“For too long, our leaders have failed us, dragging us into one regime change war after another, leading us into a novel Cold War and arms race that has cost us trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives. This madness must end.”
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
NO. This condemnation of John Bolton’s interventionism came from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.
Gabbard proceeded to tear apart both “the president and his hawkish cabinet.” [who] brought us to the brink of war with Iran.”
In a pointed exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio responded that America could not withdraw from Afghanistan: “While we were not there, they started letting planes into our buildings.”
“The Taliban did not attack us on September 11,” Gabbard replied. “Al-Qaeda attacked us on September 11. That’s why I and many other people joined the military to go after al-Qaeda, not the Taliban.”
When Ryan insisted that we stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
“Is that what you’re going to tell the parents of these two soldiers who just died in Afghanistan? «Well, we just have to be committed.» As a soldier, I can tell you that this answer is unacceptable… We are no better off in Afghanistan than when this war began.
By the end of the debate, Gabbard was the clear winner in both Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far ahead among all Democratic candidates whose names were Googled.
Even though she had less than seven minutes to speak in the two-hour debate, she couldn’t have used that time more effectively. Her performance could shake up the Democratic race.
If he manages to get a few points above his 1-2% in the polls, he could secure a place in the second round of debates.
If so, moderators will now turn to her with questions about foreign policy issues that would not have been addressed without her presence, and these questions will expose hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be – not just on Afghanistan, but also on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century” and Trump’s apparent rejection of the two-state solution.
If she advances to the runoff, Gabbard could become a catalyst for the globalist-nationalist debate that erupted between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016 and contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents to Democrats is that, as the fight with Ryan showed, she takes positions that divide her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like Trump’s awfulness, free college and the soaking luxurious. .
Given more airtime, it will pose problems for the GOP as well. The foreign policy that Tulsi Gabbard calls for is not far from the foreign policy that Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to implement.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq and 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, a B-52, and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are going to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister, with whom we would have to negotiate to avoid war.
Jared Kushner is urging a US-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in exchange for their loss of sovereignty and the end of their dreams of a nation-state in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton talks about regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Instead of engaging Russia as Trump promised, we are imposing sanctions on Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships to the Black Sea, strengthening NATO in the Baltic, and destroying arms control treaties negotiated by Ronald Reagan and other presidents during the Cold War
US policy has managed to unite our great adversaries, Russia and China, as it has not done since the first decade of the Cold War under Stalin and Mao.
In June this year, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing, where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People, to warn that at a time of “increasing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China would “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”
Xi presented Putin with the novel Chinese Medal of Friendship. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and has reached unprecedented levels.”
At the end of the Cold War, we were the only superpower. Who has lost our preeminence? Who bled us dehydrated for the deaths of 7,000 Americans and $6 trillion in endless wars in the Middle East? Who dragged us into this Cold War II?
Is it the work of those damned isolationists again?
