Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson on Syria False Flags and War With Iran

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show on May 23, 2019.

56 thoughts on “Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson on Syria False Flags and War With Iran”

  1. Here is an April Gabbard campaign video where Tulsi lays it on the line about who is pushing the US into war with Iran. I agree with Tucker, the Israel lobby is about to come after Tulsi big time.

    Six minutes into the Tucker Carlson interview Tulsi accuses Netanyahu and KSA of trying to start a war between Iran and the US . She says straight up:

    “How does a war with Iran serve the best interests of the American people? Of the United States?. And the fact is it does not. It better serves the interests of Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran.”

      1. I really appreciate the pro-Israel lobby making sure US money is shoveled to Israel. Also, for using the neocons to execute perpetual war in the ME, which does no good for the US.

      2. another brilliant idiot that Antiwar.com likes. Jacob Wohl. He’s an expert at what exactly?????? This is fascinating. Will Ollie North replace the editor of antiwar.com next? If Jacob Wohl is a source for antiwar.com that’s absolutely great, but no serious person will ever come back to this!!!! Jacob Wohl PHD in being a fool. Wait-WE should reinvade Vietnam if Trump says so. Right? Send your kid now. You all voted for Trump that’s funny. Why didn’t u stay home instead like most of us????? Is this an antiwar web site or a bunch of right wing kooks? Let us know before we comeback!!!!!!! Libertarian or insane hack? Jacob Wohl…that is hilarious. Shame on Justin.Try areal libertarian for once, not a HACK. Everyone knows what Isreal is doing, stop acting like your all so superior, your not unique at all. Trump RUINED this website and the country and half the people on here went right along with him. Crazy. And despite the Iran war you will all do it again. Tulsi has no chance, that’s ancient news. maybe she can get 1% of the vote and that’s fine. How about a Wohl/Raimondo ticket? Trump has alzheimers and is a shitty resident.

    1. “the Israel lobby is about to come after Tulsi big time.”

      Why would they do that? It would just call attention to someone they’d rather see continue to be largely ignored.

      1. The televised debates could make it impossible to ignore Gabbard’s anti-regime change message. She does not have to win the nomination to change the national discourse on the Middle East. That is what the Zionist lobby fears. And the lobby has a history of acting preemptively to prevent Israel’s relationship to the US from being debated. .

        1. The televised debates made it impossible to ignore Ron Paul’s anti-regime change message, too.

          Or, rather, no, they didn’t make it impossible to ignore. People ignored it easily.

          Being right — which, lately, she has been occasionally and to a degree — isn’t the same thing as winning.

          I’ll be interested to see if she goes back to being GOP hawks’ favorite Democrat after she taps out for the Democratic presidential nomination, or if the change was real.

          1. “or if the change was real.”

            It is very easy to dismiss Gabbard’s as of late consistency on the non-interventionist line as a cynical ploy to get votes, however, perhaps she really does believe what she’s saying. She is, in my book taking a great risk. Just examine the smear attacks that have come out just in the last week. Perhaps she is savvy enough to recognize that peace is a winning issue, actually believes in peace, and, therefore, is going to run with this football all the way. Every establishment force in existence is going to work to crush her. But what can they do? If she gets in the first debate and distinguishes herself from all the Democratic Party hacks, and her polling numbers instantly go from 1% to 5%, what can they do? Their own rules would give her a continuing platform.

          2. She’s been taking risks at least since her 2016 resignation from the DNC to support Sanders. She was being groomed by TPTB for at least a Senate seat and she tossed it. Her fear of HRC’s bloodthirstiness was clearly genuine.

            And she’s certainly crossed the aisle often enough with Rand Paul on war-and-peace, Justin Amash on civil liberties, and on war-and-peace and veterans’ issues with Walter Jones.

            Her one problem in the debates is that moderators will control the questions, and they can throw her some curves like LGBT and abortion and a few other issues I’m not going into. She’s got solid responses to all of them, but they’re a distraction to keep her away from the regime-change issues.

            Incidentally, you might find Matt Taibbi’s recent Rolling Stones article interesting. But puh-leeze, Tulsi, find some phrase other than “fake news”! Maybe something like “smear”?

          3. Gabbard is sincere. For the past 4 years she has consistently chosen anti-war principles over self interest. She is a rare politician genuinely committed to selfless service to others, Borg is correct that “every establishment force in existence” will “work to crush her.” But she qualified for the first two debates. By the end of the summer she may be a viable candidate. She is the best choice in the Democratic Party.
            I also donated to Mike Gravel to help him get to the debate. But Gravel at 89 is too old to be a serious candidate. Tulsi would be devastating in a debate with Trump. And if she loses the Democratic nomination, she might run as a Green in 2024 or even in 2020 if she decides early on that there is no space in the Democratic party for a peace candidate.

          4. “She is a rare politician genuinely committed to selfless service to others”

            In her recent interview with Joe Rogan, she struck me as a self-horn-blowing, fake-humble, transparently fake take on that, to the extent that the fakeness overshadowed the anti-war things she had to say. But I suppose she could have been having a bad day.

          5. I got a different impression of the Rogan interview. But the proof is in Gabbard’s actions. Quitting the DNC, meeting with Trump and Assad, refusing to support the Green New Deal, opposing Obama’s war policies were all positions based on principle, not self interest. Tulsi is likely to lose her seat in Congress as a result of her anti-war positions. She is the real deal. And she has the intelligence and charisma to reach voters in both parties. The first two debates may give her a chance to break out of straitjacket the establishment has tried to force on her campaign.

          6. If she can figure how to get publicity like Trump did in 2015, she can win. She needs to be attacked by the media, not ignored.

          7. Obviously personal impressions are subjective. She strikes me as pretty plastic and narcissistic — but it she was the Democratic nominee and if there were no authentically anti-war candidates elsewhere on the ballot, I might vote for her anyway.

            I’ll be interested to see whether or not she loses her seat in Congress. I’m expecting her not to. I’m also expecting her to drop out of the race early, throw her support strongly behind whoever emerges as the likely nominee, win re-election to her House seat, and as a reward receive either:

            1) A cabinet appointment in a Democratic administration, if the Democrat wins in 2020 (at the moment, that doesn’t look very likely); and/or

            2) Strong DNC and party establishment support when she runs for governor of Hawaii in 2022 (or possibly for US Senate if one of the incumbents retires in 2022 or 2024, or leaves mid-term).

            But she’ll probably have to withdraw early if she wants to cash in that way. Hawaii is a small state and its primary is late enough that someone may well have the nomination sewn up by the time it votes.

            If she stays in and starts doing well, she has one big skeleton that her opponents haven’t really pulled out of the closet and started shaking around yet, and that’s that there’s a MUCH better case for her being assisted, financed, and influenced by a foreign power than was ever the case with Donald Trump (other than the obvious foreign power, Israel, which assists/finances/influences most major party candidates, or at least the ones they think can win). Her previous campaigns have raised big money via Hindu nationalist organizations in the US but affiliated with Modi’s BJP party in India and with “Hindutva” religious supremacism.

            Aside from the “foreign power” angle, that’s JFK’s problem on steroids. At least he was a member of a fairly large Christian religious minority that was well-integrated into American society. She’s a member of a tiny religious minority and has connections to a movement specifically dedicated to that religion’s supremacy both in India and globally. I wonder how that would play in middle America?

          8. “I might vote for her anyway.”

            Yes, I may too. Probably not if it was just the peace issue per se, but the civil liberties issues, such as the war on drugs, first and fourth amendments, and (if she can be believed) the statement that she will pardon Assange, Snowden, and Manning. I see no other major party candidate anywhere close on these issues. We’ll see how it goes with the Libertarian Party nomination. I am always hopeful, but am prepared to be disappointed.

          9. “it she was the Democratic nominee and if there were no authentically anti-war candidates elsewhere on the ballot, I might vote for her anyway.”

            What if you’re in a swing state, Florida for instance, and it’s Gabbard vs. Gump, but there’s another candidate on the ballot in all 50 states who is even more anti-war than Nicholson Baker? Sure, you’d vote for that candidate in California, where LA County provides the Democrat with a 3:1 margin of victory regardless of your vote, but in swing states?

          10. Absolutely in swing states, and whether that candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states or not.

            I do not owe it to the worse candidates to not vote for a better candidate just might because it might cause one of those worse candidates to lose.

          11. I’m really skeptical about any cabinet position for Tulsi, or an ambassadorship, or any federal position whatsoever that requires Senate confirmation. I’d expect Mazie Hirono to blackball her.

            She’s not going to get DNC support. She burned her bridges there at least for as long as the Clintons are around. And DNC support wouldn’t do her any good for governor or senator anyway. She’s always had to run against the party establishment in Hawai’i in every one of her congressional victories. (And she’s beaten them every time!)

            Schatz isn’t going to retire in 2022. He’s currently 46. Hirono (dob 11/3/47) will be just turning 77 by November of 2024, so that’s a possibility. On the other hand, she might run just to use incumbency to block Tulsi and then retire in a year or two.

            If there’s a Senate vacancy, that would actually hurt Tulsi because that means a gubernatorial appointment. In Hawai’i, the governor has to appoint from one of three candidates from a list provided by the party which held the Senate seat. Even if an organization-allied governor wanted to appoint her, she’d still have to make the cut fron the Democratic State Committee. Depending on the timing of the vacancy, though, the appointee might not have much time in office or much incumbency to withstand a primary challenge.

            Her best bet might would be governor since Ige is term-limited in 2022. She could actually have a very interesting gubernatorial career given her strong interest in environmentalism (and consider the special problems with global warming as well as coral reefs in her island-state), housing, and indigenous rights (both of native Hawai’ians as well as indigenous mainlanders, and note how this has tied into environmentalism).

            She does have what might be serious opposition in her Second District, and I strongly suspect she’s going to hang in presidentially at least through California (quite early, March 3, and she’s already done a fair bit of campaigning there to good reception). I don’t think there’s a firm date yet for filing in the primary; 2018’s congressional primaries were held on August 11.

          12. Thanks for that informative analysis! The only thing I’d say is that I think the Clinton dominance of the DNC is beginning to recede, and is probably going to implode totally and quickly if an establishment Democrat acceptable to the Clintons gets nominated and loses in 2020.

            So there might be a more Tulsi-friendly DNC/DCCC/DSCC in the near future. She does have to ride out this coming House election with a primary challenger, but if she manages that she should be in reasonably good shape from that side of things for whatever she decides to do next.

            The DNC just announced that it’s changing the rules for inclusion in its third round of primary debates. That gives Gabbard two debates to rise in the polls and generate some momentum. I guess it might happen. But as a US Representative from a small state, she just doesn’t have the pre-existing fundraising networks that some of her opponents do, so it will be an uphill fight.

          13. I agree that she has developed a steady, stay-on-message kind of inauthentic quality. Just what people hate about politicians. But professional and disciplined what works in politics. And her message is right. Still, she will do no better than third.

          14. Berni will be one of the top two. Then there will be an Establishment Dem, if not Biden then someone else. The best Tulsi can do is third, which just won’t cut it. Jimmy Dore likes her, Joe Rogan likes her. She’ll get lots of name recognition, which will serve her well in 2024. Perhaps the Zionist influence in the US will have faded enough by then for her to have a chance.

            My own secret hope is that once the Dem convention is over and Tulsi is not the nominee, that Trump will fire Pompeo (and Bolton and Abrams) and offer Tulsi the Sec of State job … just in time for the main event. (Hate Trump all you want, but he knows how to win.)

          15. Tulsi would never take a job in Trump’s administration even if he fired Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. Despite the hysterical cable news election coverage it is way too early for the polls to be meaningful. Biden is riding high on name recognition. Tulsi qualified for the first two debates. By the end of the summer she may start to significantly rise in the polls and be a contender in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Tulsi’s big challenges are getting past Sanders and winning credibility with Black voters.

            I agree that if her candidacy fails she would be in a strong position for 2023 or 202. But another alternative is that she could be the candidate of a Libertarian-Green antiwar coalition in 2020 if she decides to leave the Democratic Party..

        2. The polling will be rigged if it looks like Tulsi has a shot at getting enough support to make it into the debates. It’s the debate that has to be stopped.

          1. She has over 65,000 donors ( small dollar) and has reached the polling threshold to participate in the primary debates

          2. Yeah, Jonathon, but it’s not over ’til it’s over. I have my suspicions of why some of the late entrants have gotten into this, that it’s geared to push to over 20 the number of debaters qualifying on both polls and contributors. If that happens, the DNC gets to play around with polling averages, which could be tricky. And since most of the candidates who’ve satisfied just one standard have done it by polling, insiders could boost them by directing a bunch of $1 donors through ActBlue. I think Tulsi’s well enough positioned to avoid this with the deadline now only a couple weeks off.

        3. Tulsi’s already changed the terms of the debate by forcing Sanders to speak out more forcefully on foreign policy. If he had his druthers, he’d be focusing as entirely as possible on domestic stuff just like he did in 2016; but he does seem anxious to preempt Tulsi’s main issue.

      2. in these idiots right wing dreams. Thi isnt antiwar its kook central. Jason lost it with Trump and now his site is run by idiots.

      3. Thomas, I appreciate the tolerance by AWC moderators. That goes a long way towards encouraging good will. But the poster (shaun baran) is being extremely disrespectful toward other posters (not a disqualification, in itself), quite incoherent (again, not a disqualification), and, apparently, actively delusional. My own perception is that his posts make it difficult to read the flow of commentary without being quite uncomfortable. I don’t know what can be done, but I normally enjoy reading the diverse commentary on this site, and today, I definitely am not enjoying myself.

        1. Yes, he’s disrespectful, incoherent, and seemingly delusional.

          Those aren’t violations of our guidelines, though.

          Sorry you’re not enjoying the comments today. If it’s any comfort, usually the disrespectful, incoherent, and seemingly delusional either move on to other sites, or else completely lose control of themselves, start violating the guidelines, and get shown the door, pretty quickly. Not always, but usually.

          1. As always, you are a cool head. That must be difficult, however, keeping cool when the temperature outside is near 100 degrees.

        2. Go to the far right of his name. See the little down arrow menu indicator? Click on it and then click on block the turkey. Problem solved. Then wait. Most trolls go way after a while.

      4. Skywalker: “the Israel lobby is about to come after Tulsi big time.”
        Knapp: “Why would they do that?”

        I dunno, but they are. Check out this video by Kim Iversen about the Daily Beast hit piece last week. The most interesting part is starts at 4 minutes when Kim exposes the ties between Beast editor-in-chief Noah Shachtman and the MIC. The Zionist Lobby and the Israel Firsters got hurt by the blowback from their frontal assault on Ilhan Omar. With Tulsi they are using secondary media outlets like the Daily Beast and Huffington Post to try to undermine Gabbard before the debates.


    2. Right, and Tuckers the only one that thinks that, so do I. What else does Tucker think? He’s a turd.

      1. “He’s a turd.”

        Perhaps, but he’s a turd who is giving Tulsi Gabbard a platform. How many other venues are doing that? CNN? MSNBC? Any time they give any time to her at all, it’s just to attempt to shred her and accuse her of being an “Assad Apologist” and a “Putin Puppet.”

  2. I can’t wait to hear what Tulsi says once the UN and OPCW get back with her.
    She’s been a staunch critic of the US attempt of regime change in Syria where we were arming and funding AQ linked terrorists. That’s why when she returned from her trip to Syria she wrote and introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    1. It’s really cool to see that the MSM-Zionist- DNC plot to discredit Tulsi by running hit pieces in the left and libertarian media is backfiring big time.
      The hip left leaning Los Angeles Magazine published a hit piece of Tulsi on Wednesday. You can skim past the BS hit piece. But read the comments from LA Mag’s readers! People are seeing through the propaganda and pushing back. Tulsi’s message resonates with audiences across the political spectrum. If Tulsi gets air time in the first two debates, she will rise in the polls.


      1. Yeah, that was a pretty weak hit piece.

        I wonder if they’re saving her Sangh Parivar backing for later if it’s needed, or if that angle just hasn’t really caught the MSM’s attention yet.

  3. Two very brave people who are probably both in physical danger, not just subject to irrational criticism. Kudos to Tulsi for telling the real truth: Israel and Saudi Arabia want the US to go to war with Iran for them. Will Bolton and Kushner be successful in manipulating Trump into this?
    Thanks For Sharing

    1. Try Bob Weir for resident, besides that its time to move far far away to a sane place..such as senegal. Economy growing people are not all fighting with each other they are having fun instead and dont have a Trump. Y’all can have this fun, but its pretty lame actually. USA is done and toasted., who really even cares. U can have your civil war, I’m leaving to party all the time, while you all bitch about nonsense all day. Trump is a complete raging moron, but he’s Justin’s moron, so have your 97 wars and shove it. Trump lied to you and u ate it up. Case closed.

      1. And if the mushroom clouds come, their effects will make their way even to Senegal. Can you imagine that? Bon Voyage.

  4. Tulsi? I just asked the people downstairs they’re like WHAT who? Tulsa? noone knows who she is and never will. But TUCKER and JUSTIN sittin in a tree, kissing is even weirder. Justin wants me to know what TUCKER says? That is beyond comprehension. Justin is an idiot. Tucker isn’t just an idiot. He’s a Good German. Conspiracy garbage all day long versus reason wont win you anything, JUSTIN, it just confirms our idea that your a fool,and you did endorse Trump…am I wrong? So what in gods name happened to you? You were fooled that easily? That’s weird. Can you answer what happened and what in gods named we should think of you now? Seriously. Its tob late for u. Your a clown.Tucker, Justin’s ideal source for news and male dominated crap. What? You promoted a complete psycho for resident and now your upset that he’s doing what Isreal and Congress want-war with Iran? he’s already enhanced our wars in like ten places. So you were wrong then and your wrong now. Your done. TUCKER CARLSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Raimondo’s argument: Trump is relatively better than Hillary.
      Your complaint: Trump is worse than Rand Paul.

      These are different statements.

      1. “Raimondo’s argument: Trump is relatively better than Hillary.”

        That was Raimondo’s argument until January 20, 2017.

        Ever since then, he’s twisted himself in knots trying to pretend he was right.

        1. Raimondo WAS right. Hillary promised us more war and we know that she delivered in the past -big time.
          Trump promised non-intervention and he has not delivered – although he has not started NEW wars so he is a laggard compared to Obama/Hillary.
          Was Trump lying when he said that even though the conventional wisdom was that it cost him votes in the Republican primaries among the hawkish GOP voters?
          Or was he boxed in by Russiagate and outwitted by the Deep State – and could not deliver?
          Who knows? Only a mind reader can say. But we have mind readers and psychobabble aplenty when it comes to Trump.

          1. —–
            Was Trump lying when he said that even though the conventional wisdom was that it cost him votes in the Republican primaries among the hawkish GOP voters?

            Or was he boxed in by Russiagate and outwitted by the Deep State – and could not deliver?

            There’s a fallacy (“either/or” aka “false dilemma”) in the framing of question.

            Trump initially made some peacenik-sounding statements, but he had turned 180 degrees and declared himself the “most militaristic,” “most-pro-Israel,” etc. candidate well before the primary season heated up. During the post-nomination campaign, he was Hillary on Steroids. And that was also well before he was inaugurated, before Russiagate or the Deep State could have “boxed him in” and “outwitted” him.

            The Trump you saw in the campaign (whether you admitted that was what you were seeing or not) is the Trump you got in office — mercurial and surprising sometimes, but openly, unabashedly, and without mitigation dedicated to the preservation and increased empowerment of the military-industrial complex.

  5. heard about this page from the Liberty Report. glad i found it. Tulsi2020! but only if we can skirt the Super Delegates in the DNC..corrupt! and on the other hand, we got…..bolton/pompeo. what a country! Death to the MIC. Tulsi on Faux. amazing in and of itself.

Comments are closed.