Tulsi Gabbard takes on pro-war Sean Hannity.
Hannity: “If Vladimir Putin uses a nuke, the radiation fallout will impact NATO countries, that triggers Article 5, do you believe in Article 5 of the NATO agreement? … Putin doesn’t want to negotiate, clearly doesn’t want to negotiate, there have been many attempts at negotiation. … If he wants to use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, he has got to know that his entire country will be blown off the face of the earth.”
Watch this scary exchange.
what a goofball…..putin doesn’t want to negotiate…..he wants the treaties and agreements already in place to be adhered to.
People still don’t get it. Russia negotiated last year. It presented two fait accomplis to the West: agree to these terms or we’ll create them on the ground. Russia knew full well the West isn’t capable of agreeing to anything rational. So here we are. Ukraine is but the first step in Russia taking the “military-technical measures” Russia warned about.
Further, people still don’t get it about Ukraine. Russia is not going to partition Ukraine. They are going to take it all, reorient it to a pro-Russian state, and in concert with Belarus they are going to arm it with Russia missiles to counter the US missiles in Europe. To do that, they need all of Ukraine, including the hostile western oblasts.
Russia’s goal is to put up a “virtual Berlin wall” of missile-armed countries favorable to itself. After which, it will ignore the west and deal strictly with countries that are willing to deal with it – which will be most of the rest of the countries in the world that need Russia’s natural resources.
And there is nothing the West can do about it unless they want to start WWIII.
How much does the Ukrainian propaganda machine pay you?
It sounds more like he was paid by putin
Hannity must watch the MSM during his free time.
Hannity is the msm. It is weird people think fox isnt mainstream media. Hannity is also the biggest war propagandist in media. People forget he was a bush lapdog before he became a trump lapdog.
The arrogance and bravado by and of Hannity is way beyond common sense. He is obviously a mouthpiece of the M.I.C. I call it the insanity of Hannity syndrome.
I’m as TULSIcrat as they come, as you can see from my profile photo; and I’m not a fan of Hannity. But compared to the treatment that Tulsi has received from the liberal media (with a few exceptions like Chris Matthews who have been courteous to her), she gets pretty fair treatment from Fox and I think she got fair treatment here from Hannity. Tucker and Laura let Tulsi speak on and on without interruption, which is to be expected considering that Tucker is staunchly anti-interventionist and Laura seems to be reasonably so as well. But Hannity gave Tulsi the opportuntity to fully enunciate her position without excessive interruption, and I respect him for that. It’s more than Tulsi usually gets from the likes of CNN and MSNBC.
Compared to the treatment Tulsi often gets, this interview was really quite civilized.
And I do appreciate Antiwar’s coverage of Tulsi. As one of her most faithful social media followers, I pick up on just about everything, especially from links on her own site on Locals. But Antiwar gives her broader exposure, so thank you.
Lol hannity is the biggest war propagandist in the country. He promoted the iraq war for years and constantly attacked the antiwar movement. He is far worse than anyone on cnn or msnbc. Hayes, maddow and odonnell all publicly opposed the iraq war at the time. Terrible take defending hannity. If bush ever faced justice for Iraq, Hannity along with ingraham should be in the cell with him.
There is so much to admire about Ms. Gabbard’s common sense to approach to most things; however she is so rabidly pro-abortion I must part ways with her.
How does she qualify for being “rabidly pro-abortion”? You’d think that’d mean she brings it up at every public instance and I don’t see that.
She actually supported a bill to ban third-trimester abortions unless the life of the mother was threatened. She seems fairly middle of the road on the topic.
“pro-abortion”
I don’t see how being opposed to imposing legal sanctions against abortion in some cases qualifies as being “pro-abortion.” That is like saying that opposition to imposing legal sanctions against progressivism makes one a progressive, or that opposition to legal sanctions against profanity makes one a vulgar person.
For the record, I believe that in most cases abortion is wrong, but I also believe that involuntary servitude is wrong, and using violence to force any woman to carry a child to term in her body cannot be justified. It may be justified to forcibly intervene to preserve the life of a child which is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, making sure that any medical procedures used to remove the child from the mother’s womb do not unnecessarily terminate this child’s life.
Here are two side issues regarding the enforceability of legal sanctions against abortion (I had three in mind originally, but it is late at night so my aged mind has turned to mush):
1. Let’s imagine American society were sufficiently libertarian that there were no licensure requirements for the practice of medicine, nor any licensure requirements for health care providing organizations or institutions (Dr. Ron Paul, who opposes abortion, explicitly endorses a society where this is the case). In that case, it would be basically impossible to guarantee even tracking incidences of abortion. This would make most abortion laws unenforceable.
2. Let’s imagine American society were sufficiently libertarian that its legal code included support for fully informed juries and jury nullification of laws the jurors consider to be unjust or unjustly applied (Here too, Dr. Ron Paul, who opposes abortion, explicitly endorses a society where this is the case).
A majority of people in this country are pro choice in a legal sense, at least for abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. So let’s choose a region of the country which has the greatest pro-life sentiment, such as the deep south. Even in such a region, we might expect pro-choice sentiment to be held by no less than about 30% of the population.
If the facts in a particular criminal case showed that a medical professional had performed an abortion, a conviction would require that all 12 jurors could support the justness of the law in this case. The probability of any individual juror being able to vote to convict given his or her beliefs about the justness of the law would be no more than 70%, or, in decimal form 0.70. The probability of all 12 jurors being able to vote to convict would be no more than 0.70 raised to the 12th power, which is roughly 0.01384, 0r 1.3%. Not very good odds. This simple mathematical fact would make most abortion laws unenforceable, even in regions of strong pro-life sentiment such as the deep south.
“I must part ways with her.”
I actually had considered voting for her if she had won the Democratic nomination for President, but changed my mind after the election was over when I heard her go into a tirade about “illegal” immigration and the horrors of open borders.
The legality of abortion is apparently a litmus test for you. For me, there are two issues for which, if a candidate comes down on the wrong side of either one of them, I simply can’t give them my vote.
These are:
1. Foreign policy — Sorry, if you support aggressive warfare, you need not apply. Warmongering shows a lack of respect for human life. If you can’t respect human life, you don’t have what it takes to make binding decisions for anyone.
2. Immigration — Sorry, if you are a xenophobe or a racist, you need not apply. If you believe the non-aggressive, non-violent act of traveling across a national boundary should warrant legal sanction, or even enmity, this shows a lack of respect for human life. If you can’t respect human life, you don’t have what it takes to make binding decisions for anyone.
To be fair, Tulsi Gabbard does not appear to be a racist, or even truly a xenophobe. But since she has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the arguments about immigration promulgated by racists and xenophobes, and is not applying her own explicit principles of “Aloha” to this issue, I am quite disappointed by her. I think anyone can grow, learn, and change at any point in their life, and I’d really like to just sit down with her and talk about things with her. We could both learn from each other.
Well said
It is not xenophobic or racist to refuse admission to people with extensive criminal records-it is self defense. The US citizen should be protected. IT is not xenophobic or racist to deny entry to any 19 year old woman with 5 children and no husband-we cannot simply print money and tax ourselves to support her and her kids. It is not xenophobic to admit that we cannot unendlingly absorb the results of failure to practice population control abroad,unless you support the biocaust.
It may or may not be xenophobic or racist.
It is, however, both idiotic and unconstitutional.
1,Anyone who does recognize that the planet’s capacity to support humans is limited is truly an idiot.
2.Show me where open borders and unlimited,unregulated immigration is guaranteed in the constitution.
3,Anyone who thinks that the US can support unlimited money printing to support wasteful wars or irresponsible breeding is also an idiot.
“Show me where open borders and unlimited,unregulated immigration is guaranteed in the constitution.”
It isn’t “guaranteed.” The Constitution could have been amended at any time after 1808 to create a federal power to regulate immigration. But it hasn’t been so amended yet. And until it is:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Yet when Texas complains about waves of illegal immigrants passing through its territories, it is rebuked. Facts on the ground. Congress routinely makes lays that are not mentioned in the constitution-tax legislation, RICO acts.
Per the Constitution, Texas could have its own immigration laws. That would be stupid, but they’re constitutionally entitled to do it. But when Arizona tried passing its own immigration laws, it lost in court.
At this time, per the US Constitution (and per Madison v. Marbury, which rules that laws repugnant to the Constitution are void) there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”
“1,Anyone who does[n’t] recognize that the planet’s capacity to support humans is limited is truly an idiot.”
How, exactly, does placing legal restrictions on peaceful immigration reduce the number of people on the planet (other than possibly causing reduced lifespans for would be immigrants)?
Also, because of declining birthrates, the US will be facing, in not too many years, underpopulation, which is always a greater threat to economic well being than overpopulation.
Yep. The US is a long way from being over-populated. We rank 73rd in population density. worldwide. We’re less densely populated than Afghanistan, Yemen, or Iraq, to name three of the 72 above us. The median population density in the world excluding Antarctica is 168 people per square mile; including Antarctica, 151. We have 88. We’d have to double our population just to be average.
“we cannot simply print money and tax ourselves to support her and her kids.”
Exactly where did I state that I supported printing money and taxation for any purpose? I oppose the welfare state, for EVERYONE, not just immigrants. I oppose taxation. I oppose a government chartered central bank. Please get your facts straight before opening your mouth (or keyboard).
“It is not xenophobic or racist to refuse admission to people”
The only people who have the right to refuse admission to anyone are the owners of the property an immigrant wishes to use or occupy. The federal government has no moral authority to force anyone who wishes to harbor an immigrant on their property not to do so. That would be a violation of the owner’s property rights and economic liberties. A strict respect for property rights and economic liberty requires a policy of open borders.
“It is not xenophobic or racist to refuse admission to people with extensive criminal records-it is self defense.”
1. Considering the scope of actions which qualify as “criminal” in many foreign countries, how would you even determine whether someone has committed an act of aggressive violence from their official “criminal” record?
2. How would you even obtain official “criminal” records from foreign countries of would be immigrants?
3. The best studies have shown that immigrants, even “illegal” immigrants, have a lower incidence of violent crime than native born citizens. While I do not consider every word from the Washington Post to be gospel truth, this WP article describes one such good study focusing on Texas: Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime.
4. I suspect your animosity toward, and fear of, immigrants is due to ignorance, and not just because most immigrants look different and speak a different language than “we” do. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. My own belief is that ignorance is almost always the enemy, and very rarely are people the enemy.
Poor Hannity. If he would only listen to what he says.
He starts the interview by stating that he subscribes to the Regan doctrine which, according to him, it says that if we are to attack a country, we would bomb the heck out of it so there is nothing left and then he would put boots on the ground.
Then he tries have Tulsi criticize the Russians for the situation in Ukraine.
If we are to use the same yardstick for the Russians, the Ruissians have been very restrained.
Hannity really loves to pontificate for his core viewers of armchair generals. It’s as performative as faux progressive AOC writing in red lipstick TAX THE RICH on her white design dress at that Gala Ball at the Met which charged $35,000 per plate fee for dinner. Tulsi has her feet on the ground. While he was doing his usual grandstanding schtick, she clearly placed strategic concerns, the U.S. blundering into yet another foreign policy debacle so soon after the fall of Kabul, before these moral concerns he loves to sprout. She want to avoid war with Russia.
A clear headed young woman far more suited to higher office than the present VP.
AOC? Agreed.
Lol dont compare a warmongering monster like hannity to aoc. If aoc was in charge the military budget would shrink by 90% and the US would have a far more peaceful foreign policy
Phil, with all due respect, AOC has not proven herself consistently anti-war/pro-peace. You’ve got to look past a politician’s rhetoric and actually examine their behavior and actions in regard to introducing and supporting legislation. In this regard, she has failed miserably even to end the war in Yemen, much less cut the military budget significantly. Many of her leftist supporters have even been vocal about their disappointment in her.
I am a libertarian, not a progressive, but I am savvy enough to have seen through and criticized explicitly libertarian public figures when their rhetoric didn’t match up with their actions. I think it important to keep an objective mind about what a person actually does with their political power, regardless of how good their rhetoric is.
“What actions and objective best serve the interests of the American people?”
It is TREASON to ask that, veteran Tulsi Gabbard. You must be ARRESTED, thinks Mitt Romney and other leftists. To ask what best benefits the American people is treason against the Media-Washington establishment.
Mitt romney isnt a leftist. You must be on drugs.
“If Vladimir Putin uses a nuke, the radiation fallout will impact NATO countries, that triggers Article 5, do you believe in Article 5 of the NATO agreement? … Putin doesn’t want to negotiate, clearly doesn’t want to negotiate, there have been many attempts at negotiation. … If he wants to use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, he has got to know that his entire country will be blown off the face of the earth.”
I believe Messrs. Putin and Lavrov fully appreciate and comprehend the factions they’re dealing with.
Don’t expect future warnings or threats from Russia before they launch an abbreviated WW III.
“I believe Messrs. Putin and Lavrov full appreciate and comprehend the factions they’re dealing with.”
No doubt. It’s like they think it’s Saddam and Iraq’s imaginary WMD’s.
Does Russia have sufficient Zircons, Kinzhals, and Avengard missiles along with their other missile inventories to overwhelm US and NATO missile defenses?
Russia knows and the US seems to be keeping silent regarding this matter.
Tulsi’s problem has always been her non-alignment with the Neocon faction
When has she ever NOT been aligned with the neocon faction? Even after she saw better fundraising potential in being “non-interventionist” than in remaining “Republican hawks’ favorite Democrat,” she didn’t stop taking Sheldon Adelson’s money, and her only real positional change was that murdering Muslims wasn’t worth risking American lives for and should be done by drones instead.
“she didn’t stop taking Sheldon Adelson’s money”. Although I can’t provide a citation I believe HRC said “a Pol has to learn to take the funds despite the source”.
Does a pol “have to” go to an Adelson-sponsored event to accept an award for being such a great supporter of Israel?
Such is the world of the Pol!!!
Sean Hannity is such a goddamn ghoul.
Tulsi owned that disgusting war propagandist Sean Hannity. These war propagandists are very dangerous people. Thank you Tulsi for being the voice of sanity. Anyone who pushes for war in Ukraine or sends any weopons have to be condemned to the utmost by the majority of the American people. Its the American people and people of the world who will pay the ultimate price if these warmongers are not stopped.
Hannity never exposed himself to military service and its dangers.