DISPATCHES BY GLENN GREENWALD
Surprise! Elizabeth Warren’s views on Israel are the same as Hillary’s. Sometimes worse. Great Liberal Hope voices mainstream zionist boilerplate.
Liz Warren. (Getty)
Aaah…the pleasure of using the “I told you so!” to the perennial historical amnesiacs that comprise so much of the sheeple in the Democratic party. Liberals are people who never learn because they simply refuse to accept the reality that the center is no solution to systemic problems. Why? Simply because the world crisis is radical in nature and needs radical solutions. Thus, at best, liberals are like somnambulists in a landscape filled with mines…applying superficial pomades on ghastly wounds.—PG
 |
It’s not like we didn’t know this already.
Warren and Sanders (and Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc.): Same bullshit, different war hawk.The man in the green Hawaiian shirt, regarding Warren’s “vote to send $225 million to Israel in its ongoing conflict with Hamas: ‘We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel,’ said Harwich resident John Bangert, who identified himself as a Warren supporter but said the $225 million could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America. ‘The vote was wrong, I believe…'”Elizabeth Warren: “‘We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right…America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.’ …Even as conservative Democratic Senate candidates from red states such as Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey were vehemently condemning the threat of war against Iran during their campaigns, Warren was claiming (contrary to the U.S. Government’s own assessment) that ‘Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons’, adding: ‘I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well.’ Those claims about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remained her position even after she was told that they squarely contradict the U.S. intelligence community’s clear assessment of Iran’s actions.” |
Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu
[T]he last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.
One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . . The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”
But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:
“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”
“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.
Warren even rejected a different voter’s suggestion that the U.S. force Israel to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid: “Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, ‘I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.’”
In her defense, Warren has long been clear that this is what she would do. Her Senate campaign website still contains statements such as “it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel” and ”as a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success.”
During her time in the national spotlight, Warren has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, rarely venturing into foreign policy discussions. Many of those domestic views, particularly herstrident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.
But when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe of the kind that she just recited about Israel and Gaza. During her Senate campaign, for instance, she issued wildly militaristic – and in some cases clearly false – statementsabout Iran and its nuclear program that would have been comfortable on the pages of The Weekly Standard.
Even as conservative Democratic Senate candidates from red states such as Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey were vehemently condemning the threat of war against Iran during their campaigns, Warren was claiming (contrary to the U.S. Government’s own assessment) that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, adding: “I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well.” Those claims about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remained her position even after she was told that they squarely contradict the U.S. intelligence community’s clear assessment of Iran’s actions.
In related news, the British newspaper The Telegraph yesterday published the names of all 504 children who were killed in Gaza over the last 50 days by Israel. In the last week, Israel deliberately destroyed an entire large residential apartment building after giving its residents less than an hour to vacate, leaving more than 40 families homeless, and also destroyed a seven-story office building and two-story shopping center (the video of the apartment building destruction is online and ugly to watch).
Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this. Or, to use her words, “when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.” Such carnage is the ”last thing Israel wants.” The last thing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.
___________
Select Original Comments
Bibi’s clone ??? This is the side of Warren that will 86 her aspirations for any form of ‘national’ office. Blatantly backing WAR CRIMINALS and an Apartheid government will tear a hole in the heart of her support. Sorry Ms. Warren, this position WILL BE your undoing.
Many of those domestic views, particularly her strident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.
I’ll take a safe chance of being correct to say her opposition to banks is for show and any opposition she mounts in future critical opportunities will be constructed in such a way as to be easily overcome, saving both the Banks and her superficial anti-bank face.
when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe
Undoubtedly, hawk tripe of all kinds is essential to the health of the banks. Do you expect her, Glenn, to jeopardize her nice salary, her very nice retirement plan, and those cushy health benefits that she’ll receive on the backs of her voters who cannot afford the Gold and Diamond plans, or whatever they’re called, that Congress gets?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.
It’s pointless to expect anything resembling Rule of Law to come from either wing of the vulture.
Time for a new and better party! Whoops, don’t bother. As RP’s attempts to change the order of things political were met with intense ridicule, Ross Perot’s were met with threats against his daughter’s life. Truth is a worthless currency in the Halls of Power.
-
Elizabeth Warren has been typecast as a flaming leftist recently due to her moderate, mid-century populism. Most of her positions would have been considered centrist in ~1974, and they are still centrist today.
We tend to forget this, because half our media & government has been hijacked by ultra-ultra-rightwing grifters. Their “opposition” — our self-dealing Democratic establishment — ceased working on behalf of the greater American community >30 years ago. Today they are mainly fixers and facilitators, who believe in tossing a few bones to the little guys in order to secure their own place at the top of the heap.
If you recognize that she is a bit of a throwback to our populist but martial Cold War past………… the entire package makes sense. She’s immensely valuable, given the vicious “libertarianism” that rules today. She’s aware of the interests of the average man*, and is less in hock to aggressive special interests than most of the clowns in D.C.
However, she seems to regard the way we used to do things, c. 1974, as the ideal to strive for. I think the population of both America and the greater world has changed too much in the past 40 years for that to be so. We’d like less economic devastation sure, well paved roads, libraries with new chairs and rugs, properly staffed municipal government offices, etc. We’d like a lot of what typified that era, including jobs that can support a man’s family.
But, running the whole damned world has gotten too costly. In every way. It’s been a stunning failure too. I’m not a great devotee of failure, no matter how nostalgic it may be.
*(moreso than Glenn, from all evidence.)
Shes’s a US Senator… and they are all owned by the Zionists… if she so much as says anything critical and she never wins another election!
Yes America, 2% of your population runs your government and there’s not a thing you can do about it… now back to fear mongering about a few thousand kids crossing the border!
The N.S.A. has stalked this 74 year old nobody for 3.5 years and nobody knows why. This government has poured Billions into other parts of the world and nobody knows why. This government can’t afford DENTAL in it’s medicare program and nobody knows why. John Bertotto