Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 10, 2019

"It just shows," says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, "that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth."

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris's record as Attorney General of the State of California.

The "smear campaign" refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite.

The Gabbard-Harris exchange was brief but revealing, as a window into a schism in the Democratic Party.




Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In the above video, starting at the 9:30 mark, they talk about Gabbard's opposition of the Military-Industrial-Complex ... and how the MIC is a bipartisan consensus that also explains why the D.C. Establishment, along with the prestige media, hates Gabbard with so much ridiculous gusto.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 01:25 PM | Reply

I'm a Bernie supporter, and I also like Andrew Yang ... but Tulsi Gabbard is someone I could also support.

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 01:30 PM | Reply


A lot of people I know in Hawaii feel that Tulsi, like her father, is a DINO who changed party affiliations to get elected.

Does that affect your decision?

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-10 01:40 PM | Reply

Andrew Bacevich, in his great book 'Breach of Trust', explains how difficult it is to challenge the MIC Establishment ...


Recall that during the Cold War, ideology -- rough agreement on the meaning of freedom, including religious freedom -- had made it possible to create such useful fictions as the West and the Free World.

Among inhabitants of these culturally heterogeneous realms, religion had become a private matter, not a hot-button political issue.

It was, therefore, irrelevant to the question of whether Western Europeans, Japanese, and South Koreans were willing to permit U.S. military garrisons in their midst.

Since the end of the Cold War, by contrast, the presence of U.S. forces among the peoples of the Islamic world has served chiefly as a reminder of religion-centered ideological dissonance -- sharp disagreement over what freedom should permit and religious duty entail.

In simplest terms, many Muslims resent occupation by armed infidels.

Resolving that disagreement -- and by extension repairing America's negative image in the Islamic world -- poses monumental challenges.

An obvious first step might be to stop engaging in behavior that Muslims find offensive, like stationing infidels in their midst.

Yet for members of a national security elite committed to the proposition that positioning American troops on foreign soil solves problems, acknowledging that such deployments may actually exacerbate them requires stores of honesty and self-awareness they do not possess.

It's like asking a boxing fan to acknowledge that the "sweet science" is no science at all but an artifact of primordial savagery.

So when someone like Tulsi Gabbard comes along and challenges the MIC Establishment, it's more than just the corruption of it all and who's getting paid -- it's also about literally changing the thinking of the people who are supposed to be the experts, which is why they see Gabbard as so threatening.

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 01:54 PM | Reply

A lot of people I know in Hawaii feel that Tulsi, like her father, is a DINO who changed party affiliations to get elected.

Does that affect your decision?


Nope, see above.

I'll vote for FDR's wheel-chair before I vote for Trump -- anyone but Trump.

Isn't there reports that Gabbard is very religious and was once Pro-life, and now she's Pro-Choice? If I'm wrong, then someone please correct me.

But if that is the case, that Gabbard is shallow and a opportunist, I don't care. No way can she ever be worse than what we have now -- anyone but Trump.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 01:59 PM | Reply

"Isn't there reports that Gabbard is very religious and was once Pro-life, and now she's Pro-Choice? If I'm wrong, then someone please correct me. "

Abortion is a subject that many of us have deep questions about, I've always been pro[-choice but I've also advised several young women to not have an abortion. There is a psychological component to abortion that can follow a woman around for a very long time, to pretend otherwise is naive but still it is that individual woman's decision, no one elses.

I found myself like what I read about Gabbard's views, I could easily support her. There was nothing in that article that I disagreed with and her views about the MIC and our "regime change" policies are spot on.

Also, her spat with Kamala Harris, sorry about that Kamala but your history is going to be brought up and I did not support her willingness to prosecute to the max back years ago, lives were ruined by such policies. I have opposed the war on drugs since its inception and never have I supported drug users, the DEA, etc.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-10 02:33 PM | Reply

-- anyone but Trump.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf

My issue with Trump isn't as much about his being an incompetent blowhard as it is his being a despicable human being.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-10 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Beautifully said Danni. Pro-choice myself, but that doesn't mean I want abortion used as regular birth control. I find it ethically questionable, and would be far more comfortable if we knew more about when consciousness truly begins - but I'm not about to argue with someone who's been through a traumatic rape, or even seeing all their best laid career and plans tumbling down over a broken condom in just the first trimester. Hence being also all for highly accessible birth control and education in the first place.

As for Gabbard herself, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over Trump. But she's about the only one. Ultimately, after everything else, I'm a single issue voter, and that's anti-war. Bernie might still make that category, he was my choice in 2016, but his age actually worries me now. The rest are unfortunately the usual batch of hypocrites and liars. Edwards has some great policy listed, but her plays to identity politics turn me off. All the other serious candidates are too interventionalist to ever have my vote. And not one of them reflects my views on borders, which dates back to the days Democrats stood for more border control while Republicans wanted cheap labor able to filter in easily.

#8 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-08-10 03:08 PM | Reply

My issue with Trump isn't as much about his being an incompetent blowhard as it is his being a despicable human being.


I agree 100%.

Trump is a total -------.

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 03:32 PM | Reply

Per the article ...

On her experiences in her first deployment in Iraq with a field medical unit of the Hawaii National Guard, and how they started to change her mind about the war:

We were lied to, and ... we were betrayed ... . This really wasn't about going after Al-Qaeda. This wasn't about fulfilling that mission of protecting the American people at all. It was a regime change war that was launched under the guise of national security, under the guise of humanitarianism, and, "Look at all these atrocities that this brutal dictator has done to his own people," and done really for the benefit of corporate interests and oil.

On the military's use of "Third Country Nationals" on bases in Iraq:

We started making friends with what were called the Third Country Nationals that were hired by KBR Halliburton to come and do things like clean the outhouses, or cook the meals in the chow hall, so we'd start to make friends with them and talk with them and go outside behind the tent, start cooking rice and sharing food, and just started asking them, "Hey, how much are you guys making? How are you being treated?"

It was outrageous to see. I mean, hearing, "Oh, I get paid $500 a month," a month, "to work 12-hour days, six, seven days a week." "How often do you get home to see your family?"

"Maybe once a year, but probably every other year."

And just knowing the billions of dollars these companies are making, and really to have this indentured servitude, it just, it went to, "Well this is the military industrial complex."

On her conclusions about the efficacy of foreign interventions:

We look at terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They have been born out of these wars, and have been strengthened because of these wars and interventions. So it's made us less safe, as a country. It has come at a tremendous cost to both our service members and their families ...

It's come at a tremendous cost to the American people, with the $6-plus trillion that's been spent since 9/11 alone. Families in Flint, Michigan right now, who are still being told, "Sorry, there's just not enough money to make sure you've got clean water ... " We're still spending $4 billion a month in Afghanistan.

I like what Tulsi Gabbard has to say.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-10 08:41 PM | Reply

She's anti-war (like all vets are) so that's a real danger to the money industry. I liked that Yang guy but then said he hated the 1st. Question over.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-11 01:46 AM | Reply

"while Republicans wanted cheap labor able to filter in easily."

Nothing has changed about that but they want a dog and pony show to please their base.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-12 09:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort