|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Do the US intelligence agencies attempt to influence the US Presidential elections ?||Recommended Links||Tulsi Gabbard||Elizabeth Warren||Donald Trump2020||Bernie Sanders: A turncoat socialist ?||Venezuella: another "bombs for oil" scenario after Libya?||Two Party System as polyarchy|
|NeoMcCartyism campaign as a smoke screen to hide the crisis of neoliberalism||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||The Iron Law of Oligarchy||Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections||Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA||The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies||Do the foreign state influence the US Presidential elections ?||Obama administration participation in the intelligence services putsch against Trump||DNC and Podesta emails leak: blaming Vladimir Putin|
|Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite||Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism||FBI Mayberry Machiavellians and CIA connected democrats||Mueller invokes ghosts of GRU operatives to help his and Brennan case||Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy||Rosenstein role in the "Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit"||Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"||National Security State|
|US and British media are servants of security apparatus||Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few||New American Militarism||The Real War on Reality||The Deep State||Strzokgate||Steele dossier||Trump vs. Deep State||Brennan elections machinations|
|Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Skeptic Quotations||History of American False Flag Operations||Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Cambridge Analytica data mining scandal||Media as a weapon of mass deception||Hypocrisy of British ruling elite||Politically Incorrect Humor||Etc|
|#TULSI2020 Wants to:
Tulsi Gabbard (twit Feb 17, 2019)
Russia-baiting propaganda is being deployed against our campaign along with anyone else, on the left or the right, who speaks out against regime change war or the new Cold War. The corporate media is doing everything they can to stop our campaign before it gets started -- including using fraudulent journalism and discredited sources to launch their biased attacks.
Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc; French pronunciation: [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431), nicknamed "The
Maid of Orléans" (French: La Pucelle d'Orléans), is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of
the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint. She was born to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée, a peasant
family, at Domrémy in north-east France. Joan claimed to have received visions of the Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint
Catherine of Alexandria instructing her to support Charles VII and recover France from English domination late in the Hundred
Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent Joan to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She gained prominence after
the siege was lifted only nine days later. Several additional swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims. This long-awaited
event boosted French morale and paved the way for the final French victory.
This woman should be admired for her courage and willingness to challenge the sacred cows of US political discourse. Not that she always was consistent (see Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Russia Must Face Consequences for Continued Aggression in Ukraine Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard - a typical neocon statement. ) but still...
Neoliberalism has vandalized the USA, and now it's time for backlash. Voting for the alternative candidate became an active form of protest against neoliberalism. That's why Trump was elected in 2016. The reason for this is that many people continue to live with the illusion that a simple change of elected leadership in a Latin American country can bring a fundamental change for the region. I would argue that due to the power of intelligence agencies demonstrated in 2016 and after in Russiagate witch hunt, this is not possible. Still you can fight even without hope, and be stoic in case of defeat. This is the fight worth fighting.
The current neo-McCarthyism campaign make it very difficult fro any politicians to be anti-war. Neoliberal MSM became part of military-industrial complex. Reaction of neoliberal MSM on withdrawal US troops from Syria (Trump is giving Christmas Present for Putin; Trump is abandoning Israel, abandoning Kurds) was abruptly disgusting. So it need great personal courage to challenging the Washington consensus. MIC (neocons are just lobbyists of MIC) ruled the USA for more then 40 years and the main premise of neocon foreign policy is the USA have God provided mandate to rule the global and prevent emergence of any rival who is able to challenge the US dominance like the USSR. In the process like any empire they impoverish the USA population, lower the standard of living and committed numerous crimes. Since Carter any US president would be convicted as a war criminal by Nuremberg court. Even Carter conspired to supply radical islamist for fight Soviets in Afghanistan, giving them among other thing anti-aircraft missiles. Essentially creating political Islam, or at least legitimizing and empowering it.
Defense apparatus became new class of imperial servant and they prevent any meaningful change as this engager their well being. This is a systemic issue. It's kind of ironic that the person who attack this empirical establishment is a woman. In this sense Tulsi Gabbard is the US version of Jane of Ark who attacked British in France after a long period when French army did not have any successes against them
As 2016 "re-awakening of the US" has shown people now reject neoliberalism and foreign wars for the maintenance and expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire, fought by the US people on behave of multinational corporation, for the expansion of their markets (Say Goodbye to Mitch McConnell’s America):
“American democracy has never accorded all the people a meaningful voice,” writes Nancy Isenberg in White Trash, her scathing examination of ignored U.S. history. “The masses have been given symbols instead, and they are often empty symbols. Nation-states traditionally rely on the fiction that a head of state can represent the body of the people and stand as their proxy; in the American version, the president must appeal broadly to shared values that mask the existence of deep class divisions...
Mitch McConnell is a highly visible champion of that ideological deception, a deft practitioner of that stagecraft. The “essence of America” he [ spoke of ] certainly exists, but cunning politicians of his ilk are too canny to mention it in public. That essence — the belief that the nation and its population are a gilded platter to be gorged upon, a fertile field to be plundered and despoiled for profit with the people serving as replaceable tools for the aristocracy — is McConnell’s birthright, and he defends it with all the powers at his disposal, just as his colonial predecessors did.
...They want freedom for themselves, not for you. Their “freedom” is elite, expensive and jealously guarded.
Tulsi Gabbard does not yet has an elaborate economic or foreign policy program. But from tidbits that we know there is a lot to like in her program, and first and foremost her consistent anti-war stance. She is the only candidate with clear anti-war position in 2002 elections. that means that she automatically inherits antiwar republicans vote previously cast for Trump (who proved to be another master of bait and switch like Obama, essentially a republican Obama; Venezuela is just the most recent example of this betrayal).
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with clear anti-war position in 2002 elections
While her platform will evolve as the race goes, you can already can get some tidbits from her twits and meetings. See https://twitter.com
As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me.
In previous presidential campaign Tulsi left her position of vice-chair of DNC to support Bernie Sanders. Just three prominent democrats stand for Sanders. She did not endorsed neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders and Liz Warred did endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's an important different between Warren, Sanders and Tulsi. Sanders any longer can be trusted because in previous election cycle he acted like sheepdog for Hillary. Warren is difficult to trust became he tend to be "neocon light" on those issues.
Now progressive voters will be split three ways. Hopefully there will some mergers along the lines Tulsi/Bernie or Bernie/Tulsi.
She introduced several important bills, which makes her anti-war stance more credible. After bat and switch" candidates like Barack Obama and Trump it is easy to became cynical and ignore elections. But currently I think that Tulsi is a real deal.
She can get neutral and Republican votes more than anyone for Democrats
~Purana Paapi Youtube comment
She was incredibly courteous to take on neocon lobby. This is almost a suicidal mission, and changes are the she will be quickly destroyed. Both neoliberal and neocon MSM are actively trying to destroy her. Whether she will win or not, she is the most important candidate in 2002 elections. The only candidate who can unite part of Republican, "real" Democrats and Independent. No other democrat focuses on Foreign Policy like her!
At the same time, after the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine, she supported supplying the illegitimate far-right putschists (Provisional government of Yatsenuyk and Turchinov) with military assistance, shamefully saying America can’t stand “idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” Hopefully her position evolved in five years since 2014.
She’s against what she called “counterproductive wars of regime change,” including in Syria.
She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was “a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of ‘humanitarianism’ as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war,” adding:
“Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups.”
“If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”
“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.”
She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In any case, her importance in oppositing "Permanent war for permanent peace" is well understood by some commenters on YouTube
alorr4uz , 2 days ago (edited)Majdi Saadieh , 2 days ago (edited)
wow. that was just wow. when she said
"I am not someone who will go into the white house and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington to tell me what to do, I don't have to. I'm not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders. I am not intimidated by the military industrial complex and what they're pushing for."
she literally could have just dropped the mic. I bet the aforementioned military industrial complex just peed themselves a little. This is why MSM and DNC hate her. And why we all love her. I'm all in on #Tulsi2020 .Brooks Rogers , 2 days ago
Hello, Mrs. Gabbard excuse my English which is my third language. I respect you so much, I'm from Syrian, I live in SF you are the only one who really stood up for the Syrian people by talking about the lies of the media toward my country, and also by meeting with The Syrian President who is the legal representative of the Syrian people by election. You had the honor to visit my country and saw the miserable situation caused by the war that was made and supported by the US; please if you become the president end this war and end the suffer of the Syrian people
99 year Old Mother, WWII ARMY Nurse Corp Vet on the Comfort when it was hit by a kamikaze, "adores" you Tulsi. So moved when watching the CNN Town Hall. You are her hero!
That why neocon bottomfeeders like Kristol come after her. Unlike this chickenhawk, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, which means that she knows what it means to be in the military trenches. That's why Megan McCain came after her. As she said
“Too often we have found, throughout our country’s history, we have people in positions of power who make offhanded comments about sending a few thousand troops here, fifty thousand there, a hundred thousand there, intervening militarily here, or starting a war there—without seeming to understand or appreciate the cost of war. If our troops are sent to fight a war, it must be the last option. Not the first.”
Gabbard once told talking head Donald Trump specifically to ignore “drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating.” By specifically calling out the Neocons she looks like a modern incarnation of Joan of Arc who took on
Gabbard was also indirectly attacking the Israeli regime, which arguably is a powerful lobbyist of the Pentagon and war machine:
“For decades, Congress has ceded its Constitutional responsibility of deciding whether or not to declare war, to the President. As a result, we have found ourselves in a state of perpetual war, without a declaration of war by Congress and without input from the American people.
“Since 9/11 alone, our country has spent trillions of dollars on interventionist regime change wars, costing the lives of many Americans, taking a toll on our veterans, and causing people in our communities to struggle and suffer due to a lack of resources.
“Our bipartisan resolution aims to end presidential wars, and hold Congress accountable so it does its job in making the serious and costly decision about whether or not to send our nation’s sons and daughters to war…
“Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. But the last time Congress officially declared war was December 8th, 1941 – the day the US entered World War II.
“Ever since, Congress has failed to uphold their constitutional responsibility and have instead ceded power to the President. So, we remain in a state of perpetual war, led by presidents in both parties at great cost to the American people with no declaration of war by Congress and no input from the American people.
“The direct and indirect costs of these presidential wars are astounding. They take a toll on our troops, our veterans, and on the American people.
“Since 9/11 alone, we’ve spent trillions of dollars on regime-change wars and nation-building while people in our communities suffer and struggle because of a lack of resources here at home, what to mention the costs borne by our troops, those who pay the ultimate price, as well as those who come home with wounds that are visible and invisible. The American people deserve accountability.”
Philip M. Giraldi who is a good political analyst whose judgments I mostly trust thinks that she is for real anti-war candidate who wwill fight against neocon lobby; not yet another con-man like Bush, Obama and Trump proved to be (and that why she probably will be burned at stake like Joan of Ark).
Here is his analysis:
Tulsi’s own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged “focus on the issue of war and peace” to “end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.” She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics, she called for an end to the “illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government,” also observing that “the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.” She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries “if you are serious about pursuing peace.” She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for “regime change” in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting “unarmed protesters” in Gaza, but one presumes that, like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel’s settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders’ antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept describes how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1st, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68, a news “intelligence net checker” that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that “Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity.”
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the “real thing,” a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to “spread democracy” and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
Gabbard’s record here is mixed at best. She formerly served as DNC vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Which was a corageous act.
But after Hillary used dirty tricks in primary elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy. In other words she suuported a political figure who was probably the most ruthless and militalistic presidential aspirant in US history. The charaterization which can be backed up with cold, hard facts about her deplorable record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state.
That's huge minus for Tulsi, but to survive in Washington you need to compromize your integrity.
Gore Vidal explained how the dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they’ve “been bought over 10 times.” The same goes for top congressional posts.
Gabbard is suspect for similar reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district in November 2012.
She was born April 12, 1981 Leloaloa, American Samoa, the fourth of five children of Carol (Porter) and Mike Gabbard. Gabbard would be the youngest US president ever if she wins; she'll be 39 on Inauguration Day 2021. In 1983, when Gabbard was two years old, her family moved to Hawaii. Her father is a member of the Hawaii Senate. Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry and an active lector at his Catholic church. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of European descent and a practicing Hindu ( Hare Krishna sect I think).
Tulsi chose Hinduism as her religion while she was a teenager. I doubt that she is overly religious as she got the university education. Gabbard was home-schooled through high school except for two years at a girls-only missionary academy in the Philippines. She graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration in 2009.
|“We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our middle class.”|
Tulsi Gabbard is best know for he anti-war stance, which makes her an outlier among the majority (bought by MIC and Israeli lobby, which is simultaneously is a MIC lobby) US Congressmen/women. Much like Ron Paul previously was Tulsi Gabbard Kicks Off Campaign With Anti-War Speech
Speaking from a beach in Waikiki, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard formally kicked off her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination with a speech cautioning that the United States is engaged in a “New Cold War,” telling a crowd of hundreds of supporters that every American pays the price of unrestrained militarism and interventionist foreign policy.
Wearing a white lei, Gabbard, a four-term congresswoman from Hawaii, asked those assembled to help her build a movement emphasizing “peace at home and abroad that will fulfill the promise of America.” Pointing to the Trump administration, which “claims to believe in America First, but who sells our troops, our weapons and our interests to whichever foreign country is the highest bidder,” Gabbard warned the crowd on Honolulu—many of whom were terrified by a false nuclear alert in Jan. 2018—that a nuclear war “could destroy our world in mere minutes.”
“Every American pays the price for these wars,” Gabbard, a longtime anti-interventionist, said, dismissing unspecified opponents in Washington as treating troops like “political pawns and mercenaries for hire in wars across the world... thinking up new wars to wage, and new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars.”
“I will bring this soldier’s values to the White House,” Gabbard vowed, closing her foreign policy-centric address with the promise that she would bring the Hawaiian value of aloha to the White House.
– Scott Bixby
From positions - tulsi
Issue Position Details Abortion Pro-Choice Tulsi has a 100% voting record with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Affordable Care Act Supports Protect and improve Obamacare until Single Payer plan can pass. Border Wall Opposes Dream Act must be independent of any border wall legistation Campaign Finance Supports Wants to ban super PACs and does not take any PAC money. Citizens United Opposes "The only way to restore public faith in our democracy is with citizen-led, grassroots-funded campaigns." Civil Rights Supports Federal protection for discrimination of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief , gender. Climate Change Green New Deal Tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass and wave energy. Regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Dakota Access Pipeline Opposes Visited and supported protestors at DAPL. Also opposed Keystone. Death Penalty - - GMO labeling Supports Let Americans have a choice in their food purchases. Green New Deal - - Gun Control Supports Supports sensible gun control. Has 7% rating from the NRA . Illegal Immigration Opposes Deportation Need fair immigration reform that doesn't break up families. Environmental Protections Supports Lifelong environmentalist who started an environmental non-profit as a teenager, and has a strong environmental record. Equal Pay Supports Supported legislation to level the playing field such as H.R.377 - Paycheck Fairness Act Internet Privacy Supports Restrict how Internet providers use and sell customer data LGBT Rights & Marriage Equality Supports Since being elected to Congress, Tulsi has been 100% pro-LGBT rights and for marriage equality. Marijuana Decriminalize & Legalize Introduced legislation to take off federal controlled substances list. Supports Legalization. Mandatory Minimums Opposes Reduce mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders Medicare-For-All Supports Cosponsor of H.R. 676 the Medicare for All Act. Minimum Wage $15 Supports Cosponsored the Minimum Wage Fairness Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act Net Neutrality Supports "Maintaining Net Neutrality is Cornerstone of Our Democracy" North Korea Talks Supports Supports diplomacy, ending the standoff and regime change wars including North Korea. NSA Mass Collection Surveillance Opposes Strongly pro civil liberties, and reigning in, stopping mass collection and defunding the NSA Nuclear Power Opposes Too dangerous and expensive. Better to phase it out and focus on clean, safe, renewable energy. PayGo Opposes "just three Democrats voted it down: Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez were joined by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii" Planned Parenthood Supports Supports funding and has 100% rating from them. Prisons For Profit Opposes Has called to end the use of private prisons nationwide. Refugee Ban Opposes Spoke against Trump's executive order banning refugees. Thinks vetting is sufficient. Saudi Arabia Arms Sales Opposes Condemned the Trump Administration's $460 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia Single-Payer Healthcare Supports Supports HR 676 and universal healthcare, Medicare and a public option Social Security Protect Committed to protecting Medicare and Social Security. Opposes Privatization. Space Exploration - - Syria End the War End interventionist wars of regime change that cost lives and money and make things worse. Trans-Pacific Partnership Opposes Has helped lead the opposition on this issue. Veterans Services Expand Let veterans see private physicians, improve the GI Bill, incentives to hire veterans Wall Street Regulation Supports Reinstate Glass-Steagall Act, ban naked credit default swaps, and breakup big banks.
Warren endorsed Hillary which makes her yet another neoliberal warmonger. Big no-no for many voters. She proved to be a malleable coward. That means it does not matter what issue she supports during election campaign. She will be easily coursed after election to continue traditional policies, especially foreign policy.
Warren has more clearly defined tax policy, which is her specialty. Here is an old, but still interesting discussion at Tulsi Gabbard Elizabeth Warren in 2020 Who Can Beat Trump
May 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com
BestAnimeFanservice , 1 year agoMegan Parish , 1 year ago (edited)
Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward; she never stands up against her party; she only fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she knows the words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren in 2020 will be the Walter Mondale of 1984'D. Martin , 1 year ago (edited)
Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also really pushing the fake Russia story all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't endorse Hillary.TheGr8stManEvr , 1 year ago (edited)
Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now? Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.TheKeithvidz , 1 year ago (edited)
I'll never trust Warren again. She's a Fauxgressive, just like Obama. #FoolMeOncebranden burks , 1 year ago
tulsi %100 but Warren supported Ben Carson & Hillary Rodham - to be fair she's far from the worse.branden burks , 1 year ago
Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a true progressive in 2020. Have you seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about cheating Sanders on the record?
I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too little too late and she doesn't do it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too many holes in her.
what is interesting, the most vicious attacks against Gabbard do not come from “conservative” media outlets or journalists. They came from neoliberal MSM and Clinton wing of Democratic Party. As one would expect those MSM are pretty far from liberal ideas. They are hell-bent on neocolonialism and wars for enlarging and sustaining global, led by the USA neoliberal empire. They just use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for foreign wars. Those presstitutes know who butters their bread, and they likes theirs bread buttered.
In spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not backed down from protesting US support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (Tulsi Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President )
During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S. military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018, she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were before."
In 2002, after redistricting, Gabbard (as Gabbard Tamayo) ran to represent the 42nd House District of the Hawaii House of Representatives. She won the four-candidate Democratic primary getting 48%. Gabbard then defeated Republican Alfonso Jimenez in the general election, 65%–35%. At the age of 21, Gabbard had become the youngest legislator ever elected in Hawaii's history and the youngest woman ever elected to a U.S. state legislature. She represented the Oahu 42nd District, which covers Waipahu, Honolulu, and Ewa Beach. She played a key role, along with her Ewa colleagues, in securing funding for infrastructure on the Ewa Plains. In 2004, Gabbard filed for reelection, but then volunteered for Army National Guard service in Iraq.
During her tenure Gabbard strongly supported legislation to promote clean energy. She supported legislation to expand tax credits for solar and wind, improve the net energy metering program, establish renewable energy portfolio standards, reduce taxes on the sale of ethanol and biofuels, provide funding for a seawater air conditioning project and make it easier for condo/townhouse owners to get solar.
Regarding the environment, Gabbard supported legislation to better protect air quality, the water supply, endangered species and avian/marine life, fight invasive species, reduce greenhouse gases, promote recycling of food waste and packaging, improve the Deposit Beverage Container Program (bottle law), and reduce illegal dumping. Gabbard previously held socially conservative positions more in line with her father, who sought for decades to pass laws against homosexuality, and who is against abortion rights. She shifted toward a more liberal stance in the early 2010s.
After returning home from her second deployment to the Middle East in 2009, Gabbard ran for a seat on the Honolulu City Council. Incumbent City Councilman Rod Tam, of the 6th district, decided to retire in order to run for Mayor of Honolulu. In the ten-candidate nonpartisan open primary in September 2010, Gabbard finished first with 33% of the vote. In the November 2 runoff election, she defeated Sesnita Moepono, 58%–42%, to win the seat. As a councilmember, Gabbard introduced a measure to help food truck vendors by loosening parking restrictions. She also introduced Bill 54, a measure that authorized city workers to confiscate personal belongings stored on public property with 24 hours' notice to its owner. After overcoming opposition from the ACLU and Occupy Hawai'i, Bill 54 passed and became City Ordinance 1129.
|In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 to prohibit the use of United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations directly or indirectly.|
Gabbard won the general election on November 6, 2012, defeating Republican Kawika Crowley, by approximately 130,000 votes, or 168,503 to 40,707 votes (80.6%−19.4%). In December 2012, Gabbard applied to be considered for appointment to the Senate seat vacated by the death of Daniel Inouye, but despite support from prominent mainland Democrats, she was not among the three candidates selected by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
Gabbard was reelected in 2014, 2016 and 2018. Gabbard is the first Samoan American member of the United States Congress and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress.
In her first term, Gabbard introduced the Helping Heroes Fly Act, which passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. This measure seeks to improve airport security screenings for severely wounded veterans, and was signed into law by the president. She also led an effort to pass legislation to assist victims of military sexual trauma.
2015–16 Along with Senator Hirono, Gabbard introduced the Filipino Veterans of WWII Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015 to award Filipino and Filipino American veterans who fought in World War II the Congressional Gold Medal. The bill passed both the Senate and the House, in July and November 2016, respectively, and was signed by President Obama on December 15, 2016. Gabbard also introduced Talia's Law, to prevent child abuse and neglect on military bases. It passed the House and Senate and was signed by President Obama on December 2017–18
In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 to prohibit the use of United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations directly or indirectly. Announcing the legislation, she said:
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL ... and other terrorist groups with money, weapons and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government."
Jul 20, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
Add his violations
of personal spaceof women and children and he's a perfect candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.
Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.
Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.
I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the pack...
Jul 13, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
+ 64% of veterans said the Iraq War wasn't worth fighting , considering the costs versus the benefit to the U.S., and more than 50% think the same about the war in Afghanistan I wonder what percentage of them got "woke" to this before Tulsi Gabbard?
Jul 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Sinophile , 20 hours ago
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden times became hermits.
Jul 06, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
veganmark on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 11:39pmk9disc on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 12:34pm
Take a look at these short videos:
Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The "pimple" subsequently vanished.
This bizarre behavior by MSNBC lends additional credence to claims by Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson that their mikes were turned off during portions of the debate.
Those responsible for this must be identified, fired, and, if feasible, prosecuted. Until MSNBC cooperates in these regards, it should be treated like a pariah. Complaints to the regulatory authorities are in order, and the public should be fully apprised of this. If this strategy of digital manipulation is not nipped in the bud NOW, who knows what dangerous frauds might await us in the future?Do You Think It Is Acceptable to Doctor Footage to Paint aJen on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:10pm
candidate in a bad light?
While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that scale.
Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news organization.
It's rather ugly, IMO. And while I get the "distraction" angle, it's beyond that: it's a trial balloon. When it comes to psyops; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
@mimiI did an eyeroll
@mimi I did an eyeroll when I first heard about it too. But then I started to understand. Tulsi is a beautiful woman, inside and out from what I've seen. I'm quite sure that her outer beauty is one thing that made lots of people google her.
Some people really are that superficial.
How would you go about trying to make her less beautiful without being overtly obvious? Did that pimple stop people from wanting to know who she is?
I really hope not. Personally, I think she's beautiful with or without a zit on her chin, but her message is what makes her shine so bright. They can't put a pimple on that.
Jul 02, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: TomDispatch.com
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly endless wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago, I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly declaring it dead. Critics noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them, and ultimately, apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even climate change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia ( we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say, however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are defined by their ability to challenge the status quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the Muslim Ban that are also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on the front lines of the gun control , climate change , and police brutality debates. It's Congress passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified, however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved, then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the exhaustion of having been outraged and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica, California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation Z rapidly becoming the largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one indicator of a successful movement, however incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time, she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton, didn't even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire" in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting in 2017, he became the face of what could be a new American way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform. One of the main aspects of Elizabeth Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected. Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely outcomes : you will be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020 Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift" at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become more apparent as those calling for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
Ilhan Omar ✔ @IlhanMN
We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. http://www. startribune.com/rep-ilhan-omar -with-perspective-of-a-foreigner-sets-ambitious-global-agenda/510489882/?om_rid=3005497801&om_mid=317376969&refresh=true7,176 3:24 PM - May 28, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy Rep. Ilhan Omar, with 'perspective of a foreigner,' sets ambitious global agenda
From her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and with a growing international reputation, the former refugee is wading into debates over various global hot spots and controversies.startribune.com
2,228 people are talking about this
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over 1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters hadn't thought about before. After the hearing, Teen Vogue created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the NowThis clip of her in that congressional hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm agreed to return $16.1 million in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism. Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter @ally_harp .
This article is from TomDispatch.com .
Edwin Stamm , July 5, 2019 at 10:40
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation, this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up and act up.
Jim Glover , July 3, 2019 at 17:43
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives (excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama. As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse, Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
P.Brooks , July 3, 2019 at 12:54
No More War
Don Bacon , July 3, 2019 at 12:29
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that, as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services. It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military. They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state, and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
P.Brooks , July 3, 2019 at 13:53
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot. The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi. I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018 run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement, would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance. Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun! " – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders (in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
Robert Harrow , July 3, 2019 at 15:54
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
Piotr Berman , July 3, 2019 at 21:15
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom, and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight. The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of "superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe", is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists" (created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal, Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton), Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama). The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy") has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans, who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell, and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:41
peter mcloughlin , July 3, 2019 at 10:43
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran, Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically, in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide, in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production, and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment, ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been, even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base", as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression, with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing, the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers (Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
O Society , July 3, 2019 at 09:48
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics and religion.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 13:55
Seen on the street:
Support Our Troops
BRING THEM HOME NOW
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:39
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:42
New and better link here:
Gregory Herr , July 3, 2019 at 21:40
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress, you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th., 2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Is your legislator a signee of this list? All of mine are
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:11
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination). American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
Karen , July 3, 2019 at 07:59
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism, and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform, unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries, closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting defense spending.
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:22
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and, really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP, which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear); and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel. We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard (and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists (whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner', that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq war."
Dan Kennedy: Censorship of graphic Iraq war photographs -- 29 Jul 2008
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 18:36
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
Dao Gen , July 3, 2019 at 05:20
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS. His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred. The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won, she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems, they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions. This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has, so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old. Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be different. There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest. Just like Dubya. Just like Obomber. Just like the Orange Baboon. Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement." Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument, disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 09:38
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent, (Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children. She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt. These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring), the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet. The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'. Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters" and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare. Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute, control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism, would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party, next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System, the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots) in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity. Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people, who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement: killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective, a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 08:36
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese ( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:25
US military contribution to ecocide: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/02/08/pentagon-pollution-7-military-assault-global-climate/
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 16:35
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency, which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen. Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't killed by those that love the endless wars.
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America and will have no long-term future.
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 09:56
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic system.
James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:02
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian / pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites, who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the article:
STUDY FINDS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH MILITARY CASUALTIES AND VOTES FOR TRUMP OVER CLINTON
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
Helga I. Fellay , July 3, 2019 at 11:09
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him, which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not. He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
Piotr Berman , July 4, 2019 at 07:02
Trump standing up to his nominees:
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
Jul 02, 2019 | www.unz.com
Last Wednesday’s debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party’s nominee for president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more articulately.
The New York Times’ coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach classes in how Warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric, campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."
Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate.
On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense."
Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates, confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable."
At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war. This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no war with Iran."
Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.
In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.
And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China.
Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently.
To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
alley cat says: July 2, 2019 at 1:39 am GMT 200 Words
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
Tulsi is a candidate for political office, not sainthood. Much like Trump in 2016, being patently less cynical than her rivals makes her the obvious choice.
the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable
Operative word in the above sentence: "genuine."
Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick.
She went to Syria and proclaimed that rule by Assad was better for Syrians than rule by Al Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes.
What was Ryan going to do? Tell Tulsi she didn't know what she was talking about?
Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the neocons.
renfro , says: July 2, 2019 at 4:21 am GMT
Gabbard did well but if I had to vote tomorrow it would be for Elizabeth Warren ..she's got the real intelligence firepower combined with some old fashioned common sense. None of them are going to directly attack the jew lobby during the campaign .why bring on smear jobs and fake stories when it doesnt matter what they say, only what they do when elected.
Would never vote for Joe "I am Zionist" Biden, he's just a paler shade of Trump .or to be even clearer Biden is the DC establishment whereas Trump is the NJ Mafia,
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
alexander says: July 2, 2019 at 11:48 am GMT 100 Words
Let's be honest,Phil
Tulsi did not "win" the debate ..
SHE WAS THE DEBATE !
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with our entire D.N.C. by now , they have to pin their nose (to avoid the stink) while sitting through one more . Establishment Elite, corporate " con job " debate ?
How many , Phil ?
Like just about EVERYBODY .
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with NBC . and all its LIES . that even if the broadcasters PAID them, tomorrow , they would STILL refuse to watch their network ?.
Like just about EVERYBODY .
Tulsi is not simply the ONLY candidate who MATTERS .she is the only candidate, alive, who has a shot in rescuing our country from its descent into corporatist "warmongering" hell .
Tulsi is IT !
May God bless her . and keep her safe.
Commentator Mike , says: July 2, 2019 at 12:00 pm GMT@Brabantian lectorate has been fooled so many times before, no big harm in getting fooled again, although not very smart (as Einstein once remarked about repeating same same while expecting a different result).Moi , says: July 2, 2019 at 12:26 pm GMT
Hopefully by a "peace" or pseudo-peace candidate to at least keep that narrative going in the general population even if once elected the new president turns around and betrays the pre-election promises. Now if there were some way to make those politicians pay for dishonouring their word.
But as I may have asked in another comment, could the electorate be as cynical and hypocritical as these politicians they cast votes for?@BragadociousFool's Paradise , says: July 2, 2019 at 12:41 pm GMT
Bingo! For a smart dude, PG should know (and I am sure he does) that the problem is systemic. No candidate, if s/he expects to get anywhere, is going to call out Aipac or bring up the issue of Jewish influence and power.Sick of Orcs , says: July 2, 2019 at 1:35 pm GMT
On Tucker Carlson, Tulsi named Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia as the main pushers for war with Iran. No, she isn't perfect. No American politician dare say more. But she's the best we have and deserves our support. If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third, Peace Party, and run on it. So she splits the Democrats and they lose? So what! What difference does it make what Democrat or Republican Zio-whore becomes President?follyofwar , says: July 2, 2019 at 1:53 pm GMT
Trump was a roaring lion for America First, right up until his inauguration. President Tulsi will also "see the light" about how Israel is our most important ally. Ever see the photo of the 10 rabbis flanking Trump's desk in the Oval office? It could just as easily been a scene out of The Sopranos, with the family forcing some schmuck to "legally" sign over his business.@Ghalimacilrae , says: July 2, 2019 at 2:08 pm GMT
As Giraldi wrote, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But who can compare with her in this moribund democrat field? Politics is the art of the possible. When Trump first announced in 2015, no pundit outside of Ann Coulter said he had a chance. And look how he demolished that republican field consisting of 16 brain dead neocons. If given half a chance, Tulsi could do the same. And the fact that she is a veteran works in her favor. Just because she was in Iraq, does not mean that she supported the US aggression. Like thousands of other vets, she obviously did not.@Commentator Mike ou're right but consider the obstacles she has to overcome – her desperate need to bypass the hostile media in order to make her point to the American masses who will care little or nothing about a few hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners but, when it comes to American dead, they are rather more receptive.Agent76 , says: July 2, 2019 at 2:26 pm GMT
Same thing is true on Israel – if she is to have any chance she has to grit her teeth and stay pretty mum on that topic. They already know where she stands after her remarks about Netanyahu; her meeting with Assad and her wish for better relations with Russia – they will do everything in their power to destroy her.JackOH , says: July 2, 2019 at 2:40 pm GMT
The two private club parties will *Never* allow our freedom from the plantation.
Jul 28, 2016 How Did The U.S. End Up With A Two-Party System?
Democrats and Republicans dominate the American political system, leaving third parties behind. So why is there a two party system?
Jun 6, 2013 How Ron Paul Was Cheated Out Of Presidency
A compilation of footage that shows how the establishment used illegal tactics to get Ron Paul out of the presidential running.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ouBoyu9gGY?feature=oembedRobinG , says: July 2, 2019 at 3:01 pm GMT
My Congressman, Tim Ryan, was up there. He's a likeable guy, and he plays ball, probably because he has to after succeeding Jim Traficant, who was expelled from Congress. He's criticized locally for not bringing back more pork, and his local cliche-ridden talks sound as though they were scripted by the Democrat Central Committee. I'll give him credit for avoiding misconduct that could lead to indictment, no small achievement in this preternaturally corrupt area. I think he's reasonably honest, but just not a firebrand.
There's unsubstantiated speculation here he's been positioning himself for hire as a lobbyist.@Fool's ParadiseFool's Paradise , says: July 2, 2019 at 3:17 pm GMT
If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third, Peace Party, and run on it.
Yes. My question, when to start preparing for an outside run? If she's making steady progress, she won't move until after the convention. Would threatening an independent run help or hurt her before then?@TKKTKK , says: July 2, 2019 at 3:34 pm GMT
I've never had a female boss so I can't comment on your question. No, Tulsi can't win the Presidency, it'd be a miracle if she did, but I'm saying that if she does get a huge following, gets cheated out of the nomination, and has the guts to form a Third Party, she'd shake up the rotten rigged system and give us some hope.@Fool's Paradise
Women who have children are more vulnerable to threats of harm. ( If they are good mothers)
I sometimes believe that when elected leaders do want to shake things up, they are threatened by various shadow organizations, when bribes don't work.
I detest George Clooney and his tranny wife, but the movie Michael Clayton lays it out well.
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
Harold Smith says: July 2, 2019 at 6:28 pm GMT 100 Words
If orange clown can pretend to be one of "us" and then immediately turn around and enthusiastically stab "us" in the back, why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them" (e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did 9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations?
If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and self-destructive wars?
If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard?
The cynicism I see in some of the comments here disparaging Gabbard is "over the top" IMO; somebody is going to be president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat. So why not support someone who appears to be genuinely opposed to the wars?
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
The Alarmist , says: July 2, 2019 at 8:56 am GMT
Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
To mis-paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you don't have.
Unless Ms. Gabbard can figure out some way to raise and cycle a billion dollars through media ads in the MSM, they're going to largely ignore her or even demonise her, because it is the Praetorian Media who now decide who will be the the American President.
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
LondonBob says: July 2, 2019 at 6:52 am GMT 100 Words @Twodees Partain
I've seen Tulsi call out Netanyahu a few times, I guess personalising it makes sense.
Very clear hasbara campaign against her, they seem to be going with the Russia! smear.
Good luck to her, she is a long shot but just voicing her opinions on a major platform can have an impact.
Realist , says: July 2, 2019 at 11:13 am GMT@LondonBob
Good luck to her, she is a long shot but just voicing her opinions on a major platform can have an impact.
No it won't, but I agree with her about war.
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
freedom-cat says: July 2, 2019 at 2:52 pm GMT 100 Words
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
J. Gutierrez says: July 2, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMT 500 Words @Harold Smith
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative, which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades – Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as "Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing, Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote. Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it out of your Vocabulary"!
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
alexander says: July 2, 2019 at 8:57 pm GMT 400 Words
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001, it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging "false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and (finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
Jul 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Jun 30, 2019 8:00:10 PM | 73Doing Due Diligence on Tulsi Gabbard by watching the 1:20 long interview by Jimmy Dore of which the first 20 minutes are excellent. At the 21 minute mark, Dore asks how can we end these endless wars. Paraphrasing Gabbard: Failure is not an option: We must end these interventionist wars as they suck the life blood out of doing the positive things that must be done to benefit Americans.
Prior to the above, Dore as an aside mentions that Howard Dean, the Podestas, Clintons, and others are all about keeping the flow of Big Money into politics at the expense of everything else--that's their absolute #1 concern, to which you'll hear Gabbard agree!
So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've decided to work for her campaign!
Grieved , Jun 30, 2019 10:25:50 PM | 94@74 karlof1 - " I've decided to work for [Tulsi Gabbard's] campaign"
This is excellent. As someone who has never had any national experience in politics, I would be interested to know how one offers this kind of support - if you ever have time to say, but don't break a leg over it.
One sees in politics how good moral character gets compromised by involvement in the system. But we also know that one's own contribution to universal sanity can never be known or measured - or discounted! Therefore, we do what we can. Who knows, perhaps your involvement is the final butterfly-wing stroke that keeps her honest and upright and making a difference.
Well done. And thank you.
ps..please don't worry that people are not taking up your links or comments, just because you don't see feedback here. Keep it all coming as well as you can, but please don't limit your contributions to feedback. Many of the pieces you post are so friggin' long that it takes the rest of the night to absorb them all ;)
I'm glad you donate the time of your retirement to offer all the things you do. I still work, and it's a struggle to keep up with things. Your reading list overlaps mine very nicely, and I ride on your coat-tails a lot - you along with many commenters here save me a lot of time in pinpointing articles of value.
In fact, beyond b's superlative work - which he keeps producing even though we all appreciate it so intently that we usually forget to praise him for it - I'd say the offering of links from the top analysts and journalists, combined with the gems from the left field, are a signature mark of this forum.
So please keep the summaries coming, and never lose heart or doubt that people are reading them and placing value on them.
Jul 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
EdMass on Sun, 06/30/2019 - 9:52am
Strong to the hoop Tulsi! And this will reach a whole lot of people.
Tulsi Gabbard | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
UntimelyRippd on Sat, 06/29/2019 - 4:04pmman, 130k donors 14 months out from the national
election is a mighty high bar. she needs about 750 new donors a day, every day, if indeed the cutoff date is 60ish days from now.
i wonder how many will make it? for that matter, i wonder how many already have? Biden, O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg for sure. Booker, Castro, Gillibrand probably. Klobuchar maybe?
most of the rest are just taking up space, as far as I can tell -- they're contributing nothing to the debate at all, and they have no hope of winning substantial support.
meanwhile, i wouldn't be surprised if both Biden and O'Rourke are done and out before the next debate, destroyed by their own negatives. on the other hand, ego is a powerful thing, and even the ones whose stars are declining may insist on sticking it out through New Hampshire at least, in which case there could be a dozen or more still in the race come September, hopefully including TG.
Jun 29, 2019 | www.wsws.org
Four hours of nationally televised debates Wednesday and Thursday among 20 Democratic presidential candidates demonstrated the gigantic disconnect between the claims of this pro-war, pro-corporate party to be driven by concerns for the well-being of working people and the reality of poverty and oppression in America, for which the Democratic Party is no less responsible than the Republicans.
The stage-managed spectacle mounted by NBC marked the formal beginning of an electoral process dominated by big money and thoroughly manipulated by the corporate-controlled media.
The attempt to contain the growing left-wing opposition in the working class and channel it behind the second oldest capitalist party in the world necessarily assumed the form of lies and demagogy. For the most part, the vying politicians, all of them in the top 10 percent on the income ladder, made promises to provide healthcare, jobs, decent schools, tuition-free college and a clean environment for all, knowing full well they had no intention of carrying them out.
No one -- neither the millionaire media talking heads asking the questions nor the candidates -- dared to mention the fact that that Democratic Party has just voted to give Trump an additional $4.9 billion to round up, detain and torture hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including children, in the growing network of concentration camps being set up within the US. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and this one demonstrates the complicity of the Democratic Party in the fascistic policies of the Trump administration.
The second night of the debate featured the front-runners, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden has a long record of reactionary politics, including in the Obama administration. Sanders is continuing in this election his role in 2016 of channeling growing support for socialism into the framework of a right-wing party.
The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy. The African-American senator was lauded for attacking Biden for statements boasting of his ability in the past to collaborate with segregationist senators and his past opposition to busing for school integration.
It was Harris who adopted the most transparently bogus posture of left-radicalism in Thursday night's debate, repeatedly declaring her agreement with Bernie Sanders and raising her hand, along with Sanders, to support the abolition of private health insurance in favor of a single-payer system. By Friday morning, however, she had reversed that stand, claiming she had "misheard" the question and declaring her support for the continuation of private insurance.
Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate, her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class, whose views are promoted by the New York Times , who want the Democratic campaign to be dominated by racial and gender politics so as to mobilize the party's wealthy upper-middle class base and divert and divide the mass working class anger over social inequality.
Many of the candidates fondly recalled the Obama administration. But those eight years saw the greatest transfer of wealth from working people to the super-rich in American history. The pace was set by the initial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was expanded to uncounted trillions in the course of 2009, combined with the bailout of the auto companies at the expense of the autoworkers, who suffered massive cuts in benefits and a 50 percent cut in pay for new hires, rubber-stamped by the United Auto Workers.
The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump and Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado attacked Biden for claiming credit for a bipartisan budget deal in 2011 with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Far from a genuine compromise, he said, the deal "was a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush tax cuts permanently," as well as putting in place major cuts in social spending which continue to this day. Bennet neglected to mention that he had voted for the deal himself when it passed the Senate by a huge majority.
It was remarkable, under conditions where President Trump himself declared that the United States was only 10 minutes away from launching a major assault on Iran earlier this month, that the 20 Democratic candidates spent almost no time discussing foreign policy.
In the course of four hours, there were only a few minutes devoted to the world outside the United States. The silence on the rest of the world cannot be dismissed as mere parochialism.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are deeply implicated in either the policy-making or combat operations of US imperialism. The 20 candidates include two who were deployed as military officers to Iraq and Afghanistan, Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard; Biden, vice president for eight years and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and five senators who are members of high-profile national security committees: Harris and Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand on the Armed Services Committee, and Cory Booker on the Foreign Relations Committee.
If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia.
In the handful of comments that were made on foreign policy, the Democratic candidates struck a belligerent note. On Wednesday, four of the ten candidates declared the main global threat to the United States to be China, while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio opted for Russia. Many candidates referred to the need to combat Russian interference in the US election -- recycling the phony claims that Russian "meddling" helped Trump into the White House in 2016.
On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders.
Jun 30, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org
The single truth that many mainstream Democrats will have a very difficult time acknowledging coming out of the June 26 th Democratic Party Presidential Debate, is that Donald Trump's positions on China and Latin America have become a Democratic Party line. Is this is a mere matter of pandering to the polling data on questions like Latin America and China? Even if just that, it would be a Trump success in and of itself.
But it also raises whether Trump has indeed accomplished more – a tectonic shift, a sea-change in elite policy formation focus from Russia and the Mid-east over to China and Latin America. The ties between the DNC and China still appear too strong, and so the reality would seem to tend to rotate around a pandering to the polling data.
From China to solving the migration problem through a 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America and more, Trump's nominal views on these questions found expression as dominating themes in the debate.
In the war of positions, this is a victory for Trump.
The June 26th Democratic Party Presidential Debate was astounding in its representation of a major paradigm shift in the United States.
TULSI GABBARD COMES AWAY THE WINNER
Connected to Trump as the 'winner', it was Tulsi Gabbard who stood out from the rest of the candidates. Interestingly, reliable polling data just out from the Drudge Report shows that Gabbard emerged as the winner of the debate on ideas and policies overall. She won some 40% of the vote, and when compared to the candidates whom the other 60% was divided, it was a landslide.
Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses
When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in 2016.
Worth noting as well as that in the aftermath of the debate last night, Gabbard's new social media campaign on Twitter features her name scrolling across the bottom of the screen in undeniable Trump 2016 campaign font. Coincidence? Nothing in politics is coincidental – nothing.
Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic.
Of the ten candidates debating, four responded that China was the primary threat to the US – but this was the single-most consistent answer. Delaney, Klobuchar, Castro, and Ryan all answered this way.
This was a win for Trump's entire line for the last thirty something years.
De Blasio stood out as the lone Russiagater, definitely representing the mindset of his New York City electorate and the coastal media establishment.
Gabbard, meanwhile, was wise to name ecological threats as this helped her maintain her position as an anti-war candidate.
The pivot to a focus on China is much less dangerous than the focus on Russia. TheUS does not really believe it can challenge China in a military sense, and their anti-Chinese rhetoric, while full of sword rattling and imperial bravado, amounts to noise and little more. There is some hope in American quarters about curtailing China's economic strength, but the focus on China appears more as a question of a state requiring the spectre of an anthropomorphized threat in the abstract, in order to justify the existence of a state and a military budget, and to make a foreigner responsible for matters of wealth disparity and a lack of employment opportunities in the US – a prominent tactic and talking point in market-driven societies based in private property norms.
But the pivot to a focus on China was tremendous and not expected, given the relationship historically between China and the Democratic Party – a friendly one.
Until now, it's been just the conservative corners of the alt-light in the US-centric internet who view the 'rising Chinese threat' as a serious concern for the US. This trope was primarily focused on the twin threat of Chinese rising military prowess and its population size, along with the US practice of outsourcing American jobs to China – a policy that saw short term consumer savings, and mid-to-long term slashes to US wages and employment. It created a trade imbalance which the US can only resolving by defaulting on and then drawing its guns to force a new deal.
Taken all together, this means that whoever Trump gets into the big race with, it will not be a question of 'whether' China is a threat, but how to 'best contain' the Chinese threat. This is a victory from 'go' for Trump.
Here is another major subject where Trump's influence on the entire discourse has prevailed, though it's a little less obvious and requires a minor bifurcation to reveal.
We are of course obliged to mention that the location of the debate in Miami Florida was strategic given its representation of Latinos in the US – traditionally Cuban and more recently Venezuelan Republicans as hardline anti-communists and cold-warriors, who see their children increasingly becoming more 'center-left' as they have Americanized and become 'Latinos' in the US. They are still at odds geopolitically with Latinos, primarily Mexican-Americans from the American southwest, who tend to be friendlier to socialist ideas and have represented the far-left of the Democratic Party on economic issues as well as anti-imperialism, even if sharing with Cuban-Americans some more socially conservative values. This communitarian axis of Latinos in the US, however, has grown and become a real force of its own.
Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida.
There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in many generations, and the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in 2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded.
So we find the extraordinary focus on Latinos was represented in the ultimately surprising display of whole Spanish language answers from both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, and a few questions wholly or partly in Spanish from the moderators. The entire debate was brought to viewers not just by NBC but also by Spanish language network Telemundo.
At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position to that of Trump's. How can this be?
To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional hegemon for the Americas.
Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment.
The trade-offs are several fold. For one, the US goes back to its China position, and wants Latin American countries to agree to reduce the Chinese influence in exchange for real industrial capital investments from the United States into Latin America.
This is not to say that the Democratic Party has ignored Latin America to date, far from it. It was under Obama's two terms that the US worked the most to reverse the Pink Tide in Latin America, and this came with a few 'own goals' when the ultimate consequence of the regime-change operation in Honduras was to stoke a human wave migration crisis. This was, in short, the American version of the Libya scenario.
While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'.
And it's this exact talking point that numerous Democratic Party candidates picked up on, and a very telling term was introduced by Julian Castro – a Marshall Plan for Latin America. Cory Booker stood beside and nodded in apparent agreement, and that the words came from the token Latino (no, not Beto), Castro was both intentional and symbolically telling.
While Bolton and Pompeo have operated under the 'Monroe Doctrine' term, this is so entirely distasteful for all of Latin America that it offends anyone and everyone, even the US's own lackeys, puppets, and proxies in the region.
But this Marshall Plan for Latin America was already introduced by none other than Mexican President AMLO himself, in talks with Trump.
"Why it matters: AMLO has worked energetically since taking office to sell the White House on a "Marshall Plan" of support to address the region's growing migrant crisis. The US commitment is a preliminary sign that he's at least being heard
While he campaigned as a compassionate voice on immigration, Mexico's new left-wing leader spied the need for a grand solution. The US funding will contribute to a $30 billion aid package envisioned by AMLO
AMLO even dangled the prospect of Chinese investment to bring Trump to the table, according to the NY Times -- reasoning that the US might be more willing to pay up if it feared that China might try to expand its influence in the region by opening its wallet."
Since them, numerous articles have popped up describing Trump's potential 'Marshall Plan' for Central America.
WHAT NEXT? CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration' approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires investment into Latin America.
Gabbard will be well positioned to nominally attack Trump's policy implementation along human rights grounds, while not being specific on anything except getting 'to the source of the problem'.
Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders, Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking.
With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of support as the anti-war candidate.
This will angle the populist line, and position her well not only against all other Democrats, but even against Trump himself should she win the nomination. It's a long shot, but remember indeed: this is the age of underdogs and dark horses.
Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
After getting curb stomped on the debate stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11 attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus "war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism; Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances. This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
Vitor , 31 minutes ago linkAussiekiwi , 49 minutes ago link
It's like someone being labeled anti-social for stopping to bully and pick up fights.Quivering Lip , 57 minutes ago link
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed before the US decided to 'free' it.Toshie , 1 hour ago link
Until Tulsi pimp slapped that Ryan guy I never heard of him. I would imagine I'll never here about him in another 2 months.onasip123 , 1 hour ago link
yeah , keep at it US Govt ;- keep fighting those wars overseas on behalf the 5th foreign column.
Keep wasting precious lives ,and the country's wealth while foreign rising powers like China are laughing all the way to the bank.
may you live in interesting times !Dr Anon , 1 hour ago link
War forever and ever, Amen.thisguyoverhere , 1 hour ago link
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.Dougs Decks , 2 hours ago link
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus as a sniper?
Impossible.Brazen Heist II , 2 hours ago link
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,vienna_proxy , 2 hours ago link
You know the system is completely broken when they want to silence/kill/smear anybody talking sense and peace.Herdee , 2 hours ago link
and isis are referred to as freedom fightersardent , 2 hours ago link
The CIA and MI6 staged all the fake chemical incidents in Syria as well as the recent one in England. False Flags.vienna_proxy , 2 hours ago link
What America needs is to get rid of all those Jewish Zionist Neocons leading us into those forever wars.
ALL MidEast terrorism and warmongering are for APARTHEID Israhell.Wild Bill Steamcock , 2 hours ago link
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neoconJD Rock , 2 hours ago link
"Won't Get Fooled Again"- The Whovienna_proxy , 2 hours ago link
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.WillyGroper , 2 hours ago link
she did slam NetanyahuKnightsofNee , 2 hours ago link
saying & doing are different animals. she's powerless. more hope n chains.White Nat , 2 hours ago link
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.New_Meat , 2 hours ago link
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph GoebbelsDebt Slave , 1 hour ago link
- Edward Bernays, relative of Sigmund Fraud, propagandist for Woodrow Wilson.
Back then, being a "propagandist" held no stigma nor antipathy.
fifyLOL123 , 3 hours ago link
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.vienna_proxy , 2 hours ago link
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths. Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincolnmetachron , 2 hours ago link
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that importantHurricane Baby , 3 hours ago link
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** upFred box , 3 hours ago link
Actually, I don't see where a few decades of US isolationism would be all that bad.Malleus Maleficarum , 3 hours ago link
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.dunlin , 2 hours ago link
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism? How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.tardpill , 2 hours ago link
What's cfr? Duck duck gives lots of law firms.tardpill , 2 hours ago link
council on foreign relationsSinophile , 32 minutes ago link
the whos who of globalist satanists..Justapleb , 3 hours ago link
Mal, she is NOT a CFR member. You are misinformed.Smi1ey , 3 hours ago link
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.I am Groot , 3 hours ago link
You beat me to that. Thanks for saving my breath.
Rule #1 All politcians lie
Rule #2 See Rule #1Boogity , 3 hours ago link
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
Jun 28, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoingTim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard during the first night of the the Democratic debate. (YouTube/NBC News/screenshot) Democrats, liberals, progressives -- call them what you will -- don't really do foreign policy. Sure, if cornered, they'll spout a few choice talking points, and probably find a way to make them all about bashing President Donald Trump -- ignoring the uncomfortable fact that their very own Barack Obama led and expanded America's countless wars for eight long years.
This was ever so apparent in the first two nights of Democratic primary debates this week. Foreign policy hardly registered for these candidates with one noteworthy exception: Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard -- herself an (anti-war) combat veteran and army officer.
Now primary debates are more show than substance; this has long been the case. Still, to watch the first night's Democratic primary debates, it was possible to forget that the United States remains mired in several air and ground wars from West Africa to Central Asia. In a two-hour long debate, with 10 would-be nominees plus the moderators, the word Afghanistan was uttered just nine times -- you know, once for every two years American troops have been killing and dying there. Iraq was uttered just twice -- both times by Gabbard. Syria, where Americans have died and still fight, was mentioned not once. Yemen, the world's worst humanitarian disaster, courtesy of a U.S.-supported Saudi terror campaign didn't get mentioned a single time, either.
Night two was mostly worse! Afghanistan was uttered just three times, and there was no question specifically related to the war. Biden did say, in passing, that he doesn't think there should be "combat troops" in Afghanistan -- but notice the qualifier "combat." That's a cop-out that allows him to keep advisers and "support" troops in the country indefinitely. These are the games most Democrats play. And by the way, all those supposedly non-combat troops, well, they can and do get killed too.
The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive.
Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list.
I mourn each and every service-member's death in that unwinnable war; to say nothing of the far more numerous Afghan civilian fatalities. Still, in a macabre sort of way, I was glad the topic came up, even under such dismal circumstances. After all, Maddow's question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most interesting, engaging, and enlightening exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan.
Reminding the audience of the recent troop deaths in the country, Maddow asked Ryan, "Why isn't [the Afghanistan war] over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?" Ryan had a ready, if wholly conventional and obtuse, answer: "The lesson" of these many years of wars is clear, he opined; the United States must stay "engaged," "completely engaged," in fact, even if "no one likes" it and it's "tedious." I heard this, vomited a bit into my mouth, and thought "spare me!"
Ryan's platitudes didn't answer the question, for starters, and hardly engaged with American goals, interests, exit strategies, or a basic cost-benefit analysis in the war. In the space of a single sentence, Ryan proved himself just another neoliberal militarist, you know, the "reluctant" Democratic imperialist type. He made it clear he's Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer rolled into one, except instead of cynically voting for the 2003 Iraq war, he was defending an off-the-rails Afghanistan war in its 18th year.
Gabbard pounced, and delivered the finest foreign policy screed of the night. And more power to her. Interrupting Ryan, she poignantly asked:
Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is ready to do the job on day one.
In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment, coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo!
Ryan was visibly shaken and felt compelled to retort with a standard series of worn out tropes. And Gabbard was ready for each one, almost as though she'd heard them all before (and probably has). The U.S. military has to stay, Ryan pleaded, because: "if the United States isn't engaged the Taliban will grow and they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts." Gabbard cut him right off. "The Taliban was there long before we came in. They'll be there long [after] we leave," she thundered.
But because we didn't "squash them," before 9/11 Ryan complained, "they started flying planes into our buildings." This, of course, is the recycled and easily refuted safe haven myth -- the notion that the Taliban would again host transnational terrorists the moment our paltry 14,500 troops head back to Milwaukee. It's ridiculous. There's no evidence to support this desperate claim and it fails to explain why the United States doesn't station several thousand troops in the dozens of global locales with a more serious al-Qaeda or ISIS presence than Afghanistan does. Gabbard would have none of it. "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," she reminded Ryan, "al-Qaeda did." It's an important distinction, lost on mainstream interventionist Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ryan couldn't possibly open his mind to such complexity, nuance, and, ultimately, realism. He clearly worships at the temple of war inertia; his worldview hostage to the absurd notion that the U.S. military has little choice but to fight everywhere, anywhere, because, well, that's what it's always done. Which leads us to what should be an obvious conclusion: Ryan, and all who think like him, should be immediately disqualified by true progressives and libertarians alike. His time has past. Ryan and his ilk have left a scorched region and a shaken American republic for the rest of us.
Still, there was one more interesting query for the first night's candidates. What is the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States today, asked Maddow. All 10 Democratic hopefuls took a crack at it, though almost none followed directions and kept their answers to a single word or phrase. For the most part, the answers were ridiculous, outdated, or elementary, spanning Russia, China, even Trump. But none of the debaters listed terrorism as the biggest threat -- a huge sea change from answers that candidates undoubtedly would have given just four or eight years ago.
Which begs the question: why, if terrorism isn't the priority, do far too many of these presidential aspirants seem willing to continue America's fruitless, forever fight for the Greater Middle East? It's a mystery, partly explained by the overwhelming power of the America's military-industrial-congressional-media complex. Good old President Dwight D. Eisenhower is rolling in his grave, I assure you.
Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble, might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful.
I, too, served in a series of unwinnable, unnecessary, unethical wars. Like her, I've chosen to publicly dissent in not just strategic, but in moral, language. I join her in her rejection of U.S. militarism, imperialism, and the flimsy justifications for the Afghanistan war -- America's longest war in its history.
As for the other candidates, when one of them (likely) wins, let's hope they are prepared the question Tulsi so powerfully posed to Ryan: what will they tell the parents of the next soldier that dies in America's hopeless Afghanistan war?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative. His work has also appeared in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation , Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, Truthdig and The Hill . He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He co-hosts the progressive veterans' podcast " Fortress on a Hill ." Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
Jun 28, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
It wasn't surprising that Hawaii's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken advocate of realism in foreign policy, exploited every opportunity to highlight her opposition to what she considers America's promiscuous warmaking policies of recent decades. She decried the country "going from one regime-change war to the next. This insanity must end." But other Democrats also echoed that sentiment, particularly with regard to the growing tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. Bill de Blasio said he would oppose another Mideast war unless it is authorized by Congress. He added, "We learned a lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have forgotten." Sanders also decried the possible drift to war with Iran as well as America's involvement in the civil war in Yemen. He expressed pride in his opposition to the Iraq war and chided Biden for supporting that 2003 invasion.
Three candidates -- Klobuchar, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, and Gabbard -- criticized Trump for getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. "I would sign back on," said Gabbard, saying a war with Iran would quickly ignite the entire region and would be "far more devastating and costly" than the Iraq war. When Ryan suggested we must remain engaged in the Middle East, Gabbard called that "unacceptable" and added the United States has nothing to show for its 18-year mililtary campaign in Afghanistan. At the conclusion of the debate, Gabbard became the most searched candidate on Google, according to a report on Fox News that cited Google Trends data. Could this mean a gap persists between the foreign policy sentiments of many Americans and the foreign policy activities of their government in Washington?
Jun 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
ADKC , Jun 28, 2019 7:35:27 AM | 163Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate. During the debate, Tulsi made clear she was against war with Iran and getting back to the JCPOA deal. In the interview with Carlson, she makes clear that she opposes the sanctions on Iran.
Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate
Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
shinola , June 27, 2019 at 8:51 pm
In spite of the short time they gave her, I think Tulsi punched well above her weight.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Suppose any of tonights "no names" can do as well?
Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Inode_buddha , June 27, 2019 at 9:13 pm
The reason why is simple: the party is not about politics, nor is it about the will of the people or anything else. It is about power and money. It is about keeping the donors happy. It is ethically bankrupt. That is what their true purpose is. Sanders and Gabbard rock the boat and the party establishment will never forgive them for that.
cripes , June 27, 2019 at 9:12 pm
Capitalism is Okey-Dokey, but greed is bad?
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all."
Jun 28, 2019 | www.unz.com
"For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran."
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: "When we weren't in there they started flying planes into our buildings."
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban."
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
"Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? 'Well, we just have to be engaged.' As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began."
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be -- not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's "Deal of the Century," and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the "troika of tyranny" in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of "growing global instability and uncertainty," Russia and China will "deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues."
Xi presented Putin with China's new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: "Cooperation with China is one of Russia's top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level."
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Copyright 2019 Creators.com.
Rurik , says: June 28, 2019 at 12:48 am GMTThey're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt.Biff , says: June 28, 2019 at 4:21 am GMT
Perhaps there's no way we can dislodge the Zionist fiend slurping from America's jugular, but at least we can use our voice to say 'no' to it. And support the only person who's willing to strike at the root, the Eternal Wars for Israel.Kevin Barrett , says: Website June 28, 2019 at 4:24 am GMT
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.
Which got the MIC to paint a giant target on her. The Atlantic Council is not going to be happy with this kind of anti war shtick entering the debates, and their patrons own the media.Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"? I suspect she does, and that her disgust with the big lie behind the 9/11-wars-for-Israel has something to do with her anti-interventionism.renfro , says: June 28, 2019 at 4:55 am GMT
Does Pat Buchanan know? During a radio interview he assured me that his friend Dick Cheney wouldn't do something like that. I asked Pat's friend Paul Craig Roberts what he thought. Craig said Pat just can't go there or he'll never appear in the MSM again. Then Pat got purged anyway. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/02/20/pat-buchanan-avoids-911-truth-gets-fired-anyway/
When you get punished for telling half-truths, why not just go all the way and tell the whole truth?I would hope Gabbard has more sense than to accept any position in Trumps administration. Trump is the kiss of death for any decent person who works for or with him.mark green , says: June 28, 2019 at 5:21 am GMT@Kevin BarrettJunior , says: June 28, 2019 at 6:04 am GMT
Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not air-tight.
This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your otherwise astute insights.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who you suggest is "lying" about her belief in what/who caused 911, I bet that she (like myself) rejects the Official 911 report but is unsure of what/who did exactly what on Sept. 11, 2001. Mysteries remain. The puzzle is incomplete.
Allow me to respectfully advise you to stick with what you know for certain, as you do it quite well.
As for the mysteries concerning 911 and Israel's role, it may be more fruitful to concede that the evidence has not only been partially destroyed but that a coverup has occurred. And yes, there's overwhelming evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. And no honest person can deny that.The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her anti-war message. Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening:Wally , says: June 28, 2019 at 6:26 am GMT
And here's Tulsi discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WioGoTvBoZ4?feature=oembed@Robert Dolan As if Hillary 'War with Russia' Clinton would have been different.Ludwig Watzal , says: Website June 28, 2019 at 6:30 am GMT
Trumps foreign policies in obedience to 'that shitty little country' are disgusting, no doubt, but we would still have all of that and much worse under Hillary.It's a charming idea; Pat Buchanan is ventilating. Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's national security adviser; what a treat! But poor Tulsi, she wouldn't survive very long in the Zionist environment, which dominates Trump's White House.Tom Welsh , says: June 28, 2019 at 9:09 am GMT
Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway.
Tulsi Gabbard was half right by saying that the Taliban didn't do 9/11, but Al-Qaida did, which is false. None of them committed the murderous attack. Everybody with a clear mind can see of the web of lies and inconsistencies that the 9/11 Commission Report has solidified. The American people have to come to grips with the fact that it was an inside job, and those responsible are still all alive and kicking. The problem with the whole truth is that nobody can afford to tell it, because it would be his or her political death.
So, Tulsi Gabbard was wise sticking to the half-truth.
For more information, read "The Betrayal of America." https://betweenthelines-ludwigwatzal.com/2019/05/21/the-betrayal-of-america/#more-1468@Kevin Barrett 'Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"?'anonymous  Disclaimer , says: June 28, 2019 at 9:39 am GMT
She has been showing signs of hedging since her campaign began. I can't make up my mind how bad that is. If she went on telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – such as that Mr Assad has done little or nothing to deserve the abuse heaped on him – she might simply be ruling herself out as a candidate.
On the other hand, once a candidate starts telling herself, "Oh, it's worth one or two little white lies to get myself elected, because I can do so much good then", it's the start of a long slippery slope.
That specific statement can be justified, to my mind, with a little Jesuitical equivocation. Because no one has ever really pinned down who or what "Al Qaeda" is – or even whether such an organization exists at all.
If she said, "No one can be certain who was responsible for 9/11, but it's time we had a really thorough, impartial investigation", she would alienate a huge section of the voters.".. our great adversaries, Russia and China"KenH , says: June 28, 2019 at 10:38 am GMT
There's almost always something like this tucked into Mr. Buchanan's columns. The other day, he was still celebrating Uncle Sam's rescue of medical students from the "Marxist thugs" in Grenada. That little "our" is the key. Pronoun propaganda is one of the ways that this website's "Mr. Paleoconservative" helps to keep Americans identifying with Uncle Sam.
Another fundamental way that Mr. Buchanan actually supports the Establishment is by channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent through "Red v Blue" politics. Enjoy columns like this one in the meantime, but keep in mind that he's also going to tell you to believe the puppet show and vote (almost certainly GOP) in November 2020. Even if someone who says things like Ms. Gabbard is elected, there will be ample drama in and about Washington to excuse the lack of meaningful change and fire people up for the next Most Important Election Ever in 2022.
And note this:
"For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver."
Oh, a mere logistical problem due to people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot Abrams somehow crashing the MAGA party? Mr. Buchanan should have written "the foreign policy Donald Trump lied about in 2016." But that might lead people to doubt the system.Bardon Kaldian , says: June 28, 2019 at 10:41 am GMT
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.
Oi Vey! If Tulsi starts to rise in the polls then then (((they'll))) create a new dossier and claim she's colluding with Russia or the Taliban to steal the 2020 election. I wouldn't be surprised if elements of Trump's administration did the very same things to Tulsi as Obongo's did to Trump.
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Pat knows (((who))) but has lost the will to say it. But we know. The goyim know.@mark green We, we all have our opinions. I think you're most charitable to Mr. Barrett's fictions. Zio-terrorists (I'm not using the word Zionist, since I am Zionist – sort of -because I support the idea of Jewish nation-state as a democratic country) may have contributed (just freely associating), say, max 30% to 9/11, while the possibility of their involvement in the assassination of JFK is way below 5%.
After all, weird Golda Meir transcripts are something not to be ignored: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291
Jun 27, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Chris , June 27, 2019 at 7:56 pm
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
- Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
- Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
- How often are you wrong about FDR?
- Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
- Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying your bill?
- Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views are shared by everyone on stage?
Jun 28, 2019 | www.unz.com
Chris Mallory , says: June 28, 2019 at 2:04 am GMTMiss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Chris , June 27, 2019 at 8:49 pm
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Geo , June 27, 2019 at 9:02 pm
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals. They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But, as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive".
rowlf , June 27, 2019 at 9:49 pm
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice? Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Notes2sean@hotmail.com , June 27, 2019 at 10:32 pm
Protecting Big Finance is only the latest thing.
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on its to-do list.
Bill Carson , June 27, 2019 at 11:52 pm
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
EricT , June 28, 2019 at 6:00 am
He said Wall Street too. I think banks fit under that umbrella.
Jun 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jen , Jun 27, 2019 9:38:39 PM | 115Elsewhere, British military intelligence ... erm, sorry, its mouthpiece The Fraudian attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her supposed overlap with the Republican Party and her level of wokeness which, not surprisingly, The Fraudian finds low and therefore starts worrying like a dried-up dog mummy with teeth bites already all over it.
Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right
Jun 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Robert Snefjella , Jun 27, 2019 1:49:39 PM | 26Some Tulsi Gabbard quotes:Robert Snefjella , Jun 27, 2019 1:53:37 PM | 29
"Sadly, the system in this country is rigged in favor of wealthy elites who have purchased tremendous influence in our government."
"We have to put an end to the culture of selfishness and corruption that allows greedy Wall Street banks and executives to rip off working people without any consequences."
"[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars."
"Will you stand for the humanity of the Yemeni people? Will you stand against Saudi Arabia's genocidal war? Or will you continue to support this war that has caused 22 million Yemeni people to be in desperate need of humanitarian aid? To cause these 85,000 children to have died from starvation, to have caused the dropping of U.S.-made bombs on innocent civilians, killing tens of thousands of people. This is such an urgent action that must be taken by the United States Congress to assert its authority and end United States support for this genocidal war in Yemen."
"Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American people deserve better than that."More Tulsi quotes:
"I don't smoke marijuana. I never have... But I believe firmly in every person's freedom to make their own choices, and that people should not be thrown in jail and incarcerated or made into criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana whether it be for medicinal and non-medicinal purposes.
There's no question that this overall war on drugs has not only been a failure, it has created and exacerbated a number of other problems that continue to afflict people in this country..."
Quoted in: For Tulsi Gabbard, Marijuana Sits At Nexus Of Good Policy And Smart Politics, Forbes, nu Tom Angell (7 March 2019)
"We are in a situation today where we, here in the United States and the world, are at a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history.
My commitment in fighting to end these counterproductive regime change wars is based on these experiences and my understanding [of] the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is our service members. It is our troops. It is our military families. It is the people in these countries, where these wars are waged, whose suffering ends up far worse after we launch these regime change wars... The skepticism, and the questions that I raised, were very specific around incidents that the Trump administration was trying to use as an excuse to launch a U.S. military attack in Syria.
