Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyoming.) wants to know which cities Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would sacrifice to a nuclear attack.
In the early morning hours of July 31, Cheney, apparently responding to the first night of the Democratic debate, tweeted this loaded question at Warren: “Which American cities and how many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice with your policy of forcing the US to absorb a nuclear attack before we can strike back?”
Key question for Elizabeth Warren @ewarren today – which American cities and how many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice with your policy of forcing the US to absorb a nuclear attack before we can strike back?
— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) July 31, 2019
Cheney was referring back to the segment of the previous evening’s presidential debate when moderator Jake Tapper asked whether, as president, the candidates would declare that the United States would never use nukes first.
Warren said that she would adopt that policy.
Cheney, it seems, took that to mean that a President Warren would vow to do nothing while America got nuked. Or that a country wouldn’t be deterred by America’s massive ability to retaliate against any strike.
For many, the assertion called to mind Cheney’s famous father, Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney the elder has been heavily criticized for encouraging the invasion of Iraq based on bogus weapons of mass destruction intel, and generally being a torture-condoning, warmongering, friend-shooting, Blackwater-connected political figure. (More recently, there was that time Christian Bale thanked Satan for inspiring him to play the former VP in Vice.)
Reactions to the tweet ranged from the obvious, “There is no winning a nuclear war,” to the vicious, “Wow damn didn’t realize that the desire to murder entire nations was a trait you could inherit from your dad,” and several logical souls who pointed out that Warren did not say that.
Someone even referenced Maslow’s hammer.
Harvard Business School professor Gautam Mukunda was among those appalled by Cheney the younger’s nuclear ambitions, “A little self-awareness might lead you to the conclusion that, having made your career entirely on the coat-tails of your war criminal father, maybe you’re not the best person to weigh in on the wisdom of preventive war? Your Dad’s Iraq catastrophe springs to mind, somehow,” he tweeted.
Only that's not what she said. She said not to strike first. Perk your ears up Miz Cheney. We know how much you. and your dad love war but some of us think it is not really that much fun.
— Slow (@SlowLaneLodge) July 31, 2019
https://twitter.com/TomForUtah/status/1156705484675489792?s=20
Wait, what?? Holy straw man argument, batman! pic.twitter.com/N8JEchq2RC
— LovingGenX_Jen (@pookietooth) August 1, 2019
Daughter of multimillionaire war-profiteer & evidence-fabricating war criminal sounds off on our need to initiate nuclear armageddon.
— web rant (@web_rant) July 31, 2019
Funny you should ask such a question today since your boss is trying to give the Saudi’s(who were the majority of who attacked us on 911)nuclear weapons. https://t.co/2OGOJPgYg9
— #TrumpIsAFraud 🌊🌅🌻💙🇺🇸💛🇺🇦🌻 (@Lovemydogsxo) July 31, 2019
The apple does not fall far from the war mongering tree.
— Martha Eller (@mce103) July 31, 2019
The Daily Dot has reached out to the Warren campaign and will update with their response.
It is worth noting that the United States has long had a policy of being willing to strike first in a nuclear war.
But on the same token, it’s pretty crazy to suggest that a president not being willing to launch a preemptive nuclear attack is the equivalent of them letting nuclear warheads rain down on our nation.
READ MORE:
- Joe Biden nails the difference between website, text message in closing statement
- Tulsi Gabbard eviscerates Kamala Harris on her criminal justice record
- Biden mistakenly endorses Cory Booker for president
Got five minutes? We’d love to hear from you. Help shape our journalism and be entered to win an Amazon gift card by filling out our 2019 reader survey.