Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:18 AM Jun 2014

"Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless...extreme campaign positions on Iran"

Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless and rather extreme campaign positions on Iran: http://is.gd/M1WiOG

Glenn Greenwald, April 2012

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/194950895761502208

Evidently, he likes to attack Democrats when they're campaigning.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will re-consider her careless...extreme campaign positions on Iran" (Original Post) ProSense Jun 2014 OP
oh noes! PowerToThePeople Jun 2014 #1
Cognitive Dissonance in FIVE....FOUR....THREE....TWO.... ONE!!!! Ignition! And we have LIFT OFF! MADem Jun 2014 #2
Does this prove something? Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #3
Kind of. Iggo Jun 2014 #4
Expect no major foreign policy changes from any likely Dem candidate eridani Jun 2014 #5
He liked to expertly preview the 2012 Presidential election in a "wishful thinking kinda way", too.. Cha Jun 2014 #6
k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t Laelth Jun 2014 #7
Oh noes! He thought she was too hawish on Iran! muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #8
Did he ProSense Jun 2014 #9
He likes her. He didn't like her position in early 2012 on Iran muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #10
Well, he was in the pocket of Koch's CATO Institute--and CATO was HEAVILY funding Scott Brown. MADem Jun 2014 #11

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. Cognitive Dissonance in FIVE....FOUR....THREE....TWO.... ONE!!!! Ignition! And we have LIFT OFF!
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:33 AM
Jun 2014





The Ohshitwhatthehellhowcanthisbeeeeee express has cleared the launch pad and is heading for Ohhellno-whatcanwedonow!!!!

eridani

(51,907 posts)
5. Expect no major foreign policy changes from any likely Dem candidate
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:06 AM
Jun 2014

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)
6. He liked to expertly preview the 2012 Presidential election in a "wishful thinking kinda way", too..
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 06:27 AM
Jun 2014

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
8. Oh noes! He thought she was too hawish on Iran!
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:51 AM
Jun 2014
Warren's claim that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" is especially notable because it contradicts public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as reported intelligence findings of the U.S. and Israeli governments.
...
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


I asked why her stand is that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, when even the Obama administration admits there is no evidence Iran is building nuclear bombs or has decided it wants to.

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)
9. Did he
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:56 AM
Jun 2014

"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:

In the moment, I decided that the dissonance of Warren staking out a position plainly to the right of the warmongering Obama, who recently called compliance with some set of US demands a "last chance" for Iran, would be the best and quickest way to get her attention about the dreadfulness of her position. In such a brief, impromptu encounter, I don't think it would have been possible to plumb the fullness of what's wrong with her policy statement, which includes other questionable assumptions and assertions beyond those I've cited.

Warren would have to change her tune rather dramatically—not 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)
10. He likes her. He didn't like her position in early 2012 on Iran
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:37 AM
Jun 2014
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, there’s this—one of the best parts about the financial regulation bill, maybe the only truly meaningful part, is the creation of this agency, which is the idea of Professor Elizabeth Warren at Harvard to essentially police the ability of Wall Street to put fine print into mortgage and credit applications that lure the consumer into extremely one-sided and imbalanced transactions that they don’t know about, because they lack the sophistication, they don’t have lawyers to do it. And the idea of the progressive base was that she is the person who ought to be heading this agency, because she is genuinely committed to the idea of limiting Wall Street abuses. She’s a crusader for economic justice and for protection of consumers, exactly the kind of person that this administration needs but doesn’t have in important financial positions.

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 didn’t 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 authority—she’s just an adviser to the President—to set up the agency, but not to run it, and meanwhile they’re telling Wall Street, "Oh, don’t worry, she’s not really going to have any authority. She’s not going to be the person who’s running it." And it’s 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 haven’t been.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/5370-glenn-greenwald-on-iran.html


Meanwhile, new laws to legalize both same-sex marriage and marijuana use were enacted in multiple states with little controversy, an unthinkable result even a few years ago, while Obama's late-term embrace of same-sex marriage seems to have resulted only in political benefit with no political harm. Democrats were sent to the Senate by deeply red states such as Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota, along with genuinely progressive candidates on domestic issues, including Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, who became the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. As a cherry on the liberal cake, two of the most loathed right-wing House members – Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois and Allen West of Florida – were removed from office.

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

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 Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s 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:
In the Middle East, the facts on the ground are changing rapidly. The United States and the European Union are imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever on Iran - including sanctions against Iran's central bank. In March 2012, a group of global powers, including the United States, agreed to resume talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. In April, they met for talks in Istanbul, and they met to continue talks in Baghdad in May.

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)
11. Well, he was in the pocket of Koch's CATO Institute--and CATO was HEAVILY funding Scott Brown.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:49 AM
Jun 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Hopefully, Elizabet...