I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was launched based on lies and a war that was launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped... As a soldier, as an American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm's way or use our military to go in and start a new war."
Quoted by Kevin Gosztola in CNN Foreign Policy Gatekeepers Vilify Tulsi Gabbard for Her Anti-Intervention Dissent, Mintpress News (13 March 2019)
Jun 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite differently than the general public.
Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won the debate :[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
A poll by the right-leaning Drudge Report also found Gabbard to be the breakout of the debate with 38% of the vote, well ahead of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren in second place. Gabbard also topped polls by local news sites including NJ.com and the Washington Examiner .
Now contrast that with the mainstream media.
The Washington Post discusses winners and losers of the debate and puts Gabbard in the second category:Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault -- she wasn't asked many questions -- ....
The New York Times main piece about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece. It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban.
The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.
CNN also discusses winners and losers . Gabbard is not mentioned at all.
NBC News ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change views and are afraid of even writing about them.
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the debate. She received some good applause.
Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM | Permalink
DG , Jun 27, 2019 11:35:52 AM | 1Mike Maloney , Jun 27, 2019 11:41:30 AM | 2
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in Afghanistan"
Afghanistan or Iraq? I'm confused ...She humiliated Tim Ryan when he asserted that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on 9/11, pointing out that it was Al Qaeda. Ryan responded that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Gabbard then said something to the effect, "Try Saudi Arabia."psychohistorian , Jun 27, 2019 11:42:32 AM | 3
I thought it was hypocritical that none of the other candidates thanked Gabbard for her service because you know if it had been some guy who is a Major in the National Guard with a bunch of commendations people would be elbowing each other out of the way to lick his boots.Thanks for the posting b about how manipulated the public is by the MSM.alain , Jun 27, 2019 12:03:06 PM | 4
Better watch it though or you will be accused of trying to influence the US election process.....grinBravo Tulsi ! The msm will hit hard on you, as they will be forced to take the numbers into account. Consider it as stripes...Stever , Jun 27, 2019 12:07:32 PM | 5Tulsi - "You know who is protecting al-Qaeda right now? It's Saudi Arabia"willie , Jun 27, 2019 12:18:20 PM | 7
MSNBC time given to each candidate:
#1 Booker: 9.68 minutes
#3 Warren: 8.35 minutes
#7 Gabbard: 5.35 minutes
Tulsi was the only candidate to get a negative question directed at her, though she handled it very well.
MSDNC also framed a trick question who is for the elimination of ALL private healthcare. Tulsi didn't raise her hand because she is for private insurance for supplemental surgery such as plastic surgery, like Bernie. Tulsi and Bernie are the only ones for true Medicare for All. Warren raised her hand but previously has stated she would be for something like combining a public option and medicare for all, so she is now for cosmetic elective plastic surgery being covered under Medicare for All?
It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they are bailed out and not put in jail again.
Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)In France main newspaper le Figaro, their Washington correspondent said it was Warren who won the debate, and he only mentiones Tulsi Gabbard once, she stood out because of her red vest, he wrote, nothing about content. So there you are.Capn Mike , Jun 27, 2019 12:22:42 PM | 8We've seen this before in the Ron Paul campaigns. Same ol'. (sigh)Jackrabbit , Jun 27, 2019 12:27:59 PM | 9Tulsi is against "regime change war" which she defines as essentially wars that USA lose. If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.bjd , Jun 27, 2019 12:28:17 PM | 10
Tulsi has drunk the Kool-Aid about Russian interference in US elections. Her nominally anti-war stance helps her to "sell" neo-McCarthyism to those that think her anti-regime change war is "courageous".
Furthermore, she is very passive and "reasonable" about her views, making it easy for MSM to ignore her because every candidate will say that they are for peace and against dumb wars.
<> <> <> <> <>
Anyone looking to any duopoly candidate for salvation is deluded.What do you expect from the Warshington Post.Cesare , Jun 27, 2019 12:42:04 PM | 11This blog is now Russian interference promoting isolationist leftism. I have already contacted PropOrNot. /snotlurking , Jun 27, 2019 12:55:42 PM | 12Tulsi the real deal Gabbard.....you go girl...Zachary Smith , Jun 27, 2019 12:57:22 PM | 13@ Stever | Jun 27, 2019 12:07:32 PM #5Noirette , Jun 27, 2019 1:00:57 PM | 14
What Went Down On Night One Of The First Democratic Debates
At this link is a breakdown of the talking time of all concerned. Notice one of the moderators hogged the microphone, and ended up in 4th place.Tulsi Gabbard is allowed some brief MSM exposure. To demonstrate that plurality of opinion is alive and well and going strong - toot toot! rah rah! - in the Dem party. A show, a charade. She may be quite genuine and believe what she states, which seems like common sense, ok. And she is good at it. Her opinions - tagged with Xtreme hopiness - will be shown to be inconguent with the majority, etc.Zachary Smith , Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15
In any case she can't win the nomination, she is an 'actor extra' on the fringes. From her promo site:
In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head, receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People have financial security and don't have to worry about making ends meet in their old age.
Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and renewable industries.
Hmm. There are no pol. proposals whatsoever, please read it. An EXtreme version of hopi-changi.@ Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2019 12:27:59 PM #9goldhoarder , Jun 27, 2019 1:05:17 PM | 16If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.
Fair enough. So who is a better choice in that regard?Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it.Brendan , Jun 27, 2019 1:05:53 PM | 17
This is a big big NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their purpose as shock troops for the US empire.
If a few buildings have to come down and a few thousand people killed that is a small price to pay for the US being a global hegemonic empire... from counterpunch... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for being a superpower.'"
It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed in office.I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a real contender because he had almost no chance of winning. Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media (let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him).jared , Jun 27, 2019 1:10:13 PM | 18
It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by American standards).I cringed when Tulsi launched into patriotic spiel about her service and could not bear to watch as they went on to over-look her.jared , Jun 27, 2019 1:14:46 PM | 19
But then I realized that she had carefully considered the possibility that she may only be asked one question and that that if there was one point to make that that was it - she unlike most of the others has been willing to put herself at risk do do what she thought was the right thing, serving her country at disadvantage to herself (though there may have been some politics in it, but never mind) as opposed to say "pocahontes" lady for example. She's pretty sharp and would represent us well I think.@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15SlapHappy , Jun 27, 2019 1:19:55 PM | 20
Excellent point Zachary. In the first question they asked her about what she might do to improve the economy for the benefit of the un-rich, her first point was that we are spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for other programs.We're not allowed to consider candidates who would endeavor to make things better for the majority at the expense of the minority, which is why Tulsi Gabbard will never be allowed to the the nominee, regardless of how much her policy positions would resonate with voters were they to actually be exposed to them.Virgile , Jun 27, 2019 1:27:56 PM | 21The democrats are as as polluted as the republicans. They refuse to see that Warren is far too hysterical to have any chance in a face to face with Trump while Tulsi Gabbard will knock him Trump off. The dems have been stupid enough to support Clinton that everybody disliked, now they will redo the same mistake and lose againLeft I on the News , Jun 27, 2019 1:34:17 PM | 22@ Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2019 12:27:59 PM #9michael , Jun 27, 2019 1:44:28 PM | 23
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.
This is absurd. The things she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on regime change wars and how that money could be better used paying for health care, education, the environment, etc. That is the entire focus of her campaign. And, by the way, she is the *only* candidate to speak out against sanctions on Venezuela (and one of maybe two or three to speak out against the US coup), saying that Venezuelans should determine their own future without outside interference.My first take on Tulsi's performance (the first hour) was not positive. I thought her early spiel sounded too pro "soldier" and thus pro military, I was wishing she or someone would dig deeper into the "border crisis" and explain the U.S. role in central America especially in the 1980s, naming names (Abrams, North, etc)and telling the American people that most of the refugees are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, not Mexico.Sally Snyder , Jun 27, 2019 1:45:48 PM | 24
This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in Washington who are trustworthy.America - the best democracy that money can buy.michael , Jun 27, 2019 1:49:07 PM | 25Gabbard knows the primary race is rigged yet she stays in it and is remarkably measured as she is both attacked and shunned by the "popular people". If the primary race bogs and she stays in she could gain. I hope she is talking to Sanders.GeorgeV , Jun 27, 2019 1:49:56 PM | 27As a Vietnam war veteran I found Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar war stance on target and thoroughly refreshing. The only thing I am dismayed over was the short time she was given to make her point.PavewayIV , Jun 27, 2019 1:51:25 PM | 28
I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and mayhem at the same time.
There is a nauseating stench about war that cannot be dismissed nor forgotten by anyone who has seen it and experienced it up close. Gabbard knows this from her own tours of duty in Iraq and Kuwait. Nations do not become great by filling up their cemeteries with the corpses of its potentially best and brightest.I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue.Russ , Jun 27, 2019 1:54:56 PM | 30
Unfortunately Tulsi Gabbard isn't that person, but she could not be ignored by the Democrat oligarchs if she kept traveling and talking to foreign leaders, especially 'enemy' ones. I hope she realizes that her 'Evil Assad lover' meeting is a gift that keeps on giving to her. I doubt if I would even recognize her name today if that had never happened.
Can you imagine the heads that would explode if she went to China or Russia? Or went to North and South Korea? And [sigh] Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Venezuela? She doesn't have to do ANYTHING there. Just have a nice cup of tea with the leader and/or evil dictator and listen for about half-an-hour, and then leave. Then come back and tell the NYT and WaPo that she had a MOST interesting conversation with the leader but she would prefer not to discuss details with the press. She would get instant 24x7 hate coverage by the MSM. Even Trump would have to tweet about her.
Sometimes you just have to go guerilla in order to take on the 800 lb. swamp gorilla.Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15stevelaudig , Jun 27, 2019 2:03:27 PM | 31
"Fair enough. So who is a better choice in that regard?"
There you go again. The universe doesn't owe you an acceptable choice, and in these fake elections you'll never get one.How would a media owned by munitions manufacturers behave any differently to someone whose position threatens them making money off death and destruction? The 'national' media is owned by the war industry, nothing more, nothing less.D , Jun 27, 2019 2:04:07 PM | 32@Jackrabbit #9ADKC , Jun 27, 2019 2:15:34 PM | 33If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.
Maybe you should have a look at Tulsi Gabbards voting record. She is literally one of the very few who constantly votes against military funding.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/129306/tulsi-gabbard/22/defense →USA Today had the winners as:Trailer Trash , Jun 27, 2019 2:23:01 PM | 35
Julian Castro, repeal of the federal law that makes "illegal entry"
Amy Klobuchar bashed Trump for saying he would bring down drug prices, something she said the president has yet to do. "That's what we call at home all foam and no beer," Klobuchar said.
Tulsi Gabbard, During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. "That's why I and other people joined the military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."
...and the losers, as:
Elizabeth Warren, seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.
Tim Ryan, ran into Tulsi Gabbard
Beto O'Rourke, lacked substance in his answers.
Listened to the debate, too many issues that just allowed posturing without needing a real policy response.
I like the part where Tulsi said that we can't say to the parents of the two US service-men that had just been killed by the Taliban that we should just stay engaged, we need to bring the troops home and, instead, spend the money on building up America.
What is the biggest geo-politic threat facing America (framed as a specific foreign policy question):
Delaney = China & Nuclear Weapons (no cheer)
Inslee = Donald Trump (biggest cheer)
Gabbard = Greatest risk of Nuclear War than ever before (no cheer)
Klobuchar = China & Iran (no cheer)
O'Rourke = Climate Change (modest cheer)
Warren = Climate Change (no cheer)
Booker = Nuclear proliferation & Climate Change (no cheer)
Castro = China & Climate Change (no cheer)
Ryan = China (half-hearted attempted applause)
De Blasio = Russia (2nd biggest cheer)
I think, Klobuchar noticed the response De Basio got and started to bash Russia later in the debate.
- Delaney (a bit spacey, wasn't paying attention, aspirational, American dream)
- De Blasio (heart & soul of the party, track record, health care, working people first, slogan = it matters)
- Inslee (climate crisis, the only candidate to make this the top priority)
- Ryan (oh, dear I won't even try)
- Gabbard (against the rich & powerful, this must end, every single person gets the health care they need, environment, well-paying jobs, justice for all)
- Castro (immigrant story, health, jobs, slogan = adios to Donald Trump)
- Klubacher (listens and acts, always wins, can beat Trump, not the establishment candidate, not funded by corporate interests, slogan = govern for you)
- Booker (rising to our best, he will beat Trump, best of who we are)
- O'Rourke (emosh, for the children, new kind of politics)
- Warren (emosh, great honour, modest background, American dream, we can make the country work)
I think Delaney and Ryan are toast. Unfortunately, De Blasio could go far on the anti-Russia dog whistle.
Jackrabbit has a point about what can you expect from a single person being elected.
But he is wrong about Tulsi Gabbard's policy on military spending:
"Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc."
The US is engaged in more conflicts than at any time since the end of WWII, at the same time its military is beginning to fail, and its economy is on a precipice. There is no real political movement anywhere in the US that is effectively addressing these issues.
I don't see Americans organising to take control of their government, to stop the wars or anything like that.
The only hope that American's have is to send a message that the wars have got to stop, to vote for a candidate that is committed and best able to stop those wars, and for those voters to hold that candidate to account.
The only candidate that fits that bill is Tulsi Gabbard.
If you wish to opt-out, then organise, rise up and take control.....ehh, what's that?....I thought not!
If all you are going to do is watch the TV, eat chips, drink beer and moan, then the very least thing that you can do is vote for Tulsi Gabbard!More Breadless Circus.bjd , Jun 27, 2019 2:40:57 PM | 40
Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people on the other side of the world. If she renounces her service to the Empire and regrets her part in mass murder, that would get my attention.
But it doesn't matter. If she doesn't play ball she will get the Dennis Kucinich treatment. Anybody remember him, or has he fallen down the memory hole? He loudly opposed Uncle Sam's foreign policy and even introduced an impeachment bill against W Bush after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Empire struck back by re-drawing congressional districts. That forced him to run against another Dummycrat congressional incumbent in the primary, and he lost. All politicians are required to get with the program; they are either co-opted or shoved out.
The only exception I can think of is Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate in Congress who represents the District of Columbia. The establishment can afford to ignore her because her vote doesn't count, just like all the other D.C. residents.
"If voting counting, they wouldn't let us do it."The thirty-odd reactions here to Tulsi Gabbard are a perfect example of how & why the left is so hopelessly fragmented. People, for the umptieth time, it is impossible to ever find 100 point zero zero zero percent overlap or coverage with any candidate for any office, ever. But that fact does not justify throwing them all at the stake. You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely resembles your ideals.Trailer Trash , Jun 27, 2019 2:47:36 PM | 42Gotta love living in a Dollar Democracy where one dollar = one vote. Voting only legitimizes an illegitimate regime. "None of the above" would be an interesting ballot option, and about as realistic as retiring at age 55, which we were promised decades ago.Linda Hagge , Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48Hey, Trailer Trash. She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people. Also, to the claim that she has no policy positions: good grief, are you capable of navigating a site? She has tons of clearly worded policy positions.Trailer Trash , Jun 27, 2019 3:27:40 PM | 53
Finally, the VoteSmart site is clearly compromised if that's what it is saying about Gabbard. Her positions are vastly different from those stated.>She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.Rob , Jun 27, 2019 4:03:54 PM | 56
> Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48
The entire purpose of US War Department is to kill people and break things when vassals refuse to obey. Everybody who signs up understands and accepts that basic fact. My nephew actually stated to me that he signed up for the Marines so he could kill people legally.
People who want to patch up the sick and wounded sign up for Médecins Sans Frontières or similar, not Uncle Sam's mass murder machine.@Virgile (21) If you think that Sen. Warren is "hysterical" and would not have a chance facing off against Trump, then I can only assume that you have not seen her in action. She is incredibly well-informed, quick on her feet and unflappable. She would make Trump look like the clown that he is.Krollchem , Jun 27, 2019 4:16:37 PM | 59For more on her laudable opposition to wars of neo-colonial aggression see:lysias , Jun 27, 2019 4:30:39 PM | 60
"Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances"
IMO, Biden has already been selected by the Democratic party machine. He has the additional advantage of opposing higher taxes on the super rich who will now "invest' in their future. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/25/why-biden-is-wrong-about-the-rich/
Biden represents the stay the course elite who get rich from foreign conflicts, just ask his son who was kicked out of the US Navy for his cocaine habit and now is getting rich from the Ukraine coup. https://washingtonsblog.com/2018/11/america-is-one-dollar-one-vote-not-really-one-person-one-vote.html
I recommend that all Americans actually visit a party caucus at the county of district level to see how the party bosses "select" their presidential candidate. It is a sobering but depressing experience.
As for those who are waiting for the perfect leader - remember that such a leader would likely be murdered by those who have money in the game.They can't do to Gabbard what they did to Kucinich (redistrict him out of any chance of keeping his seat), because Hawaii has only two House seats.paul , Jun 27, 2019 5:06:10 PM | 63
By the way, something else Gabbard has notably done is to oppose prosecuting Assange.When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions; delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line with political weaseling.Seamus Padraig , Jun 27, 2019 5:14:38 PM | 64
Politicians are told that they must go where the voters' are, triangulating so as not to offend, trying to cover all the bases, trying to confirm voters' biases (heavily propagandized and managed biases, via media, etc., so that it becomes an easy game for those in on the game): a real leader speaks to where he or she knows that the people need to go, relying on the people to catch up, relying on some kind of faith to keep going when that takes a while to happen.
The forthright and courageous Tulsi Gabbard wins minds and hearts.
I think she should wear less makeup.I would without doubt prefer Tulsi over any of the other candidates on that stage, but I still don't know how seriously to take her. Sure, she talks a good game about ending régime-change wars, but she also seems to think that the 'War on Terra' (as Pepe Escobar used to call it) is an actual thing, when in fact, it's just a big psy-op . We all know that 9/11 was a false-flag that was staged to justify the serial destruction of all the mid-east countries that refuse to bow down before Tel Aviv and Washington; and that 'Al Qaeda' is really just a Saudi-funded, CIA-trained dupe-group used either to justify our presence in the ME, or else to directly attack countries like Syria.Uncle Jon , Jun 27, 2019 5:15:59 PM | 65
Does Tulsi really not know this? If she doesn't, then she's stupid. And if she does and she's choosing to keep quiet about it for some reason, then who's she fooling? The neocons? Or us?
So that's what bothers me about Tulsi. Still, I think she'd be preferable to four more years of Zion Don (though I realize that isn't saying much).@karlof1 50
I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well. Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians?
Once she repeats the line of "Israel has a right to defend itself" nonsense, it's all downhill from there. You cannot make a new foreign policy direction once you signed that pledge. You have to continue with the master plan. Obama was told that, so was Trump. That has been proven and it's not up for debate.
Sadly, I still believe this is all a show for the masses. Nothing will change. The country is doomed and the Empire will take its direction either good or bad, without any inputs from the rest of us.karlof1 , Jun 27, 2019 5:56:22 PM | 72
On Voting:Don Bacon , Jun 27, 2019 6:11:40 PM | 75
Several years ago, we placed on the ballot a referendum to stop Big Timber from indiscriminately using helicopters or other contrivances to spray insecticides onto us, all we own and our natural surround. Big Timber outspent us @10,000:1 and employed the usual campaign of corporate lies to get us to vote against our health and other interests, which included editorials in favor of Big Timber by the leading Oregon newspapers. At least we had the opportunity to vote on the issue. When living in Santa Clara County, California during the 1970s, we had no choice and got sprayed daily with Malathion insecticide to try and destroy drosophila--the common fruit fly--which we all knew was an impossible task and would have lost if put to a vote. We won at the ballot box and preserved our health and that of our communities and the visitors we need to attract to survive in our tourism heavy economy.
The bottom line is voting matters! Arguments to the contrary only serve the interests of the Current Oligarchy. And I grow oh so weary of reading that crap on this site, which makes the people writing such tripe to have the appearance of Trolls!More on GabbardDon Bacon , Jun 27, 2019 6:18:12 PM | 76
Drudge poll shock: Tulsi Gabbard runaway winner of first Democratic debate
Tulsi Gabbard was a surprise breakout in first Democratic debate
Curiosity about Tulsi Gabbard spiked during last night's debate. And it was already simmering leading up to it.sorry, I see my links are a b repeat -- but hey she deserves the headlinesexiled off mainstree , Jun 27, 2019 6:43:32 PM | 83While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance, I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's propaganda bullshit.Aloha , Jun 27, 2019 7:02:10 PM | 87
I think that if they do sideline her she should stand as a third party candidate. I also suspect that the more people actually see her and that the more intelligent element will support her. The better she does, the more difficult it will be for the structure to maintain absolute power. After all there is little significant difference between corporate democrats and corporate republicans.I wanted Tulsi to be genuine but in doing some research I am sharing just a little of what I found: she is a current member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations ...ADKC , Jun 27, 2019 7:38:20 PM | 94
Aloha @87Uncle Jon , Jun 27, 2019 8:05:35 PM | 98
If you want to know about and understand US foreign policy or have any hope of influencing that policy you need to take an interest in the Council of Foreign Affairs.
I have frequently read and sought out articles on their journal, I would imagine b and many commentators here have done so.
If you want a President that can deal with foreign affairs then they have to engage with the foreign affairs establishment and do it before you become President otherwise you don't stand a chance.
Tulsi Gabbard Answers To Her CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) Association/ConcernsFrom Jerusalem Post:
"She stressed that she co-sponsored a House resolution reaffirming US commitment to "a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that re-affirms Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state and establishes a demilitarized democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security."
That resolution also reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel and the US policy of vetoing one-sided or anti-Israel UN Security Council resolutions, and condemned boycott and divestment campaigns that target Israel."
Although she has condemned settlement activity, but sponsoring a bill to condemn BDS is a nonstarter in my book. Too bad.
Jun 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Of course, the left immediately jumped, blaming the Russians for Gabbard's surge in search interest...
Finally, in a post-debate spin-room exchange with Breitbart News editor-at-large Joel Pollak, Gabbard explained why she is "the most qualified" to become commander-in-chief...
"Of all the candidates who are running for president, I'm the one who is most qualified to fulfill that responsibility to walk into the Oval Office and serve as commander-in-chief.
And I think you heard tonight some of the reasons why those who lack the experience, lack the understanding, and conviction would, unfortunately, put our country in a place where we'd end up waging more wars, costing us more lives and tax-payer dollars .
This is why I'm running for president, to be that person, to be that change in our foreign policy and those regime-change wars, new cold wars nuclear arms races and invest our precious dollars into serving the needs of our people. "
Give Me Some Truth , 1 minute ago linkAnimal Mother , 4 minutes ago link
Tulsi is off to a great start. Good deal, Lucile!
I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond counterproductive.
She also seems to not be backing down from her positions and appears capable of defending her position in easy-to-understand and grasp sentences.
Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and traitor.
So Tulsi better be ready.
The Most Qualified to be Prezzy would be the first of these cockbags to admit that Obobo weaponized the government against his opponents. But none of them will. And by ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room, they ALL prove that none of them are even close to "qualified" to lead anything.
Jun 25, 2019 | www.thenation.comAs they take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20 participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All, debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the $750 billion that President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted, the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country would be better off without.
A timely new report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
Read the full text of Katrina's column here .
Jun 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
While it would appear that the mainstream media has crowned Senator Elizabeth Warren the winner of last night's first Democratic primary debate, on a more quantitative and objective level, it would seem there was another female candidate that stood out to the American audience.
Before the debate, Warren was indeed the 'most-searched' Democratic candidate on Google...
But as the debate began and the clown-show escalated, one candidate dominated the search...
As Fox News reports, Tulsi Gabbard, an Army National Guard veteran who served in Iraq, grabbed the attention of the viewers every time she spoke about foreign policy and the military.
During the debate, she called for scaling back of U.S. military presence abroad and accused "this president and his chicken hawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran."
Gabbard's military experience gave her authority in a harsh exchange with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who said the U.S. must maintain forces in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban is kept in check.
"When we weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings," Ryan said.
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11," Gabbard replied.
The data show that the moment that generated the most search traffic for Gabbard was when she was making her closing argument .
As @Abu_Faris noted so succinctly :
"Assuming the Google "trend" isn't a manifestation of their algorithms then it appears that most adults are interested in a calm, stoic, but non-clown like candidate"
africoman , 7 minutes ago linkEast Indian , 12 minutes ago link
Tulsi got some agenda correct 90% others 10% among 99 problems, you can't compromise one after another nor give away your gun right for some hotchpotch noises
They promise big and bigger in campaign times yes?
So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course
Carey Wedler On Tulsi Gabbard's Hope And Change
Voting is where mericans got screwed, in fact allmoman , 13 minutes ago link
She can talk to her heart's content, but American forces won't go home as long as dollar is the world's favourite currency.Quyatburp , 8 minutes ago link
If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that 'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe the Zio-Cons may let her live.
Her mentioning the Saudis, (Israels secret partner) however, was a little risky, unless the Zionists are getting ready to throw the Saudis under the bus?moman , 2 minutes ago link
While I fully agree with the idea, heck, FACT, that it wasn't a bunch of Bedouins in street clothes that took down the towers it also has to be taken into account that the CIA uses proxies all the time. I upvoted you, though. The 9/11 story is a truly fascinating one.
the CIA uses proxies all the time' ....... agree, but nothing hit building '7' the 47 story Solomon building , so who were the proxies for that free fall controlled demo?
Jun 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
ThirteenthFloor , 56 seconds ago link
Trump basically acknowledges Bolton as warmonger on NBC, that has hawks and doves in his administration 'likes to hear both sides'.
So here Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake.
Trump has become pure politician no longer the outsider, he's dancing on both sides when he needs to like now in a re-election mode.
Tulsi Gabbard clearly sees through this in her recent TV ad.. telling Trump to swallow his pride a carefully crafted script here.
TimmyB , 24 minutes ago linkThe Herdsman , 25 minutes ago link
There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII.
Instead of starting a war no one wants over Iran merely acting like a sovereign nation, we should remove all the sanctions and just leave them alone. Our meddling everywhere needs to stop.Rusty Pipes , 18 minutes ago link
Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president.ThanksIwillHaveAnother , 25 minutes ago link
Fix the potholes first.
Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass.
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
John Smith , Jun 24, 2019 5:01:54 PM | 63Tulsi Gabbard :
We must not let President Trump, John Bolton or any member of the State Department pull us into war with Iran. Now, I've introduced a bill called the "No More Presidential Wars Act" to stop Trump -- and all Presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike -- from pulling us into a war without approval from Congress.
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Stever , Jun 23, 2019 1:43:15 PM | 50Tulsi Gabbard Receives Amazing Welcome and Cheers from South Carolina Democratic Convention
Looks like Tulsi's message of investing our trillions spent on regime change wars towards the people is resonating. Very inspiring video.
Jun 25, 2019 | www.unz.com
J. Gutierrez says: June 24, 2019 at 5:37 pm GMT 300 Words
...Look at this man's video and remember he is a pervert, warmonger and a coward!
Ma Laoshi , says: June 24, 2019 at 11:56 pm GMT@J. GutierrezSaka Arya , says: June 25, 2019 at 7:02 am GMT
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim deserve better, given what we see around us.@Malla
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian invasion of Greece & the West
Jun 15, 2019 | www.unz.com
Fabius , says: June 14, 2019 at 9:52 pm GMTOverfill Crowds in NYC for Tulsi Town Halls
Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to Mossad in October to kick this one off.
Tulsi in all liklihood will be swept away by events and I have a sneaky suspicion she is the 'wildcard candidate' insurance for the 'kingmakers' after all she has kissed the AIPAC arse is member of CFR etc – she was after all on the fast track before she cried 'foul'.
She is far more honest than most but sadly is still compromised and there is no getting around that one. She owes them and they never forget. My 'outside choice' is the formidably 'loose cannon' Robert David Steele and his partnering with Cynthia McKinney.
The Zionists are in open war with them both. If they can wake up the black voters en masse to who runs America now it could cause the biggest shock to the US system since the McCarthy purge. Steele is appealing to 'Truthers', independents, and Alt Right Constitutionalists and McKinney to the working class and Black vote.
Trump is trying to exploit the same groups but next time around they will be wiser. The problem now is the Evangelist 'Christian Zionist' rump. Kushner/Trump and Netanyahu have got them all at fever pitch for the 2nd coming.
Jun 15, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
Yep @Pluto's Republic
The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
The why is because the democrats are not really against the things he is doing. Oh sure they will give some speeches about how they don't like what he is doing, but so far enough democrats have voted with republicans on almost every bill that has come up. The only one that they didn't vote for was to rescind the ACA. Deregulation of the banks? Yup. More unconstitutional spying on us? Yup. The military budget? Yup. Confirming his horrible cabinet picks? Yup again except for DeVos. Warren voted for Ben Carson. Why? She said that she was afraid that Trump would pick someone worse. How about just keep voting no until he chose someone qualified? His horrible right wing judges? Yup. Schumer continues to make deals with McConnell to get them done. DiFi and of course Manchin and other blue dawgs are right there voting with them. I don't remember which democrat told McConnell that he should have let all of congress in on the tax bill because he could have gotten 70 or more votes on it.
This after McConnell refused to let Obama's judges get a vote and then there's Garland and the kabuki confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria. And made nice with Kim and Vlad.
So yeah if ByeDone or Warren doesn't get the nod then they will be just fine with Trump again. And since ByeDone's latest gaffes they are now pushing Warren as coming from behind. I think Harris was supposed to be the nominee, but she isn't going anywhere.
up 32 users have voted. --
This is their world, after all. They're fighting for the future, and they have more of it to fight for.
At the same time, I've noticed a flurry of anti-centrist and Biden-warning articles coming from all directions.
What I know for sure, is that at this point Trump is set to win in 2020 and the backlash from the Russia Hoax is just getting started. I don't think it matters which way Barr decides to play it. The establishment is going to take the hit. There is an army of potential voters out there who will not vote for more of the same, and that includes Trump. Nor will they waste their votes on the established third party slush pile. Only a bold vision from an uncompromising candidate will bring this army forward, and many voters will join them. There are only a few candidates who can bring it. But they all pretended to fall for the Russia Hoax. Or, maybe they are just that dumb.
There are enough Millennial votes to carry the win, and the Left will provide back-up. Who knows with the so-called Progressives? In Congress, they'll vote for anything with a back-end pay-off that keeps them in DC. On the street, they may be genuine and will vote with the uncompromised. Tulsi Gabbard can carry this off. She is the first Millennial presidential candidate -- if she can get past the media black-out.
Bottom line: The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery
Pluto's Republic on Tue, 06/11/2019 - 12:35amWatching them run around with the goalpostsJen on Tue, 06/11/2019 - 9:34am
...eliminating candidates will be very instructive.
But it's a sad and pathetic state of affairs. Very sad.No way outPluto's Republic on Tue, 06/11/2019 - 4:19pm
@snoopydawgDemocrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria.
This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change.She has walked the razor's edgewendy davis on Tue, 06/11/2019 - 4:25pm
...which she must. She's been smeared for being a skeptic, on one hand.
And smeared for buying into RussiaGate.
I give her and the Left a pass on that grey area. Tulsi has never embraced the Russia Hoax to the extent that Sanders and Warren have -- and still do. One thing I don't need is a purity pledge from members of the Left who try to climb on the political stage with the American duopoly, who in turn throw every lie and ugly smear they can at them.
The Russia Hoax is falling apart on its own. The Democrats have been deeply stained by it. Americans grow increasingly shocked and disgusted with the media monopolies. They have all lost the trust of the American people. The candidates are trying to evolve as fast as they can on this issue. It will come up in the debates. Answer wrong and watch out, but that will change week by week as the public begins to realize what happened in 2016.i appreciate yourwokkamile on Tue, 06/11/2019 - 7:49pm
bringing the evidence, but my stars, the hundreds of subtweeters gave her an education. okay, it's a grey area for you, as likely is her voting to sanction russia for stealing crimea, sanctioning north korea for...whatever.One of the fiercest critics of
@Pluto's Republic Russiagate from early on, Prof Stephen Cohen, is a backer and contributor to Tulsi Gabbard. If she's good enough for the Prof on this issue, she's good enough for me.
She might be alone among candidates in calling for a substantial pullback in the hostility directed at Russia by the US, a thawing of the new cold war. And how many of the Ds running for prez have explicitly called out the undue influence of the MIC?
I see her overall as a young pol, still in her 30s, evolving in the right direction in a number of areas. I wish she had been perfect on this issue from the get go, but I must take my candidate with all her flaws.
Jun 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
jrs , June 13, 2019 at 10:55 am
They won't need to talk about Gabbard after the first debates, unless she can get polling over 2% there will be no more for her. Like all the other 20 she will get her maybe broken 10 minutes of fame in the first debate, it won't be enough to really make a rational case for anything probably. The Dems aren't generous like R's in having second tier debates, they cull fast. Sanders yea he'll be around.
The problem with Warren's definition of capitalism, is when she describes herself as capitalist, she pretends she literally has no idea what capitalism is. The ingenue! In her description: it's about individuals trading, or corporations trading, or individuals trading with corporations. When back in the world we live in it's about power and raw power relations. Her definition of capitalism IS WAY WAY WAY more inaccurate than any definition Bernie has of socialism which does approach some definitions of socialism. It's just zero correspondence with reality for Warren.
Jun 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Cal2 , June 12, 2019 at 4:29 pm
"When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic Party activists whom they didn't want to win, Tulsi Gabbard came in first out of 17 candidates."
Absolutely a fine reason to support her and advocate for her being Bernie Sanders vice presidential pick.
The corporate 'democrats are the enemy of the American worker, more so than the the cheap labor republicans.
Joe Biden's "we'll cure cancer", "but on a few will be able to afford it, if they do not have student loans outstanding."
Jun 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
John , June 12, 2019 at 6:29 pm
Sanders-Gabbard: cannot say it often enough especially as Tulsi appears to terrify the democratic nomenklatura.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 12, 2019 at 7:46 pm
Tucker Carlson asked whether someone can be elected if Google and Facebook don't want them to be. His answer was No.
I think a similar question can be asked: "Can someone be elected if the DNC don't want them to be?". Unfortunately for this election cycle I think the answer will also be No.
But it will set the stage for something bigger, and worse (from the PTB point of view). Those who make gradual change impossible make revolutionary change inevitable" JFK
So if we haven't all been Raptured Up, 2024 is Year Zero for our New Thermidor.
pjay , June 12, 2019 at 8:14 pm
Indeed she does. That New York Mag article was quite an accomplished hit-piece; now Tulsi is possibly a Manchurian candidate from a twisted Krishna cult! Aside from the accurate quote on the Blob cited by Lambert, this is perhaps the most disgusting piece of s**t on Gabbard I've read yet -- and that's saying something. The reason is that it is so detailed and skilled; it really demonstrates your point that they want to destroy her. The article *pretends* to be sympathetic to her anti-interventionist stance in places (thus the Blob quote), but the author actually draws selectively from her life -- mainly from past acquaintances and relatives (who seem antagonistic) and almost nothing from Gabbard herself -- to paint a picture of a strange and perhaps unstable character unknown to the general public. Some of the questions raised might be legitimate, but that was not the purpose here. Rather, bits and pieces of her life were selected to construct a finely crafted narrative designed to destroy whatever credibility her anti-war position might have had among educated liberal readers.
For those who want to know about Gabbard, watch the Joe Rogan interviews. For those who want to deconstruct a first-rate character assassination, I highly recommend this article. You are right, John. The nomenklatura are pulling out all the stops.
JCC , June 12, 2019 at 10:52 pm
I agree, this article had "hit job" written all over it. The author spent as much time discussing her father's guru as it did her from what I could tell. A piss-poor, and obvious, attempt at Guilt By Association.
I actually went into "skim mode" after this leading paragraph statement,
Here are the details: Bashar al-Assad is a depraved dictator best known for his willingness to murder his own people, including many children, with chemical weapons.
It was pretty obvious to me that the rest of the article would carry as much lie as this statement so clearly did. It's too unfortunate that too many will fall for all this tripe.
Jun 13, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood" [ New York Magazine ]. " A Hindu veteran and millennial congresswoman of Samoan descent hailing from Hawaii, [Gabbard] brings together disparate constituencies: most noticeably, Bernie Sanders fans who love that she resigned from the Democratic National Committee to endorse him in 2016, but also libertarians who appreciate her noninterventionism, Indian-Americans taken by her professed Hinduism, veterans attracted to her credibility on issues of war and peace, and racists who interpret various statements she has made to be promising indications of Islamophobia.
That she is polling at one percent, sandwiched between Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, suggests that bringing together these constituencies is not nearly enough, but the intensity of emotion she provokes on all sides sets her apart. When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic Party activists whom they didn't want to win, Tulsi Gabbard came in first out of 17 candidates." • Also, Gabbard is a self-described introvert (a plus in my book). And then there's this:
The most obvious obstacle between any noninterventionist candidate and mainstream success is D.C.'s foreign-policy Establishment -- the think-tankers and politicians and media personalities and intelligence professionals and defense-company contractors and, very often, intelligence professionals turned defense-company contractors who determine the bounds of acceptable thinking on war and peace. In parts of D.C., this Establishment is called "the Blob," and to stray beyond its edges is to risk being deemed "unserious," which as a woman candidate one must be very careful not to be.
The Blob may in 2019 acknowledge that past American wars of regime change for which it enthusiastically advocated have been disastrous, but it somehow maintains faith in the tantalizing possibilities presented by new ones.
The Blob loves to "stand for" things, especially "leadership" and "democracy." The Blob loves to assign moral blame, loves signaling virtue while failing to follow up on civilian deaths, and definitely needs you to be clear on "who the enemy is" -- a kind of obsessive deontological approach in which naming things is more important than cataloguing the effects of any particular policy.
It's fair to say that whoever The Blob is for -- ***cough*** Hillary Clinton ***cough*** -- should be approached with a hermaneutic of suspicion.
Jun 13, 2019 | www.rt.com
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took the media to task for what she called biased and misleading coverage of her campaign, arguing the facts no longer matter to some outlets. Speaking at an event in New York recently, Tulsi said the press had given up on any semblance of balanced or accurate reporting, replacing news coverage with panels of jabbering pundits.
Instead of factual reporting, she said: "We see opinions, we see panels of people on all the news channels – I don't care which one you watch – sharing their opinions."
tulsi mocking george stephanopoulos is one of the greatest things you'll hear from any of the candidates pic.twitter.com/aIBxWyZ5t1-- Starrchild (@hexen220) June 9, 2019
The 2020 hopeful also described what she said were intentional smear efforts against her campaign in the media.
"Me and my campaign have been on the receiving end of very intentional smear efforts trying to undermine our campaign coming through, you know, NBC News quoting articles that are completely baseless," Gabbard said.
She referred to a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, wherein the pundit echoed the suggestion that Gabbard's campaign was boosted by "Putin apologists."
"Well, you know, this article in the Daily Beast says Putin supports your campaign," she said, imitating Stephanopolous's question in the interview.
An article "based on what?" she asked the audience in New York rhetorically. "Nothing. Really, nothing."
The story in question intimated that Gabbard's presidential bid was backed by "Kremlin sympathizers," such as the Nation magazine's Stephen F. Cohen, an expert in international relations who argues for better ties between the US and Russia.Also on rt.com Democrat Tulsi Gabbard fends off 'fake news' accusations of Russian support
Gabbard has come under fire for her foreign policy positions, such as her call for detente between the US and other nuclear-armed states like Russia. Tulsi's opposition to US regime change policies have also made her a target in some quarters. After refusing to endorse American efforts to topple the Syrian government, she was branded as an 'apologist' for Syria's President Bashar Assad.
Jun 11, 2019 | www.thecut.com
On Tuesday, NBC announced that its lineup of moderators will include Rachel Maddow of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show , Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News and Dateline NBC, José Diaz-Balart of Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News Saturday , Savannah Guthrie of Today , and Chuck Todd of Meet the Press .
... ... ...
UltraViolet Action co-founder and executive director Shaunna Thomas praised the moderator decision to the Cut. "NBC's decision to ensure that four out of the five moderators for the first Democratic presidential primary debate are women or people of color is a huge win for representation at the debates and a welcome change from the status quo," Thomas said in a statement. She also stated that she hopes other networks follow suit.
CagsAlmost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news. Especially in trying times like these.
joaniesausquoi, 3 hours ago
Whattya got against Rachel, Cags?
Cags, 2 hours ago
She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman.
Daxter , 6 hours ago (Edited)
In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a journalist.
Having Rachel Maddow moderate is like having Sean Hannity moderate.
indigo710, 5 hours ago
maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will be . "lawer" is spelled "lawyer".
Jun 08, 2019 | www.unz.com
Brooklyn Dave , says: June 6, 2019 at 5:03 pm GMTProbably the only honest Democrat out there. OK Demo-dunces, when Dem primary comes around, here is a candidate you can vote for without normal people saying What? Are you nuts? Dems are honestly going to push for Feelsy Weelsy Biden, unless the Hildabeast thinks she can give it another try.Tired of Not Winning , says: June 6, 2019 at 6:07 pm GMTTulsi Gabbard needs to add one more thing to her campaign and she will win: promise a drastic cut on immigration in favor of American workers.Sako , says: June 6, 2019 at 6:11 pm GMT
America is hungry for a candidate who will actually deliver on the no-more-wars and no-more-immigration pledge. Trump campaigned on that but has turned out to be a total fraud who failed on both counts.
We need Tulsi to step into the void. Not only will she win over a lot of Trump voters, but she will also win over a lot of those on the left who are sick of wars and not particularly pro immigration.Hilariously, the MSM trumpeted the message last time around that we simply MUST have a female president, that it was long past time a woman was in charge, and that anyone reluctant to vote for Hillary was an evil misogynist. Before that, we were told that we simply HAD to have a noble Person of Color in the White House, that it was everyone's duty to vote for Obama and not some old white guy.JimDandy , says: June 6, 2019 at 6:12 pm GMT
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi comes up.
I think she should use this to her advantage. Not resort to identity politics or faux feminism, but simply point out the hypocrisy, draw attention to the inconsistency and get the general public asking themselves why all this diversity / Girl Power shit suddenly gets memory holed by the media when it's Tulsi, or any anti establishment figure, in the spotlight.@Brooklyn Dave A beautiful, young, intelligent, Progressive, decorated-veteran woman-of-color, and the MSM isn't giving her the 2007 Obama treatment?Diversity Heretic , says: June 6, 2019 at 6:24 pm GMT
Case closed. Giraldi's dead right.I mat switch party registration just so I can vote for her in a primary. I wonder, however, if once in office, she could implement her program against the Deep StateMike Zwick , says: June 6, 2019 at 6:52 pm GMTAccording to Wikipedia:follyofwar , says: June 6, 2019 at 9:15 pm GMT
After Gabbard announced her (2020) campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. NBC News reported that these websites were the same that were involved in Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New Knowledge] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm's CEO just got caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."@Tired of Not Winning Totally agree. To those who saw it, that's what Tucker's monologue was all about last night. Anti-war with America-first anti-immigration is the winning ticket. Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, take away her principled anti-war stance and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat. She did back Sanders after all. Maybe Tucker, who has often had her on his show, can straighten Tulsi out.WorkingClass , says: June 6, 2019 at 9:30 pm GMTGabbard should switch parties and challenge Trump. I would vote for her. She has no chance at all as a Democrat. Obviously she cannot be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates.follyofwar , says: June 6, 2019 at 9:31 pm GMT
But her reasons for running probably do not include winning the nomination. I wish her well. But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.@Diversity Heretic That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened? The Deep State, i.e. the Permanent Government, is probably more powerful than any elected president, who will be there for at most 8 years. But who else out there beside Tulsi has the guts to take on the Hegemon? I think she means what she says, while Obama and Trump did not.Carroll Price , says: June 6, 2019 at 10:26 pm GMTWe'll know she's being taken serious when, like Donald Trump in 2016, AIPAC summons her to appear before the Learned Elders of Zion to pledge fealty to Israel and the holohoax.Toxik , says: June 6, 2019 at 10:33 pm GMTAll Tulsi has to say to those warmongers: I went to war. Did you? I saw my brothers and sisters die and be maimed. Did you?Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website June 6, 2019 at 10:46 pm GMT@follyofwar follyofwar -- Tulsi in her own words :Robert Dolan , says: June 6, 2019 at 11:09 pm GMT
● 'Immigration is a tremendous economic benefit for Hawai'i and our country as a whole.'
● 'Trump's comments on immigrants fly in the face of aloha spirit, American values.'She has no chance and isn't going to go against immigration.Lot , says: June 6, 2019 at 11:54 pm GMT
It doesn't really matter what they say anyway, because it's just lies to get elected.
Once elected they do what the nose tells them to do.
If she's CFR, she's an open borders globalist.
Trump was adamantly anti-war during his campaign, and then the nose stepped in and fixed it.
I read that everything Trump said, all of those lies, all of those promises, were the result of analytics.
I was dubious at first, but now I think it's true. He quite literally just mouthed what we wanted to hear, and then did what the nose told him to do.
Obama got the peace prize and did more drone strikes than Bush.
Tulsi would be anti-war right up to her inauguration, then the reality that the nose OWNS her entire party would sink in and she'd realize who's the boss.Tucker promotes Tulsi because she divides and embarrasses the Democrats. I agree with him doing this.Lot , says: June 6, 2019 at 11:57 pm GMT@Johnny Rottenborough Thanks.renfro , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:43 am GMT
Giraldi and his fans here are cool with mass Third World migration to the USA if it means finally electing out and proud anti-Israel politicians like Ilhan Omar and the other Congressmuslima.@Sakorenfro , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:46 am GMT
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi comes up.
Exactly you nailed it.@WorkingClassanonymous  Disclaimer , says: June 7, 2019 at 2:12 am GMT
But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
Well that's dumb.This woman is a proud Hindu Nationalist, even if she tries to deny it now.nickels , says: June 7, 2019 at 2:42 am GMT
... ... ...I like Tulsi a lot. We've almost forgotten what a serious person looks like, and she is one of the 3 or 4 in Washington.nickels , says: June 7, 2019 at 2:45 am GMT
Her Democrat satanic baggage poisons the well, but she is still an inspiring figure, in my view.@follyofwar Yep and yep.Biff , says: June 7, 2019 at 5:04 am GMT
Voting is basically irrelevant, but its still fun to play to thought game.The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future.alexander , says: June 7, 2019 at 10:59 am GMTDear Phil,Realist , says: June 7, 2019 at 11:59 am GMT
Right now, Tulsi is the only candidate who matters.
I hope she wins the nomination by a landslide.
The United States, due to the abysmal stewardship of our neocon oligarchs , is in a wholly unprecedented and catastrophic situation.
They know it, I know it, and the majority of Americans are fast waking up to it.
Never before in US history, has so much taxpayer solvency been squandered through acts of wanton criminal war.
The utter decimation being wrought upon countries around the world . which never attacked us, AT ALL, is beyond human imagination.
Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.
Even as I write this, steps are being taken by all the major world powers to eject the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
If this happens, nobody will continue to buy our currency ..or our bonds.
The heinous 22 trillion dollar debt, created by our neocon warmongers, will not be underwritten anymore, anywhere.
The US will have to turn "inward" to deal with this fiscal abomination , and dare I say that when this happens a "solvency holocaust" will truly be upon us.
The greatest nation on earth, turned belly up, in a mere twenty years .all due to pernicious .. Neocon ..War Fraud.
Shameful.I agree with Gabbard's anti-war policy, but she is a one trick pony .albeit very good at her one trick.RVBlake , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:05 pm GMT@Realist Agreed (Last "Agree" was not long enough ago)Ace , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:20 pm GMT@Tired of Not Winning Total fraud is correct. He refuses to characterize the illegals as invaders and to anchor any action in response in his responsibility under Art. IV, Sect. 4 to repel invasion. He insists on pretending that his authority to act is founded in legislation pertaining to "emergencies" of which we possess an infinite supply.Moi , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:31 pm GMT
All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.@Brooklyn DaveAce , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:32 pm GMT
Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she "served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes. Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi.
That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our crypto Jewish prez.@follyofwar Her ultra-leftism is off-putting. I can only think she could not be elected in Hawaii if she didn't mouth the sacred truisms.Moi , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT@Lot So what's wrong with Ilhan Omar? Is that she's Muslim? Two people in Congress I admire are AOC (who's to young of run for prez) and Omar. Both have cojones.Moi , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:43 pm GMT@anonymous India is a polluted shit-hole run by a genocidal, Hindu nationalist PM, with almost half of parliament members under some kind of criminal charge.dvorak , says: June 7, 2019 at 2:29 pm GMT@follyofwarJeff Davis , says: June 7, 2019 at 3:17 pm GMT
take away her principled anti-war stance and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat
Worse than that, she's a Hindu nationalist. She wants as many Hindus as Whites in the U.S., if not more.@Mike Zwickc matt , says: June 7, 2019 at 3:46 pm GMT
The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is declared Russian propaganda.
Awakening from the bad dream of neoliberal servitude will cause cognitive dissonance, confusion, and distress. Learning the truth, even a little bit of Truth, is almost like poison when, for a lifetime, you've been fed nothing but lies.@Tired of Not Winning Agree, but . . . even if elected, she would run into the same AIPAC and pro-cheap labor lobbies that have stymied Trump (assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues). Even if she wanted to do something about War and Immigrants, she would up against a united establishment from both parties. Having a D after her name would not count for much.c matt , says: June 7, 2019 at 3:50 pm GMT@follyofwar Not just Trump and O, but Clinton and Bush II as well. I recall Bush II's tag line of a "more humble foreign policy." How'd that work out?c matt , says: June 7, 2019 at 4:04 pm GMT@Moi I appreciate Omar's anti-AIPAC stand, but her and AOC's gibmedats and immigration policies would destroy us.Cloak And Dagger , says: June 7, 2019 at 4:29 pm GMT
Both may have cojones; neither have brains. You need both.As long as she doesn't grab zio funding, I am in. I just sent a check to her campaign.renfro , says: June 7, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT@c matt You've already been destroyed. Omar and AOC had both the brains and the balls to identify your real enemy. Your ass is owned buddy, lock, stock and barrel ..and it took two women to say it .not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.gsjackson , says: June 7, 2019 at 7:13 pm GMT
Florida's Governor just signed a bill that will censor criticism of Israel throughout the state's public schools
Michael Arria on June 6, 2019 23 Comments
U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)[MORE]
On May 31, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits anti-Semitism in public schools and universities throughout the state. However, the legislation also equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, effectively censoring the advocacy of Palestinian rights.
Two days before DeSantis officially signed HB 741 into law in Florida, he carried out a symbolic signing during a ceremonial state cabinet meeting in Israel. The session featured a variety of Israeli speakers and culminated with Florida lawmakers issuing a declaration of support for the country. "Since we're in Jerusalem, we may actually get some interest in our Cabinet meetings for a change, which would be great," joked DeSantis during the meeting. A number of news organizations filed a lawsuit against the state's government, claiming that the meeting violated Florida's transparency law, as it took place in a foreign country and wasn't made publicly accessible to journalists. Although they weren't officially listed as members of DeSantis' delegation, he was accompanied by pro-Israel megadonors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson.
HB 741 states that, "A public K-20 educational institution must treat discrimination by students or employees or resulting from institutional policies motivated by anti-Semitic intent in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race." The bill identifies anti-Semitism as calls for violence against Jews, Holocaust denial, or the promotion of conspiracy theories that target Jewish people, but it also contains an entire section that equates Israel critcism with the prohibited anti-Semitism. This includes, "applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." According to the bill's text, criticism of Israel is always anti-Semitic unless it is "similar to criticism toward any other country."
"We know what could happen in Florida from the chilling effects we've already seen elsewhere: human rights defenders will be smeared as antisemites, investigated by schools, and in some cases punished. Events will be cancelled, or censored via bureaucratic harassment. Theses will not be written. Debates in class will not take place. And many activists will self-censor out of pure exhaustion," Palestine Legal's senior staff attorney Meera Shah told Mondoweiss, "All of this profoundly diminishes Florida's ability to educate students to be leaders in a global economy."
The House version of HB 741 was sponsored by State Representative Randy Fine, a rabidly pro-Israel lawmaker who has held office since 2016. In April, after Sen. Audrey Gibson voted against HB 741's companion bill and called it "divisive", Fine denounced the Senate Democratic Leader and called on Democrats to "hold her accountable." "It is sad that in the world propagated by Washington Democrats like Congresswomen Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and Tallahassee Democrats like Audrey Gibson, fighting anti-Semitism is 'divisive', said Fine, "In this time of rising anti-Semitism around both the country and globe, it is unconscionable that the most powerful Democrat in the Florida Senate would vote against banning discrimination based on anti-Semitism."
That same month, Fine made headlines for referring to a Jewish constituent as "Judenrat", a term used to describe Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War 2. Fine used the word in reference to Paul Halpern, a Palm Bay resident who organized a panel discussion regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Fine took to Facebook to criticize the panel for being anti-Semitic. "First, there is no 'Palestine,'" Fine wrote, "Second, having a bunch of speakers who advocate for the destruction of Israel but promise that this one time they won't, is a joke. We should not engage these bigots. We crush them." After Halpern pushed back on this assertion and pointed out that the majority of the panelists were Jewish, Fine responded, ″#JudenratDontCount..I know that Judenrat liked to keep tabs on all the Jews in order to report back to the Nazis back in that time, but no one is making you continue that tradition today."
"In my mind, Judenrat is the worst thing that you can call a Jewish person," Halpern told the Huffington Post, "He's despicable as a representative and a person."
Governor DeSantis is a close ally of the President and some believe that the Israel trip could help deliver Florida for Trump in 2020. "For a lot of Jewish voters, this trip puts an exclamation point on the Republican Party's commitment to Israel and to Jewish people," the Republican Jewish Coalition's Neil Strauss recently proclaimed, "We saw a nice rise in support for Gov. DeSantis and we want to keep that going. Florida is the best example of where if Republicans gain Jewish voters, it can make a real difference."@BiffFB , says: Website June 7, 2019 at 10:34 pm GMT
I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story.Well a lot of the comments here are ridiculous it's like the guy who has cancer and somebody comes along with a cure, but he says 'fuck it' because it doesn't involve ice creamTitus , says: June 7, 2019 at 11:29 pm GMT
Yet these same morons support Trump who has only done things for Israel's benefit so far and even though Trump supports legal immigration
Speaking of which why don't all these immigration zealots take up the issue with the real bosses on the matter corporate America ?
It's the plutocracy that WANTS immigration at any and all cost because it creates a surplus labor pool and drives wages down while driving shareholder profits up the same reason is why industry is offshored, along with the jobs that go with it it's called labor arbitrage
In other words this is what CAPITALISM is about yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
How much do the endless, unnecessary wars cost the taxpayer ? [they don't cost the billionaire class anything because they don't pay taxes ]
How much does corporate welfare cost the taxpayer ? ask King Bezos how many billions he's been gifted in 'tax holidays' and other such freebies
Tulsi's entire approach is a major win-win for ordinary folks right up to and including high earning professionals
Anybody with half a brain would be overjoyed that we even have such a person in our midst as if we don't have enough completely briandead zombies that are going to vote for Gore or that gay guy, or that fake 'socialist' BernieTulsi is just another Zionist puppet.Icy Blast , says: June 7, 2019 at 11:54 pm GMT@Sako Sako, yours is one of the best posts ever on this site. I am tempted to volunteer for Tulsi's campaign on the basis of her anti-war position alone. I did about fourteen years of active duty in the Army, and when I hear her refer to soldiers as her "brothers and sisters," I actually get teary-eyed. I have to restrain myself from adoring her completely.Twodees Partain , says: June 8, 2019 at 12:03 am GMT@JimDandy Beautiful? There's no accounting for taste, I suppose. "Progressive woman of color" doesn't matter to anyone other than a democrat.Sam F2 , says: June 8, 2019 at 12:14 am GMTExcellent expose by Philip Giraldi, for one of our best candidates Tulsi Gabbard. Indeed the enemy is "the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States."Colin Wright , says: Website June 8, 2019 at 1:07 am GMT@Lot 'Tucker promotes Tulsi because she divides and embarrasses the Democrats. I agree with him doing this.'Sane Left Libertarian , says: June 8, 2019 at 1:13 am GMT
If Tulsi makes Lot nervous, she must be a pretty good choice.@Tired of Not Winning Like me. Hopefully she is still in it when super Tuesday gets here. I'm sick of the alt right (and their tangerine leader) and sicker of blm/reparations/open borders. I now know why non voters don't vote.Haole , says: June 8, 2019 at 2:19 am GMTTulsi is a Hawaii democrat, a very corrupt group. Tell her to comment on the kealohas, the police chief of Honolulu and his wife are being tried for corruption and drug dealing by the feds. She and all the other dems here will not comment. She likes to rock the boat about war at the federal level but no comment on her state evolving into a third world dump.Biff , says: June 8, 2019 at 4:23 am GMT
I think the local dems want her out, Mufi wants revenge.@renfroTired of Not Winning , says: June 8, 2019 at 5:16 am GMT
.not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.
Balls are weak and sensitive, if you want to be tough get a vagina, those things can take a pounding.@follyofwar Yep, it is a big if. She is pretty far to the left on immigration, which is unfortunate. But I appreciate her being honest. We don't need another lying scum like Trump.Tired of Not Winning , says: June 8, 2019 at 5:30 am GMT
However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates have to pander to the far left to win nomination. I'm holding out hope that he would revert back to those pre 2016 immigration positions after winning nomination. He recently came out and railed against the border invasion.
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket might be the winning ticket.@c mattWally , says: June 8, 2019 at 6:15 am GMT
(assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues).
That's just the problem. I don't think Trump ever really wanted to reduce legal immigration. He has said more than once that he wants to let "the largest number ever" of immigrants come in because "we" need these workers as we have "all these jobs coming back", i.e. employers need their cheap labor, except instead of keeping the cheap labor offshore, he wants to bring millions of them to the US like the tech sector.
Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to import more foreign workers to work in them?
In the end the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us have to put up with even more immigration, more congestion, overcrowded schools, crime, poverty, unemployment, underemployment, failed schools I say no thank you! Let's just send all the immigrants packing. We already have plenty of jobs in America, they are just all going to foreigners.
The only job program we need is one that calls for drastic cuts in immigration. Anything else is bullshit.@follyofwarBiff , says: June 8, 2019 at 7:40 am GMT
"Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened?"
As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one. He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama? A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed.@gsjackson The royal We is in this video:Digital Samizdat , says: June 8, 2019 at 7:53 am GMT
https://www.youtube.com/embed/keWX55SpYmU?feature=oembed@FButu , says: June 8, 2019 at 7:54 am GMT
yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about Medicare-for-all. You must have this website confused with Conservative Treehouse or something.Her position on immigration disqualifies her. Her loyalty to Hinduism and Indian nationalism is very problematic.War for Blair Mountain , says: June 8, 2019 at 8:41 am GMT@Tired of Not Winning Tulsi Gabbard won't because She is waging Democratic Party race war against the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority .Tulsi Gabbard would massively increase the H1b L1b Visa Program .she is already courting the Hindu "American" Democratic Party Voting Bloc ..War for Blair Mountain , says: June 8, 2019 at 9:05 am GMTIncreasing the scale of nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS=increasing the scale of antipathy towards Christian Russia within the borders of America ..Ronnie , says: June 8, 2019 at 10:15 am GMT
Tulsa Gabbard: "I want to massively increase the scale of nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS within the borders of America ."She is not an irrational supporter of Israel therefore the """MSM""" do not support her.OEMIKITLOB , says: June 8, 2019 at 10:16 am GMT@Robert Dolan I believe you've summed it up well. I haven't voted in a "national" election since W's first term because the ballot-box is a non-answer to the dilemma.Ruiner! , says: June 8, 2019 at 10:35 am GMTnope!!KenH , says: June 8, 2019 at 10:58 am GMT
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/@Johnny Rottenborough Her positions on immigration disqualify her from consideration regardless of how strong her foreing policy might be at this stage. Plus, she's made woke statements on other social issues so in a lot of ways she's perhaps only slightly to the right of Barack Obama with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Jun 06, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org
Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"
Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."
Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics, Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.
Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline : "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."
The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump ," putting the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced its own version of Tulsi the Russophile , observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."
Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering."
Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept described how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage.
Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message across.
But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States
Jun 03, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
DNC changing the rules of the debates
gjohnsit on Mon, 06/03/2019 - 2:40pm
OK. Maybe this rules change isn't aimed directly at Tulsi Gabbard, but it certainly looks like she's in danger of being it's biggest victim.Presidential candidates looking to participate in the Democratic National Committee's sanctioned primary debates initially had to meet one of two thresholds to be eligible: achieving at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at least 65,000 donations with minimum of 200 donors from at least 20 states.
To appear at the recently-announced third set of debates in September, candidates must achieve 2% in at least four DNC-approved polls and double the minimum of number of donors to 130,000. That quickly became a death sentence for candidates who for months have not even cracked the first donor threshold.
To make this clear, the requirements for the THIRD debate went from "at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at least 65,000 donations" to " 2% support in four national or early voting state polls AND 130,000 unique donors to their campaign, including 400 unique donors from at least 20 states".
For most of the candidates, unless they really score in the first two debates, they won't be in any more debates.
To help put this into context, consider what the DNC has been up to recently.
They chose Chris Korge as the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez went on a hair-on-fire rant about Russiagate.
"We are at war right now with the Russians -- it is a cyber war -- [and] our commander-in-chief is compromised," Perez said. "We should be able to rely on the federal government for help from this. ... It is unconscionable that this administration has paid such little attention to what Mueller acknowledged today, [which is] Russian interference. "
Yes, the DNC is busy looking out for what is important to you.
Jun 03, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
Who Shot Down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine in 2014?
span ted by wendy davis on Sun, 06/02/2019 - 11:19am
Well of course it was the Evil Russians! Didn't Russians also shoot Roger Rabbit? We'd been discussing this 2014 interview with Tulsi Gabbard on my post ' analyses of the leaked 'Deal of the Century' I/P peace plan ' that I'd found that day and posted in comments, mainly wanting to feature her anti-Palestinian Hasbara. As I remember it, this 'blame' started the horrific sanctions on Russia.
☭ NovaShpakova ☭@NovaShpakova
Replying to @BrianBeckerDC
Tulsi says she doesn't want it, but her past record in #Obama/#Biden's Admin tells a different story. Let's rewind to the very words Tulsi said just a few yrs ago. #Tulsi betrays herself as a flatout #Zionist apologist & avid supporter of fascist #Ukraine. http://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/watch/should-us-be-involved-in-ukraine-conflict--312796739629
Should US be involved in Ukraine conflict?
Foreign Affairs Committee member Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, joins to discuss hot spots around the world that are seeing conflict.msnbc.com
19 people are talking about this
Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists, we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty "
TravelerXXX had bookmarked this Eric Zuesse exposé that I'd vaguely recalled and brought it in:
'MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine's Guilt Now Proven', December 31, 2018, strategic-culture.org
It's about nine yards long with zillions of hyperlinks, so long I don't even guess I'd ever finished it, which makes it hard to figure out what, if any, nuggets to feature, but he did link to this:
'MH-17: the untold story', 22 Oct, 2014, RT.com, including a 27-minute video documentary.
"Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers about what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation. The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative procedure was never carried out. Until that's done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders (black boxes) and eye-witnesses testimonies. This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft, whether a rocket fired from the ground or a military jet fired on the doomed plane."
I'd later added to that thread, including some photos of a beaming Netanyahu holding a map of the Golan Heights that Herr Trump had signed with his approval (indicating the leaked plan just may be The Real Deal) when Up Jumped the Devil:
'Where is the evidence?' Malaysian PM says attempts to pin MH17 downing on Russia lack proof', 30 May, 2019, RT.com
"Malaysia has accepted the Dutch report that a 'Russian-made' missile shot down its civilian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014, but has yet to see evidence it was fired by Russia, said Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia but where is the evidence?" Mahathir told reporters at the Japanese Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCJ) in Tokyo on Thursday.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians," the prime minister went on, according to the Malaysian state news agency Bernama. "It could be by the rebels in Ukraine; it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile."
"Mahathir was skeptical that anyone involved with the Russian military could have launched the missile that struck the plane, however, arguing that it would have been clear to professionals that the target was a civilian airliner.
"I don't think a very highly disciplined party is responsible for launching the missile," he said.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), whose report last year blamed Moscow for shooting down MH17, barred Russia from participating in the investigation, but involved the government of Ukraine. Although Malaysia is also a member of JIT,Mahathir revealed that his country's officials have been blocked from examining the plane's flight recorders.
"For some reason, Malaysia was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened," he said. "We don't know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we see too much politics in it."
"This is not a neutral kind of examination," Mahathir added.
Rejecting the JIT accusations, Russia made public the evidence the Dutch-led researchers refused to look into, including the serial number of the missile that allegedly struck MH17, showing that it was manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1986 and was in the arsenal of the Ukrainian army at the time of the tragedy."
b of Moon of Alabama offered this whopping 55 minute press conference video with Malaysian PM Mahathir on Twitter on May 31.
But aha! RT had later provided on the left sidebar:
May 24, 2018: 'No Russian missile system ever crossed into Ukraine: MoD rejects Dutch MH17 claims', RT.com
"The Russian Defense Ministry has rejected new claims that flight MH17 over Ukraine was downed by a missile from a Russian unit, urging the Dutch-led probe to focus on studying hard facts instead of social media images.
"Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border," the defense ministry said in statement.
The Russian military raised eyebrows over "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools."
The ministry pointed out that the images used in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) press conference on Thursday were provided by the Ukrainian special services and had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group, Bellingcat.
The Dutch-led probe announced that the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 came from a Russian military Buk system that crossed into Ukraine and then returned to its base in western Russia.
Investigators claim the missile system involved came from "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia". The JIT essentially just repeated the conclusion made by Bellingcat a year ago.
The alarming part in the JIT probe is that "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however, provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces."
The Russian side said that it provided the international probe with "comprehensive"evidence, including field tests, which "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" in the destruction of the plane with 283 passengers and 15 crew members onboard."
This video that Eric Zuesse had up may be part of the referenced eye witness testimony.
... ... ...
(cross-posted from Café Babylon)
May 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian , May 29, 2019 5:34:06 PM | 0
Bart Hansen , May 29, 2019 5:37:10 PM | 1Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as repugnant and should turn to other work in Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is being ignored by the D.C. pundits. We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to the new DNC debate thresholds.
May 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Trump promised to get the US out of "stupid wars." But now he and John Bolton are on the brink of launching us into a very stupid and costly war with Iran. Join me in sending a strong message to President Trump: The US must NOT go to war with Iran.
yekalf , 4 days agoPug , 4 days ago
#TULSI2020 America needs you now more than ever. No more stupid wars!Silva Surfa , 4 days ago
#Tulsi2020 No more Zio-NeoCon wars targeting the innocent.donald smeed , 4 days ago
Madam President 2020 ✌ Bring On The Debates! No More Wars!Guo Mashi , 4 days ago
Another strong and correct policy position from Tulsi!!! Can't wait until the debates!!!Nature Boy , 4 days ago
Truth and courage. Thank you! This should be everywhere all the time. US needs to hear it.RetireforLessCR , 4 days ago
The same old death dealers are on the march again. Not for freedom, not for stability, but for profit.elijah sessom , 4 days ago
it's one of me most Powerful messages I've ever seen on airharriet , 4 days ago
We are with you Tulsi......your truth and courage is a thing of beauty.Adam Albrec , 4 days ago
Thank you for truth telling and calling it like it is! Tulsi 2020Katherine Garrett , 4 days ago
Yep. Iraq almost bankrupted us, and Iran is far more able to defend itself.Pankaj verma , 4 days ago
Thank you for your message of peace, Tulsi. 2020!☮️George Washington , 4 days ago
No More Wars! Tulsi 2020tasty rabbit , 4 days ago
NO WAR WITH IRAN! BRING THE TROOPS HOME!! TULSI2020Wolfking Of SI , 4 days ago
I think she could be a perfect President at given times for usa. She would save a lot of American lives and will leave the white house a lot cleaner when she leaves.WhiteKilt WhiteKilt , 4 days ago (edited)
It's a tragedy that Tulsi Gabbert is not number one in the polls right now. She's the only one consistently right on all the issues. I can't wait for the debates.Donny Filkin , 4 days ago
NO More Wars! Give Peace a chance. Support Representative Tulsi Gabbard for President. A True American Patriot and Veteran, fighting for Peace. Tulsi2020.comRocky Hart , 4 days ago
Mike Gravel gave you big props on the tim black show last night! We love you tulsi!slow grow , 4 days ago
Tulsi Gabbard should be polling at 80% !! What the HELL is wrong with America! Let's elect Tulsi!!!
All my love and respect Tulsi.
May 20, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
apenultimate on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 11:30amgulfgal98 on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 7:03pm
I think this ad is great!
