How hard is it to condemn a terrorist who has killed Americans? Very hard, apparently, for one of the Democratic presidential frontrunners. As Guy discovered on CNN on Sunday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) "offered plenty of criticism for the President of the United States...but could not muster a cross word for Iran's terrorism mastermind," Quds Forces leader Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike last week.
And Guy wasn't the only one to hear her cowardly answer.
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
She had initially at least referred to Soleimani as a "murderer," but ABC News reporter Cheyenne Haslett noticed that the senator had retreated from that term too. Instead, she once again chose to paint Trump as the bad guy.
Warren defends her decision to call the death of Soleimani an “assassination” when asked by ?@jeffzeleny? pic.twitter.com/8CLFGZ4pg4
— Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou (@misyrlena) January 4, 2020
Warren was a guest on "The View" on Tuesday and was given the chance from Meghan McCain to clarify her stance, once and for all. Could she finally call Soleimani what he is - a terrorist?
"I don't understand why it was so hard to call him a terrorist," McCain said.
Asked by @MeghanMcCain if Gen. Soleimani was a terrorist, Sen. @ewarren says, “Of course he is. He’s part of a group that our federal government has designated as a terrorist. The question, though, is what’s the right response?” https://t.co/jhLJCNiPuo pic.twitter.com/Ywg8XEKc68
— The View (@TheView) January 7, 2020
"He is part of a group that's been designated terrorist," Warren responded, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
McCain wanted a straight answer. Is he a terrorist.
"Of course he is!" Warren finally said. "He's part of a group that our federal government has designated as a terrorist."
Even CNN anchors who played the clip thought it was a "strange" way for Warren to characterize Soleimani.
Warren added that some other questions, like, "is the military action in the interest of the United States?," are more important. It may have been right to take out Saddam Hussein, Warren noted by way of example, calling him a "bad guy," but going to war in Iraq was "not" in our interest.
"The question for the president of the United States is to understand what's going on, have an overall strategy, and pick an appropriate response at an appropriate time," she explained.
Soleimani helped plan deadly attacks on coalition bases in Iraq and the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. He orchestrated the 1983 bombings on a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. He was planning more attacks on Americans before he was struck by a drone.
Was it not the right time?