When Tulsi Gabbard announced her plans to run in the 2020 presidential election, I predicted that it would disrupt war propaganda narratives and force a much-needed conversation about US interventionism, but I didn’t realize that it would happen so quickly, so ubiquitously, and so explosively. Gabbard officially began her campaign for president a mere three days ago, and already she’s become the front line upon which the debate about US warmongering is happening. Even if you oppose Gabbard’s run for the presidency, this should be self-evident to you by now.

This dynamic became more apparent than ever today in Gabbard’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, hosted by spouses Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. It should here be noted since we’re talking about war propaganda that in 2009 Scarborough turned down an easy run for the US Senate because he decided that he could have more influence on public policy as the host of Morning Joe than he could as one of 100 US senators, which tells you everything you need to know about why I focus more on US mass media propaganda than I do on US politics. It should also be noted that Brzezinski is the daughter of the late Carter administration cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose influential ideas about US world domination, arming extremist factions to advance US interests, and hawkish agendas against Russia continue to infect US foreign policy to this day. Mika is part of a political dynasty, with both brothers being US political insiders as well.

So if you’ve ever wondered how outlets like MSNBC keep everyone on message and fully in alignment with the US war machine’s agendas, there’s a good insight into how. Combine that with the way they stock their punditry lineup with US intelligence community insiders and fire any pundit who refuses to toe the military-industrial complex line, and it’s not hard to see how they’ve developed such a tight echo chamber of hostility toward any resistance to US interventionism. Which explains what we’re about to discuss next.

Morning Joe’s pile-on against Gabbard began when the subject of Syria came up, and panelist Kasie Hunt instantly began losing her shit.

“Do you think Assad is our enemy?” Hunt interrupted during Gabbard’s response to a question about her meeting with Syria’s president in 2017, her voice and face both strained with emotion.

“Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,” Gabbard replied.

“What do you say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there, and what do you say to military members who have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against Assad?” Hunt replied, somehow believing that US soldiers are in Syria fighting against the Syrian government, which would probably come as a shock to the troops who’ve been told that they are there to defeat ISIS.

Journalist Rania Khalek summed up this insanity perfectly, tweeting, “The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy.”

“This is such an embarrassing look at the state of corporate American regime media,” tweeted journalist Max Blumenthal. “@kasie doesn’t know the most basic facts about Syria and along with the smug co-hosts, doesn’t care to learn.”

And it didn’t get any better from there. After Gabbard took some time to explain to a professional cable news reporter the basic fundamentals of the US military’s official involvement in Syria, Scarborough interjected to ask if Assad isn’t an enemy, would Gabbard at least concede that he is “an adversary of the United States.”

Whatever the fuck that means. What Assad is is the leader of a sovereign nation which has nothing to do with the United States and isn’t taking anything from or harming the United States in any way.

Scarborough and Gabbard went back and forth about this stupid, nonsensical question before Brzezinski interjected to ask “So what would you say he is to the United States? If you cannot say that he’s an adversary or an enemy, what is Assad to the U.S.? What is the word?”

“You can describe it however you want to describe it,” Gabbard responded, explaining that whether a nation is adversarial or not comes down to whether or not they are working against US interests.

“Are Assad’s interests aligned with ours?” asked Hunt.

“What are Assad’s interests?” Gabbard countered.

“Assad seems interested primarily in the slaughter of his own people,” Hunt replied with a straight face.

“Survival,” Scarborough interjected, trying to save his colleague some embarrassment with a less insane response to the question of Assad’s interests.

Other bat shit crazy questions Gabbard was asked during her appearance include the following:

“You know there are people who will watch this have heard your previous comments who will wonder, what’s going on here? Why you met with Assad, why it looks like you were very cozy with Assad and why you’ve sort of taken his side in this argument. What would you say to that?”

“Do you think that Assad is a good person?”

“Your hometown paper said that you should focus on your job and talked about your presidential campaign being in disarray. How would you respond to your hometown paper?”

“Any idea why David Duke came out and supported you?”

“There have been reports that that Russian apparatus that interfered in 2016 is potentially trying to help your campaign. Why do you think that is?”

“Have you met with any Russians over the past several years?”

Gabbard shoved back against the various accusations of alignment with Trump, Putin and Assad, asserting correctly that those lines are only being used to smear anyone who voices an objection to endless war and insane nuclear escalations. She pushed back particularly hard on Kasie Hunt’s reference to the obscene NBC smear piece which cited the discredited narrative control firm New Knowledge to paint Gabbard as a favorite of the Kremlin, claiming that the article has been thoroughly debunked (and it has).

After the show, still unable to contain herself, Hunt jumped onto Twitter to share the discredited NBC smear piece, writing, “Here is @NBCNews’ excellent reporting on the Russian machine that now appears to be boosting Tulsi Gabbard.”

Hunt then followed up with a link to an RT article which she captioned with an outright lie: “Here is the ‘debunking’ of the NBC News report from RT, the Russian state media. You tell me which you think is more credible.”

I say that Hunt is lying because the RT article that she shared to falsely claim that the only objection to NBC’s smear piece came from Russia explicitly names an Intercept article by American journalist Glenn Greenwald, upon which the RT article is based and which does indeed thoroughly discredit the NBC smear piece. If Hunt had read the article that she shared, she necessarily would have known that, so she was either lying about the nature of the article she shared or lying about knowing what was in it.

So that was nuts. We can expect to see a whole, whole lot more of this as the plutocratic media works overtime to undermine Gabbard’s message in order to keep her from disrupting establishment war narratives, and I’m pleased as punch to see Gabbard firing back and calling them out for the sleazy war propagandists that they are. Her presidential campaign is shaking the foundations of the establishment narrative control matrix more than anything else that’s going on right now, so it looks like writing about these embarrassing mass media debacles she’s been provoking may be a big part of my job in the coming months.

Military interventionism is by far the most depraved and destructive aspect of the US-centralized power establishment, and it is also the most lucrative and strategically crucial, which is why so much energy is poured into ensuring that the American people don’t use the power of their numbers to force that interventionism to end. Anyone who throws a monkey wrench in the works of this propaganda machine is going to be subjected to a tremendous amount of smears, and I’m glad to see Gabbard fighting back against those smears. From personal experience I know that smear campaigns must be fought against ferociously, because the only alternative is to allow your detractors to control the narrative about you, which as far as your message goes is the same as allowing them to control you. It’s not fun, it’s not clean, but it’s necessary.

The narrative control war keeps getting hotter and hotter, ladies and gentlemen. Buckle up.


Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

132 responses to “Tulsi Gabbard Is Driving The MSM Bat Shit Crazy”

  1. Any thoughts on this candidate?


    Like nothing I’ve ever heard before in a stump speech.

    Over 2m twitter followers. She’s not a nobody.

    1. I guess no-one has any interest in this candidate. Quite amazing considering the things she says in public statements like this one:


      Her sentiments and exact word could fit well into a guest article for this site.

      Is she too real to be considered plausible?

      Is everyone stuck so tightly within their familiar narrative corridors that they are completely unable to recognise anything genuinely new on the block?

      1. The video default is with volume off. You try to resize the vid and it refreshes the screen but doesn’t resize. Maddening!

        One way to get support is to support everyone else. I’m not persauded by people, especially people stumping for votes or support that will lead to votes, who tell everyone, uncritically, that they are awesome, full of love, good, etc.. That’s not America. That’s not nazi America.

        This would-be reviver of the Democratic Party is part of the problem if that’s her goal. The lady is not authoritative. She’s authoritarian, telling us how it is but not saying why she’s says so. It would be easy, and persausive, for someone to say the right things she says but forcefully. Chomsky shows how (but he’s lost the plot today), quoting sources and building solid, not solely rhetorical arguments.

    2. Too informed, speaks to fast, uses words with several sylables too often and speaks the truth.
      Also she is appealing to notions of patriotism or at least common values that the broader current demographic have not yet identified as having context in the Presidential contest.
      Her conversation is worthy but she is sitting around a campfire set on a rubber boat.
      Her success is doubtful, but she might get a few extra people thinking a bit harder.
      Bit like tap dancing on the freeway though.
      Doesn’t matter how talented the dancer is, the outcome is apparent already even right at the beginning of the performance.

    3. It was a hell of a good speech. Right now that’s all I know for sure.

    4. Greg, just another televangelist for the Cult of Equality. Full of “woke” emotionalism but short on STEM solutions. Narcissist too, just as is everyone else seeking power over others. She’d be a hoot during the debates though. A New Age theocracy will be a hard sell but hey, god only knows what US amerikans will fall for.

    5. Thanks for sharing the link. On Ms. Williamson’s page, she features teh quote “”The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. That’s the least of it….It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership.””

      That’s stock.

      If she’d said “POTUS is largely an icon and fronts for the ruling class. I am to change that.” that would be impressive.

  2. This should cheer you up ‘ ‘Narrative Cait’ ‘

    AOC’s NARRATIVE Masterfully Breaks Down How Money Affects Politics:

    1. Elko, not sure how it can be claimed that The Little Girl did anything “masterful” here. I have heard Jr high school debates argued more intelligently. Who does not know how the corrupt system works?! What great knowledge did TLG release with her school marm routine?

      1. I suspect you have missed the point.
        She was not seeking to expound her ideas with clever convoluted discourse.
        It appears she was just spelling it out.
        Such is the state of ‘democracy’ in the US that this is necessary.
        ‘Democracy for dummies’ might be a good title for her address.
        Yet even some of the people in the room still seemed to miss the point.

        Perhaps it looked a bit like a High school debate because no one was heckling and they took it in terms to speak.
        The response to her questions in the second clip was interesting, as was it’s accompanying analysis.

        1. Sorry, to be clear I am referring to the link above titled: AOC’s NARRATIVE Masterfully Breaks Down How Money Affects Politics

        2. Felix, “It appears she was just spelling it out.”

          If she was just spelling out the obvious (because no one really understood how corruption worked until the brat explained it to everyone) then what made her act so “masterful”?

          A “democracy for dummies” is a contradiction. A democracy can only work if each individual is properly educated and virtuous. But people willfully choose instead to be fools following folly.

    2. “Masterfully”?? This democrat sheepdog stated teh obvious and people who’ve swallowed the marked narrative think she’s brilliant. It’s embarassing to watch.

  3. good article and interesting coments. That business about the C of CFR …is it ‘committee’ or ‘ council’ should be strightened out asap ….otherwise, this smacks of Monty Python doing a faux British bbc panel discussion: “Council, or Committee” ….

    1. There are 38 regional Committees on Foreign Relations in the USA, which are part of the Counsel on Foreign Relations. The counsel is based in New York, which hosts an annual meeting for the regional committees.

      Have been to some committee meetings (invitation only) and met Hillary at one in Little Rock about a year before Bill won the 1992 election. A managing partner of the Rose Law firm (where Hillary worked at the time) was the chairman of the Little Rock committee.

      Met my publisher there too, which surprised him…

      Suggest reading both Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” as well as Tom Dye’s long running (from the early 1970s to early 2000s) sociological study published as a series of books titled “Who Is Running America”.

      Reading these two works will make the reasons for my caution abundantly clear…

  4. Like what she says about stopping US regime changes and war(s) of aggression, but am concerned about her CFR membership.

    Looking at her membership from the perspective of Tom Dye’s studies (see his series “Who Is Running America”), perhaps this suggests there is a factional split in the membership similar to that which occurred during the late stages of the Vietnam War…

    Still, the CFR motto — Ubique — exists for a reason, and the CFR led us to this point in out international affairs.

    Trust is hard to come by.

  5. I wish Tulsi had replied to the idiotic badgering about whether Assad is an “enemy” or an “adversary” by saying something like: “Suppose I were to go beat up your kids. Would you then by my enemy or my adversary?”

    1. Will Israel get rid of it;s Nukes Phil?

      1. Only if they want to be exterminated, Chucky.

        1. far better than nuclear weapons which would be tricky to use against the 4.7 million dispossessed, disenfranchised arabs in eretz israel’s midst, people the likud mossad insists on seeing as adversaries/enemies rather than the victims and potential allies they are, would be giving them the vote after more than a half century of subjugation.

          after all, the u.s. gave the conquered mexicans the vote in the 1840’s right off the bat. they proved loyal.

    2. What is Assad if not an “enemy or adversary”? How about VICTIM!
      BTW it is really idiotic to not know that enemy and adversary is the same thing. Shouldn’t there be a basic aptitude test to be on TV shaping opinions.

    3. that’s what needs to be said and done. too much of the discussion of the wars of this century (seven countries in five years aka the yinon plan) obscures just how counterproductive they are from the pov of long term u.s. strategic advantage.

      further, imo they are not even in the long term best interest of israel, where these plans gestated. israel is going to have to give the vote to the nearing five million disenfranchised, conquered arabs in eretz israel sooner or later. better to do it sooner, when there are fewer relative to jews, than later when they will be even more numerous, hostile and allied with the spreading diaspora in europe and the u.s.

  6. Has the U.$. Empire gotten carried away? Watch TV, and so called U.$. Media for truth. What do you think Hasbara folks here. Get the f out of People for Peace way. Have a nice day. BDS Free Assange Snowden and too many others. Wikileaks is Truth and Journalism. The U.S. Media is McCarthy Prop. funded by the taxpayers. Glad I am not one, but watch out. I am pissed. Wage Peace. Kumbaya. Wave a flag, multiple ones. Vote D or R. Ben Dover. Enjoy. Israel owns u.s congress? Who ever says this is Anti-Semetic? Free Palestine BDS

    1. One State Solution……………..World Peas

      1. Hillery/2020 Viva Zionist’s

  7. The more I hear from Gabbard the more I like what she’s saying. I’m not sure I would’ve advised her to appear on MSNBC, though.

    On the one hand, it’s good as Caitlin said to confront the critics, and to do so aggressively. But clearly Scarborough and his goons were loaded for bear. So I dunno, but maybe that’s the wimp in me speaking. And Gabbard is no wimp.

    1. If they’re loaded for bear, she should be loaded for elephant (pun intended).

    2. I think it may be beneficial for her to confront, counter, embrace and even promote controversy. If she is smart andwell spoke this gives her an opportunity to show her stuff.
      Maybe those guys act like clowns to help her out maybe they have a conceince and are discrediting their masters. Well ok not likely.
      Seriously though their behavior and lack of talent does make the us look stupid. Could it be that they do this on behalf of a foreign entity.

  8. Bonnie Caracciolo Avatar
    Bonnie Caracciolo

    Gabbard is a player. Yeah, ‘some’ in the MSM will attempt to dislodge her from her newly acquired lofty perch as ‘anti-war front-runner’ (lol). The Dems are still holding a grudge for the Hawaiian’s ship-jump from HRC to Bernie Sanders(another ‘safe’ no vote for the DNC). It doesn’t matter what she says or what she does (although surfing seems to get everyone giddy), or even how she votes. Wait! especially how she votes! One ‘no’ vote (see: Bernie Sanders) in a sea of ‘yes’ votes is purely symbolic…and manufactured. Yes, I’m cynical. But, I DO get it!
    Her cozy relationship with Sheldon Adelson and his wife causes me, however, to lock brakes. Tulsi is just another pretty face planted in the midst of ugly establishment critters. She says what some want to hear.

    1. “Her cozy relationship with Sheldon Adelson and his wife causes me, however, to lock brakes.”
      Adelson the main puppet master behind Trump. Adelson gave Trump 20 million for his campaign and 5 million for his inauguration. Adelson is an unapologetic zionist.
      “As an example, during the negotiations that eventually led to the Iran nuclear deal, Adelson publicly advocated for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran without provocation, so the U.S. could “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.””

      1. trump took adelson’s money very late in the game, much later than adelson would have preferred. the zionist media was 100% opposed to trump and still are. trump put the one state solution (the only one that will work and work it will, sooner or later) on the table as an approved endgame for the u.s., highly pissing off the likud mossad to hear netanyahu.

        gabbard is far more helpful on palestine than any other democrat in the fray. the “war” in israel must be turned into a civil rights campaign. the instant this happens the likud is beaten, with most of the u.s. diaspora unable to support continued disenfranchisement of a surrendered palestinian people. come on palestinians!! wake up!! you will never beat the zionists with bullets. use ballots to improve your life. and the world’s.

    2. Do you have a source for that “cozy relationship with Adelson?”.

      1. “Tulsi Gabbard has worked with many influential Republicans, the most notable of whom is billionaire Sheldon Adelson:

        Adelson gave “more than any other GOP-aligned donor” (twice the amount given by David Koch) to fund the 2014 Republican takeover of the Senate.
        Adelson massively funds union-busting.
        Gabbard has introduced Adelson-backed legislation supportive of his business interests.
        Two days before she led a rally on May 7 for Bernie Sanders in California, Gabbard received the Champion of Freedom award at a gala in New York City, which was co-hosted and sponsored by Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam.”

        1. This is pretty thin stuff. “Working” with Adelson is here defined as co-sponsoring a bill he supported (which was also, BTW, supported by the Hawai’i attorney general). Receiving an award from an organization at an event co-sponsored by Adelson? That’s the best you can do? Doesn’t look like much of a working relationship to me, particularly since Adelson has been screaming for ages to have the US overthrow Assad, of which policy Gabbard is perhaps the most outspoken opponent. To me this is pretty much the same sort of rubbish as that silly NYT columnist who got called out for calling Gabbard “Assad’s toady.”

          1. Adelson and company work both sides of the political spectrum to get what they want. Haim Saban huge Democrat donor and big Hillary supporter was singing the praises of Jared Kushner not long after the election.
            “Clinton mega-donor Saban thanks Kushner for ‘collusion’ on Israel’s behalf”

      2. It’s all in the public domain, my friend. Dig a little deeper.

        1. If you were to dig a little deeper, you would find:
          Gabbard received an award at a banquet sponsored by Adelson. So did Amir Ohana, the first openly gay member of the Knesset, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Appalling company to keep.
          The bill she co-sponsored was to prohibit Internet gambling. Adelson supported it, and Grover Norquist was against it. To paraphrase Churchill, if Norquist denounced Hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil.
          Most of the Gabbard / Adelson posts refer back to a Ha’aretz article Tea With Assad, Hugs With Adelson: Tulsi Gabbard’s Unique Views on Israel and Middle East. Most posts leave out the line from one of the concluding paragraphs: “Yet when Gabbard’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue are examined, it is clear that, at least over the past two years, she has expressed views that are far from those of Adelson and the CUFI.”
          Dig away, my friend, dig away

  9. I’m going to make believe that I’m Gabbard sitting down for that interview.
    Q: Do you think Assad is our enemy?
    A: Following the orders of Israel, the Deep State during O’bomb’em’s term CHOSE to make Assad the US’s enemy of the day in order to topple him in support of US corporate hegemony in that part of the world. The purported justification for this action in the faraway middle east is the Carter Doctrine, which Jimmy Carter declared in response to the Iranian revolution against the US’s puppet dictator, the Shah of Iran. Understanding the Carter Doctrine is one of the three keys to understanding the US’s so-called legal justification for what the US has been doing in the middle east since the Islamic revolution began in the late 1970s. The other two are Nixon’s decision to end the USD gold standard in 1971 and the petro-dollar deal with Saudi Arabia in 1974. If the US had kept the gold standard, the US literally could not then have afforded (and could not today afford) to pay for all the wars that it has started since 1971.
    Q: What do you say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there, and what do you say to military members who have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against Assad?
    A: Ms. Hunt, you know perfectly well that the purported legal justification for US forces to be, illegally IMO, in Syria is to fight ISIS, but you’ve slipped up and let the REAL purpose for US forces and mercenaries to be in Syria come out of your mouth, and that is, as O’bomb’em stated time and time again “Assad must go”; just like Trump is now saying “Maduro must go”. Aren’t you capable of seeing the obvious pattern here? Certainly the American people are seeing that pattern because the US has been repeating it for many decades, and THAT is at least part of the reason that Hillary lost the last election, not because of Russian meddling to help Trump. We’ll soon find out what Mueller has to say about Putin’s collusion with Trump. If Mueller finds that there was no collusion, what you two have been peddling to your viewers for over the past two years is going to make you two look like a couple of idiots. Should that happen, will you both resign?
    Q: Would you say that Assad an adversary of the United States?
    A: If Putin started bombing the US in Oklahoma, would that make Putin an adversary of the US?
    Q: There have been reports that that Russian apparatus that interfered in 2016 is potentially trying to help your campaign. Why do you think that is?
    A: For the same reason that you two used unsubstantiated reports that Putin elected Trump– to illegitimize my candidacy and Trump’s presidency. That’s the reason that the two of you are doing this interview rather than two people who have at least SOME objectivity. That’s why you two clones are getting the big bucks — to make your audience believe as fact something which has been manufactured to destroy people. BTW, this fact of your employment is becoming increasingly obvious to your viewers, even though you two may be so far gone that you are incapable of realizing how incredible you have become. But I think you know what you’re job is and are doing it the best you can. Congratulations.
    Q: Have you met with any Russians over the past several years?
    A: Do you mean Russian citizens, US citizens who have Russian last names living in Oklahoma, Russians I may have bumped into while I vacationed in Europe or Russia? If that is your question, then yes, I have talked to people with Russian last names during my lifetime. I’m certain that your NSA, CIA and FBI masters will tell you whether or not I’ve had any conversations with Mr. Putin or any other VIPs in Russia and I’m sure you’ll be telling your audience all about it.
    So there’s the interview that SHOULD have taken place. Again, unfortunately, in order to be a viable candidate, Gabbard is going to have to endure what Trump has endured since even before HIS election, right up to today– things like Chris Matthews saying that he wouldn’t be surprised if Trump “started talking to us in Russian”. Even Jill Stein had to endure accusations of being a Russian agent to the point of having to provide documents and testimony just because she was sitting at the same table as Mr. Putin.
    I say again that I could not endure the abuse that Trump has been subjected to since even before the ’16 election. You have to admit that he is a very tough nut to crack and is capable of giving abuse as well as taking abuse. Are Stein or Gabbard or other potential anit-war candidiates as tough as Trump? They’ll HAVE to be. We’ll soon find out if they are.
    If I were Gabbard, I’d first state right off the bat that I want to pull US troops, special forces and, most importantly, mercenaries out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, dismantle NATO, close Gitmo (for real, this time), close 90% of US military bases around the world, and would not continue the US’s Global War OF Terror. Doing this right off the bat rather than later in the campaign will FORCE public debate about her radical proposal to change US foreign policy.
    Second, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, TOMORROW!, I’d state that I intended to MAINTAIN the War (“defense”) budget in order to keep present employees of the MIC employed, keep the present contract system, but change the present DoD contracts to produce infrastructure and other objects for a peace-based economy. In other words, these war corporations and their millions of employees and their spin-offs would in the future be creating bullet trains rather than bullets (plowshares rather than swords), etc. Therefore, those human beings presently employed by the MIC would NOT fear that by voting for Gabbard they’d be voting for their own unemployment! She must reiterate this in every one of her campaign speeches all over the US!
    Again, Gabbard is ALREADY being subjected to a storm of MSM abuse which will only get much worse right up to election day. And, again, I believe that Gabbard’s one and only hope for success as an anti-war candidate is to get the above said right off the bat in order to have as long a public debate about war versus peace as possible. Even if she is not elected, she will have been successful at getting these issues “on the floor” for public debate.
    If Gabbard does not follow my advice, IMO she does not stand a hope in hell of winning the presidency. Yes, if she said what I said in that interview, she may have turned off a lot of voters, but, IMO, in the long run you cannot go wrong with the TRUTH! Imagine how the MSM would have responded if she actually HAD said what I said. As Trump fully realized and has fully exploited, the new world of independent and social media, Twitter, etc., will make it impossible for the MSM to ignore her. NOW is her chance to be heard!

    1. “I say again that I could not endure the abuse that Trump has been subjected to since even before the ’16 election. You have to admit that he is a very tough nut to crack and is capable of giving abuse as well as taking abuse. Are Stein or Gabbard or other potential anit-war candidiates as tough as Trump?”
      Exactly. More than likely, every one of them would wilt like every politician has wilted since WWII. Gabbard has no idea of what she would be subjected to – or else she’s covert Deep State. Trump is a freak of nature. He’s SuperTrump! I didn’t vote for him but I know what he’s up against. I’m still not on board with many of his policies but he’s better than any collectivist. He could do one of those old Timex watch commercials.

      1. Trump is fully owned by Zionist, he is playing a role given to him. He is the ‘heel’ like he played in pro wrestling.
        Trump is so pro Zionist its pathetic, why cause he owes them money and Epstein has tons of blackmail on him.

        1. “Trump is so pro Zionist its pathetic, why cause he owes them money and Epstein has tons of blackmail on him.”
          Zionist schmionist. I don’t mean to defend Trump, but you’re just pumping out propaganda from a different angle than the Russia conspiracy theorists. You have NO knowledge of Epstein or anyone else blackmailing Trump. You have a keyboard and a conspiracy theory so you throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Adelson is an oligarch. No news is good news.
          The pressures SuperTrump endures may well include blackmail but that comes from the experts, aka the IC. The MSM is not the source of the incessant attacks. They are a conduit, aka useful idiots.

          1. I had a response for you but somehow it went into the ether.

            The 5 eyes IC collaborates with Mossad and have dirt on every politician

          2. Just research Epstein and Trump, rape charges, Bill Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell, Robert Maxwell, Lolita Express, Perversion of justice and come to your own conclusions.

            Clinton coaxed Trump to run and the two have been long time friends. You would have to be a total fool if you believe in Trump’s “Lock her up nonsense”.

            Their so- called presidential debates was pure theatre.

            1. How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime

        2. The WP blog formatting is making longer discussions too hard to read, IMO, so I’m replying higher in the thread.
          “The 5 eyes IC collaborates with Mossad…”
          To my knowledge there is no “5 eyes IC.” I see you’re into A LOT of speculation on subjects that interest you. That’s fine, but at some point, the tendency is to connect dots whose connection is tenuous at best. The result is what is commonly known as a conspiracy theory, and those who subscribe to these seemingly logical dot connections are known as conspiracy theorists. There is no shortage of y’all in these parts.
          There is, however, a US IC and there is a Mossad. There’s also an MI6. Apparently, the collaboration you claim exists developed sometime after the 6-Day War. No doubt, collaboration does exist under certain circumstances for certain purposes, but your conclusion falls into the speculation category. When stated as fact, it becomes propaganda.
          “…and have dirt on every politician.”
          The US IC does not limit dirt collection to politicians. All are fair game. The metadata can be accessed for anyone on the planet (This may not include Orlando), and especially in the USA. Individual files are created for anyone considered to be influential, celebrities and what are commonly referred to as opinion leaders. Our hostess falls into the the latter category.
          Hope this helps.

          1. “To my knowledge there is no “5 eyes IC.”

            Why are you lying? You do know how to use the internet right?

            Here is a good start for research
            The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[1][2][3]

            This will probably be sent to the ether as well.

        3. In reply to your 2nd post, you Miami Herald link is dead..
          No doubt, theatrics abound when SuperTrump is involved. He’s a showman so that’s to be expected. When he goes over the top, that’s just his sense of humor. If you don’t get sarcasm, or you want to find fault with him, you can not get it on purpose and call him names. This is a tactic for those who see thru it and it’s justification for hatred for those who don’t.
          If you appreciate his sense of humor, you can have a good laugh. Read his Twitter feed for a megadose. He’s the most transparent president in history. This is a good thing.

          1. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make’em drink”

            You are free to indulge in your Super Trump fantasy, I prefer to look at objective facts and then make my conclusions.

            Moving the US embassy by Trump and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (something no other US president has ever done) should be a huge red flag.

            “but at some point, the tendency is to connect dots whose connection is tenuous at best. The result is what is commonly known as a conspiracy theory, and those who subscribe to these seemingly logical dot connections are known as conspiracy theorists.”

            Right because critical thinking is taboo we can’t have folks looking at objective facts and seeing how they connect nor drawing conclusions from those facts that don’t fit the orthodox way of viewing the world.

            Throwing the conspiracy theorist label around just demonstrates how truly short sighted you are.

            Criminal conspiracies have and do exist and are punishable in courts of law.

            A reality tv show actor playing the role of a “heel” or Super Trump. The facts point to the former.

            And again this will likely be sent to the ether as well.

        4. “Why are you lying?”
          Not lying. I have no knowledge of a 5 eyes IC. So I guess you and Wikipedia are aware of something I’m not.
          It’s funny to think about since the US IC agencies sometimes don’t even “collaborate” among themselves. This is supposedly addressed by the DNI. I don’t know but it seems doubtful. Every bureaucracy protects its turf. When I refer to the IC, I’m referring to the US IC. If you and Wikileaks wanna believe the US IC shares everything with the other 4 eyes, go right ahead and think that.
          Now, once again, you wrote:
          “The 5 eyes IC collaborates with Mossad…”
          If so, why isn’t it the 6 eyes?

        5. “I prefer to look at objective facts and then make my conclusions.”
          I think facts are objective by definition. Please try to avoid redundancy. I have a pet peeve about that.
          “Moving the US embassy by Trump and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (something no other US president has ever done) should be a huge red flag.”
          The FACT is he moved the embassy. Your red flag CONCLUSION is fallacious and invalid. You do provide a good example of confirmation bias tho.
          “…because critical thinking is taboo we can’t have folks looking at objective facts and seeing how they connect nor drawing conclusions from those facts that don’t fit the orthodox way of viewing the world.”
          Good for you. You understand sarcasm. Critical thinking just happens to be my area of expertise. Speculation is warranted in many cases because we have a secret govt, secret courts, secret police and even secret laws!
          “Throwing the conspiracy theorist label around just demonstrates how truly short sighted you are.”
          Well, if I did as you say, your conclusion would still be invalid. I’m not throwing the label around. Your conclusions are consistently based on faulty premises based mostly on beliefs. You’ve patched a bunch of them together in some kind of mush that results in a conspiracy theory. You are for sure a conspiracy theorist.
          This is common. Most people actually start with their conclusion and work backwards. If you begin with the belief that Trump is a crook, you seek confirmation of this belief. If you believe he is a racist, you seek confirmation of that. If you seek certain results, your findings will confirm the results you desire. Then you point to the confirmation as your evidence. It’s not.
          That you don’t understand basic logic is not really your fault. My position has long been that logic should be taught in grade school right along with the 3 Rs. We have created a society where people can graduate from college without understanding how logic works. It’s the math of language. We would be far more advanced if people learned how to think straight at a young age.
          To your illogical conclusion about moving the embassy, you probably know that this Jerusalem has been viewed as Israel’s capital for many years by many presidents, none of whom had the political guts to move the embassy.
          Trump did it because he takes on issues that typical politicians refuse to address, even tho they provide lip service. The immigration issue is another example of this. That sir, is why he’s SuperTrump.
          “Criminal conspiracies have and do exist and are punishable in courts of law.”
          So what? Where are your FACTS to support any crime. This Mueller special counsel is the crime. No special counsel has ever been empowered like him. No special counsel has ever existed without the existence of a known crime. Watergate was a burglary. Nobody elected Mueller. He’s Deep State. This is truly unprecedented.
          It’s an attempted coup.
          You don’t know anything about what has taken place to get to where we are. This is over your head but I’ll leave it here because some people may understand it’s importance. Please watch in its entirety, assuming you can concentrate that long:

          1. My last and only response to you and your Super Trump nonsense.

        6. What? Now you’re claiming Trump’s crime is MURDER! And you can substantiate your accusation equally as well as your previous vague reference to criminality of some kind? Not to disrupt your fantasy, but Dirty Harry isn’t real any more than your “evidence” proves your point.
          And please don’t refer to SuperTrump as “nonsense.” Meeting up to your high evidence standards, here’s proof positive:

    2. Do you think that that abuse is worse than getting shot at? (Keep in mind that I don’t know if Gabbard was ever shot at, nor have I ever been shot at, so I don’t know how emotionally bad that is. But I imagine that it must be pretty damned bad. Anybody here been shot at and, if so, how bad is it?)

      1. It’s bad, but not as bad as coming home in a zip bag–for nothing. It’s for all those ignorant, vulnerable, and generally well-intentioned kids who trusted the warmongering political whores, and lost everything as a result, that we should join the fight.

        1. and so far trump has started no new wars and made public a lot of info on deep state corruption. however he has not shut down lots of stuff preceding him, yemen, etc. and no one’s in prison. but the zio deep state is super powerful and would take time and strategy to change. that makes the possibility of trump vs. gabbard in 2020 attractive so as to initiate a pincer attack on the zds.

          1. My last several posts to this site landed and then were deleted. Not sure if Caitlin is using a moderator or key word blocking algorithm. In any case, I disconnected the hyperlink, so I’m surprised to receive your comment. In short, I believe Trump’s instincts are anti-war and once you peel back the temperamental, self-promoting showmanship he genuinely cares about U.S. interests. Unlike the dual citizens that populate his administration. The concessions he has made on the immigration issue should suffice. That said, I don’t believe he has the moral courage or character to stand against the Lobby. They clearly have him by the balls. This site seems oriented towards political commentary and polemics, more than solutions, but I suppose that is just the nature of the common discourse these days. But, what most people seem to miss is that wars are won and lost by the power structures that finance them, not by the armies that fight them. It’s hard to find an exception. The war financiers do not play zero sum games. It’s not good for business. And the people continue to carry the sword for the beast. Government is an appendage of the beast, just like the military and private industry. The appendages all come with replacement parts, but not the head of the beast. I think Trump vaguely understands this, as does Gabbard and every other U.S. politician. You make an interesting point about the Trump/Gabbard match-up. Perhaps this response will post.

    3. Charlie, we can type, type, type, with supporting fire, but it’s those in the poitical trenches who are going to get shot at and wounded. I would think that any poltitical candidate who has actually been shot at, and shot back, might be able to endure the slings and arrows of a warmongering MSM interview or those “debates” that occur just before the primaries and at the conventions and, again, fire back bigger projectiles in return.

    4. Orlando, I am no Trump lover, but I think that it would be pretty to argue that Trump went to Singapore to meet Kim and Helsinki to meet Mr. Putin and is now at least TALKING about pulling US troops out of Syria and Afghansistan (and catching MSM hell for doing all of them) at the behest of Adelson or NuttyYahoo. If you think he did, please make your argument for why you feel this way. If you can’t, I think you should give credit where credit is due.

      1. Trump is talking to Kim because Adelson wants to build casinos in North Korea
        “When Trump met with Kim last month, he showed him a video promoting the economic promise of North Korea, with speedboats and skyscrapers. He told reporters later: “As an example they have great beaches. You see that whenever they’re exploding their cannons into the ocean. I said, boy, look at that view. Wouldn’t that make a great condo? And I explained, I said, you know, instead of doing that you could have the best hotels in the world right there.””

        The alliance to destroy Syria was falling apart mainly due to Turkey’s independent foreign policy they flirt with NATO and Russia(See the Khashoggi affair) and Assad was wiping out Al CIAda and their proxies. Thus the pivot to South America now.

        I remember when Shrub the second and the Obomber both talked about pulling troops out of Afghanistan how did that work out? Those poppy fields and minerals are just too valuable to walk away from and it is a great strategic jumping off point into the underbelly of Russian and next door to China. Furthermore those –stans just north have alot of oil as well.

      2. Orlando: “Trump is talking to Kim because Adelson wants to build casinos in North Korea”
        Note again, you state your conspiracy theory conclusion as fact. You want the dots to connect. You read a report and confirm your bias. The echo chambers rely on this dynamic to build their conspiracy theories.

        SuperTrump made the comment because, after many years of being one, he thinks like a developer. This is how one sells a project. Have you ever been in sales? Trump has lots of sales experience. Why does it have to be some evil intent? It’s confirmation bias. Get over it and see it for what it is. This is an effort to help Kim see the potential for NK if he cooperates.

    5. Don’t forget Helsinki, Orlando. Did Sheldon tell Trump to go to Helsinki (and suffer what the MSM dished out 24/7), or was that something he did on his own?

      1. The blowback came when Trump didn’t say that “Russia interfered”
        It just political theatre. What was truly accomplished at that summit? What was the supposed purpose of the meeting?

        3 day later Trump is saying Russia “meddled.”

      2. Orlando: “3 day later Trump is saying Russia ‘meddled.’”
        Right, 3 days later after being hounded by the press to come out and say Russia “meddled,” he gave in and admitted that Russia did what the US and many other countries around the globe have been doing since at least WWII.
        So you somehow connect this with Helsinki? That’s quite a logical leap, even for you.
        “Meddling” is a weasel word. So is “interfering.” These terms are meaningless. Trump could appease the people who are always nagging him to say something the way they want him to say it, and at the same time, not give an inch. He’s so much smarter than the idiots who find fault in everything he does, it goes right over their heads.

    6. Orlando, if Trump saying “Russia meddled” was the ultimate purpose of the Helsinki summit meeting, Trump could have said that without going to Helsinki.
      IMO, what the Helsinki trip accomplished was whatever Trump and Putin said to each other in secret.
      And if building Sheldon’s casinos and Trump Towers in North Korea is all it takes to improve relations between The Borg US and North Korea, I’m all for it.

      1. “IMO, what the Helsinki trip accomplished was whatever Trump and Putin said to each other in secret.”

        As I said before Kissinger is the link between Putin, Trump and Xi as much as we see antagonism between these 3 nations there is often signs of long standing deep cooperation. Such as long standing technology transfers between the 3.
        This is a good place to start.

        Thus my “1984” reference of the actual world. The “disputed zone” the Middle East and Africa is like a sandbox to them to play in and use up military resources and continue the cycle(See Goldstein’s book in 1984). Like a 3 legged stool these 3 need each other to keep the whole sham going on their respective populaces.

        1. hey orlando. as joe e brown says to jack lemmon at the end of some like it hot, when lemmon finally admits he’s a man not a woman:

          nobody’s perfect.

    7. I absolutely agree with you about the Goldstein Book. I recently commented about the possibility of a secret agreement between the oligarchs of Big Three in which each would be assigned a territory to exploit, etc.
      For the present moment, if such an agreement actually exists and averts nuclear war, that’s about the best scenario for we, the bewildered herd in general. We of the First World just may get to live out our natural lives without experiencing nuclear war. Unfortunately, the average people who just happened to be born outside of the Big Three are going to be exploited more and more in order to keep the voting masses in the Big Three statisfied enough to continue voting for the “correct” poltical candidates and the “correct” way when the occasional referendum pops up.
      I’m relatively lucky. I’m closing in on 70 without ever having had to DIRECTLY kill another human being either on the street, in prison, or as a member of an army. I haven’t lost my wife yet, but one of us is going to experience the opposite of being born in the next few years. We’re debt-free, but not free of the tax man until we’re beyond his reach.
      I continue to have the marvelous opportunity to read all kinds of internet sites, including Caitlin’s, and sit here typing away about the possibility of a better way of life for humanity. After I’m done ranting, I even have the opportunity to polish my piano technique.

    8. Interesting post bibble, now here is how it would really go.

      Hunt: Do you think Assad is our enemy?
      Gabbard: Following the orders of Israe…

  10. I’ve been interested in Gabbard since she quit the DNC in 2016 over their rigging of the primary in favor of the Wicked Witch. That said, I was disappointed that neither she nor Bernie exposed, as they surely could have done, the depth and extent of the wrongdoing by the Party in that campaign, which the MSM covered up quite effectively. I find her membership in the CFR puzzling, to say the least, but her public statements are quite consistently anti-imperialist (the precise opposite of the purposes of the CFR, in short). So what’s the real story? I’m not sure it matters. Gabbard won’t get the Demoncratic nomination – she won’t even get as close as Bernie did – because the party won’t let her. And that’s not the point that Caitlin is making here anyway. The point is that by announcing her candidacy Gabbard is drawing attention to US imperialism in a way that no candidate since George McGovern has done. Bernie did the same thing with issues of class and wealth, and public discourse since 2016 is richer for it.

  11. FYI 3 years ago “Toward a Global Realignment” by Zbigniew Brzezinski was published in The American Interest on their website. What is staggering is his refuting of US exceptionalism and the inevitability of a tri-polar world. He argues Russia, China and the US must accept mutual co-existence.
    Here’s the link: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignment/
    One wonders the Mika and Joe position on Daddy’s EOL about face from US primacy.

  12. It is difficult to read about such unfair (I would say un-American but…) treatment by the media – which is grated license on the presumption of some degree of ethics, I think.
    But is actually good for Tulsi.
    I hope she continues to shine with her genuine nature and intelligent and respectful discussion.
    She lets them reveal themselves as they are.

  13. Media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN are really the bald face of modern facism: government propaganda, disguised as news, surrounded by the brainwashing advertisements of corporate America. Actually, that’s the very definition of facism! As for Ms Gabbard, I applaud her courage and honesty, but seriously hope she has a good security detail in action, because you KNOW the Pentagram is gunning for her…

    1. Sorry, I meant fascism!

      1. Facism is true as well!

  14. We have active duty troops in over 140 countries. Starting with Vietnam, the wars we instigate have not resolved anything and destroyed lives, cultures and habitats. We destroy our repution by acting in our own interest in sovereign nations. Are we are in Syria because of 9-11 ? Let’s send the Red Cross to Syria instead of missiles. Let’s send houses for humanity instead of armed forces. Let’s help people in foreign nations instead of destroying their countries. Arguing about leaders in foreign countries is missing the real reason we are there … follow the money.

    1. “Starting with Vietnam, the wars we instigate have not resolved anything and destroyed lives, cultures and habitats.”
      “Starting with Vietnam?” Korea came first. Another Truman Neocon move.

  15. A Small Part of the Pantomime Avatar
    A Small Part of the Pantomime

    IMO the reason Assad is our enemy is because of Syria’s relationship with Iran, which has nothing to do with the U.S.–but everything to do with Israel

    1. Israel must be responsible for their own actions. The US tax payer should no longer be burdened by that rogue state.

      1. Inspect Israeli Nukes, or are they just an aircraft carrier as planned for dominance and Empire? GL all who wage peace. Boycott Citgo. BDS Free Assange ,Snowden and many others.

  16. I am also from Hawaii and Tulsi is the real deal. Cait, if you aren’t endorsing her, you should.

    Would Tulsi make a good president? What does that even mean? I look at who has been president in the past 40 years, who is now, and who is running and can only conclude that yeah… she’d make a good president.

    Is she the lesser evil (AKA a better evil)? Far from it. She is articulate, calm, knowledgable, intelligent, has integrity, *progressive*, and courageous. Not even Sanders stacks up to her when it comes to foreign policy – or courage. He’s still pushing Russia! and Venezuela.

    Is she perfect? Is anyone? People who have minimum standards for corrupt, corporate, war-mongering Dems are accused of being a “purist,” but an anti-war progressive *must* be perfect. We have such low standards (no standards??) for Third Way war-mongers, but impossibly high standards for progressives. And those high stardards/criticisms are always hatched in the deep, dark swamp.

    New Deal
    + Japanese Internment
    = FDR

    Voting rights for women
    – Voting rights for blacks
    = Susan B. Anthony

    Progressive policies
    + Anti-war
    – LGBT rights (early on)
    + LGBT rights (her voting record)
    = Tulsi Gabbard

    1. Well said we love her as well.

    2. There are a few ways to vote. You can root for a candidate the way you would for an athlete or a sports team, and vote for them like they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread. Everybody does it and it’s madness. It’s volunteering to be governed. It’s masochism.

      Keep in the back of your head that it’s a politician you’re voting for. You can’t trust a politician. Any politician. At best, voting is damage control.

    3. “Tulsi is the real deal” So many of them are – before they are actually elected.

  17. Hasie Kunt is a dick. Joe & Mika suck. Wage Peace…

  18. I think the best defence when the narrative is so fractured like this one is RIDICULE.If the interviewee responded by ridiculing the questions it would sting them greatly. It also might have a disinfection effect.

  19. klaus von Berlin Avatar
    klaus von Berlin

    Its not about individuals ,more than any other agency, banks have been successful in reducing would -be democratic man to a state of perpetual serfdom. The banks have helped and supported to determine social and political convention and have amassed phenomenal fortunes to endless wars.The only thing required is non- cooperation to hierarchical political obstruction of reality and truth. what we have instead is people warring with each other. Wake up stop smearing.

  20. Both US political parties are owned by the “The Lobby-USA” must watch
    Cynthia McKinney: US Lawmakers FORCED to Support Israel!
    The first amendment is being shredded by Zionist and so called progressives are too scared to talk about it.

    When will so-called ‘progressives’ start talking about the Zionist takeover of the U.S. government?
    Anti-BDS laws have been enacted in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky* Louisiana*, Maryland*, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York*, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin*.
    The first move after the shutdown for the U.S Senate was:
    The U.S. Senate took a step closer toward passing a bill that will tackle the anti-BDS movement in America, boost security cooperation with Israel and Jordan as well as increase sanctions on Syria.
    The Zionist control U.S. foreign policy. Trump is a complete Zionist puppet thus he has done everything Sheldon Adeldson wanted to include the move of the U.S embassy to Jerusalem.
    Watch “The Lobby-USA”

    “In view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic”- Michelle Alexander

    Until Gabbard speaks forcefully against “The Lobby” then I will believe she is truly anti-war and anti-establishment and not some controlled psyop like Sanders who folded like a cheap tent in the face of obvious corruption.

  21. FALSE NARRATIVES … Corporate media/propagandists are doing their part to spin the narrative about the “outsider, anti-war, ‘brave rebel among the dems….and, ooh look, the old democrats don’t like her! Oooh”

    She’s a full-fledged member of the duopoly. why would anyone fall for corporate narrative about her?

    And, why do people seem to blank out when Representative Gabbard’s membership in the Committee on Foreign relations is cited?

    Rep. Gabbard is a full member of the CFR. Those who’ve bought the media narrative abourt her will say “oh she’s just trying to add some balance to the group” – if they don’t blank out. .
    Those who haven’t abdicated critical thinking to be a fan will realize that she is, and has been, part of the corrupt system.

    CFR Board members include Laurence D. Fink, the Chairman and Chef Executive Officer BlackRock. …James P. Gorman the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Morgan Stanley… David M. Rubenstein, the Cofounder and Co-Chief Executive Officer, The Carlyle Group.
    Madeline Albright was a member and on the board.
    Corporate founders and members reads like a Koch Brothers rolodex.

    Among the “notable” members are Hillary and Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan (cofounded Project for the New American Century), David Rockefeller, Jr., and Condoleezza Rice — and the list goes on.

    Gabbard’s membership in the CFR is a glimpse behind the media-pushed phony narrative about “the rebellious outside”.

    When people who really should know better fall for the spin, I despair for ​the human species.

    1. “outsider” not “outside” – please pardon the typo(s)

    2. I think you might be confusing committee for council on foreign relations.

      1. No, she really is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here: https://www.cfr.org/membership-roster-g-k.

  22. Caity, I don’t know if you saw this Chris Hedges article on lee Camp’s Truthdig, but either way I’m fairly sure that you do or would love it.

  23. Tulsi is the real deal. Courageous and articulate. Even if she doesn’t win the nomination, she will definitely drag the debate in the correct direction. But she will have her work cut out for her dealing with the snakes that were on display on Moron Joe.

  24. I like the way you write!

  25. The Walking Doc Avatar
    The Walking Doc

    In those wide shots the whole panel looked like deminished school children being disciplined in truth. They should be ashamed of themselves. Tulsi seems sincere to me, and I believe her! And I believe I know who the real enemy, of the people, is .

  26. I live in Hawaii. She and her family are bigots,very anti-gay and belong to a weird cult,led by Chris Butler. Google him. And her. She’s a fraud. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    1. She acknowledges her past as an anti-gay crusader (which her father still is), but from what I’ve read she seems honestly to have come to understand the wrongness of the views she learned from him. She has mentioned somewhere that she and her father have a pretty strained relationship as a result.

      As for her ties to Butler and the Hare Krishna movement, I agree that it’s unsettling. Once the MSM figure all that out they’re really going to have a field day with it.

      1. Do you really think that her ‘enemies’ in corporate media don’t know?

    2. Even if she has a past as an occasional homophobic cymbal jingler she does speak from an informed and rational viewpoint in regard to USG external affairs.
      In any case the accounts of her involvement appear to be highly exaggerated and have quite dubious sources giving account of them.
      She was in any case apparently challenging extremist/militant Gay rights activists, that seems to have been the context.

      A good measure of her rising significance in her current role is the ludicrous reaction to her, which is well described in this article.

      My only serious concern arising from her recent statements outlined in this article is that though her response toward questions concerning Syria was good, it is clearly true that the principal purpose in USG actions in Syria, both covert and overt, IS indeed to confront and destabilise the current Syrian govt.

      Clearly the USG aims to distabilise the Syrian State apparatus and Civil society.
      The have actively pursued this objective both tactically and strategically for many years, it is far from being a recent development.

      So, the idiots leading the interview are seemingly both astoundingly Ignorant, or perhaps deliberately misleading, or both, and are also perhaps suffering from the onset of a Rabies infection.
      However they are in a way never-the-less correct in regard to USG activities in Syria.

      Her father ran as a Republican candidate for the Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District in the 1990s.
      She was at one time aligned with a branch-off element of the Hare Krishna movement that ascewed their otherwise often ubiquitous street activities.

      She apparently identifies as a Hindu, though the media has not taken that up yet.
      Maybe they are still looking it up in an online dictionary and don’t quite know how to exploit it.
      Standby perhaps for some accusations of being anti-Christian.
      Of course if she dares mention Israel even in passing then the bonfire will be lit.

      1. “Clearly the USG aims to distabilise the Syrian State apparatus and Civil society.” Which I hope everyone here knows, despite the narrative.

    3. Yes, Gabbard is a fraud, like her fellow politicans. Part of the democrats controlled opposition. It’s disappointing that Caity is apparently falling for a standard demo-repub trick.

      1. I’m not falling for shit. She is very clearly and undeniably disrupting war propaganda narratives, regardless of whatever else may be true about her politics and loyalties. My only commentary on the 2020 race has been about her effect on the narrative.

        1. She’s part of the narrative, and it’s amazing that you don’t see that, because you’re usually very perceptive.

          In the U.S., a default manouver by the corporate propagandist is to create confusion.
          How better to disrupt the peace movement which had been gianing strength here than to give media time ti someone who disrupts the stock, known narrative.
          “She doesn’t sound hawkish…but holy shit she’s a coporate politicans…well, maye some are good after all…but that’s what I thought back in 1993 with Bubba Clinton…but she’s an outsider… oh wait! she’s part of the duopoly…but she sure sounds good there on the teevee. I’m so confused.”

          What she’s helping to disrupt is cohesion in the move away from imperialism, and from the duopoly.

          She is a part of the duopoly, not a rebal or an outsider.

          Let’s not mistake internal bickering between members of the duopoly for genuine movement toward change.

          1. No, you’re just struggling to understand a key distinction. Think very hard about the following: I am not endorsing Gabbard’s presidency, and I am not saying that Gabbard will necessarily make a great president, and I am not saying it’s unreasonable to be suspicious of her, and I am not saying that you should vote for her. What I am saying is that it’s clear from the mass media’s response to Gabbard that she is disrupting war narratives. This would be true whether or not she’s “controlled opposition”, whether or not she’s a secret homophobic Hindu nationalist, and whether or not she’s secretly the worst person in the world.

            What you fail to understand, in your obnoxious condescension, is that my focus is solely on what’s happening to official narratives. The behavior of those narratives has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Gabbard is a saint or a sociopath or anything in between.

            1. Well, thanks for clarifying. I, too, suspect that CFR-member, Democratic Party member Tulsi is probably controlled opposition (regardless of how she sees herself), to suck potential energy from independent political movements.

          2. In other words, you are mistaking an opportunity to attack the mass media for cheerleading for a particular candidate. Think harder about this.

            1. Orlando Valerino Avatar
              Orlando Valerino

              Is this why you removed my earlier comment ?

              It is your space so do what you will. Just wondering.

              1. I didn’t remove anything; it just got sent to “pending” for some reason. Should be there now.

        2. (replying to your comment below, so in this spot, so there’s a but more room).
          I get what you’re saying, and I respect your insightfulness. What I’m saying is that her effect is quasi-disruption. Theater. Similar to the way Trump during 2016 created controversy that got a lot of air time because the DNC thought the theater would swing public opinion their way.
          Gabbard expresses a non-hawkish view and then it’s contained and made one-dimensional, diluting the audience that true anti-war activists like Sheehan or Baraka have. She is made to look “extreme and anyone to the left of her then looks really ultra-fringe.
          It’s a sneaky way to contain anti-war sentiment.

    4. Human Rights Watch giver her voting record a positive 100%; I myself have homophobic relations. That does not make me homophobic. There are things you can criticize her for; use a better one.

      1. @Emily Tock a thorough search on Human Rights watch Tulsi Gabbard” did not turn up one thing about your alleged HRW rating of Gabbard’s voting record..

        What it did turn up was this – an objective analysis if Gabbard’s supposed “eveolution” about LBGTQ rights.

        “Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Evolution’ On LGBTQ Rights Isn’t Convincing”

        1. Its the Human Rights Campaign, not Human Rights Watch. Also, I gave up on the Huffington Post a long time ago, just as bad as MSNBC, “objective analysis” and HP do not belong in the same sentence.


          1. Thanks for correcting you’re earlier citation, and for the link.
            You’ve probably noticed that Kirsten Gillbrand and *cough* Chuck Schumer are among the numerous politcians who have 100 score, too.

            The HP, as a whole, is a propaganda rag, but, like most things, it’s not all black and white, and occasionally good analyises are posted on the HP.
            You have to give the thought to assess them on their own merits, and the article I posted the link to is relevant.

  27. Msm in the US are so obviously willing servants of the power elite it’s hardly worth talking about them except to scoffand ridicule. The problem ( from of course is that these people do impact on public opinion there; without that would not massive public protest have still birthed all US wars and interventions since at least WW 2?( not forgetting the Alamo and the Spanish/American war).

  28. Linda D Gentsch Avatar
    Linda D Gentsch

    Yep, you and our other anti-war journalist are going to be REALLY, REALLY busy. Happy to share everything you write on this topic.

  29. The more the Goebbels wannabes pile on Gabbard, the more certain I am that she’s the real deal. And from what I’m hearing from actual people in India, the Modi hate comes from the same kind of people trying to foment Gabbard hate in America. I’ve still got some things to learn, but it sounds like the Indian MSM is just as corrupt as the American.

    1. Keep a list of who is against her …. it will define her positions.

  30. Thank you for this update on Tulsi and showing she’s spot on!

  31. Caitlyn, can you comment on her belonging to the Council on Foreign Relations? That is the complaint that I’m seeing on alt media. In my view the CFR is just a catch-all chamber of commerce type group these days not the coup fomenting body it was in the Dulles days. Also it has different levels of membership.

    1. Maybe she is in there spying for Russia.
      Otherwise it isseems a bit odd
      The CFR are a strange choice of playmates.

      1. I interpret “CFR membership” as a “tell”. But, if enough people do, then TPTB next time will groom someone not officially in the CFR!

    2. I think the Council of Foreign Relations publishes their membership list. You might have a look.

      According to Wiki and as an earlier poster pointed out she is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

      Given the brilliance and accuracy we often see from hate posters they could well have confused the Committee with the Council. Or they might just be lying.

      1. She was on the Committee on Foreign Affairs (which is a committee of the House of Representatives) last year but not this year. She is indeed a member of the CFR.

      2. First name under “G” on the Council on Foreign Relations roster.

        Minimal effort doing a search turns that information up.

        A little effort on your part will show you the corprorate founders and corporate and individual members, and the fact that it’s a “think tank” (like the PNAC is a “think tank), and has no oversight.

    3. I thing that accusing Tulsi of being a member of Council on Foreighn Relations is a bit like accusing here of being a Member of Congress.

      1. The article discusses her challenging or at least disrupting the prevailing and heavily promoted formal USG sponsored narratives.
        That in itself is refreshing.
        It might be noted though that in challenging her interviewers on their rather ludicrous and baiting questions she also reinforced the false narrative that the USG is engaged in Syria to combat IS/ISIS.

        It is a regime change operation they are executing in Syria, always has been, and still is.
        The USG seeks to depose the current G of Syrian by supporting and enabling forces that seek to disrupt and destroy Syrian civil society and the nation’s Government institutions.

        In the interview Tulsi Gabbard blocks the somewhat rabbid questions by retorting the official line that the US is in Syria to combat IS.
        In doing so she echos and reinforces the formal USG narrative that the US is there to combat ‘terrorism’.

        The interviewers feverishly call it as it is, a ‘regime change’ motivated USG (and allied proxies) action against the Syrian govt and quite vigorously attempt to challenge and discredit her for seemingly opposing it.

        So Tulsi Gabbard’s response actually supported and reinforced the official, but false USG narrative that the activities in Syria are part of the so-called GWOT rather than a ‘regime change’ operation.

        The subtlety is that she was throwing the official but false narrative back at the interviewers , and that seemed to both go over their collectively crazy heads, and infuriate them as well.

        I suspect she is throwing a coin with two heads and no tail, but at least she is throwing that coin.

        Maybe I got the intent of this article wrong, but it struck me that it was not written as a puff-piece on Ms Gabbard, more it was about examining the disruption she is causing in the MSM echo chambers.

      2. One of the significant differences is that the CFR membership is not elected by the American people.

Leave a Reply