General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless...extreme campaign positions on Iran"
Glenn Greenwald, April 2012
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208
Evidently, he likes to attack Democrats when they're campaigning.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)he broke DUs TOS. The bastard!
MADem
(135,425 posts)The Ohshitwhatthehellhowcanthisbeeeeee express has cleared the launch pad and is heading for Ohhellno-whatcanwedonow!!!!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Iggo
(47,489 posts)But only accidentally.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That includes Sanders. All we can hope for is avoiding the batshit crazy. Support for the US military empire has been cheerfully bipartisan since the end of WW II.
Cha
(295,926 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)...
Salon's Glenn Greenwald tweeted about the blogger's interview, calling it "constructive."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/elizabeth-warren-iran-bob-kerrey_n_1449926.html?ref=politics
Warren said she thinks the data says they are working on nuclear weapons.
I repeated that, no, even the administration says there's no evidence of that.
She said she'd look into it, saying it's important that political statements not to add fuel to the fire. I considered pointing out that the "fire" is our own creation, but I wanted to get to one more policy matter before she moved along.
http://vastleft.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/chance-meeting-with-ma-senate-candidate.html
Evidently, he likes to support the White House, when he thinks they're being more sensible on a subject than Elizabeth Warren.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Oh noes! He thought she was too hawish on Iran!"
...ever express or show support for Warren during the campaign?
It's interesting that he spent/spends so much time defending Ron (who he thinks is anti-war http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632 ) and Rand Paul, and out of the blue decides to call out Warren.
Ron Paul distortions and smears
http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/
Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294827
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733
One can only guess why Greenwald was focused on the site you linked to. From the link:
Warren would have to change her tune rather dramaticallynot just to couching saber-rattling and sanctions with the administration's weasel-wording about "nuclear weapons capability"for me not to consider this position alone very good reason to withhold my support.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)And the problem was, progressives were demanding it, but their real constituency, which is Wall Street and business, are horrified by the idea of Elizabeth Warren, and they needed to find some solution, because if they didnt nominate her, progressives would be in revolt before the election. And so, what they did was they created this hybrid solution, where they pretended that they were going to appoint her, even though she has no real authorityshes just an adviser to the Presidentto set up the agency, but not to run it, and meanwhile theyre telling Wall Street, "Oh, dont worry, shes not really going to have any authority. Shes not going to be the person whos running it." And its these kind of symbolic gestures in the last several weeks that I think are almost more offensive, as they try and pretend that they are something that for the last two years they havent been.
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/5370-glenn-greenwald-on-iran.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/07/obama-progressives-left-entitlements
You seem to think that it's important that a commentator, who concentrates on civil liberties and international relations, should have supported all Democratic candidates on all topics at all times, even if that was, at that time, to the right of the White House, and that this is relevant to discussion of all subsequent stories he reports.
And the great thing about the question the blogger asked (and which Greenwald called 'constructive')? She modified her statement a bit after that, during the campaign.
June 20th 2012:
Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israels right to exist. Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 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. Iran must not have an escape hatch.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120620021307/http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/national-security-foreign-policy
July 21st 2012:
I support the approach President Obama - joined by a bipartisan consensus in Congress - has taken in working to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. I support strong economic sanctions in conjunction with other countries that have placed serious political pressure on Iran, as well as vigorous diplomacy to try to resolve the situation through negotiations. Like the President, I believe that careless talk of rushing to war is unhelpful, and, like the President, I believe the United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120721051704/http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy
MADem
(135,425 posts)Connect the dots!
Of course he had to "put down" Warren--she was running against his Paycheck's pick! And he had to EARN that paycheck!
There are some things that are so obvious they can be seen at a hundred paces. That's one of 'em.