But it isn’t one or another. One can think that Assad is a war criminal without advocating an invasion to remove him from power. But Gabbard seems to embrace the retarded thinking of, “I don’t want to invade Syria, therefore Assad isn’t a war criminal.”
I honestly haven’t heard her opinion on whether he is a war criminal. She has stated that both sides used gas in an interview (Rogan?). Safe to say she acknowledges Assad used gas.
Surprised you’re such a fan of hers considering her hawkish stance on Iran.
The only think I’m aware of her saying about Assad using gas is that she was “skeptical” and that it was “possible.”
When asked if she thought Assad is a war criminal, she dismissed the idea with a call for more investigations.
She doesn’t have a hawkish stance on Iran. You realize many have been calling for regime change and war on Iran for decades? That is hawkish.
Has the evidence been collected?
Why does the US president need to label every bad guy a war criminal? I would think you wouldn’t have a problem if she didn’t call Cheney a war criminal. Henry Kissinger. Etc.
Those that want to label Assad a war criminal do so in order to justify our disastrous intervention there. Pure hawk stance.
That’s in direct conflict to things she’s said in the past about Iran. https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/yes-tulsi-gabbard-iran-deal-war-hawk
Are you not familiar with major world events over the last few years? If not, don’t you think candidates for elected office should be, especially when they have met personally with Assad?
Not so. It’s perfectly rational to call Assad what he is and say that we don’t have business invading. Except that crackpots like Gabbard want to pretend that’s impossible.
See for example Barbara Lee: ““President Trump’s decision to launch military strikes against the Syrian regime – without congressional input or authorization – shows a contempt for the U.S Constitution and is without legal justification. The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government against innocent civilians is heinous. I fully support all international accountability mechanisms to prosecute these war crimes and to negotiate a political solution to the war in Syria. But as we’ve seen over the last 16 years, we cannot bomb our way to peace.”
In her own words, she’s a hawk, at least on “the war against terrorists”. Interesting to see her use very neocon language there.
The rise of Gabbard: No telling how far independent path will take her | Hawaii Tribune-Herald
Ok. Explain how the actionable differences between a policy of labeling Assad a war criminal and not bombing and not labeling him a war criminal and not bombing.
Then juxtapose Gabbard’s view with other contenders for the nomination.
Yes I look forward to hearing more from the candidates and I will compare their various statements and records as I do every election. Unfortunately, Gabbard is the only one saying anything remotely antiwar. I did applaud Warren as well. There will be no Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
The more I see of Gabbard, the more I think she’s trying to carve out a “Trumpy Democrat” space.
No thanks.
I’m not sure how the answer to the first question isn’t self explanatory: in the first case there is no bombing, and in the second case there is bombing. That’s a huge fucking difference.
I don’t think any other Democratic contender denies that Assad has something to answer for. I also don’t think any Presidential candidate is proposing to invade Syria.
Gabbard praises Mueller for not finding collusion between Individual 1 and Russia, and calls the Mueller inquiry partisan.
Tulsi Gabbard calls Mueller findings 'a good thing' in break from Dem candidates?
I got the impression she was just acknowledging the polarization that exists surrounding the investigation, and she’s not wrong. But I probably would have stopped short of saying that an indictment could have led to a civil war - that’s just encouraging the crazies.
And once again, for some reason Tulsi sides with Trump and the Republicans, this time lending legitimacy to the Barr memo.
Gabbard feels that the meritless Russian collusion witch hunt has forced Trump to show aggression and take positions against Russia and Assad to prove he has not been compromised not because they are the proper ones to take. She contends we may be closer to nuclear war than we ever have been as a result. Hillary was a pro war candidate. Trump was the peace candidate until the Deep State/ John Bolton/ Bill Krystol/ anti Ilhan Omar people got to him.
Tulsi appears to have a bit of a Jill Stein streak in her - a Bernie-Sis