Foreign policy differences among 2020 Dems

[MechaBambi]

Sanders and Warren appear to be the only 2020 Dems raising objections to Israel’s handling of the Gaza protests:

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/12/israel-palestine-conflict-elizabeth-warren/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ, why is Bernie ALWAYS SO CLUELESS?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not nonviolent. They're attacking soldiers and trying to breach the border ffs. He's honestly so clueless in foreign policy, it's like this "Israel killed 10,000 people" moment he had in the 2016 campaign. There's a very good chance I'm going to refain from supporting him even against Trump if he keeps this up.
Also, Warren isn't very knowledgeable either, it'd be nice if she mentioned that the "planned protests" are planned by Hamas, a terrorist organization. I don't believe there's a right to send your brainwashed citizens to die trying to breach a border, but hey, progressives in America know nothing about the Middle East anyway, so they'll swallow whatever you tell them.

Zero Israeli soldiers have been killed during the Great Return March. As of today, 34 Palestinians have been killed and at least 3,000 wounded. Those facts are disputed by neither side; the only dispute is who's to blame and whether such force is justified. I'm more inclined to blame the side that announced they'd be sending 100 snipers to the border before the protests even began.

The march is supported by Hamas, because why wouldn't it be, but to suggest that every protester who has been tear gassed and fired upon is a member of a terrorist organization is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as Avigdor Lieberman's assertion that there are "no innocent people in Gaza," borderline-genocidal rhetoric that you would no doubt condemn if it were Trump talking about undocumented immigrants.

At the very least you'd think anyone who claims to abhor Trump's attacks on the free press would condemn the killing of 6 journalists including Yasser Murtaja, as well as the smear campaign the Israeli government is currently waging against him (no, he was not flying his drone when he got shot, and he received grant money from USAID which screens for terrorist connections). But somehow this is too much to ask for the vast majority of Democratic officeholders.

The position staked out by Sanders and Warren on Gaza has nothing to do with their level of "knowledge," it has to do with them having a moral conscience and a functioning set of eyes. (Also the fact that they're such small-dollar powerhouses they can afford to piss off AIPAC, but that's another discussion entirely). I hope they continue to speak out about it so that your choice of which party you belong in becomes ever clearer.

[Mr. Morden]

Now awaiting responses on Syria from all the 2020 candidates.  Here’s Seth Moulton:

https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/984964888110956545

https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/984965307763654657

https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/984967186295992322

https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/984968236604313601

Note that Moulton follows the same pattern as most of the 2020ers from last year’s Syria strikes: Attack Trump mostly on process grounds: No congressional authorization and no grand strategy.  But that critique stops short of saying that a retaliatory strike against Assad over chemical weapons use is wrong in principle.  It’s more attacking the way that Trump is executing it.  His last tweet even says "Anyone who uses chemical weapons should be stopped", so it sounds like he's cool in principle with an attack on Assad for this, but doesn't like Trump's approach.

[Mr. Morden]

Swalwell takes a break from his Iowa visits to tweet:

https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/984970251300491265

Also, Amash isn't a Dem., but a long shot possibility to run for the GOP nomination, so I'll mention his response as well:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/984967029663895553

[Mr. Morden]

Cory Booker....

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/984977840679669760

[YE]

What a spineless coward.

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders and Warren....

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/984986948254289920

https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/984979698240323584

As with the others, they don't appear to actually be saying that an attack in retaliation for using chemical weapons is wrong in principle, as much as they're saying that it should have been approved by Congress, and there should be a "plan".

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand hasn't put out a statement yet, but apparently she commented about the possibility of a Syria attack earlier today:

http://www.newsweek.com/syria-mueller-rosenstein-gillibrand-murkowski-885928

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sanders and Warren appear to be the only 2020 Dems raising objections to Israel’s handling of the Gaza protests:

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/12/israel-palestine-conflict-elizabeth-warren/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ, why is Bernie ALWAYS SO CLUELESS?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not nonviolent. They're attacking soldiers and trying to breach the border ffs. He's honestly so clueless in foreign policy, it's like this "Israel killed 10,000 people" moment he had in the 2016 campaign. There's a very good chance I'm going to refain from supporting him even against Trump if he keeps this up.
Also, Warren isn't very knowledgeable either, it'd be nice if she mentioned that the "planned protests" are planned by Hamas, a terrorist organization. I don't believe there's a right to send your brainwashed citizens to die trying to breach a border, but hey, progressives in America know nothing about the Middle East anyway, so they'll swallow whatever you tell them.

