Elizabeth Warren’s Achilles’s Heel

I’ve discussed Ron Paul’s platform before. In his case, the situation is reversed: foreign policy is the only plank in his platform that sticks out from an otherwise run-of-the-mill Libertarian platform. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, seems to be so level-headed about so many things. She’s so down-to-earth and seems to understand the causes—rather than symptoms—of America’s problems.

And then you read the National Security / Foreign Policy Issues by Elizabeth Warren page on her web site and you’re brought back down to earth quite quickly. The page could have been written by Hillary Clinton or Paul Wolfowitz or other flunkie of the Bush or Obama administrations. The Afghanistan section is fine; that it’s

“[…] time for [the troops] to come home and that […t]he United States can never again put wars on a credit card for our grandchildren to pay for. If a war is in our national interest, then we should be willing to pay for it. Either all of us go to war or none of us go to war.”

All wonderfully progressive for a whole paragraph. However, in the next one, she expresses support for not only the extrajudicial “[k]illing [of] Osama Bin Laden” but also that of other “lesser known (sic) terrorists as well”.

Next up is Israel:

“For generations, the United States and Israel have shared a commitment to a stable, secure, and peaceful Middle East. But our alliance runs far deeper: it is a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values. Both our countries have been sustained by our commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond. […] 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. […] I would support vetoing a [Palestinian United Nations] membership application.”

Senator Lieberman couldn’t have put it better or more obsequiously. This, for the record, is the official stance of a left-wing, nut-job, socialist, feminist Harvard professor running for Congress. The long citation above is the leftmost possible position for a representative in the U.S. to have these days. The text above could easily have come from Obama’s issues page on foreign policy as well.

Oh, and just in case you think you’d get at least a vote against war with Iran from her—especially given the “no wars we can’t afford” stance with which she started the page—don’t get too excited. Unsurprisingly, she’s also drunk the Kool-aid on Iran:

“Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. I support strong sanctions against Iran […] Iran must not have an escape hatch.”

She makes Maggie Thatcher sound accommodating.

Maybe she’s not such a zealot, but the other explanations are that she’s either never read her own site or that she doesn’t care about foreign policy issues or that she’s focused so laser-hard on one issue that she lets advisers do what they want in her name. We’ve got enough people like that, who let the unelected run amok while they smile and wave and raise campaign cash with soothing pablum.