Presidential Aspirant Tulsi Gabbard: Unqualified for Being Anti-War

Presidential Aspirant Tulsi Gabbard: Unqualified for Being Anti-War

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

US anti-war presidential aspirants are automatically disqualified from holding the nation’s highest office or any congressional leadership position.

The only bonafide US anti-war president in modern times was eliminated for transforming himself from a warrior to peacemaker in office. The lesson of Jack Kennedy is burned into the consciousness of his successors.

No anti-war US presidential aspirant ever had a chance to win out over warrior challengers.

Many candidates for the nation’s highest office campaigned for peace over war, notably Obama and Trump most recently.

Like the vast majority of other politicians, they said one thing on the issues, then governed another way in office — serving privileged over popular interests.

So a disclaimer is warranted. Whatever politicians say on the stump may, and most often is, ignored when elected.

That said, here’s where Gabbard stands on the issue of war and peace — from the OnTheIssues website:

“No regime change in Iran; no war in Yemen,” no Cold War 2.0 arms race with Russia.

As president, she’ll rejoin the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal, illegally withdrawn from by Trump.

She voted twice to repeal the illegal 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), near-unanimously passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush/Cheney — based on Big Lies.

Only Security Council members are authorized to approve war by one nation against another — permitted only in self-defense, never preemptively.

No foreign power attacked the US since Britain in the war of 1812 — including not on 9/11, the mother of all state-sponsored false flags, wrongfully blamed on bin Ladin and “crazed Arabs” who had nothing to do with events on that fateful day.

Gabbard: “No more wars for regime change, like Syria and Afghanistan”

She opposes all US-led “regime change (hot) wars” and ones by other means against Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. She’s against near-open checkbook military spending.

A US army reserve major, she’s an Iraq war veteran, “a war that was based on lies,” she said.

Earlier she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. She accused US ruling authorities of “quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham, and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government,” adding:

“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.” 

She’s likely the only congressional member boldly stating the above cold hard truths publicly to her credit.

Along with meeting with Assad in January 2017, toured parts of Syria, seeing firsthand how US aggression harmed millions of civilians.

She called all anti-government forces terrorists, saying so-called moderate rebels don’t exist, stressing “(t)hat is a fact,” on return home expressing “even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.”

She opposes illegal nuclear related sanctions on Iran, stressing the country’s full compliance with its JCPOA obligations.

Gabbard: The “US government lied to American people to launch the Iraq War.” 

She should have said all US post-WW II wars were and continue to be based on Big Lies and deception. They’re illegal under international and US constitutional law.

Gabbard: “(A)s president and commander-in-chief, I will end these regime-change wars.”

Earlier she said “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

At the time, she should have explained that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded terrorist groups wouldn’t exist if the US hadn’t created them.

Her congressional record is mixed at best. She supported Hillary in 2016, despite her militantly pro-war, pro-Wall Street, anti-social justice agenda.

Since elected to Congress in November 2012, she voted along Dem party lines most often. She supported supplying Ukrainian putschists with weapons to be used for war without mercy on Donbass freedom fighters and civilians.

She falsely accused Russia of “degrad(ing) the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” No “Russian aggression” exists anywhere — a US, NATO, Israeli speciality.

She voted for the unconstitutional House-passed anti-BDS resolution — siding with Israel over Palestinian rights on this crucial issue, and the right of Americans to criticize the Jewish state unobstructed.

She supported the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) — imposing illegal sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea.

While opposing nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, she co-sponsored legislation, opposing its legitimate ballistic missile program, imposing illegal sanctions on the country.

The bottom line on Gabbard is while she’s on the right side of some issues, notably on war and peace, she’s far from true blue.

She deserves credit for saying “Donald Trump and warmongering politicians in Washington have failed us.” 

“They continue to escalate tensions with other nuclear armed countries like Russia and China, and North Korea, starting a new Cold War, pushing us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.”

“As president, I will end this insanity.” With polls showing she has scant support, and establishment media hostile to her anti-war views, she has little chance of becoming US president.

During this week’s Dem presidential “debate,” she ripped fellow aspirant Kamala Harris’ disturbing record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, saying the following:

“(W)hen you were in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people’s lives, you did not and worse yet in the case of those who are on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.”

“There’s no excuse for that and the people who suffered under your reign as prosecutor. You owe them an apology.”

It’s early in the race, but if this criticism continues, establishment figure Harris on the wrong side of most issues could be eliminated from contention long before November 2020.

The problem is that no matter who becomes Dem nominee to face Trump, privileged interests will win likely virtually every time before.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at


My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: