Excellent write-up Mike. Thank you. All that lip service, all that posturing. I even believed her a few years ago and supported her publicly. What a shame. All that to just be another Colin Powell, lying us into war.
The questions I have: Is she willing or coerced? Was she ever honest, and they found a way to make her go-along? Or was this her role the entire time? Perhaps she was always meant to play this part even if she wasn't witting of it.
Imagine how much support she would receive if she stood up against it all. America needs that now more than ever. Like you said, this SHOULD HAVE been the culmination of her career.
I wanted to leave a comment, but you beat me to it, so I will just quote you right here and restack your comment. It feels like you read my mind.
"Excellent write-up Mike. Thank you. All that lip service, all that posturing. I even believed her a few years ago and supported her publicly. What a shame. All that to just be another Colin Powell, lying us into war.
The questions I have: Is she willing or coerced? Was she ever honest, and they found a way to make her go-along? Or was this her role the entire time? Perhaps she was always meant to play this part even if she wasn't witting of it.
Imagine how much support she would receive if she stood up against it all. America needs that now more than ever. Like you said, this SHOULD HAVE been the culmination of her career.
I believed because of the political price she had paid. She was seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party immediately upon entering Congress, and if she had been willing to 'go along to get along' with the neocons who have taken over Dem foreign policy she would probably be in leadership by now.
Instead she was chased on out of the party on a wave of slander, in part because of her very principled and correct defiance of the conventional wisdom on Syria and NATO expansion.
But she never called herself a peace candidate because she was always openly a hawk about Islamic terrorism (and some would say Islamophobic in general), and it seems that impulse got the better of principles.
You can't ask for better bona fides than hers when it came to opposing the neocons. If she couldn't be trusted to be anti-neocon, who in Washington can? As the article says, this moment should and could have made her career. Instead, she immolated it.
Anyone from Hawai‘i—especially the queer people—would argue that she’s been a grifter long before she reached the national stage. She is absolutely not to be trusted.
Excellent point. Perhaps she caved because she’d burnt her chances w/ the Dems, so figured she couldn’t with the Republicans if she wants to maintain a career in politics. She is an opportunist for sure.
That would be the most tragic of all, because many Republican *voters* are anti-war, and if she wanted to run for President again (as opposed to stay a Washington insider) doing the right thing would only have helped her.
She seemed like higher office was uber alles. She spoke on the right side of some war and peace issues. I wonder where she's at on Gaza and Palestine. For the record, I haven't read the article yet. Cut and pasted it with the rest of my similar reads.
I was somewhat surprised, and greatly dissapointed with Greenwald's silence throughout the Convid Scam, as civil rights were systematically ignored/cast aside.
She was never anti-war. She was always pro war with "Al-Qaeda." You're either anti-war or you're not. She is not and has never been. I'm against ALL wars.
Thank you, Jon! I still can't believe how people weren't able (or willing) to believe what everyone could see. Since the Obama days she has always been a war hawk who hates Muslims and wants to go to war, but the “right way”
We are guaranteed another Tulsi rebrand we can't trust her again. Just another Iraq vet to parlay war crimes into political power. The giveaway is she only mourns US soldier deaths but doesn't care about foreigners. Remember, she's the product of some bizarre religious cult, just like Amy Coney Barrett. She talks like an enlightened human but sucks neocon dick.
That's the thing, is she really that stupid as to not understand that our globalist ruling class have been propagating and funding radicalism for decades?
After the fall of the USSR, they desperately needed a new boogeyman to justify huge military expenditures, they needed a new and preferably permanent enemy, a vague enemy that could be subject to interpretation.
She has to be playing the game, with the Islam/Muslim thingy, as this is still, and will be for a long time yet, a perfect source of pretexts for military expansion and endless military excursions globally.
Like most other politicians she’s a liar. She have participated in USAs illegal loser wars in the Middle East and probably killed innocent people maybe women and children her self. So she have already blood on her hands And she lies about Iran having nuclear weapons Just like the lie about Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and USA started an illegal war against Iraq. A war they lost. Now she is part of the same fake play book about Iran Unbelievable those lying warmongering murderes can look at themselves in the mirror every morning
'Betraying An Entire Career Narrative To Lie Us Into Her WWIII Scenario' is all she was ever about. Come on, easily distracted. She begins by joining the war machine at the late point of Iraq, deploying twice, and then shamelessly parlaying that into all the political currency she possibly could, for years. Criticizing the same war machine she was serving. She really takes a cue from Eisenhower in this regard.
Let's be real, she has always been a war hawk and I don't really understand where she got that image of a peaceful dove got from. Ms PsyOp always loved the war on terror, certain other wars and always looked forward to certain wars. So..
Excellent write-up Mike. Thank you. All that lip service, all that posturing. I even believed her a few years ago and supported her publicly. What a shame. All that to just be another Colin Powell, lying us into war.
The questions I have: Is she willing or coerced? Was she ever honest, and they found a way to make her go-along? Or was this her role the entire time? Perhaps she was always meant to play this part even if she wasn't witting of it.
Imagine how much support she would receive if she stood up against it all. America needs that now more than ever. Like you said, this SHOULD HAVE been the culmination of her career.
Shame on Tulsi Gabbard.
Willing
No, liar the whole time.
She sold out ages ago.
I wanted to leave a comment, but you beat me to it, so I will just quote you right here and restack your comment. It feels like you read my mind.
