[Peace-discuss] New complaints about Tulsi Gabbard's pro-war Tucker Carlson interview ignore her pro-war past

[J.B. Nicholson]

Tulsi Gabbard recently did an interview with Tucker Carlson 
(https://youtube.com/watch?v=ovsXH7l3yiQ) in which she said:

> [...] the greatest threat that we're facing right now in this country in the
> world it is the foundation of governance of so-called Islamic countries like
> Turkey, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and it's what's behind the 
> discriminatory policies that they have in these countries against Christians, uh 
> Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and others.

This is not the only thing she said which rankled observers but it's one of the most 
commonly quoted.

Reaction from anti-war shows is not good for Gabbard:

Convo Couch
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kOPWWa0gVfI -- "Tulsi Gabbard Hawkish on Tucker, Says 
Jihadist are our #1 Enemy" says she's now "against what she stood for" and

The Vanguard
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PHZZQdkOTFY -- "Tulsi Gabbard's TERRIBLE, NO GOOD Tucker 
Carlson Tonight Interview Should EMBARRASS Her Defenders" calls her "going mask-off hawk"

Kim Iversen
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=rLdY_WBFa60 -- "Kim Iversen: Tulsi Gabbard’s Disappointing 
Stance On Islamists And Targeted Attacks"

And Iversen wrote tweets on September 21 about how she was "totally disappointed in 
politicians who claim to challenge the power" naming Democratic & Republican 
politicians as examples (Obama, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Trump).

Even pro-war liberals like Sam Seder, TYT, and The Hill are trying to get some points 
on this topic.

Very few shows correctly identified that Gabbard was always pro-war and thus her 
position now is not the change it's now being claimed to be.

ProgressumTV got it more or less right:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=qLlEAP2QDwQ -- "Tulsi Gabbard is a neo-con warmonger (and 
Jimmy Dore loves it)" rightly goes back to Jimmy Dore's Gabbard interview to explain 
that her views have been pretty consistent and critiques Dore for not living up to 
the discourse he uses elsewhere on his show. In Dore's defense, however, I'll point 
out what ProgressumTV didn't: Dore never called himself a journalist. In fact, Dore 
has consistently made fun of the people whose job it should be to hold the feet of 
power to the fire and Dore has said that he doesn't want plaudits from journalists. 
He sees himself as a standup comic who can expose big truths journalists refuse to 
expose. Also, I see no evidence that "Jimmy Dore loves" that Gabbard "is a neo-con 
warmonger".




But Gabbard's belligerency predates the end of her POTUS campaign when she did that 
Jimmy Dore interview.

In 2019 I wrote 
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ 
citing her pro-drone war propaganda. What she said recently on Tucker Carlson is 
quite consistent with what she told The Intercept 
(https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/) in January 
2018 in that both times she is anything but "anti-war":

> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the past you have
> said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike forces and limited use
> of weaponized drones. Is that still your position that you think that’s the — to
> the extent that you believe the U.S. military should be used around the world for
> counterterrorism, is that still your position?
> 
> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional threat of
> terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other groups that are
> affiliated with them, we should not be using basically what has been and continues
> to be the current policy of these mass mobilization of troops, these long
> occupations and trillions of dollars going in, really abusing the Authorization to
> Use Military Force and taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations
> of those current AUMFs.
> 
> So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe that the
> right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical strikes, in and out,
> very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation to be able to get
> rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very limited use of drones
> in those situations where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing,
> you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.
So much of that response from Gabbard is pure pro-war propaganda, as I go into in my 
digitalcitizen.info article.

Gabbard's belligerency might predate January 2018 too; my point remains the same -- 
the shift some are reacting to with disgust is not justified.

Tulsi Gabbard told Primo Nutmeg and CBS News that she was a loyal Democrat and she'd 
never run for elected office on a third-party ticket. She was true to her word -- she 
joined in the coordinated effort to make Joe Biden the only remaining Democratic 
Party nominee, followed by her endorsement of Joe Biden. Contrary to what Hillary 
Clinton tried to tar her with, Gabbard was obedient to the Democratic Party. Those 
interviews (Intercept, CBS News, Primo Nutmeg) should have been big clues that she 
was pro-war because the Democratic Party is pro-war. Endorsing Biden, a hawk, really 
should have captured their attention for being pro-war and reminded them how much 
media got her description wrong.

Structurally there was a big clue too: Expecting an "anti-war" or "peace candidate" 
Democrat is expecting the impossible -- it's expecting someone who is allowed to 
remain in that party, run for office under that party's name, and yet not support one 
of the core tenets of the party.