300,000 innocents as they killed 3,000, and they are seeking the means to do exactly that.
From material seized by coalition forces in Afghanistan and from interrogations of captured terrorists, we know they are doing everything they can to develop or acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear weapons.
Were they to gain those weapons either by their own efforts or with the help of an outlaw regime, no appeal to reason or morality would prevent them from committing the worst of terrors.
In the words of the recently published EU security strategy, the terrorists are willing to use unlimited violence to cause massive casualties.
We must act with all earth.
And by the way, yeah, these people are willing to use unlimited violence via massive casualties.
But unfortunately, you know, if it financially benefits them or it benefits their ideology, which is a social Darwinistic one, a nepotistic one, that's why you have those royal families.
It's why you have these generational bloodlines.
That's why you have these clubs you and I are not in.
Urgency that this danger demands.
Civilized people must do everything in our power to defeat terrorism and to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
These tasks that we face are tasks that we'll face far into the future.
And our success will depend on meeting three fundamental responsibilities.
First, We must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond.
Second, we must meet these dangers together.
And remember, what we're talking about, we've got to promote democracy.
Ukraine's a democracy, right?
Oh, wait, they don't have elections anymore.
Oh, don't worry, we're going to hold elections after wartime.
But it's a democracy.
We're promoting democracy.
I mean, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
And as I mentioned, NATO before, NATO will get mentioned.
The UN will get mentioned.
Cooperation among our governments and effective international institutions are even more important today than they have been in the past.
And third, when diplomacy fails, we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary.
Direct threats require decisive action.
Let me begin with the first of these: the defeat of violence through the advance of freedom.
The theme of this conference states that there can be no prosperity without security, and security cannot be achieved in the absence of prosperity.
But while we know that security and prosperity are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are best achieved.
And the answer lies in the values of freedom, justice, and democracy.
Because that's Superman.
Because that's what we have in this country: freedom, justice, and democracy.
I'll tell you what, 2004, it was, I don't know how many people remember, but I sure do.
Still a lot of ribbons, American flags, country songs.
Get out!
Bomb you into the ground.
I mean, America, I mean, hardcore.
Hardcore.
There started to be pre-Iraq war.
There was a bit of backlash, and there was still back and forth, but we were still in the color-coded terror-hype nonsense in 2004.
We know from experience that the institutions of self-government turn the energies of human beings away from violence to the peaceful work of building better lives.
Democracies do not breed the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies and export violence.
Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders.
For the best illustration of these truths, we need not look far.
In the middle of the 20th century, generations of conflict had led some to conclude that permanent tension was a fact of life in Europe and that some European cultures were incapable of sustaining democratic values.
We now know that this pessimistic view was false.
The true sources of conflict were despotic and anti-democratic regimes.
The defeat of fascism and the spread of democracy after World War II was the precondition for peace and prosperity in Western Europe.
Only when both had become stable democracies could Germany and France be at peace.
And that reconciliation, as much as any other event, helped bring about the European community we know today.
Likewise, the defeat of Soviet communism and the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe made possible a continent whole and free and increasingly stable and prosperous.
Pretty stable and prosperous these days, especially in that region you're talking about.
You know, and again, this invocation of Russophobia is only, what, a little over a decade away from this speech.
You know, right on that Trump train.
And remember, Trump is a response.
Whatever you want to think, a lot of the phenomena of Trump is a response to guys like Cheney and Bush that he went after their policies.
Just throwing it out there.
What was once said about Europe has been said at various times about Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and is often said today about the greater Middle East.
We are told that the culture and the beliefs of Islamic peoples are somehow incompatible with the values and the aspirations of freedom and democracy.
These claims are condescending and they are false.
Many of the world's Muslims today live in democratic societies.
Turkey is perhaps the premier example.
That is why it has recently been the target of terrorist violence.
Turkey deserves our support, including for its European aspirations.
Millions of other Muslims live and flourish as democratic citizens in Europe, Asia, and the United States.
The desire for freedom is not just American or Western.
It is universal.
Whenever ordinary people are given the chance to choose, they choose freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, not slavery, tyranny, and the heavy tread of the secret police.
So you just think, I mean, of the irony of him sitting up at the World Economic Forum.
All right.
Slavery.
Tyranny.
You'll own nothing in Bihami.
Tyranny.
Put on the mask.
Stay at home.
Inject yourself with hate and lies.
All over the place.
Again and again and again.
And they celebrate these people.
I mean, they're the ones at the forum, guys.
I mean, it's mind-blowing.
In the years of the Cold War, we learned that we could not safely put a border on freedom.
Security was not divisible in Europe.
It is not divisible in the world.
Our choice is not between a unipolar world and a multipolar world.
Our choice is for a just, free, and a democratic world.
That requires the insights, the sacrifices, and the resources of all democratic nations.
And it requires the courage, the sacrifice, and the dedication of those now denied their basic freedoms.
It's clear that reform has many advocates in the Muslim world.
Arab intellectuals have spoken of a freedom deficit and of the imperative of internal reform, greater political participation, the rule of law, economic openness, and wider trade.
As some at this conference can attest, we've seen movement toward reform in the greater Middle East.
In Morocco, King Mohammed recently called for greater protection of women's rights.
In Jordan, elections have been held, and the government is taking steps to reduce state control of the press.
In Bahrain, elections were held last year and women were able to run for office for the first time.
In Egypt, the ruling National Democratic Parties called for increased economic reform and expanded political participation.
In Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Abdullah has issued an Arab charter for reform and called for the holding of municipal elections.
Again, Crown Prince, 2004, big players that are royals.
2025, big players that are royals.
Just point that out.
These changes demonstrate what we all know: that true reform and democracy must come from brave and forward-looking people in each country.
And those of us who are privileged to live in freedom have a responsibility to support these historic steps.
The rulers of Iran must follow the example being set by others throughout the greater Middle East.
In that great nation, there is a growing call for true democracy and human rights.
Europe and America must stand as one in calling for the regime to honor the legitimate demands of the Iranian people.
They ask nothing more than to enjoy their God-given right to live their lives as free men and women.
I mean, hard-on for Iran then, still the same hard-on today.
Shortly, I think it's a few more minutes in, he gets into the Israeli-Palestine thing.
And again, so much of this stuff is just rhetoric, just like the war on terror stuff.
He's going to talk about the two-state solution, et cetera, et cetera.
You know, he's coming, he's a moderate after 9-11, you know, and the invasion of Iraq.
But Iran better watch it.
And good thing Libya, good thing they got rid of those weapons of mass destruction, because that worked out for Gaddafi when he decided to let everybody in and disarm himself.
I mean, you say what you want about Gaddafi, all right?
But just like we have not talked in a negative manner and, you know, said this or that, and he should go to there, and we know what none of that, okay?
Gaddafi, you know, after Hillary Clinton cackled about taking like the cackle monster gave the okay to hit him, I believe it was with one of our drones, and we did, we hit his convoy.
I mean, he got the pleasure of being dragged, beaten, and raped to death.
Huh.
How about, how about, well, I'm glad, I'm sure he's glad that he listened to the World Economic Forum and Dick Cheney.
You know, Iran, however, has not disarmed themselves.
And we have these strikes at these places.
Who knows what they still have, what they had at the time.
I would assume they have something still and had something then.
But boy, again, as I say before, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Of course, the most dramatic recent examples of democratic progress are to be seen in the liberated countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Afghanistan, two years after the overthrow of the brutal Taliban regime, the Loya Jirga has approved a constitution that reflects the values of tolerance and of equal rights for women.
Under President Karzai's leadership and with the help of democratic countries around the world, the Afghan people are building a decent, just, and a free society and a nation that will never again be a safe haven for terror.
First of all, that, according to even our quote-unquote experts today, not true.
But he mentioned Karzai.
Remember, Karzai's brother, Waleed Karzai, was one of the chief warlords and opium dealers in the region.
And during this time period, weird, there's this global opiate explosion.
Just very bizarre.
In Iraq, too, after decades of Baathist rule, democracy is beginning to take hold.
Less than a year ago, the people of that country lived under the absolute power of one man and his apparatus of intimidation and torture.
Today, the former dictator sits in captivity, while the people of Iraq prepare for full self-government.
Saddam Hussein can no longer harbor and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are finally at an end.
A new Iraqi police force now protects the people instead of bullying them.
Hundreds of Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, with no Baathist enforcers telling them what to print.
A coalition of nations led by the United States is working with Iraq's new governing council to prepare the way for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.
Iraqis are preparing a fundamental law which will guarantee certain basic rights.
Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future.
The United States and our coalition partners will stand with them and continue to sacrifice to ensure their safety until that work is done.
Until that work is done.
20 plus years later, still there.
Okay.
So again, these are his words.
It's just like, you know, he talks about earlier, you know, in that little brief CFR clip how he concealed this and that.
Veritable politician.
I mean, somebody that was very, very, very close to old man Bush being a part of that Reagan administration.
Very on board with Rumsfeld in that administration.
We talked about the National Program Office, important enough to be put in that seat via the continuity of government.
You know, this is a skilled and cunning individual.
Again, what is his legacy as a ruthless globalist?
We urge all democratic nations and the United Nations to answer the Iraqi Governing Council's call for support for the people of Iraq in making the transition to democracy.
We urge all nations holding Iraqi debt to be generous in forgiving it.
Our forward strategy for freedom commits us to support those who work and sacrifice for reform across the greater Middle East.
We call upon our democratic friends and allies everywhere, and in Europe in particular, to join us in this effort.
Europeans know that their great experiment in building peace, unity, and prosperity cannot survive as a privileged enclave surrounded on its outskirts by breeding grounds of hatred and fanaticism.
The days of looking the other way while despotic regimes trample human rights, rob their nation's wealth, and then excuse their failings by feeding their people a steady diet of anti-Western hatred are over.
Doesn't seem that way today.
20 plus years later, seems like, you know, same boss or new boss, same as the old boss, right?
I mean, Trump's rhetoric has been better, but we're still doing the whole Yemen thing.
There's never any talk about that.
And he hasn't stopped what's happening in the Middle East, in the Palestinian.
I don't know if there is a Palestine anymore.
I mean, seriously, when you look how devastated it is, I mean, Trump actually, again, talks about that, but is there a ceasefire either?
Was the ceasefire ever real?
Was the first ceasefire?
I mean, how many ceasefires are we going to have?
I mean, the place is rubble.
Just want to point that out.
Thank you, Potato.
Burmese is one of the best people I've ever met and organized with.
I appreciate that.
You, sir, are one of the most important people in showing the world the truth.
That's very, very nice of you to say.
Thank you so much for everything you do and have done.
Hey, I let these guys talk in their own words.
We try to present the base information and evidence.
And again, you give the guy the report card.
Is he telling the truth here?
Did we get the results?
See all these democracies and freedom and great prosperity over the last 20 years with these wars and conflicts?
I mean, have these terrorist plots panned out to be anything but Fed setups?
I mean, again, look at the pipe bomber thing.
One of the most recent, ridiculous things around.
Let's go back to Dick.
Nations fail their people if they compromise their values in the hope of achieving stability.
Instead, we must seek a higher standard, one that will apply to our friends in the region no less than to our adversaries.
Just as democratic reform is the key to the future that the people of the Middle East deserve, so it is also essential to a peaceful resolution of the long-standing Arab-Israeli dispute.
We seek recognition and security for Israel, and we support a viable, independent Palestinian state.
But peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate and profit from corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups.
The best hope for lasting peace depends on true democracy.
And a true Palestinian democracy requires leaders who understand that terror has, in fact, been the worst enemy of the Palestinian people and are prepared to remove it from their midst.
Israel too must redouble its efforts by alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people and by avoiding actions that undermine the long-term viability of a two-state solution.
So once again, you know, the talking points even then, because we are a long time ago, 20 plus years ago was still a two-state solution, the Arafat days, two-state solution.
It's very much the Cheney era.
But that pesky word, terrorism, terrorist terrorism, terrorist terror.
And you remember, Netanyahu quoted as saying that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 were beneficial to Israel.
Incredible.
Encouraging the spread of freedom and democracy is the right thing to do.
And it is also very much in our collective self-interest.
Helping the people of the greater Middle East to overcome the freedom deficit is ultimately the key to winning the broader war on terror.
It is one of the great tasks of our time, and it will require resolve and resources for a generation or more.
This is work for many hands, and here we see our second great responsibility, to keep our alliances and international partnerships strong and to cooperate on every front as we meet common dangers.
We've made much progress in the past two years.
Not long ago, terrorists lived with impunity in cities across Europe and obtained official American visas, exploiting the openness of our societies and using it against us.
Today, our intelligence and law enforcement services are cooperating to tighten the noose around terrorists, to choke off their sources of funding, to prevent them from moving freely across our borders and to apprehend them before they can strike again.
So, once again, this is where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights go out the window domestically.
This is the development of things like the Five Eyes Network.
This is the expansion of the black sites, the legitimization.
Remember, by 2008, people wanted Guantanamo Bay closed.
They didn't like Kitmo.
They weren't happy about Abu Ghraib.
When was the last time Abu Ghraib came up in public conversation?
How many black sites don't we know about?
Plenty.
Globally, a plenty.
Again, you talk about authoritarianism, spooky spot.
We have created new tools to strengthen our efforts, like the recently signed U.S.-EU extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties.
And each of us bears a responsibility to ensure that these treaties are fully enforced.
By these means, we are safer, but we are not yet safe.
Each of us bears responsibility to close the holes in our common effort against terror and weapons of mass destruction.
Our military actions have also been carried out with the help of many allies and partners on this continent and around the world.
It is no surprise to President Bush and me that 21 of the 34 countries keeping peace with us in Iraq today are NATO allies and partners.
You heard it.
The magic word, NATO, United Nations, World Economic Forum, Council on Foreign Relations.
It's a big party.
It's a big globalist party.
Along with Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands have all made substantial contributions, with Poland taking command of a multinational division and Spain making a major troop commitment.
38 countries have forces in Afghanistan, 28 from the European continent, as well as others from the Middle East, East Asia, and North America.
In Afghanistan, Germany's taken a leading role in providing forces and in expanding the role of NATO.
NATO itself is undergoing the most dramatic and important transformation in its history.
It's expanding its membership, creating a rapid response force, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul while widening its role in Afghanistan and supporting the Polish-led division in Iraq.
You see, when Tucker Carlson asked that question, what is the purpose?
This was the purpose of NATO.
He just laid it out.
It's the global military, you know, for this sect of globalism.
These deployments, hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles from the European heartland, speak to our common understanding that today's threats must be met where they are, or those threats will come to us.
But we have much more work to do.
As Lord Robertson, NATO's former Secretary General, has said, NATO's credibility is in its capability.
Today, Europe and Canada have 1.4 million soldiers under arms, but only 55,000 deployed.
And many European militaries still maintain that they're overstretched.
We've spoken often before, since before I was Secretary of Defense, about the need for more deployable European forces.
And today that needs critical.
And Secretary General DeHoop Schuffer has made this a priority.
Another priority is greater cooperation and burden sharing between NATO and the EU.
None of us can afford waste, duplication, or competition between the two great institutions in Brussels.
You see that?
Oh.
The EU, NATO, no, no, together.
Such an arm of the modern globalist philosophy comes out of that European Union, okay?
Comes out of NATO.
I mean, because it's bureaucratic force top to bottom.
It's full-on control.
We want to lock it down.
You're going to lock it down.
We want a digital ID, you're going to have a digital ID.
You want Brexit?
Why don't you go screw yourself?
You want to decouple from us?
Not going to happen.
You want to end NATO?
No.
You want to tell the Ukraine that they can't join NATO?
No.
Again, Donnie T been able to stop that?
Nope.
He loves NATO.
He's been talking up NATO recently.
America wants the strongest possible Europe.
And just as we must not force you to choose between your European and transatlantic vocations, you must not sell yourself short and settle for less than the military capability and influence that your people deserve.
We also urge our allies and partners in Asia and Latin America to strengthen their defense capabilities and to join in our shared efforts to preserve the peace.
Among others, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic have taken the courageous step of joining peace efforts in Iraq.
They have our respect and gratitude.
The grave problem of proliferation must also be addressed with united action.
Different situations will require different strategies.
Along with China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia, America is determined to see that North Korea eliminates its nuclear program.
We are supporting the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency to hold the government of Iran to its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
So once again, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Still talking about the same thing when we're talking about North Korea.
Now, one of the more interesting aspects of the whole nuclear thing that, again, I don't see being discussed, is if you're telling these nations that they can't develop nuclear weapons, that means they can't develop nuclear power.
If they can't develop nuclear power, how are they going to power the AI to compete with your AI?
I mean, that's not in the conversation 20 years ago.
I'm not seeing it in the conversation now, but it really needs to be.
Let's continue.
We must remain united in demanding that Iran meet its international commitments.
As we pursue this work, we must look hard at existing multilateral institutions and treaties to ensure they are up to the challenges of the 21st century.
Existing mechanisms may have slowed the spread of deadly weapons, but they clearly have not prevented it.
Last year, the U.S. and 10 other nations, including Australia, France, Italy, Japan, and Spain, formed the Proliferation Security Initiative, a joint effort to identify and interdict the most dangerous weapons and missiles in transit.
For too many years, those materials have crossed oceans and continents without a serious or systematic effort to stop them.
Today, knowing that terrorists are actively seeking the weapons to match their ambitions, the risks of inaction are impossible to overstate.
So, we must proceed in dead earnest with a broad, effective global effort to halt the transfer of those weapons before it's too late.
Each nation should also look within at laws and business practices that may have been insufficient to prevent the export of items that enable the production of weapons of mass destruction.
In all of our actions, the world's democracies must send an unmistakable message that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction only invites isolation and carries great cost.
And leaders who abandon the pursuit of those weapons will find an open path to far better relations with governments around the world.
I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Again, the Qaddafi-Libya thing is right there.
Believe me, you saw Kim Jong-un, the son of Kim Jong-il.
Kim Jong-il is the Cheney administration-era leader.
He talked to Trump.
He wanted to open those relationships.
My buddy, Justin Martell, he takes people to North Korea.
Yes, North Korea, not South Korea, on young pioneer tours.
And I think he was just at their recent film festival just a couple weeks ago.
So believe me, say what you want.
I'm not scared of North Korea.
Again, this should establish who Cheney is.
He's willing just to like reinforce this idea of what a threat North Korea is to me and you.
Oh, Mike.
Oh, my, it's so threatening.
Meanwhile, it's so scary and threatening that in South Korea, we have all these huge businesses and tech companies that we do business with and are an integral part of our economy.
And that's weird, but North Korea is scary.
Go and get us.
Anyway, back to Cheney in his own words.
By the way, if you're watching, give the thumbs up, subscribe, share.
Also, a comment down below, not just in the live stream, really does help the broadcast.
Let's continue.
That message has already yielded a response in Tripoli.
In December, after nine months of intensive diplomacy, Colonel Qaddafi voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs.
A successful German-Italian effort to interdict the shipment of centrifuge parts bound for Libya surely helped crystallize his decision.
Today, with the cooperation of Libya's government, American and British experts and IAEA inspectors have already examined a sizable weapons program, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.
In the months to come, Libya has agreed to provide a full inventory, and inspectors will assist Libya in dismantling its entire WMD programs and its longer-range missiles.
Libya has now ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and early next month will become the 159th country to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Our understanding with Libya came about through quiet diplomacy.
It is the result, however, of policies and principles declared to all.
