Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on North Korea’s ICBM Test

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) released the following statement after North Korea’s recent successful Intercontinental Ballistic Missile test:

“North Korea’s latest successful intercontinental ballistic missile test further demonstrates the extremely dangerous and growing threat that North Korea poses to Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland United States. For the past fifteen years, our leaders have let the people of Hawaii and our country down, allowing the situation in North Korea to worsen to this point of crisis where we are left with nothing but bad options. We must ensure we are able to defend against North Korea’s threat with cutting-edge missile defense technologies, but this is not enough. We must pursue serious diplomatic efforts to de-escalate and ultimately denuclearize North Korea. However, U.S. leaders need to understand that Kim Jong Un maintains a tight grip on North Korea’s nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime change. The Trump Administration would be far more credible in finding a diplomatic solution with North Korea if we weren’t currently waging a regime change war in Syria, and contemplating a regime change war in Iran.

“The North Korean regime witnessed the regime change wars the U.S. led in Libya and Iraq and what we’re now doing in Syria, and fear they will become like Gadhafi who, after giving up his nuclear weapons program, was deposed by the United States.

“As long as the U.S. is waging regime change wars, we are far less likely to reach a diplomatic solution in North Korea because they have no reason to believe our promises. In fact, we are far more likely to see nuclear proliferation by countries like North Korea who see nuclear weapons as their only deterrent against regime change.

“Serious diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula will require an end to our regime change war in Syria and a public statement that the U.S. will not engage in regime change wars and nation-building overseas, including in Iran and North Korea. We should focus our limited resources on rebuilding our own country and seriously commit ourselves to de-escalating this dangerous stand-off with North Korea and negotiate a peaceful diplomatic solution.”

29 thoughts on “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Statement on North Korea’s ICBM Test”

    1. “We must ensure we are able to defend against North Korea’s threat with cutting-edge missile defense technologies”

      I call bullsh*t on that one. Our “cutting-edge missile “”defense”” technologies” are a big part of what is antagonizing North Korea. I like Tulsi but making a statement about Korea without even suggesting that we should just f**king leave the peninsula comes across a wee bit chickensh*t for my liking. There are no half measures for peace. Dennis Kucinich understood this. I was kind of hoping Tulsi would be his heir among the Code Pink set of liberal pacifism. Statements like this make me less shore.

      I recall hearing similar talk from Rand Paul before running for president and we all know how tragically that ended. Tulsi needs to double down if she wants my vote. Tulsi 2020? You tell me, Tulsi. Put up or shut up.

      1. … Past time to exprct our leaders, any leaders to have any way forward that is prudent and risk free.. It’s a dangerous mess produced by ambition, hubris and unsconsnible greed on all sides at every turn..

        As far as chichen$hit goes, what is chicken$hit about getting the hostages out of danger, so their wellbeing does not present an impediment. They were supposed to be a tripwire against a land invasion by the North. Now that the North has gone “over our heads” so to speak, maybe these sitting ducks troops who once represented a barrier to an advancing land invasion. Now that the North has nukes these troops are solely hostages. Their fate is being manipulated by all players, but ONE player holds that card, and currently, it is not US. The current situation makes US hostages to their fate.. Things have changed… Those troops have no military function against nukes… The North wants them out!!! Get them out before the North decides they are THEIR prisoners…. NOW is the TIME…!!!!!!!!

        1. Good post MvGuy. The other issue that never gets spoken about, is the FACT that millions of SOUTH KOREANS stand to die horrible deaths if the U.S. ever starts a war. Funny that there’s never a peep about that anywhere. It’s almost as if the S.K. people don’t exist.

    2. Yeah, well all this horsepucky would be forgotten the moment she’s “elected” *snicker* and down would rain the bombs as usual.

    3. I am considering supporting Gabbard for 2020. But I need to know more about her positions on India, Israel and Iran.

      In her defense, Gabbard is very young and has taken a number of courageous stands: she opposes regime changing wars, she met with Assad and Trump, she organized fellow veterans to face arrest at Standing Rock to force Obama’s hand and she outraged the Clinton and Obama camps when she resigned her position as DNC Vice Chair and became the first elected Democrat to endorse Sanders. I am very impressed.

      But Gabbard also visited Indian PM Narandra Modi, congratulated him on the victory of his anti-Muslim Bharatiya Janata Party and spoken admiringly of him. She also condemned the state department for denying Modi a visa because of his failure to suppress anti-Muslim violence in the 2002 riots when he was governor of Gujarat province.

      Gabbard was one of over 100 congressional co-sponsors of the 2014 House of Representatives Resolution 657 entitled ” Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States support for the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization.”

      Although Gabbard reluctantly supported the Iran deal, she expressed her belief that Iran needs to be deterred from getting nuclear weapons.

      I want to support Gabbard. But I need to hear her explain her positions on the three “I’s” (India, Israel and Iran) before I make up my mind.

        1. Tulsi Gabbard is not only a career politician, she’s a member of the Rockefeller/CFR.

        1. 1. Thane, I agree that at the present time Gabbard is by far the best hope for a credible peace candidate from in 2020.

