HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sen Warren: "We must...

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:33 AM

 

Sen Warren: "We must not get bogged down in another war.."

There have been some posts on DU claiming that Sen. Warren agrees with Pres. Obama's new efforts in Iraq, but I haven't seen any actual statements of support from her. Hearing such a thing from her would make me feel a whole lot better about the thing, because I believe that Warren's smart, well-informed, and tells the truth.

In any case, here's what Warren did say:

"I remain concerned about possible unintended consequences of intervention. We must not get bogged down in another war in the Middle East... like the president, I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq."

Anyone know what the President Elect is saying about Obama's new efforts, other than that we should have been tougher, earlier?

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS, PLEASE READ!
1. Any opinions stated in referenced material are not necessarily mine.
2. Anything presented as "fact" in any referenced material may be utter bull%^&#. Please assume that it is.
3. Any author of any referenced material might, or might not, be notorious horrible person - I haven't done any research.
4. Any web site I link to may well be involved in all sorts of disturbing activities. I have no knowledge that they are, but who knows?
5. Elizabeth Warren is not running for president, as several people really, really, really need you to know. Out of respect for her wishes, please don't use her name and the word "president" in the same paragraph.
6. I have been outed on DU as a Purity Democrat, a paid Republican rat#$%@er, an acolyte of Ron and Rand Paul, the owner of conservativecave.com, a Firebagger and worse. Indeed, I am likely all of these. Do yourself a favor and don't read this post, it's a menace to society. Please proceed to your safe room, and await further instructions.

21 replies, 1744 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen Warren: "We must not get bogged down in another war.." (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 OP
TwilightGardener Aug 2014 #1
djean111 Aug 2014 #2
jwirr Aug 2014 #3
frazzled Aug 2014 #4
MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #5
frazzled Aug 2014 #6
JoePhilly Aug 2014 #9
MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #10
frazzled Aug 2014 #12
tk2kewl Aug 2014 #7
bigtree Aug 2014 #8
DonViejo Aug 2014 #11
hootinholler Aug 2014 #14
zeemike Aug 2014 #15
RobertEarl Aug 2014 #13
Enrique Aug 2014 #16
MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #18
Enrique Aug 2014 #21
conservaphobe Aug 2014 #17
NealK Aug 2014 #19
Orsino Aug 2014 #20

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:36 AM

1. I really wish she would run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:43 AM

2. I am very very appreciative of the effort some here make to post anything that Warren says that

 

they believe, oddly, would cause Warren supporters to perhaps say hey! Warren agreed with Hillary on something! So I will support Hillary! Because they are so similar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:47 AM

3. The wars in Iraq and Aphganistan were never paid for and that is what we cannnot afford to do

again. Also the profits only go to the 1% so it will make the wealth divide even bigger. I am assuming that President Obama knows this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:56 AM

4. "Like the president, I believe ..."

That means, "I agree with the president on this issue."

As the President said two days ago: "ultimately there’s not going to be an American military solution to this problem. There’s going to have to be an Iraqi solution that America and other countries and allies support."

He further said: "Number one, I’ve been very clear that we’re not going to have U.S. combat troops in Iraq again. And we are going to maintain that, because we should have learned a lesson from our long and immensely costly incursion in Iraq. And that is that our military is so effective that we can keep a lid on problems wherever we are, if we put enough personnel and resources into it. But it can only last if the people in these countries themselves are able to arrive at the kinds of political accommodations and compromise that any civilized society requires.

And so it would be, I think, a big mistake for us to think that we can, on the cheap, simply go in, tamp everything down again, restart without some fundamental shift in attitudes among the various Iraqi factions. That’s why it is so important to have an Iraqi government on the ground that is taking responsibility that we can help, that we can partner with, that has the capacity to get alliances in the region. And once that’s in place, then I think we end up being one of many countries that can work together to deal with the broader crisis that ISIL poses."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/statement-president-iraq

So you can knock yourself out trying to find some kind of distinction here. But there is none. And that is why you will always be disappointed in your elected leaders, whoever they are : you decide in your head what it is you think they are saying, as opposed to listening to what they are actually saying. So let's review. According to the sources you posted:

Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama's decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

"It's a complicated situation right now in Iraq, and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens," Warren told reporters. "But, like the president, I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq."

Read more: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_26306437/warren-we-do-not-want-another-war-iraq#ixzz3A6DhiSys


That's exactly what the president has said: targeted actions for humanitarian relief and to protect American citizens. But under no circumstances does he want to engage in another war in Iraq. There is no room for disagreement or interpretation here. EW is saying exactly what the president has said. They agree. End of discussion, at least for me. It's stupid to be looking for things that aren't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:00 AM

5. Has Warren said she agrees with bombing ISIS?

 

I haven't seen that, I'd appreciate a link, thanks.

In the quotes you present, she agrees that it needs to be a negotiated solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:05 AM

6. That appears to be what she is saying

when she refers to "very targeted actions" with which she agrees. If she disagrees, she should have said so: she certainly would have been quoted on that, without a doubt.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:24 AM

9. They don't want to believe she supports that

which they condemn the President for.

But she does. Used aost the same words as he did.

But they parse her's differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:25 AM

10. As you say, she *refers* to those actions.

 

But follows by specifically agreeing with other things.

Warren is a Harvard Law School Professor. It stands to reason that there are few people in the world who are more precise with their words.

I think that if she agreed with Obama on bombing ISIS, she'd have been careful to say that explicitly - and maybe she did say that, I just haven't seen it. On the other hand, if she disagreed with the bombing or wasn't sure, I think she'd say exactly what she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:42 AM

12. EW is smart enough to know

she is not by any means an expert in matters of foreign policy or defense. She's a bankruptcy lawyer. And in her 18 months in government she has served on no committees related to such issues. (Her assignments have been on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; and Special Committee on Aging.)

As I said, if she had said anything explicitly critical of bombing ISIS, a press hungry for any administration-angry Democrats would have loved to print it. And plenty of people would also have jumped on it. She's of course entitled to any opinion on the subject she wishes, like the rest of us ... but she knows not to go out on a limb on anything relating to foreign policy. Her voting record has been the most middle of the road of middle-of-the-road Democrats (see https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542) and she's not going to go all A.N.S.W.E.R. on this one.

Accept it. Have a cup of herbal tea and deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:10 AM

7. We need to see the 28 redacted pages of the 9-11 report

 

before doing anything more in the Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:14 AM

8. so she does have substance

. . . kudos to Warren. She bears more attention and our progressive ear for this position, if not our political support.

She does need to flesh this out more. Step up to the plate and stop speaking in clipped sentences like a lawyer on these military and foreign policy issues. She's obviously capable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:36 AM

11. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq



BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”

Warren said the actions announced by Obama will change the dynamic in the country, which has a Shi’ite led government and an independent Kurdish region in the north.

“It’s a very complicated situation in Iraq. The president has now taken two very targeted actions, and those two actions will change the mix of what’s happening in Iraq, and we’ll have to just monitor it,” Warren said.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 12:02 PM

14. Yet another headline that is not supported by the article.

She did not say she supports the president's actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 12:43 PM

15. "to provide humanitarian relief"

And humanitarian relief is bombing the bad guys now...(some collateral damage may occur)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:51 AM

13. The only one happy with Iraq?

 

That would be cheney.

The escalation of hostilities is just what cheney ordered up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 12:53 PM

16. she's right down the line with Obama

which doesn't surprise me at all. As far as I know, she hasn't broken with Obama on any foreign policy issue, during her campaign or after her election.

By the way, I agree with Obama and Warren, on the airstrikes and on not getting further involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 01:56 PM

18. Besides possibly breaking with Obama on re-bombing Iraq,

 

she was likely against bombing Syria.

I'm not sure if you'd consider the TPP as foreign policy, but she's an outspoken critic of that pile of anti-personnel mines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 02:10 PM

21. "possibly breaking" on Iraq

"likely against" bombing Syria. Any sentiment against those actions are just qualifications that Obama himself has given.

If you want to know the difference between that kind of hedging and taking an actual stand, you just gave a great example, the TPP. She is clearly against it. Her policy differs from Obama.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 12:54 PM

17. We shouldn't, we're not, and we won't. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 02:00 PM

19. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Aug 11, 2014, 02:02 PM

20. It's a clever framing...

...as though getting bogged down is the specter to fear, rather than our killing people. I guess it's a pretty progressive message that will play better in America than Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread