dagblog - Comments for "Tulsi Gabbafd Endorses Sanders Based on Foreign Policy Views"

Well, so much for that.

moat — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:34:48 +0000

In reply to Tulsi, Trump, Breitbart, Fox

Darn it.
She chose the Icarus route.
It never ends well.

Tulsi, Trump, Breitbart, Fox

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:55:18 +0000

In reply to Fox News:

Tulsi, Trump, Breitbart, Fox & Putin - all aligned it seems.

Tulsi comes from the hard-line on immigration, tough on Islam wing of the Democratic Party, just in case you didn't realize we had one of those.

Here's remembering back in Feb/March how Bernie fans were creaming themselves over Tulsi, cause she was young, cute, female, a vet, and had a big obnoxious mouth - obviously cut out for a starring role in the Democratic future, except she's turned out to be largely a conservative Republican trashing Hillary, Obama, the DNC, and anyone else except Republicans. Her bashing the nuke deal with Iran is especially alarming, but then again, everything is these days - why should I begrudge a nice Samoan lady's chance for social ladder climbing/rub elbows with the incoming hoi polloi?

So, so glad she had a lovely tete-a-tete with Trump to confirm we should do nothing to stop Putin from blasting away at civilians in Aleppo, and everything Obama & Hillary have proposed is wrong. I guess I should be happy Trump & Gabbard at least both know where Aleppo is, but I wish it *weren't* the case..

The Fault in Our Stars.

BTW - 1) Tulsi thinks a "no-fly zone in Syria means thousands of US ground troops" - WTF?
2) celebrates the defeat of TPP, but ignores the reason for pushing it - to limit China's control of Pacific trade over the other Pacific countries - thanks for the silence
3) like so many other unreformed Bernie fans, manages to not get over the Bern, and can't mention Hillary's name all autumn while focusing on key white rural issues like a gas pipeline in the middle of nowhere, but quick to go visit Trump as soon he's elected. You suck, girl. Hope they give you a cabinet position like "Secretary of Crazed Purity & Accommodation".

Good point - humans don't

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 06:28:54 +0000

In reply to Gabbard does embrace a bunch

Good point - humans don't crawl out of the womb well-formed, candidates are flawed people who stumble through ideas and policy for years. The ones like Ted Cruz who seem already finished early scare me - more like a ready-made plastic monster that comes out of a gum machine. Everyone should be allowed a few Brainard mulligans on the Road to greater competence and clarity.

Gabbard does embrace a bunch

moat — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 02:36:45 +0000

In reply to "We have learned from the

Gabbard does embrace a bunch of contradictory ideas but I hope she isn't an Icarus who has flown too close to the sun by cashing in her political capital the moment she had some. I respect her point of view that was developed from seeing for herself what war is like for the people hosting the event.

She is an interesting contrast to the Kagan endorsement of Clinton by not knowing half of what that guy knows but still knowing stuff he will never get. As an informed citizen, being able to beat them up intellectually won't tell me what the best course to take might be.

"We have learned from the

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:41:01 +0000

In reply to I found an interview where

"We have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed small quick-strike special forces and drones—the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden. We know that this fresh approach to our nation’s security is the way to go."

A Hawaii Representative has warned the US government that President Barack Obama’s decision to put American fighter jets that can ‘target Russian planes’ on the border between Turkey and Syria could start a ‘devastating nuclear war’.

Democratic Rep Tulsi Gabbard’s comments came after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Congress on Tuesday that the United States is sending additional special operations ground forces to Iraq in its ongoing fight against the Islamic State terrorists.

Gabbard said the fighter jets, along with Obama’s opposition to Russian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, could lead to a nuclear war.

So which is it - special forces or not special forces ("special operations ground forces"). Except those drones and special forces have been ineffective against ISIS. Why would US drones be preferable to planes? Turkey's plane shooting down a Russian jet seems about as a controversial as a drone shooting down a Russian jet (or a Russian Bok anti-aircraft missile shooting down a Malaysian civilian airliner), and it's easier for a pilot to control his actions. Perhaps reality can't be fixed with a one-size-fits-all solution?

"[We've] given the Afghan people the opportunity to have a democratic country if they choose. It is now time for the Afghan people to take responsibility for their own country." Sure we have - women can go to school, kids can aspire to a good job - it's just a matter of a little elbow grease, eh? Guess warlords don't quite count anymore.

I found an interview where

moat — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:30:03 +0000

In reply to Declaring war on "radical

I was wrong about Gabbard being silent about Afghanistan. I found an interview where Gabbard called for speeding up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan (2012). She also called for a less bellicose stance with Iran but hedged her bets on particular trade offs. She also hedged her bets on the use of drones.

It doesn't look like Gabbard has thought through all the consequences of her rejection of Obama's refusal to call the conflicts in the region a war against an ideology. The pattern of interfering with politics in the region that she militates against is not going to stop if we also prosecute a war against what people think there.

Declaring war on "radical

moat — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:02:50 +0000

In reply to Tulsi Gabbafd Endorses Sanders Based on Foreign Policy Views

Declaring war on "radical Islamic ideology" will bolster the aid and comfort for Assad that Gabbard recommends but will also cause a spot of bother with Iran and Saudi Arabia since she has identified those places as where the ideology is nurtured.
I haven't seen that Gabbard has complained about our 15 years in Afghanistan. Probably because the Taliban fit her bill of the correct enemy. But if things don't get better there soon, looks like we are going to need another surge to maintain the victory.
Throw in Gabbard's call to keep Gitmo open until we "win" this war and you have a complete "non-interventionist" package.
Buy now while supplies last.

Fox News:

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:25:15 +0000

In reply to Tulsi Gabbafd Endorses Sanders Based on Foreign Policy Views

Fox News:

GABBARD: I know one issue that's on the top of my mind if I can bring it up here is what's happening right now in Syria. What's happening in the Middle East. We just heard news yesterday about the administration dropping 50 tons of weapons in Northern Syria.

We have no confidence to whose hands those weapons are going into. All we do know is that they will end up in the hands of one stripe of Islamic extremist or another because these are the people who are fighting to overthrow Assad whether it's al-Qaeda, al-Nusra or these other Islamic extremist groups.

...

GABBARD: I'll be watching tonight, Greta. And I want to mention one more issue that I have been really vocal about within Congress. And that is the issue of the Kurds who have been our most effective ground fighting force in the fight against ISIS, both in Iraq as well as in Syria.

We've got a situation here where Turkey has been targeting these very same Kurds. They have been targeting and dropping hundreds and hundreds of bombs, attacking these ground fighters who have been those, who have been most effective against ISIS.

The fact that the administration has stood silently by and allowed this to happen, including NATO, I think it's important for those candidates on the stage tonight to address this situation and to address how they will approach this and taking action.

So sounds like Gabbard backs supporting the Kurds as our proxy ground force to fight ISIS, and leave Assad in place and not supply any rebels in Syria. Should we be giving weapons to Kurds, and what happens if they end up in the wrong hands (ISIS, Al Qaeda) like weapons to other groups, or used by the PKK against Turkey as they've had a long-standing insurgent war? And what effect will supporting Kurds more, including I presume with weapons, have on our relationships with Mideast countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Israel?

Of course the Kurds aren't in all the places where ISIS is, such as deeper in Syria - do we find another proxy ground force for those areas, or accept rule by ISIS there, or support Assad's efforts to eradicate them, and how does that relate to Assad's and Putin's attacks on the Syrian opposition in many of the same areas?

I don't quite find a "non-interventionist" principle here - I see it as an argument about backing the wrong horse.

What do you think, Lulu? Seems Tulsi wasn't very happy with negotiating a peace deal over nukes with Iran either:

We do have real threats that we're facing, a few of which include this negotiation with Iran but also really the confusion around what is Iran's status. We have the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper omitting Iran and Hezbollah from the list of threats to our country for the first time in a long time and we also have Iran's growing influence with their Shia militia and their troops on the ground growing really in Iraq and the ground that they are controlling as well as in Yemen and in other places.

So, there seems to be really a lack of coherent strategy with regards to how we as the United States are dealing with Iran as we look at this threat of nuclear armed Iran as well as this threat of Islamic extremists like ISIS, like al Qaeda, like Boko Haram who really it should be no surprise that they are training together again because it's less about the name of a specific group, the common theme here is that these are radical Islamic extremists conducting violent terrorist activities and until we recognize and understand who they are, how they are operating, then we're not going to be able to have a coherent winning strategy to defeat them.

Hard to see how she fits your foreign policy ideals - from the National Review, "Since taking office in January 2013, Gabbard has cultivated relationships with conservative national-security and defense experts, particularly those from AEI, an institution known for churning out research advocating a muscular foreign policy." Hmmmm, aren't those guys including Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle why we're in Iraq in the first place?

Here she's worried that deploying US fighters to the Turkish-Syrian border could cause "nuclear war" - maybe she's just unhinged? The more I read, the more I'm amazed - was better when I thought she was just complaining about number of debates.

Here's Breitbart quoting

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:19:05 +0000

In reply to "I think it’s most important

Here's Breitbart quoting Gabbard as she appeared on Neil Cavuto/Fox to attack Obama's summit on extremism - not just a soundbite, a rather lengthy diatribe. I can see why the right's infatuated with her. I'm not quite sure why you are, except she said something nice about Bernie.

I imagine the DNC is quite pleased to be done with her so easily.

Congratulations - Hillary's

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:52:47 +0000

In reply to Tulsi Gabbafd Endorses Sanders Based on Foreign Policy Views

Congratulations - Hillary's gotten 208 congressional & gubernatorial endorsements; Bernie now has 5, two since South Carolina. Tulsi looks interesting as a politician and officer, including a lot of progressive values fitting for Hawaii and unusual for the military (and seems her blasting "homosexual extremists" as legislator in 2002 before she evolved on the issue hasn't hurt her - seems she finally outgrew her father's politics at the age of 22, hope y'all don't hold that against her.)

Wondering what you think of WaPo's "Before that, Gabbard earned appearances on Fox News and a glowing profile in the conservative National Review after very publicly blasting President Obama's failure to say "radical Islam" and suggesting that he's weak on Syria.").

Probably would have helped Bernie a lot more if she'd come out for him more than the day before Super Tuesday, but at least he now has a way to cover himself on "hawkish on security but non-interventionist" front to counter images of him visiting Castro.

Re: "interventionist" policy, it would be great for a Bernie supporter to explain what's the proper way to support democratic protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Georgia, Serbia, China, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, et al without "intervening", and what role they felt we had in the Arab Spring (I started to say "if any", but whatever the US does, even "nothing", is pretty well an action and a signal in the world). Seems to me it's difficult to get right, though others may have that "special sauce" - please share the recipe!!!