After protracted efforts to making progress on a North Korea denuclearization deal, President Trump made a bold, and indeed historic move in visiting the North-South Korea demilitarized zone to meet Kim Jong Un.
With a huge number of Democratic Party candidates trying to differentiate themselves from Trump going into 2020, many are lining up to condemn Trump for the very idea of courting diplomacy with Kim, and not just accepting the status quo of generations of acrimony.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), accused Trump of “squandering American influence” by having such meetings, mocking him for “exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-CT) and former Sen. Kamala Harris both rejected Trump’s meeting as a “photo-op.” Julian Castro and Beto O’Rourke said Trump had nothing to show for meeting with Kim, with Joe Biden said he was “coddling” Kim at the expense of national security.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) took this much further with his own comments, saying meeting with Kim in North Korea was like Neville Chamberlain going to talk to Hitler.
Tulsi, Tulsi, Tulsi….you’ll not win by going with the Democratic foreign policy line — you WILL win by sticking to your antiwar, pro dialogue position — Trump is brilliant in talking directly to Un. His “advisors” are mired in the industrial-military establishment.
Trump ran a platform of Peace and prosperity. So far he is trying to deliver, The Military Industrial Complex and the Neocons hate him. That is a good thing. Like Justin I always thought Trump was our best chance for peace in the near future. The deck is way stacked against him. But he keeps plugging along. Too bad about Tulsi. I agree with you.
I don’t know why the MIC would be upset with him considering our “defense” budget of $700+ billion. And the neocons should be pleased that he’s surrounded himself with hawks. His “plugging along” includes our attempt to destroy Iran and Venezuela economically until they change regimes or capitulate to our every demand. I just don’t understand while a photo-op changes any of that.
I don’t understand why people with such a short memory think Iran and Venezuela suddenly became issues when Trump was elected. What else do you want to lay at his feet? The F-35? The Civil War? You think the President can unilaterally change all of our foreign policy while being heavily resisted by every major US and Global organization? The President signs the budget, he doesn’t propose it or present it. Venezuela and Iran were Obama created messes Trump has to clean up. You’re blaming the janitor for the mess he is trying to clean up. You obviously are a clueless one infected by TDS. Run for office once, let’s hear your ultra simplistic fixes for all that ills mankind…….
I didn’t say Trump created these issues but he did exasperate them to put it mildly. And how is he cleaning up Obama’s mess in Iran? Dropping out of the JCPOA, re-imposing sanctions and flooding the region with military assets while threatening obliteration on multiple occasions seems like a strange way to clean up any mess.
“The President signs the budget, he doesn’t propose it or present it.”
In what universe? In this universe, the president proposes/presents a budget every year, with great fanfare, and has been required to do so by law for almost a century.
Of course, the budget that Congress passes is never the budget the president proposes. Usually it’s the budget the president proposes with a few cosmetic cuts and a bunch of additions.
No, the president can’t unilaterally change all of US foreign policy. But he’s the commander in chief of the US armed forces. If he says, for example, “get the troops out of Afghanistan, you have 30 days,” then the troops are out of Afghanistan in 30 days or heads roll, if he’s doing his damn job.
As far as Iran is concerned, it has never been a legitimate “issue,” but it’s been used as one by every president going back to Carter. Obama did do a little bit to dial that “issue” down, by negotiating a deal in which Iran gave up a nuclear program it didn’t actually have in return for getting back some money the US stole from it 40 years ago. Trump has worked over-time to turn the non-issue back into an “issue,” with quite a bit of success.
Every job in the world inherits the mess it’s predecessor left. Stop whining. The question, is the janitor cleaning it up, or just making an even bigger mess.
And I don’t know why we always have to hear about how others did the same thing or how they started something as if that absolves anything done after that by their man(Trump in this case).
TDS – it’s the Trump supporters who have the derangement. We were apparently 10 minutes from attacking Iran, the orders had been signed. Doesn’t that sound like a slight escalation from the Obama years, where we had an agreement in place limiting the purity and amounts of uranium refinement?
And then you throw a hissy fit that someone dared to besmirch Trump’s good name. You think Trump opponents are deranged? Trump was the one publicly and repeatedly declaring that Obama wasn’t even a legitimate citizen and therefore not a legitimate President. I wonder why he thought that would get traction in this day and age? Ask the Proud Boys. Mitch McConnell broke with 240 years of Congressional tradition and just straight up refused to even hold a hearing on Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee. He got away with it, too.
He didn’t run on a platform of peace. He ran on a platform of being a Washington outsider, versus the ultimate Washington insider, and won. His rants against NATO were about funding levels, not about the purpose of its existence. He’s hired neocons like Pompeo and Bolton for important positions in his administration. He’s a transparent huckster with no moral compass. He’s openly stated that he barely even needs to -inform- Congress if he decides to attack Iran. He’s declared fake emergencies to circumvent nominal Congressional oversight to sell arms to his personal friends, the Saudis, so they can keep bombing Yemen.
He’s not a man of Peace. He’s a Huey Long type populist huckster (well heeled, but pretends he’s for the common man,) who’s out to profit personally from the office, your generic dirty politician.
Gabbard said that Trump “shouldn’t think that being friendly with Kim is “going to be enough to make a deal that will achieve our objective.””
Isn’t that actually correct? Friendly is great in person; but not when we are still pointing guns at each other. Let’s put away the guns first?
Tulsi is sticking to her “anti-war, pro-dialogue position.” But she understands the difference between diplomacy and a cheap publicity gimmick. She supported negotiations between Trump and North Korea. And she took heat from the war Democrats for that. But this is a publicity stunt. There was no dialogue or negotiation. No preparation or discussion of issues. We need a peace treaty, not a photo op. Tulsi wasn’t fooled and we shouldn’t be either.
As Tulsi said “I look at each issue on its own merit. Partisan politics don’t matter. It only matters whether something is good for the American people or not. That’s why many have a hard time figuring me out. I don’t play their games. I don’t fit in their boxes.”
Tulsi really blew it there!!! I bet someone got to her already……………bye bye Tulsi. 🙁
And then there were zero. Gabbard was the only Democrat I would have voted for. But given previous “anti war” candidates who turned on a dime and became warmongers when empowered, I’m not going to be supporting equivocal anti war candidates.
The only history some of the liberal interventionist (Ryan)/neocon (McCain/Kasich) warmongers know, starts with 1938 and ends in 1945. Did these fools ever think about how a good share of the world is “appeasing” us?
Jason Ditz’s views are rarely misconceived and in his characterization of most of the Dem candidates he is right on the money.
BUT his characterization of Tulsi is wide of the mark.
The article on Tulsi which he cites (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-north-korea-kim-tulsi-gabbard-nuclear-deal) states:
“President Trump is “making a big mistake” thinking his relationship with Kim Jong Un will be enough to forge a deal, Tulsi Gabbard claimed.”
She goes on to say:
“If you’re in Kim’s position, you’re wondering, why should I step in to making an agreement to get rid of nuclear weapons when I don’t know if this president, or a future president, is going to decide to go back on that agreement, wage a regime change, war or something else,” Gabbard charged.” In this context she cites the case of the naive Gaddafi who gave up his nuclear weapons program with no iron clad guarantees that the West would not attack – and he suffered the consequences. And surely after Bolton’s words that a Libya style denuclearization is required in North Korea, Kim gets the point.
So what Tulsi is saying is that personal friendliness is not enough in this situation and that Trump must do more if we are to see the full or even partial denuclearization of NK. And on that she is right on the money. She is NOT saying that Trump should not talk to Kim.
So I think Ditz gives the wrong impression. Go to the full 8 minute interview, dear reader, and decide for yourself. You can view it here (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-north-korea-kim-tulsi-gabbard-nuclear-deal)
It is also worth noting that other candidates are resorting to the old saw that we should never talk to dictators, whereas again, Tulsi is not saying that. She has said talking to Kim is good, and now she is saying more must be done. Quite a contrast from other Dems who are way behind Trump in their refusal to talk to Kim. Perhaps she should repeat her support of Trump on that score, but that is not easy to do in the heat of a Presidential campaign – although she might be surprised how well that would play.
Gabbard also charges Trump with failing to see the urgency of the situation something that speaks sharply to Tulsi and other Hawaiians after the false alarm of a nuclear attack on January 13, 2018.
Clearly Tulsi Gabbard is carrying the antiwar banner in 2020 as clearly as Ron Paul did in earlier years. Both have suffered from the neglect and the gratuitous attacks of the MSM. Let us criticize where criticism is due but not criticize without very good reason.