"Excellent write-up Mike. Thank you. All that lip service, all that posturing. I even believed her a few years ago and supported her publicly. What a shame. All that to just be another Colin Powell, lying us into war.
The questions I have: Is she willing or coerced? Was she ever honest, and they found a way to make her go-along? Or was this her role the entire time? Perhaps she was always meant to play this part even if she wasn't witting of it.
Imagine how much support she would receive if she stood up against it all. America needs that now more than ever. Like you said, this SHOULD HAVE been the culmination of her career.
Shame on Tulsi Gabbard."
I always felt she was a grifter. Never trusted her for a second.
I believed because of the political price she had paid. She was seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party immediately upon entering Congress, and if she had been willing to 'go along to get along' with the neocons who have taken over Dem foreign policy she would probably be in leadership by now.
Instead she was chased on out of the party on a wave of slander, in part because of her very principled and correct defiance of the conventional wisdom on Syria and NATO expansion.
But she never called herself a peace candidate because she was always openly a hawk about Islamic terrorism (and some would say Islamophobic in general), and it seems that impulse got the better of principles.
You can't ask for better bona fides than hers when it came to opposing the neocons. If she couldn't be trusted to be anti-neocon, who in Washington can? As the article says, this moment should and could have made her career. Instead, she immolated it.
Anyone from Hawai‘i—especially the queer people—would argue that she’s been a grifter long before she reached the national stage. She is absolutely not to be trusted.
Yeah, she grew up (and stayed in) a weird cult her father was a big part of.
Excellent point. Perhaps she caved because she’d burnt her chances w/ the Dems, so figured she couldn’t with the Republicans if she wants to maintain a career in politics. She is an opportunist for sure.
That would be the most tragic of all, because many Republican *voters* are anti-war, and if she wanted to run for President again (as opposed to stay a Washington insider) doing the right thing would only have helped her.
100% This is already splitting the MAGA folks.
Yep.
She seemed like higher office was uber alles. She spoke on the right side of some war and peace issues. I wonder where she's at on Gaza and Palestine. For the record, I haven't read the article yet. Cut and pasted it with the rest of my similar reads.
Can we refer to her as Hillary Clinton jr. from now on. There's no difference in their service to the war machine
Thank you for posting this, Tulsa has indeed betrayed her 1 and only redeeming position. What a soulless embarrassment.
I feel so stupid and ashamed for supporting her in 2020. What a total fraud, the woman has no shame and no integrity
what year were you born?
what does that matter
It matters what people stood for in 2020, which would’ve dispelled any doubt of who she is.
Brilliant. You were kinder to Creepy Zionist Tulsi than Caitlin Johnstone was.
she and glenn greenwald are fake doves who shill for russia. always have.
Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard are nothing alike. Russophobia is so five nevers ago, BOT.
I was somewhat surprised, and greatly dissapointed with Greenwald's silence throughout the Convid Scam, as civil rights were systematically ignored/cast aside.
How so?
They both spew kremlin talking points, no matter how absurd.
She was never anti-war. She was always pro war with "Al-Qaeda." You're either anti-war or you're not. She is not and has never been. I'm against ALL wars.
Thank you, Jon! I still can't believe how people weren't able (or willing) to believe what everyone could see. Since the Obama days she has always been a war hawk who hates Muslims and wants to go to war, but the “right way”
We are guaranteed another Tulsi rebrand we can't trust her again. Just another Iraq vet to parlay war crimes into political power. The giveaway is she only mourns US soldier deaths but doesn't care about foreigners. Remember, she's the product of some bizarre religious cult, just like Amy Coney Barrett. She talks like an enlightened human but sucks neocon dick.
She's a fraud. Most people in politics are just grifters and power hungry.
Anyone who thinks Tulsi has any principles is the poster child of Naiveté. She’s an opportunist through and through.
And like Caitlin Johnston wrote”… and an asshole.”
Blackmail is stronger then facts!
I always thought she was a fraud. She only wanted power.
Her life’s biggest moment was hating “radical Islam.” (It always was.)
That's the thing, is she really that stupid as to not understand that our globalist ruling class have been propagating and funding radicalism for decades?
After the fall of the USSR, they desperately needed a new boogeyman to justify huge military expenditures, they needed a new and preferably permanent enemy, a vague enemy that could be subject to interpretation.
She has to be playing the game, with the Islam/Muslim thingy, as this is still, and will be for a long time yet, a perfect source of pretexts for military expansion and endless military excursions globally.
http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html
Like most other politicians she’s a liar. She have participated in USAs illegal loser wars in the Middle East and probably killed innocent people maybe women and children her self. So she have already blood on her hands And she lies about Iran having nuclear weapons Just like the lie about Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and USA started an illegal war against Iraq. A war they lost. Now she is part of the same fake play book about Iran Unbelievable those lying warmongering murderes can look at themselves in the mirror every morning
'Betraying An Entire Career Narrative To Lie Us Into Her WWIII Scenario' is all she was ever about. Come on, easily distracted. She begins by joining the war machine at the late point of Iraq, deploying twice, and then shamelessly parlaying that into all the political currency she possibly could, for years. Criticizing the same war machine she was serving. She really takes a cue from Eisenhower in this regard.
Let's be real, she has always been a war hawk and I don't really understand where she got that image of a peaceful dove got from. Ms PsyOp always loved the war on terror, certain other wars and always looked forward to certain wars. So..