The times have changed and reality isn't what it used to be. As the adviser explained, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
This mad-hatter thinking was on display again last week. President Bush, who used specious claims about a nuclear threat to launch his disastrous war in Iraq, agreed to a deal -- in blatant violation of international accords and several decades of bipartisan U.S. policy -- that would enable India to double or triple its annual production of nuclear weapons.
The president turned his back on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (dismissed, like reality-based thinking, as passé) and moved the world a step closer to an accelerated nuclear arms race in Asia and elsewhere. In the president's empire-based, otherworldly way of thinking, this was a good thing.
The PNACis want to use nuclear weapons. Cheney and Rumsfeld are both just dying to 'tactically nuke' somebody. Proliferation of nuclear weapons means greater acceptance of the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, if somebody out there nukes somebody else, then PNACis can point to that as 'justification' for PNACi use of nuclear weapons, much as they abuse 9/11 as if it were a second 'Pearl Harbor'.
But, someone objects to me, this means more countries and possibly terrorists get nuclear weapons. Why would the PNACis want that? Keep in 'mind', I respond, that PNACi doctrine calls for the U.S. to maintain superiority over all other nations. In a war of nuclear attrition, therefore, the U.S. would 'win'; plus whoever would try to nuke the U.S. would get 'pre-emptively' nuked by the PNACis. So the U.S. would be 'safe' as far as the PNACis were concerned.
Will Cheney-Rumsfeld succumb to the desire to employ a nuclear weapon, with the cooperation of George W. Bush, if we continue to tolerate so passively their presence in Washington?