Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Regime change wars have disastrous consequences 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says efforts to denuclearize North Korea have been hampered by U.S. policy of regime change.
(Image by YouTube, Channel: Fox News) Details DMCA
Tulsi is interviewed by Tucker Carlson on FOX News in a five minute video. I am no fan of FOX, though I have appreciated the several videos I've seen by Tucker Carlson, insofar as he asks good questions, respects and lets his guests speak without talking over them, and strikes me as a man of integrity, actually seeking honest answers. I may be wrong, but that is my impression based on maybe a dozen spots I've seen of him.
He takes Tulsi seriously and seems to agree with her on the topic of regime change, which is the focus of this interview.
David William Pear pointed out in a recent comment what The Saker had to say about Tulsi. This is a short version below, highly edited by moi. I tried to stick to the main points as I see them. I'm a huge fan of The Saker; when I see an article with his name, I do my best to read it. Here is a link to the original piece by The Saker click here and below is my edited version:
"" one might imagine that she would be the *dream* candidate for the Democratic Party: she is a female, she is not White, she has impeccable "patriotic" credentials, she is obviously both very good looking and very smart, she does not have any skeletons in her past (at least none that we know of for the time being) and she is not associated with the notorious Clinton gang. So what's there not to like about her if you are a Democrat?
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion" the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing" It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? ... I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes! ...
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times " one of two things are most likely to happen next: Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign [or] Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she becomes another Obama/Trump.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like this one: "warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die". This is all very good and useful for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing! " Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs."
While I am still doing my homework on TG, I am truly impressed so far. She is "radical" in that she goes to the root of the problem, namely our military industrial complex, and points out that this is where our taxes are going and the harm that is caused, both to ourselves and to those we have overthrown, as we have done and are doing now. There is no one else even stating the obvious, and this is her central plank, from which urgently needed domestic issues could follow. She also makes clear her interest in working avidly on climate change.
So what are the chances of her actually getting on the debate platform? TG explains that well in a link I already posted, from a town hall meeting in Des Moines, Iowa click here [start at 25 minutes if you want to see just that topic discussed by her]. Summed up, the new DNC rules requires 65,000 unique or individual contributions, apparently with no limit set as to the amount; $1 should count as a contribution. Those contributions must be broken into at least 200 each from 20 states. Remarkably doable, near as I can tell. I plan to be contacting the campaign folks shortly to get any more relevant info, and post an article on any further news here.