,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
“GENOCIDAL”? This is total madness. This dummy has no idea what she’s talking about. Mind-boggling nonsense.
Re Tulsi Gabbard: I understand the reluctance to intervene militarily in the Middle East as a principle, as it’s a valuable point of view in our discourse. I’ve given her credit on some of these issues before.
But her position on Yemen—and her willingness to call Saudi actions “genocidal” (what?) when she will not condemn Assad in the same terms for doing so much worse—is remarkably *curious*.
It’s these curious positions she takes that illuminate her worldview a lot more than general or strategic non-interventionism.
In Syria, she could’ve argued that it’s not worth intervening, despite the dangers of Iranian hegemony in the region. That’s a legit position.
In Syria, she could’ve argued that it’s not worth intervening, despite the dangers of Iranian hegemony in the region. That’s a legit position.
But she didn’t recognize that that’s the threat we’re facing there. It’s made especially clear when she discusses Yemen—actually, when anyone discusses Yemen, it makes a lot of things clear.
Rather than understand that the Iranians are sponsoring a war and insurgency on Saudi’s southern border with the intention of turning it into Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, Tulsi blames the Saudis for trying to prevent it.
Is there a single mention from Tulsi about the Iran-backed Houthis? Is she unconcerned about who emerges victorious in a battle over such a crucial bit of real estate?
Again, there’s a huge difference between: (a) not wanting US intervention; (b) having no preferences for who wins; and (c) supporting the Iranians in Yemen (Tulsi’s clear de facto position).
Tulsi shouldn’t be allowed to coast on “well she’s anti-war” nonsense. She has picked a side, and it’s in support of Iran. Really unfortunate for many of us who believed she was a needed voice of true non-intervention in the Democrat party.