Jason didn’t “characterize” Gabbard except to point out that she’s antiwar. Other than that, what he did was QUOTE her.
“Let us criticize where criticism is due but not criticize without very good reason.”
Precisely.
Jason quoted her IN PART. I reiterated that quote of his and went on to quote MORE to show that he is not adequately representing her.
I invited the readers to listen to the entire 8 minutes of the video to decide for themselves. I hope people do that. In that case this exchange will be worthwhile.
Perhaps “characterize” was not the correct word. But Jason did offer an opinion by saying that she “disappointed many” in what she said. Now that is not exactly fair, is it – and unusual for Jason. Who were those “many”? Reminds me of “anonymous sources” that the MSM uses so often.
And this is not a general criticism of the very capable Jason Ditz. I think he made a mistake in this case. Perhaps he was in a hurry. It is important to correct misimpressions of antiwar candidates whether Tulsi Gabbard or Ron Paul.
Relax a bit, Thomas.
I’m almost always relaxed.
But you’re treating Jason’s news briefs like opinion pieces and assuming that if he doesn’t include every fact you find relevant, his opinion is not your opinion. That’s an untenable position.
I do agree with you that readers should listen to the entire 8 minutes of the video. I disagree with you that doing that would make them more pro-Tulsi.
“Trump made a ‘big mistake’ in meeting Trump” was certainly a misstatement. Truth is, though, Trump and Kim have a lot in common, so maybe it was like looking in the mirror to some extent. Trump gets along just fine with ruthless dictators, his love-fest with MBS being a prime example. He speaks their language, gangsta. I’m sure this photo-op will fade into the reality that Trump will continue the illegal sanctions which is a thug’s way getting what he wants.
Thomas, Really,,,,,,,what you want him to be is the same as all the recent Prezidents that got us into the mess we are in today. Get treatment for that TDS before it proves fatal to your health.
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/06/30/trump-tells-saudi-crown-prince-hes-done-a-spectacular-job/
Who installed the dictators? All your other leaders you voted for and preferred, donated to and defended? You’re the type to break a glass and sweep it under the rug and then blame whoever found the mess for finding it. Obviously you are a man-child and a loser.
As long as someone else installed them then it’s ok to suck up to them? Is Trump responsible for ANY of his actions?
Trump, brought to you by, the “it’s not my fault” generation
Hugo Chávez refered to this kind of move as sharp witted oligarchs reducing tension before an election, clever.
Here we call it voting for the lesser evil. Put up an intelligent new face or reformed position that says things easily taken two ways. Like snake democrat Lyndon Johnson telling us that American boys shouldn’t have to go fight for the freedom of Asian boys. Of course he was honest that we shouldn’t have to go even as he worked hard to make us go.
M3R may eventually be supported by some good D’s already in office. Even so, be careful of anyone who suddenly wants to reduce tension and thereby derail evolution of a post capitalist government.
Garrett Connelly
M3R = movement toward a third republic
“M3R = movement toward a third republic”
We’re already on at least the fourth:
1st Republic: Washington to Buchanan
2nd Republic: Lincoln to either Wilson or FDR
3rd and/or 4th Republics: Wilson or FDR to either LBJ or 9/11
4th and/or 5th Republics: LBJ or 9/11 to today
The Democrats are warmongers, corrupt and pathetic….just like their sister party, the Republicans.
I believe Tulsi is putting lipstick on the pig. The pig being the DNC and center right voters.
Trump must be delighted, he knows how to manipulate the braindead soundbite-oriented “gotcha” media. Watch for him to continue antics like this so the media keeps asking Democratic candidates how they feel about Trump’s actions, keeping Donnie firmly in the limelight.
Meanwhile, Donnie continues his 1-on-1 lovefests, which are indeed merely photo ops for the president who never stops campaigning.
Tulsi is right to distinguish between meaningful diplomacy and a photo-op intended to help Trump’s reelection. Tulsi is guided by what she believes is best for the American people. She opposed the Dems when they criticized Trump’s first two meetings with Kim. Those were legitimate attempts at diplomacy. But there is no diplomacy in this photo-op – no preparation and no negotiations. It is just a publicity gimmick just serving Trump’s self-interest.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1145319071929511936
“Tulsi is guided by what she believes is best for Tulsi.”
Fixed, no charge.
Snappy retort. But as JR once said “Where’s the evidence?” Or maybe “Cui bono?”
If Tulsi wanted to benefit herself she would have kept her mouth shut and been in line for Senator or Governor in a deep blue state.Or if she didn’t want to wait, a cabinet position or an ambassadorship in the next Democratic administration. At 31 she was a speaker at the 2012 Democratic Convention and appointed co-Chair of the DNC. She threw it all away because she believes in standing up against the Neocons in both parties.
No one is right all the time. But self-interested? I don’t think so. I am old enough to remember the movement of the 1960’s. I know altruism in politics when I see it. And Tulsi’s choices make no sense unless she was sincere in her beliefs.
So if you disagree with Tulsi’s positions, let’s talk. But if you want to accuse her of being motivated by self-interest, show some evidence.
She’s a career politician who’s been 1) running for office, 2) serving in office, or 3) working for someone in office (legislative aid for US Senator Daniel Akaka) for the last 20 years. She was the Democratic darling of neocons and Republican hawks until she saw how well Trump was selling as a kind-sorta dove and did a 180 so fast she left skid marks all the way down the Capitol steps.
Yes, she flutters her hands in the air and talks very sweetly about how her whole life has always been all about just serving other people. Most other politicians do that too. Most of them don’t lay it on quite so thick, though. If she wasn’t actually running, I might think she was an actor doing an SNL skit making fun of that kind of thing.
Let’s forget about Tulsi’s motivations and talk about her position.
1. Do you think Trump’s photo-op with Kim advanced the Peace process?
2. Do you think it was self promotion?
3. Do you see the difference between Tulsi taking heat from the Democrats for supporting Trump’s positive response to the diplomatic initiative by the two Koreas and her criticism of a meaningless political gesture that Trump wants to use to pretend that he is engaged in diplomacy?
“1. Do you think Trump’s photo-op with Kim advanced the Peace process?”
Yes.
“2. Do you think it was self promotion?”
Yes.
“3. Do you see the difference between Tulsi taking heat from the Democrats for supporting Trump’s positive response to the diplomatic initiative by the two Koreas and her criticism of a meaningless political gesture that Trump wants to use to pretend that he is engaged in diplomacy?”
Yes. One may have been genuine, the other was just political opportunism.
And I don’t have a big problem with political opportunism. There’s always a chance, however slim, that the opportunist will follow through. That doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend it isn’t what it is.
The Saigon photo op was preceded with the US moving nuke bomber wings to Guam, by a week. Seems like, since trump has “been to North Korea”, it would be a simple matter to, at the very minimum, sign a peace accord. Is it not close enough to the election to do the simple thing ? No Thomas, there is no “advance the peace process” here. If you hired someone to fix your car, and he stopped by every 9 months to get a picture of himself with your broken car, I would hope you would fire him.
Any time US and North Korean politicians are talking to each other instead of threatening to bomb each other, “the peace process” is “advanced.”
Really ? Pretty low bar. I think a peace treaty is as low a bar as they come in Korea. Think trump needs the UN, or the Senate, lol. Cost…0. How many photo ops does it take ? There is actual work to be done, and it is not happening, at all.
Yes, it’s a pretty low bar. But traveling north one foot is traveling north, not standing still or traveling south.
On an escalator, what appears a step forward, is a net loss. Status quo in the US is a wholly unsustainable militant industrial society, on the escalator to oblivion. I guess old, comfortable men don’t grasp natures bill, except as it pertains to their own personal limited time left to put a pointless foot in front the other.
I confess to not really having paid a lot of attention to the Korea situation prior to the Clinton presidency. So far as I can tell, that situation is more peaceful and has a better future outlook now than it did then, and definitely better than at any time SINCE then.
“Jaw-jaw better than war-war.” The US had the latter with North Korea for nearly 70 years. Sure, it was at a low intensity after 1953, but there were mutual attacks, shellings, ship sinkings, etc. I know a few of the casualties. Every day that both sides seem interested in not continuing THAT shit is better than a day when either side wants to.
The change is caused by North Korea developing nukes, and a way to deliver them, not trump photo ops. Naturally, this development is the failure to normalize relations over the decades between the US and North Korea. This, has not changed.
