Home | About | Donate

Any Dem Who Wants to Be President Should Reject War with Iran, Not Hide Behind Process Criticisms

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/23/any-dem-who-wants-be-president-should-reject-war-iran-not-hide-behind-process

Nice rundown. I would have liked to hear where Tulsi is on all this. Apparently, the most purely antiwar (Democratic Party) candidate out there is Mike Gravel (still alive, believe it or don’t, and getting even more cantankerous). Mayor Pete will soon vanish without a trace like that nobody from Texas. And we should know by now where Uncle DNC Joe will stand, well in advance, using the “What would Andrew Jackson do?” standard.

No USAmerican public figure I know of has called out the obvious false-flag implications of a bombing of the Japanese tanker timed to coincide with the visit of the Japanese prime minister. Mayor Pete is the only one to actually articulate the “My country, drunk or sober” standard to which almost all of them adhere. Is it the case that no courageous USAmerican truthteller (such as Malcolm, or MLK) ever had to run for office? Perhaps it’s impossible for politicians to be wholely truthful – but there’s a trio of freshman congresswomen (none of them running for president) who seem to prove otherwise.


# H.Res.411 - Defining Presidential wars not declared by Congress under article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” within the meaning of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and defining the meanings of war and cobelligerency for purposes of the Declare War Clause and Impeachment provisions.

Sponsor: Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2] (Introduced 05/30/2019)

Date introduced: May 30, 2019- three weeks before all this current Iran crisis and false flags. But this is a re-introduction. She first was an original co-sponsor of this in the previous Congress.

Now, after the fact, some are asking for limitations on what the president can do, but only when it comes to this crisis with Iran. For years, now, Tulsi has been out front working to keep all presidents from having the ability to start wars when it is Congress’ Constitutional authority, not the president’s.

Here she is discussing all this on the 17th before the drone incident!


Here she is on the 18th. Notice what she says at the end…


The fundamental problem with US Political leaders and for that part with many of those voices that are deemed Anti-war is this.

The US population has been indocrinated into the myth that they are the “Good Guys” , that the US is a positive force on the World Stage , that the actions of its Government always based upon support of freedom , human rights and Democracy , and that they are in fact that “Shining City on the Hill”.

In accepting this premise they take the Manichean worldview that any government on this Earth that opposes the USA or refuses the Hegonomy of the United States of America, is therefore “The bad guys” and on the side of “Evil”.

Putin is evil. Assad is evil. Hussein was evil. Qaddafi was evil.Khameni is evil but the USA in spite of sometimes “making mistakes” is always on the side of good. Even with a Sanders when this false premise accepted it easy to label the Maduro’s of the world has despots , or the Putins as Tyrants, or the Qaddaffis as murderous even as the actions of the US Government are as tyranical , are as despotic and are as muderous as any of these other Countries.

The handful of people that come to understand this , such as Martin Luther King did in calling the US Government the greatst purveyor of violence in the world, tend to die early deaths.


My gawd. So well said, SdP! I am unworthy.

Another way of framing this “Manichean” frame of mind is as a form of idolatry. I’m serious about this. Imperial patriotism, the national (evidently compulsory) religion is flat-out idolatry, plain and simple: worshipping that which is unworthy of worship. I think there’s a commandment forbidding this sort of thing, somewhere.


At the end she says… but I don’t want to spoil your teaser.

She doesn’t call out the false-flag operation USA/Saudi/Israeli intelligence was apparently involved in. At a time like this, can she really break down the whole truth in front of everyone? I haven’t seen it yet. Not from her.

1 Like

Gabbard’s the only announced Democratic candidate who has expressed a distinctly antiwar opinion.

Tveten ignores her. Why?

It is tempting to imagine that it is because a comparison with Gabbard’s stance leaves every single candidate mentioned here looking bad,. and opens up a reasonable argument to vote for a third party.


I agree about Gabbard and Gravel. In These Times is doing some self editing, otherwise it’s a good article.

Buttigieg is the National Security candidate; Harris the Law and Order candidate. I see them as both plan B’s if Biden’s baggage is too cumbersome. Note both fit the standard Identity Politics criteria of the HRC/DNC branding: Buttigieg is gay and Harris is black and female. Otherwise, they have no real policies…


totally agree lib.
Gabbard has been consistent and strong on peace and has introduced bills to push for action in the House.
Until now almost all media who invite Tulsi to come onto their shows have used the opportunity to grill her/ambush her on charges that she is a Putin puppet, Asaad lover, etc.
Come on Common Dreams! Give her a platform! We’re getting dangerously close to a hot war which will change the world forever and Gabbard’s voice could be a huge boost to mobilize resistance.


Calling out a false flag operation is difficult to do early on and Gabbard, along with many others was careful but strong in her responses to other false flags such as the Syrian “gas attacks”: she called for no action, also for more investigation by reputable organizations and repeatedly said that if Asaad committed a crime he should be held accountable by the world court, not by bombing which would cause civilians to be killed.
I am not completely sure but I think Tulsi would/does have a significant level of support from military people who still have a clear enough mind to oppose the horrendous evil the U.S./Euro/Israeli empire has imposed on the world.

1 Like

I’m guessing that if Common Dreams starts running articles from and about Gabbard they will see donations increase.


One of today’s articles on CD is about how the media pick the presidential candidates. Then this article, by ignoring half of the candidates, particularly the one whose campaign is based on ending or avoiding wars, DOES EXACTLY THAT.

And we’re congratulating ourselves for cheering on candidates who oppose “forever wars”? What about the wars that only last several years, or heck, even six days?


I wrote a note to Commondreams and told them that I won’t be sending them any more donations until they start covering Gabbard’s campaign.
I strongly urge all you Gabbard supporters out there to do the same. Maybe we could wake them up.


Good for you Dolgen!

Here’s mine which I sent by email a minute ago:

Dear common dreams people.

I will begin donating to you again when you start covering Tulsi Gabbard and giving her a forum to speak.


Michael Egan


You absolutely missed the only presidential candidate who is speaking to your concerns in this article: That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard! You may want to update your article, because Tulsi IS the ONLY democratic candidate who will not surround herself with neocons and has the wisdom to see when we are being lied into war.

An earlier writer asked if Tulsi would have significant support in the Military. I would think for the common soldier, that answer would be yes!

Vote Tulsi!