Hypocrisy is to politics what unchanging is to a radio: a constant background noise that distorts the message but somehow never goes away. But it also reveals what people do really believe.
Such is the case with the furor over comments made by former President Donald Trump about former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), who appears to have made it her ultimate mission to defy him.
The controversy began when video footage of a discussion between Trump and Tucker Carlson at an event in Arizona circulated on social media. During the conversation, Carlson asked the former president whether Cheney had joined his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the campaign. “The reason she couldn’t stand me is because she always wanted to go to war with people. I don’t want to go to war,” he said.
The former president then called Cheney a “radical war hawk” and asked how she would feel if she faced the same trials that U.S. soldiers face when they are sent to war.
“Let’s put her with a gun that shoots nine barrels at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels with the guns pointed at her face. They’re all warhawks when they sit in a nice building in Washington and say, ‘Oh, man, well, let’s send 10,000 soldiers straight into the jaws of the enemy.'”
The full quote with context from Trump to Liz Cheney:
After calling Cheney “a very stupid person,” he said, “She’s a radical war hawk.” Let’s put her there with the nine-barreled gun shooting at her. Okay, let’s see what she thinks. You know, when the guns… pic.twitter.com/eMgeoPGewC
— Shermichael Singleton (@MrShermichael) November 1, 2024
Speakers on the left rushed to edit the clip to make it appear as if Trump was suggesting putting Cheney in front of a firing squad — an obvious lie that was easily debunked by social media users using the Post the entire exchange in context.
WATCH: Donald Trump proposes @Liz_Cheney should be shot at
It is an escalation of his violent rhetoric
My opening today @CNNThisMorning
Cheney just responded to Trump – see below https://t.co/85RJ5VGZG3 pic.twitter.com/oxV0taVsEk
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) November 1, 2024
Others on the left tried to see the clip as an example of Trump using violent rhetoric against his political opponents. Harris repeated the lie and called his comments “disqualifying.”
Vice President Kamala Harris: “Like Donald Trump, he has increased his violent rhetoric against political opponents and suggested in great detail that guns should be pointed at former Rep. Liz Cheney. That must be disqualifying… Rep. Cheney is a true patriot.” pic.twitter.com/ngVmMPtwKX
– CSPAN (@cspan) November 1, 2024
Neoconservative columnist David French also weighed in with an op-ed in the magazine New York Times in which he criticized the former president’s comments.
MAGA is outraged that anyone would interpret his statement as calling for Cheney to face a firing squad. The reference to “nine barrels” was merely a vague allusion to being exposed to enemy fire, it is said. For MAGA, this was nothing more than a classic Chicken Hawk attack.
Republicans used to hate the chicken hawk argument. It was often used against supporters of the 2003 Iraq invasion, and if you think about it for more than five seconds you can see the bad faith. We do not live in some kind of fascist science fiction regime where only those who serve have a voice in military affairs. Where was Trump’s service record when he ordered attacks on ISIS, attacked Syria, or killed Qassim Suleimani?
I served in Iraq, but I would never think of suggesting that only my fellow veterans have a say in American military policy in the Middle East. The very idea contradicts the idea of civil government.
Once again, Republicans have become what they once hated, and they’ve done it in a way that’s even worse than the original insult. Furthermore, this is not the first time Trump has attacked Cheney in disturbing ways. In July he called for “televised military tribunals” for them, so it is hardly surprising or unreasonable to assume that the mention of “nine barrels” could refer to a firing squad.
One would expect that a neoconservative like French would take issue with Trump’s comments. His type rarely sees a war in which he doesn’t want to involve US soldiers. But why didn’t he question whether it was the people on the left who had “become what they used to hate”?
Democrats regularly made the exact same argument against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz’s father. They marched in the streets and protested against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They even went so far as to label both men war criminals.
In many cases, they criticized these officials for sending everyone else’s children to war while their children were secure at home. It’s a valid argument. What French is missing is that none of these people are arguing that only those who served in the military should have a say in foreign policy. They are simply pointing out that it is basic for people like the two Cheneys to constantly advocate for war because they are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences.
Maybe these people should must recognize the consequences of their actions.
But since when have Democrats been pro-war? Why would they defend someone like Liz Cheney, who supposedly represented everything they supposedly despised?
The answer is elementary: they only pretend to be anti-war when it suits them. If they can score a few budget-friendly political points against their most hated political opponent, they will welcome every single bloodthirsty warmonger with open arms.
