EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Progressive Democratic Hero Elizabeth Warren Enlists to Serve AIPAC's Pro-War Agenda
Few congressional candidates have excited the progressive base of the Democratic party as much as consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren has. With her tenacious advocacy for a consumer protection agency to fight unfair lending practices and her consistent framing of economic issues in terms of structural inequality has earned her enthusiastic promotion from major progressive figures from Markos Moulitsas to Rachel Maddow to Michael Moore.
Elizabeth WarrenWarren has focused her race against incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown almost entirely around issues of economic justice, placing her quixotic battle for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the center of her campaign narrative. During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Warren boasted that she succeeded in creating the bureau despite opposition from "the toughest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth."
While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry's lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America's economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren's campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman "Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan" Cain, and that she doesn't care.
Warren's statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the "unbreakable bond" between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about "a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values." She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US "cannot dictate the terms" to Israel.
Warren goes on to describe Iran as "a significant threat to the United States," echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces. She calls for "strong sanctions" and declares that the "United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" -- a veiled endorsement of a military strike if Iran crosses the constantly shifting American "red lines." Perhaps the only option Warren does not endorse or implicitly support is diplomacy. Her foreign policy views are hardly distinguishable from those of her Republican rival, who also marches in lockstep with AIPAC.
The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren. With AIPAC leading the push for war at the height of an election campaign, there is no better time to demand accountability from candidates like Warren. Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
141 Comments so far
Show AllOh. That saves me a few bucks after I cancel my monthly donation.
AIPAC uber alles.
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/02/james-abourezk-tales-of-the-israel-lobby-threats-dershowitz-embedded-lobbyists/
Thanks for the link. Since Warren is vying for the seat Ted Kennedy held, the account of Kennedy's comments on the difficulty of resisting AIPAC's extreme power, and a possible strategy for doing that, were especially interesting and relevant.
The raw fact is that today nobody can win a national office in America without pledging allegiance to Israel. The best that can be done is elect people who are sane and humane enough to recognize that Muslims are equal human beings, and who can band together (Kennedy's suggestion) to stop Israel's grotesque injustices. Obama is quietly orchestrating a high-level resistance to Israel's push to attack Iran, and Warren would probably support him in this.
Second, reining in the power of the big banks is the best way to rein in Israel. Israel was a bankers' project from the beginning, using fundamentalist Jews from Eastern Europe as their boots on the ground.
In 1896, before the First Zionist Congress, Jewish bankers tried to buy Palestine from Turkey in order to create a Jewish state. [1] Most Jews in Western Europe at this time were assimilating into their various countries, doing quite well, and strongly opposed creating a Jewish state since that could derail their progress. [2] But the bankers went ahead and aligned with fundamentalist Jews of Eastern Europe, who philosophically opposed assimilation, and wanted a Jewish state in Palestine.
With this philosophy, the resulting Zionist movement joined the Nazis in promoting the idea that Jews did not belong as citizens of any European nation, a catastrophic idea that helped sow the seeds of the Holocaust. [3]
Jewish writer Amira Hass, Ha'aretz columnist, has said that without the Holocaust there would be no Israel. [4] While the back-room dealing to establish a Jewish state in Palestine well pre-dated the Holocaust [5], there is no doubt the Holocaust was a key factor in squeeking out the needed international support to create a Jewish state. [6] The main obstacle was the massive injustice required for the inhabitants of Palestine.
At the grass roots level, the public must become informed enough to see through the heavily financed Israeli PR machine. The bogus charge of anti-Semitism is thoroughly reviewed here. [7]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
[2] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15584.htm
[3] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html
[4] http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=19985
[5] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
[6] http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_43.htm
[7] http://whenvictimsrule.blogspot.com
agreed.
and very interesting info here.
Clearly, Ms. Warren has no scruples about using chemical weapons on native people or violating international law on a daily basis. She has no criticism of the nuclear weapons the State of Israel has as a threat to humanity worldwide.
The long sordid history of apartheid and genocide of the State of Israel is apparent to all but the corrupt. Clearly, Ms Warren is corrupted.
Well she was a hero up until now.
..and you blithely accept the premise of this article without corroboration?
You don't have to accept the author's premise, you only have to take the link to Warren's website and read her own words.
..and you went blithely past the link to Elizabeth Warren's website?
http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/national-security-foreign-policy
Yes!!!
Or did you not bother to read the official political proclamation of Ms Elizabeth Warren?. It is linked in the article for your convenience.
Another one bites the dust.
The true "Champions of the people" are few and far between and are for the most part creations of the press. Folk with policies that are truly threatening to the status quo tend not to rise to positions of power.
Folk with policies that are truly threatening to the status quo tend to be aggressively and forcibly removed from positions of visibility, or even removed from existence.
