Elizabeth Warren Endorses Trump’s Economic War on Venezuela, Soft-Pedals Far-Right Bolivia Coup

The Democratic contender parroted neocon regime-change myths in an interview on “Pod Save America,” writes Ben Norton.

By Ben Norton
The Grayzone

For the millions of Venezuelans suffering under a suffocating U.S. blockade, there is no functional difference between Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren. In fact, the liberal Democratic presidential candidate has enthusiastically endorsed the far-right president’s strategy of relentless warfare against Venezuela and its nearly 30 million inhabitants.

After praising the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, which violate international law and have led to the preventable deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, Warren went on to whitewash the far-right military coup in Bolivia, where the Trump administration has helped put racist Christian extremists and actual fascists in power.

Warren’s eagerness for economic war on Caracas earned her the recognition of right-wing news websites like The Federalist, which gleefully emphasized that “Elizabeth Warren Agrees With Trump’s Strategy In Venezuela.”

The Massachusetts senator wanted to show off her foreign policy bona fides in a softball interview with a former Barack Obama administration apparatchik on the podcast Pod Save America,” which is known for its centrist politics and close links to Hillary Clinton.

Warren praised Trump’s strategy of appointing the deflated Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaidó as president and declared, “I support economic sanctions.” She also described the country’s democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro as a “dictator.”

In the interview, the Democratic presidential candidate agreed wholeheartedly with her host Tommy Vietor, who previously served as a spokesperson for President Barack Obama and the U.S. National Security Council.

Both spread lie after lie about Venezuela, based on hyperbolic corporate media myths.

Although the interview was conducted back in February, video clips have recently resurfaced and gone viral on social media.

Supports Economic Sanctions

Tommy Vietor, an implacable critic of Trump and a prominent symbol of the liberal self-declared “Resistance,” kicked off the interview segment singing the praises of the far-right president’s strategy of economically and diplomatically strangling Venezuela.

“The Trump administration has recognized the National Assembly president Juan Guaidó as the president, and encouraged a bunch of other countries to follow suit, in frankly what was a pretty impressive diplomatic play by them,” Vietor applauded — failing to mention that more than 80 percent of Venezuelans had never heard of Guaidó at the time Washington anointed him as the unelected head of state.

“Mm hmm,” Warren uttered in agreement, echoing Vietor’s endorsement of the Trump administration for attempting to install Guaidó through a coup.

Trump “also sanctioned Venezuela’s oil industry, which is a major step to cut off all their supply of dollars and their ability to have an economy,” Vietor continued.

Warren chimed in: “Start with the fact that Maduro is obviously a dictator; he’s terrible; he’s stolen this election; it’s a nightmare for the people of Venezuela.”

The Democratic presidential candidate, who portrays herself as a progressive, proceeded to endorse all of the major planks of the Trump administration’s hybrid war against Venezuela.

“This notion of using our diplomatic tools, I’m all for it,” she continued. “I think recognition [of Guaidó], I think getting our allies to do it; it’s a way to bring diplomatic pressure.”

“Economic sanctions? Yeah, I support economic sanctions,” Warren added. “But we have to offer humanitarian help at the same time.”

“We should be leading the international community to get help to those people,” she said of Venezuelan migrants. “That puts more pressure on Maduro,” Warren boasted.

The Democratic presidential candidate made it clear that she would continue the hybrid war on Venezuela, which has caused large numbers of Venezuelans to leave the country, while also incentivizing Venezuelans to leave the country with promises of aid on the other side of the border. In other words, Warren pledged to exacerbate Venezuela’s migration crisis, which is already at epidemic levels thanks to crushing U.S. sanctions.

A study published in April by economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot at the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, which are illegal under international law, caused at least 40,000 deaths from 2017 to 2018.

“The sanctions are depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports,” said Weisbrot.

Warren has promised to continue lethal sanctions, fueling more migration from Venezuela, but simultaneously boosting aid — just like liberal war hawks who supported the international proxy war on Syria, which created millions of refugees, while pledging to help those displaced people.

The only Trump tactic Warren disapproved of was his “saber-rattling,” referencing his belligerent tone. Instead of threatening direct military intervention, Warren argued, the United States should continue polices of hybrid and economic warfare to destabilize Venezuela’s leftist government.

And Washington should continue this hybrid warfare while “working with our allies,” she stressed, in a way “that increases the pressure on Maduro.”

While demonizing Venezuelan President Maduro, who was first elected in 2013 and then re-elected in 2018, host Tommy Vietor and Elizabeth Warren went on to praise German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is from a center-right religious party.

Reiterates Her Neoconservative Policies Against Venezuela

Elizabeth Warren repeated her support for regime change in Venezuela in an interview in September with the Council on Foreign Relations, a central gear in the machinery of the military-industrial complex.

“Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country’s economy, dismantled its democratic institutions, and profited while his people suffer,” Warren declared.

She referred to Maduro’s elected government as a “regime” and called for “supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition.”

Echoing the rhetoric of neoconservatives in Washington, Warren called for “contain[ing]” the supposedly “damaging and destabilizing actions” of China, Russia, and Cuba.

The only point where Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that “there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela.”

Soft-Pedals Far-Right Coup in Bolivia

While Warren endorsed Trump’s hybrid war on Venezuela, she more recently whitewashed the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia.

On Nov. 10, the U.S. government backed a far-right military coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected President Evo Morales, a leftist from the popular Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party and the first Indigenous head of state in a country where nearly two-thirds of the population is Native.

Warren refused to comment on the putsch for more than a week, even as the far-right military junta massacred dozens of protesters and systematically purged and detained elected left-wing politicians from MAS.

Finally, eight days after the coup, Warren broke her silence. In a short tweet, the putative progressive presidential candidate tepidly requested “free and fair elections” and calling on the “interim leadership” to prepare an “early, legitimate election.”

What Warren did not mention is that this “interim leadership” she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist, the unelected “interim president” Jeanine Añez.

Añez has referred to Bolivia’s majority-Indigenous population as “satanic” and immediately moved to try to overturn the country’s progressive constitution, which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic mandate in a 2009 referendum.

Añez’s ally in this coup regime’s interim leadership is Luis Fernando Camacho, a multi-millionaire who emerged out of neo-fascist groups and courted support from the United States and the far-right governments of Brazil and Colombia.

By granting legitimacy to Bolilvia’s ultra-conservative, unelected leadership, Warren rubber-stamped the far-right coup and the military junta’s attempt to stamp out Bolivia’s progressive democracy.

In other words, as The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal put it, Liz’s Big Structural Bailey compliantly rolled over for Big IMF Structural Adjustment Program.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels” podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

This article is from The Grayzone.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment Policy. Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be published.  If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words

65 comments for “Elizabeth Warren Endorses Trump’s Economic War on Venezuela, Soft-Pedals Far-Right Bolivia Coup

  1. Jessejean
    November 25, 2019 at 12:13

    Ogod! This is so disappointing. I have admired her for years, even overlooked her support of Israel, thinking it might be a strategic election move. But this is a deal breaker. She’ll never get my vote now. I’m sending both Bernie and Tulsi money today. And I’m thanking Liz for such tone deaf honesty. Unlike all the rest of those lying Neocons on the debate stage, she at least owned her position, loud and proud. Now I can stop feeling divided between her and The Great Bern!

  2. Skip Scott
    November 23, 2019 at 07:57

    H Beazley-

    A vote for evil is never a good choice, and choosing a candidate you perceive as a lesser evil still condones evil. Allowing the Oligarchy to limit your choice gives them the power to continue advancing evil policies. They control both major parties. You may succeed in getting non-gender specific restrooms in your Starbucks, but the murdering war machine will continue unabated.

    • ML
      November 24, 2019 at 15:55

      Excellent reply to Beazley, Skip Scott. I am always amazed when people parrot this line over and over again. Some will never understand though, as subtlety and critical analysis escapes their grasp. Good try there though!

  3. November 23, 2019 at 01:41

    Now, we are seeing the true colors of candidates, who have professed to be progressive. Sanders went on a “tirade” against Maduro during the last “debate” I saw. Tulsi Gabbard has stayed against US Imperialism, but, I’m sure the Democratic policy controllers will never nominate her. I foresee I’ll be voting for the Socialist next year.

    • Antonio Costa
      November 24, 2019 at 17:45

      Yes. Democratic socialism is a needless redundancy. The democratic socialism that all the newly minted Jacobin’s are trying desperately to push, to keep repeating this “it’s not communism, or even socialism, but Scandinavian socialism” and the Bernie and AOC’s keep pushing, is all capitalism, a new capitalism with social programs like those capitalistic ultra-white nations Sweden, Denmark, Norway, et al. These are deeply capitalistic with social programs ala Keynesian capitalism.

      Beneath the Green New Deal is an old deal, a story about Creative Destruction. It’s about doing away with old technologies and replacing with green technologies (aka capitalist green washing). Those visions of a new world whereby we do more or less MORE with windmills and solar panels, electric cars, and transcontinental high speed rails, with smart cities, wired to transmit ever faster…a 4th industrial revolution, an eco-modernism.

      The planet be damned – in a nutshell such is the new green Keynesian capitalism, aka Green New Deal. Wall Street is putting its money on the GND.

      (Just an aside, a awkward observation. Who tells Bernie who the good guys are and the bad guys? I’m just wondering how Maduro and Chavez became bad socialists. When what’s happening in Latin America can rightly be called Bolivarian socialism, from Venezuela, to Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia. Who is the great THINKER behind Bernie’s thinking? Who picks Bernie’s “good vs. bad”? Where’s his sense of solidarity? The same goes for AOC. Who writes their scripts?)

  4. Raymond M.
    November 22, 2019 at 18:09

    “”””On Nov. 10, the U.S. government backed a far-right military coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected President Evo Morales bla blla bla”. And the 3 right wing candidates spent more time slinging mud at at each other than at Morales. Had the CIAs top front man Ortez stepped aside, the vote would not have split and allowed Morales to claim a first round victory and avoid a run-off that he would have lost. And the right wing Christian fundamentalist for sure was a CIA plant who manged to split the vote further.
    Under the Trump administration, the CIA can even run a coup right.

  5. November 22, 2019 at 15:25

    If only those anti-Western rulers seen the light and joined RBWO (rule* based world order, * rules decided in DC, preferably by bipartisan consensus), then the economy would run smoothly and the population would be happy. Every week gives another example:

    By The Associated Press, Nov. 21, 2019, BOGOTA, Colombia
    Colombians angry with President Iván Duque and hoping to channel Latin America’s wave of discontent took the streets by the tens of thousands on Thursday in one of the biggest protests in the nation’s recent history. […] Police estimated 207,000 people took part. […] government deployed 170,000 officers, closed border crossings and deported 24 Venezuelans accused of entering the country to instigate unrest.

    So if only Iván did not start unnecessary conflict with Maduro, these 24 scoundrels would stay home and the trouble would be avoided. Oh wait, I got confused

  6. CitizenOne
    November 21, 2019 at 22:10

    You must imagine that when candidtes suddenly become mind control puppets what is going on. The scariest thing in American Politics is how supposedly independent and liberal progressives somehow swallow the red pill and are transported into the world of make believe. Once inside the bubble of fiction far removed from human suffering which is after all what politicians are supposed to be about fixing they can say crazy things. Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump are the only souls to retain their independent (yet opposite) minds and both of them got the boot for being different.

  7. Hide Behind
    November 21, 2019 at 20:44

    The puppet masters are experts, on the one hand there is A Republican, and on the other is a Democrat, but even they mess up now and then get the different strings tangled.
    Some come back on stage on the different hand so to save time they give a puppet two faces.
    Watching same puppets gets old so every so often 2-4-6 they restring an old one that was used as props in past, change their makeup a bit to give them new faces.
    We do not actually elect the puppet, we instead legitimize the Puppeteers who own’ s the only stage in town.
    Those who choreograph the movements and change the backgrouds, media outlets and permanent bureaucrats know the plays before they are introduced, and they know best how to get adults to leave reality behind and bring back their childhood fantacies.
    Days of sugar plums, candy canes, socks filled with goodies and not coal, tooth fairys, and kind generous Fairy God Mothers.
    Toy Nutcracker soldiers that turn into Angelic heros, Yellow brick roads, Bunnies with pocket watches, and and magic shoes of red, or of glass in hand of handsome Princes and beautiful Princesses, all available if we vote.
    So who votes, only those who control the voting puppets know that reality does not exist, they twitch we react, and at end of voting counts one of hand’s puppets will slump and cry, while others will leap and dance in joy, only for all to end up in one pile until the puppeteers need them for next act.

  8. Frederike
    November 21, 2019 at 17:30

    “What Warren did not mention is that this “interim leadership” she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist, the unelected “interim president” Jeanine Añez.

    Añez has referred to Bolivia’s majority-Indigenous population as “satanic” and immediately moved to try to overturn the country’s progressive constitution, which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic mandate in a 2009 referendum.”

    Doesn’t Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her “Pocahontas”?
    She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Añez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic?
    Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich.
    Everything she agreed to in the interview listed above is pathetic. I had no idea that she is such a worthless individual.

    • arggo
      November 22, 2019 at 19:57

      “neocon” explains this. She seems to have the very foundational structures that enabled Hillary Clinton Democrats to attack and destroy Bernie Sanders in 2016.

  9. November 21, 2019 at 15:40

    Warren has not lost my vote for the simple reason she never had it in the first place. None of this, sickening as it is, comes as any surprise. Warren is an unapologetic capitalist. She’s like Robert Reich in that regard. They both believe capitalism–if reformed, tweaked a bit here and there–can work. To give her credit, she’s always been very honest about that. And of course our doctrine of regime change is all in the service of capitalism. Unless I’m simply confused and mistaken.

    • Sherwood Forrest
      November 22, 2019 at 09:38

      Yes, Capitalist First! That makes it so difficult for any aware person to believe she sincerely supports a wealth tax, Universal Healthcare, Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness, family leave… or anything else the 1% oppose. Because promising like Santa is part of Capitalist politics, and then saying,” Nah, we can’t afford it.”

    • November 22, 2019 at 16:08

      I personally think that capitalism with “human face” and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition and aggression is not the part of “human face” that I imagine.

      So Warren’s imperialist positions are evil and unnecessary to preserve capitalism, how that projects at her as a person it is hard to tell. A Polish poet has those words spoken by a character in his drama “On that, I know only what I heard, but I am afraid to investigate because it poisons my mind about …” (Znam to tylko z opowiada?, ale strzeg? si? tych bada?, bo mi truj? my?l o …) As typical of hearsay, her concept of events in Venezuela, Bolivia etc. is quite garbled, she has no time (but perhaps some fear) to investigate herself (easy in the era of internet). A serious politician has to think a lot about electability (and less about the folks under the steam roller of the Empire), so she has to “pick her fights”.

      It is rather clear that American do not care if people south of the border are governed democratically or competently, which led Hillary Clinton to make this emphatic statement in a debate with Trump “You will not see me singing praises of dictators or strongmen who do not love America”. One can deconstruct it “if you do not love America you are a strongman or worse, but if you love America, we will be nice to you”. I would love to have the original and deconstructed statement polled, but Warren is not the only one afraid of such investigations. So “electability” connection to green light to Bolivian fascist and red light to Bolivarians of Venezuela is a bit indirect. Part of it is funding, part, bad press.

  10. Drew Hunkins
    November 21, 2019 at 15:32

    Hopefully Kamala Harris never sniffs the White House, we’d all die in a nuclear war. Her pathetic and stupid swipes at the courageous and brilliant Tulsi Gabbard last night in the debates were something to cringe at.

    • Rob Roy
      November 22, 2019 at 00:31

      Thanks, Drew!

  11. brett
    November 21, 2019 at 15:15

    I’m sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption. She is a fraud and a liar. One trained in psychology can see, in her every movement and utterance, the operation that is going on behind the facade. Everything Warren says is a lie to someone. She only states truth in order to later dis-inform. Classic deception. She (her billionaires) has latched on to the populism of the DSA etc. in order to sabotage any progressive momentum and drive a stake in it.

    • Rob Roy
      November 22, 2019 at 00:40

      She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches brewing one coup/regime change after another. She’s not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose. People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique.

    • November 22, 2019 at 16:13

      This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, “interagency consensus” was formed without them.

  12. Peter in Seattle
    November 21, 2019 at 14:53

    The DNC’s strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn’t go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who’s friendly to the Party’s plutocratic-oligarch principals.) That’s the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run. Warren’s specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie’s base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She’s been successful with “better educated,” higher-income liberal Democrats who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from “respectable” sources — sources that, unbeknownst to their target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs.

    Absolutely nothing in Warren’s background supports her new calculatedly progressive primary persona. She was a Reagan Republican. When the Republican Party moved right to become the party of batshit crazy and the Democratic Party shifted right to become the party of Reagan Republicans, she became a Democrat. She’s not a good actress, and it takes willing suspension of disbelief to buy into her performance as a savvier, wonkier alternative to Bernie. And when she’s pressed for details (Medicare for All) and responses to crises (Venezuela and Bolivia), the cracks in her progressive façade become patently obvious. She’s a sleeper agent for Democratic-leaning plutocrats, like Obama was in 2008, and she would never get my vote.

    PS: Impressed by Warren’s progressive wealth-tax plan? Don’t be. Our country’s billionaires know she won’t fight for it, and that if she did, Congress would never pass it. (They know who owns Congress.) Besides, do you really think Pocahontas would beat Trump? Do you think Sleepy Joe would? The billionaires wouldn’t bet on it. And they’re fine with that. Sure, they’d like someone who’s more thoroughly corporatist on trade and more committed to hot régime-change wars than Trump is, but they can live just fine with low-tax, low-regulation Trump. It’s the prospect of a Bernie presidency that keeps them up at night … and their proxies in the Democratic Party and allied media are doing everything they can to neutralize that threat.

    • mbob
      November 21, 2019 at 18:13


      Thanks for this beautiful post. I agree with it 100%. I’ve been trying to figure out why Democrats are so consistently unable to see through rhetoric and fall for what candidates pretend to be. Part of it is wishful thinking. A lot of it is, as you wrote, misplaced trust in “respectable” sources. I have no idea how to fix that: how does one engender the proper skepticism of the MSM? I haven’t been able to open the eyes of any of my friends. (Fortunately my wife and daughter opened their own eyes.)

      Warren is, if you look clearly, driven by her enormous ambition. She’s the same as every other candidate in that regard, save Bernie.

      Bernie is driven by the same outrage that we feel. We need him.

    • Sandra Thompson
      November 22, 2019 at 11:35

      Thank you Peter. It’s exactly what I believe too.

    • Peter in Seattle
      November 22, 2019 at 21:31


      Thanks! (And thanks to Sandra Thompson, too!)

      As a late bloomer when it comes to media awareness — thanks, Obamacare!* — I’d say the best way to engender skepticism toward “respectable” media is to encourage whomever you’re talking with to ask three questions:

      (1) Who owns it?
      (2) Who manages it?
      (3) Who funds it (whether through advertising or underwriting)?

      Then remind them that in the news business as almost everywhere else, there are three fundamental rules:

      (1) Don’t bite the hand that feeds.
      (2) He who pays the piper calls the tune.
      (3) Integrity comes in a distant third.

      [Honorable mention to Consortium News and a number of other dissident outlets for being outstanding exceptions to these rules.]

      Finally, I’d steer clear of mentioning Operation Mockingbird and Udo Ulfkotte’s “Journalists for Hire” to people who aren’t already deeply skeptical of mainstream media, or you’ll risk being written off as a CIA-conspiracy nut.

      I suppose you could always suggest that they read Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. Will they actually do it? There doesn’t seem to be a CliffsNotes edition. Maybe the film, which can be found on YouTube? But that’s almost three hours that could be spent watching PBS NewsHour and reading the New York Times.

      Confirmation bias is a powerful drive, and being exposed to radically different viewpoints — sometimes with spelling and grammatical mistakes, and sometimes even with swearing! — can be extremely jarring, scary, and off-putting to people who’ve spent their entire lives trusting PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the New Yorker, et al. Their first instinct will be to run back to the familiar comfort of the respectable sources they trusted before. Break them in slowly.

      *I owe my own epiphany to the stark contrast between how US media covered healthcare reform in the early 90s (the Clinton healthcare-reform era) and how they covered it in 2007-2010 (the Obama healthcare-reform era). The news media did a semi-decent job back in early 90s, but by the mid to late 2000s, they behaved more like outsourced propaganda mills for Big Health. (I can provide specific examples for both eras, but they would suck up too much time and space.) Long story short, I traced the difference in coverage to the dramatically greater amount of money pharmaceutical companies were spending on direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs by the mid-2000s. (It went from under $300 million a year in the early 90s to $5.5 billion a year in 2005.) Big Pharma didn’t just buy increased sales with their massively beefed-up advertising budgets — they bought the f*cking news!

      In 2016, the for-profit health sector as a whole was spending $14 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising. You tell me whether anyone but Bernie is going to fight for Medicare for All in the face of news media that’s been suborned by the opposition to that great an extent? And sad to say, I’m not counting on Bernie to have the fortitude to not cave, let alone more than a tiny handful of Democrats in Congress. Warren? She’ll drop Medicare for All down a hole like it was a live grenade.

    • Peter in Seattle
      November 22, 2019 at 21:39

      Do me a favor guys, and mentally put in a little “end italics” tag after the last “Bernie” in my previous post. This is what happens when you don’t have vision coverage. Thanks again, Obamacare! ;-)

    • Clarkare
      November 23, 2019 at 02:42

      Yup. Me too. 100%.

  13. November 21, 2019 at 14:31

    In the last Israeli massacre on Gaza she was all for the IDF killing Palistinians. Americans like to look at the CCP and cry about China being a one party state. Well is the US not a one party state?= Are the views of the Democrats and Republicans not the same when it comes to slaughtering people in the third world? There is not a razor`s edge between them. Biden, Warren, Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Pense they are all war criminals, or if elected will soon become war criminals.

    From someone who at the beginning showed promise and humanity, she has turned into Albright and Clinton. How f**king sad is that?

  14. Jeff Harrison
    November 21, 2019 at 13:50

    I love it when a politician takes themselves firmly out of contention because they are simply evil.

    • Dan Kuhn
      November 21, 2019 at 14:33

      Better to see her for what she really is now then after the election if she were to win. She is disgusting in her inhumanity.

  15. Rob
    November 21, 2019 at 13:43

    This Is, indeed, disturbing and disappointing. Warren seems so genuinely right on domestic economic and social issues, so how could she be so wrong on foreign policy issues? The same principles apply in both–justice, fairness, equity, etc. That said, she is no worse than any of the other Democratic candidates in that regard, with the exceptions of Sanders and Gabbard, so if Warren becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It’s a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate will be perfect–ever.

    • Rob
      November 21, 2019 at 13:45

      For the record, I am with Bernie all the way.

    • November 21, 2019 at 14:36

      Far better to stick to your principles and write in ” None of the above.” believe me with this article we can easily see that Trump is no worse nor better than Warren is. They are both pretty poor excuses as human beings.

    • Peter in Seattle
      November 21, 2019 at 16:04


      If you’ll allow me to fix that for you, “What Warren tactically claims to support, in the primaries, seems so genuinely right on domestic economic and social issues ….” I’m convinced Warren is an Obama 2.0 in the making. I don’t think anyone can match Obama’s near-180° turnabout from his 2008 primary platform and that if Warren is elected, she will try to make Wall Street a little more honest and stable, maybe advocate for a $12 minimum wage, and maybe try to shave a few thousand dollars off student-loan debts. I suppose that technically qualifies as less evil than Trump. But I fully expect her to jettison 90% of her primary platform, including a progressive tax on wealth and Medicare for All. And when you factor in her recently confirmed approval of US military and financial imperialism — economic subversion and régime-change operations that cost tens of thousands of innocent foreign lives, and other peoples their sovereignty — at what point does “less evil” become too evil to vote for?

  16. JMMorgan
    November 21, 2019 at 13:41

    My expectations were already low, but she is awful!

  17. bob
    November 21, 2019 at 13:22

    Dontcha just hate amereeka?

  18. John Drake
    November 21, 2019 at 13:13

    “…presidential candidate tepidly requested “free and fair elections”. Such a statement ignores the fact that Evo Morales term was not up; therefor elections are not called for. This means she supports the coup. Restoration of his position which was illegally and violently stolen from him are in order not elections until his term is up.
    Her position on Venezuela is nauseating; as the article states classic neo-conservative. Maybe Robert Kagan will welcome her into their club as he did with Hillary.
    Warren used to be a Republican, she has not been cured of that disease; and is showing her true colors. Maybe it’s best as she is differentiating herself from Bernie. I was concerned before she started down this latest path that she would do an Obama; progressive rhetoric followed by neo-liberal-or worse- behavior once in office. Maybe she is more honest than Obama.

  19. Guy
    November 21, 2019 at 12:40

    Warren can’t be very informed about what democracy actually means .Democracy is not the same as capitalism .
    Not a US citizen but am very disappointed with her stated platform .
    Short of divine intervention Tulsi will never make it but Sanders for president and Tulsi as VP would do just fine to re-direct the US foreign policy and maybe ,just maybe make the US more respectable among the rest of the nations of the world.

    • November 22, 2019 at 16:17

      It would make a lot of sense from actuarial point of view. The chances that at least one person on the ticket would live healthily for 8 years would be very good, without Tulsi…

  20. Punkyboy
    November 21, 2019 at 12:02

    I was pretty sure Warren was a Hillary clone; now I’m absolutely sure of it. Another election between worse and worser. I may just stay home this time, if the world holds together that long.

  21. Socratic Truth
    November 21, 2019 at 11:42

    Warren is just another puppet of the NWO.

  22. Vera Gottlieb
    November 21, 2019 at 11:31

    Well, she just lost my vote. How disappointing.

  23. Ma Laoshi
    November 21, 2019 at 11:12

    I remember years and years ago, I guess about when Lizzie first entered Congress, that she went on the standard pandering tour to the Motherland and an astute mind commented: Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once they’ve swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it’s just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%. Given that “Harvard” and “phony” are largely synonymous, what else could’ve been expected?

    • Peter in Seattle
      November 21, 2019 at 15:32

      @Ma Laoshi:

      Speaking of Harvard, having contemplated the abysmal track record compiled by our “best and brightest” — in Congress, in the White House, and on the federal bench — I am now almost as suspicious of the Ivy League as I am of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security (WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas). The mission of both is to train capable, reliable, well-compensated servants to the US plutocracy. (And the only reason I say “almost” is because a non-negligible number of black sheep have come out of the Ivy League and I’m not aware of any that have come out of WHINSEC.)

    • Sam F
      November 23, 2019 at 18:59

      Harvard admissions are apparently largely bought, and doubtless those of Yale and others.
      MIT was strictly militarist warmongers in the 1970s, and one competed with 80% cheaters.

  24. Dfnslblty
    November 21, 2019 at 11:12

    “… The only point where Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that “there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela.”…”
    Hell, one doesn’t need a military option after immoral, illegal and crippling sanctions.
    This essay is the most disturbing piece all year-2019.
    Vote anti-military – vote nonviolence.
    Don’t give these murderers anything but exposure to humane sensibilities.

    • November 21, 2019 at 17:43

      I didn’t think Trump supported a military solution in Venezuela. That was John Bolton’s baby and Trump fired him as one would hope he would soon fire Pompeo as has been hinted at. Trump campaigned on ending wars of choice but has given in to the MIC at almost every turn. Maybe he will resign in leiu of being impeached. We might then see a Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. I could live with either one

  25. Noah Way
    November 21, 2019 at 11:06

    Be careful not to trip on the third rail of domestic politics or the deep state will fry you.

  26. Skip Scott
    November 21, 2019 at 09:12

    Once again the Democratic Party is pushing to have our choice for 2020 be between corporate sponsored war monger from column A or B.

    I wish Tulsi would “see the light” and run as an Independent in 2020. There is absolutely no way that she gets the nod from the utterly corrupt DNC. She is abandoning her largest base (Independents) by sticking with the Democratic Party. Considering the number of disgruntled non-voters, she could easily win the general election; but she will never win the Democratic primary. The field is purposely flooded to ensure the “superdelegates” get the final say on a second ballot.

    • ML
      November 21, 2019 at 16:29

      I may become, for the first time in my long voting life, a non-voter in this next joke of a presidential contest. Deprive them of legitimacy in greater and greater numbers by withholding votes until something breaks besides one’s self-respect in supporting any of these scoundrels. Obama, with his recent abhorrent comments to try and gaslight left wing voters, is the final straw. Shut up and go back to the Hamptons, thief! These criminals don’t deserve the ink it takes to mark a paper ballot in Oregon. Not that our votes even count here anyway… Utter disgrace, this country is.

    • Skip Scott
      November 21, 2019 at 18:33


      I think it is better to vote for the Green Party candidate, or the Libertarian if that’s your preference, or even a write-in. To not vote at all perpetuates a very small number of people controlling the process. The Oligarchy prefers low voter turnout, and any other sign of apathy. Other actions have much more impact, especially voting with your wallet by making moral investment and consumer choices, and reducing wasteful consumption. Abandoning the MSM has a huge impact as well.

      If enough people vote third party we may finally reach a tipping point that causes the destruction of the utterly corrupt two party system.
      Then maybe we could improve the voting process with ranked choice voting, and make the election process an educational public forum on both the local and National level, free of any excessive influence by monied interests.

      I prefer peaceful evolution, but I suspect the chances for that are getting slimmer every day. Either our species sees the light, or we become extinct. It’s time for a “quantum leap” in human consciousness.

    • ML
      November 21, 2019 at 23:30

      Skip, I know you are correct about voting Green. I could never vote Libertarian. I voted Stein last time. It’s just so discouraging that I often feel like throwing up my hands and walking away. But voting third party is more proactive. Still and all, when millennials give me argument I just gave for not voting at all, I finally am able to see their point and have no judgment of them for coming to that conclusion. I am glad I am on the older side and don’t have to live to see everything I loved as a child and young adult, go completely to hell. It’s happening faster and faster though, isn’t it? I think you are right about revolution- though I too, would much prefer a peaceful one, the plutocrats aren’t allowing that possibility. Their iron grip and acid-like greed will ultimately be their undoing. So very, very stupid they are. Cheers to you and Happy Thanksgiving, Skip. I appreciate your words.

    • H Beazley
      November 22, 2019 at 23:47

      A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. Not a good choice.

    • Skip Scott
      November 23, 2019 at 07:50

      Thanks ML. I always enjoy your comments as well. I also voted for Stein in 2016. However, I have also voted for Ron Paul in the past. The most important issue for me is ending these immoral wars, which in recent decades has advanced to becoming “The Forever War”. The extent of the role of government in a “free” society is an honest debate that I would enjoy watching transpire if we only had the MSM as an honest broker for all things political. There is a lot more in common between the Libertarians and the Progressives than first meets the eye, the main issue being their shared interest in non-interventionism as a basis for foreign policy.

      Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

    • November 24, 2019 at 21:04

      I believe very strongly in the goodness and honesty of Tulsi Gabbard.
      I’m afraid you’re right, she might have a chance as an Independent, but never would get the nomination as a Democrat.
      Too bad she has stated over and over she will not run as an Independent.
      Why can’t we Americans have good things :(

  27. AnneR
    November 21, 2019 at 08:50

    Warren is as inhumane, amoral and imperialist as anyone in the WH and the US Congress, and she is certainly kindred in spirit, thought and would be in deed, as Madeline Albright, the cheerful slaughterer of some 500,000 Iraqi children because the “price was worth it.” Of course, these utterly racist, amoral people do not have to pay “that price” nor do any of their families. (And let us not forget that Albright and Killary are good friends – Warren is totally kindred with the pair, totally.)

    And clearly Warren – like all of the Demrat contenders – is full on for any kind of warfare that will bring a “recalcitrant” country into line with US demands (on its resources, lands etc.). She is grotesque.

    She and those of her ilk – all in Congress, pretty much, and their financial backers – refuse to accept that Maduro and Morales *both* were legally, legitimately and cleanly re-elected to their positions as presidents of their respective countries. But to do that would be to go against her (commonly held) fundamental belief that the US has the right to decide who is and is not the legitimate national leader of any given country. And what policies they institute.

    Anyone who supports economic sanctions is supporting siege warfare, is happily supporting the starvation and deprivation of potentially millions of people. And shrugging off the blame for the effects of the sanctions onto the government of the sanctioned country is heinous, is immoral and unethical. WE are the ones who are killing, not the government under extreme pressure. If you can’t, won’t accept the responsibility – as Warren and the rest of the US government clearly will not – for those deaths you are causing, then stay out of the bloody kitchen: stop committing these crimes against humanity.

    • Cara
      November 21, 2019 at 15:25

      Please provide documentation that Sanders is, as you claim, a “full-on zionist supporter of “Israel” and clearly anti-Palestinian.” Sanders has been quite consistent in his criticism of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians: timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-posts-video-citing-apartheid-like-conditions-for-palestinians; and; jacobinmag.com/2019/07/bernie-sanders-israel-palestine-bds

    • ML
      November 21, 2019 at 16:33

      Good post, AnneR.

    • November 21, 2019 at 16:46

      “Sanders is less so, but not wholly because he is a full-on zionist supporter of “Israel” and clearly anti-Palestinian”

      Sanders is definitely not “full-on zionist supporter”, not only he does not deny that “Palestinians exist” (to died-in-the-wool Zionists, Palestinians are a malicious fiction created to smear Israel etc., google “Fakestinians”), but he claims that they have rights, and using Hamas as a pretext for Gaza blockade is inhumane (a recent headline). One can pull his other positions and statements to argue in the other direction, but in my opinion, he is at the extreme humane end of “zionist spectrum” (I mean, so humane that almost not a Zionist).

    • Drew Hunkins
      November 21, 2019 at 18:15

      Excellent comment AnneR.

    • November 21, 2019 at 21:42

      Anne R. – I agree with you, as always, except for one sentence: “Warren – like all of the Demrat contenders – is full on for any kind of warfare that will bring…..” Have you forgotten the one shining exception, Tulsi Gabbard – who is running on an anti-war platform. That is the reason she stands alone in that miserable crowd, and is being smeared and maligned by the DNC and Establishment democrats.

    • dahoit
      November 22, 2019 at 13:14

      Maduro must smiling at at Columbia right now.

    • Ash
      November 22, 2019 at 16:42

      By her own recent statement, Tulsi is against regime change wars, but somehow still gung-ho for the War on Terror. Cognitive dissonance or not, she’s not “anti-war”, even if she says sensible things about it sometimes.

  28. mbob
    November 20, 2019 at 22:49

    Warren supports Trump when he pursues violence and death, but opposes him when he seeks peace.

    She has back-peddled on her support for M4A. She plans to accept PAC and billionaire contributions in the general election. (She already has support from several billionaires.)

    She’s becoming more and more Obama/Hillary-like.

    Why should I vote for her?

    • November 21, 2019 at 12:23

      Don’t. She is telling us exactly who she is. Believe her.

    • ML
      November 21, 2019 at 16:20

      No reason that I see. And I won’t.

  29. Seby
    November 20, 2019 at 22:25

    Once a republican, always a republican. She only got the gig, because democorprats arent much better. I guess the repubes are also not good career paths for ambitious women.

Comments are closed.