Posted 3 years ago on April 25, 2012, 9:12 p.m. EST by PeterKropotkin
from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Elizabeth Warren, Hawk versus Scott Brown, Hawk by John V. Walsh / April 3rd, 2012
The battle for Senate has been joined in Massachusetts between Scott Brown, a hawk, and Elizabeth Warren – another hawk. Warren began as the darling of the progressives here, but as her stance on Iran, the ongoing wars and the plight of the Palestinians becomes known, the bloom is off the rose.
On the first day of her campaign, Warren was criticized far and wide, even among those who sympathized with her, for failing to answer questions from the press with anything but the most equivocal bromides. There was one exception, however. She was asked, in what sounded like a planted question, how she felt about the Palestinian effort to put a petition for statehood before the UN General Assembly. Warren’s answer was crisp and certain. She opposed it.
Warren is no anti-interventionist. Here are some examples from the deep recesses of her web site where an issues section can be found:
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. (JW’s emphasis.)
What will be the human costs of these sanctions? Warren does not ask; but she could check with Madeleine Albright to see if they are “worth it.”
Our brave service members have done all that we could have asked them for and more in Afghanistan, but it is time for them to come home. We need to get out as quickly as possible, consistent with the safety of our troops and with a transition to Afghan control. I believe that this can be done faster than the current timeline. (JW’s emphasis).
What our government has asked our brave service members to do is to terrorize the population with night raids and bombing runs and to prop up a corrupt and unpopular puppet government. Warren would have us leave Afghanistan, but not until we are assured that the puppet government is secured.
These threats are not going away. We must remain vigilant. Al Qaeda has operations or affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere around the world. We need to continue our aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda, and we need to continue to support the efforts of our intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and military professionals.
In other words, the drone attacks and clandestine wars will continue if Warren has anything to say about it. The endless, phony “war on terrorism” must go on and on and on, in Warren’s view.
As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success. I believe Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge and defensible borders. The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. (JW’s Emphasis.)
Translation: If Warren gets her way, the flow of billions from the strapped American taxpayer into Israel’s bellicose pocket will go on, allowing Israel to continue its slaughter of Gazans and others, all “terrorists” to be sure. Although Warren goes on to pay lip service to a “two-state solution” in Palestine, she fails to mention on her site that she is dead set against those uppity Palestinians going to the UN to get their mini-state.
Warren’s campaign is increasingly sappy – clear evidence that she does not want a campaign of issues perhaps most especially her interventionist proclivities which are detestable to a big chunk of voters whom she needs. In one appeal for donations, Warren pointed out her links to Girl Scouts and their cookie sales! Given her desire to tighten sanctions, which make life increasingly difficult for the children of Iran, she might adopt as a slogan “Let them eat Girl Scout cookies.”
Warren’s opponent, Scott Brown, is no better. He too has been a poodle for the military industrial complex and for AIPAC in his brief and undistinguished sojourn in the Senate. Brown took office in a special election after the death of Teddy Kennedy at a time when disillusion with Obama was growing ever stronger, and many votes poured in for him as a form of anti-Obama protest. He continued on his merry way with his betrayal of those who supported and donated to him, a lot of them right here in Massachusetts. Warren has his heartfelt support.
These candidates are of not of much importance in and of themselves. But they both illustrate a grand bargain between the two War Parties and the voters who line up behind them. Scott Brown promises to lower taxes, a promise always broken, if the voters will allow him to back the wars of Empire. What kind of morality lies in that bargain, his supporters might well ask themselves.
Elizabeth Warren is the same. I will give you a consumer protection agency she says, which may – or may not – save you a few pennies. In turn by your vote you will allow me to support sanctions on nations that defy the U.S and to support the bombing and wanton slaughter of innocents far and wide in the developing world. That is the bargain she offers those who would vote for her. What kind of morality lies in that bargain, her supporters might well ask themselves.