Reply to Tulsi Gabbard - Director of National Intelligence

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Tulsi Gabbard - Director of National Intelligence"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.[/quote]
Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.[/quote]
Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation. [/quote]
Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?[/quote]
If you never questioned the credentials of Biden’s natsec appointments then you really don’t get to question Trump’s selections. Particularly since Biden has probably been the worst President for American power in since, well, pre-WW2. His team was a bunch of incompetent lackeys. [/quote]

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard.  She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.[/quote]

Maybe it has something to do with why someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend”?[/quote]

They don’t literally mean girlfriend as in lover. They just mean a female friend to Russia.  Contrary to Washington propaganda, Russians are excited to form a friendship and a bond with the US/Americans. Most leaders are.  Washington wants another Cold War.

[/quote]

Hahahahahahhaha[/quote]

It’s quite embarrassing Democrats are war hawks and embrace neocon policies now. Trump wants to clean up Big Pharma and the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies and Democrats are mad about that? RFK and Tulsi would’ve been dream picks for  a progressive 10 years ago[/quote]

“Clean up”?  No. He has been very clear that he wants to destroy everything. And then there is his life history of finding ways to personally profit off of everything.

Please read How Democracies Die.[/quote]

Democrats weaponized the DOJ to go after their political enemies and put Tulsi Gabbard on a terror watch list.  She was a democrat senator from Hawaii, previously, but she dared to speak out against Biden and the DNC.

They proposed a "Disinformation Governance Board" by the government.   Representative Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey)  attempted to get more than 126 Republican representatives removed from the House of Representatives in 2021.

Tell me, just what kind of "democracy" do you think this is?[/quote]

Can you explain her close relationship with Assad of Syria who is a close ally of Russia and Iran?

https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-putin-intelligence-russia-syria-a798adaf9cd531a5d0c9329f7597f0f6
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4990947-gabbard-syria-controversy-dni-nomination/
[/quote]

Can you explain the Bush’s relationship with the Bin Ladens?

Literally nobody cares that Tulsi had a “close relationship” with Syria. It sounds like she wanted to actually go there to figure out what’s going on for herself. Certainly, Liz Cheney isn’t going to Iraq and Syria anytime soon. It’s nice to wish for war when you’re standing at the top of the ivory tower. Tulsi doesn’t think US troops lives are that cheap. She was in combat  herself so she knows regime change wars are not in the US’s national security interest but in its financial interest. Most of Washington thinks war is something fabulous and necessary and the goal is not to win the wars but to stay there in perpetuity for defense contractors. McCain once said we would probably remain in Iraq for 100 years. He told the truth and let it slip out.

The reason the mainstream media doesn’t want Matt Gaetz and Tulsi is because they spoke passionately for withdrawal and ending the wars for Big Defense. Gaetz promoted lots of anti corruption and anti war bills. He’s against war with Russia and was for ending  the war in Afghanistan. That’s why Wall Street, linked to Big Defense, excited after the election and selection of Rubio, a complete tool, didn’t exactly cheer for joy or soar after the second round of Trump picks (Gaetz, RFK, Tulsi)

This is a portion of Gaetz  speech on the House floor in 2019

https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-matt-gaetz-delivers-major-foreign-policy-speech

The "fog of war" is no fog to me, or any of the 700 thousand people I serve. It is not hazy. We see the impact of war everyday among the people we love who shape our lives. It is a stark reminder that the unmatched freedoms we enjoy are not free-- they are bought with the blood of American patriots. And it is our solemn duty and highest responsibility to make sure that this sacred currency is spent only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, prior to the election of Donald Trump, our decision makers have fallen short of this standard, demonstrating a tragic recklessness with the treasure of our nation and the blood of our patriots. Consider this. Since 2001, the United States government has spent nearly 6 TRILLION dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraq war alone is estimated to have cost 4 trillion---not to mention the immeasurable costs of lost and broken lives. To give you some perspective, 4 trillion dollars was more than our country's entire tax revenue last year. It would be enough to completely overhaul and modernize our nation's infrastructure. It is more than the entire market capitalization of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook COMBINED. It is more than the nation's entire student loan and credit card debt combined. It is nearly 10 times our enormous 419 billion trade deficit with China---a country that was rapidly expanding economically without firing a shot as we were engaged in far-flung Middle East wars.

We have been in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. It is the longest war in our nation's history---longer than the Revolutionary War, Civil War and both World Wars combined. American soldiers are dying there who weren't born when the war started. In Afghanistan, after two decades have passed, trillions spent, and thousands of American lives lost, the situation on the ground is actually getting worse! A recent study for congress [SIGAR] has found that US-backed forces in Afghanistan control just 56 percent of administrative districts, down from 72 percent in 2015.

Civilian deaths are also up---and despite 8 billion spent on counter-narcotics efforts since 2002, the growth of opium fields has not been slowed. One would think the cautionary tales of Afghanistan and Iraq would make the War Lobby and so-called "national security" experts more cautious about US involvement. One would be wrong. Instead, Hillary Clinton, with the support of hawks in the Republican party, launched a regime change operation in Libya, removing the strong-man dictator Qaddafi.

This might sound humanitarian in theory---but there is nothing humanitarian about the slave markets that now thrive in Libya, or the migrant crisis that has wreaked havoc across Europe. The same ‘thought leaders' were equally desperate for regime change in Syria and the removal of Bashar Al-Assad. Like Qaddafi, there is no question he is an evil human and brutal dictator. The problem with the misguided calls for regime change is the lack of a superior alternative to this dictator---the main beneficiaries of such an intervention would be ISIS, and related terrorist groups fighting Assad.

Luckily, the War Lobby never got its desired intervention in Syria, largely thanks to Donald Trump--- the ONLY major presidential candidate who spoke against the idea. The so-called "experts" behind our failed foreign policy have not learned from their mistakes because they have never been held accountable for them. And so today the saber-rattling persists, and is directed toward Venezuela, Yemen, and, most disturbingly, Iran.

As we look to these countries, it is OUR task to ensure that we don't just recount the mistakes of past decision makers, but that we learn from them. We must resolve not to start unwise wars or put our military in unwinnable and endless conflicts. We know from tragic experience that oppressors like Maduro, Rouhani, and even Kim Jong Un will use military conflict with the United States to scapegoat their own failures, export violence, and deny the organic desires of their own people to seek freedom.

In Yemen, Syria, Libya, and beyond, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that unwilling or unreliable local fighters necessitate the involvement of American troops. The examples of Afghanistan Iraq and Libya—just to name a few—teach us that it is an illusion to think that just beyond the life of every dictator lies a peaceful democracy, rather than generations of anarchy, violence, terrorism, and chaos.

The lessons we have learned should not be considered in isolation---to the contrary, taken together, they outline a successful "Trump Doctrine" of American foreign policy.

The Trump Doctrine falls into four pillars.

FIRST – We build and maintain a military edge over everyone. Period.

SECOND – American citizens come first. Foreign nations and special interests, not matter how much we like them, don't call the shots.

THIRD – National Security begins at HOME, and national security is ALWAYS linked to economic security.

FOURTH – An AMERICA FIRST policy is not an isolationist or utopian policy. Others must know that we WILL respond if necessary — and WE WILL WIN.

FIRST PILLAR---An America First foreign policy is one of caution, common-sense, and PEACE THROUGH OVERWHELMING STRENGTH.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics