Just been thinking about the notion of Tulsi Gabbard as an 'asset'. I don't like the word, it's a bit macho IR. Big part of me really doesn't like Clinton using the term against her either. However, when you think about propaganda, it makes sense. Forget for a second about
truth. Truth is irrelevant here. To support Tulsi's more controversial views on Syria (for example) that are aligned with Russia's official view, it makes far more sense to boost such views through an American presidential candidate than it would say, through Russia Today - a
more obvious propaganda outlet. Whether or not the purpose of this might be to divide the electorate in order to ensure another Trump term I have no idea - it just makes sense that Tulsi would be a more credible and legitimate vessel for promoting Russian propaganda. This is
nothing to do with her complicity per se, just a failure to condemn what would be seen as a normative foreign policy position for American presidential candidates vis a vis Russia.
