[Peace] Looks like more people are seeing what Tulsi Gabbard stands for

[J.B. Nicholson]

https://www.mintpressnews.com/anti-war-progressive-militarist-tulsi-gabbard-political-trajectory/279101/ 
includes the following:

> Perhaps the most surprising shift in her metamorphosis into boilerplate
> conservative is her seemingly shifting stance on war. Appearing on Fox News just
> after the Biden administration was forced to admit that a drone strike[1] it ordered
> on “terrorists” in Kabul actually targeted ten civilians, she vehemently defended
> the policy. Clearly not expecting such an answer (the segment was titled “Afghan
> Disaster: Who Is Getting Fired?”), host Tucker Carlson looked surprised as Gabbard
> launched into a spirited defense of both drones and the endless war on terror.
> 
> “I think it’s important for the American people to understand that Islamist
> jihadists are continuing to wage war against us,” she said[2]. Then, barely
> acknowledging that the slain Afghan children were not terrorists, she added:
> 
> We have to work to defeat them militarily and ideologically. And militarily, we
> have two choices in how we do that. Number One: We can continue to invade and
> occupy in nation-building [sic] countries around the world — just as we did in
> Afghanistan at great cost. Number Two: We can take a targeted approach using
> airstrikes, using our special forces to go in and go after these terror cells.”

[1] 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-supports-full-investigation-into-afghanistan-drone-strike-2021-09-20/
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/media/tulsi-gabbard-islamist-jihadists-wage-war


Regarding this segment, I'm not sure why anyone would characterize Gabbard's support 
for drone war to be a "surprising shift" when in January 2018 she told The Intercept:

> 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.
Audio of the above is available at 
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ 
in case you want to hear that excerpt from Scahill & Gabbard's own voices.

What Tulsi Gabbard has been saying for some time is neither surprising nor much of a 
shift in her war policy views -- she's down with killing innocents via drones and has 
she been down with this for some time now.

As I wrote about a year after that, "“Quick strike forces”, “surgical strikes”, “in 
and out, very quickly”, “no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation” are all 
pro-war propaganda. This vague language (how long is “long-term”?) is 
indistinguishable from what any neo-con would say to make war seem more acceptable.".




The MintPressNews.com article above makes some point of showing whom Gabbard has 
connections to. Perhaps this is why you're unlikely to hear about this from Jimmy 
Dore & co. -- there's footage of Dore being quite chummy (if not enamored) with Tulsi 
Gabbard during the time she said the above to the Intercept (which Dore & co. also 
ignored). I tried to warn Dore away from this path by sending him an email to 
info at jimmydorecomedy.com which his staff received and replied to as a formality. But 
I didn't see anything come of it in his behavior. Dore would go on to 'share a stage' 
(as the MintPressNews.com article put it) with Gabbard when Dore & his wife Stef 
Zamorano visited Hawaii.

Tulsi Gabbard has demonstrated her loyalty to the neo-con Democratic Party in word 
and deed:

Word: In her CBS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI) and Primo Nutmeg 
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdl-QbtS1U) interviews you can hear her say that 
she's a loyal Democrat and would not run as an independent or with a third-party. In 
other words, she long ago committed to not run in any way that challenges the 
Democratic Party. I believe that she gave that CBS interview before she was falsely 
accused of running as an independent by Hillary Clinton.

Deed: Tulsi Gabbard participated in a coordinated act (coordinated by former Pres. 
Obama, as far as I know) when he got all of the 2020 Democratic Party nominees to 
quit their campaigns and endorse Biden (Gabbard even confirmed to Jimmy Dore in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jka28F9ldBg that "supporting" and "endorsing" Biden's 
campaign were the same thing). Perhaps that's "collusion", a word the Democrats like 
to use for Russiagate accusations but never use to describe how neolib/neocon Joe 
Biden went from lackluster Democratic Party primary performance to becoming the sole 
nominee. Anyone who still thinks that Gabbard was an "anti-war" or "peace" 
representative of any kind after endorsing Biden for POTUS has some heavy explaining 
to do.

Perhaps it's only a matter of time until Tulsi Gabbard replaces Bernie Sanders as the 
new sheepdog for the Democratic Party (see the late Bruce Dixon's prescient May 7, 
2015 article https://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary for more 
on this concept of sheepdogging).