Foreign policy differences among 2020 Dems

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds really pro Assad.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35092270/gabbard-syrias-assad-should-be-executed-if-hes-behind-deadly-chemical-attack

[Shadows]

What an idiotic decision. Gabbard was 100% right & these people are warmongers & butchers. Even the investigation is not complete - Germany & Canada have refused to blame Assad without a full investigation & they have started bombing & killing people.

Now Russia has suspended all information exchange about flights & the Air Safety Deal if off. A full scale war will break out between Russia & US at any point.

[Mr. Morden]

While he's not a Democrat, Amash is a potential primary challenger to Trump, so I'll throw in his response too:

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1374493305923405

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, like Murphy and Warren, he's critical of Trump doing this without Congressional approval, without actually commenting on the wisdom of the underlying act.

The rest of the 2020 field is rather slow to respond to this.  Will any of them, other than Gabbard, actually comment on whether the underlying action is a good idea or not, separate from the question of whether he should have gotten Congressional approval first?

[SoLongAtlas]

While he's not a Democrat, Amash is a potential primary challenger to Trump, so I'll throw in his response too:

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1374493305923405

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, like Murphy and Warren, he's critical of Trump doing this without Congressional approval, without actually commenting on the wisdom of the underlying act.

The rest of the 2020 field is rather slow to respond to this.  Will any of them, other than Gabbard, actually comment on whether the underlying action is a good idea or not, separate from the question of whether he should have gotten Congressional approval first?

Limited strikes are not a full blown war and Amash is not within the mainstream of America on this issue nor is he consistent with the powers granted to the CIC. He should study a bit more. For the record, most administrations have doubted the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker puts out a statement….which again, like statements from other Dems, says that Trump needs to put forth a clear plan on Syria, but doesn’t actually say whether he thinks the attack was a good idea or not:

https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=576

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still radio silence from Gillibrand, Sanders, Klobuchar, and Harris, as far as I can tell.

O'Malley's town hall in South Carolina is tomorrow, and someone should ask him about it there. 

[Mr. Morden]

The full Senate will be briefed this afternoon by Dunford, so we’ll presumably be getting more reaction after that.  Meanwhile, here’s Klobuchar:

https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/850363187568545793

You must be logged in to read this quote.

“Using chemical weapons is an atrocity & that's why attack was on airbase.” sounds like she’s basically supportive.  As I said upthread, Klobuchar seems to be more or less the most hawkish of the 2020 Dems (except on Israel), as she was also calling for a no-fly zone in Syria a few years ago.

Here’s Sherrod Brown, who sounds supportive in principle, but has “questions”:

https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/850357551644495872



And here’s Merkley:

https://www.merkley.senate.gov/news/press-releases/merkley-statement-on-us-strikes-in-syria



So, like many other Dems, is in favor of doing *something*, but seems non-committal on whether this particular action was a good idea or not.

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders is a skeptic.  He begins his statement talking about how awful Assad is, but then says this:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/posts/10155802467152908

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still haven’t seen anything from Gillibrand or Harris (or any of the 2020ers not in Congress).

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand and Harris have statements out now.

Gillibrand:

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senator-gillibrand-statement-on-bombing-of-syrian-air-base

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, like so many of the others, she focuses on process, and is vague on the wisdom of the underlying decision to launch an attack.  Though she certainly sounds more skeptical of it than, say, Booker.

Harris:

https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/850391964021383168



So Harris is similar to Booker (and some of the others) in being totally unclear on whether she thinks the underlying action is wise or not.  Yes, I get it that they all wanted Trump to consult with Congress.  But if he had consulted, would they think launching the attack was a good idea or not?  Most of these statements talk in circles around that question.

[Mr. Morden]

Following his pattern of not tweeting that much original content, but retweeting other people who he (presumably) agrees with, Julian Castro retweeted this guy:

https://twitter.com/YehudahMirsky/status/850344677249253376

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Spencer has probably never seen a picture of Gabbard.

[Mr. Morden]

Expanding on her earlier comment, Klobuchar does an interview with Fox News in which she says that the attack was “the right thing to do”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIzukYOefCc&t=0m15s

She said the same thing in an interview with the BBC:

https://twitter.com/dmatmorrison/status/850374685997096962

[Fusionmunster]

What an idiotic decision. Gabbard was 100% right & these people are warmongers & butchers. Even the investigation is not complete - Germany & Canada have refused to blame Assad without a full investigation & they have started bombing & killing people.

Now Russia has suspended all information exchange about flights & the Air Safety Deal if off. A full scale war will break out between Russia & US at any point.

Tulsi Gabbard will now be attacked for her secret meeting with an international pariah who kills children. If she runs, the ads just write themselves.

[Mr. Morden]

Chris Murphy talks about the attack here, in this interview on MSNBC, sounding pretty skeptical (and calling the attack “illegal”):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T7N5_oXcpU

And more here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-congress-syria-lawful

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker and Franken have a lengthy discussion about drug prices in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/corybooker/videos/vb.36872302227/10156712670852228/

But at the beginning of it (from about the 1 minute mark) they go on a tangent about Syria, in which Franken says that he agrees with Trump's decision to launch the attack, and that he also supported attacking Assad in 2013 over his use of chemical weapons back then as well.  So looks like the two Minnesota Senators are both at the hawkish end of this question.

Booker, meanwhile, doesn't really say anything substantive about the issue in said video, unless you count him criticizing Trump's refugee policy.  He doesn't seem to want to talk about the underlying question of whether the strike is a good idea or not.

[Sumner 1868]

Booker, meanwhile, doesn't really say anything substantive about the issue in said video, unless you count him criticizing Trump's refugee policy.  He doesn't seem to want to talk about the underlying question of whether the strike is a good idea or not.

Figures. The more of hear of this man the less I can stand him.

[Mr. Morden]

538 compiles reactions in the Senate to the Syria attack here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-clear-majority-of-senators-support-trumps-syria-airstrike/

Among potential 2020 candidates:

“Support with qualifications about next steps”:
Brown, Franken, Klobuchar

“Oppose”:
Gillibrand, Murphy

“No clear position with reservations about next steps”:
Booker, Harris, Merkley, Sanders, Warren

Hmmm…I agree on most of those, but I’d say that if you’re going to count Gillibrand’s statement as “oppose”, then the same would apply to Sanders.  Both of them are critical of the process, and sound pretty skeptical about the wisdom of this strike, but don’t explicitly say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a bad thing.  It’s more that the present circumstances make it (probably) a bad idea.  Murphy’s criticism is somewhat stronger, in that he’s casting it as a strategic mistake.  But I guess even that doesn’t go as far as the criticism from Gabbard, who says she’s not even sure if Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in the first place.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SoLongAtlas]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is such a hack. This was not a war, it was a limited strike. The War Powers Act is not constitutional and militarily ineffective. Congress was informed. Inform early and they would be leaking like a sieve tying down operational effectiveness. But she never served so she wouldn't know that.

[Skill and Chance]

It is important to note that if Trump actually does start a "war" war, he is playing with political fire in a way that Republicans weren't.  Historically, whenever there is a significant war during or ending just before the election year, the Midwest and Mountain West states trend hard against the incumbent party and the South and border states trend hard toward them.  There is usually little net effect in the Northeast and West Coast states.  That looks like a great way for Trump to squander his massive EC advantage by getting "normal" Republican numbers in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Texas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is such a hack. This was not a war, it was a limited strike. The War Powers Act is not constitutional and militarily ineffective. Congress was informed. Inform early and they would be leaking like a sieve tying down operational effectiveness. But she never served so she wouldn't know that.

We started off by "just sending advisers" to 'Nam. One must be vigilant that our involvement doesn't escalate.

[SoLongAtlas]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is such a hack. This was not a war, it was a limited strike. The War Powers Act is not constitutional and militarily ineffective. Congress was informed. Inform early and they would be leaking like a sieve tying down operational effectiveness. But she never served so she wouldn't know that.

We started off by "just sending advisers" to 'Nam. One must be vigilant that our involvement doesn't escalate.

That's misdirection. She makes a strike out to be a crazy full blown shock and awe campaign which it was not. As for advisors, we already have them in Syria as well as SOF and Marines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/08/marines-have-arrived-in-syria-to-fire-artillery-in-the-fight-for-raqqa/?utm_term=.49c5a479998d

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-special-forces-kill-isis-fighters-repel-attack-syria-n744651 (Danger close mission from Sat on a base)

[SoLongAtlas]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is such a hack. This was not a war, it was a limited strike. The War Powers Act is not constitutional and militarily ineffective. Congress was informed. Inform early and they would be leaking like a sieve tying down operational effectiveness. But she never served so she wouldn't know that.

We started off by "just sending advisers" to 'Nam. One must be vigilant that our involvement doesn't escalate.

That's misdirection. She makes a strike out to be a crazy full blown shock and awe campaign which it was not. As for advisors, we already have them in Syria as well as SOF and Marines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/08/marines-have-arrived-in-syria-to-fire-artillery-in-the-fight-for-raqqa/?utm_term=.49c5a479998d

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-special-forces-kill-isis-fighters-repel-attack-syria-n744651 (Danger close mission from Sat on a base)

Also this for ref http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/us-special-forces-syria-iraq/

Warren needs to come up with substantive policy driven perspectives for Syria and stop with all this peace and love, can't we all just get along isolationism to placate the furthest left of her base. It doesn't resonate with the general population nor reality either here on the ground in Syria/Iraq.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren on the MOAB use in Afghanistan: "Where's the strategy?":

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/operations/328803-warren-demands-explanation-after-moab-strike

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is such a hack. This was not a war, it was a limited strike. The War Powers Act is not constitutional and militarily ineffective. Congress was informed. Inform early and they would be leaking like a sieve tying down operational effectiveness. But she never served so she wouldn't know that.

We started off by "just sending advisers" to 'Nam. One must be vigilant that our involvement doesn't escalate.

That's misdirection. She makes a strike out to be a crazy full blown shock and awe campaign which it was not. As for advisors, we already have them in Syria as well as SOF and Marines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/08/marines-have-arrived-in-syria-to-fire-artillery-in-the-fight-for-raqqa/?utm_term=.49c5a479998d

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-special-forces-kill-isis-fighters-repel-attack-syria-n744651 (Danger close mission from Sat on a base)

Also this for ref http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/us-special-forces-syria-iraq/

Warren needs to come up with substantive policy driven perspectives for Syria and stop with all this peace and love, can't we all just get along isolationism to placate the furthest left of her base. It doesn't resonate with the general population nor reality either here on the ground in Syria/Iraq.

One doesn't have to be a total peacenik to see that going after Assad only helps ISIS or Al Qaeda.

[SATW]

Warren is actually pretty decent on foreign policy and also has relatively decent Pro-Israel bona fides. Cuomo is better, of course, but Warren isn't bad on FP either.