Cheney pulled a similar move of cynically planning and instigating a war of aggression, which is why many people consider him to be a war criminal even within the US.
He wasn't really the head of a cult of personality, though. He just took advantage of the gullible people who surrounded him.
Fair enough. But he was only VP for 2 years at time, hardly a dictator. How does the American political selection process need to be modified so that tyrants like Dick don't come into power?
It's always an oversimplification to attribute global events to an individual, but sometimes you can point to one person without whom an event could not have occurred.
I think that's oversimplifying it. These national or global decisions are a chain of events.
Here's how the Iraq war could have been prevented:
* VP doesn't push for it
* President (the Commander in Chief) doesn't give the orders to attack
* Powell never gives the UN speech and resigns in protest
* Senate doesn't vote to authorize war
* Intelligence agencies push back on WMD accusations
* Military officials push back on the strategic value of occupying Iraq and push for alternative measures
* UK opposes the US war effort
* Saddam allows UN inspectors back in with unrestricted access
* If enough of the US was anti-war (it wasn't), threaten impeachment
* etc.
Sure, leader's drive initiatives, but there's still a chain of conditions and any break in the chain can cause the event to stop or change course (at least temporarily).
I think it's important to remember that with a separation of powers, we aren't powerless to stop our leaders. These things only happen because we lack the will (or the desire) to stop it.
