Tulsi Gabbard to attempt to pass bill to withdraw all US troops from Syria

UNITED STATES – OCTOBER 1: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, attends a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere hearing in Rayburn Building, October 1, 2014, on Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who is imprisoned in Mexico. Tahmooressi, who suffers from PTSD, has been held in Mexico since being arrested in March for carrying guns across the border. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:00 A.M.) – U.S. congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D) of Hawaii will attempt to force a vote in the House of Representatives next week to require President Donald Trump to withdraw the remaining American troops from Syria.

“President Trump’s deployment of U.S. troops to secure Syrian oil fields that do not belong to us, with talks of welcoming in private oil corporations to take the oil, is unconstitutional and a violation of international law,” the congresswoman said in a statement last week.

If she is successful, the resolution will require the U.S. Armed Forces to withdraw from Syria unless they are engaged in anti-terror operations.

However, the presidential hopeful is facing heavy opposition from those within her own party, as the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland told Al-Monitor on Wednesday that he intends to vote ‘no’ against the resolution.

“I intend to vote no,” Hoyer told Al-Monitor, adding that “we haven’t whipped this, but I think our members think an immediate withdrawal would not be appropriate.”

Gabbard, who has attempted to pass a similar resolution in the past, has been one of the most outspoken anti-war politicians in Washington; this stance has brought on unfounded allegations of Russian collusion from members of the Democratic Party.

The International Zionist Conspiracy

It poisons everything it touches

House Intel Democrats Releases Trump Impeachment Report

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

After months of public and private testimony, the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has released their impeachment report  accusing President Trump of misconduct by withholding military aid to Ukraine unless various demands were met.

Trump is also accused of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by instructing witnesses and agencies to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony, as well as intimidating and tampering with witnesses.

Jon Ward


262 pages and another 38 pages of endnotes https://twitter.com/jonward11/status/1201937204886614016 

Jon Ward


full House Intel report is here: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf 

Prebuttal bullet points (Via Axios):

  • They claim there is “nothing inherently wrong” with the Trump administration’s actions toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani’s direct involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
  • They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay — including EU Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland’s testimony.
  • They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats’ motives, and they allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
  • They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is motivated by politics rather than substance.
  • They use Trump’s well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
  • They say there was “nothing wrong” with asking questions about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered in the 2016 elections.


“The decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry is not one we took lightly.  Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a wrenching process for the nation.  I resisted calls to undertake an impeachment investigation for many months on that basis, notwithstanding the existence of presidential misconduct that I believed to be deeply unethical and damaging to our democracy.  The alarming events and actions detailed in this report, however, left us with no choice but to proceed.”

On Tuesday night, the committee will meet in a 6 p.m. ET closed-door session to formally adopt the report. Members of the committee began reviewing the majority report Monday evening.

The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own “prebuttal” claiming Trump committed “no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power. The Democrats’ report will be combined with the ‘prebuttal’ and sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.

Joe Biden Says He Would Make Saudi Arabia a «Pariah»

Joe Biden Says He Would Make Saudi Arabia a «Pariah»

By Staff, The Intercept

Former US Vice President and Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential elections Joe Biden said he would not sell weapons to Saudi Arabia – marking a sharp contrast with the Obama administration – and stressing he would make the Saudis “pay the price” for their killing of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

Biden made his remarks during the Democratic debate on Wednesday night.

“I would make it very clear we were not going to in fact sell more weapons to them,” Biden said. “We were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are.” Biden also said there is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia,” and, in reference to Yemen, said he would end “end the sale of material to the Saudis where they’re going in and murdering children.”

Biden’s admission is a significant departure from the Democratic Party position before Donald Trump. Saudi Arabia objected to the US’s posture during the so-called Arab Spring, as well as the Obama administration’s diplomatic overtures toward Iran, but that did not stop the US from supporting the Saudis’ intervention in Yemen and from selling Saudi Arabia more than $100 billion in weapons. In recent years, under Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman [MBS], Saudi Arabia has launched an unprecedented crackdown on dissent at home and abroad, and Khashoggi’s murder has led Democrats to call for fundamental changes to the US-Saudi alliance.

At the Atlanta debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called Saudi Arabia a “brutal dictatorship” and said that “what we’ve got to know is that Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally.” He added, “We need to be rethinking who our allies are around the world, work with the United Nations, and not continue to support brutal dictatorships.”

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said, “It’s a human rights violation, without coming to the United States Congress, for an authorization for the use of military force, for us to refuel Saudi jets to bomb Yemeni children.” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said, “When the president did not stand up the way he should have to that killing and dismemberment of a journalist with an American newspaper, that sent a signal to all dictators across the world that that was OK.”

Indeed, many of the more captivating moments of the debate – the fifth in the monthly series – were focused on foreign policy, and on appealing to black voters. And the longstanding frontrunners – Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sanders – left ample room for the other seven to jump in. Warren had been at the center of a firestorm in last month’s Democratic debate, having pulled ahead in national and early-state polls. She has slipped in national polls, as South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has climbed, and questions about topics in her wheelhouse – corruption, and Medicare for All – flew by without incident.

Bernie Sanders Warns Democrats He Might Run as an Independent?

October 27, 2019

Bernie Sanders Warns Democrats He Might Run as an Independent?

by Eric Zuesse for the Saker Blog

On October 23rd, an extraordinary article was published online at Newsweek, but merely as “Opinion,” and this not coming from Senator Sanders’s Democratic primary campaign for the U.S. Presidency, but only from a supporter: “‘BERNIE OR BUST’ IS A WARNING—IGNORE IT, AND TRUMP WINS | OPINION”. It would be a historic article if the Sanders campaign endorses it. And, on October 27th, they seem to have done just that, by allowing its author to send it on October 27th to the campaign’s enormous email list (which includes me). Here’s its opening:

Fellow revolutionary,

I am fortunate to have been offered an opportunity to publish an opinion piece about Bernie or Bust as a WARNING for 2020 in Newsweek last week.


PLEASE read it and share that column on social media, in website comments or in emails to any Democrats you know. The only way Bernie can get the 50%+ of pledged delegates he will need to prevent the superdelegates from selecting another candidate, who will lose to Trump, is to make sure Party members understand that #OnlyBernieBeatsTrump. THAT is the point of the “WARNING.”

Either the Sanders campaign blundered to provide their email list to the article’s author, or else this statement now IS a warning that comes from the Sanders campaign. (I have emailed the sender, asking how he got my email-address, and there has been no reply yet. I also emailed Faiz Shakir, the Campaign Manager for Bernie Sanders — likewise no answer yet.)

Sanders currently is among the top three primary candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination in the polls; and each one of those three — Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Sanders — out-polls substantially, in hypothetical Democrat-versus-Republican U.S. Presidential general-election match-ups, against Donald Trump. However, if Sanders becomes rejected by Democrats but would then accept the Green Party’s nomination — which he refused to accept when it was offered to him when Hillary Clinton became the Democrats’ nominee in 2016 — then he wouldn’t draw only 2.74% in the general election as did the non-politician Ralph Nader in 2000 when the two major-Party nominees were Bush versus Gore, but instead he would draw vastly higher than did the non-politician Ross Perot in the 1992 contest against Republican Bob Dole versus Democrat Bill Clinton: 18.91%. Sanders would certainly do better than Perot (who had no record in public office) did. Sanders, even (if not, now, especially) as an independent, could actually win the Presidency.

Sanders, unlike either Nader or Perot, does have an actual record — and a lengthy one — of votes and actions as a U.S. public official; i.e., real-world public office, instead of just campaign promises and asserted positions. Simply by his name being on the Presidential ballot as a nominee — and without any political Party at all — Americans would confidently know what he would actually propose and fight for as the U.S. President (and not merely as a candidate — who can say and promise anything). A record like that is totally different from promises. A record like that shows a person’s actual policy-priorities. Sanders doesn’t need any Party, except in order to gain ballot-access so as to be listed on the general-election ballot in each one of the 50 states (or at least in virtually all of them).

If he runs a third-Party campaign, he actually could end up drawing more Electoral-College votes, and even more voters’ votes, than either of the other two Parties’ nominees would. He could possibly end up doing, to American politics, what Abraham Lincoln did in 1860: replace one of the two existing Parties by a new Party. Instead of replacing the Whigs by the Republicans, as Lincoln did in 1860, Sanders could replace the Democrats by the Greens in 2021. It would be American politics for the 21st Century, transforming away from the billionaire-monopoly politics ever since 2000 if not since 1992. Then, with the Clintonized (mega-corporate-controlled) ‘Democratic’ Party finally becoming replaced by a progressive-populist Democratic Party (up against Trump’s conservative-‘populist’ billionaire-controlled Republican Party), America might actually become a democracy again — a politics in which ideology (instead of interethnic and gender differences) will be providing the basis for voters’ political choices. The billionaires would likely lose their existing control over the U.S. Government.

Sanders definitely wants to become a Democratic Party U.S. President, but, if that Party rejects him yet again, he could actually win even bigger as an independent, who goes up against the two billionaire-controlled Parties. Perhaps he, now, finally, knows this.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Hail-Mary Pass’ Against Hillary Clinton Failed

October 25, 2019

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker blog

Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Hail-Mary Pass’ Against Hillary Clinton Failed

For a few days, active Democrats were stunned by — and America’s political news-media were focusing heavily upon — this string of tweets from Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard:


Tulsi Gabbard@TulsiGabbard

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a …

4:20 PM – Oct 18, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard@TulsiGabbard

Replying to @TulsiGabbard

… concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and …

4:20 PM – Oct 18, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard@TulsiGabbard

Replying to @TulsiGabbard

… powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. 

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

4:20 PM – Oct 18, 2019

She was challenging there the top-down-imposed ‘historical’ narrative of her own Party (‘Russiagate’ included), regarding not only that Party’s latest Presidential nominee Clinton, but the Party’s entire leadership ever since at least 9/11 (along with the leadership of the Republican Party) and the resulting transformation of this nation into a permanent-warfare state, one invasion after another — what she has referred to, throughout her entire campaign, as “regime-change wars.”

It backfired against Gabbard.

There is no indication, in any of the polling since that happened, which shows that this attack against Clinton helped Gabbard’s campaign, and there is even one poll which seems to indicate that it instead sharply turned many Democratic Party voters, in the first of all of the contested states, Iowa,  firmly and decisively against her.

On October 24th, was headlined from Iowa State University “Buttigieg jumps to second in Iowa State University/Civiqs poll”, reporting that, “The online poll of 598 likely caucus-goers also asked voters to list the candidate they do not want to win the nomination. Biden and Sanders topped this list. Peterson says Tulsi Gabbard was third, moving from nearly 7% in September to 17%.”

This poll was taken during October 18-22, which is precisely the period when the suddenly now-personal war between Gabbard and Clinton, about the goodness or badness of post-9/11 permanent-warfare America, was the focus of this nation’s political news. A full 10% of Iowa’s registered and active Democrats (17%-7%) had suddenly switched to placing Gabbard onto their “DO NOT want to be the nominee” list. And the percentage who were saying that they were intending to vote for her declined down 67%, to 2%, from its previous 6%. So: she had lost two-thirds of her Party’s voters, while she had more than doubled (17/7) the number of Democratic Party voters who are outright hostile against her. That’s a stunning change since their September poll.

Gabbard has been interviewed hostilely on Democratic Party ‘news’-media (because she has been challenging her Party’s neoconservatism), but supportively interviewed on Republican Party ‘news’-media (as if that Party weren’t actually just as neocon as the Democratic Party), and she has consistently said that she will not run as a third-party candidate even if one of her Party’s neocons (such as Biden, Buttigieg, or Warren) wins its nomination. But candidates have said this sort of thing before and subsequently reversed their position on the matter, and she might do that; so, she still remains a factor to consider in the 2020 contest.

Right now, Republican ‘news’-media, such as Fox News, are continuing to give her air-time, such as Fox’s Hannity did on October 24th, in a good summary-presentation of the Clinton-Gabbard conflict about the future of the Democratic Party regarding international relations, which was titled “Tulsi Gabbard: This is what’s so dangerous about Hillary Clinton”.

Apparently, Gabbard’s strategy now is to continue to present to voters, both in the Democratic and in the Republican Parties as well as to independents, her vision of the type of country that America ought to be (not the type of country — for example — that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies in 2003); and, if she becomes rejected by her own Democratic Party, then, at that time, she might be able, with her now-established name-recognition and clearly articulated policy-views, to become the Green Party’s 2020 candidate and to present an appeal designed in order to draw enough independents, plus both Democrats and Republicans who have come to reject their former Parties, so as to stand a realistic chance of winning in 2020, in essentially the same way that Abraham Lincoln did in 1860, when the Republican Party replaced the previous Whig Party. If the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders, then she wouldn’t do that, but, otherwise, she might. Consequently, any intelligent Democrat whose main  concern is to win the Presidency in 2020 (so as to have a Democrat as President starting in 2021) will be voting for Sanders, because, otherwise, Tulsi Gabbard could well throw a monkey wrench into the Presidential campaign machinery for both  of the existing Parties — and that might produce a replacement of the Democratic Party by the Green Party, in the same way that the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. It could happen again — but this time to the Democratic Party.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Candidate for US Presidency Tulsi Gabbard Accuses Trump of Supporting Terror: I Will End Draconian Sanctions on Syria



October 16, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg – the two military veterans among Democratic candidates for the 2020 nomination – clashed at the latest debate over Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American troops from northern Syria.

Hawaii congresswoman Gabbard, who has long been a vocal critic of the US presence in Syria, said that the slaughtering of Kurds was a consequence of what she called the “regime-change war” in Syria.

She suggested that not only does Trump have the blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so too do many politicians from both parties who have supported US military involvement in the region.

Ms Gabbard, who served in Iraq, said that were she to become president, she would end draconian sanctions on Syria that she said were killing civilians, and that she would “stop supporting terrorists like al-Qaeda who have been the ground force for the regime-change war in Syria”.

Source: Websites

Related Videos

Related Posts

%d bloggers like this: