Culture & Society Blog: CNN's "Editor At Large" (Chris Cillizza) Lies About And Frames Elizabeth Warren! What's That About And Who's Paying/Influencing Him To Do It? DNC/Biden?

Jan 8, 2020

CNN's "Editor At Large" (Chris Cillizza) Lies About And Frames Elizabeth Warren! What's That About And Who's Paying/Influencing Him To Do It? DNC/Biden?

Context:
1. Seth Meyers: Trump And His Allies Are Lying In The Exact Same Ways The Bush Administration Lied Us Into A Catastrophic War In Iraq Nearly 17 years Ago
2. Billionaires Freak Out About Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders As Protectors Of The People & The Constitution YET They Don't Fear Joe Biden But Welcome Him!
3. BREAKING: Corporate Media Is Helping The GOP With Their Lies On Iran The Way They Did With Iraq

We all know Hillary Clinton and the DNC were in cahoots against Bernie Sanders in 2016 (well, not so much in the media since they don't mention it in context ever, but it is a part of our public record that we don't talk about). Anyways, here is something strange that doesn't make sense for an educated man, Chris Cilliza to say. A person makes the claim to be impartial and not a Republican shill placed in media to deceive the people (like Washington Post and other mainstream print outlets have, as does CNN and NBC). Clearly this guy is incompetent at analysis or a shill. There is no other explanation. Do Democrats place shills to deceive the people as well? In any case, here is the report from Media Matters which clearly cites him as a source for the lies about Elizabeth Warren's position on Soliemeni. Given how the media pandered to GOP lies during the Iraq War I'm inclined to think this is something similar. But I may be wrong. He may have Alzheimers and needs to retire from left wing (fact based) journalism. Fox News is a well known home for liars. Below is the research exposing the lies from Chriss Cilliza and some GOP shill in the Washington Post, Josh Rogan.

Media Matters: Media invent Elizabeth Warren “flip-flop” on Soleimani strike

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has become vocal among the Democratic presidential candidates in condemning the U.S. military strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. And some mainstream media commentators and right-wing voices are teaming up to twist around what she’s said.

Warren had initially tweeted a reaction to the military strike condemning Soleimani himself in moral terms while warning against the prospect of President Donald Trump pushing the country into a war with Iran:

The next day, she elaborated:

And on Sunday, Warren appeared on CNN’s State of the Union, discussing the significance of the Soleimani killing, and importantly, describing Soleimani’s status as a “government official” in the specific context of the legal definitions of “assassination”:

JAKE TAPPER (HOST): You called the U.S. attack that killed Qassem Soleimani a, quote, “assassination." President Ford issued an executive order in '76 to make political assassinations illegal. Are you saying that this strike was a violation of law?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Look, it was a targeted attack on a government official, a high-ranking military official, for the government of Iran. And what it's done has moved this country closer to war. We are not safer today than we were before Donald Trump acted. … Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. 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?

CNN analyst and Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin then lobbed an inflammatory accusation about Warren’s discussion of Soleimani:

CNN Editor-at-Large Chris Cillizza wrote a post Monday seeking to declare that Warren had somehow changed her positions on the Soleimani strike, notably seizing upon Warren’s questions about whether Trump had launched the attack to deflect from impeachment:

We went from “murderer" to “wag the dog" in the space of a few days.

Which is mind-bending. And confusing -- until you realize the "why" behind Warren's rapid change of heart on Soleimani. Which is this: because the liberal left didn't like her initial statement and she needs those voters to have a chance at winning the Democratic presidential nomination this year.

The possibility that Warren’s tweets and statements are not contradictory — that Soleimani being a “murderer” and Trump ordering the killing to distract from impeachment could both be true — didn’t seem to enter into Cillizza’s analysis at all.

But a number of right-wing media voices have also pounced on Warren's description of Soleimani as a government official, twisting Warren’s words to mean very different things. (In the interview itself, any personal characterization of Soleimani just didn’t come up, though Warren at one point said in general terms: “Now, Iran's not a good actor. There's no doubt about that. They're a bad actor.”)

Read the full piece.

Note: the rest of the piece is of Republicans lying or not understanding the context which fits their normal behavior pattern.

More research on media on this blog.