As Election Day Approached, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Removed Antiwar Foreign Policy Section From Her Website (Updated)

Updated below

I was happy to see an antiwar Democrat beat the establishment Joe Crowley in New York. I had read the following on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website 6 weeks ago:

Foreign Policy:
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and occupation throughout the world.
(You can still read this on the May 16 archived version of her site at

However, a month later, the foreign policy section has been deleted (see here), and is still gone today.

I assume that someone in the campaign thought that she needed to avoid such a “controversial” stance against war and standing up for the constitutional position that “the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President.”

What a shame. I hope that she doesn’t shy away from the strong antiwar positions she first campaigned on when she takes office.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted this last night:

31 thoughts on “As Election Day Approached, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Removed Antiwar Foreign Policy Section From Her Website (Updated)

  1. Any day that one of the slime that voted for the patriot act and the Iraq war get shown the door is a good day. So cheer and be happy, one less war monger in Washington.

    And Let’s hope Ocasio-Cortez becomes a strong pro-peace voice in congress; that would certainly make her a change for the better.

  2. Ocasio-Cortez can either use her victory to support the policies she claims to represent or use it to advance her career at the expense of those policies.

    Meanwhile there is nothing on her site (which keeps shape shifting) on some very important issues that bear on major war, even nuclear war. Issue number one: Does she call for an end to the Witch Hunt that is Russiagate and support a summit and discussions between Putin and Trump?

    Does she support Trump’s diplomatic Singapore Summit as do both North and South Korea do, a large majority of the American people (70% at least according to Gallup and Monmouth) and also Russia and China. In fact the whole world supports it save for the present leadership of her Party and some of the GOP Elite. Does she think that the old guard, Schumer, Pelosi et al, are wrong on their opposition to this Singapore Meeting?

    And how will she vote for the Pentagon budget? Will she vote for this bloated monster as other phony progressives do routinely, Jim McGovern for example?

    These are all things which she has yet to make clear? Identity Politics is not enough. We need policies and concrete actions to oppose war and Empire.

    1. At least Crowley is gone, nobody who voted for the patriot act and the Iraq war belongs in office, period.

      Sadly I doubt she has put that much thought into foreign policy at this point. I could be wrong but a lot of these young progressives are really more focused on social issues at home. But maybe she has some of that good progressive anti-war backbone, time will tell. Let’s hope she does become a strong anti-war/pro-peace candidate.

      Maybe she could use some help?

      I’d lock her in a room with Tulsi Gabbard for week of intensive foreign policy re-education training. Joking aside, She’d make a great mentor for her, wouldn’t she?

      1. You are a bit condescending about a very bright woman. Maybe Kamala Harris needs a mentor.

        1. I would give the exact same advice to most senior congressmen as well as Trump or Harris for that matter. There is nothing condescending about suggesting that someone could use some expert advice from someone who clearly has far more experience. I’m sure she is a bright young person, but as far as her foreign policy knowledge goes, it’s pretty thin. I just finished listening to her and clearly her focus is on social issues not foreign policy. She is a lightweight on the the subject of foreign policy and she could use some very good advice. Her instincts seem good but her knowledge base is incredibly shallow, it’s just a fact. And that’s fine, nobody at 28 is an expert on much of anything, let alone expert on a wide range of topics, there is nothing wrong with her having spent most of her time learning about social issues as opposed to foreign policy. We can all only do so much.

          I hope she is adult enough to accept help from people who can guide her and help her become a better congressman and I believe that Tulsi would be perfect for that. Why? Because Tulsi has the life experience as well as having spent the time to become truly expert on the subject. Go and listen to the two of them speak about foreign policy and tell me which of the two clearly knows all the various pieces of our policy. It’s simply not even close, Tulsi is an expert Alexandria isn’t. It’s not condescending to point this out. In fact no adult would find it condescending, children might though. Adults admit it when they need help, children? Not so much. If Alexandria is really the right person for the job she will not only look for advice from experts but take it as well.

          I actually think she might be willing to go into this with the knowledge of how little she knows and how much she has yet to learn. That’s IF she is a mature 28 year old anyway. If she’s just a half baked kid then she would not only reject the help but probably think it’s condescending to even suggest she needs it, because that’s what children do. They think they know it all and think it’s condescending to suggest they don’t. Adults? Well, if they are really grown up they know how little they know and not only welcome advice from experts but seek it out.

          1. Hopefully she is trying to learn? She apparantly has done some reading at

    2. Kamala Harris also votes for the funding of US bases and occupation globally, as does Phony Warren.

    3. The GOP started this with their endless investigations into everything Bill Clinton did during his term, because it riled up their voter base and they could feign moral indignation. Part Deux was when they smeared Obama as a Kenyan Muslim, declaring him unfit and unable to hold office until he released his freaking birth certificate (and then demanding to see the “long form.” How many times did you hear that phrase? About as many times as you heard “hanging chads” back in 2000?)

      Ironic indeed that Clinton was investigated for years to the tune of $7 million in taxpayer money, for a shady real estate deal worth less than a million bucks, and now we have Mr Shady Real Estate Deal who’s set a precedent by refusing to release his tax returns, as the President. (not to mention the then-currently cheating-on-his-2nd-wife with his future-3rd-wife Newt Gingrich leading the foray into **impeaching** Clinton for lying about getting a blowjob! Jesus Christ!)

      Do you have a litmus test for GOP candidates as far as their anti-war platforms and allegience to fighting the old guard of Lindsay Graham, McCain, et al? How many GOP candidates express their desire to fight the Pentagon? I don’t think this candidate has anything to prove to you at all.

  3. I have no doubt the money did the talking here. Who funds her campaign? Follow the money.

    1. Nobody. She won without the money. The other candidate had all the defense contractor money. It is amazing she won.

      1. Ahh, but the game’s just begun. She’s going to need friends at the DNC, and they already want her gone.

  4. Massive defense outlays will become as much a progressive taboo as oppostion to reproductive rights. Commitments to economic equity cannot be met while the defense welfare state gobbles up most discretionary federal spending.

  5. So . . . okay the anti-war bit was removed and she says it was a gaffe of some kind . . . but so far it looks like the gaffe was that the anti-war stuff was up in the first place instead of that it was taken down!

  6. Mondoweiss reports Ms. Ocasio-Cortez also has expressed support for Palestinians, and compared the protesters at the Gaza fence to civil rights activists in the US. It begs the question of her position today on Palestine, as Haim Saban (who owns the DNC) has chastised 13 US senators who called for lifting the siege of Gaza, humiliating them as “childish and uninformed”. As you show, Ocasio-Cortez now has no foreign policy platform. Perhaps this technical glitch at supporter-run website has more to do with Israel?

    1. Isn’t it common for there to be supporter-run websites for candidates? Thought that happened all the time.

  7. Looks like the section was restored to the site under the “Peace Economy” heading. I guess we’ll never know if the removal was the result of some kind of technical issue or whatever, but I’m glad they put it back up.

    1. If its back up… Good News!!!!! &&&& A Hopeful Sign. Lets wish her the best & offer her our support & ADVICE…

  8. I’m sure at sometime and likely it happened a month ago, she is going to have one of those infamous conversations with a representative of AIPAC who will tell her how government really works

  9. You guys are getting your panties in a twist because some words vanished from her website? And from that, extrapolating that AIPAC or the DNC has gotten to her? That she must support ending the investigations into Trump? Huh?





    But it’s this newbie congresscritter wanna-be who’s the REAL culprit, with verbiage disappearing from her website. Right.

    1. Mork, my own observations of most of the commenters on this site would indicate that they are as anti-Republican warmonger as they are anti-Democrat warmonger., i.e. they are consistent. You, however, seem to get upset when someone has questions about a liberal Democrat. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans, and the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. In other words, both establishment Parties are horrible. I never pull my punches when either side is inconsistent, and you shouldn’t either. When a liberal Democrat steps out of line, you should be the first to call them on it.

  10. FWIW, the section of her issues webpage, ‘A Peace Economy’, is back.

    Best analysis of how she won a very low turnout election against a candidate that showed very little interest in running. FWIW, her Republican opponent is showing even less interest in running, but could win, if turnout is low enough, given his Greek last name and voter disinterest.

    On Magical Thinking VS Sober Analysis of the Ocasio-Cortez Victory in NY

  11. I am delighted that the Bronx and part of Queens rose up against the Pelosi establishment. I agree with Ocasio-Cortez that the U.S. should have universal health care and education, however, she, and most of the Democratic Socialist of America denomination, fail to understand that you can not achieve these or much of her platform without ending the Clinton/Bush/Obama wars. America is now at war in over 75 countries around the globe, especially across Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Most Americans have no clue as the media only covers these conflicts when Americans are killed and their deaths are leaked to the press.

    As for her call for abolishing INS, this is just insane pandering to her base.

    What she did in censoring herself on the issue of war proves she will not be an honest servant of the people, an honest politician, if there is such a thing nowadays. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Trump may end many of the conflicts, and that is the real reason today’s neo-liberal, and evidently Democratic Socialist, left are hysterical and freaking out. Who today in the Democratic Party or anywhere among the Left community are Anti-War?

    Quite the opposite is true. Today’s Left is pro-war.

    1. Thank you, very true post. Too bad nobody wants to hear. Supporting your position: Why are the Democrats ignoring the potential leadership of Tulsi Gabbard? Gabbard is really the whole package, she’d have a shot with the people IMO. But hey she’s down to earth and honest, a vet, and understands the realities of war. Everybody ignores the power of those voters who share some of that experience and we all know why.

      1. As the Vietnam War was winding down, wealthy globalist foundations, centered around the anti-American Ford Foundation began buying Left-wing causes and activists. Edsel Ford was a Nazi, his foundation switched in the late 1960s from promoting eugenics to developing today’s “identity politics” to divide the Middle Class and the working poor along racial, gender and sexual orientation lines.
        Actually buying activists to support neo-liberal economics, identity politics and globalist institutions.
        Many of these activists who “sold out” now run the institutions of the Democratic Party. I know this to be true from personal experience. As a Vietnam veteran, an anti-war and then an anti-CIA activist in the early 1970s, I was offered tens of thousands of dollars to ignore certain crimes by the intelligence community and the war machine. I and my colleagues could not do that. We, along with many, many true civil rights and anti-war activists, were ignored and suppressed by the Foundations and their phony Left puppets — just as such as Gabbard are facing being ignored and suppressed today. Patriotic anti-war and civil rights activists were suppressed by the phony Left even more than by the Right or the security state. The modern Democratic Party is controlled by these Foundations, their puppet politicians, and the, often foreign, oligarchs who control these Foundations and politicians. Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Marcy Kaptur (OH) and a handful of State and local Democrats are the only ones left in that Party who are New Deal Democrats, who are loyal to the Constitution and the American people. The rest are compromised and dependent upon their extremely wealthy globalist donors.
        Today, you can even hear Democratic Party academics suggesting the Constitution be scrapped as it is “out of date”. “Out of date” with the globalist agenda but not with the ideas on which our great country was founded. Just as the Republican Party has not been the Party of Lincoln for a long, long time, the Democrat Party is not the Party of FDR. Lincoln and FDR are rolling over in their graves. Just as most of the Republicans are subservient to the 1%, the same can be said of today’s phony liberal Democrats – even more so as neo-liberal economics (cowboy capitalism in liberal drag) are now preferred by the ruling class as the modern form of imperialism.
        Both corrupt political parties are doing everything they can to destroy the American nation state. (As well as other nations – the real reason for today’s global wars.) As our Founders elucidated in the Federalist Papers and the writings of such as Hamilton and Paine, Nation States are the only power that can protect citizens & resist the power of globalist capital in favor of globalist empire.) It is called the “Rule of Law” which is no longer supported by Republicans or Democrats. The Presidencies of Clinton, Bush and Obama broke the law invoking and escalating war world wide. Today’s Big D Democrats and non-Trump Republicans are two sides of the same corrupt, warmongering oligarchic coin. TweedleDee and TweedleDum dancing for the 1%.
        Trump is the thorn in their side, the thorn who is disrupting the globalist free trade agenda. That is why the elites hate him. Regardless of the racism his candidacy unleashed (which can certainly be criticized), Trump has protectionist, small d, tendencies. In some ways Trump is more of a “Leftist”, more “progressive” than the race-mongering Democrats attacking him. Today’s Democrats have moved beyond normal political criticism to participating in an hysterical coup against an elected Presdident.
        Gabbard — as a true, old fashioned small d democrat, a protectionist, and one who knows the horror of illegal and immoral wars — is also a sharp thorn in the side of the ruling elites. And she does not carry Trump’s baggage. Her Party leaders will ignore her but when she does connect to the American people, they will suppress her. Gabbard is a patriot. The Democratic Party today is far from patriotic.

        I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard to be President of the United States in a New York minute.

  12. This is all a misunderstanding, and a non-issue. Here is a quote from the current version of her Website:

    “A Peace Economy

    Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis.

    This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win.

    According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we’ve even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations.

    America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the “forever war” by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world.

    By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we’re opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they’re truly needed.

  13. You note that it is below, but since most people don’t read entire pages (unfortunately), your update regarding her response to this should be at the top of the page, not the bottom.

  14. Update it once more, please:
    The foreign policy thing is back on the English pages only.
    Not a single word on the Spanish pages anywhere!

    This stinks to heaven.

Comments are closed.