Foreign policy differences among 2020 Dems

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

I agree with the highlighted quote. 

I agree with Trump's actions to the point where use of chemical weapons is something that violates an important international norm.  It is something where civilized nations ought to do something about it, and I do think that a "balanced" foreign policy here demands that we send Assad some kind of message that this is not OK.

That being said, we have no dog in the Syrian hunt.  Assad is a Russian hack who violates international norms.  ISIS is what it is, as is Al-Queda, but ISIS's enemies are backed by Iran and its allies.  None of these groups are friendly to America, and while I view Iran as a nation with which a normalization of relations could occur if folks could get beyond the need for demagoguery for the folks back home, that's a hope and a possibility, but nowhere near a reality in the here and now.

The Democrats lose me the minute they rant about the Syrian refugee issue.  More identity politics.  The Democrats want to import future Democratic voters and view unvetted terrorists in their midst as an acceptable risk.  This is how Americans view their stance, and this is one reason Democrats are not winning this debate.

Democrats would be better off if they began to advocate the kind of foreign policy CANDIDATE Trump advocated; a policy of America First.  That's what Democratic voters want.  Such a policy can involve military buildup coupled with the reduction of global adventurism in places where we have no dog in the hunt.  And it would also help if Democrats would point out that advocating "sanctions" is a war strategy.  "Economic sanctions" are acts of war.  Have all the economic sanctions we've put in place against Cuba, Iran, et al, made us safer?

[Mr. Morden]

This isn't really a difference with other Democratic candidates, but it's Dem. candidate foreign policy related, so I'll post it here....Sanders did an interview with Al Jazeera in which he criticized the BDS movement:

http://forward.com/fast-forward/370906/bernie-sanders-says-bds-wont-solve-mideast-impasse/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I guess while opposition to BDS is something that all of the other candidates would agree on, Sanders's framing in that last comment, complaining about "endless amounts of money, of military support to Israel" is probably not something that many of the other candidates would agree with.  Or at least, they wouldn't phrase it like that.

[DavidB.]

Yeah, Sanders is easily the most anti-Israeli potential contender.

[Mr. Morden]

Franken and Murphy are co-sponsoring Paul's resolution of disapproval re: Trump's arms sale to Saudi Arabia:

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ResolutionofDisapproval.pdf

We'll see how other Senate Dems react.  When Obama sold the Saudis weapons last year, the Democratic caucus in the Senate was split (though the Senators with presidential ambition were largely against the sale).  But this is a larger sale, and a Republican president, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more Dem. opposition this time.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker and Rand Paul have written a joint letter to Rex Tillerson, asking for conditions on a planned sale of aircraft to the Nigerian military, according to this press release from Booker's office:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201706090516.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Shadows]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

The vote seems to have been 91-8. Sanders, Gillibrand, and Paul were among the nays, while the other possible Presidential candidates, including Warren, voted aye.

[NOVA Green]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

The vote seems to have been 91-8. Sanders, Gillibrand, and Paul were among the nays, while the other possible Presidential candidates, including Warren, voted aye.

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who is potential 2020 Dem candidate also voted Nay.

[Mr. Morden]

The Senate failed to pass the discharge petition needed to get a vote on blocking Trump's arms sale to Saudi Arabia.  Unless you take Warner's recent quasi-walkback of a Shermanesque denial to mean that he's actually thinking about running in 2020, none of the 5 Dems who voted with the Republican majority to allow the arms sale are considered likely 2020 presidential candidates:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/337614-senate-rejects-effort-to-block-saudi-arms-sale
link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

The vote seems to have been 91-8. Sanders, Gillibrand, and Paul were among the nays, while the other possible Presidential candidates, including Warren, voted aye.

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who is potential 2020 Dem candidate also voted Nay.

If I'm understanding this right, that was the cloture vote, and subsequently various amendments changed this from an Iran sanctions bill to an Iran/Russia sanctions bill:

And so while Gillibrand and Merkley voted against cloture on the earlier version, they voted for passage of the final version:

link

link

Looks like Sanders and Paul were the only no votes on final passage of this.

[NOVA Green]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

The vote seems to have been 91-8. Sanders, Gillibrand, and Paul were among the nays, while the other possible Presidential candidates, including Warren, voted aye.

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who is potential 2020 Dem candidate also voted Nay.

If I'm understanding this right, that was the cloture vote, and subsequently various amendments changed this from an Iran sanctions bill to an Iran/Russia sanctions bill:

And so while Gillibrand and Merkley voted against cloture on the earlier version, they voted for passage of the final version:

link

link

Looks like Sanders and Paul were the only no votes on final passage of this.

Thanks for the clarification good sir!

When it comes to legislation in the US Senate, devils are frequently in the details, so it appears that you have two Senators (Bernie & Rand Paul) essentially voting nay at the final vote because of fundamental concerns regarding the potential of future War with Iran, while you have a few other Senators that switched votes to aye because Russia was added to the mix?

Sound like a fair assessment?

[Mr. Morden]

IN THE WAKE of an alleged ISIS terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament, the U.S. Senate is marking the tragedy with twin resolutions: one to express condolences, the second to move forward on a bill to hit the country with new sanctions. By a vote of 92-7, the Senate opened debate on the sanctions resolution Wednesday. But the resolution expressing condolences is still being worked on, one senator said.

“On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor before the Senate did just that. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.” The vote also came in the face of warnings from former Secretary of State John Kerry that a new sanctions bill could imperil the nuclear deal.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/07/bucking-bernie-sanders-democrats-move-forward-on-iran-sanctions-after-terror-attack-in-tehran/

The vote seems to have been 91-8. Sanders, Gillibrand, and Paul were among the nays, while the other possible Presidential candidates, including Warren, voted aye.

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who is potential 2020 Dem candidate also voted Nay.

If I'm understanding this right, that was the cloture vote, and subsequently various amendments changed this from an Iran sanctions bill to an Iran/Russia sanctions bill:

And so while Gillibrand and Merkley voted against cloture on the earlier version, they voted for passage of the final version:

link

link

Looks like Sanders and Paul were the only no votes on final passage of this.

Thanks for the clarification good sir!

When it comes to legislation in the US Senate, devils are frequently in the details, so it appears that you have two Senators (Bernie & Rand Paul) essentially voting nay at the final vote because of fundamental concerns regarding the potential of future War with Iran, while you have a few other Senators that switched votes to aye because Russia was added to the mix?

Sound like a fair assessment?

Possibly, but I wasn't following it super closely.  There were other amendments added on, so I don't know if the Russia thing is what got Gillibrand, Merkley, etc. on board, or if there was more to it than that.  I leave it to others to investigate that.

[Mr. Morden]

Now that Delaney has entered the race, and we've gotten some hints from Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan, it's time to scrutinize foreign policy-related House votes from recent years.

Here's one: A vote in the House last year on an amendment that would bar the US from selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-heeding-close-house_b_10516480.html
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll327.xml

The amendment failed, but only because 16 Democrats crossed over to join with the majority of Republicans in preserving US cluster bomb sales to Saudi Arabia.  One of those 16 Democrats was....John Delaney.  Meanwhile, Gabbard, Moulton, and Tim Ryan all voted with the majority of Dems to ban the sale.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, here's another one: A resolution in the House that objects to the UN resolution that condemns Israel's settlement building:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll011.xml

109 Dems joined almost all of the Republicans in voting for it, while 76 Dems voted against.  Delaney, Moulton, and Tim Ryan all voted for it, while Gabbard voted against.

[#StillWithHer]

Democrats attacking Israel when it is the most liberal country in the Middle East makes my head spin, why? I hope our candidate in 2020 takes a firm stand on this while opposing unnecessary intervention.

[Kingpoleon]

There was the 2014 vote to fund the "moderate" jihadists.

Nay: Sanders, Gillibrand, Warren
Aye: Booker, Klobuchar

1. How did Wyden vote?
2. Is this the moderates in Yemen or Syria?

[Mr. Morden]

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted in favor of a bill that would withhold foreign aid from the Palestinian Authority unless it stops offering cash prizes for killing Americans or Israelis.  6 of the 10 Dems on the committee joined with the Republicans to vote for it, but the 4 Dems voting against were Booker, Merkley, Murphy, and Udall.  All of those except Udall are purported to be thinking about running for president.

http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/s-c-sen-lindsey-graham-s-bill-for-slain-american/article_5fc857c4-7869-11e7-8087-2b63465f2727.html

[Mr. Morden]

Rand Paul offered an amendment this week to repeal the 2002 authorization for military force in Iraq.  The amendment failed on a procedural vote, with the roll call listed here:

link

(Voting “yea” means you vote to kill the amendment, meaning that you’re voting to keep the AUMF in effect.)

13 Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in voting to kill the amendment, and, in what I’m sure is a coincidence, none of those 13 are thought to be among the Senate Dems considering a 2020 presidential run…..unless you buy the Manchin hype in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272473.0

[Mr. Morden]

The House passed a resolution declaring that US military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its fight against Yemen is not authorized under the 2001 AUMF:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/house-yemen-civil-war-authorization-244868
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll623.xml

Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan voted for it, while Gabbard voted against it.  Delaney wasn't present for the vote.

[°Leprechaun]

What each candidate has to say about NK will be important.

[Joey1996]

I know that Warren is surprisingly hawkish on Israel. The establishment candidates, like Booker and Gillibrand, seem to be hawks on this issue too.

Even Sanders is pro-Israel to a point,  don't think anyone in Congress isn't.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden 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.

Bernie beat them.

[Mr. Morden]

Biden 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.

Bernie beat them.

Sorry.  I meant to write "Sanders and Warren", but mistakenly wrote "Biden and Warren" instead.  Fixed my post just now.

[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.