Exactly --
We've had more than 50 years of in the open RW political violence which is the only way the RW can rise --
and none of it acknowledged by our corporate press which seems to aid and abet the crimes of capitalists, especially in regard to the cover ups.
9/11 couldn't have been pulled off without that active cooperation.
GwNorth perceptively notes "Another one bites the dust."
My thoughts exactly.
Disappointing.
The article clearly contains a misprint. The phrase "...earned her enthusiastic promotion from major progressive figures from Markos Moulitsas to Rachel Maddow to Michael Moore" was obviously meant to read "... earned her enthusiastic promotion from major Democratic Party shills from Rachel Maddow to Michael Moore". Now everything makes sense.
True -- when the chips are down, Rachel Maddow, Tom Hartmann and Michael Moore will support Democrats -- no matter how deep and wide the betrayals.
Infuriatingly, this has also long been true of women's organizations who evidently won't bite back at the Democratic Party until women's oppression is fully restored!!
Michael Moore isn't holding an elective office, but I think he's still shy of the sting he and Nader took re 2000 and the lies spread by the Democratic Party itself which had everything to lose if Nader succeeded. Democratic Party -- as DLC/Koch Bros Rahm Emmanuel has made clear -- has to ensure that Democratic Party voters have "no where to go." Nader has long been a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party and let's hope he continues on trying to WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
Schultz seems to be the most reluctant to aid and abet Obama's betrayals --
though Randi Rhodes is my favorite hold out who told us clearly as the '08 prmiaries were settling down and it was becoming clear that Obama was to be the nominee ...
And what Randi Rhodes said was ... "AFTER WE ELECT OBAMA, WE HAVE TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO LIBERAL THIRD PARTIES AND GETTING THEM UP ON THEIR FEET." That's no word for word, of course, but she was letting us know what was up. Haven't heard her very much recently because soon after that she was was involved in a conflated "event" over Hillary Clinton being a "ho" in a comedy routing. In fact, aren't they all corporate whores?
Randy Rhodes is even more of a shill for Obama than Hartmann - if that is possible....
But these lesser of 2 evils demonrats masquerading as liberals do a real disservice to democracy -
They give cover to the fascist elements of the dems and they approve following the rethugs to the right as fast as they Can dance -
In fact to these DLC apologists No One is allows to the left of them - they all have god complexes and beleive themselves to be superior and the smartest people in the room -
But too damn dumb ton see that their strategy has delivered victory after victory to the rightwingers and the oligarchs....
And so when they say 'obama can't lose' I the Obama probably will lose -
And I'll also say good riddence to the bankster in chief and his deepthroating of the corporate leaders.
During the Obamba campaign, I heard Randi Rhodes abuse a caller who had misgivings about trusting Obama, given his record and list of donors. Rhodes called the guy a self hating Democrat and refused to listen to his reasoned concerns. I never listened to that program again.
Very important and even crucial artilcle! I was concerned about this when this candidate said nothing about foreign policy. Terrible isn't the word for it. Will somebody who is close to her press her to back away from this war mongering imperilaism for the good of all?
versus who??????
Ron Paul
RP? Seriously? Have you even looked at his thoughts on social programs or woman's issues?
Terrible on economics, social programs, abortion; wonderful on foreign policy, prosecuting bank crooks, and defense of civil liberties. Over which issues does the "commander in chief" and "chief executive" have power?
Ron Paul for the old folks' home. He's not just a knuckle dragger, he's a senile knuckle dragger.
Go away.
Rocky Anderson!
This has been clear for a long time now. She is an ardent militarist as well. I think the true mettle of a Western politician is their stand on Israel. If they take a critical stance, then you know they are genuine. Sad but true.
Give her a break!!! She's only human after all. It's not like there isn't 100 billion other people like her who believe that if Jesus was alive today he would be a banker.
I'm willing to give her any number of breaks. However, I won't vote for her or for any other sociopath.
Not good. If Scott Brown runs even harder to the right, will Warren run harder to the right also, to match his every move?
In the 2010 elections, progressive Democrates largely won and centrist Democrats largely lost. 2012 is shaping up as even more of a moneyball election year. If any one particular candidate wants to stand for nothing, why should anyone nationally drive to Massachusetts and work for their election? There are some perfectly good progressives that people can work for elsewhere.
If this is true...Ms Warren has some explaining to do....as much as I liked her she's always seemed too good to be true.
An alliance with AIPAC? Why would she do something this stupid?
"An alliance with AIPAC? Why would she do something this stupid?"
To get elected.
It might be that rather than reflecting political conviction, this stance shows she's fallen victim to campaign strategists/advisors who're mostly always wrong.
If so, Warren errs seriously by acceding to the power of AIPAC, an indisputable behemoth, but the strength of Warren lies in her ablilty to inspire empathy/identification in the masses, and compromises revealed by this revelation run steadfastly against her greates assets. If politicians only had the courage to stand by their convictions, they might prove worthy of leadership. The electorate hungers increasingly for a leader in which it can place it's trust - a trust that can only be won through sincerity, intelligence and an ethical sense of justice - values with which she seemed to have been endowed and values that appear to be lost on those ubiquitous Washington strategists.
Another taken at the brain stem.
as i said before and i will say it again......the us lawmakers are bought and sold, like cheap whores, by Israel
"The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren."
_________________
Before I even got to this sentence-- or this article-- it was obvious that the wishful progressive liberal dance with Warren recapitulates the nationwide infatuation with Obama in 2008.
As CD comments threads over the years amply demonstrate, there's no lack of well-worn high-minded rationalizations for acclaiming candidates who come off as authentic persons (as opposed to Establishment androids) and seem to have a genuine inclination to favor ordinary unprivileged citizens over the power elite.
This invariably involves getting psyched by accentuating the positives and minimizing the negatives-- i.e. the negatives can't actually be eliminated, but they can be virtually ignored or downplayed in the name of being realistic, pragmatic, balanced, etc.
There's a comprehensive lesser-evil belief system available for those who want, or need, to believe-- raging against nay-sayers and "purists", considering the alternative, etc.
Or else "explaining away" troublesome information with boilerplate rationalizations, e.g. X has to take this position or action in order to get elected-- but once they're in, they can assert their true selves.
And where serving AIPAC or the Zionist state of Israel is concerned, progressive liberals have long since resigned themselves to giving otherwise appealing politicians a pass. The "pragmatic" consensus is that even the best progressive Elected Misrepresentatives are compelled to kiss AIPAC/Israel's ass.
It has the same arc, or loop, as people who are perversely attracted to obviously flawed significant others, and react resentfully or angrily to those who seek to disabuse them of the fantasy that THIS one's a winner-- or at least a keeper.
And end up being hurt, burned, and disappointed-- or worse yet, cling to their uncritical devotion and consign themselves to the role of long-suffering victim in an abusive relationship, pathetically defending the indefensible.
You know: he or she really isn't as bad as everyone thinks-- and at least I'm not alone!
Pragmatism is seeing things as they are not how you wish them to be. The founding fathers supported slavery and it took 80 some years for that travesty to change. Political change is rarely rapid and when it is rapid it usually does not turn out well.The choice, as usual, is either eat at Mickey D's, eat at burkng, or starve. All of the choices are unhealthy, starving is the pits. I'll take a burger please.
timebiter,
earth. seed. shovel. water. bon appetit.
organize. educate. resist. create a revolution.
+1
most revolutions do not turn out as planned and in dealing with the american public not so sure about the educate, Bill Maher is correct on this one in that Americans are stupid. As to the organize and resist have fun and let me know how that all works out. The average Joe is too concerned with non-issues and it will take a complete meltdown to get their attention.
"Bill Maher is correct on this one in that Americans are stupid."
Bill Maher has no business calling Americans stupid. He just gave a million freakin' bucks to Obama's super PAC. Think of what good that money could have done. Bill Maher is an idiot.
Why do so many allow themselves to be jerked around by politicians and famous tv personalities? Bill Maher gave a million $s to a political entity that would take away our rights as citizens - no more habeus corpus for the little people.
Timebiter is one of the new - and biggest - Lesser-Evilist Dem-apologist on CD. His threads all pretty much follow the same old same old we hear every election from the LE crowd, and this one is no different.
Hey timebiter - voting for evil is voting for evil. Try voting for principal and conscience just once. At least then you won't be responsible for the evil that is done by the person you elected - - which you ARE. If every Amereichan actually voted for principal and conscience - instead of the "lesser" evil - we would have a lot less war criminals, corporate cock-suckers, and Zionist Israel whores in Congress and the WH. What a radical concept.
"That's just the way things are" is an unfit attitude for people who call themselves progressive. It is soul-killing and mind-numbing. You have to first recognize reality AND THEN FIGHT IT.
I suspect that even in the enlightened state of Massachusetts, most of the voters haven't even heard of AIPEC. I also suspect her advisors said "If you sign on to their line on Israel, that's one powerful lobby you won't have to worry about." It might be bad from the perspective of those who hate AIPEC, but it just might be okay politics. She may not have started out as a politician, but she's a quick study. I would still vote for her on the issues that are important to her-and me-if I lived in Mass.
O.S. - Perceptive comment. Thanks.
Boo fucking hoo. Who is going to save us now?
Direct democracy
Oh please now. She is running for office, as a member of the Democratic Party, and you want her to be someone with actual principles, who is concerned for human rights for everyone? There surely must be a runaway turnip truck that's lost its load and loose in the State of Massachusetts.
Against the bankers, but for Israel. ohhhh kaaay.