Try again. North Korea had usable nukes ten years before Trump, and the US DOD claimed that North Korea had the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead on a KN08 that could reach the continental US two years before Trump.
This has nothing to do with trump, it is about North Korea being able to reliably deliver nuclear weapons on Japan, and US bases in the east. The North has been able to havoc South Korea for some time. Japan “hosts” US bases, and until recently, could feel war breakout would not involve Japan itself. That, is what has changed.
You keep looking for reasons to believe that things that didn’t happen until Trump was POTUS don’t have anything to do with Trump being POTUS.
Korea had nukes, and the ability to strike Japan and parts of the US (Alaska or Hawaii), at least as far back as the Bush administration. Korea supposedly had the ability to strike the mainland US during the Obama administration. But it wasn’t Bush or Obama who held direct talks with Kim, and it wasn’t Bush or Obama who actually went to North Korea. It was Trump.
You don’t have to like it. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. I get it. I don’t like Trump either. It’s OK to dislike him and to oppose him on anything you disagree with him on. But just making shit up so that you can ignore the facts is a silly way to go about it.
Having a missile that goes as far as Japan, and a bomb exploded in a cave, do not equate to a nuclear deterrent. North Koreas capability remains unknown, outside North Korea. It is a decent guess that when the Koreas made actual written agreements to demilitarize the region, somebody believed a deterrent existed, notwithstanding the Koreans themselves who are sick and tired of the whole thing. No, our disagreement, is in “peace advanced”, plain and simple. Ike flew over the 38th parallel when president, former president Clinton went to the North in 09. So ? Sign something real, peace accord, nuclear freeze, withdrawal of US first strike capability, then we can call a process “advancing”.
Tulsi’s position has been consistent. She would support Trump and disagree with the other Democrats if Trump eased sanctions, withdrew some US forces from S. Korea or Okinawa or prepared for another summit with Kim. She just distinguishes real diplomacy from Trump’s stunt at the DMZ.
She was the Democratic darling of neocons and Republican hawks until she saw how well Trump was selling as a kind-sorta dove and did a 180 so fast she left skid marks all the way down the Capitol steps.
==========
Read:
Jon Letman, The Cost of War: An Interview With Hawaii Congressional Candidate and Veteran Tulsi Gabbard, Truthout (Nov. 5, 2012).
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Questions Kerry, Dempsey at House Foreign Affairs Hearing on Syria, House Hearing on Military Force in Syria (Sept. 4, 2013).
==========
Back in 2012, 2013, Donald Trump was still doing his TV gig. Tulsi was already speaking out against unnecessary wars.
Look, Tom, you’re going to find votes and statements by Tulsi over the course of her Congressional career that Medea Benjamin doesn’t like, but then Code Pink in that same report isn’t entirely enamored of Bernie either. You shouldn’t be surprised that Code Pink would have its differences with Tulsi. Tulsi, after all (and unlike the youthful Bernie), is not a pacifist nor has she ever claimed to be one. Her position largely is, let’s mind our own busines, but if anyone takes a poke at us, let’s take a real good hard swing back at him … a rather commendable standard in a President.
Thanks for those links. I’ll check them out.
I’ve got no special reverence for the opinions of Media Benjamin/Code Pink.
What a bunch of assholes. McGovern would be disgusted. God knows I am.
I agree. But I am not disgusted by Tulsi’s righteous position. She is not anti-Trump but pro peace. Tulsi supported Trump when he was engaged in diplomacy with North Korea and she took heat for it. But the photo op at the DMZ is just an egotistical gesture that does not deal with the issues of security, reunification or nuclear proliferation. Tulsi just know the difference between bullshit and poetry.
I don’t understand what this is all about. Why are people complaining about Tulsi and the Trump/Kim meeting? Has Jason’s original article had something deleted from it?
Democrats make a mistake by opposing Trump’s efforts to make peace with North Korea. The voting public wants peace, not war.
Trump made a mess of things to get to this point, and the meet was not very productive, but at least he did it.
Inside the bubble of hating everything Trump, they might lose voters who prefer peace.
Has nothing to do with “hate”, man, trumpsters love that word. It is about getting the work of peace done.
These clowns have lost all credibility to speak on any serious issue.