******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
In
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/10/bernie-sanders-and-the-movement-that-might-have-been/
Louis Proyect reviewed Jeffrey St. Clair's "Bernie & The Sandernistas" book
and makes a point to highlight Sen. Sanders' support for drone war citing
his 2016 "Meet the Press" interview.
It seems to me that although Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) doesn't call herself
a socialist, much the same criticism of being pro-drone could be raised
about her. I've written about this in
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/
where it seems to me that Gabbard is called "anti-war" or
"anti-establishment" from supporters and critics alike and neither is
correct in this description.
In 2018 she told Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept that she's pro-drone and
used considerable pro-war propaganda anti-war activists used to oppose:
Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the
past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike
forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position
that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S.
military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that
still your position?
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional
threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other
groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically
what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass
mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars
going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and
taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those
current AUMFs.
So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe
that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical
strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term
occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and then get
out and the very limited use of drones in those situations where our
military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of
risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing, you know, a
large amount of civilian casualties.
Source:
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/
around 28m43s into the audio recording.
She's also for some occupations (so long as they're not "long-term"
whatever that means) and what she said then she's never contradicted or
claimed was unrepresentative of her views. She did another interview with
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald on 2019-05-09
(https://theintercept.com/2019/05/09/watch-interview-with-democratic-congresswoman-and-2020-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbard/)
and contradicted none of what she said to The Intercept in 2018. In other
words, there's no reason to believe that the establishment-compatible
language she told The Intercept in 2018 has changed.
Anti-war progressives and anti-war conservatives are interested in talking
to her and about her campaign but they're not at all keen on bringing up
this unchallenged 2018 Intercept interview.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
