Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Alexander Rubinstein - Elizabeth Warren and the Military Industrial Complex

Warren’s views on countries in the crosshairs of the US State Department largely conform to those of her colleagues on Capitol Hill: Iran is a “bad actor,” Russia and China “are working to undermine the basic human rights we hold dear,” and so on.


This is so disappointing!

WASHINGTON —  Senator Elizabeth Warren is making strides to characterize her foreign policy vision as a progressive one after she announced she’d be forming an exploratory committee for a presidential run. But her record on the issues and her associations with war hawks contrasts sharply with her liberal rhetoric.
One executive of a defence firm said the perception in the industry is that Warren is not “adversarial” to them.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the first Democrat to materially signal a presidential run in 2020, is a “big P” Progressive flank to Bernie Sanders’ “democratic socialism” from the establishment center. She has mostly made a name for herself as a consumer advocate, but when it comes to foreign policy, Warren is a mixed bag. She has pushed back on US support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen but pushed for further US military support for apartheid Israel in its war on Palestinians.
Warren’s views on countries in the crosshairs of the US State Department largely conform to those of her colleagues on Capitol Hill: Iran is a “bad actor,” Russia and China “are working to undermine the basic human rights we hold dear,” and so on.
Following President Trump’s detente with North Korea at the summit in Singapore last year, Warren hastily issued a statement, reducing the historical meeting to a “photo op” that “doesn’t change the fact that a nuclear-armed North Korea is a threat to the security of the United States, our allies, and the world.”
She has, at times, departed from the beltway consensus and issued anti-war votes, including against a bill that authorized Obama to train and arm so-called “rebels” in Syria in 2014. Warren’s objections to war are typically procedural.

Running for president requires a candidate to define their vision on a host of issues, and chief among them is foreign policy. So far, she hasn’t made her views excessively clear, as many a savvy politician knows better than to do.
MintPress



4 comments:

Mike Norman said...

Yep, she's no good. Another neocon.

Konrad said...

Elizabeth Warren has always been a warmonger, and is fully on board with rattling sabers at Russia and China. (However Warren has toned down her aggression since announcing her presidential bid.) Calling her a “progressive” is like coating a broomstick with Vaseline so it can be jammed up your backside.

Warren is also devoted to Israel. During one of Israel’s routine bombardments of the Gaza Death Camp (8 July – 26 Aug 2014, 2250 Palestinians murdered, including 551 children) Warren proudly declared on 20 Aug 2014 that “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

I don’t trust her. This is a multi-millionaire white woman (a former Republican) who falsely claimed to be Native American in order to gain admittance to Harvard Law School. (Liberals keep telling us about “white privilege,” as white people like Warren claim to be non-white in order to gain privilege.)

Noah Way said...

The third rail / sacred cow of politics. You can't cross the war machine. It's the only growth sector left.

Konrad said...

At least the war machine is an equal opportunity employer. MSNBC says that women head the Military Industrial Complex. Almost all the companies that manufacture weapons for perpetual war are headed by women.

Therefore, if we stop slaughtering women and children in Yemen and so on, we will hurt women.