Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Is Anti-War but Not Pro-Peace

Her chumming around with the worst dictators is troubling.

|

If America is going to be a force for peace in the world, it needs to stop invading other countries for their benefit and it also needs to stop cultivating nasty regimes for its benefit. But ironically, the very politicos who are anti-war often become pro-dictator. Unfortunately, Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, the congresswoman from Hawaii, is no different.

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, has made opposition to war her signature issue. During the second round of the Democratic debates, she was the only candidate who promised to "end wasteful regime change wars" and "take the trillions of dollars that we've been wasting on these wars and…redirect those resources into serving the needs of our people right here at home." But that doesn't make her a peacenik; it makes her an America Firster, like President Donald Trump. Indeed, although she went out of her way to condemn Trump as a "warmonger," there isn't much daylight between her position and his—which is no doubt why the former White House aide Stephen Bannon, the notorious architect of Trump's America First campaign, interviewed her for a position in the administration.

Gabbard purports to be a dove when it comes to wars of regime change. But like Trump, she is a self-avowed hawk on Islamic terrorism. She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as "Islamic terrorists."

But the more striking similarity between her and Trump is that she too has no qualms about courting dictators if they advance her cause, no matter the consequences for others. Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America's struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he'd orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.

But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi's militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence—not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods. Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith, has become close to Modi, presenting him with her personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu holy book) when she visited him in 2014, 12 years after one of the worst massacres of Muslims was committed by thugs from his own party in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at that time.

All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard's foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.

But even if she isn't motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the fact is that a foreign policy that elevates America's narrow national interest above any broader concerns will inevitably lead to unsavory realpolitik alliances, regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-war. If "The Blob"—as the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment is sarcastically called—has a tendency to exaggerate the threat posed to the international order by regimes that don't play by America's rules in order to justify overthrowing them, Gabbard-style anti-interventionist nationalists have a tendency to downplay the threat that odious regimes who play ball with America pose for their own people in order to enlist them.

It is not a coincidence that Gabbard has questioned whether Assad actually deployed chemical weapons against innocent Syrians at all. Or that she has praised Sisi for his "great courage and leadership." Or that she refused to support a House resolution that offered the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom—which occurred on Modi's watch—as an example of India's persecution of its religious minorities, insisting that "there was a lot of misinformation surrounding that event."

Turning a blind eye to such atrocities removes an important external check on these regimes. But that's not all it does. It undermines the domestic forces trying to hold them accountable. It turns these rulers into international players, rather than pariahs, handing them stature that allows them to argue to their people that they can't be so bad if the world is willing to do business with them. In India's case, this is particularly unfortunate given that the country is at a critical juncture and desperately trying to hang on to its commitment to religious tolerance, pluralism, and free speech in the face of the Modi administration's constant assaults. Yet if India goes the route of its more illiberal neighbors in Pakistan and China, the result won't be world peace but greater conflict from which America will hardly be immune.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism. And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.

A version of this column appeared in The Week.

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So we should never reach out or try and work with “evil dictators”. Now do Iran, you stupid cow.

    That reason would go after Gabbard, the one no kidding anti interventionist candidate running after decades of claiming to be anti interventionism is a new low for the publication. Is there any position other than open borders and legal immunity for tech companies that reason actually believes?

    1. Is there any position other than open borders and legal immunity for tech companies that reason actually believes?

      WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

      They’re fine with you having to get a prescription for a 3 day supply of aspirin but WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

      1. Weed and open borders now, even if it comes at the price of giving the deep state its endless war and the tech companies their monopoly over what can and cannot be said.

        1. Calm down John. I’ve been reliably informed by the commentariat that corporations have no power. They have no police ergo no power. You are free, as they say, to start your own high-speed global communications network if you don’t like how they do business.

      2. Dude, parties registered last week for the Israeli election. One guy got in an argument, because he wasn’t allowed to bring his weed into the building, and he put himself second on the party list so an Ethiopian-Israeli could have the first spot. It is like the Weedman party. Zehut was more reserved.

    2. you stupid cow.

      That was convincing.

      1. When you don’t understand anything you read, you probably think that. Try getting smarter and reading the whole post next time there Sparky, though I am not optimistic you can do that.

        1. When you don’t understand anything you read

          When supporting your position requires you to believe other people don’t know the meaning of “cow” you’re the one with the problem.

          1. No. If Dalmia doesn’t want me to point out she is a silly cow, she should stop being one. If you don’t like people pointing that out, too bad. It doesn’t make her position any less stupid.

            1. Bias check
              Let me take a wild-ass guess. Shikha, you’re no longer the Hindu are you?

          2. “Cow” was pretty generous. He should have said “pathological liar disgusting festering cunt”. But he didn’t.

          3. “When supporting your position requires you to believe other people don’t know the meaning of “cow””

            Are you actually retarded?

        2. So John thinks Shikha is a holy being. Interesting.

    3. But, but, John, you don’t understand! She’s undermining the credibility of the Democratic field with libertarians! Don’t you get it? If people keep doing that, some libertarians might actually vote for that awful Trump!

      It’s important to see the forest for the trees.

    4. Shikha you ignorant slut!

    5. Yup this article is gutter level how did nick allow this on his platform Ron Paul questions evidence every time something happens he sees through propaganda guess he is coddling with a dictator and this woman has based she is coddling with dictators after 1 meeting with Modi and Assad she met modi for 20 mins and assad for less than an hour how can she become friends with them in such short amount of time?

    6. I love that the only way to be pro-peace…is to try and run the world.

      Tulsi has some whackjob theories…but her foreign policy is pretty rock solid. I’d love for her to be Trump’s NSA, to be honest.

    7. Tulsi Gabbard was not raised as a Hindu.
      Do your research.

    8. Ms. Dalmia is a nice lady and sometimes a good writer. She too often follows her “liberaltarian” prejudices. A Gabbard – or Trump – should not pander to Islamists, or refrain from flattering dictators who need to be manipulated into behaving better.

  2. “Chumming around with the worst dictators”.

    Ok, fuck it, now I know Tulsi is on to something.

    1. Look Paul, she asked for Assad’s help to defeat Isis. What kind of a monster does that?

      She is absolutely onto something and those who are attacking her are on someone’s payroll.

    2. SHE VISITED THE LEADER OF THE 2ND BIGGEST COUNTRY ON EARTH ONLY 12 YEARS AFTER SOMETHING HAPPENED – clearly, she is a Nazi

      1. Canada?
        Wow, that’s not cool. Was Trudeau culturally appropriating another costume again?

    3. Tulsi’s the best the DemonCRAPS have got.

      Ain’t it sad?

      1. Someone needs to slip her some Hayek books and see what happens. Or maybe some Sudha Shenoy.

  3. A nation can afford a handful of unbending principles on the international stage. Outside of that, national interests must guide foreign policy. Condemning other nations for mistreating their people requires a system for verifying claims, but elected officials could at least avoid meeting tyrants.

    1. So what does “not meeting tyrants” accomplish exactly? Reagan met with Breznev and Eisenhower with Kruschev. They are among the worst tyrants of the 20th Century. Nixon met with Mao for God’s sake. I guess arms control and peace with China is not something you want.

      1. I have it on good authority that Trump is a tyrant. “Worse than Hitler,” they say. I guess nobody should meet with him, which means the world is in for a long five years…

        1. Trump is even worse than Colonel Green.

          1. If I’ve got the canon timeline right, little Colonel Green is alive today.

            1. A little tyke of tyrannical terrror!

            2. I though Mustard was the Colonel, and Green just went by Mr.

              1. Colonel Green, with the lead pipe, in the ass.

      2. Carter hugged Idi Amin as he was slaughtering people. Self interest could be great enough to justify meeting tyrants, but Carter got nothing for the US by embracing killers like him.

        1. Reagan ended the cold war and Eisenhower kept world war III from breaking out when it very easily could have. So, what the fuck is your point?

          1. They should meet a dictator when it is necessary, and make it clear what the point of the meeting is. They shouldn´t act like they are great friends with a dictator, and they shoudl definitely avoid creating the impression that they consider a dictator´s treatment of their own population acceptable. They also shouldn´t act like only the dictators who are allied with another superpower are evil, whild the others are OK. In short – pragmatic approach? Yes. Hypocrisy? No. Kissing asses? No.

            1. Bullshit. You are just grasping at straws here. Eisenhower wines and dined Kruschev insults generally don’t work in diplomacy

            2. Good luck trying to make effective foreign policy while insulting your counterparts from other countries. It doesn’t seem to be working very well for Trump so far.

        1. I remember when the media thought the Assads were stylish and cosmopolitan.

          But hey, “right to be forgotten”, right?

          Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic–the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.

          1. When asked about that article the author said something to the effect of “Asma al-Assad is thin and stylish and worthy of a Vogue story”. The author said in almost so many words “sure she is the wife of a murderous dictator but it is not like she is fat or something”.

    2. “but elected officials could at least avoid meeting tyrants.”

      So, we can’t start wars with them and we can’t have conversations with them. So how are we supposed to get them to stop being tyrants?

      1. The look on her face was priceless.
        The presentation of that show is awful, but I liked Jimmy Dore

  4. I’ve been warning this comment section for months that Tulsi Gabbard is Putin’s favorite Democrat. Literally any other Democrat would make a far better President. In fact, so would a patriotic, pro-America Republican (unfortunately a rare breed these days) like the late John McCain.

    Of course, her obnoxious army of online “Tulsibros” — many of whom are likely Russian bots — will seize on her overrated debate performance in which she distorted Kamala Harris’ record. Don’t believe the hype. Harris, Biden, Warren, and even Bernie Sanders are far better choices from a Koch / Reason libertarian POV.

    #GabbardRussia

    1. 7/10

      You need to work in some praise for Reason’s best writer

        1. I never got that. She was gross and stupid, in huge amounts.

          1. Me either. She seemed to be a garden variety wokeltarian. She certainly wasn’t hot. So what is the attraction?

      1. Veronique de Rugy?

      2. OBL is Reason’s best writer.

        1. Sure wish that wasn’t true.

        2. Who is OBL? Lil Christian Britschgi (spelling?) seems nice.

    2. Your reductio of reason writers doesn’t work; they are already reductio-ed.

  5. NBC News on Tulsi:

    The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

    And people wonder why we look askance at the Media.

    1. An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

      Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

      This is mainstream news. These are the ‘official’ gatekeepers and “trusted sources”. Jesus fuck these assholes.

      1. Let’s not forget the good old days when reason writers routinely appeared on Russia Today. You know Russia Today, the Kremilin’s propaganda network. Not that there was anything wrong with that. But for reason to now get holier than though about people meeting with dictators is more than a bit rich.

        1. Welch and Gillespie have been hungrily sucking the Castro brothers’ cocks incessantly for the last 2 decades as well. They’re disgusting pieces of shit.

          1. That is a great point. The same magazine that lauded Obama for ending the embargo and working with Castro is now criticizing Gabbard for being too friendly with dictators.

            These people have no shame.

            1. That would be a fun cocktail party, watching Gillespie and Dalmia trying to out-sperg each other on the subject of meeting foreign tyrants.

        2. RT is where everyone goes to start their TV chattering monkey career when they can’t get on anywhere else. I’d do it.

      2. Round them all up and send the to Venezuela.

      3. As I’ve said, at least with McCarthyism, there WERE Communists in government. What are these idiots excuse?

    2. When you’re literally owned by a defense contractor, you get nervous when candidates question the wisdom of bombing people.

  6. How is being willing to meet with our adversaries and “evil dictators” mean that Gabbard is not pro peace? Isn’t being willing to word with one’s enemies the definition of being pro peace?

  7. The one mistake she made on Thursday night was to accuse Trump of being a warmonger, when his foreign policies so closely mirror her own.
    I think it was obvious to most people that she was trying to put some distance between herself and Trump to reassure potential Democrat voters that she isn’t just like the President, but it came off as inconsistent with her history and primary stance.

    She’s going to have to be a bit more controversial to get real attention from the DemNPCs.

    1. I think you are correct but stop and think for a minute what you are saying really means. It means that the Democratic voting base is so insane in its hatred for Trump, it will attack a peace candidate and be objectively pro war because those positions mirror Trump. Talk about crazy.

      1. The progressive population has become unworkable. Imagine their apoplexy of Trump wins again, which appears likely.

        1. The left claims to hate Trump but are doing everything in their power to ensure he gets re-elected.

    2. Yes, her statements claiming Trump “supported” Isis were wrong, and she should be criticized for it.

      She’s going to have to be a bit more controversial to get real attention from the DemNPCs.

      Already there.

      1. I think she said Trump supported Al Quada, which is just as stupid and wrong.

        1. Sorry, I can’t keep the crazies straight. It’s hard enough tracking Russian Fever dreams.

        2. People seem to forget that the efforts to oust evil-dictator-Assad were putting weapons and resources in the hands of al-Qaeda and ISIS. Sometimes you don’t have a “Good Guy” to lend your support to.

          1. You know, this is an excellent point. Sometimes, the best you can hope for is to end the killing of civilians as quickly as possible, knowing the guy at the end will be a shithead who needs to be dealt with.

          2. What Assad did was release all of the Islamic radicals from his prison and then have his armed forces concentrate on destroying just the secular and moderate rebels leaving Al Quada and ISIS alone to the greatest extent possible. The idea was to create a choice of either supporting Assad or supporting Al Quada and ISIS. Assad is a real bastard.

            1. Assad is a real bastard.

              He really is. And I strongly suspect he would have been overthrown if not for Russia propping him up. The main shortcoming of US policy toward him was that we either needed to be serious about overthrowing him or we should have stayed out of it altogether. Half-assedly supporting anyone who opposed him was the very worst thing to do.

              1. Half-assedly supporting anyone who opposed him was the very worst thing to do.

                Yes a thousand times.

              2. The main shortcoming of US policy toward him was that we either needed to be serious about overthrowing him or we should have stayed out of it altogether.

                The problem is “being serious about overthrowing him” would seriously risk a shooting war with Russia, which has backed the Syrian government for decades. Sure, he a bastard. Sure, I wouldn’t invite him to Sunday dinner. That doesn’t mean trying to depose him was a good idea.

                1. You are right Bill. And that means that we should have stayed out of it entirely. There is not a single US interest in Syria. That is Russia, Iran and Turkey’s mess not ours.

                2. I would include under “being serious about overthrowing him” the understanding that such overthrowing would involve a shooting war with Russia. Anyone who didn’t realize that going in should be kept far from any position of authority over the military.

                  1. For me, if an action isn’t worth sending 1M troops to deal with, it’s not worth sending a much smaller number, either. Either go big or do not go. Fighting wars on the cheap has a long and glorious track record of abject failure.

                3. 1) we have things Russia wants, more than they want Syria

                  2) at some point, we will reach a situation where we either do the right thing or we don’t. If you think Syria is worth liberating, that it pisses off Russia doesn’t matter one fucking bit.

                  1. If you think Syria is worth liberating,…

                    I don’t. I don’t think all of Syria is worth the life of one Iowa farmer or Ohio factory worker.

                    That said, “worth liberating” is only something that can intelligently be judged in context. A thing is worth something only in relation to what it is compared to. “Worth it” is entirely dependent on what “it” is. And the consequences of a shooting war are pretty damned high.

                    1. That said, “worth liberating” is only something that can intelligently be judged in context.

                      And overthrowing a dictator only counts as “liberating” if he’s not replaced by another dictator. Being placed under a UN babysitter government doesn’t count.

            1. I’ve never been convinced that he did, personally. Still don’t think he’s a good guy.

    3. >>a bit more controversial to get real attention

      bikini.

      1. Funny how this aspect of her Google popularity is never mentioned

  8. ” And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.”

    But enough about open borders

  9. But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

    Ah, there be the burr grinding about Shikha’s saddle. Newsflash, no one here really gives a shit about Indian politics, not even OBL.

    She must throw the best cocktail parties.

    1. Even the people who go to such parties don’t care about India. I am sure they dread the moments where Dalmia traps them in a corner and goes on about the evils of Modi.

      1. I’m not really up to date with India’s politics, but for her to say Tulsi <worst transgression is meeting with Modi, compared to murderous scumbags like Assad and el-Sisi, tells me something.

        Modi is not lobbing chemical warheads at his own cities, you pretentious harpy. He’s not “worse than Hitler,” and neither is Trump, no matter how much they seem to not care about your personal sensibilities.

  10. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he’d orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.

    And nothing happened between those fresh breezes of the Arab Spring and the coup that brought el-Sisi into power.

    Nothing at all.

    1. No, a bunch of well meaning wonderful people known as the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt.

      1. They just want what’s right.

      2. John, come on. Eggs, omelettes…you know the drill.

  11. All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard’s foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia.

    What could be a clearer sign of Islamophobia than supporting Muslim dictators like Assad and el-Sisi?

    Or is there maybe a particular type of Islam that she’s averse to?

    1. How is meeting with Arab leaders, dictators or no, Islamophobic? This article is crazy even by Dalmia’s standards.

      1. Shikha has standards?

      2. In person Ms. Dalmia appears sane…

    2. Christopher Hitchens, by modern standards was ten times the “islamophobe” that Tulsi could be interpreted as, by the biggest stretches.

      But because Hitchens was sufficiently intellectual, I suppose we shift rhetoric and call him “critical” of Islam.

      1. But because Hitchens was sufficiently intellectual

        Patriarchy or GTFO.

  12. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism.

    Yeah, I’m sure it matters a whole bunch to an absolute dictator whether or not he’s “condemned”.

    1. This is coming from the cunt who tweeted that the rioters at Berkeley were in the right because they were provoked by mean words from a conservative fag.

      1. Shikha may be in menopause. It explains lots of hare-brained crap about her.

        1. That’s mental pause.

    2. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism.

      So, doing nothing is now “interventionism”. WTF?

      1. It’s a “thought crime.” Shikha prosecutes them relentlessly when it’s convenient.

    3. Thought crime! Shikha is all over them!

  13. ITT, Dalmia, jealous that a brown woman is hotter and more intelligent than she is, goes full hater.

    1. The deuce I dropped an hour ago was brown and hotter and more intelligent than Dalmia is.

      1. All of that and a bag of chips.

    2. And younger!

  14. Reason writers have a high school mentality when it comes to foreign policy. “OM Jippers, Tiffany sat with Brad at lunch today? I am so totes un-friending her on Facebook!!!”

    In the world of grown ups, you have to talk and work with people you consider to be bad, even evil, all the time. It might mean you have to be careful so they don’t negatively influence you, but it doesn’t make you Hitler.

  15. MISTAKEN ABOUT ASSAD’S SO-CALLED GAS ATTACK. Regarding the accuracy of this article, I’m not so sure that Assad used gas against his civilians in 2017, and quite a few experts agree. In fact, it’s pretty much clear that he didn’t — which even the Trump administration admitted.
    https://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

    1. I am not convinced he did either. He might have. But I think there is a significant chance that it was a false flag operation.

      1. I think most of the solid evidence points to a false flag operation. There are geopolitical reasons Assad would never use a gas attack because it would bring in unwanted foreign intervention.

        And I thought that New York Times investigative article (which I can’t find) was found to be bunk.

      2. Mattis already admitted that they have no proof that Assad did it, and there’s plenty of good thinking to cast doubt on any assumption that he did.

      3. What’s amazing to me is that not one of the previous bloggers even mentions this. Very scary to know that ignorance of this is so deep. Thanks to both of you for returning a modicum of faith that memory holes aren’t in everyone’s head.

    1. I seriously thought this was settled, that the whole gas attack thing was fabricated.

      1. I thought that too.

      2. Correct. See my links nearby. Even Mattis admitted that.

    2. I mean fuck, you had officials handing a CNN reporter garments of clothing which were supposedly in the gas attack, and she takes a big huff of a back pack and claims, “Yeah, I can definitely smell something.”

      Riiight, CNN, here’s a garment that was in a serin gas attack, huff that shit and tell me if it’s legit.

      1. “I can smell b.o. Sarin smells like b.o…right?”

  16. I have my questions about whether it is wise, especially for someone of relatively low rank and with no authority to meet foreign leaders. However, as a matter of principle, we should encourage discussion and diplomacy.

    Yes, it looks good to stand up to the “axis of evil”. However, we get far more progress by sitting down and talking than by marching up and down with rifles and sending a few bombs at them. Even if they are objectively evil (which you can say for North Korea and others, but Iran isn’t), being dogmatic and unbending just means nothing gets done. Being dogmatic and then not following through, as Obama did, makes us look weak, as if we are unable to make our bite match our bark.

    Using a mix of power and talk, Trump seems to be making more progress on Korea than either of his predecessors did with a more hardline stance.

    1. I have my questions about whether it is wise, especially for someone of relatively low rank and with no authority to meet foreign leaders.

      This is not uncommon. You probably don’t even hear about it 90% of the time.

    2. But to be fair, that doesn’t mean you’re asking an illegitimate question.

      Among the powers of the U.S. president as written in the constitution is the ability to conduct foreign policy. Over the past few decades, however, a growing number of prominent lawmakers in Congress have made independent trips abroad and, in some cases, courted controversy for overstepping their bounds by meeting with foreign leaders or making statements on U.S. foreign policy. The most recent example was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s April visit to Damascus, in which she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Her visit drew protests from President Bush, who called her trip “counterproductive.”

  17. “she was the only candidate who promised to “end wasteful regime change wars” and “take the trillions of dollars that we’ve been wasting on these wars and…redirect those resources into serving the needs of our people right here at home.” But that doesn’t make her a peacenik; it makes her an America Firster, like President Donald Trump.”

    The horror

    1. How dare the American people expect their elected officials to put their interests first? Good God she these people are awful.

      1. Dalmia is the type who takes the old “Eat your food, there are starving kids in India” as sage foreign policy.

  18. ‘She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as “Islamic terrorists.”‘

    The horror

    1. ^This^

      Like she’s the only one who had a problem with that.

  19. “Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America’s struggle against ISIS.”

    Well I never

  20. “she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.”

    Those were the rightful sex slaves of the goat fuckers and pedophiles. Hasn’t Tulsi heard of property rights?

    1. Reason: Open Borders, except for those trying to escape genocide and sex slavery.

      Another win for the theory that Shikha is a mole meant to make libertarians look absurd.

      In this case the mole couldn’t help but to troll us with a wink.

    2. Asylum isn’t for Christian sex slaves who were orphaned when their parents were burned in a cage, it’s for former ISIS sympathizers looking for a better paying job

  21. “she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it.”

    The horror!

    1. Remember when reason spent months assuring us the refugees could be “vetted” by the government and therefore it was okay to let them in? Now it is “how dare you vet a refugee”.

    2. Because it is unthinkable a political movement like ISIS would use a refugee crisis to infiltrate agents into countries hostile to their cause.

  22. I wasn’t planning on voting but damn Shika makes Tulsi sound so good.

  23. But chumming around with the worst dictators is what proggies do because the proggies want to become one of the worst dictators.

  24. “Chumming”? You mean carousing around Las Vegas? Meeting with foes is called leadership.
    When people criticize others for not being sufficiently pro-peace you can be sure their agenda is something else. Peace on their terms only. That’s not peace but it’s opposite: victory.

  25. It seems to be a very narrow path to follow that one abides by a policy of:

    1. Noninterventioniism.

    2. Nonisolationism.

    3. Not having at least cordial relationships with dictators and other unsavory regimes.

  26. the “she showed up in India *twelve years* after the massacre” thing is a stretch … vapors

  27. “But even if she isn’t motivated by anti-Muslim animus,”

    Projection. Dalmia is all animus in her screeds.

  28. “But that doesn’t make her a peacenik; it makes her an America Firster, like President Donald Trump.”

    Lol. Oh the horror!

    Why does Reason keep publishing this crap?

  29. Didn’t Obama consider Chavez a friend? Or how about his own record on propping up dictators? Did Dalmia howl then?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikegonzalez3/2015/08/05/obamas-true-legacy-propping-up-dictators/#2b70fef96aed

  30. “Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism. And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.”

    The projection. It burns.

    Reason puts their moral preening over doing anything for the US first, but the world too, if it requires talking to “nasty regimes”.

    The ultimate in putting narrow self interest over broader consequences.

    1. That’s complete nonsense. The US history of intervention is a disaster — showing that you can’t predict the results of intervention. And your first statement is just your parroted version of Orwell’s “War i Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.” Now go and lick the boot of Big Brother. You know you want it.

      1. Who’s the crazy person?

    2. Shikha really is a stupid nasty word for female part

  31. This article at the top of search for “tulsi gabbard news”. Thanks for being a tool of the warfare state, again, Reason.

  32. “…which is no doubt why the former White House aide Stephen Bannon, the notorious architect of Trump’s America First campaign, interviewed her for a position in the administration.”
    “But even if she isn’t motivated by anti-Muslim animus…”
    I gave you my hardly earned money and you give me this crap? Just change the name of the magazine to Smears and get it over with.

    1. Check that “Insinuation” is a better new title…

  33. Doesn’t Dalmia have anything to do other than denigrate the one person in the 2020 campaign who loves her country enough to: (a) volunteer for service after 9/11; (b) deploy twice in combat units to Iraq and Kuwait; (c) receive the meritorous service medal and several other awards for her contributions therein; (d) remain in the Army National Guard for 16 years, rising to the rank of Major; (e) serve on important House committees including the Armed Services Committee (and important subcommittees thereon such as the subcommittee on emerging threats) and the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and … and … and … ? Guess I just answered my own question. Is she just not the right kind of Hindu for Dalmia? Seriously, what is with the fixation on discrediting the one person who actually points us toward a new foreign and military policy that stops our policy of alienating the world and frees up resources to address vitally important national domestic priorities? What’s with the venom and hate directed at Gabbard? Somebody’s scared … really, really scared …

    1. Gabbard is making the other Democrats look bad. And we can’t have that.

    2. She’s Putin’s puppet. Is there a better reason to be skeptical of Gabbard?

      1. Well, objectively.. her track record of hobnobbing and cavorting with the worst sort of dictators clearly indicates that Gabbard openly supports the patriarchy. She’s obviously a cis-hetro shitlord, as I haven’t once seen her ask any of the more nuanced, and introspective dictator’s for their preferred pronouns.. NOT. ONCE. people! Let’s just be intellectually honest here… we know it’s just a matter of time before Gabbard drowns a sack of puppies to appease her master, Putin.. and his insatiable bloodlust, while the Reason commentariat cheers her on. Do we want to empower that?! Is that really who we are now?!

  34. An interesting read.

    I don’t support Offensives Wars, yet at the same time think the whole “Assad Dindu Nothing” Sentiment going around with other Anti-Interventionists is BS

    1. Saying “Assad probably didn’t gas his own people” isn’t saying he did nothing. Most agree that Assad is a bastard.

      He’s just not, you know, OUR problem.

  35. So, defending ourselves against Islamist terrorist aggression is just as bad as starting wars of aggression to effect regime change. Go lobotomize yourself with a rusty drill, Shikha.

  36. Shikha Dalmia – How could you ignore billions voting for Modi – and then talk democracy? You haven’t seen the modi transformation, neither your grand parents when they were in India. The goons are retreating from the street. Maoist revolutions don’t attack city centres any more. Islamists have lost upper hand. Kashmir pundits are celebrating, they may go back to their home. People who struggle daily have been impacted by Modi, they look to him.

    I don’t have a personal feeling towards Modi, but the level of hope and positive and change he introduces was unthinkable to dreamers , there has been nothing like this in last several decades.

    And you accuse Tulsi Gabbard had a meeting with the person who gets Trump’s attn ? See USA govt, under Barack Obama allowed PM Modi to USA. Be honest Sikha, if you have any courage, blame your Pres Barack Obama for talking to not-english-man-like Modi.

  37. Referring to Islamic terrorists as “Islamic terrorists” should be applauded for accuracy. Avoiding unnecessary wars should be even more applauded.

  38. “Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism.”

    Huh, what?? Why is reason shilling for the war machine now? What’s your alternative Shikha, bomb a few tens of thousands of innocent people? That’d show tulsi what “pro-peace” looks like!

  39. Just because she exposed some truths about Kamala Harris (that dems did not seem aware of…hmmm odd) she was branded a “russian stooge”.
    Dems really need to back off with the name calling and lying, it may be their ruination. Their corruption is over-exposed and one wonders who is minding the store? The FBI?

  40. Tulsi slaughters sacred cow. Shikha distressed.

  41. “Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism. And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.”

    This is plainly nonsense. A complete throwaway non-sequitur. The author has a weak intellectual argument. Meaning, I cannot discern what logic there is behind the argument.

    WRT Congresswoman Gabbard, the marketplace of ideas will quickly sort out whether she is ‘wrong’ (I use the term loosely) or not. Personally, I have great reservations (as in, are you nuts?!) about her domestic agenda, but her avowed determination to get us out of unproductive regime change wars is a refreshing change from the last quarter-century. The fact is, when the US engages in regime change, it invariably a) costs us a LOT of money, b) has a cost in blood, and c) inevitably fails miserably.

    To make peace with an enemy, you have to talk. To me, that is what Congresswoman Gabbard has done WRT Assad (and others). She continues to serve in the military, to her credit. Her motivation is quite simple: Save her brothers and sisters in arms from pointless and meaningless deaths. To the ‘keyboard warriors’ out there, what alternative do you offer? I suspect, not much. Just MOTS (More Of The Same).

    We can either choose to stay in these fruitless wars, or just get out of them. I opt to get out of them. The Congresswoman is completely correct on this point.

  42. Tulsi Gabbard Is Anti-War but Not Pro-Peace
    Her chumming around with the worst dictators is troubling.

    Shikha is on message for the progressive propaganda machinery.

    Here, Shikha, sit and beg for another treat! Good Shikha!

  43. The first time I’ve ever seen Shikha write an article attacking a Democrat!

    Of course, she’s attacking the least extreme Democrat. And she’s doing it with flat out contra-libertarian rhetoric.

    Seriously, why is she employed by Reason?

    1. Because Reason isn’t libertarian

  44. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com0-p

  45. How did this article get printed on Reason??? Oh so she believes in diplomacy, even with dictators, and does not stand for interventionism, she must be evil! I really thought this was a libertarian mag, and not some war hawk platform.
    In order for diplomacy and not war hawk interventionism to work, you MUST meet with dictators, even if you hate them! PERIOD! That does not make you an evil person. This article sounds way too progressive for my tastes!

  46. This article is absolutely awful. I assume the author thinks we should never try talking to Iran?

    I never thought I’d see the day that Reason takes a stance in favor of less talk, more war.

  47. I think Shikha catches way more flak than she deserves most of the time in her articles’ comments, but this one is especially poor. So now being non-interventionist and not wanting war is enabling oppression? What do you want, Shikha? Can’t have a cake and eat it too.

  48. Scott Ritter [a former UN arms inspector tweeted]:
    “I think that the alleged use of CW agent by the Syrian Government at both Khan Sheikhun and Douma were staged events by the White Helmets and SAMs[*]. I think the OPCW carried out a flawed investigation. I think Tulsi agrees with this proposition.”

    That the ‘chemical attacks’ were staged by Obama-funded terrorists should be front page news.

    *Syrian American Medical Society

  49. There is so much bad information in this article that I don’t know where to start. But first, you lied when you said, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people. It’s totally make-believe. Have you heard of the US petrodollar? You need to do some research and stop repeating the powers controlling the US empire. And the information regarding ISIS and other US and NATO invented terrorist groups, that’s used to overthrow governments.

