posted September 17, 2019 05:19 PM            

Tulsi Gabbard, the only real combat veteran of our era to choose politics, someone who knows Trump personally and gets along with him better than most, has made it clear here.

VT is behind her 100%, in this respect.

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has recently grabbed Donald Trump by the balls and told him something that he was obviously not expecting. “My fellow service members and I, we are not your prostitutes,” Gabbard said in response to Trump’s huffing and puffing about more wars in the Middle East for Saudi Arabia and Israel. “You are not our pimp.”[1]

The congresswoman was just getting started. She moved on to say:

“Mr. President, as you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you or your family and I never will. But your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country.”[2]

Trump, Gabbard said, seems to think that “pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief.”[3]

Gabbard continued: “Offering to place our military assets under the command of a foreign country—Saudi Arabia—is a disgrace and betrayal of my patriotic brothers and sisters in uniform and to our Constitution… Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s ***** is not “America First.”[4]

As I have argued in the past, it is somewhat premature to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing so far. In fact, her record is far better than numerous presidents, both past and present.

As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.[5] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least “360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have suffered brain injuries.”[6]

Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East—a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.

[Pics] Mom Gets Strange Feeling About Son-In-Law So She Decides To Check Old Holiday Photos

The Unusual Link Between Eggs And Diabetes (Watch)

Shocking: Newly Discovered Eel Packs a Record-Setting Punch – Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

posted September 17, 2019 11:04 PM            

Utter bullshiiite!

Your crystal ball needs a tuneup.

posted September 18, 2019 02:20 PM            

Trump: Saudis need to pay if they want US troops to stay in Syria

US President Donald Trump has said that Saudi Arabia might have to pay if it wants continuing US presence in Syria.

"We've almost completed that task [of defeating ISIL] and we'll be making a determination very quickly, in coordination with others in the area, as to what we'll do," said Trump on Tuesday during a White House press conference with leaders from three Baltic nations.

"Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision, and I said, 'Well, you know, you want us to stay, maybe you're going to have to pay'."

posted September 19, 2019 06:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Wait what’s the unusual link between eggs and diabetes??

---

posted September 19, 2019 06:20 PM            

Trump Asked Saudi King For $4 Billion So US Troops Can Leave Syria

The Washington Post has revealed that President Trump attempted to extricate US troops from Syria by asking ally Saudi Arabia to foot the bill for postwar reconstruction and "stabilization" projects in the area of northeast Syria currently occupied by US coalition forces, to the tune of $4 billion. The deal would involve US allies like Saudi Arabia moving into a lead position regarding coalition policy in Syria, while hastening a US exit.

Though the coalition continues to claim that its occupation of Syrian soil is toward anti-terror and humanitarian efforts, including the reestablishment of civilian infrastructure in a region previously controlled by ISIS, America's top general, CENTCOM chief Gen. Joseph Votel, admitted in congressional testimony this week that the Syrian government along with its Russian and Iranian allies have effectively won the war.

General Votel's very frank admissions on Syria stunned hawks like Senator Graham, who were looking for more muscular policy goals. The Washington Post summarized this part of the exchange as follows:

Trump Calls U.S. 'Locked and Loaded' If Iran Is Behind Saudi Attack

[A]sked on Tuesday in a Congressional hearing if Bashar al-Assad had “won”, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command, replied, “I do not think that is too strong of a statement. I think [Russia and Iran] have provided him with the wherewithal to be ascendant at this point.”

Senator Lindsey Graham asked Votel, “And it is not your mission in Syria to deal with the Iranian-Assad-Russia problem?” Graham asked Votel. “That’s not in your ‘things to do,’ right?”

The general replied, “That’s correct, senator.”

Votel declined to say whether he believed the US military should pursue that broader objective. And asked whether it was still policy that Assad must leave power, Votel said: “I don’t know that that’s our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS.”

However, US policy does remain fundamentally aimed at preventing Assad and his allies from reasserting control over oil and resource rich northeast Syria, and this is where Trump reportedly envisions the Saudis as having a greater role to play, taking the pressure off US forces.

