Tulsi's Response and Tulsi's Budget Support
Tulsi put together a YouTube vid describing why she voted for HRes246. Although nominally an anti-BDS resolution, stating that the government does not support BDS, the text of the resolution does, indeed, support the rights of people to support BDS and does not allow the free speech of people in support of BDS to be legislated against (as the infamous bill S1 does). She states she supports a two-state solution, but personally believes BDS is not the way to achieve it.
I personally sent her a letter (via two different contact routes) asking her why she did this, as did quite a number of supports on social media (reddit, twitter, Faceslap, others), so it is good to see this response. As to whether you can accept it, that's up to each of us (I probably can--I'm under the impression it effectively knee-caps S1).
In another questionable move, Tulsi supported passage of the 2-year amendment to the budget (HR3877). Of major note, this budget confirms a defense bill of $740 billion for each year. This seems wholly at-odds with Tulsi's desire to wind down defense spending in favor of domestic spending.
It should be noted, though, that Tulsi successfully got two of her amendments into this budget deal. The first is the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, where the US could no longer directly fund or sell arms to ISIS or Al-Queda friendly groups, as we have been doing in Syria. The second is a bill is the No More Presidential Wars Act, which expressly forbids the president launching an attack against either Iran or Venezuela without congressional approval.
Finally, Tulsi voted against a bill (which passed the House anyways) that effectively provides unlimited financial support for Israel among other terrible things.
Concluding for myself--Tulsi's votes and reasonings are at least thoughtful if nothing else. I think this addresses most of my concerns. Yes, the budget thing is not great, but it was going to pass anyways--and Tulsi is not president yet--and she had an opportunity to get two of her big acts folded into it at the same time. When it comes to politics, that's kind of the way it has to be played by less-influential members of the congress much of the time, even though it sucks. They probably told her they would include her bills if she voted for it, otherwise they'd take them out kind of thing.
Interested in all your opinions. I'm going to continue to support her.
Comments
HR 3877 could have been much worse
The accepted increased Pentagon budget for the next fiscal year by the House was a compromise that resulted in:
Given the way congress works, istm to be quite an unfair jump to suggest that she and other progressive congresspeople necessarily voted in favor of American imperialism, the war machine, etc.
Turns out the budget isn’t that big a deal.
If I read it correctly, the budget bill plays games with the “debt ceiling”, but isn’t actually appropriating money. For the military, that would be in the NDAA (and the VA appropriations, which always includes military construction. And the Energy bill, for nuclear weapons). I assume the NDAA will be the biggest ever, and will get a supermajority, but I’ll still be looking to see how Tulsi votes.
This photo says it all
That's Tulsi and her pal Miriam Adelson.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Well, evidently not
Since she voted against Israel's interests above. Thanks for playing, though . . .
Seriously, this type of comment/attack is so useless. Look at the discussion between Rogan and Cornel West above, in the first 10 or 12 minutes, West comments how people attack each other with half truths and non-specific generalizations.
Do you believe she loves Assad? They took a picture together! Holy fuck!
If you have evidence that Tulsi and Adelson are best buds, fine, please present it. If you have evidence Tulsi is supporting Sheldon Adelson's agenda, please let us know--in detail--how she is furthering this agenda. There are many photos of Trump and Hillary together, and just about every politician has photos with their adversaries.
As West says, what you present is a conversation with half truths and without content. It contributes to division, and dumbing down of argumentation.
"This Photo Says It All" is bullshit. It says very little, really.
I found this after doing some
I found this after doing some digging. It is interesting how they all sound similar when it comes to Israel-related politics.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
OK, I watched the video.
It's from a CUFI meeting in 2015. She spoke about "Islamic extremism", and the need to fight it. I only heard one oblique (possible) reference to Palestinians, when she mentioned a missile defense system. She never spoke about Palestinians per se. And she was obviously a big supporter of Israel.
OTOH, that's only part of the story. I also dug up something: https://forward.com/news/israel/417510/tulsi-gabbard-zig-zags-on-israel-...
Yes, it's a Jewish web site, but it doesn't seem like a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. The article highlights her opposition to regime-change wars, and notes that she spoke out against Israel's behavior in Gaza. Unfortunately, concerning Israel, I'm skeptical that she'll come to see the connections between U.S. support and Israel's behavior regarding their Muslim citizens and neighbors.
This
Tulsi admits here that she doesn't think BDS is the way to go about getting a two state solution. This is one of the only things people can do to punish Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. Besides congress voted for it right after Israel demolished a bunch of Palestinian homes.
And don't lie to me and say that you fought for my freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is bullshit of the highest order because we went into Iraq for its oil and to remove Saddam after he wanted to sell his oil in a way this country doesn't approve of. Millions of Iraqis are dead and it wasn't done to protect my freedoms. Besides, Tulsi, you should know that most of them are gone since Bush passed the patriot act!
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
The whole two-state solution
The whole two-state solution is a diversion, a farce meant to pacify people and be used as a shield.
The context of a two-state solution would perhaps make more sense if we were dealing with two powers working out the border lines, like a neighbor dispute on where they can plant their tree and wondering if they are on their property line or not.
Instead, you have one power supported by the richest and most powerful country in the world who is doing land grabs while the other "power" is in an open-air prison. Palestine continues to shrink while Israel grows, yet we are told we need to do a two-state solution. Pretty soon it will be a one-state solution, aka all of Israel.
BDS is one of the few implements available to people to protest against Israel. In essence, so much focus on Israel truly showcases how that country owns the United States. Those who say they support Palestine but focus on the "two-state solution" and say we can't use things like BDS have no concern about Palestine. You either support the Palestinian people or you don't.
You have 195-197 countries in the world:
193 in UN
2 observer states with the Holy See and Palestine (and the other two get debated being Kosovo and Taiwan).
Apparently, for many, it should be illegal to protest 1 nation out of all 195-197 countries of the world.
All of our politicians bow before Israel; their PM can come and speak before Congress whenever the PM pleases to standing ovation.
We have an entire PAC devoted to Israel with AIPAC and people worry about the "influence" of Russia?
Let me know when there is an American Russia PAC (ARPAC) that owns the United States political system.
Edit: Land was corrected from "lang".
Good one, SD
You wrote:
Brilliant!
Interesting that
two of the leading Left voices on I-P issues, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, both oppose BDS.