Liz Cheney Returns to Illustrate Exactly Why Most Republicans Can't Stand Her

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Remember when Liz Cheney was going to have a "megaphone" after losing her primary in Wyoming? The idea was that her 40-point defeat would only elevate her, positioning her to speak loudly and forcefully against the supposed excesses of her own party. Cheney was going to protect "democracy" and be well-positioned for a 2024 presidential run. 

Well, as usual, those bleating the loudest in the mainstream press were wrong because none of that happened. Instead, she has been heavily marginalized, likely because she's no longer useful to the Democratic Party.

I regret to inform you that Cheney is back, at least momentarily, and she's here to illustrate exactly why most Republicans can't stand her. 

It's just astonishing to me that someone like Cheney, whose direct policy initiatives have legitimately led to the slaughter of millions of people in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, can still pretend to hold some type of moral high ground. We are talking about a woman who, instead of opposing the bombing of Libya, pushed then-President Barack Obama to do even more. As a result, Libya is now hell on earth and the world's largest modern-day slave market. 

The results in Syria were just as bad, with a pointless civil war supported by the United States killing well over half a million people, and not once has Cheney ever shown any regret. Do you know what you call someone who causes such suffering and death, yet shows no remorse? You call them a sociopath. 

People like Cheney have no credibility to speak on anything, much less foreign policy. That they continue to try to do so, presenting themselves as lights in the darkness, is a level of arrogance that is hard to fathom. So while Cheney implores people to "read some history," I'd implore her to read her own history. 

Regardless, there is no comparison between Nazi Germany's rise in 1938-1939, leading to overrunning of Europe, and modern-day Russia. Vladimir Putin is a dictator, and his invasion of Ukraine is a desperate ploy to consolidate power. That is detestable, but it does not make Russia a threat to rule the continent. NATO is as expansive today as it has ever been while Russia's military might is mostly smoke and mirrors, with the latter assertion more than proven by the last year-and-a-half of fighting.

Again, that doesn't mean that Russia hasn't caused carnage in Ukraine that deserves condemnation, but the mere presence of an unjustified war does not mean that a modern-day Nazi Germany is waiting in the wings to sweep into France. That kind of simpleton understanding of history is how you get the dumpster fire foreign policy that plagued the United States throughout the Bush and Obama terms. 

Besides, who is trying to "appease" Russia? Did I miss something? Because I'm pretty sure the United States alone has spent well over $100 billion arming Ukraine. The result has been to degrade the Russian military and grind the conflict into a stalemate. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happens next before committing even more money. That is not appeasement. It is basic governance. 

In short, Cheney can take a seat. She can take all the seats. No one holds less credibility to speak on current affairs than she does. Heck, if she actually cared about Ukraine (she doesn't), she'd stop talking completely, because the mere opening of her mouth is going to do far more harm than good in building support.