According to the Washington Post the deal was articulated by Trump directly to Saudi Arabia's King Salman in a December phone call. The Post reports:

In a December phone call with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, President Trump had an idea he thought could hasten a U.S. exit from Syria: Ask the king for $4 billion. By the end of the call, according to U.S. officials, the president believed he had a deal.

The White House wants money from the kingdom and other nations to help rebuild and stabilize the parts of Syria that the U.S. military and its local allies have liberated from the Islamic State. The postwar goal is to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian partners from claiming the areas, or the Islamic State from regrouping, while U.S. forces finish mopping up the militants.

But missed (or more likely deliberately ignored) by the Post reporters is the central irony that Saudi Arabia could possibly "stabilize" anything in Syria at all. As the New York Times concluded in a lengthy investigation over the kingdom's role in fueling the rise of ISIS and directing the broader jihadist insurgency in Syria, the Saudis are "both the arsonists and the firefighters" in Syria and throughout the region.

Revelation of the $4 billion proposed deal comes as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is set to arrive in Washington on Monday for high level talks with US officials, including a Tuesday meeting with President Trump. The Saudi Embassy in Washington refused to comment on the offer, and neither side has yet confirmed or denied that a deal was reached or is in the works.

Last month the US announced a mere $200 million pledge toward reconstruction efforts in Syria - a paltry sum (considering total rebuilding costs have been widely estimated at $200-350 billion) perhaps intended to highlight the need of other countries to share in the burden. The Washington Post continues:

For Trump - who has long railed against insufficient burden-sharing by allies under the U.S. security umbrella - getting others to foot the bill for expensive postwar efforts is important. A $4 billion Saudi contribution would go a long way toward U.S. goals in Syria that the Saudis say they share, particularly that of limiting Assad’s power and rolling back Iran’s influence. By comparison, the United States last month announced a $200 million donation to the stabilization effort.

The more simple translation of Trump's message to the Saudis seems to be something like this: "Our occupation of Syria is costly. If you don't want Assad and Iran to regain the whole country, then you're invited to take over the occupation yourselves."

Judging by Trump's recent maneuvers with the Saudis and CENTCOM chief Votel's congressional testimony, it appears we are in for more long, painful mission creep and perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Syria with no end in sight.

posted October 20, 2019 04:11 PM            

…Watch the 6 minutes that has America searching Tulsi Gabbard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7-9qF0sMyk

http://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/this-is-a-real-warning-ex-campaign-aide-bluntly-states-clinton-didnt-go-far-enough-criticizing-tulsi-gabbard/

On MSNBC Saturday, former Clinton campaign official and director of SiriusXM progressive programming Zerlina Maxwell said that not only did Hillary Clinton do nothing wrong for criticizing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), she should have if anything gone even harder.
http://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/cnn-contributor-goes-to-bat-for-hillary-clinton-in-battle-with-tulsi-gabbard/

On CNN Saturday, commentator and Spectrum News reporter Errol Louis suggested that former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had a point in her criticism of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).

“Errol, this general narrative about Congresswoman Gabbard is not new, right?” asked anchor Victor Blackwell. “She hit back against her critics at the debate this week, those who said that she’s used Russian talking points, criticized her for meeting with Assad a couple of years ago. The question I have is, why? Why would Secretary Clinton go as far as she did to suggest that the Russians are grooming her? That suggests some interactivity here.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/malevolent-kraken-tulsi-gabbard-slammed-after-attacking-clinton-over-russian-asset-claim/
Democratic U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii launched an attack against her own party and her own party’s most-recent presidential nominee late Friday afternoon, as reports grew that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Russia is grooming an unnamed but current 2020 presidential candidate, a woman, to run as a third-party candidate.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/01/14/tea-with-assad-hugs-with-adelson-tulsi-gabbards-unique-views-on-israel-and-the-middle-east/

Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who announced her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 over the weekend, promised that her campaign will focus on “the issue of war and peace.” This statement alone sets her apart from all of the other candidates who have already announced their intentions for the next presidential race: She is the first, and possibly only, candidate who plans to make foreign and defense policy a central part of her platform.

This is especially true when it comes to the Middle East. Gabbard’s views and actions on this war-torn area can be described as unique and controversial. She has opposed recent U.S. military interventions in the Middle East, often citing her own experience of serving in Iraq to explain why she is so suspicious of American attempts to spread democracy or take down autocrats in the region. This has made her a favorite among many U.S. progressives, who are angry about the “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the same time, during her six years in Congress Gabbard has developed some surprising relationships with right-wing supporters of Israel who are affiliated with the Republican Party. Her contacts with such groups took place mostly during President Barack Obama’s time in the White House

In 2015, she spoke at a conference of Christians United for Israel – an organization that strongly opposes Palestinian statehood and supports Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The organization had a leading role in fighting Obama’s policies in the Middle East. CUFI’s leader, Pastor John Hagee, for example, is an outspoken supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump; Hagee was invited by the Trump administration to speak at last year’s ceremony marking the transfer of the US. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In 2016, Gabbard received an award from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a New Jersey-based rabbi with close ties to casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson (the largest donor to the Republican Party). A year before Gabbard attended Boteach’s gala dinner and received his “Champion of Freedom” Award, Boteach published full-page ads in leading U.S. newspapers in which he accused Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, of being responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. (Leading Jewish groups denounced the ads, and Boteach later apologized.)

A picture from the 2016 gala dinner, which Boteach uploaded to his Twitter account, shows him and Gabbard together with Miriam Adelson, the Israeli-born wife of Sheldon Adelson and a partner to his political donations to many GOP politicians.

Yet when Gabbard’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue are examined, it is clear that, at least over the past two years, she has expressed views that are far from those of Adelson and the CUFI. In January 2017, she published a statement in support of a two-state solution to the conflict (Adelson has described Palestinians as a made-up nation). In May 2018, she criticized Israel for its reaction to protests and riots on the Gaza border and, during the same month, also condemned Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (which she voted in favor of in 2015).
The most unique – and controversial – step Gabbard has taken when it comes to the Middle East was her January 2017 trip to Syria, during which she met with President Bashar Assad, who has emerged victorious from the country’s devastating civil war. Gabbard didn’t inform her party’s congressional leadership about the meeting with Assad, which she claimed was part of an attempt to “bring peace” to Syria. She was harshly criticized by politicians from both parties for taking the meeting.

Even before her trip to Syria, Gabbard expressed non-mainstream views on Syria. In November 2015, she introduced a bipartisan bill to “end the illegal war” against Syria. “The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attacks on 9/11,” she stated. The second war, she said, “is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world,” she continued. “Also, the war to overthrow Assad is illegal because Congress never authorized it.”

In 2016, Gabbard said, “There is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, but common sense tells us that if we want to defeat ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups, we need to immediately end the illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

This position is somewhat similar to that of Trump, who has made similar comments over the past few years. Trump has denounced Assad as an “animal” and twice used military force to punish him for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. But at the same time, he has insisted that the top priority for the United States. is defeating ISIS, and that Assad can remain in power

posted October 21, 2019 05:17 PM            

Opinion: How Hillary Clinton boosted Tulsi Gabbard

The Atlantic

In a podcast interview with a former Obama White House advisor, Clinton declared that one female candidate for 2020 was being “groomed” to be a third-party candidate by the Russians. She added that Tulsi Gabbard is “the favorite of the Russians.” – The Federalist

A growing number of 2020 Democratic candidates are rallying to Gabbard’s defense after Clinton’s claim – a claim Gabbard has decried as an unfounded smear. – The Hill

Gabbard sidestepped her clash with Clinton, striking a more conciliatory tone at a presidential forum in Iowa. The Hawaii representative on Sunday warned of "increasingly divided times
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-elevated-in-iowa-by-clinton-spat/ar-AAJ3voh?ocid=msn360

Tulsi Gabbard elevated in Iowa by Clinton spat

WEST BRANCH, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Clinton's suggestion this past week that Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russians to act as a spoiler in the 2020 race may have had the opposite effect of what the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee intended: It's elevated Gabbard's candidacy and may have inspired even more ardent interest in her campaign among Clinton critics

Saturday, Gabbard found fans among the many Clinton skeptics across Iowa, where Clinton barely won the 2016 Democratic caucuses against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"What is this horrible thing that Hillary said about you?" one person asked Gabbard at a house party in West Branch.

Gabbard responded that "it revealed the truth that I have been experiencing for a long time now — which is that, because I have been trying to bring about an end to our country's long-held foreign policy of waging one regime-change war after the next . I am labeled as a traitor."

"This is a message that is being sent to every single American . who speaks out for peace," she said.

Gabbard's longshot campaign came under scrutiny this past week after Clinton appeared on a podcast where she did not mention the Hawaii congresswoman by name, but said she believes the Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate." There was no mistaking whom she meant.

Although Russian interest in Gabbard is apparent, Clinton produced no evidence that Moscow is grooming or directly backing the congresswoman.

Gabbard's campaign has been promoted by Russian state-owned media and a number of alt-right websites and defended on Twitter by the Russian Embassy. She's previously faced controversy and criticism from leaders in her party for her unorthodox foreign policy positions, like her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad.

On Friday and Saturday, Gabbard refused to disavow the support she's seen from Russian actors and alt-right sites. But she repeatedly said she will not run as an independent or third-party candidate if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

And Gabbard encountered supporters across eastern Iowa on Saturday. During a campaign stop in Iowa City at a University of Iowa tailgate, a man came up to give Gabbard a ushanka-style yellow Hawkeye hat.

"It's a Russian hat!" Gabbard said with a laugh, before hugging the man and taking a picture with him.

And at the West Branch house party, Gabbard found many Clinton critics who were supportive of her campaign.

Clinton's comments were "divisive and despicable," said Patricia McIntosh, 83, a semi-retired university employee who liked Gabbard's "anti-regime-change message." McIntosh said: "I have no respect for Hillary Clinton at all."

Robert Rodriguez, a 35-year-old food delivery driver, drove from Minneapolis to see Gabbard speak. He, too, appreciated Gabbard's anti-war stance and said Clinton had "sowed division in this primary" with her critique. He also noted Gabbard's support from some alt-right websites

He asked: "You have people praising candidates for being able to reach across the aisle and garner support from the so-called other side, but Tulsi's a problem because she has support from the other side? Isn't that what we want?"

Both Rodriguez and McIntosh described themselves as longtime Gabbard fans and skeptics of the Democratic establishment, and both said they weren't sure if they'd support the eventual nominee if neither Gabbard nor Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another anti-establishment candidate for president, didn't win.

But Gabbard also managed to win over some people who hadn't been familiar with her campaign, like Jennifer Rogers, a 38-year-old nurse from North Liberty, Iowa, who liked that Gabbard was a military veteran.

"I really like that she answers questions," she said. "She doesn't just shout talking points and campaign slogans." Rogers said she's been on the fence but "today I'm pretty convinced that I think she's going to be my candidate."

Still, it's unclear exactly what Gabbard hopes to achieve with her unorthodox campaign, as she's struggled to raise money and hit the polling threshold to make it on the debate stage. She has yet to qualify for next month's debate.

Gabbard has just three staff members on the ground in Iowa.

Asked whether she plans to add staff in any of the early states, Gabbard demurred.

She said she's "continuing to use every platform possible to reach voters directly" when asked about her path to the nomination, and wouldn't predict how she'd finish in Iowa. But she suggested that might not matter — even if she doesn't have enough delegates to win, "we're taking this all the way to the nomination."

posted December 02, 2019 02:35 PM            

Defense secretary confirms he shut down the probe into pardoned war criminal Gallagher on Trump’s direct orders

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper confirmed to reporters that President Donald Trump personally ordered him to allow pardoned Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher to retire while keeping his trident pin:

This follows the forced resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer after pushing back on the president’s opposition to the Navy’s administrative investigation into Gallagher, who along with multiple other SEALs was facing revocation of his pin for taking a photograph with the corpse of a teenage military prisoner.

