There was a time when I actually believed that Tulsi Gabbard was different from the many other Democrat candidates now running for president, if no other reason than because she seemed to have a brain. But as is usually the case with these left-wing loons, most can only keep up the masquerade for just so long. What’s that old saying, “A leopard can never change its spots?” Ms. Gabbard recently let her true inner self show through in a recent video released on Twitter, during which she made comments that make clear she is just as extreme as the rest of those in her party.
And so it was on Monday evening, during the aforementioned video, that Ms. Gabbard launched into what was a profane attack on President Trump’s foreign policy, where she actually went so far as to denounce the entire idea of defending Saudi Arabia by saying, “We are not your prostitutes. You are not our pimp.” Ms. Gabbard was responding, in a very juvenile manner, to President Trump’s statements about a potential U.S. response to a recent attack by Houthi rebels on oilfields in Saudi Arabia that threatened global oil supplies as well as the security of a key American ally.
In a video released on Twitter, Ms. Gabbard declared:
“Yesterday President Trump offered to place our military, my brothers and sisters in uniform, under the command [sic] of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the dictator of the Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [sic]. Trump said, “[We] are locked and loaded, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!” Mr. President, as you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you [sic], or your family, and I never will, but your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia.
For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief. As a member of Congress, and as a soldier, I and all of my brothers and sisters in uniform have taken an oath to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America. There is nothing in our Constitution that gives you the power to go to war without the express consent of Congress [sic], but to speak of giving you the power to offer our military to a foreign power like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to use as they wish — President Trump, your words and actions are a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform, the American people, and our Constitution. My fellow servicemembers and I — we are not your prostitutes. You are not our pimp.”
One reason I find myself questioning Ms. Gabbard’s motivation for making what was really nothing more than a politically motivated rant is the fact that she does seem to be making some rather idiotic assumptions. First of all, it’s not clear that President Trump actually offered command of the U.S. military to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps a more reasonable interpretation of President Trump’s tweet would be to view it as him saying that would be consulting with an important American ally about an attack that is suspected to be the work of an American enemy or one of their many proxies.
Secondly, while the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is its official name, and not the “Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” is officially an Islamic state, it’s a bit of a stretch to refer to it an “Islamist” state. The term “Islamist” would suggest an association with terror organizations. Though the Saudi government, in decades past, did work to spread extremist ideas and did support terror, it has been in more recent decades that it has been far more cooperative when it comes to assisting the U.S. in fighting terror, if for no other reason than because the regime is a target of Islamist terror.
Thirdly, Gabbard’s claim never to have used “hateful rhetoric” against President Trump is not exactly a true statement and is more than a little disingenuous. You see, it was in November 2018 that Ms. Gabbard accused the president of being “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.” In April, she also called him “al-Qaeda’s big brother and protector in Syria,” in a Tweet that was highlighted by Iranian state television. And earlier Tuesday, Ms. Gabbard tweeted: Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “‘America First.’”
Fourth, while Ms. Gabbard is correct in that the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to declare war, it does not preclude the president from acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military to protect the country. The War Powers Act of 1973 allows the president to initiate military operations that last up to 90 days before he or she must seek official authorization from Congress. The law is controversial, but it remains the law. So perhaps Ms. Gabbard should do a little homework before next spouting off about the president.
And finally, Ms. Gabbard goes to great pains to point out, at every opportunity, that she is an officer in the U.S. Army National Guard. That said, it is Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that prohibits commissioned officers from using “contemptuous words” about the president — whether in uniform or out of uniform. And while Ms. Gabbard might enjoy some leeway from a military court due to the political nature of her job, to say that President Trump has betrayed the military, and to call him a “pimp” and a “bitch,” is likely a violation of the UCMJ.
I am ALWAYS very highly suspect of those who come out of the military, regardless of how long they may have served, and are able to find it within themselves to run for public office as a Democrat. And also, I find myself being interested in finding out what exactly it was that they did while in the military. And while most like to talk up their military experience, anyone remember the claims of ‘Little Dick’ Blumenthal’s or John Kerry Heinz, it’s more often than not that they were little more than glorified desk jockeys who were tucked safely far away from any actual combat.
Veterans who join the Democrat Party should be viewed with great skepticism because it is members of the party that make clear on a daily basis just how much they hate America. And it’s the making of such statements, by Ms. Gabbard, that should be seen for what it is, the action of a political opportunist. She is showing why she ran as a Democrat. She is full of herself and worried that she is becoming irrelevant so she attacks the President. It’s interesting to see a Democrat wrap herself in the flag and extol her virtue as a veteran. But she’s nothing but a fraud.
During my 24 years of military service, courtesy of the U.S. Navy, retiring as a Chief Petty Officer, it was whenever I found out that someone with whom I served was a Democrat, it was something that should have been obvious. Because these individuals tended to be nothing more than a backstabbing butt-sharks, and most of them were pretty severely lacking in the area of leadership. What concerned them most was their own personal advancement and they didn’t care much about who it was that needed to be used or sabotaged along their way. They were folks to be avoided.
Now perhaps Ms. Gabbard saw that by making such a highly inflammatory rant she might be able to gain for herself the requisite amount of attention that would then result in her gaining access to the next Democrat debate. I’m quite sure it had far more to do with that than it did with any genuine concern that she might have for those still serving in combat areas. After all, there is no doubt that those whose business is the spreading of ‘fake news’ will likely shower her with all manner of accolades for her disrespectful remarks about our Commander-in-Chief.
The bottom line here is that this little rant of hers makes very clear that Ms. Gabbard’s only loyalty would seem to be to the Democrat-Socialist agenda and not to her Oath to the Constitution. She’s just another glorified desk jockey in much the same way as Mr. Buttigieg. Unfortunately the military has a lot of these do nothing ass-kissing types who tend to talk a good game but not much else. These wannabes make me sick, as far as I’m concerned they’re doing nothing more than to take credit for that which those involved in actual combat have accomplished.
The truth is, like I said earlier, she lost her spot on the debate stage because she wasn’t letting enough of her inner craziness shine through. And now that she’s finally figured out that to gain favor amongst Democrats you must speak like a hate filled loon, I’m pretty sure she’ll be welcomed back to the debate stage for at least the next go around. And as long as she continues to spew her leftist drivel, I’m sure she will continue to be a ‘debate’ participant. And I have no doubt that it will be from the debate stage that she will continue her incendiary attacks on the president.