FILE – In this May 18, 2019, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks at a house party campaign stop in Rochester, N.H. Rising disagreement among congressional Democrats over whether to pursue impeachment of President Donald Trump has had little effect on the party’s presidential candidates, who mostly are avoiding calls to start such an inquiry. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)
In the race for the White House, Elizabeth Warren swerved her car into the far Left lane Monday, nearly crashing into a wall.
While speaking at an event in Grinnell, Iowa, a question was put to her which characterized the United States as pro-genocide.
Here’s what some dude served up:
“[R]ight now the United States is bombing at least seven countries. We support genocides in Palestine and in Yemen.”
For a second, two hands slapped together.
Oh — that was a clap.
“The U.S. military is actually the biggest polluter of any organization in the world. And we also work in more clandestine ways. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs reported that between 2017 and 2018, United States’ sanctions on Venezuela caused over 40,000 deaths.”
Those two hands found one another again.
“And we also have sanctions on many other countries, like Iran, North Korea, and, you know, you can name many more.”
So this was his ultimate question:
“So I’m wondering, as president, will you stop U.S.-supported murder, whether it’s through sanctions, arms support, [indecipherable].”
I have news for him. Those are questions he can already ask her, as she’s a member of the legislative body of the United States, to which the Constitution grants, among other things, certain foreign policy powers.
In fact, the Senate hosts the Foreign Relations Committee.
What I mean to say is, he can ask her about what she’s done and is doing now, insofar as her position will allow, rather than what she’ll do once she attains the throne — which, of course, doesn’t exist, thanks to the balance of power in which she already participates.
It’s an interesting thing, running for president as a sitting member of the House or Senate. When you’re someone outside of politics, you can vow to do any number of things if given the chance; but when you’ve been in power already, your record should have something to say.
What’s she voted for and against, and what’s she stood up and yapped about in front of the cameras for the last six years?
Has she been claiming she and her cohorts are cold-blooded killers?
And how’d President Warren respond in front of the crowd to the notion that the federal government (including her) supports said murder and multiple genocides?
Here’s her Oval Office best (?):
“So…I like your frame on this.”
She likes his frame.
And she wants to explain how we Make America Great Again:
“You know, here’s how I see this. We want to be a great nation, lead the world? Then we need to live our values every single day.”
“If Israel’s government continues with steps to formally annex the West Bank, the U.S. should make clear that none of our aid should be used to support annexation.”
As for living our values:
“[T]hat means, we don’t support, for example, what’s going on in Yemen — the worst man-made humanitarian crisis in generations. And yet, we continue to support the Saudis. … We need to say No. We need to be willing to back up. We need to bring our combat troops home. We do not — a great nation does not fight endless wars. We should not be in combat in Afhanistan. We should not be in combat in the Middle East. This is not where we should be.”
She bottomlined it:
“Let’s just make this a bigger question about foreign policy overall. … We should not ask our military to solve non-military problems.”
That sounds reasonable.
But is it reasonable — is it good — is it Executively electable — to respond to a question framing America as murderers with a compliment on the assertion?
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.