Gallagher, whose case became a flash point for right-wing pundits, faced a court-martial for murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault on non-combatants, and obstruction of justice after his fellow SEALs turned him in for allegedly stabbing the prisoner with his hunting knife, firing weapons indiscriminately into civilian populations, and threatening to kill fellow troops who reported him.

posted December 02, 2019 04:45 PM            

Today, JAG is staffed with pearl clutching girlie boys and some in the Pentagon who think US military forces are the enemy.

President Trump made the right calls. The Sec Navy is gone, (not soon enough) and Trump has the military's back.

posted December 03, 2019 01:57 PM            

My darkest nightmare about Trump from 2016 is coming true — it’s worse than I feared

When Donald Trump was running his horrifying 2016 campaign for president, it was still quite difficult to imagine what an administration with the bloviating reality TV star at its helm would look like. But in one of the darkest articles I wrote at the time imagining a scenario for his potential presidency from the vantage of March 2016 — when I and many others still assumed a “President Trump” was an unlikely possibility — I foreshadowed a series of events disturbingly similar to those playing out in 2019.

In an article for Patch, I reacted to former General and Director of the CIA Michael Harden’s contention that if a President Trump acted on an idea that the candidate had been proposing — targeting the families of terrorists — the military would be obligated to disobey him.

Trump’s advocacy of war crimes on the campaign trail deeply disturbed me, and so I wanted to give readers an idea of what his words could actually mean if implemented. (Meanwhile, a Trump spokesperson complained that he was being taken “literally.”)

I wrote:

Picture this: Within the first month of Donald Trump’s inauguration, there is widespread unrest in the Middle East. An American embassy is attacked. There are several fatalities.

Furious, and looking to distinguish himself from President Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump pledges a retaliatory response so extreme no one will ever think of attacking the United States again. He gives an order he promised to give on the campaign trail, telling the military leaders to hunt down and kill any known family members of the terrorists.

Only the generals refuse.

It’s a wild scenario – but it’s not unthinkable. Trump’s entire campaign has been outlandish and unpredictable, and no one can confidently predict where it will take the country should he become president. If he’s taken for what he says on the campaign trail, though, military refusals of the commander in chief are as likely as not.

That exact scenario didn’t occur, of course. But Trump has embraced war crimes as president, just as he did as a candidate. He used his pardon power for service members accused of war crimes — and he has defended doing so in a frightening tweet:

The idea that military service members are supposed to be “killing machines,” and thus that we ought to let them get away with acting as such, is anathema and contrary to U.S. law. But by using his presidential authority to give cover for war crimes — and unprecedented move by a U.S. commander in chief in modern times — he is unequivocally encouraging others to do the same. He doesn’t want other soldiers to feel encumbered by trivial things like the laws of war.

The Nation wrote a headline on the matter that read: “Trump Doesn’t Care About War Crimes.” But that’s not quite right. He does care — he seems to think they’re actively a good thing that he wants to encourage, which is why he proposed them during the 2016 campaign. Adam Serwer, writing for the Atlantic, was more on point when he wrote recently: “Donald Trump is a war-crimes enthusiast.”

On the campaign trail, Trump frequently invoked a false story about General John Pershing crushing a Muslim insurgency in the Philippines with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, declaring, “There was no more radical Islamic terror for 35 years!” He vowed to impose torture techniques “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Trump declared that he would “take out the families” of terrorist suspects, assuring skeptics that the military would not refuse his commands, even though service members have a duty to refuse orders that are manifestly illegal. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

Although Trump was talked out of authorizing torture by his advisers, the president’s ardor for violations of the laws of war has manifested itself in his decisions to intervene in war-crimes cases on behalf of the defendants. In four separate cases since the beginning of his presidency, and for the first time in the history of modern warfare, an American president has aided service members accused or convicted of war crimes, against the advice of his own military leadership.

It seems Trump has also pursued another war crime he talked about a lot in 2016: stealing foreign oil as the spoils of war. Trump continues to talk about “keeping the oil” in Syria by using the U.S. military. Law professor James Stewart wrote recently in the Washington Post: “Keeping Syria’s oil could well constitute pillage — theft during war — which is banned in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Laws and Customs of War on Land.”

Last week, one part of the scenario from my 2016 article played out. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was ousted from his position in a dispute over one of the war crimes cases in which Trump intervened.

But to be honest, the reality is in some ways worse than I feared. I thought there could be mass resignations if Trump tried to actually implement his enthusiasm for war crimes. So far, that seems unlikely — Spencer’s objections seem to be the exception, not the rule. Even more devasting is that, though I didn’t write this at the time, I had simply assumed that much of the GOP would be aghast at Trump pursuing war crimes as policy. Instead, as it happens with almost everything else this president does, his Republican allies either shrugged or cheered him on.

When I asked the Pentagon in 2016 about the brutal and illegal scenarios Trump was proposing, it told me at the time: “We don’t usually deal with hypotheticals over here.” (This isn’t true, of course. The Department of Defense and the U.S. government broadly prepares for many future contingencies.)

It would have been better if we had all taken Trump’s “hypotheticals” more seriously.

Jeff McMahan, a philosopher who has written a book on the ethics of war, told me in 2016:

Report Advertisement

“It’s just imbecilic to say that what one needs to do when dealing with terrorists is go after their families,” said McMahan. “That’s what terrorism is: going after people’s families; killing or harming innocent people as a means of trying to affect the behavior of others.”

“Then, if he starts doing this, going after the families of terrorists, then he is a terrorist.”

The lasting consequences of Trump’s leniency and advocacy of war crimes is not yet entirely clear, and though they were the focus of my direst public warning about his presidency, they may not even be among the most horrifying part of his tenure. Trump’s neglect of Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria, his abusive treatment of migrants, and his empowerment of foreign dictators — to name just three examples — may arguably be worse. But pushing for the acceptability of war crimes in the United States, and lining up an American political party in defense of these actions, is a perilous precedent to set that can’t be undone. It’s impossible to know where it might lead.

posted December 03, 2019 02:35 PM            

No rational person would believe a word Cody Fenwick writes.

What's your excuse? Embarrassing

posted December 05, 2019 12:15 AM            

If you open up her jacket from behind you'll see the wind up screw, wind her up and watch her repeat the same canned phrases over and over without feeling..

posted December 05, 2019 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Tulsi Gabbard is the most vacant air headed moron Ive ever seen pretending to be a politician.

If you open up her jacket from behind you'll see the wind up screw, wind her up and watch her repeat the same canned phrases over and over without feeling..

Shes a clueless brainless moron

---

You're wrong.

Hillary The Corrupt has Tulsi Gabbard beat...hands down, in every metric of political stupidity.

posted December 05, 2019 03:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
I literally dont' care about Harris or her feelings.

And no you're wrong, Hillary Clinton is a very bright woman, ethical? Probably not that ethical. Power hungry , for sure. But shes not a vacant air headed moron like Gabbard.

---

Hillary The Corrupt would be the dimmest bulb in the marque...along with Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pee-Lousy.

posted December 23, 2019 12:00 PM            

Tulsi Gabbard Says Donald Trump Is 'Unfit to Serve' After President Commends Her For Voting 'Present' on Impeachment

Two days after President Donald Trump gave Representative Tulsi Gabbard "respect" for casting a neutral vote on his impeachment, she tweeted an earlier interview in which she said he was unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) meets with reporters at the inaugural Veterans Day L.A. event held outside of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on November 11, 2019 in Los Angeles, California.© Mario Tama/Getty Images Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) meets with reporters at the inaugural Veterans Day L.A. event held outside of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on November 11, 2019 in Los Angeles, California.
When it came to both impeachment articles—obstruction of Congress and abuse of power—Gabbard, a Democrat and presidential candidate, was the only member of the House to cast her vote as "present" instead of yea or nay on December 18.

Loading...

Despite her decisive break with the Democrats, Gabbard doesn't seem interested in accepting this past weekend's praise from Trump—a move that seems emblematic of the candidate's careful dance on impeachment thus far. While she's said the president committed wrongdoing, she's also blasted Democrats for the "tribal animosities" that have fueled their investigation to date.

"I give her respect. She didn't vote the other day. I give her a lot of respect. Because she knew it was wrong She took a pass," Trump said Saturday in West Palm Beach, Florida, according to USA Today.

In an apparent response, Gabbard posted her interview on The Hill TV's Rising segment on Monday. In it, she declined to explain her neutral vote on impeachment but maintained that the president's foreign policy decisions were counter to American interests and national security.

"Look, there is no question in my mind that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and commander in chief. I've said this over and over again," Gabbard told hosts Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti. "I am running for president to defeat him for that reason.

"He launched an illegal and unconstitutional attack launching missiles into Syria," Gabbard continued. "We don't see any of the talk in Congress about that."

She added that the president also tore up the Iran nuclear agreement and brought the United States closer to war with that nation.

When Gabbard first addressed her impeachment vote, she said that after reviewing the House Judiciary Committee's 658-page report, she decided the inquiry was simply too partisan, despite mounting evidence that Trump used U.S. foreign policy to serve his 2020 bid for re-election.

"I am standing in the center and decided to vote 'present,'" Gabbard said in the video. Though Trump violated the public trust and is "guilty of wrongdoing," she continued, the "removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

Gabbard's campaign did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment

posted December 27, 2019 04:14 PM            

Ugly new revelations about Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will ‘come back to bite Trump’: CNN panel

CNN panel discussing New York Times’ interviews with Navy SEALs who served with Eddie Gallagher — with one calling him “freaking evil” — turned to Donald Trump’s championing the former military member accused of war crimes.

In the interviews, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a medic in the platoon, told investigators, “You could tell he was perfectly okay with killing anybody that was moving,” while Special Operator First Class Joshua Vriens claimed, ‘The guy was toxic.”

Report Advertisement

Addressing the president’s intervention in Gallagher’s case, CNN host John Avlon started the conversation off by questioning former GOP lawmaker Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), “Here’s members of his own platoon saying the guy is freaking evil. The medic saying he was perfectly okay with killing anybody that was moving.”

Happy Holidays! As a special thanks for your support this year, you can get Raw ad-free for just $2 a week. Now until Dec. 31.

“Charlie Dent, my question to you is, there’s a tension here with Republicans supporting the military but also being a party of law and order and honor and this seems to have strayed from one well into undercutting credibility on the other,” he added.

00:00

00:45

“Look, if you are the president of the United States, you have a lot of power in terms of pardons and commutations and before one intervenes, he should get the facts, and he should listen to expert testimony,” Dent explained. “That’s one of the problems with this president. He operates on his gut and by intervening the way he did, he undermines the military and their processes and procedures.”

“Where they made some recommendations here, and the president simply ignored them,” he added. “He just simply knew better than those who spend a lot of time studying, considering all the facts of this case. and I think this is going to come back to bite the president.”

Co-host Alisyn Camerota jumped in to add, “He [Gallagher] was perfectly okay with killing civilians. He’s a psychopath. and, you know, I think that it does raise some questions about President Trump’s judgment.”

ADVERTISING

posted January 04, 2020 01:51 PM            

Tulsi: War With Iran Has Begun…with a sea of Trump lies…

Make no mistake: Trump’s actions are an act of war.

Taken without any authorization or declaration of war from Congress, seriously escalating this *** for tat conflict, pushing us deeper into an endless quagmire and dangerously undermining our national security.

I invite you watch this video message about why Trump’s actions are so incredibly shortsighted, damaging and dangerous for our country and then stand with me in sending a message to Trump and his neocon advisers — no war with Iran, no more regime change wars, and no more delay in bringing our troops home.

Click to watch

Millions of people voted for Trump because he promised the American people he would get us out of these stupid wars; that he would bring our troops home. But his actions don’t match his rhetoric. He has deployed 15,000 US troops to the Middle East, just in the last 8 months. We have more troops in the Middle East now than when he was elected.

This reckless stupidity will end with me as your Commander in Chief. We have no time to waste.

Are you with me?