Hypocrisy is to politics what static is to a radio: a constant background noise that distorts the message but somehow never goes away. Yet, it also exposes what people truly believe.
Such is the case with the brouhaha over comments former President Donald Trump made about former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), who appears to have made it her ultimate mission to oppose 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 about Cheney joining his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, on the campaign trail. “The reason she couldn’t stand me is that 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 warhawk” and questioned how she might feel if she were facing the same ordeals U.S. service members face when they are sent to war.
“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face. They’re all warhawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, ‘Oh, gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’”
The full quote with context from Trump on Liz Cheney:
After calling Cheney “a very dumb individual,” he said: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns… pic.twitter.com/eMgeoPGewC
— Shermichael Singleton (@MrShermichael) November 1, 2024
Talking heads on the left rushed to edit the clip to make it appear as if Trump were suggesting putting Cheney in front of a firing squad – a blatant lie that was easily debunked by users on social media posting the whole exchange in context.
WATCH: Donald Trump suggests @Liz_Cheney should be fired upon
It’s an escalation of his violent rhetoric
My open of today’s @CNNThisMorning
Cheney just responded to Trump — shown below https://t.co/85RJ5VGZG3 pic.twitter.com/oxV0taVsEk
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) November 1, 2024
Others on the left tried to cast the clip as an example of Trump using violent rhetoric against his political opponents. Harris repeated the lie, referring to his comments as “disqualifying.”
Vice President Kamala Harris: “He has increased his violent rhetoric, Donald Trump has, about political opponents and in great detail suggested rifles should be trained on former Rep. Liz Cheney. This must be disqualifying…Rep. Cheney is a true patriot.” pic.twitter.com/ngVmMPtwKX
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 1, 2024
Neoconservative columnist David French also chimed in with an op-ed in the New York Times in which he criticized the former president’s remarks.
MAGA is outraged that anyone would interpret his statement as calling for Cheney to face a firing squad. The reference to “nine barrels” was just a vague reference to facing hostile fire, they say. To MAGA, this was nothing but a classic chicken hawk attack.
Republicans used to hate the chicken hawk argument. It was often wielded against advocates of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and if you think about it for more than five seconds, you recognize its bad faith. We don’t live in some sort of science-fiction fascist regime in which only those who serve get a voice in military affairs. Where was Trump’s record of service when he ordered strikes on ISIS, attacked Syria or killed Qassim Suleimani?
I served in Iraq, yet I would never dream of arguing that only my fellow vets get a say in American military policy in the Middle East. The very idea is repugnant to the notion of civilian government.
Yet once again, Republicans have become what they used to hate, and they’ve done it in a way that is even worse than the original slur. In addition, this is not the first time that Trump has attacked Cheney in disturbing ways. In July he called for “televised military tribunals” for her, so it’s hardly strange or unreasonable to think that the reference to “nine barrels” could refer to a firing squad.
One would expect a neocon like French to take issue with Trump’s comments. His type rarely see a war they don’t want to involve U.S. soldiers in. Yet, why has he not questioned whether it was people on the left who have “become what they used to hate?”
Democrats routinely trotted out the exact same argument against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz’s father. They marched in the streets, protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They went so far as to label both men as war criminals.
In many cases, they criticized these officials for sending everyone else’s kids to war while keeping theirs safe at home. It’s a valid argument. What French is missing is that none of these folks are arguing that only people who served in the military should get a say in foreign policy. They are merely pointing out the fact that it is easy for folks like both Cheneys to constantly advocate for war because they are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences.
Perhaps these people should have to see the consequences of their actions.
But since when did Democrats become pro-war? Why would they defend someone like Liz Cheney, who ostensibly represented everything they claim to despise?
The answer is simple: They only pretend to be antiwar when it suits them. If they can score a few cheap political points against their most hated political opponent, they will welcome every single bloodthirsty warmonger with open arms.