Over the last two years, we have demonstrated that when we speak of fighting terrorism and of ending the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we mean exactly what we say.
Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible.
I mean, I've got to do it.
Again, this is his.
I mean, what do we play?
This is their credibility.
Could this be the man who executed Mohammed Gaddafi?
The men surrounding him can't disguise their pride.
This is the guy who killed Gaddafi using this, you see.
He did it in front of me.
I saw it in front of me.
He's the guy who killed him.
He is the killer.
Al Jazeera cannot independently verify the video or the claims made by the fighters.
Video clips like these are slowly trickling in.
They'll likely come under closer scrutiny in coming days as the UN rights.
I mean, again.
Yeah, I mean, let's go back.
Let's go back, because there's other ones, there's new footage of, I mean, this is their work.
I mean, this is, this is their work.
I'm gonna stop it.
I'm going to stop it.
Go back to Cheney.
It's because of their credibility.
It's their credibility.
I mean, welcome to the post-truth world.
Welcome to the New World Water, everybody.
That kind of credibility can be earned in only one way, by keeping commitments, even when they bring difficulty and sacrifice.
By leaving potential adversaries with no doubt that dangerous conduct will invite certain consequences.
And so the third responsibility of Free Nations is to be ready, as a last resort, to apply military force.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in successful, strong democracies are accustomed to the forms of good faith negotiation and the peaceful resolution of differences.
We observe those forms every day in our legislatures, parliaments, and legal systems.
Following World War II, the victorious democracies and their newly liberated partners shared those standards of debate and conduct with the world through the United Nations and other international organizations we worked together to create.
So, once again, even then, selling you on the idea of these international organizations, and we're going to, it's all working together, it's all cohesiveness.
This is all on behalf of that great narrative, even then.
I want to make it extremely clear, and Cheney's a huge part of that.
I mean, just I know that that was a graphic depiction on the flip side of what he was saying, but it has to be realized.
That guy did everything that Cheney asked because of their quote-unquote credibility.
Look what it got.
There is a temptation, however, to assume that the good faith that underlies these institutions will always be returned.
Yet, as we saw in the case of Iraq, after 12 years and more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, the last one vowing serious consequences, there comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are.
At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted.
At that point, we must show that behind our resolutions is actual resolve.
As President Bush has said, our people have given us the duty to defend them, and that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men.
Inaction can bring its own serious consequences.
Had we not acted, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and there is little question he would still be defying the United Nations and making a mockery of its mission.
Because we acted, 25 million people live free of Saddam's tyranny today.
Never again will they have to fear the arbitrary rule of the dictator and his sons, the torture chambers, the mass graves, and the whole apparatus of terror that sustained their power.
The people of Iraq have been delivered from a nightmare, and every person now engaged in the work of making Iraq a stable and a democratic nation has contributed to a just cause and to the peace of the world.
None of the responsibilities I've described this morning are easily met.
Promoting freedom, justice, and democracy in areas that have known generations of despotism is an enormous undertaking.
You realize, I mean, he keeps talking about this.
He decried slavery.
I'm just going to, let's do this one.
We do it live.
Let's bring O'Reilly.
We'll do it live.
Okay.
We'll do it live.
Fuck it.
Do it live.
I'll write it and we'll do it live.
We'll just do it live.
We'll type in Libya human slave trade.
Oh, according to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, a 6-8.
Yeah, I mean, even the AI.
We've done so good.
We did so well spreading freedom and democracy in Libya.
The scandal of a slave market in Libya, March 26th.
Migrants for sale, slave trade in Libya, 2017.
Isn't that awesome that Mr. Cheney here is so anti-slavery and so pro-freedom and democracy?
It's really good.
Working cooperatively against the dangers of a new era will place demands on all of us.
And there will be occasional differences, even among allies who have great respect for one another.
And using military power when no alternative remains will always be the most difficult decision that leaders can make.
We do not shrink from these obligations because we know from bitter experience that tragedy can come from division, weakness, and vacillation.
We are determined that today's challenges do not become tomorrow's crises.
This will test our diplomacy and our resolve.
Going forward, we can be guided as well by one of the last century's most hopeful lessons.
History has not dealt kindly with dictators and murderous ideologies.
The moment of history is, excuse me, the momentum of history is on the side of human freedom.
And when free people are clear in our purposes and confident in our ideals and united in our defense, no enemy will prevail against us.
Boy, I wish that were true.
Again, the inversion of the truth here is so big.
Unfortunately, freedom is not the norm historically.
It's not necessarily the norm right now.
There are varying levels and degrees of freedom depending on what interests, okay, that unfortunately either you may compete with or you are outright a problem for for various reasons.
And that's why they want a social credit score.
So that's why they want a digital currency.
That's why they want a digital ID.
The ultimate trend.
That's why they want a brain chip in you.
Oh, have a Neuralink on me, sir.
Thank you.
All right, now we have a little conversation with the Nutschwab himself and Dick.
Oh, what a treat.
