Elizabeth Warren's position opposing a US strike on Syria

[brooklynite]

...
...
...

actually, Elizabeth Warren hasn't said a thing about Syria

Neither has Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson or Sherrod Brown

I guess they're just a bunch of Obama apologists.

Or MAYBE, unlike some of the comments I've seen here, it's not a black and white issue that doesn't lend itself to a simple answer.

[dawg]

1. Most "fans" of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are people ...

who think for themselves. We don't wait to see what our "heroes" have to say before we form our own opinions about the issues. And we don't *change* our opinions to suit those of our leaders.

[Zorra]

12. Not having, and/or not worshipping, leaders is incomprehensible to some people.

Geez, the inane stuff I've heard about Occupy.

"Occupy can't succeed because it doesn't have "leaders"!!1! (hair ignites, head explodes)

[Union Scribe]

24. ^ nailed it ! nt

[deutsey]

16. +1

[n2doc]

18. +2 n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. Elizabeth Warren isn't my hero. I voted for her to do the best job she can for Massachusetts.

I don't fawn over elected officials, but everything you have written is spot on.

[cali]

2. or maybe they're just waiting and being supportive of the head of the party

there are a lot of political calculations.

It's pretty damn black and white. Ban Ki-Moon is pleading for U.N. inspectors to be allowed to finish their investigations on the attack.

An attack is exceedingly risky for Syrians, for the region at large and for U.S. relationships.

[Scootaloo]

3. Oh really?

WARREN: The ongoing killing of civilians in Syria is a terrible tragedy, and Assad has got to go. The unfolding question is how to accomplish those goals. The President is right to try to work with others in the region and in the international community to influence Syria. Because assistance can have complex and unintended consequences, we should not act unless we are confident that we can do more good than harm and that we have a clear plan and achievable goals.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/sen_scott_brown_and_elizabeth_13.html

Maybe you'll want to not attribute your positions to people who haven't declared their positions, as well. Just a thought.

[brooklynite]

4. But that's exactly my point -- they HAVEN'T declared their positions....

....whereas folks here have been emphatic in their anti-strike position to the point of insisting that any evidence to the contrary must be intentionally fabricated.

Considering the desire to have one or more of these folks run for President as a true progressive, I can't understand how such a nuanced position when the "right answer" is so obvious can be acceptable.

(edited to add that you picked a quote from last year when this was an abstract issue, not a specific strategy).

[Scuba]

6. Warren's position looks pretty clear to me.

But nice try muddying the waters.

[brooklynite]

7. Then why is it taking her so long to speak out?

...now that she's a Senator with influence, and there's so clearly a right answer with respect to this specific policy?

[Scuba]

11. She has, to wit: "..we should not act unless we are confident that we can do more good than harm.."

"... we should not act unless we are confident that we can do more good than harm and that we have a clear plan and achievable goals."

I've seen nothing to indicate that any of those three prerequisites have been met. You can call that lack of a statement if you want, but it's very clear to me.

[brooklynite]

15. So her approach to influencing policy today is to assume you'll research a speech from a year ago?

[Scuba]

20. Yes, I'm sure that's what she's thinking.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. .

[CTyankee]

21. Her statement reflects solid thinking and is exactly what I would expect her to say.

I don't think the solution with Syria is all that easy to figure out. I believe that the administration is carefully looking at its options and what could be the repercussions of each option. I'm glad that the President and Senators like Warren are thinking this through, rather than jumping one way or another. Personally, I would hope for a truly international effort to stop Assad and I fervently hope that is exactly what is being planned right now...

[brooklynite]

22. But - she - hasn't - said - it

Today. When the decision is being made. Does she not care? Or does she possibly think the President is giving this the same thoughtful consideration?

[CTyankee]

25. I can't believe that she doesn't care. Perhaps she HAS counseled the President privately.

Perhaps she doesn't feel that her making a statement today is appropriate. I think we should wait and see...

[Scootaloo]

30. One gets the impression you're starting the campaign early, Brooklynite

Only puzzle is, for who?

[brooklynite]

32. Sorry to tell you, the campaign started last year...

...at the convention in Charlotte. One of the reasons I can confidently say Warren, Grayson and Brown won't be running.

As for me, I've already reached out to "Ready for Hillary"......but if she doesn't run, I've also reached out to Brian Schweitzer.

Personally, I don't have an objection to Warren (my wife and I were big supporters of her Senate race), in part because don't think her positions would be radically different than Clinton's. More a matter of experience and campaign ability in a national race.

[dawg]

37. I though Schweitzer already said he wasn't running.

I'm not 100% opposed to Hillary, but at this point it would take lots of convincing to get me to support her in the primaries.

[brooklynite]

39. Not running for Senate.

Hasn't said anything about 2016.

[dawg]

41. Thanks for the info.

[mathematic]

23. From that statement it is clear she does not oppose strikes

Her standard for action is so vague that it is easily satisfied. Basically, all we need is a plan and confidence that our plan will work. Even Bush had this for Iraq. Of course, his plan sucked and I wouldn't bet a rusty penny on the confidence of the Bush Administration but that's irrelevant.

(This is all only if you're willing to accept that "assistance" in Warren's statement includes strikes. If it doesn't then her statement about assistance tells us nothing about her position on strikes.)

[Scuba]

31. I can't see how "working to influence" and "assistance" include strikes.

But then I'm not a warmonger.

[joshcryer]

10. that is hardly unequivocal

was expecting stronger

[JoePhilly]

27. That bold statement leaves a great deal of room ...

particularly the "unless we are confident that we can do more harm than good" part.

Notice that, at least in this statement, she does not call for a UN mandate or include other clearly defined conditions. Its all very general.

If tonight, President Obama says ... "we have worked with International partners, and partners in the region, and we are confident that we can prevent more deaths by acting now" ...

... parts of DU will go nuts ... even though such a statement would match Warren's.

So far, no one on DU is questioning her lack of clarity on this issue.

But if the President said the same thing, the same lack of clarity would be declared proof of his evil intent. In fact, that's already happened repeatedly.

It will be interesting to see what happens on DU if there are strikes, and Warren doesn't come out in total and complete opposition.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Not much there actually. n/t

[Octafish]

5. War is good for Wall Street.

Always has been.

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

[Wilms]

8. As opposed to the neocons who took a position on it 15 years ago?

Would a progressive president for a term or two really kill the yuppies who've had had thirty years of Republicans and Repub-Lite administrations assuring their ever concentrating wealth at the expense of the 80%?

Ask them at the next Hillary fund-raiser cocktail party and get back to us. K?

[LWolf]

9. Or maybe

they just haven't said anything one way or the other.

Most issues aren't black and white. Some, though, are. Things like child abuse, for example. That's a black and white issue for me. Child abuse is never okay. Anyone who tries to rationalize child abuse is either stupid, in denial, or needs mental help. Or all 3.

I put war in the same category, for the same reasons.

[kelliekat44]

13. Thank you for your post. nt

[BeyondGeography]

14. Just wait until she votes to approve Summers

Could happen.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-22/elizabeth-warren-may-control-larry-summers-s-fate.html

Warren has signed a letter supporting Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Janet Yellen to succeed Ben Bernanke, whose term as chairman expires in January. However, Warren has indicated that she sees Summers as qualified, and people who know them both cautiously predict she would vote for him.

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Following Would Occur...

[dawg]

29. You guys really do not understand us "far lefters" at all.

Even *I* might vote to approve Summers were I in Elizabeth Warren's position. If that's who the President wants to nominate, that is on him. Voting down the President's choice might just result in an even worse choice down the line. Who knows, he might nominate an honest-to-God real Republican next. He's done it for many other positions, why not this one?

But I have no doubt that Elizabeth Warren would never, in a million years, have nominated someone like Summers for this position in the first place. Her judgment on such matters is much better than that of the President.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Thank You For Reading Senator Warren's Mind For Us...

...the convoluted logic and projection never ceases to amuse!

[dawg]

35. I know you're using English words, but I have no clue as to what you think you mean with them.

I responded to your silly post implying that people's heads would explode if Warren voted to approve Summers. I explained to you that even I might vote to approve him once the President had appointed him - in other words, no heads would explode; if the President appoints Summers he is putting folks like Warren between a rock and a hard place and I would not blame her for coming down on either side of the vote.

Then, I stated my confidence that Warren would have shown better judgement and never in a million years would have appointed a douchebag like Larry Summers to the Fed. You say I'm "reading her mind". Actually, I'm just reading her own words that say that Janet Yellen is a better qualified candidate.

Whatever. Be happy in your little dream world.

[KharmaTrain]

36. OK...Fine...

...yep, if Warren voted to confirm Summer as the head of the Fed, you better believe this place would turn into one big circus...like it usually does. It'd be truly amusing to see the contortions, such as yours, that somehow would justify the vote with the silly caveat that she's do as you wished without any proof whatsoever. The fantasy candidate can do no wrong even if the real non-candidate does differently.

I haven't seen any quotes that show Senator Warren calling Summers a douchebag... FTR, I would far prefer Ms. Yellen as the nominee, but I won't claim to read minds or assume how someone would vote. I find this entire post as silly since right now it's all conjecture as Summers hasn't been nominated but that doesn't stop a good poutrage from getting going.

Yep, I am very happy in my world...thank you for caring...

Cheers!!

[dawg]

40. For Pete's sake, I just said I wouldn't blame her for voting yes.

If she does, you won't see my head explode.

You won't see me contorting myself to change my position, because I'm already telling you my position - before the fact - right now!

I'm not reading her mind. She has already publicly stated that she prefers Yellen.

I'm just reading her words.

You are apparently unable to read *my* words. You want to believe that we on the left are a bunch of hypocrites, fawning over heroes like Warren or Sanders, so you actively refuse to even comprehend what our positions are when we explain them to you directly.

Oh, and the douchebag comment was never attributed to Warren. That is all on dawg. I refer to Larry Summers as a douchebag.

Because he's a douchebag.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. Passive Aggressive flame bait

Bravo!

[ChangeUp106]

34. Warren sticks to areas she knows well

Her "specialty" is taking on the banks. I did not expect a statement from her. Ultimately I think that's why she won't run for President.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. As Members of Congres, they should have a vote to approve or halt the making of war.

On the other hand....
White House downplays role for Congress or the UN in Syrian strike.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/white-house-downplays-role-for-congress-or-the-un-in-syrian-strike/

And Warren has spoken about it. Not that the facts would alter your oddly framed flame attempts.

[brooklynite]

42. UPDATE - Warren commented earlier today...

What’s important is that we have a plan and a realistic way to execute on that plan,” Warren told reporters after a gun control rally at Faneuil Hall in Boston today. “We need to remember unintended consequences of any action. Good intentions alone will not help us.”

Unless you think the President isn't planning thoughtfully, I'd say she's in his corner.