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

Sat Nov 27 02:00:14 UTC 2021

Great analysis J.B.

In accordance with your final statement, Tulsi has always been a sheepdog for the Dems., for those who are anti-war and still think we can achieve peace with the Democrat Party. 
Yes, she said a lot of good things when running for office, a very smart lady, beautiful, eloquent, and articulate, the perfect candidate, a perfect sheepherder.

I referred to her as just this some years ago, to me it was obvious given her support for drone warfare, Israel, and Modi. 

AOC is another one who said a lot of good things as a candidate and even now, but…..

As to Jimmy Dore, he has a good perspective on domestic politics, but he’s lacking in a comprehensive understanding of foreign policy, he is after all a comedian so we shouldn’t be too disappointed by his being impressed with Tulsi.

It must be recognized peace will never be achieved with either the Democrat or Republican Party’s.

> On Nov 26, 2021, at 6:30 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> 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).
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace