Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
“If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory…”
“For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.”
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the “president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran.”
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: “When we weren’t in there they started flying planes into our buildings.”
“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? ‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. … We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began.”
By debate’s end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be — not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century,” and Trump’s seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of “growing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China will “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”
Xi presented Putin with China’s new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level.”
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
So all it takes then is to be a Communist that doesn’t want to be a warmonger and Americans are fine with that, eh Pat? I actually think alot of Americans will still have a problem with her neo-communist position on the Bill of Rights and the desire to have the Gov’t control you from cradle (or humane medical 9month murdering pad) to Death. The SJW types are all in on destroying America and turning it into an anything goes dystopia for idiots, where “free everything” comes on the back of destroying/taxing the shit out of businesses and freezing and starving us to death at the altar of the Climate Change Cultists. They are talking revolution and this is not hyperbole and decent chunk of Demo-Commies want gov’t controlling everything, and an endless supply of 3rd worlders to fill up and destroy what’s left of the cultural holdouts. Then the masses will be so broke and fighting amongst themselves they hope to create one of those egalitarian 3rd world shitholes where the 2% live decent and everyone else is so desparate they can’t fight back against their “equality signaling” overlords.
The Dem’s are a clown car of trying to bribe every group they can with the “free shit” and at the same time trying to make them feel good. Its amazing that they can get hard working asians to still vote Demo-Commie, and alot of self-loathing whites that want to Feelz good by virtue signaling their way to the death of their culture, race, and what’s left of the American dream. America was far from perfect, but trying to become the U.S.-SR is not going to do anything but destroy the country, and this time likely for good. If countries with minor racial disparity can’t get along, then how the hell does a country with a 100 victim groups that speak different languages and no longer have any common vision suvive, simple it won’t. Happy friday 🙂
I don’t think Pat, or anyone else, thinks that she is what America needs. But, at least she is bringing up some talking points that could wake up some citizens who are otherwise brainwashed. Not just more of the same bull shit that doesn’t matter. Of course, so did Trump, and we see how poorly that’s playing out.
Don’t forget Gabbard’s non-support of the 2A. I think I could stand anything more than taking guns.
Another female socialist, yep, that should really help fix things.
Trade Tulsi for Bolton?
At face value, that would be a most excellent trade for sure, but there are other things lurking under the surface of Gabbard’s political views people should consider.
Now let’s speculate that Trump actually wins another term, Gabbard becomes an eliminated victim of the Democratic electoral process, and actually agrees to take the job as a security advisor. The extremist Progs will constantly vilify her, but it could launch the prospect of a successful career in politics. It would be quite interesting because, as a lower ranking military officer, the generals would have to listen to her.
Prospects of actually happening? Zero, but it’s fun to speculate.
How the frig can anyone imagine trump has any say in the matter? He just finished admitting that it’s beyond his control when he complained that bolton wanted to attack the whole world. I like Pat and respect his opinion but he never get to the heart of the matter: the u. s. government has owners.
“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”
Disqualified.
Yep, inside job.
It’s really just that simple, no?
They all talked anti-gun talk. Anti-freedom talk is what it is. Whenever someone talks about taking away freedoms and rights they need to lose. That open border talk was alarming also. Almost every subject they talk about, they have strange/bad thinking on. The Democrat party is dead.
Memo to Pat Buchanan: Telling your fellow Jew Drumpf to dump Bolton for a liberal, gun grabbing, female like Tulsi Gungrabber is so damn… Jewish.
Gabbard is not the favored candidate and, therefore, will be Ron Pauled. End of story for her. It’s all rigged, people.
Trump would do the nation and the world a huge favor by replacing John Bolton with Gabbard. Great idea! Then I would put Rand or Ron Paul in as Secretary of State.
She needs a more donors to stay in even 1 dollar. worth it just to see the DNC sweat.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/tulsi-debates?refcode=190626tw-update&fbclid=IwAR2lcguqKrdEWW_SeK_i203yflB8Jc_rxhnTp5G87fUYL-3J0tS9cGPvhcc