Tulsi hits back at those trying to smear her
I used to think that the establishment hated Bernie the most. After all, he threatened the profits of Wall Street and Big Pharma, and for that he will never be allowed to win.
But then Tulsi Gabbard ran for president, and I discovered that she threatens an even more powerful force - the MIC. They have set out to make sure she never even makes it into the debates. Anything goes.
But on the crucial issue of foreign policy she’s a dissenter... And for this she has been the target of the worst kind of smear campaign, one that was internally generated by a US funded, DNC-enabled, opposition firm. No longer is it enough to bomb or gas people overseas in false flag operations to keep the electorate braying for war.
Now it’s come to the land of mundane political campaigns.
...So the demonization of Tulsi Gabbard started before she even had a chance to officially enter the race. Because if there is one thing that unites the vultures in D.C. it is the threat of peace breaking out in the public discourse.
Not sending our young men to die and spending all of our money in pointless wars is a message that would unite voters on both the left and the right, and that's why she must be crushed before the presidential debates.
If you squint hard, you can almost tell they don't like her. Very subtle pic.twitter.com/duwKhrrUd1
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 2, 2019
What is cool is that Tulsi doesn't get rattled. I think that she knew what she was getting into, which just makes me admire her all the more.
Tulsi is a truth-teller.
We heard attacks from warmongers in politics/media before. Those opposed to Iraq/Libya/Syria regime change wars are called “dicatator-lovers” or “cozy” with evil regimes. Rather than defend their position, they resort to name-calling & smears. American people wont fall for this.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) February 6, 2019
Daaaammmn. That's gonna leave a mark.
But if you scroll down in the replies to this tweet, look at who commented - the most fanatical Russiagate group of all.
It just shows how the warmongers are all linked.
And then there was her appearance in the lion's den - MSNBC.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” she was asked outright if Assad is a foe of America.
“Assad is not the enemy of the United States,” Gabbard replied, “because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States.”
While noting that the American mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS, Gabbard said, “Many troops I hear from express frustration at the fact that our country continues to wage senseless, costly regime-change wars followed by nation-building missions leading to situations like we see in Afghanistan. So many examples of our troops being deployed, their lives put on the line, without understanding what the clear mission or objective is and how that mission actually serves the security of the American people and the United States.”
You mean selective moral outrage isn't a logical or smart foreign policy?
Liberal minds will explode at that.
Speaking of smart foreign policy.
In 2016, Gabbard said, “There is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, but common sense tells us that if we want to defeat ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups, we need to immediately end the illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”
That's like telling Flat Earthers that the world is round. You can't win by fighting both sides of a civil war, but liberals absolutely refuse to hear it.
Then there is the Russiagate crowd.
Greenwald cited a New York Times report that said New Knowledge was involved in an effort to mimic the tactics of Russian trolls in order to aid Sen. Doug Jones' campaign against Republican Roy Moore in Alabama. On this basis, Greenwald contended NBC's "whole story" on Gabbard "was a sham."
Ben Popken, one of the reporters behind the NBC story, responded to Greenwald's article in a series of tweets. Popken said there's "a lot wild conflation and hyperbole over New Knowledge," and he didn't feel it amounted to enough to reject the firm as a source.
LMAO. Of course not. Rejecting New Knowledge would require journalistic standards, and when it comes to smearing Tulsi there are no standards.