As we write this, “Cillizza” is the top trend in the U.S., and that’s because CNN’s Chris Cillizza has written a piece on 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s “ever-shifting” statements on the killing of Iranian terror leader Qasem Soleimani.
Elizabeth Warren's ever-shifting statements on Qasem Soleimani's killing | Analysis by CNN's Chris Cillizza https://t.co/Ygg61ImMhR pic.twitter.com/kaF5evIVbt
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 6, 2020
Cillizza isn’t the first to notice, though. CNN political analyst (and apparent misogynist) Josh Rogin had tweeted a piece from the Washington Examiner earlier in the day:
The Left criticized Elizabeth Warren for calling Soleimani a 'murderer,' so she issued a new statement focused on attacking Trump https://t.co/xIaHnXe4cB
— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 5, 2020
Asked by @cheyennehaslett why she had initially used the word “murderer” Warren dodges the question https://t.co/y53Y9jE0lf
— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 5, 2020
And conservative site NewsBusters also pointed out that a CBS News reporter had pressed Warren on whether Soleimani was a terrorist and deserved to be killed.
Surprise: CBS Actually Presses Warren on Whether Soleimani Was a Terrorist https://t.co/zpvFKyOCja pic.twitter.com/U85FBdUNAY
— NewsBusters (@newsbusters) January 6, 2020
NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock notes that when pressed by CBS This Morning’s Ed O’Keefe on whether Soleimani was a terrorist, Warren pivoted to Trump and simply referred to Soleimani as “a senior government official”:
He is a senior government official. Here’s the thing, we have known about him for a very long time. Why didn’t this happen a month ago? Why didn’t it happen a month from now? Why right now as Donald Trump faces a potential impeachment trial in the United States Senate?
And Cillizza points out in his piece that Warren did essentially the same thing with CNN’s Jake Tapper:
Then, in a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Warren referred to Soleimani as only “a government official, a high-ranking military official” — and suggested that Trump may have ordered the killing of the Iranian commander to distract from his pending impeachment trial in the Senate.
“Next week, the President of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate,” Warren told Tapper. “We know he’s deeply upset about that. And I think people are reasonably asking, why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war?”
Which, wow. We went from “murderer” to “wag the dog” in the space of a few days.
Looks like Warren did get some serious blowback from her Jan. 2 tweet in which she called Soleimani a “murderer.”
Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020
Kaylee McGhee writes in the Washington Examiner:
But even acknowledging that the man responsible for hundreds of American deaths and for orchestrating the Iranian strategy in the Middle East was a bad guy was too much for the Left to handle. Liberals quickly jumped on Warren’s comments, attacking her for employing the language used by hawks to justify war.
Fading in polls and dipping in fundraising ahead of the Iowa caucuses, Warren has little room to alienate the Left. So she then released a follow-up statement stripped of any criticism of Soleimani, and instead focused exclusively on attacking President Trump for an attack that she rebranded as an “assassination.”
Good thing she backed off all of that harsh “murderer” rhetoric that was so upsetting to her base.
“We are not safer today than we were before Donald Trump acted. I think the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now? @EWarren told @CNN.https://t.co/DIjl3IeL4o
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 5, 2020
This may sound obvious, but I am not taking any chances. A month ago, the American Embassy in Iraq had not been attacked. A month ago, QS wasn’t driving from the airport. You would think some things are so obvious if you ran into them you’d have a concussion. #CaptainObvious
— Shlomo Drucker (@olamide_falase) January 5, 2020
Shows her lack of leadership. "Why now?" Well, first we had an American killed and missiles fired at us. We responded and knew who ordered them. Next, Embassy was attacked- we see #Soleimani name all over walls. He violated UN travel. He was in a safe-hit zone. Opportunity #USA
— CALIFORNIANS 4 TRUMP (@CA4TRUMP) January 5, 2020
December 27, 2019 attack by Soleimani on our US military envoy killed one American contractor and injured several others. *That's why
— T-Covfefe (@MyPlace4U) January 5, 2020
Why not when Obama was POTUS?
— Flamboyant Former Construction Worker Bizarro Marx (@BizarroMarx) January 5, 2020
Senator (rhetorical) Warrin' pulls the trigger on unsupported claims and malicious gossip insinuation quickly, doesn't she? Why not a month from now, when more is known about whether threats of retaliation amount to much?
— Phil Nelson (@r2nets) January 5, 2020
So Elizabeth Warren is interpreting actions in the short term of less than a week. If she can't see beyond the present, she cannot hope to be any kind of leader.
— ??Super Chuck?? (@CharlesEDean) January 5, 2020
It really is a terrible showing that a so-called “leader” who wants to lead the entire nation can be so easily brought to heel over the backlash from a tweet. If she keeps it up, maybe Iranian state TV will feature her tweets too.
Related:
ATTA BOY! Senator Chris Murphy FINALLY gets the respect and admiration he deserves … from Iranian media https://t.co/b5bmjfSMjM
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 5, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member