Dick Cheney’s Daughter Wants War

Hudson Institute, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons “Nuclear Explosion. Made in Blender.” by Burnt Pineapple Productions is marked with CC0 1.0.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), was interviewed by CNN’s Jake Tapper today. During the friendly discussion, Cheney, referring to the tragic bombing of a train station in Ukraine, made the outrageous claim that Russia is conducting a “genocidal campaign.” The embattled congresswoman has joined with many other Democrats and Republicans in dangerous hyperbole that could easily escalate already heightened tensions.

By any definition of the word, Russia is not involved in a “genocide” against the Ukrainian people. But if there is some new definition that we’re not aware of, Cheney should be careful with her condemnations.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a key architect for the invasion of Iraq, would be just as guilty, if not much more guilty, as Russian President Vladimir Putin of “genocide,” if this new definition describes Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Liz Cheney is singing the tune of the New York Times, the Washington Post and a who’s who of regime change proponents, all itching for a fight — or, at least, the threat of a fight.

And the chorus sounds very familiar. The band broke up after the 2003 invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. But leading up to that war, they were playing on every radio station.

There are many reasons that a war — or the talk of war — is desirable for policymakers and media “elites.” The first three that come to mind in this situation are the excuses offered by conflict for a disastrous economy, the need to bury years of U.S. political corruption in Ukraine, and Raytheon stock.

Across media platforms, the image of Adolf Hitler is being projected onto Vladimir Putin in a way that demands action from any good liberal democracy. 

And there’s a reason for this: Americans don’t want war.

Americans don’t want to fight over a belligerent regime demanding unacceptable terms. The Russian people won’t fight to put Russian missiles in Venezuela or Mexico — on or near the U.S. border. In the same spirit, Americans won’t fight to surround Russia with hostile regimes and advanced weaponry.

If Americans really did want to fight, they’d be there and they’d be fighting.

To get Americans to sing along to the drums of war, all hands are on deck, from media and political salesmen to TikTok influencers. And they’re targeting the Achilles’ heel of the American people: their kindness.

“Hitler” and “genocide” evoke a storybook idea of good and evil within us all. We want to stand up for the little guy. We want to fight for what’s right.

But if we look at things objectively, Putin did something that conservatives would traditionally respect: he drew a red line and he enforced it.

He didn’t create this red line to defend U.S.-backed military groups in the Middle East; rather, he drew a red line to clarify an acceptable national security situations for his nation. And, for years, the U.S. has disregarded Russia’s concerns as inconsequential, as the West has continued our advance to Russia’s borders.

This is not how good-faith actors behave.

Now, Ukraine and Western countries have crossed Russia’s red line. And after one last plea to have their concerns addressed, Putin invaded Ukraine.

The invasion is a tragedy for the human beings living in Ukraine. There is a humanitarian disaster there. But without the provocations of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the emboldening of Zelenskyy and other leaders by the Biden administration and their allies, the Russian military would likely not have invaded Ukraine at all.

But the invasion did happen. And, instead of pushing for peace, the administration has increased its provocations toward Russia and encouraged Zelenskyy to continue a fight that all objective observers acknowledge he can’t win. They know that their decisions will cost Ukrainian lives, yet they push forward anyway.

And now, the 2003 band is back together.

But in 2003, Saddam Hussein was “Hitler.” That’s how we got drawn into war with a nation where zero 9/11 attackers came from.

It’s shocking how similar the 2022 media vibe is to the propaganda peddlers of 2003. Ironically, this time, we are threatening war over potential WMD proliferation, instead of removing imaginary WMDs from Iraq.

What’s troubling about the comparison is what the result of all this buildup was in 2003. More troubling is the fact that, after nearly two decades of reflection on one of the worst catastrophes in modern U.S. history, many Americans are fully prepared to jump into an even more precarious situation that will cost us much more and provide us much less — and the U.S. certainly didn’t gain from Iraq.

We face a “war criminal” committing a “genocidal campaign,” just like “Hitler.”

There have been a few “Hitlers” in my time. But this time, “Hitler” is the leader of a Christian nation who, until very recent “war crimes” allegations, had been openly trying to establish peace with the U.S. and our allies — and who also happens to have hypersonic missile technology, along with thousands of nuclear weapons.

So, do we follow Cheney into a fight with nuclear-armed Hitler? Let’s consider the claim.

First, is the Donbas region of Ukraine —an area on the opposite end of the globe — of strategic importance to U.S. interests? Unless we’re talking about private citizens, like Hunter Biden and his associates, spending billions on Ukraine or fighting a war over Ukraine does not serve U.S. interests — although, the legion of Ukrainian lobbyists currently populating D.C. and pulling us deeper into the conflict may disagree.

Second, is Putin conducting a genocide in Ukraine?

Russia could, in no uncertain terms, completely destroy every major city in Ukraine. They could do this without putting a single Russian soldier in danger on Ukrainian land. This is the simple truth about the situation.

So, if the goal was genocide, there are a lot more efficient methods at Putin’s disposal than destroying military installations, targeting U.S. biological facilities and encircling the republics recently recognized by Russia.

Russia’s stated goals for the invasion of what has become a U.S. vassal state are listed as being the de-Nazification of Ukraine; the recognition of two new republics on their border region — the “Luhansk People’s Republic” and the “Donetsk People’s Republic”; and the demilitarization of Ukraine — coded language for removing U.S. and NATO biological, intelligence and military elements from its border.

And, besides Putin’s claims to be defending the embattled people in that region, the geopolitical purpose of these two new republics is to create a buffer zone between Russia’s border and NATO — the buffer zone that Ukraine once provided. 

I won’t endorse all of the conclusions in it, but for a good background on Russia’s security dilemma, I recommend a book called “The Next 100 Years” by George Friedman. He does miss a few things, but it’s a great read.

Right now, the Russian “retreat” being reported by the mainstream media is actually a part of an encirclement strategy they have been implementing since the beginning of the war. They’ve taken out military installations deep in Ukraine, and Russian troops are now moving back east, encircling the newly recognized republics in order to clear Ukrainian troops from the region.

Despite the fact that we’re not hearing this, we are hearing this. While painting troop movements as “retreats,” U.S. intelligence and media outlets are warning Ukrainians in the Donbas to evacuate — meaning, they know exactly what’s coming.

The Ukrainian soldiers in that region are going to die, unless cooler heads prevail. Really, a lot more people than that could die as a result of what’s happening right now. And that’s not even getting into the worldwide impacts on food and stability that this conflict will have if it is allowed to continue.

And the U.S. could negotiate the safety of all parties involved right now. But this conflict is not about the people of Ukraine; it’s about Moscow, D.C. and Brussels. Putin isn’t there for them, and neither is Biden.

This is a conflict about interests. And the U.S. would do well, to avoid unnecessary war with Russia over a country on the other side of the world that does not further U.S. interests.

Just like before the invasion, the key to ending Russia’s aggression lies in the West simply backing off. But sociopaths like Cheney would rather take us to the brink of war than than give an inch, because their inherent weakness gives them a false understanding of strength.

Liz Cheney has a very tough election coming up. She’s done well with fundraising from the worst people in the country. But can those funds translate into electoral victory for somebody so unhinged and disliked? In a masterful political Jiu-Jitsu technique, Cheney has opted to use these characteristics to attract some of the state’s Democratic voters.

Conservatives have caught on to Cheney’s game; she’s made it pretty easy. It’s difficult to believe that conservative voters would allow her another term in Congress. She won’t be missed.



Support Big League Politics by making a donation today. You can also donate via PayPal, Venmo or donate crypto. Your support helps us take on the powerful and report the truth that the mainstream media wants to silence. 

Our Latest Articles