Tulsi's 2.5 hour interview with Joe Rogan 6 days ago resulted in a solid attention bump.
The YouTube version of the video has so far garnered more than 1.6 million views, and on average his podcast downloads are about double that number.
After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the better!
Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media (MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM headlines.
Finally, Oliver Stone has sent out a Tweet, essentially endorsing Tulsi.
www.youtube.com/embed/wVJXLlEE5bUThis one tweet andbobswern on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:51am
the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other candidate of either party.
Since I was young, I knew I wanted to use my life to serve others. It's why I chose to serve as a soldier & in politics. I've never had any ambition to "be president" -- it's always been about doing my best to be of service and how I can make a greater positive impact. pic.twitter.com/NfTSUhbFXX
-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) May 19, 2019I don't know what Tulsi's campaign cash coffers are like...HenryAWallace on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 5:04am
...as I post this comment, but I do know--from a professional/political media standpoint--that this commercial about the Iran situation is, by far and away, the best piece of political media I've seen since Bernie's "America" commercial in 2016 .
If she wants to punch through the crowd, right now (for the moment, because the Iran situation will change, one way or another, and maybe rapidly, going forward), she should push this spot early and often, as much as possible (as her campaign can afford it, and then maybe even a little more than it thinks it can afford, too).I so appreciate your keeping us updated about Tulsi.irishking on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 8:58am
She has become my favorite candidate on policies, but being favored by Gravel and Stone doesn't hurt, either, to say the least. Of the passengers in the Democratic clown car, I like her and Bernie most. How I will vote may depend upon what polls in my state tell me just before primary day about her and Bernie. Or, I may go ahead and vote for Tulsi, no matter what. In that respect, I am undecided at this time.
Just checked my former message board. They are attacking her right and right (sic). (Not "left and right:" Barely a leftist still posts on that board; and those who still do must watch themselves.) So, she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats, possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets?
And, why not? She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed us exactly how correct she was.ron paul is a fanwokkamile on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 9:59am
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ron-paul-calls-tulsi-gabbard-ver...Good for Joe Rogan,
a worthy podcaster who often has on interesting, independent thinkers and public figures who go against the establishment grain. (see e.g. his several interviews with author Graham Hancock) Not perfect or quite as good as I'd prefer, but far better than most.
Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor.
It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com2 SHARES
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said on Sunday that reports claiming pro-putin Russophiles giving her 2020 presidential campaign a boost is "fake news," though she added that conflict with the Kremlin is not productive.
Speaking to ABC' s George Stephanopoulos, Gabbard said that deteriorating relationships with nuclear-armed countries such as Russia and China "has brought us to a very dangerous point," reports The Hill . She added that, if elected, she would "end these counterproductive and wasteful regime change wars ," and would " work to end this new Cold War and nuclear arms race. "
On Friday, the Daily Beast published a story claiming that Gabbard "is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood," based on people who had donated to her campaign. (We somehow missed the Daily Beast article on Hillary's alleged Saudi donors in 2016, but we digress).
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes." - Daily Beast
On Sunday, Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard about the Beast article, and noted that she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as her defense of Russia's military presence in Syria, and her comments suggesting that Russian election interference was on par with American election meddling around the world.
"Is Putin a threat to national security?" he asked.
"You now it's unfortunately you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of fake news . What I'm focused on is what's in the best interest of the American people? What's in the best interest of national security? Keeping American people safe," said Gabbard. "And what I'm pointing out consistently, time and time again, is our continued wasteful regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict ... has been counterproductive
BarkingCat , 39 minutes ago linkGreg , 31 minutes ago link
I had donated to her. I want to see her in the democratic debates.
Yes my only reason for doing so is because she is anti-was and wants to improve relations with Russia.
There is nothing beneficial about the current aggressive posture towards Russia and most other countries.
It will be very revealing how the other democrats deal with her position.samuraitrader , 19 minutes ago link
I continue to support her for that same reason. If there are like minded people here on ZH consider donating just $1 as that donation will help get her on stage where her anti-war thoughts can be heard.wadalt , 59 minutes ago link
ditto. Trump said in the debates that "I want to be friends with everyone, including Russia." The rest is history. The USA wehrmacht is going after Tulsi now. We cannot have peace.Son of Captain Nemo , 1 hour ago link
regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people...
... but very good for APARTHEID Israhell.dunlin , 1 hour ago link
Have an idea for you on how to show true leadership and finish what the Orange "six-sided star" liar said he would pick up ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/ ) when he began his presidency and then... well... lied to become a treasonous bag of **** just like the ones that preceded him!...
Even Vlad Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation refuse to "touch it". And if you did. You would be the only representative in the U.S. House and Senate let alone the U.S. Federal, State and local government(s) for that matter to do so.
All you would have to say is "we need an understanding why 2 planes demolished 3 building(s) at "Ground Zero" more then 18 years ago, and why the 9/11 Commission never mentioned the Solomon Brothers Building 7 in it's official report?... I (Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard) certainly want to know!... Especially wearing the uniform for what I believed was the reason I was given for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and murdering over 3 million people?... And I want to tell the American people ultimately "why" Building 7 was omitted along with too many other details that Robert Mueller famously dismissed by saying only that " mistakes were made " ...
I've written to you several times about showing the courage to be the only politician since Senator Wellstone to pick up where he left off and support the 13 year endeavors of this organization ( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) to demand an investigation of the fact(s) now that has the backing of a Grand Jury by signing it's petition!...
But you won't. Because you are like every other "200lbs of ****" in a 100lbs bag that walks the halls of the Longworth carrying the water for the "Tribe"!
Keep telling yourself surfer **** that the job will get both easier and better by lying about that day and what it's done in it's wake to every institution and business in the United States of America let alone the laws of the land just like your mentor the Langley Bath House "boy"!...spoonful , 1 hour ago link
Yes, Putin knows that an island of sanity and decency in a cesspit of bigotry and firearms is bound to be blown to pieces before she has a chance to deliver. I fear for Tulsi even now.Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link
She sounds like the Trump of the 2020 campaignBenito_Camela , 1 hour ago link
Yes, the Russia nonsense is FAKE NEWS. So why is Trump allowing the Israelis, a country that hates the United States, and which has attacked us at least twice (USS Liberty, 9/11/2001), to dictate our foreign policy? Israel is the real enemy!!
Let's look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad front operation "Urban Moving Systems" (likely also the same people who planted the explosives at WTC) had to say about his time there:
In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis' possessions in the van and on their person, the company that employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a "fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its operations."
The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with information indicating that he had quit his employment with Urban Moving Systems as a result of the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban's employees. The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take over your media and destroy your country" (page 37 of the FBI report ).
This kind of thing makes one kind of hope for a war in which Israel is bombed back to the stone age, which is clearly where these evil, psychopathic Zionist filth belong!
This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it, having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing WTC twin towers.
For further reference:
And look at this. You won't see this in the MSM any time soon:
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in connection with the investigation into the "Dancing Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving company. The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark Division that Classic International Movers was believed to have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the number for Classic International Movers written in a notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest. The report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email account."
May 19, 2019 | dissidentvoice.orgAn honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police, over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national parks and women's equality while directing ever more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie Sanders said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled " Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127), when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled " Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled " Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms, but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion, debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform" promoted by her husband. According to this study from the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice "reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least) about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and Michigan Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article " Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he (Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in his article " Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. She calls out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast with Rachel Maddow taunting John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant support from US troops. A recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As pointed out here , "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Instead of pointing out that Trump has betrayed his anti-war campaign promises, corporate media (and some Democratic Party outlets) seem to be undermining the candidate with the strongest anti-war message. An article at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) says, " Corporate media target Gabbard for her Anti-Interventionism, a word they can barely pronounce ."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat of that disaster. As indicated in the Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at email@example.com . Read other articles by Rick .
May 16, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Skip Scott , May 16, 2019 at 06:26
Great plan! From your mouth to Tulsi's ears! She needs to make a dramatic exit from the Dems, preferably on national TV, with the message "stop the senseless regime change wars!" That alone would make her a contender.
Rob Roy , May 16, 2019 at 17:09
Skip, notice that Tulsi scares the hell out of the MSM. Therefore, she will be vilified, lied about, left out of poll line-ups, shoved to the side in debates, accused of being Putin's or Assad's puppet and God knows what else by the major newspapers, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN etc., and this will spread even overseas. You can't be against war, corruption and US Monroe Doctrine as our foreign policy and expect to get fair coverage. Personally, I will counter the propaganda wherever I can.
Skip Scott , May 17, 2019 at 08:22
I had a "back and forth" with dailykos about not listing Tulsi on their straw polls with her being the only candidate against "regime change" wars. I shamed them a bit by calling them a bunch of latte-sippers who reek of the arrogance of privilege while our MIC goes all around the planet killing poor people. Maybe I am giving myself too much credit, but they did in fact include her name on the last poll.
John on Kauai , May 17, 2019 at 13:53
I can't reply to skip about his argument with KOS so it's here. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with KOS other than to be banned from their website as I was.
They are supporting a National Guard pilot to run against her in the 2020 HI-2 election. I would not be surprised to find that they were instrumental in producing tulsigabbard.guru, a site that has been recently taken down but which repeated (and I think originated) many slurs against Tulsi that have now been picked up by the media.
I encourage you and everyone to publicize tulsigabbard.org which goes into great detail on her positions on almost anything. Also, the Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan interviews with Tulsi that are available on YouTube.
Tulsi is my congresswoman. She is wildly popular here.
The HSTA (hawaii state teachers association) hates her. When challenged they repeat the lies that are on the .guru site that was taken down. When you point out that they are lies, they cover their ears and chant "nah, nah, nah".
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 16:29
Skip. this is re. to your re. to Rob Roy.
WaPo confirmed today that Tulsi is one of the 11 guaranteed a debate spot. She's making solid progress, including major bumps from the Joe Rogan interviews. If she has hopes of actually getting the Dem nomination, of course there will be no dramatic exit until that's been decided. OTOH, an outside call for her to run as an Indy would be authentic, but also a threat to the Dems, give her fair play OR ELSE !
So, maybe the movement for an independent run has to start at the bottom? I'd like to bounce this off people who know more about politics than I do. There's also the implied question, how could an Independent function if elected. Would there be support in Congress? Would new ["Coalition"] candidates arise?
People talk about the populist movement in Mexico as represented by MORENA, however the coalition was actually Juntos Haremos Historia ("Together We'll Make History"), which included right wing evangelicals as well as leftists. Pretty remarkable, but a similar cooperation has arisen in Unity4J (for Julian Assange) where journalists with radically different ideologies focus on a single unifying principle.
John Zwiebel , May 17, 2019 at 18:19
Ask Nick Branna. He says "yes"
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 21:10
John Z. –
Are you already familiar with Branna and the People's Party? Are they backing specific candidates? What do you think I should ask him? Would he and the PP join a coalition? Or do I misunderstand your suggestion?
All of the endorsers are leftists. The platform is all about wages and healthcare, but war isn't mentioned. Maybe it's there, but it's not on the front page.
Here's what they say: "Together we're building a coalition of working people, unions, and progressive groups for a nationally viable people's party."
Also, "We are working to build a coalition of groups on the left in order to create a new party for working people."
This just seems like typical 'Progressives' who are fed up with Dems. Some of the endorsers – Sheehan, Hedges, Martin and others – are known to be anti-war, but it's concerning that peace and FP aren't prominent. Besides, we need to build bigger bridges than "groups on the left." There are many – surprisingly many – on the right who oppose constant militarism. And what about the center? There's a vast untapped demographic, whether apathetic or genuinely discouraged by evidence that it makes no difference who you vote for, the Deep State wins. Why approach them from a left-only perspective? Would you like to clarify?
May 17, 2019 | www.thedailybeast.com
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by some of the nation's leading Russophiles.
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."
Gabbard is one of her party's more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she's raised. But it still illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party's mainstream on such a contentious and high-profile issue.
Data on Gabbard's financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation's leading intellectual apologist for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Tennison donated to Gabbard no fewer than five times, eventually reaching the per-cycle individual contribution limit in mid-March. Tennison and her group, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, have long worked to improve U.S.-Russia relations, in part by organizing junkets to the nation both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. She's also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a "straightforward, reliable and exceptionally inventive man" in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her detention in Russia two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S. foreign policy interests in the country.
Gabbard also got a $1,000 contribution from "Goofy Grapes," who listed his or her occupation as "comedian" and employer as Redacted Tonight, a current events comedy show on Russian state-backed broadcaster RT. That show's host, comedian Lee Camp, told The Daily Beast that the person who made the donation "is no longer an active member of Redacted Tonight. And separately, it is company policy to not donate to political campaigns."
Camp, for his part, routinely promotes the Russian government line on major world affairs, most notably the invasion of Ukraine, political unrest in Venezuela, and the Syrian civil war.
To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they're more squarely in line with Gabbard's own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of Congress, she has personally met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and cast doubt on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.
Gabbard has also been one of the few prominent Democrats in the country to downplay the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The report found no evidence of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to support that meddling. But it did provide extensive details of that malicious influence campaign, and of the Trump administration's efforts to impede the special counsel's investigation.
But while her House colleagues ramp up their own investigations, in part based on those findings, Gabbard has called for the country -- and her party -- to move on. "The conclusion that came from that Mueller report was that no collusion took place," she told Fox News last month. "Now is the time for us to come together as a country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront, to take action to bring about real solutions for them."
That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that eyed collusion allegations with suspicion. And that's very much the school of thought from which Cohen and other Gabbard donors hail.
But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election Committee, doesn't end there.Related in PoliticsTulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Run by FreelancersHow 2020 Dems Are Staffing Up -- and Paying OverheadRussian State Media Binges on Sean Hannity Reruns
Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.
Ali Amin, the president of Primex International, wrote two checks of $2,800 to Gabbard's campaign. Amin, who runs the international food distribution company, pleaded guilty in 2015 to charges that he'd transferred more than $17 million between Iran and the United States as part of an unlicensed business transaction.
After being asked about those donations, Cullen Tiernan, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said the campaign would be returning them. Tiernan also noted that Amin had given to fellow 2020 contender Sen. Kamala Harris' (D-CA) Senate campaign in 2018. Ian Sams, a spokesman for Harris, said the Senator refunded Amin's donation in July 2018.
Gabbard's campaign did not return a request for comment. Her election effort raised nearly $4.5 million in the first quarter of 2019, but that included hefty transfers from her House campaign committee. She has used that money to mount a rather unorthodox bid for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard had only one paid staffer during that same three month period, choosing instead to hire consultants for key posts on her campaign -- a staffing decision that seemed likely done to avoid making hefty payments for things like health care coverage and payroll taxes.
Gabbard's media strategy has also been counterintuitive for a national Democrat. She has made several appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which, while being one of the most popular platforms on that medium, is a haven for Trump-supporting guests. Gabbard also is among the few Democrats who has a captive audience on Fox News, owed largely to her willingness to criticize Barack Obama, as well as her party's planks on both Russia and foreign policy in general. Tucker Carlson, a primetime host on that network, has publicly defended her.
Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once again this week.
I can't imagine Tulsi Gabbard wants this endorsement. pic.twitter.com/mXoIiEFavZ-- Alex Thomas (@AlexThomasDC) May 14, 2019
May 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill 3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No, just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace too.
May 16, 2019 | stephenlendman.org
( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman ) Tulsi 2020 is the official website of her candidacy for US president – so far with no information other than saying: "When we stand united, motivated by our love for each other and for our country, there is no challenge we cannot overcome. Will you stand with me?" On Friday, she said "I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," adding:"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help solve."Besides access to healthcare for all Americans, criminal justice reform, and climate change, (t)here is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace," she stressed. More on this below."I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make our announcement."Gabbard's record is mixed at best, things to like, others of concern, including her Dem affiliation. She formerly served as DNC vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Throughout his political career, he's been progressive in name only, his rhetoric and voting record most often at odds with each other. He'll likely run again in 2020. After Hillary used dirty tricks in primary elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy – a figure I called the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history, backing it up with cold, hard facts about her deplorable record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state. Elizabeth Warren already announced her 2020 candidacy. She's con man Sanders clone with a gender difference.
A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head.
She failed to criticize his wars on humanity at home and abroad, terror-bombing seven countries in eight years, force-feeding neoliberal harshness on America's most disadvantaged, letting protracted main street Depression conditions fester – supporting what demanded condemnation. She one-sidedly supports Israel, failing to denounce its apartheid ruthlessness, its Gaza wars on defenseless civilians.
Like Sanders and other undemocratic Dems, she considers naked aggression humanitarian intervention and democracy building. Her agenda is all about perpetuating dirty business as usual – based on going along with the imperial, neoliberal GOP and Dem agenda, supported by the vast majority of officials in Washington.
Gore Vidal explained how the dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they've "been bought over 10 times." The same goes for top congressional posts. Gabbard is suspect for similar reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii's 2nd congressional district in November 2012.
After the Obama regime's coup in Ukraine, replacing democratic governance with fascist tyranny, she supported supplying the illegitimate, Nazi-infested, putschist regime with military assistance, shamefully saying America can't stand "idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine." No "Russian aggression" existed then or now. Yet Gabbard disgracefully claimed otherwise, urging "more painful economic sanctions" on Moscow, pretending the regime in Kiev is a "peaceful, sovereign neighbor." In July 2017, she unjustifiably supported legislation imposing illegal unilateral US sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. She's for US phony war on terrorism, the scourge Republicans and most Dems support while claiming otherwise.
She's against what she called "counterproductive wars of regime change," including in Syria. She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was "a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of 'humanitarianism' as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war," adding: "Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups."
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government."
"The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda."
She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In January 2017, she met with Assad in Damascus, toured parts of Syria, seeing firsthand how US aggression harmed millions of civilians. She called all anti-government forces terrorists, saying so-called moderate rebels don't exist, stressing "(t)hat is a fact," on return home expressing "even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government."
She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. She should have explained that only Security Council members may authorize war by one or more countries on other sovereign states – not US presidents, Congress or the courts. That's the law of the land under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2). All treaties, conventions, and other international agreements to which the US is a signatory automatically become binding US law.
To her credit in October 2017, Gabbard opposed reimposing sanctions on Iran, at the time saying the Islamic Republic is fully complying with JCPOA provisions. At the same time, she co-sponsored legislation opposing Iran's legitimate ballistic missile program, imposing illegal sanctions on the country,
In 2015, she supported legislation endorsing extreme vetting of Syrian and Iraqi war refugees, designed to deny them refugee status. The measure failed to get enough Senate support for passage.
She opposed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019, 2018, and earlier, opposed reforming US border security and immigration, opposed a proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment, opposed the GOP great tax cut heist, supported CATSA.
The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA) illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support.
Hold the cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will – by impeachment or something more sinister.
Washington's deeply corrupted system is too debauched to fix. The only solution is popular revolution, voting a waste of time.
No matter who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org ( Home – Stephen Lendman ). Contact at firstname.lastname@example.org . My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Stephen LendmanStephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999.
Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed.
Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
May 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Tom Luongo,
There is a realignment coming in electoral politics. It began with Ron Paul in 2008 and has been building for more than a decade. We know this story well.
That realignment will be about restoring not just national sovereignty but also personal autonomy in a world the rulers of which are desperate to clamp down their control over.
The thing is I don't think we've quite come to terms with the rapidity with which change comes. It builds slowly, simmering below the surface and then one day just explodes into a maelstrom of chaos.
This is where things stand in Britain with the betrayal of Brexit. It is also where things stand with Trump's daily betrayal of his pledge to end the needless wars and regime change operations.
Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets.
You can see it happening, slowly and then all at once.
The signs of the chaos as we approach next week's European Parliamentary elections were there if we were willing to look closely. More often than not, our being distracted or, worse, our normalcy bias keeps us ignorant of what's happening.
Raising goats I've unfortunately witnessed this first hand and in a devastating way. Their entire digestive tracts are simply big fermentation vessels, chocked full of different bacteria working on what they've eaten.
When they're healthy, it's all good. The good bacteria digests the food, they absorb it and they are vibrant, alert and annoying.
But, if one of those other bacteria begin to get out of control, they can go from healthy to frothing at the mouth and dying overnight. The goat is the Taoist symbol for 'strong on the outside, fragile on the inside.' Our political system is definitely a goat at this point.
Which brings me back to politics.
As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo.
We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. And the important point here is that, like my goats, they can can act and vote perfectly normally one day and then in open revolt the next and you have a very small window of time to make the right decisions to save the situation.
The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed.
Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no business still presiding over the country .
She hopes by making her treaty legal it will stop Farage's revolution. I have news for her and the technocrats in Brussels. If Farage wins the next General Election he will nullify her treaty under Article 62 of the Vienna Conventions on the Laws of Treaties.
French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France. And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy.
And they will only get it through their heads after Nigel Farage and the Brexit party unite the left and the right to throw them all out in the EP elections but also the General one as well.
The same thing happened in 2016 here in the U.S., both on the left and the right.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the vessels for our deep dissatisfaction with the D.C. corruption. The realignment was staring us in the face in 2016.
The Davos Crowd haven't gotten the message. And they won't listen until we force them to.
Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by one.
More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change the political landscape across the west for decades to come.
And that is what the great realignment I see happening is. It isn't about party or even principles. It is about coming together to fix the broken political system first and then working on solutions to specific problems later.
Here's hoping Trump doesn't destroy the world by mistake first.
* * *
Support for Gold Goats 'n Guns can happen in a variety of ways if you are so inclined. From Patreon to Paypal or soon SubscribeStar or by your browsing habits through the Brave browser where you can tip your favorite websites (like this one) for the work they provide.
ZIRPY , 47 minutes ago linkmadam , 40 minutes ago link
Trump has been limited by the Deep State bogus Russia collusion investigations aided by MSM propaganda. If this author thinks Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard will not face special prosecutors if they try and Rock the boat then he is naive.
Bernie rolled over and supported Hillary after it was proven she rigged the nomination process, so to believe he could take on the swamp to any degree is laughable.
And Tulsi doesn't have the deep pockets like Trump to hire the lawyers needed to wage war against The Swamp.EcoJoker , 51 minutes ago link
Tuslsi all the wayfrom_the_ashes , 54 minutes ago link
There is no peaceful solution.. Globalist elites must be purged. Bankers, Zuckerbergs, Dorseys, Bezos, Blankfeins, Dimons, then politicians, etc.from_the_ashes , 1 hour ago link
Note to ZH, Should have published this individual instead of Tom Luongo.
An excellent summary of Gabbard which is why no one should even remotely consider her for an public office.
https://stephenlendman.org/2019/01/tulsi-gabbard-for-president/Yeah-Right , 31 minutes ago link
Nice to see Tom Luongo can't research worth ****.
Fast forward to today...
Elect a woman to be President or a country's leader? How did that work out for the people of New Zealand?rodocostarica , 1 hour ago link
Voting for a woman because "it's time" or because she's a woman etc., has become a thing. Those reasons seem stupid but that's the "logic." I see a lot of dem women jumping on the bandwagon, trying to get lucky.
Tulsi to me is like Ron Paul was in 08. A sane voice pointing out the stupidity of US foreign policy.