    >

    Senate Rand Paul Teams Up With Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard To Stop The U.S. Arming Terrorists

    Mar 14, 2017

    According to a press release released Friday by the office of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Rand Paul has introduced their bill, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, in the U.S. Senate. The bipartisan legislation (H.R.608 and S.532) aims to prohibit any federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups.

    It would also prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries that are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.

    Gabbard said:

    “For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East, we should be focused on defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and using our resources to invest in rebuilding our communities here at home.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-13/rand-paul-teams-tulsi-gabbard-stop-us-arming-terrorists

  50. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act Introduced in Senate

    March 6, 2017

    The Stop Arming Terrorists Act prohibits U.S. government funds from being used to support al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. In the same way that Congress passed the Boland Amendment to prohibit the funding and support to CIA backed-Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980’s, this bill would stop CIA or other Federal government activities in places like Syria by ensuring U.S. funds are not used to support al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ISIS, or other terrorist groups working with them. It would also prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups.

    https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/gabbards-stop-arming-terrorists-act-introduced-senate

  51. Israeli Intel Chief: We Don’t Want ISIS Defeated In Syria

    June 23, 2016

    Israeli officials have regularly expressed comfort with the idea of ISIS conquering the whole of Syria, saying they find it preferable to the Iran-allied government surviving the war.

    In a speech at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevy, took Israel’s long-standing position that it “prefers ISIS” over the Syrian government to a whole ‘nother level, declaring openly that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in the war.

    Quoted in the Hebrew-language NRG site, linked to Maariv, Maj. Gen. Halevy expressed concern about the recent offensives against ISIS territory, saying that in the last three months the Islamist group was facing the “most difficult” situation since its inception and declaration of a caliphate.

    Israeli officials have regularly expressed comfort with the idea of ISIS conquering the whole of Syria, saying they find it preferable to the Iran-allied government surviving the war. At the same time, they were never so overtly supportive of ISIS and its survival.

    Halevy went on to express concern that the defeat of ISIS might mean the “superpowers” leaving Syria, saying this would put Israel “in a hard position” after being so opposed to the survival of the Syrian government.

    He then said Israel will do “all we can so as to not find ourselves in such a situation,” suggesting that the Israeli military is looking at direct support for ISIS as a matter of policy, and not just rhetoric.

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/israeli-intel-chief-dont-want-isis-defeated-syria/217671/

  52. The Demise of the Petrodollar and the End of American Power

    Nov 25, 2014

    The Colder War by Marin Katusa

    Marin Katusa’s blockbuster New York Times best selling book, “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped from America’s Grasp.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi_k29_syeQ

  53. How The Petrodollar Trade Works For The U.S. Explained

    You maybe asking yourself, why is the United States invading so many countries?

    What’s the reason for the United States and NATO wanting to invade and overthrow Iran, Venezuela and other countries?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofcnVIP_u8

  54. “Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith” – then why are you spreading misinformation and fear of hinduism? Many indian communists in USA do the same.

    India is billions of people, though our crime rates are lower compared to chicago, everyday hundred of people would be killed in crimes across the country. Here you are generalising an argument reported few days ago. You have nothing on the 40,000 killed in Kashmir terrorism, hindu pundits being driven out of their homes. Yet, you are quite shameless to spread fear by citing an argument that happened somewhere in this vast country.

    Whichever faith you are raised in, please avoid spreading slander. Dear Sikha, you can’t blame America, nor hinduism for this fear that you are spreading. It is only your greed, your selfishness, your problem.

  55. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do…… HERE ☛ .www.huge.cash61.com

  56. What is this neo-“conservative”, war-mongering bullshit?!?
    I thought I went Reason.com, but this must be the Jeb Bush 2020 Campaign Committee’s website….

  57. I wrote an article April 29, Corporate Media Smears Pro-Peace Candidate Tulsi Gabbard

    This propagandist’s article now appears as the 2nd search result when you google my article’s title.

    https://medium.com/@allycat0126/corporate-media-smears-pro-peace-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-83e13bbf6844

  58. Oh, Dear God in Heaven.

    There. Is. No. Evidence. That. Assad. Gassed. “His.” “Own.” People.

    This is obvious Fake News, and has been debunked by numerous, highly credible people, including, but not limited to an MIT professor emeritus that has trained most of the actual experts in chemical warfare. Nothing this idiot (Dalmia) writes is credible.

  59. This piece is full of Security State propaganda. The fact that this author is employed by the Reason Foundation makes me now question everything you guys produce.

Please to post comments