16
   

Tulsi Gabbard Is Having A MAGA Moment After Her Debate Performance.

 
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 09:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
On the last Saturday of August 2013, Labor Day weekend, the United States was once again about to go to war in the Middle East.

Less than two weeks earlier, in the middle of the night on August 21, the Syrian military had attacked rebel-controlled areas of the Damascus suburbs with chemical weapons, killing nearly 1,500 civilians, including more than 400 children. Horrific video footage showing people with twisted bodies sprawled on hospital floors, some twitching and foaming at the mouth after being exposed to sarin gas, had ricocheted around the world. This brazen assault had clearly crossed the “red line” that President Barack Obama had enunciated a year earlier—that if Assad used chemical weapons, it would warrant U.S. military action.

Heading into the long weekend, the Pentagon had made plans for round-the-clock staffing, since we thought the military operation would start over the holiday. As the assistant secretary of cefense for international security affairs, I had been involved in the deliberations and planning for the strikes. Yet early Saturday morning, I received a call from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s office with surprising news: The president had called Hagel late the night before and told him he “wanted to explore another option.” Instead of ordering strikes immediately, the president wanted to pump the brakes and first go to Congress to ask for its authorization.

So when the president stepped into the sunny Rose Garden that Saturday morning, he announced that he had made two decisions: first, that the U.S. should act against Syria, and second, that he would seek explicit authorization from Congress to do so. With that, the administration set out on a different campaign than the military one we had been preparing for: to convince the American people that intervening in Syria was in the country’s interest.

What transpired over the next month was one of the most controversial and revealing episodes in eight years of Obama’s foreign policy. Despite the administration’s strong advocacy and support from a small minority of hawkish politicians, Congress and the American people proved strongly opposed to the use of force. In the end, however, the threat of military action and a surprise offer by Russia ended up achieving something no one had imagined possible: the peaceful removal of 1,300 tons of Syria’s chemical weapons (there have been reports of stray weapons and widespread use of industrial chemicals like chlorine, but no evidence of systematic deception on the part of the Syrian government).

By October 2013, without a bomb being dropped, the Bashar Assad regime had admitted having a massive chemical weapons program it had never before acknowledged, agreed to give it up and submitted to a multinational coalition that removed and destroyed the deadly trove. From my perspective at the Pentagon, this seemed like an incontrovertible, if inelegant, example of what academics call “coercive diplomacy,” using the threat of force to achieve an outcome military power itself could not even accomplish.

Yet the near unanimous verdict among observers is that this episode was a failure. Even the president’s sympathizers call the handling of the red line statement and its crossing a “debacle,” an “amateurish improvisation” or the administration’s “worst blunder.” They contend that Obama whiffed at a chance to show resolve, that for the sake of maintaining credibility, the U.S. would have been better off had the administration not pursued the diplomatic opening and used force instead. In this sense, a mythology has evolved around the red line episode—that if only the U.S. had used force, then it could have not only have addressed the chemical weapons threat, but solved the Syria conflict altogether.

According to U.S. estimates, at more than 1,300 metric tons spread out over as many as 45 sites in a country about twice the size of Virginia, Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons in 2013 was the world’s third-largest. It was 10 times greater than the CIA’s (erroneous) 2002 estimate of Iraq’s chemical weapons stash, and 50 times larger than the arsenal Libya declared it had in late 2011. Because of the size and scope of the threat, Syria’s chemical weapons were the administration’s top concern during the first several years of the crisis. I spent the better part of two years worrying over what to do about them.

So when I first heard about Obama’s decision to take the question of using military force in Syria to Capitol Hill, I was shocked. I had been in most of the White House meetings about Syria up to that point, and while the issue of legal authorities and Congress had come up, it was clear the president had all the domestic legal authority and international justification he needed to act. The idea of asking for a congressional vote had never been discussed at length; some had suggested we should ask for a vote, but there was skepticism it would pass, and therefore a feeling the question should not be asked. For an administration that prized careful and inclusive deliberation, it was unusual that a decision this big would arise so suddenly without first being thoroughly pored over in the interagency process.

But once the surprise wore off, I found myself thinking that, while abrupt, unexpected and unorthodox, this was the right move. Not for any legal reason or question of constitutional powers, but because after a decade of war in the Middle East, Congress and the American people needed to be fully invested in what we were about to do and prepared to accept the consequences.

The civil war in Syria had dominated the news for more than two years, but few politicians had thought deeply about it, relieved that it was not their problem. None were happy to share the responsibility of being accountable for what America would or would not do about the violence. And, in fact, now that they did share the responsibility, it became clear that they were as uncertain as the administration had been about the risks of using force—and fears of the possible consequences.

For two weeks, the administration made its case on Capitol Hill, but it soon became clear that most Republicans and Democrats in Congress were against authorizing action—leaving Obama the option of going forward anyway (which he said he would do) or backing down altogether. Then, an unexpected opportunity emerged: During a September 9 news conference in London, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked whether there was anything Assad could do to avoid an attack. Sure, Kerry said in exasperation, the Syrian leader could admit that he had chemical weapons (something he still refused to do) and give them all up peacefully, but “he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.” Like Obama’s original red line a year earlier, this offhand remark wasn’t intended to be a policy pronouncement. But soon after Kerry walked off the stage he received a call from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who was then meeting with a delegation of Syrian diplomats in Moscow and wanted to talk with the secretary of state about his “initiative.”

Washington and Moscow had deep disagreements over Syria. Russia continued to be one of Assad’s few international backers and, importantly, the Syrian military’s chief supplier. But even Moscow worried about Syria’s chemical weapons. And though earlier talks of U.S.-Russian collaboration to deal with Assad’s stockpile had never led anywhere, the credible threat of U.S. military force suddenly changed the calculation. Now, Moscow was ready to pressure Assad to comply with Kerry’s offhand demand. Maybe this reflected Russian concerns about the proliferation of chemical weapons; or perhaps this was driven by the Kremlin’s desire to keep an ally in power; or possibly Russian leaders were simply trying to stay relevant geopolitically. Whatever the reason, the next day, following a meeting with the Russians in Moscow, the Syrians publicly admitted for the first time that they had chemical arms and committed to signing the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty banning such weapons. The Syrians were pledging to come clean—and not just to reveal what they had, but to get rid of their chemical weapons altogether.

Initially, the Obama administration approached the Russian offer, and Syria’s compliance, skeptically. Putin and Assad had every reason to want to delay U.S. military action. Moreover, the idea of dismantling Syria’s stockpile was daunting—there seemed to be thousands of steps before we could be sure something like this had any hope of working. But Obama wanted to test the proposition. After all, if not using force enabled the U.S. to achieve something that was unquestionably in its security interests and had once seemed impossible, how could he not consider taking such a deal?
With U.S. Navy ships still ready to launch strikes, American and Russian diplomats spent several days hammering out the specific steps Syria would take to allow international inspectors to find, remove and destroy its chemical arms. The Syrians signed on, and the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal, while also authorizing international action if Assad failed to comply. In just a matter of weeks, the administration had gone from plotting over how to deal with one of the world’s largest arsenals of chemical weapons to implementing a plan to eliminate all of them.



More at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059

Wish we had 8 more years with Obama. A thoughtful President, probably the last of his kind.

As opposed to:

Quote:
During a January 2017 trip to Syria, Gabbard met with Assad. She also said in February of this year that "Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States."

Gabbard also opposed President Barack Obama's request to use military force in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons against his people in 2013.


I wish we had went to war with Assad's regime along with ISIS, however it appears congress didn't want to and other factors weighed in. Still wish we ignored congress and those other factors. The people of Syria are still suffering.

Quote:
Can Syria rebuild with Assad still in power?

https://www.ft.com/content/fb2263e8-2477-11e9-b329-c7e6ceb5ffdf
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 02:07 pm
@snood,
You’re turning into quite the brown shirt. Tulsi chose to speak to Assad directly about events in the fighting in Syria. Sanders chose to speak directly to Fox viewers and Joe Rogan’ audiences. It’s a better world when people speak directly rather than wait for approval from the likes of a bunch of sniffling self-important people who think they can decide what’s ok for people to say to who.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 03:14 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
"Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States."


She was right.

You might think that as an enemy of his own people we should have overthrown him, but that can as easily be described as warmongering as Gabbard's view being one of appeasement.

The Islamists have, for some time, wanted to see Assad out of power in Syria. Does that mean that you (having the same view) makes you siding with them?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  6  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 04:50 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Sanders chose to speak directly to Fox viewers and Joe Rogan’ audiences.

Because speaking with Joe Rogan is totally comparable with speaking with a mass-murdering tyrant.

Lash wrote:
You’re turning into quite the brown shirt.

Yeah, Snood. When you're disgusted at Tulsi's prevarication about a fascistoid regime that's waged the biggest mass murder of this century, and in particular about the "peace advocacy" trip she made with officials of an actual fascist party to meet Assad, that makes you the brownshirt.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 05:25 pm
@nimh,
I'm surprised that you buy into the absurd notion that Gabbard is somehow a crypto-fascist because she dared to speak with Assad and attempt to prevent the US from getting involved in yet another interminable Middle-east war.

Apparently, you might like us to lose young lives and treasure when it comes to a war against a Middle Eastern tyrant you find noxious, however, why do I feel so certain that if we went to war with Syria you would be among the voices condemning such action?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2019 06:06 pm
@nimh,
No one has reported any prevarication by Gabbard. If you have a good source on a lie she’s told about it, that would be definitive. Share it. Straighten out the shadowy accusations.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2019 03:36 am
@nimh,
If you have proof of a meaningful lie told by Tulsi Gabbard around her conversation with Assad, bring evidence of it. I’d like to know the truth.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2019 04:37 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
She did not 'side' with Assad.

She treated Assad as if he wasn't a horrible mass murderer.

What if she'd respectfully interviewed Usama bin Ladn about what it was like to be a successful businessman while avoiding the subject of terrorism?

If this were 1939, she'd be sharing photos of her day at the beach with Adolf Hitler.

It's just wrong.
snood
 
  7  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2019 08:43 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Lash wrote:
She did not 'side' with Assad.

She treated Assad as if he wasn't a horrible mass murderer.

What if she'd respectfully interviewed Usama bin Ladn about what it was like to be a successful businessman while avoiding the subject of terrorism?

If this were 1939, she'd be sharing photos of her day at the beach with Adolf Hitler.

It's just wrong.


A sign of the Apocalypse. I agree with Oralloy about something.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2019 04:02 am
@Real Music,
Quote:
I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard.

I am just pointing out who her fans are.

It appears that conservative pundits support Tulsi Gabbard because they hope that she will cause division in the democratic party.

It also appears that Russia supports Tulsi Gabbard because they also hope she will cause division in the democratic party.

As noted elsewhere, two to three weeks ago, Lash admitted that the real reason for her support of Gabbard was that Gabbard was doing damage to Kamala Harris' candidacy.

This is precisely the sort of activity we can expect from Russian troll accounts (or others of like mind) seeking to hurt strong Dem candidates through sewing division and discord. Let's not be dumb about this.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2019 09:57 am
@blatham,
Says the Canadian leftist propaganda troll! Very Happy
blatham
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2019 08:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm interested in buying America.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2019 11:55 pm
@blatham,
It reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s campaign email directing the campaign’s journalist sycophants to give increasing attention to Trump, Ben Carson and other marginal Republican candidates in hopes of boxing out Bush and some of the other ‘stronger’ candidates. Clinton thought if a weirdo like trump was elevated to the nomination, she could win.

Berners know that Mike Gravel, Liz Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard—because they share agreement with Bernie policies—help him on a debate stage. Nothing Russian about that.

Definitely something anti/democratic and disgustingly nefarious about what Hillary Clinton did.

I bet you guys wet the bed about Russia ever night. The real boogeymen is the Democrat party.
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 07:22 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Berners know that Mike Gravel, Liz Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard—because they share agreement with Bernie policies—help him on a debate stage. Nothing Russian about that.

That's your second dishonesty. What you wrote was that the important aspect of supporting Gabbard was the damage it did to Kamala Harris's candidacy. That's the Russian/GOP game and you're playing it.

If you want to describe what you say Clinton's team did and what you are now doing as "anti/democratic and disgustingly nefarious", fine.
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 10:58 am
@blatham,
She has confirmed my suspicions. I always suspected she was a Russian Connie plant.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 02:40 pm
@RABEL222,
Damn those Connies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 05:31 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
She has confirmed my suspicions. I always suspected she was a Russian Connie plant.
Not sure if you are making a joke here. But if you aren't, I'd wager the chances of that are about zero.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 05:54 pm
@blatham,
Hurting a competing campaign helps another campaign.

Tulsi also shares more views with Bernie and Warren than the establishment candidates.

Both are true. You just seem to be trying to turn a basic, widely-known statement into something weird. A need to say Russia?
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 05:57 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

She has confirmed my suspicions. I always suspected she was a Russian Connie plant.

Bumbling illiterate keystone kops, chasing down the resident Connie...
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2019 07:46 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Tulsi also shares more views with Bernie and Warren than the establishment candidates.


She's still on a losing track.

Next.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/30/2020 at 07:13:49