She aint no Ron Paul for sure but is at least the only one this cycle who supports as her main position getting the US out of foreign entanglements.
She is never going to win just like rp coud never win. But Im sending her a few bucks every month just to keep the message going.
xxx, 1 hour agoyyy, 2 hours ago"Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good.
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That’s it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can’t be subordinated to any form of Democracy.
zzz, 2 hours agoIs the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party.
bbb, 3 hours agoGabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shillccc, 3 hours ago (Edited)I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour.
ddd, 1 hour ago (Edited)Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member.
eee, 3 hours ago
Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No, just...no!
fff, 3 hours agoggg, 4 hours ago
Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination).By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya’s civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don’t know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace too.
Mar 17, 2014 | gabbard.house.govPress Release Calls for U.S. to offer weapons, military training assistance
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today released the following statement after the President's announcement of expanded sanctions against Russian officials:
"Russia has violated the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people, in direct contravention of its own treaty obligations and international law," said Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Army combat veteran and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "I support the sanctions announced today, and I strongly urge the President to go further and consider a broader range of consequences. If Russia is allowed to continue its aggressive push for control in Ukraine, there will be long-term, serious, and costly security risks for the United States and Europe. Russia must face serious consequences for their actions; the U.S. must consider options that truly isolate Russia economically and diplomatically -- not just sanction a handful of oligarchs -- and send a message of unity and strength from the international community.
"We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training -- to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future."
In a House Foreign Affairs Committee mark-up of H.Res. 499 recently, the congresswoman gained unanimous approval on including amendments on anti-corruption, and protection of civil and political rights throughout Ukraine. She also supported the House passage of H.R. 4152, which authorized loan guarantees for Ukraine.
Apr 14, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Days before Trump's escalation of his illegal war in Syria, Congresswoman & war veteran Tulsi Gabbard confronts Defense Secretary James Mattis on the unconstitutionality of such missile strikes!
BUY TRUMP TOILET PAPER ON AMAZON! http://amzn.to/2Fe08tb (Affiliate Link)
AbraCadabra▼ , 1 year agoSandra Jacobson , 1 year ago
Tulsi Gabbard for first female president 2020.Andrei Kohler , 2 months ago
She is my hero! What a courageous, well spoken, thoughtful, articulate, woman. I would sleep well at night with her behind the wheel.Mikael Stenlund , 1 year ago
Love Tulsi's logic and her support to stop our illegal wars.Karen Schumer , 1 year ago
This Woman, whent against Hillary-establishement, Dems, She is smart & strong, I want her running for Presidency, even some Republicans, would support Her, Right?? :-)Martin Anderson , 1 year ago
She is so brilliant, and so cool! You know what, if Tulsi ran for president I would vote for her!Thrashaero , 1 year ago
This lady has the brains and the looks, i must say. We need a genuine anti-war movement in this country, we need more people like Tulsi.Adam Bridges , 1 year ago
she's got bigger balls than that pencilneck next to her.angela bluebird60 , 1 year ago
Here we are again dropping bombs on another country that didn't attack us, some things never change.H2SO4BLACK BLACKWATER , 1 year ago (edited)
We need Tulsi Gabbard to work with and for the People FOREVER !Tarlok Sason , 1 year ago
Why my money is used for killing innocent children in Syria 🇸🇾 I am not agreed for missile attack !alchemistoxford , 2 months ago
Only congress women i respect.Andy Roo , 1 year ago
A brilliant statement by Tulsi Gabbard. Beto O'Rourke appears bored, unconcerned and vaguely gormless when he rocks back and forth, bites his nails and extends his lower lip.jennifer spicer , 1 year ago
Tulsi is the only sane voice in a group of madmen who have egos that would end the World if their Coffee did not have enough sugar.Memorandom , 1 year ago
the complex situation, Mattis, is that you are committing treason.Justin Norton , 1 year ago
Does the guy next to her think he's in a bloody rocking chair? :P
How is bombing Syria protecting America? Mattis should just say, "We just want to drop bombs and kill people."
Apr 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com
In this clip from PRIMO NUTMEG #170, former Congressman Ron Paul gives his thoughts on 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.
Ortho Tech , 3 weeks agoharriet , 3 weeks ago
Supported Ron Paul in both 08 and 12, supporting Tulsi in 2020.chickendinner2012 , 3 weeks ago
I love BOTH Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard! We need more people like these in general!Gordo Bjorn , 3 weeks ago
Great to see anti-war solidarity! #EndTheWarsRobert Thorpe , 3 weeks ago
I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on it.Kariakas , 3 weeks ago
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from Libertarians.EL.NANNA , 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul is Libertarian and Tulsi is to the left but they both speak common sense.George Kraft , 3 weeks ago
I'd love to see these 2 together. So much respect for both. No surprise Dr Paul senses the real deal.Skylark Myself , 3 weeks ago
Rep Paul, I don't agree with a lot of your ideas, but about Tulsi I agree 100%!
Yes Tulsi and Ron Paul Aloha 2020 POTUS
May 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Tulsi continues to stack up very reputable endorsements. This time from a three time Presidential Candidate.
ishant 7 , 1 week agoJob Applicant , 1 week ago (edited)
I am a conservative myself but i would vote for her in a heartbeatJayanti Ramiah , 1 week ago (edited)
Tulsi's momentum is going for critical mass, Its time for a true maverick! #Rogue2020Citizen Harrison , 1 week ago
Ron Paul's endorsement is surprising and interesting, in that it seems sincere. Most repubs give bad-faith assessments of the dem candidates.Karlo Ve , 1 week ago
My first vote when I was 17 in the Republican primary in 2012. Glad Ron is on board.Constable 1976 , 1 week ago (edited)
Last election I voted for Trump (because he is not a politician) but this time I might vote for Tulsi 2020Ned Pjevac , 1 week ago
I'm a conservative and might not vote for her, but I love that Major Gabbard is an Army MP! God Bless her for her service...dobsonimages , 1 week ago
I am as unlikely to vote republican as anybody but I admired Ron Paul's honesty when he ran for the presidency. Admired enough that I actually voted for him although his economic policies and gold standard kept me asking more questions than getting answers. I am stoked that my favorite republican voice gives his support to Tulsi. It is yet another confirmation of my choice for 2020.George Washington , 1 week ago
It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. At any rate this is a big deal a lot of people respect Dr Paul and this endorsement will help Tulsi.
YES!!!! RON PAUL!!!!
May 15, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Alex K. , 1 year agoArchvaldor's Warcraft Hacks , 1 year ago
Chris Hedges is a rare breed. Doesn't care about left/right, liberal/conservative, just dropping truth bombs.TIM BROWN , 1 year ago
I really feel for Chris Hedges on a personal level. Unlike say Blyth, or Chomsky, whom seem to revel in being intellectual bad boys, Hedges seems to be at heart a very conservative man in the true sense of the word, driven to the extremes by the rabid greed and sociopathic nature of mainstream politics. The corruption of it seems to visibly torture him. It takes a special kind of courage to take an unpopular stand like he does.김선달봉이 , 1 year ago
President Eisenhower stated that the largest threat to our Democracy was/is the Military Industrial Complex. He quickly terminated the Korean War that he inherited then kept us out of foreign conflict. He believed in a strong Middle Class and promoted our economy with a massive highway system. He kept the highest progressive tax rate at 90% discouraging CEO's from massively overpaying themselves.Jonathan Cook , 1 year ago
A great and courageous man. A very lonely voice in this crazy world.LiberaLib , 1 year ago
Wow, that was awesome, this guy is on a par with our great historical orators.Ruth Rivera , 1 year ago
Iceberg. Dead ahead.Chris Mclean , 1 year ago
Thank you Chris Hedges. You speak profound truth. I'm listening.sprite fallen , 1 year ago
Epic speech. Thank you Chris!
Weird hearing someone speak truth
May 07, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election interference and more.
May 15, 2019 | twitter.com
gjohnsit on Sun, 05/12/2019 - 5:46pmThe Hill forgot Tulsi again
It's #IgnoreTulsiTime again. @thehill pic.twitter.com/rVe306gXxx
-- K. Rosef (@kayrosef) May 10, 2019
they can't even say itCBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
May 14, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
In the midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience , Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?" Rogan asked in the latter part of the episode.
"As far as dropping the charges?" Gabbard asked.
"If you're president of the world right now, what do you do?"
"Yeah, dropping the charges," Gabbard replied.
Rogan noted that Sweden's preliminary investigation of rape allegations has just been re-opened , saying the US government can't stop that, and Gabbard said as president she'd drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.
"Yeah," Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she'd give Edward Snowden a presidential pardon, adding,
"And I think we've got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and that's why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences."
This came at the end of a lengthy discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.
"What happened with [Assange's] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech," Gabbard said.
"We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences against someone who's publishing information or saying things that the government doesn't want you to say , and sharing information the government doesn't want you to share. And so the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could happen to you. It could happen to any one of us."
Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo's arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.
Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard's JRE appearance for people who don't have time to watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:
- Rogan gets Gabbard talking in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said to her, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to do before.
- The two discuss Eisenhower's famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the "congressional-military-industrial complex".
- Good discussion on internet censorship and the dangers of allowing monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations to control public speech, then later discussing the possibility of breaking up these corporations or treating them as public utilities.
- Rogan asks Gabbard what she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she'll do to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
- Rogan asks Gabbard how she'll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.
I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was encouraged to relax out of her standard politician's posture and discuss significant ideas sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and I'm glad it's already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.
* * *
Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here .
Mar 5, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Evil Loch Ness , 2 months agoPrakash Man Shrestha , 1 month ago
Tulsi seems incredibly sincere, tempered and presidential.Smegead , 2 months ago
I am not an American. ... I see a glimmer of light in Tulsi.Dragonblazzer969 , 2 months ago
A worthy first female president.NOAH WEIKERT , 1 month ago
Left or Right, you cannot question Gabbard's patriotism and intelligence and in-depth knowledge on war issues. Great candidate.PaleGhost69 , 2 months ago (edited)
As republican I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard, so won me over after the Joe Rogan podcast.RainFurRent 24/7 , 2 months ago
Sanders/Gabbard 2020 Edit: To those who say Gabbard/Sanders, you forget what the point of the vice president is.Charles Roberts , 2 months ago
I didn't think anyone could take my vote from Bernie but I was wrong. Tulsi 2020 for me.Ken Baker , 1 month ago (edited)
Wow!! The sound of the voice of common sense & truth, for a change. I don't care if she is Democrat or Republican ... this lady is voicing what the majority of people actually think & believe.roselassi , 2 months ago
A Democrat who makes sense. It's refreshing. Why do they try to keep her out of sight? Be cause she is anti war? Tells you alot about the swamp.Proper Gander , 2 months ago
She is an amazing diplomat - I support her 100%Prateek , 1 month ago
It ain't just left, it's common senseBpinator , 2 months ago
The way she conducts herself is an inspiration. I really like her.Kevin Benderman , 2 weeks ago
Just donated to Tulsi. We need her anti-imperialism on the mainstream debate stage.Spiritual Humanist , 2 months ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I have seen who isn't an overly hyberbolic shill. She embodies the concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick".ooPROTOTYPE1oo , 2 months ago
Tulsi Gabbard 2020☮️ donate to Tulsi ❤️Brah , 1 month ago (edited)
Tulsi doesn't really care about Republican or Democratic party. What she cares about are the American people.Cesar , 1 month ago (edited)
Tulsi Gabbard could bring the Democratic Party back to the days of JFK.Kevin Malone , 2 months ago
Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this? Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House.Miss Kimberly , 1 month ago
It just feels so good seeing a politician actually answer questions. Instead of talking but not saying anything of actual substance.
We need a candidate who can float between both sides, and stick with a Progressive agenda. This is outstanding.
May 09, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Ever since Tulsi Gabbard was first elected to Congress in 2012, she has been assertively independent, heterodox, unpredictable, and polarizing. Viewed at first as a loyal Democrat and guaranteed future star by party leaders -- due to her status as an Iraq War veteran, a telegenic and dynamic young woman, and the first Hindu and Samoan American ever elected to Congress -- she has instead become a thorn in the side, and frequent critic, of those same party leaders that quickly anointed her as the future face of the party.
Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid, and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement.
Glenn Greenwald sat down with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to discuss a wide range of issues, including the reasons she is running for president, her views on Trump's electoral appeal and what is necessary to defeat it, the rise of right-wing populism internationally, the Trump/Russia investigation, criticisms she has received regarding her views of Islam and certain repressive leaders, and her unique foreign policy viewpoints.
This interview is intended to be the first in a series of in-depth interviews with influential and interesting U.S. political figures, including but not limited to 2020 presidential candidates, designed to enable deeper examinations than the standard cable or network news format permits.
For more, read Glenn Greenwald's full article: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/09/w...
Hans Marheim , 4 days agothinkabout , 3 days ago
I am Norwegian. I want to interfere in the next american presidential election. I want Tulsi Gabbard as the next president of the USA. Love from Norway!Jacques Peterson , 4 days ago
TULSI is a strong intelligent candidate WE NEED TO HEAR MORE FROM HER thanksHappy30Too , 4 days ago
We need to support her. Boots on the ground. I'm Australian but I have introduced her to all my American friends online.MrLarryQ , 4 days ago
I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the shining light that makes it happen.Jazz Ecuador , 4 days ago
The only problem with this interview is that it's too short. Tough but fair questioning, all too rare these days.John E , 3 days ago
Genn is the most credible spokesman for The Intercept and Tulsi is the most credible candidate.Christopher Thomas , 4 days ago
Glenn, I'm a combat veteran of the US war against Viet-Nam. Thank you for this fair, impartial interview with Tulsi.chuckuc , 4 days ago
Wow she's... normal! A normal person! Donating now.Sumerian Hero , 3 days ago (edited)
A great interview with the best POTUS candidate I've seen since JFK. Thank you Glennfabribeijing , 4 days ago
There's a president we would be lucky to haveNathan Shirley , 3 days ago
My favourite US journalist interviewing my favourite US Presidential CandidateNotmi Relnam , 3 days ago
How many presidential candidates have the guts to sit down for an interview with Glenn Greenwald? Only one. Tulsi Gabbard. Excellent (and very challenging) questions from Greenwald -- great responses from Gabbard.Jeremy , 4 days ago
Any candidate the Intercept finds worth interviewing is worth my time to look into. Still a bit nervous about her glorification of military service but overall...Avalaw 19 , 4 days ago
Great interview! Asked many questions I wanted to hear answers to. Gives a great sense of Tulsi and where she stands on many issues with emphasis on foreign policy that seems to be ignored everywhere else. Thank you Glenn.jenny hansen , 4 days ago
I only hope we can have her as our commander and chief in 2020.. In 2024 or 2028 it might be to late..TULSI2020Anthony e , 4 days ago
I heard she'll be back on Joe Rogan next week!Captain Jax , 3 days ago
She is so truthful, no BS like other politician's running.. she has no fear and more strength then anyone else including trump.Gabby Hyman , 4 days ago
That was a great interview by Glenn Greenwald, he's one of my few top 3 journalist, which i've been following in recent month!I- , 4 days ago
You go Tulsi. Amazing to listen to someone with ethics without sound bites and dog whistles.
Thank you for asking the tough questions Glenn. I really like Tulsi but the Modi questions had been long in the waiting. I'm glad she answered them the way she did.
Apr 22, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Guo Mashi , 3 weeks agoDionora Ferrantino , 3 weeks ago
Tulsi is the only candidate in my lifetime who has had an actual demeanor worthy of global leadership.dlee johnson , 3 weeks ago
I LOVE her demeanor. She handles herself so well. She is calm & wise & fair. She will run circles @ the debates & not break a sweat!MrFunnyGuy015 , 3 weeks ago
i am 76 and have never seen a politician of her caliber!Captain Jax , 3 weeks ago
So much capital was wasted on RussiaGate, but a totally legit SaudiGate scandal went ignored. 😔JamesThomas , 3 weeks ago
She's a rock start when it comes to stay on point with all these Fox News & other MSM pundits :)AR Frances , 2 weeks ago
She meditates every morning, and appears to have really taken it to heart. She's very grounded and does not allow the monkey-mind to run amuck.Kristen 777 , 3 weeks ago
She gave a strong speech today at Brown University, good Q & A. Find it on Youtube!Sarah Rose , 3 weeks ago
Democrats don't want auditable elections because they're in on election fraud in the districts of the party elites. Wasserman-Schultz is the queen of the sleazes.Akbar, Allard Freichmann , 3 weeks ago
Niko- I have a line of questions I'm hoping you will address with Kulinski tomorrow & if it doesn't align with your perspective I respect that it's not something you want to ask & I'd be interested in hearing from you directly why you view it differently: I'm increasingly concerned over the weak opposition by many Sanders supporters over many of his positions these last few years.
It appears to me that Medicare for All has taken precedent over fighting the military industrial complex & the millions of lives abroad affected by it. This is not a trade-off for voters like me. It is true that he is better than most & he has a strong background but he used to push for 3rd parties. This has changed along with many other issues & I think anyone being honest with themselves know this to be true.
Beyond the excuses for his endorsement of Kissinger's proTPP Clinton, he has whitewashed Bush/Cheney, called Mad Dog Mattis "the adult in the room", gone along with Russiagate & even suggested some of his followers on Facebook were Russian trolls, given lipservice to the Venezuelan "humanitarian aid", been silent on Assange, & repeatedly ignored his base on all of the above. My questions are: How can progressives like this honestly trust Sanders to fight for truth on these fronts?
Why is getting Medicare for All more important than fighting against endless war? Is it possible that progressive media has done a disservice to electoral progress by framing it as Sanders being cheated in 2016 & not emphasizing that it was a greater betrayal of the VOTERS who were cheated? Saying that they will continue to push back on him in these areas where he is wrong strikes me as completely baseless given their inability to sway him these last few years. I'm tired of excuses & hoping for better answers than "it's his turn", "he had to tow the line", or "that's for Tulsi as VP/Secretary of State to do". Please & thank you!Desecration , 2 weeks ago
Tulsi and Bernie 2020. The Green New Deal for all.Rodney Mills , 3 weeks ago (edited)
Do a 1 to 2 minute setup, show the main piece/clip, then pontificate/summarize. I got so bored I left the PC, made coffee, came back and you still hadn't got to the point of the video 5 mins in. If you're doing a long-form stream then go with whatever. For these shorter topical videos you need a shorter intro or need to cut out the filler in the edit process. The long setup and unnecessary dramatic effect pauses will only irritate people that just want the important part of what you're presenting.Big G Haywood , 2 weeks ago
I think support for Tulsi and Bernie can (and should) be congruent, especially since ideally for me, they are both on that ticket. Not gonna lie, I want him on the helm of it, but that's because then she gets a shot at a 10-year presidency. We need them both in that admin ASAP. Their policies are complimentary, not juxtaposed. They only make each other stronger. It's not a binary. I would be emphatic to vote for either one of them.
If she is still competitive on super Tuesday, she has my vote. Otherwise, I think if she does not carry the torch to the end, we need to be prepared to aggressively throw our weight behind Bernie Sanders in a stronger way than 2016. (I also like Marianne Williamson, but I don't think that's gonna happen.She got my dollar.)
We cannot roll over again. If they nominate Beto or Kamala or Booker, we have to walk. In droves. Bearing in mind 4 more years of Trump is better than 40 more years of being exploited by the democratic party for votes while not being heard. It's effectively (and literally) taxation without representation. It's aristocracy. It's bullshit. And if they nominate a moderate, we're gonna know they didn't fucking get it before.Rebecca Brown , 2 weeks ago
Commentators like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson appeal to people who don't have the intellectual capacity to know that they're being lied to by pseudo-intellectuals. I knew Jordan Peterson was one of these, when I first heard his analysis of Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground," one of my favorite novels.Adam Reed , 1 week ago
TuIsi is in a league of her own. We are blessed.
I love your show brother. I found #Tulsi2020 because of Bari smearing her on jre. That led me to your show. Thanks for the help! Keep up the hard work. #Tulsi2020
May 13, 2019 | www.youtube.com
John Doe 1 day ago What a true patriotic compassionate leader. Easily has my vote
View 15 replies Hide replies John Doe 1 day ago She can show the world how to lead. Tulsi 2020!!!!
View reply Hide replies Merwin ARTist 1 day ago Tulsi is awesome .. appreciate what she has to say about stopping these foolish regime change wars! Respect!!! Tulsi2020
View reply Hide replies Fellow Citizen 1 day ago They are terrified of Tulsi because they know that if people hear her they will automatically vote for her. Tulsi: "...honour, respect, and integrity..." "Journalists": "[clears throat at the prospect of competing on a fair playing-field]"
View 10 replies Hide replies Freedom Tribe 1 day ago Time is running out. We need this woman to lead us into the next epoch.
View reply Hide replies MR BOSTON 1 day ago I voted for trump but I would vote for her in a heart beat
View 6 replies Hide replies MoMo Bronx 1 day ago You just don't get more real than Tulsi I hope she win,the world need real Leadership
31 32 Peace Harmony 1 day ago Tulsi is one of the few Democrats who isn't too scared to go on FOX News. And she is a great candidate! A true patriot.
View 2 replies Hide replies Jraymiami 1 day ago Tulsi 2020🌺❤️ 🗳
34 35 Matthew James Bromley 1 day ago Sounds great. I think this is exactly what we need. Got my vote.
View 13 replies Hide replies Kedaar Iyer 1 day ago Make sure to get her to 100,000 individual donors so that she can be on the debate stage! www.tulsi2020.com
View 2 replies Hide replies lendallpitts 1 day ago Tulsi Gabbard is the most presidential of all of the candidates.
11 12 John Doe 1 day ago (edited) I love the compassion in the comments. That's what we're talking about. Service to others, learn to love thy neighbor
12 13 Kostas K 1 day ago Honour Integrity and respect, qualities that the White House has never experienced so far in it's history.
14 15 OTR Trucker 1 day ago (edited) Thanks for running Tulsi. If we look at history it's Presidents without a military background that get us into the biggest disasters. Veterans still get us into wars sometimes but they are wars that are limited in scope and "winnable". Every open ended catastrophe we've been in was from a non vet.
View 4 replies Hide replies Jeremy Chase 1 day ago I was speaking with an older couple yesterday. They obviously had a lot of MSM on the brain. The woman said, I would like to see a woman in The White House. I said, Tulsi Gabbard is your woman! Don't let the media lie to you about her. They just want their senseless wars. You go, Tulsi! ✌
View reply Hide replies Michael Dob 1 day ago What a concept. Serve American interest instead of corporations and foreign governments.
View 2 replies Hide replies Freedom Tribe 1 day ago TULSI🌈2020
23 24 Ghostz 1 day ago TULSI GABBARD IS TOTALLY RIGHT! She got my vote 🗳
6 7 Rocky Hart 1 day ago 10 likes but 0 views?? Great interview!
Apr 30, 2003 | www.leftbusinessobserver.com
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with sanctions and bombing. The sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit. Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the documents published by the Project for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers. First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take decades.Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 .
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic rivals.
It's sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war, and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the exercise of raw state power.Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls. But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia. Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of SY Technology , a military contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition," it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks, JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about $150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in, pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10 trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberaliz