Warhawk putin lover tulsi gabbard sits down with lex in a call for further escalations
Generated transcript and sanitized by gpt
Quote
Tulsi: (...) War is justified when it is in the best interest of our national security and when it is the last resort, when all diplomatic efforts have been completed and exhausted. War becomes the last possible route that must be taken to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.(...)
Quote
Lex: How do you think, how do you hope, the war in Ukraine will end?
Tulsi: The only way this war ends is to do exactly what we're talking about. There has to be a brokered dialogue and conversation about peace that must occur with representatives from Russia and Ukraine. It's truly heartbreaking to see how efforts that began just weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine to do exactly this were thwarted by the Biden-Harris Administration and other Western Powers. It has cost so many innocent lives.
This is where I get deeply affected. I have friends in Ukraine, I've been there more than a few times, and I've enjoyed and appreciated the time I've spent there. When I hear from my friends about how afraid they are of their husbands being conscripted, feeling like they have to hide for fear of being yanked off the streets, and hearing about their friends and family members who've been killed in this war, it's truly heartbreaking.
The only way this ends is when both sides come to the table and find an agreement that neither side will be completely happy with. Both sides will be forced to make some concessions, but it's essential that they both walk away, and this war can finally come to an end. (...)
Quote
Lex: What's the role of the US president, perhaps to bring everybody to the table? Do you think that the US President should sit down with Zelensky and Putin together?
Tulsi: Yes, in an ideal world, this should have happened long ago. The question of whether or not President Biden is the right person to do that at this time, when all of the statements and comments that the Biden-Harris Administration has made from the beginning of this war essentially point to their objective being to basically destroy Russia, is pertinent. That's one of the reasons why they have supported both the continuation of this war for as long as it's lasted, as well as why they have thwarted efforts towards peace. Whoever the most effective neutral broker is, that's the best person to do this. The Biden-Harris Administration, I think, has a role to play in encouraging Zelensky to sit down and begin this process. Those kinds of engagements are the most powerful exercises of diplomacy that can't be matched, especially when our president's foremost role and responsibility is to serve as commander-in-chief. I wish that we had leaders who were more willing to engage because I think we'd make a lot more progress more quickly, and to find areas both of mutual interest as well as to help de-conflict and de-escalate areas where there is tension or disagreement or adversarial interests.
Quote
Lex: You've been criticized for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as part of your presidential campaign, and you were criticized for not calling him a war criminal. What's the right way to meet and communicate with these kinds of leaders?
Tulsi: We need leaders who have the courage to meet not just with allies, but with adversaries, in the pursuit of peace and increased understanding. If policies are being made through the lenses and barriers of bureaucrats, the media, and others who may have their own interests, our president, a leader, can't make decisions with the kind of clarity that we, the American people, need them to make. I think that these kinds of engagements are weaponized and politicized, as they were against me, by those who have their own interests, whether it be the military-industrial complex or in Washington. If you're not part of the official narrative of the US government, which was intent on a regime change war in Syria, then you're an outcast. It was unfortunate because people levied all kinds of accusations and smears against me for having the audacity to go and learn more, seeking the truth in the hopes of preventing more needless war and preventing yet another quagmire and disastrous war in the Middle East.
Simply for going and, yes, meeting with Assad, also meeting with religious leaders in Syria, also meeting and talking with people on the streets of Damascus, talking with college students, talking with people from the opposition party who would like to see Assad replaced, people labeled me as a lover or supporter of dictators. It's a sad state of affairs when some of the most influential voices in our country will label someone as such simply because they're saying, "Hey, we shouldn't be going to war. There is another way." I'm not alone in this. People who were against the war in Iraq were given similar labels until it became popular in our politics to have been against the Iraq War. We see the same thing now with people like Tucker [Carlson], myself, and others who are saying we should not be waging this proxy war against Russia via Ukraine and using the Ukrainian people's lives in this war.
Well, now all of a sudden, you're a Putin lover, a Putin puppet, or whatever. All these accusations are ultimately used by people who are not interested in having a substantive conversation about the truth, about looking at these wars and conflicts with a comprehensive view on all the dynamics that are at play. That's what I found when I came back. I went to Syria looking forward to shedding light on different perspectives, experiences, and stories that I found that would give people a more broad understanding of what was happening in that country. But there was zero interest in the mainstream media or in Congress in hearing any other perspective other than their own, which was, "We need to launch this regime change war through the use of arming and equipping known terrorists within Syria to overthrow the regime," without any realistic idea of who would take control once Assad was overthrown.
The reality actually being that no matter which opposition group they might try to prop up, they would not have the power to withstand the terrorist groups whose stated goal it was to take over power from Assad. They had no interest in trying to gain true understanding, and it was very disheartening. It was a big lesson learned about where their interests really were focused.
Lex: It's a simplistic narrative template that's fit into every single situation. A lot of stuff is not talked about in the Russia-Ukraine war. One of the things that's not talked about is, okay, so Putin is overthrown, then who do you think will come into power exactly? One of the things I talk about with [Aristo Stoich], is that Putin, out of all the people that might take power, is the most liberal, is the most dovish. In fact, every indication shows that he really hates this war. So everybody that will step in if he steps down or if he is overthrown is just going to accelerate this war, the expansionism, and the thirst for empire, and all that kind of stuff that the US military-industrial complex will feed into.
You have to think about what the future holds and what the different power players are and what the level of corruption there is, and sort of the realistic view of the situation versus the idealistic view of the situation.
Tulsi: Just on that note real quick, I think that was exposed in broad daylight when it appeared that the former head of the Wagner Group was about to try to launch a coup and how that was so celebrated, even on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and others touting that this was somehow going to be a great thing without looking at who this guy really is, what he has been doing in different countries around the world, and what would be his kind of ruling philosophy and how that would differ or benefit American interests or the interest of security and peace.
Lex:But also the interest of Ukraine and Russia and humanity overall, just the flourishing of nations, which is great for everybody in collaborations with nations. (...)