Zero Israeli soldiers have been killed during the Great Return March. As of today, 34 Palestinians have been killed and at least 3,000 wounded. Those facts are disputed by neither side; the only dispute is who's to blame and whether such force is justified. I'm more inclined to blame the side that announced they'd be sending 100 snipers to the border before the protests even began.

The march is supported by Hamas, because why wouldn't it be, but to suggest that every protester who has been tear gassed and fired upon is a member of a terrorist organization is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as Avigdor Lieberman's assertion that there are "no innocent people in Gaza," borderline-genocidal rhetoric that you would no doubt condemn if it were Trump talking about undocumented immigrants.

At the very least you'd think anyone who claims to abhor Trump's attacks on the free press would condemn the killing of 6 journalists including Yasser Murtaja, as well as the smear campaign the Israeli government is currently waging against him (no, he was not flying his drone when he got shot, and he received grant money from USAID which screens for terrorist connections). But somehow this is too much to ask for the vast majority of Democratic officeholders.

The position staked out by Sanders and Warren on Gaza has nothing to do with their level of "knowledge," it has to do with them having a moral conscience and a functioning set of eyes. (Also the fact that they're such small-dollar powerhouses they can afford to piss off AIPAC, but that's another discussion entirely). I hope they continue to speak out about it so that your choice of which party you belong in becomes ever clearer.

Lol. So you think Israel is targeting innocents? Ok. Honestly, the only part of your post that made sense is "The march is supported by Hamas, because why wouldn't it be."
Yep, why wouldn't it be? It fits right in with Hamas' terroristic strategy- causing the deaths of their own people to delegitimize Israel's defense of its citizens. It's a violent attack on a sovereign country's border, so of course it's going to be answered by this country's army, but all leftists today care about on foreign policy is virtue-signaling. Even if it means legitimizing the organization that built tunnels into a town's mess hall to murder the innocents, mostly old people, dining there. So keep attacking the country that actually cares about trying not to harm citizens (unlike Europe and your own country, by the way).

[Mr. Morden]

Klobuchar supports the attack (as she did the one last year), which continues her streak as the most hawkish of the likely 2020 Dem. presidential candidates:

https://www.facebook.com/amyklobuchar/posts/10155100724686191

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/984992258603847681

[JG]

Gillibrand hasn't put out a statement yet, but apparently she commented about the possibility of a Syria attack earlier today:

http://www.newsweek.com/syria-mueller-rosenstein-gillibrand-murkowski-885928

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She just did on twitter and her statement is basically the same as Booker's and Harris's. She points out the lack of a clear strategy and how the executive branch should seek an authorization by Congress, but she isn't clear about how she actually feels about the strikes.

[Mr. Morden]

She just did on twitter and her statement is basically the same as Booker's and Harris's.

I don't think Harris has actually said anything about it yet, has she?

Anyway:

https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/985169763851792386

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/984992523872555008

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/984992527261622272

[JG]

She just did on twitter and her statement is basically the same as Booker's and Harris's.

I don't think Harris has actually said anything about it yet, has she?

Oh right. For some reasons, I was convinced she issued a statement already.

[Mr. Morden]

Tim Ryan joins Klobuchar in being one of the few Dems in support of the attack (though like her, he also includes some Trump criticism in his statement):

https://timryan.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-tim-ryan-statement-us-airstrikes-syria

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tom Steyer is not a fan:

https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/984973991411499008

https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/985010014875107329

[henster]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/984992258603847681

As always Gabbard is the few ones making sense out there.

[Beet]

I agree with Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Merkley and Gabbard.

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/985219590987927552

[Mr. Morden]

The 2020ers on the Gaza situation....only Sanders, Warren, and Cuomo have said anything so far, according to this:

https://splinternews.com/we-asked-all-of-the-2020-democratic-frontrunners-about-1826051757

Sanders, Warren, Merkley, Brown, and others have signed a letter asking the Trump administration for humanitarian assistance for Gaza:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/gaza-letter?inline=file

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I appreciate that Murphy is one of few who seems to be taking definitive stances on current foreign policy issues. I think I tend to agree with him on those stances as well, although my foreign policy convictions are nowhere near as strong as my domestic policy convictions.

I would in general like to a see a less aggressively pro-Israel president elected in 2020. I don't have a strong favorite between Palestine and Israel, but even with my limited understanding of the situation, I think most can agree that both governments have made questionable decisions and that both nations have innocent citizens whose well-being should be a priority. Despite this, the United States seems minimally invested in the well-being of the Palestinians in particular, and I would like to see this balanced out. Obama was overall pro-Israel (because almost all American politicians are, it just depends to what extent), but still took some action that suggested that he wanted to retain some semblance of common-sense neutrality (ex. trying to get Israel to end settlement building in return for moving the embassy and allowing the UN resolution that condemned Israel for settlement building). Even some of the most staunchly pro-Israel individuals I know think that the settlement situation is deeply flawed (and/or that other decisions the Israeli government makes are flawed, or even that moving the embassy to Jerusalem wasn't a fantastic decision), and it is on issues like this that I want the next president to take some action in a way that even many pro-Israel Americans can agree is sensible. I am just concerned about this current administration's policy regarding Israel and Palestine, both for the reason I mentioned before (because it seems as though they don't care about the well-being of the Palestinians half as much as they care about the well-being of the Israelis, while they should make the well-being of both groups a priority) and because continued policy like this will hurt American chances of being a positive mediating force between the two. I'm certainly not advocating for an "anti-Israeli" executive by any means, but I just want a more moderate stance when compared to the United States' typical strong favoritism to Israel, which Trump seems intent on amping up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Harris gave a secret AIPAC speech and met Benjamin Netanyahu. I wouldn't expect her position to deviate too much from the Likud position.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I appreciate that Murphy is one of few who seems to be taking definitive stances on current foreign policy issues. I think I tend to agree with him on those stances as well, although my foreign policy convictions are nowhere near as strong as my domestic policy convictions.

Murphy's playing it smart. In the event that foreign affairs become a pivotal issue in the primaries, he'll have staked out the progressive ground far earlier than any non-Sanders candidate. Truth be told, it's really the only way he'll be able to differentiate himself in the primary.

[Mr. Morden]

Harris gave a secret AIPAC speech and met Benjamin Netanyahu. I wouldn't expect her position to deviate too much from the Likud position.

Does that same logic apply to Gabbard and Assad? 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Harris gave a secret AIPAC speech and met Benjamin Netanyahu. I wouldn't expect her position to deviate too much from the Likud position.

Does that same logic apply to Gabbard and Assad? 

No. She voted for the US to pay for Iron Dome for Israel. I can't imagine Assad supported that.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I appreciate that Murphy is one of few who seems to be taking definitive stances on current foreign policy issues. I think I tend to agree with him on those stances as well, although my foreign policy convictions are nowhere near as strong as my domestic policy convictions.

Murphy's playing it smart. In the event that foreign affairs become a pivotal issue in the primaries, he'll have staked out the progressive ground far earlier than any non-Sanders candidate. Truth be told, it's really the only way he'll be able to differentiate himself in the primary.

Agreed. I had previously considered him the epitome of "Generic D" and someone I would probably pass over should he become a 2020 contender, but learning that he has been so decisive on foreign policy issues (while most Democrats seem to be very noncommittal) has actually put him on my radar.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I appreciate that Murphy is one of few who seems to be taking definitive stances on current foreign policy issues. I think I tend to agree with him on those stances as well, although my foreign policy convictions are nowhere near as strong as my domestic policy convictions.

Murphy's playing it smart. In the event that foreign affairs become a pivotal issue in the primaries, he'll have staked out the progressive ground far earlier than any non-Sanders candidate. Truth be told, it's really the only way he'll be able to differentiate himself in the primary.

Agreed. I had previously considered him the epitome of "Generic D" and someone I would probably pass over should he become a 2020 contender, but learning that he has been so decisive on foreign policy issues (while most Democrats seem to be very noncommittal) has actually put him on my radar.

What indication has Murphy given that he's actually considering running? And anyways, he did vote for the $80 billion military increase that Sanders, Merkley, and Gillibrand voted against.