          She will be drafted by the Sanders or Bust people because she is better than Sanders and he is too old. And when drafted she will rise to the challenge even if it means she will have to defer and possibly forego ever having kids. Given Gabbard’s spiritual beliefs that would be a very significant sacrifice for her. But she is smart enough to understand how important her candidacy could be either as a Democrat or a Third Party candidate.

          2. However, the question of whether Gabbard is worthy of the peace movement’s support is still premature. Obama ran as a peace candidate and Nixon got elected on a pledge to end the Vietnam War. Even Trump fooled part of the antiwar movement until after he was elected. So we can’t afford to support a candidate who supports Israel, who sees Iran as a threat or who supports expansionist anti-Muslim extremists in India. Gabbard needs to address these issues and the anti-war movement needs to raise these issues with her before we commit to endorsing her likely candidacy.

          3. Thane, we should not be constrained by the lesser of two evils paradigm. We need to have minimum standards for a peace candidate. I have been in the antiwar movement for over 50 years. George McGovern was the only peace candidate ever nominated by either party and he lost in a landslide. But the antiwar movement did fine opposing the Vietnam War in the streets because we realized that we didn’t need a presidential candidate to make our voices heard.

          I would like to support Gabbard in 2020. But we should not give any politician a blank check. And we should never believe that the antiwar movement is neutered or delegitimized if we don’t have a presidential candidate. So at this point I critically support Gabbard. I am impressed by her courage, commitment, charisma, intelligence, vision and honesty. She literally meets with everyone from Trump to Assad. I have no doubt that if she was President she would be having a sit down with Kim Jung Un this month.

          One of the amazing things about Gabbard is how open she has been to spiritual, intellectual and political growth and her willingness to learn and change as she has grown politically. But I believe Gabbard still needs to think through and to clarify her positions on Israel, Iran and India.

          Right now Gabbard needs our constructive criticism more than she needs our support. And we who oppose US imperialism should be seeking dialogue with Gabbard now before deciding whether she is worthy of our support.

          1. Over the years I have narrowed my must have political scope to anti-war and anti-Federal Reserve. I don’t know if it is doable to have four variables (Syria, India, Iran and Israel). If you were to pick two of the four which would you pick? I would choose Israel and Syria. Iran and North Korea are in my book the same variable in different geographic regions. As for India they have nuclear bombs and delivery methods so I haven’t ever had reason to worry about them pro or con.

          2. If it was two I would pick Israel and Iran. If the US President had a correct understanding of Iran, Syria would follow.
            If it was one, I would pick Israel. If a US President ever stood up to Zionism, they would seek détente with Iran and stability in Syria with self-determination by the Syrians.
            As for India, China is fully capable of taking care of its borders and relations with its neighbors with or without US support.

          3. More precisely, a lot of people voted for Obama because they believed he was a peace candidate. And he played them. You know, promising to close Guantanamo, being less confrontational than Bush, etc. Kind of like how some folks convinced themselves that Trump was a non-interventionist and he played them.

      1. LOL, when will you people ever learn ? NOTHING ever changes.
        Haven’t you experienced enough with the last four elections ???
        How well have they all turned out for you ? You all lapped up the promises made by them, yet when they got into office, how did that work out ?????? And now your again proposing the same shite ???????? Incredible.

    4. Actually NO ! This time she makes no sense at all. The Russians have provided the evidence that this latest missile is NOT an ICBM.
      Maybe Tulsi should try reading the evidence instead of relying on the U.S. Government false news propaganda ?

  1. Tulsi Gabbard has “uncommon” common sense in evaluating circumstances of U.S. foreign affairs. If only the “news media” had the capacity to use her abilities and intelligence, the public would be well served. She is equitable in manner and willing to discuss problems, both pro and con, with all representatives. We need more with her intelligence and courage!

  2. I like Tulsi, too: for many reasons including the sound and principled head on her shoulders. However, as far as her alarmism over Nork missiles is concerned, she needs to read Dave Stockman’s relevant essay on this site.

    These two paragraphs contain the meat of my point.

    “Likewise, it was only a two-stage ICBM not the three-stages needed for extended range delivery. And there was no testing at all of the missile’s capacity to drop a guided warhead through the intense heat of reentry without burning up.

    “Nor did this week’s test involve any evidence that the clunky A-bombs Pyongyang has tested underground have been successfully miniaturized in order to fit atop its rockets.”

    In other words: Know the science before pulling the fire alarm.

  3. How can she be so terrific?
    Bottom line I must defend my island because you threaten their peninsula.

  4. Gabbard is tapping into the people’s discontent regarding American positions on Syria and Russia . It is perfectly doable on her part without actually threatening the establishment . This gives her the aura of an anti war activists . But until she shows effective opposition to Indian BJP and to right wing Netanyahu government , she will remain unworthy of trust . Trump has reneged on anti war . Obama did . We shouldn’t suck up to someone who shows same fault lines in thinking about the foreign policies.

    1. Correct. the time is way, way past when folks simply believe the crap spouted out of the moths of politicians, no matter how nice and believable it may sound.
      May I suggest folks judge them instead BY THEIR ACTIONS before they jump on the election band wagon ?
      Consider whether those actions coincide with her words, then make a judgment call.

  5. Why does she need to be Anti-Gun? Golly! I would support her if she was Pro-Gun…

Comments are closed.