During that debate she introduced a couple of concepts foreign to her fellow Democrats. One concerned the current dust-up in Syria.
The others all lamented Trump’s recent decision to pull American troops from the area near the Turkish border occupied by Kurdish forces. But only Gabbard had the temerity to ask why we intervened there in the first place.
“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand,” Gabbard said. “But so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime-change war.”
Of course, opposition to “regime change” was a hallmark of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Meanwhile Clinton, who was Secretary of State in 2011, was perhaps the most prominent proponent of deposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Gabbard’s criticism of the Democratic establishment’s foreign policy may not play well within party circles. But as a National Guard soldier who did two deployments in the Mideast, she is uniquely situated to give Trump fits on foreign policy.
During that debate she introduced a couple of concepts foreign to her fellow Democrats. One concerned the current dust-up in Syria.
The others all lamented Trump’s recent decision to pull American troops from the area near the Turkish border occupied by Kurdish forces. But only Gabbard had the temerity to ask why we intervened there in the first place.
Gabbard thought we should have intervened to help Assad.
During that debate she introduced a couple of concepts foreign to her fellow Democrats. One concerned the current dust-up in Syria.
The others all lamented Trump’s recent decision to pull American troops from the area near the Turkish border occupied by Kurdish forces. But only Gabbard had the temerity to ask why we intervened there in the first place.
“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand,” Gabbard said. “But so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime-change war.”
Of course, opposition to “regime change” was a hallmark of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Meanwhile Clinton, who was Secretary of State in 2011, was perhaps the most prominent proponent of deposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Gabbard’s criticism of the Democratic establishment’s foreign policy may not play well within party circles. But as a National Guard soldier who did two deployments in the Mideast, she is uniquely situated to give Trump fits on foreign policy.
meh. that's pretty weak soup if he's really doing it because of an anti-war position.
Are you saying that "Ronan Farrow's mom" couldn't possibly be a regime-change warmonger?
What's your explanation for her Tulsi-hate?
That was hatred?
Are you saying that Mia Farrow couldn’t possibly have other reasons to have seen enough of Gabbard? No, of course you’re not saying that; otherwise, there’d be nothing to bet on.
Ms. Farrow just has a different perspective than Paul does.
Are you saying that "Ronan Farrow's mom" couldn't possibly be a regime-change warmonger?
What's your explanation for her Tulsi-hate?
That was hatred?
Are you saying that Mia Farrow couldn’t possibly have other reasons to have seen enough of Gabbard? No, of course you’re not saying that; otherwise, there’d be nothing to bet on.
Ms. Farrow just has a different perspective than Paul does.
Please explain the connection between this and Tulsi Gabbard and Paul's perspective. Hint: There is none, it's just @nohero thrashing around. He's on Twitter denying that the Kurds are now allied with Assad.
During that debate she introduced a couple of concepts foreign to her fellow Democrats. One concerned the current dust-up in Syria.
The others all lamented Trump’s recent decision to pull American troops from the area near the Turkish border occupied by Kurdish forces. But only Gabbard had the temerity to ask why we intervened there in the first place.
“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand,” Gabbard said. “But so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime-change war.”
Of course, opposition to “regime change” was a hallmark of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Meanwhile Clinton, who was Secretary of State in 2011, was perhaps the most prominent proponent of deposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Gabbard’s criticism of the Democratic establishment’s foreign policy may not play well within party circles. But as a National Guard soldier who did two deployments in the Mideast, she is uniquely situated to give Trump fits on foreign policy.
meh. that's pretty weak soup if he's really doing it because of an anti-war position.
During that debate she introduced a couple of concepts foreign to her fellow Democrats. One concerned the current dust-up in Syria.
The others all lamented Trump’s recent decision to pull American troops from the area near the Turkish border occupied by Kurdish forces. But only Gabbard had the temerity to ask why we intervened there in the first place.
Gabbard thought we should have intervened to help Assad.
Tulsi did not want us to intervene in the Syrian civil war and especially not to intervene by supporting Al Qaeda, has carried out our regime-change policy (to overthrow the Assad regime).
So using @nohero-talk, don't say she thought we should have intervened to help Assad.
But mostly I like the way Hillary's comment showed what an unhinged lunatic Tulsi is.
Remember that Ms. Gabbard endorsed Hillary in 2016. How that squares with her attack against Hillary, I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse for it.
But mostly I like the way Hillary's comment showed what an unhinged lunatic Tulsi is.
Remember that Ms. Gabbard endorsed Hillary in 2016. How that squares with her attack against Hillary, I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse for it.
But mostly I like the way Hillary's comment showed what an unhinged lunatic Tulsi is.
Remember that Ms. Gabbard endorsed Hillary in 2016. How that squares with her attack against Hillary, I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse for it.
You are out of touch with reality.
You think Tulsi's response tweet was .. what? The mark of a well grounded potential President of the United States?
But mostly I like the way Hillary's comment showed what an unhinged lunatic Tulsi is.
Remember that Ms. Gabbard endorsed Hillary in 2016. How that squares with her attack against Hillary, I don't know, but I'm sure you have an excuse for it.
You are out of touch with reality.
You think Tulsi's response tweet was .. what? The mark of a well grounded potential President of the United States?
It was an appropriate response to a vicious, contemptible, McCarthyite lie.
And more than that, how could she have endorsed someone that she thinks is so despicable?
Does this not give you pause?
She endorsed Bernie. That tells you about her values. She endorsed Hillary as many did, because (a) she's a loyal Democrat and (b) she thought Hillary was a better choice than Trump.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2019/10/democrats-should-say-aloha-to-leading-candidates-and-pick-tulsi-gabbard-instead-mulshine.html