Elizabeth Warren: Bomb, Bomb Iran!

Another one bites the dust, and so fast, too! Progressives bitter about Obama have already lost their latest celebrity, Elizabeth Warren, to the fever swamp of war hysteria, and she ain’t even elected yet.

The Boston Herald reports the US Senate candidate, running against centerfold Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts, is a hawk on Iran — including the “no options off the table” bit. In fact, she doesn’t just have a particular hate-on for Iran, she’s a big terror war supporter in general: “Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that’s our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important.” And it gets worse — she loves our bloated military so much she made her own child join it. That’s a woman who cares.

Warren is also not sure if it’s a good idea to strip “homegrown terrorists” of their citizenship — she hasn’t read her opponent’s bill proposing such, so really, how could she have an informed opinion? Seems only rational.

I guess according to Little Miss Social Contract, you know that that factory you built backed up by public resources? You should probably use it to make weapons to help the empire murder foreigners. Progress!

h/t Charles Davis @charlesdavis84

lizwarren
  • CD

    Jeremy;
    How old are you? What’s with the kindergarten scrawl?

    Way to win friend’s & influence people.

    Is this really how Antiwar.com wants to present itself? If so we Are in trouble.

    CD
    NYC

  • Peaceful_Idiot

    Typical humanitarian interventionist progressive warmonger.

    • Orville H. Larson

      Damn straight. Elizabeth ("Ol' Blood an' Guts") Warren is an unprincipled, morally obtuse scumbag.

      She encouraged her son to rally to Barack and Country, huh? If and when he comes home via Dover AFB, I hope Warren rethinks her warmongering philosophy.

    • worldsbiggestlie

      Just another fascist Zionist shill.

  • rick

    Not really that surprising, considering that "progressivism" is the belief in using state-violence to achieve desired ends.

    • Brad_Smith2

      You beat me to it that was exactly what I was going to say. There really isn't all that much difference between statists on the left vs statists on the right. They all believe that government is the answer.

    • more accurately, progressivism is social policies without socialist politics. kind of like American Fabianism. I'm a socialist, and certainly not a "progressive" in the Rockefeller/Clinton mode. That is horrorshow, and allows the finance sector and capitalists in general to continue owning and controlling everything and everyone with no democratic oversight. Socialism or barbarism.

      (sorry goldbugs and property fetishists… you'll never convince people in poverty that they have no rights… it's creepy and sociopathic).

  • Goldhorder

    Warren apparantly wants to make friends by blowing people Persians to bits for the empire. This an antiwar site. You are either for peace or you are not.

  • VizMike

    The ouch I feel from this comes from my hopeful aspect, the sigh from my rational memory aspect. Many liberal do-gooders seem besotted with a need to "do good" by murdering brown-skinned people in far and not so far away places. Good bye to Obama and his trigger happy Democrats like Warren. (The despicable Republicans are of course beyond consideration.) I am finished with the lot of them.

    • Mike

      I liked her (from mass)…. Now I'm not sure. I'm gonna hope that she is laying an abstract hawk position just to help her bid againt Scott Brown. Then in reality, she is more moderate and coolheaded than she let on. But I may just be ratonalizing the fact that I will be voting for her, as the lesser of two evils now.

      • sandy

        why don't you ask how she became a billionaire before you vote?

        the new guard, same as the old guard.

      • People tend to rationalize when they know they're doing something wrong.

      • toldyouso

        How did your rationalized vote for Obama turn out?

        • joe

          well, we haven't bombed bombed bombed iran, like as the headline of this article reminds us was the position if the more conservative of the two options we were given last election

          Obviosuly I would have preffered Nader but that didn't seem very likely. My state, Missouri ended up picking McCain/Palin anyway

    • Walter Cole

      It sounds like somebody read her the riot act, telling her how she has to behave if she wants to belong to the club.

      To not be tough on Iran is to be against Israel – through her words we can plainly see what it takes to get elected in the USI.

      • richard vajs

        In the words of Sister Sarah, "You betcha!"

  • @Mike: Yes … you are.

  • "She made her child join it." I doubt that is the case. I don't think that is relevant to this issue.

    • Jeremy Sapienza

      She encouraged him to join, and it is obviously perfectly relevant, as she thinks the US military is a legitimate profession.

  • John Denton

    Mods, I have a few things to say if you would give me a chance. I criticized your boss a few years ago and I guess he holds a grudge, because I'm still banned. But let's get over that, shall we? We have bigger fish to fry.

  • Duglarri

    Is there something in the water these people drink? Is there a section in the high school textbooks in these high schools they go to that says, "okay, at this point just take leave of your senses"? That we foreigners never get to see?

    How are so many of the elite in the US so abundantly detached from reality to this degree- that they can look at a distant, dusty, struggling, poor, basically unarmed country like Iran and… basically… pay any attention to it whatsoever?

    If it weren't for the threats of nuclear annihilation lavished on it by Americans, Iran would matter as much as Latvia. Or Mongolia. Or Finland (less, since they make all our cell phones).

    Every time I think there might be a glimmer at the end of the tunnel, Antiwar manages to snuff the light out! Thanks a lot, guys…

    • Frank

      I suggest you google "Inside the Mind of a Sociopath".

      • Murkin

        Duglarri, we are addicted to oil, and in denial.

  • RickR30

    I have no idea who this lady is but this "Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that’s our job" says it all. Not sure who she means by "our" and "us" unless she is homeland security, which she isn't. But then every government zombie thinks he's homeland security. Or is she talking as a Senator, in which case she should have said that "…it's our only job" because surely Congressmorons don't think they have any other responsibility aside from approving whatever the Death, Deficit, and Destruction Mafia decides for us. That and loving israel night and day.

    • toldyouso

      Progressive bloggers disillusioned with Obama have transferred their "audacious hopes" to her because they are insane (as defined by Einstein), still clinging to the notion that they can achieve their goals by giving vast powers to a benevolent government official.

  • Pingback: Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | October 23, 2011 « Antiwar.com Blog()

  • Pingback: idiosyncratic.net » “Elizabeth Warren: Bomb, Bomb Iran!” from Antiwar.com()

  • Well it takes time for the entire network of Progs to come up to speed on someone they thought was 'on their side'.
    i'm not sure it's safe to say Progressives are radical war mongers like the T-klaners/Neo-cons and Repugs on the Right. I will agree the Military whatever wherever is paid out of the Socialist Coffers. Leadership is primary here but all we've been getting are Capitalist Pig Tools and Neo-fascists.
    Warren is a bust. We need to continue searching for the right candidate.
    i've been wondering if Brooksly Born wouldn't be a good choice/ draft for our side?

  • galloway

    Rocky Anderson for Prez 2012 – Justice Party!

  • harryfelker

    Statists gonna state…

  • SHANE

    Gee, are nearly all the commenters libertarian? Sure, just get rid of government completely, that way, there will be no rules, and all wars can be fought by private armies (mercenaries), for entirely (& nakedly) private goals. It will be dog-eat-dog; winner takes all! (No more govt. referees! And if private ones are established, they'll be out of reach of most people, they will only serve who pays them; kind of like how corporations now are so great at policing themselves on things like pollution and such through voluntary compliance—[SARCASM}).

    • Kevin Keel

      Isn't that what we have now? Aren't the wars being fought by nothing more than mercenaries branded heroes? Whose goals are they serving? They certainly aren't public!

      Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", rather, "no rulers"!

  • hopefully push-over lackee Bill Maher will have her on again to spread her propaganda

  • SHANE

    Well she definitely sounds like she is part of the establishment now (she probably has been all along). But could she be any worse than Obama (in this respect)? And speaking of Obama, is there anyone else running for President (besides Paul) who WOULD actually totally slash the defense budget and bring all troops home immediately; is there anyone (besides Paul & Warren) who actually would even come close to doing more in this direction than Obama? Sure, to me Obama is center-right, but that's still light-years to the left of ANY of the current Republican candidates. Warren is either a domestic progressive/foreign policy hawk, or else just a luke-warm "window dressing" progressive, but at least she's talking in the right direction (except for Iran, of course). My understanding of Ron Paul is that he would takes us back to the Articles of Confederation, where States' Rights are supreme, allowing each of the 50 to become it's own dictatorship (complete with religious-based executions and slavery, if those States decide on it). Maybe Paul should win, and then after a taste of dog-eat-dog, Americans will come back to their senses and restore a sensible balance of powers (i.e. private vs. public; states vs. feds).

    • Al_Dove

      Obama's a murdering war-monger. I don't want ANY of that ilk on my conscious.

      • rolamante

        I don't think your 'conscious' or your conscience has anything to worry about, except your rhetoric. Warmongers promote wars, they don't try to wind them down. He's more of a sanction-monger, and at times an assassination-monger. But outside of the king of Bhutan, I'd like you to show me a national leader who isn't. The ugly realities of politics aside, I hope you've found a more productive route to participation in the world around you.

  • Totally irresponsible reporting. You're bashing her for not making a comment on a doc she hasn't yet read? Seriously lame. We have enough crap being published. Try not to add to it.

  • Tangerine

    The lack of critical thinking in this article and in these comments is scary. Do people question NOTHING anymore? If it's printed it's right? Wow.

  • Brennan

    wow.. that one really hurts… I really liked her.. Oh well.. Square One!!

  • abryant14

    This article is completely misleading and a sham of journalism. Parts of quotes left out, words changed, what a travesty of journalism to call this slop the truth.

  • Telling it right

    This woman is absolutely nut and is like Romney who gets his fact wrong. Let me tell you about Iran.
    in 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was Prime Minister of Iran which at that time it was a democratic country. He wanted to regulate oil in his country. The US and GB did not like this so they got him thrown out and put in the Shaw who ousted the the Kohomine to France. The Shaw gave the US its oil and spent money like no tomorrow. He lived like a Lord and the peope starved When Kohomeni returned he depised the US .No wonder Iran is at odds with the US due to all the interferring in its goverment affairs. The US has a habit of interferring in all countires affairs and doing coup d'etat like Africia ,Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan. Ever wonder what the world would be like if the US did not interfer, it woulfd be nice. US is a poor country who has huge internal problems with Africians Americans and minoriities.The US needs to take care of its own problems

  • This is my first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the leisure here! Keep up the good work.

  • It is such a shame that The american Elite do and say as they do, and give the rest of us such a bad reputation. The majority of the American Population is starting to wake up and realize that our "elected" officials no longer speak for us as a whole, and only represent their own ends and agendas. I beseech th other inhabitants of the globe to understand that our government no longer speaks for us, and is become a tyranny.

  • Brett

    Here I am reporting from "anti-war.com" the freerepublic.com bizarro world.
    This article is absolute absolute crap. What the hell kind of "evidence" is this? A few words taken out of context in order to support the article writers agenda? Such rational and reasoned statements like "she loves our bloated military so much she made her own child join it". And reason has left the antiwar.com building. Good luck on your unreasoned hate mongering and pure character smearing yellow journalism. Objective reality doesn't have to be so uncomfortable that you have to invent your own reality to deal with it.

  • medonasser
  • medonasser
  • medonasser
  • medonasser
  • medonasser

    <h1>???????</h1>

    <h1>??????? ?????</h1>

    <h1>??????? ?????</h1>

  • H. M.

    All we need is two “warhawks”, women at that, in the oval office. Who said women are pushovers?

    The true colors of warren are bleeding (pun intended) through.