Sunday morning, I saw this tweet from a prominent foreign policy and national security writer, and wondered if it might be hyperbolic or exaggerated. After watching the exchange in question, Rogin's assessment seems accurate, which is a disgraceful indictment of Elizabeth Warren. She offered plenty of criticism for the President of the United States on CNN -- including flirting with the conspiracy theory that the strike was ordered as a 'distraction' from impeachment -- but could not muster a cross word for Iran's terrorism mastermind:
Elizabeth Warren won't say one bad word about Soleimani, calls him "a government official, a high ranking military official," then pivots to Ukraine. @CNNSotu— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 5, 2020
It was worse on another network:
For reasons David French analyzed last week (see more here), the term "assassination" is misleading at best. And her dodging about her initial -- and obviously correct -- characterization of Soleimani as a murderer appears to be an embarrassing outgrowth of criticism she endured from the hard left:
After @ewarren gets attacked by left —- for noting Soleimani was a murderer & supporting increased DoD $ — she comes back w new statement calling killing an assassination, only criticizing Trump policy— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) January 3, 2020
Like MFA, illustrates the difficultly of appealing to Dem estab + the left
The man led a US-designated terrorist organization for two decades and is responsible for the deaths of at least 600 Americans -- and tens of thousands of others. But such things mustn't be mentioned aloud when there's an American president to criticize. Shameful. As for the lefty/media talking point that Soleimani may not have been plotting an imminent attack (it's safe to say that he's always plotting attacks, having just orchestrated a lethal attack against Americans in recent days, as well as the embassy siege), and that the strike was rash or impulsive, read this carefully-reported Reuters story:
This outstanding report by ?@Reuters? utterly demolishes the received wisdom now circulating in the media and on the Left, that the Soleimani hit was an ill thought-out provocation. Turns out there was a lot of “there” there after all. https://t.co/NVgT2p8yFl— Ilan Berman (@ilanberman) January 4, 2020
The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters...At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases. He ordered Kataib Hezbollah - a force founded by Muhandis and trained in Iran - to direct the new plan, said the militia sources briefed on the meetings.
We also know that President Trump had previously declined to take out Soleimani when presented with the opportunity. This was not slap-dash. It was thought through and entirely justified. I'll leave you with the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee sounding satisfied by an intel briefing (featuring information that has been referenced by non-political officials):
NEWS: In an interview, @MarkWarner says after a phone call with CIA director Haspel: "I accept the notion that there was a threat," which is what Pompeo and others in the administration have said.— Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) January 3, 2020
But he adds: "I have questions about the time and place of America taking action."
Also, read this on the Iraqi Parliament's vote to expel US troops. It's not quite what it seems.