Many Things Can Be True at Once

So, Chris Cillizza did a piece about how a particular Democratic candidate responded to the current Iran situation in a way that was a little bit--

Hm. How do I put this? Disingenuous? Artificial? Bullshit?

Yeah. Something like bullshit. Anyway, he put it thusly:

Warren, Jan 2: Soleimani is a "murderer"

Warren, Jan 3: U.S. "assassinated" Soleimani

Warren, Jan. 5: Soleimani is "a government official, a high-ranking military official" https://t.co/Bz8Squds0c

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) January 6, 2020

Soleimani was a murderer, because he caused a lot of people to be killed. The strike that killed Soleimani was an assassination because it specifically targeted him, and we are not in a declared war with Iran. He was, also, quite factually, a high-ranking government official in Iran. That's the problem. That would be an entire predicate for Iran to treat the strike (an assassination or killing of a high-ranking government official whose job was to arrange for others to die) as an act of war, None of these things are contradictory to the other things and all are actually true.

We really need to take a moment to let the media (as in, Chris Cillizza)  know that maybe, just maybe, we are not going to play by 2016 rules and let stories fly that try to depict a candidate as having contradicted herself when she just happened to make separate factual statements that don't conflict one another at all. In actuality, noting that an unauthorized killing of a high-ranking military figure of an oppositional but sovereign government is exactly when a Senator should probably weigh in on things, candidate for president or not. As for whether she came around to noticing whether this looked a bit like wagging the dog--fuck. I was already there. She isn't wrong to acknowledge this is what people are saying on the internets when one of them is me.

I guess.

Anyway, there's nothing here worth criticizing because she both acknowledged the guy wasn't a hero to the US but that killing him this minute might have had repercussions the Trump Administration didn't consider. As far as I'm concerned, right on both accounts.

I'm really not down with anyone playing the "who's got your message" game with Warren after the "but her emails" and "but her speeches" stuff that happened to Clinton in 2016. If someone wants to call her out, it better be legit or I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

Also it is very cool to me that Julian Castro endorsed Elizabeth Warren. I think this makes so much sense for two candidates who brought so much to the policy table.  I am trying not to ticket-ship, but I kind of am. I can like the idea of this ticket, even if I also like other candidates.

See how that can work? Because they can be very qualified, as other candidates can be also. And also many things can at once be true. And we don't have to be mad about any of it.