Maj. Gabbard represents me in Congress. Unfortunately, my Representative is----oh, I won't even state the name for the shame of it all.
So Donna Smith was shocked and offended when Gabbard went to talk with Trump, but not when she went to talk with Assad and came back singing his praises. (And hey, who funded Tulsi's trip? She's lied about it. A lot.)
Tulsi Gabbard is just more garbage that needs to be thrown out of Congress.
Humans love war and hate peacemakers.
Howard Dean is not fit to shine Tulsi Gabbard's boots. Rep. Gabbard is the most courageous politician in Washington, IMHO.
Wow. That Salon article is much clearer about why the party faithful hate Gabbard so much and what is actually going on than this piece by Donna Smith. Thanks for linking to it.
So basically, Gabbard questioned whether the Assad regime was actually responsible for this suspected use of chemical weapons. This might seem to the uninitiated to be a perfectly reasonable question - but is clearly not within the limits of legitimate discussion as prescribed by the Democratic and Republican parties, and embraced by the American corporate press.
What's more - again from the Salon article - Gabbard has questioned the entire purpose of the American intervention in Syria.
"She argued that by working to oust Assad, the U.S. has been strengthening the position of Islamic extremists — both Islamic State militants and Al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups — which Assad’s forces having been fighting against."
It's worth noting both the U.S. intervention as a whole, and last week's cruise missile strike specifically, are entirely illegal under international law. But bringing illegality and immorality of U.S. actions up in public discourse earns you dumbfounded looks from CNN anchors and contemptuous attacks from Democratic party hacks.
I didn't get any of that context from this piece by Donna Smith. This essay seems more like a tribute to veterans with a half-hearted request for "congressional oversight" while "standing for peace" and calling for the defeat of ISIS - what? How confused is that? This is from the Progressive Democrats of America... so I guess that explains some of the confusion. Even the title is confusing. I read it trying to figure out who Standing For Peace was and why they put a target on Gabbard.
While I am generally in agreement with Donna Smith on many issues, there is much in this article that I dispute.
She shouldn't be surprised that some Democrats have criticized Gabbard. The overwhelming majority of Democrats predictably lined up in support of Trump's act of war, with the reservation that he should have consulted with them, first. They didn't object to more war, just that they weren't included in the process.
Sorry, Donna, but I have yet to experience any war that has been fought in my lifetime, from the Korean War on, that has been fought to defend me or make me safer. They may have been fought to make the world a safer place for American corporations and interests and they may have been fought for political gain, but at no time was I ever in danger of seeing my home invaded by North Koreans, any Vietnamese, Iraqis, Libyans and so on.
For the same reason, Donna, I don't feel the need to do the usual knee jerk, phony flag waving thank-you to active military or veterans that you feel compelled to do. If active military and/or veterans have chosen to fight on behalf of politicians and assorted empire building interests, I'll leave it to those entities to thank them. I refuse to perpetuate the myth that the military is fighting to defend my freedoms or my safety. Our bloated military budget is a direct result of this lack of critical thinking.
Lastly, you and your organization may believe that the number one foreign policy for this administration should be defeating ISIS, but I believe the number one foreign policy for any administration should be peace, not more war. No organization that claims to be progressive should include war in its platform. More war, in any form, is anything but progressive.
Second to last paragraph:
"Finally, we do not ever forget that Major Tulsi Gabbard of the Hawaii Army National Guard has served a tour of duty in Iraq in defense of our nation took the following oath when she enlisted and pledged to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States."
No, service in Iraq was NOT ever defense of the USA ["our nation"].
Ms Gabbard did NO defending of the USA by serving Iraq.
(Serving in an unconstitutional imperial war is a different matter; that she did. And she may very well have defended the lives of other Americans serving in that illegal war.)
I'm surprised that Smith and CD are pushing this BS fake patriotism.
(I have no idea if Ms Gabbard has ever called her service in Iraq "defending the USA", if she has, I'd lose a good deal of respect for her.)
And the point is, everything we've been told has come out of the mouths of "our" operatives. Until (if anyone were to insist on it) an independent and authoritative investigation is made and shared, I - based on the past fourteen years of experience wrt "my" government - have no reason to trust the veracity of "our" operatives.
I guess the memory even of the shame and embarrassment of being so easily lied into an illegal and disastrous war of aggression has faded from the memory of the political class. Either that or they are just craven, or jaded, or completely devoid of the responsibility that has been entrusted to them.
I do not defend Assad. He's no better or worse than a hundred strongmen past or present. It is a fact that those certain interests that lied us into the above-mentioned illegal aggression also targeted Syria for regime change several decades ago, so I do not trust them to tell me what the truth is.
Perhaps the UN ambassador from Bolivia could call for an immediate international and conclusive investigation into the facts of this incident. Further speculation is unwarranted; let the facts lead where they may.
Correction : 'Damaged' humans love war and hate peacemakers.
It's significant that Ms. Ryan is Irish. To be more specific, she's "not an American."
Her piece illustrates the divide that exists between how issues are seen by (and presented to) Americans and how they are seen by and presented to those outside of the USA.
I agree with you Vince. Regime change, whether it's Democrats or Republicans in charge, is the new norm.
Will the 130 million who voted for the Duopoly on November 8th, 2016 vote to prolong the Duopolys warmongering ways in 2018?
Or, will all of the Sane People of America, have stormed the White House and the Halls of Congress and demanded the Bums resign, by then?
... then we're going to Lebanon, & Yemen, & Somalia, & South Sudan, & North Sudan, & Iran, & Pakistan, & Russia...
The House needs 434 more like Ms Gabbard, someone with the courage to do her own research (her trip to Syria with Dennis & Elizabeth Kucinich) and speak her mind without compromise.
Ms Gabbard has been criticizing the US' illegal involvement in Syria long before her recent trip there, and rightly so. Neither the CIA nor the DoD have been invited by the Syrian government to participate in the civil war raging there, yet both have been active there for years, stirring the pot, spending more US taxpayers' money for more US military industrial arms .. and all so the US-Saudi alliance can eventually run a natural gas pipeline from the Saudi's side of the Persian Gulf to the EU market. It's all about $$$ - military industrial profits, kickbacked to our corrupt congress as "campaign donations" and other perks, in preparation for extracting more $$$ from the region as natural gas sales to the EU, cutting off the Russians.
Meantime our infrastructure crumbles, our healthcare system sucks, our educational system spirals downward, life expectancy decreases, suicides rise.
Donna Smith's faint praise for Gabbard be damned, she should be given every true progressive's full throated approval, loud and clear. American military involvement in Syria is illegal, corrupt and counterproductive. IF the US truly wants to join the coalition fighting ISIS then fine, but PLEASE make up your mind. Stop waffling on regime change. Start cooperating with the Syrian govt and the Russians to rid Syria of ISIS. Otherwise get the fuck out and stay out.
It would signal a meaningful shift towards reality if so many authors and articles on this site (and elsewhere) did not feel it necessary to torturously assemble their essays with all the overly polite weasel words and built-in excuses for actors and events that are clearly beyond the pale. For instance, many can recall Colin Powell’s nauseating UN presentation concerning aluminum tubes and yellow cake. Solicitous exceptions for performances such as that are undeserved. The author tells us that “The United States has been drawn into military operations and conflicts multiple times based on faulty information.” It would be closer to the truth of the matter to note that the intentions of the globalist deep state actually running the show often require the take-over and pillaging of yet another nation somewhere on the planet, and cooking up any excuse for the exercise does not constitute being “drawn into” anything.
"Drawn into" by Wall Street looking for another profit center is the context in which "drawn in" would be correct, unlike the fake news essential to starting and expanding wars and occupations.
The DNC and other DC insiders have loathed Gabbard from the time she resigned her DNC position more than a year ago to support Sanders' primary bid.
Current criticisms of Gabbard are the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) and the politicians they own's ongoing attempt to silence her. Just as Nomi Prins' financial services industry experience enables her to know where all the bodies are buried on Wall Street, Gabbard's military experience enables her to know where all the bodies are buried in the Pentagon. Both of these women threaten the fake news establishment.
Like Prins, Gabbard deserves the support of all progressives.
There are two paths to the future. One path leads through to the other side and the other wins, but doesn't make it through. By now there should be no problem recognizing that something needs to change if only because we are running out of energy; nevermind global warming. Human nature of course always subscribes to following their brain stem evolutionary programming which I characterize as "last man standing" . The problem now is that there is no place for the last man to stand. In a hot world with no technological exploitable energy source the last man standing is equivalent to the last horse in the glue factory. It's almost a given, given human nature, that we won't be astute enough to take the peaceful approach so that means any administration is going to prosecute the last man standing strategy.
Wars are almost always fought over resources. If you can accept that then you will know, absent the propaganda, what all the reasons really are.
Correction: Normally evolved humans love war and thinking humans hate it.