Mr. Vice President, this was a comprehensive presentation of the United States' policies, but it was much more.
I think it was a presentation of our joint responsibilities in the world.
As it is traditionally in Davos, the Vice President has agreed to answer some questions.
Who would like, I see so many, many hands going up, we will be able only to take some.
Mr. Vice President, John Finnegan from Oman, together with Minister Makbul Sultan, sir.
Thank you for those warm words, which were very much appreciated about the Islamic and the Arab world.
May we ask, Mr. Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are continued to Secretary Ashcroft and to those who work for him so that visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country?
Thank you, sir.
I just want to put that in because, again, that time period, it's hard to believe, especially these days with Mamdani.
He's the new New York City mayor.
But in that time period, yeah.
You know, Mamdani made that comment about his aunt not being able to ride on the subway?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because they sold you on the lie of 9-11.
I will certainly be happy to pass on messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft.
There's no question but what we have tried to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures in the United States.
We are aware that there are still glitches in the system, that it is sometimes an onerous process, and we're doing our best to improve upon it.
And we just need to continue to work at it.
Next question over here.
My name is Mustafa Tserich.
I am the Grand Mufti of Bosnia.
This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian people and to pass their gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula.
We will never forget that.
We didn't have oil.
You didn't have any interest to gain.
You came to Bosnia and Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your sense of morality.
The credibility and the morality argument.
I mean, if you don't think some of this is like a plant-in-the-audience type thing, or somebody that works for an administration, I don't know what to tell you.
We're watching it through.
This is a watchlong.
But you look at Milosevic and Bosnia and the narrative we were sold on there and the mass grave.
We've heard a lot about mass graves.
We've heard a lot about terror, weapons of mass destruction.
We always hear about beheadings and babies.
Besides this, I would like to say that I like from your speech that this year we have heard more about freedom than about security.
I hope that in the future that Americans will talk more about freedom around the world than about the security.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics.
Mr. Vice President, you did not have a chance to address economic issues in your address, but that is, of course, a central topic here at Davos, and I'd like to ask you one question in that area.
I think it's fair to say there's been enormous admiration expressed here this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the recovery that is now clearly underway.
But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of that recovery, and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget position.
In fact, there have been several questions about a comment made by your former colleague Paul O'Neill in his new book.
When he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman Greenspad had with you, when he recounts you as saying President Reagan showed that budget deficits don't matter, could you comment as to whether that is the philosophy and how you intend to overcome that concern?
I mean, it's a big joke again, but yeah, no, of course it's the flaw.
It's been the philosophy the past, what, three, four decades.
They don't care.
Again, this last administration came, and it's a joke to them, came in hot and said they were going to audit Fort Knox.
They're going to see if there's any.
No, they're not.
Remember, this is pre-crypto.
I mean, 2004, I think, I think PayPal.
Is PayPal a thing?
I think PayPal's a thing.
When was PayPal founded?
Yeah, but when did it get actually used?
It looks like 2002.
It was invented in 98.
But when, like, okay, they say 98, but I would assume, yeah, okay, okay, 98.
So PayPal's maybe in there for like six years.
Okay, fair.
But let's see what Cheney has to say about budgets and deficits, because they're all deficits at this point.
We just the way you could look at that whole exercise is that I'm not the best personnel officer in the world.
The President took my advice on the Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course, prior to that, he put me in charge of the search for the vice president.
And that came out in unexpected ways as well.
I believe deficits do matter.
But I also am a great believer in the policy we followed.
That is to say that it was very important for us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy by way of stimulating growth.
And that the progress we see today with respect to our economy is directly related to that.
I mean, that is some total political hackney speak bullsnap.
Oh, yeah, deficits matter.
Where?
And then it's always stimulus, and oh, we're going to give tax breaks to the American people.
Listen, the value of the dollar continues to decrease.
The deficit continues to increase.
The standard of living here continues to decrease.
These are all things that are, again, at the altar of globalism.
Again, when we play Dennis Bushnell and productivity improvement, and he talks about the standard of living going up in other nations, that means it's coming down here.
Paul did not support the tax cuts that I favored and that the president obviously ultimately decided upon.
And that really goes to the heart of the debate.
I do think deficits matter.
They matter in the long term.
You do have to worry about them.
Our plan that the president laid out the other night at the State of the Union speech is to reduce the deficit in half over the next five years, and I think we'll get there.
If you look at our deficit today, while it's large, it's not that large from a historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP.
We think it is manageable, especially given the state we're in where we do, we're engaged in a military conflict.
We've had a significantly increased defense spending.
We inherited a recession which caused a falloff in government revenues.
So for a lot of reasons, I don't find it surprising.
One, that we have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that clearly would be our long-term goal and objective.
But we would not now move immediately, for example, to a balanced budget at the cost of adequately funding our military operations or having the kind of pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term revenues for the economy.
We think we've got to calibrate it about right.
And I wouldn't believe everything I read in Paul O'Neill's book.
Paul.
Carol?
Yes, Mr. Vice.
Hello?
Yeah.
Mr. Vice President, I'm Canadian John McBain.
I think everybody in the room recognizes that you and President Bush had some very difficult decisions, and there can be a debate on people in the room agreeing or disagreeing, but I think that each one has a point each way.
And I guess the one that's been bothering, I know myself and a lot of people around the world is, can you explain to us exactly how people can be picked up anywhere in the world, be put in Guatemala Bay, not be told by their families, not get the right to trial, not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time, and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the name of security is not a good idea, and how you link that to a democratic society who believes in the right to a free trial, et cetera.
And we understand that under military circumstances, it is difficult, but now we're a little ways down the road.
And do you see, can you give some light to people in the room who may be worried that so they could be picked up and their families not told?
Exactly, A, the logic of the Guatanam Bay story right now, and B, movements your government's making to maybe change that and justify it in terms of what you've been saying.
Glad there's a real question.
Remember, we mentioned Guantanamo Bay earlier, and that's because people were concerned.
And that's why all the Democrats on the stage in 2008 during the primaries all said they were going to close Guantanamo Bay, including the Barack star, including Hillary Clinton, and go down the line, including Joe Biden.
Every one of them.
None of them intended to.
These are not people sort of picked up at random.
We don't run up and down the streets of London or Paris or Riyadh saying he's a likely looking prospect.
Let's put him in Guantanamo.
These are people primarily who were picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill our troops.
They were in combat.
They are treated very humanely.
They are not under the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
They don't qualify as prisoners of war, but they're treated appropriately in terms of medical care, in terms of food, and the conditions, for example, that exist for them.
We have, in fact, released some as we've been able to go through the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or another they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on terror.
We also have a number of people there who are, I would describe as deadly enemies, who are very open and very direct about wanting to kill Americans the first chance they get to get back out on the street.
Eventually a number of them, well, some of them already have been turned over to their country, their nationality.
Some will be prosecuted and tried.
Some, I expect, will be released.
But we'll sort through them.
The International Red Cross has visited there.
We've been very, I think, very careful in terms of how we proceed and how we do treat them.
But we are faced with a situation where the war continues, if you will, where people in some cases have come into the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians.
And under those circumstances, and given the rules of warfare, we felt we had no choice but to have a place where we could have a repository for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the conflict continues.
And yet it's still open.
And the Humanely He's talking about had people like John Keriaku, whistleblower, tell the truth about waterboarding and other torture.
They still have the supposed 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the crew there without a real trial.
So again, in his own words, this is Cheney's legacy of globalism.
Mr. Vice President, Andrew Gowers, Financial Times London, you mentioned in your tour of the world North Korea.
And while dangers have diminished clearly in particularly in Libya and in other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished.
Could you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?
Well, clearly the jury is still out with respect to North Korea.
We've worked very hard with the, in particular, with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians.
The Chinese have become, I think, central to that effort.
We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean Peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons.
The effort needs to be made if we're going to be successful, resolving this matter peacefully by diplomatic meets, needs diplomatic means.
The effort needs to be made as it is being made to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice if they want to have normal kinds of commercial relationships with those of us that are involved in the enterprise, but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We've had two meetings in Beijing so far.
I would expect there'll be more as we continue to move forward on that basis.
The key here was to say that the Chinese and having the other nations engage today, can I predict the outcome?
I can't.
But we think we're approaching it on a sensible basis, that this is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us.
And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people, maintaining some kind of viable economy in the North.
They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, and the United States.
So, number one, you notice goes back to the North Korea thing and the fear-mongering there.
But we were just removed from YouTube.
So, if you're watching this on a separate platform, I appreciate that.
But we were just removed from YouTube.
I'm going to repost it apparently because we showed not the part where Qaddafi was in the truck, but I guess the parts with the guns.
So, I'll have to go in and edit this and put it back on YouTube because of the guns, which is weird because I think I played the video from being on YouTube.
And the other one was like from Al Jazeera.
It's a, it says content that shows, here I'll just show it to you guys right now.
Content, the firearms policy.
I think that's kind of ridiculous.
Content that shows live streaming while holding or transporting a firearm isn't allowed on YouTube.
Okay, so I see channels not in compliance with this policy may temporarily lose their ability to live stream.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm going to have to review and take action.
Obviously, let's do that live.
Here's what you can do.
Let's take action.
Appeal, submit an appeal.
Yeah.
Thank you for your input.
We'll send an email.
Okay, great.
All right, let's go back to Dick Cheney.
Sorry we got interrupted right there.
Mr. Vice President Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal, you say the jury is still out on North Korea.
I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran.
And specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now in the negotiations with Iran?
One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of the axis of evil.
Is Iran still a member of that axis?
And look, it's a little smile at the end.
Is Iran still a member of that axis?
Yeah, no, of course it's still a member.
100,000%.
It's still a member today.
Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends, the Germans, the French, and the Brits have been most directly involved working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they've now done.
We'll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result.
We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons.
They deny that, but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that, in fact, that's exactly what they have been doing.
It's in everybody's interest, I believe, especially our European friends and allies, to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they've now made.
Truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA, and they keep the commitments they made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers.
And we'll do everything we can to support that effort.
One last question.
Vice President Kevin from the United States.
Last night, Minister Shimon Perez proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel.
The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to.
Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine.
Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace.
And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism.
I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.
I haven't had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail.
The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict, and we haven't really had a traditional conflict there.
The problem, of course, has been in large part generated by terrorism, by suicide bombings and so forth.
So again, you know, Cheney, very much of that narrative, et cetera.
He knows the game, but he knows the political talking points.
And somehow we've got to find a way, I think, to take down the structures of terror, which is part of the roadmap that was developed by the Quartet, if we're going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes and establish a permanent peace.
Sharon Perez is a man I've known a long time.
I've got a lot of respect for him.
I'm sure he's doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area.
But I wouldn't, at this stage, I wouldn't want to sort of put a stamp of approval on his proposal.
We deal with the prime minister and the government in power in Israel, and they speak for the Israelis.
And we're always happy to listen to other ideas and notions.
But ultimately, in terms of our interaction with Israel in particular, clearly the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay closest attention to at present.
Vice President, to conclude, two questions.
The first one, we spoke yesterday a lot about UN reform.
You hinted to it in your own speech.
Could you share with us what should be done in order to make the global institutional framework more effective?
You used the word effective.
What can we do to make it more effective?
I mean, the United Nations in particular.
I could get in a lot of trouble right here, I'm sure.
Well, from time to time, there's been discussion about the need to sort of modernize and update the UN.
The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, and that was nearly 60 years ago.
We've got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations as it's currently constituted doesn't necessarily fit with the way the world works and is organized today.
There are major powers that are not represented or don't have as much influence at the UN as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing those arrangements.
I don't want to get any more detail than that.
I don't want to recommend specific changes sort of on a national basis.
I think those are the kinds of issues that need to be worked out internationally.
At some point, I would expect that there'll be proposals made by various members of the United Nations to reform and upgrade, modernize the institution.
I don't think I should recommend any here this morning.
Again, this guy's a globalist.
Right up until the very end, he's smiling and profiling.
By the way, I'm just going to do this live here for those watching again on the other platforms because I'm going to have to repost this on YouTube because we've got to reject it already.
Apparently, so it's just automated.
What I'm going to do, first of all, I don't know if it's going to, if I'm premiering it, I think it's a different story than if I'm live streaming it.
Hopefully they didn't restrict me live streaming.
But I'm just going to repost the video.
I'm going to cut out the one news clip where the guy's showing the gun that killed him.
And that's it.
And then I'm sure that it's not even, there's going to be no community guidelines.
It shouldn't even have been a community guideline strike.
Showing your news footage.
All right, let's end this, Cheney.
Vice President Cheney, I may take a quote in your Christmas card.
Actually, you quoted Benjamin Franklin, and he said, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
Do you consider the United States to be an empire?
And every empire has something which is threatening to the people on the street.
What can the United States do to be perceived in the world as a non-threatening empire by those who look for freedom, but as a threatening empire for those who threaten our security?
Well, first of all, that quote was selected by my wife.
We should have to explain why it was on the Christmas card.
Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention.
And when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the importance of the Almighty in the affairs of man.
And it did not refer or should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire.
We don't.
I think that there are some fundamental differences between the United States today, the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way we've conducted ourselves over the course of our history that distinguish us, if you will, from what might be identified as an empire.
We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and practices.
We have had on occasion in the past the opportunity to deploy massive military forces and to put them in the heart of Europe and the heart of Asia, and then having done that to create democracies where previously there had been dictatorships and empires and then withdraw to our own shores without any haven't withdrawn.
Haven't created democracies.
Aggrandizement in terms of territory or any of the other trappings of empire, if you will, I guess.
And I think from the standpoint of history, we're unique in that regard.
So I wouldn't let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted somehow it's intended now to talk about the United States as an empire.
We don't see ourselves in that light.
We don't believe we've acted that way.
I would argue that there are millions of people in the world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in freedom and under democracies because of the past activities of the United States.
I would refer to our friend here from Bosnia as one example.
And if we were a true empire, we would currently preside over a much greater piece of the Earth's surface than we do.
That's not the way we operate.
It's the thirst for power that he can't help but chime in on at the very end, that thirst for that new world order.
Klaus, let me Klaus one more time.
I need to Klaus.
Let's Klaus.
Klaus Haus.
Mr. Vice President, I want to give you as a kind of reminder of your visit here.
And I was a mountain crystal.
And in some way it's symbolic, I would say.
It symbolizes nearly the world.
There are many hard wretches.
It's very different.
But let's hope that everywhere freedom and democracy may shine.
Klaus and Dick for freedom and democracy.
Folks, again, I'm going to have to repost this one on YouTube.
It just shows the struggle is real.
Thank you for those that have supported the broadcast.