Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Tulsi Gabbard Blocked Ana Kasparian from Interviewing Her" video.

@ArgentiumTea Did she say that torture is unacceptable under any and all circumstances? And did she further recant her statement that torture is acceptable under a scenario from 24? If not, she supports torture.
4
@highneedforcognition9660 As far as refugees, what do you think is the consequence of refusing them entry? The damage is already done. As Sam Seder is fond of telling libertarians, we can't pretend that history started today. We weren't the ones who started the civil war in Syria, but ignoring their pain will create a lot more terrorists.
3
@highneedforcognition9660 For someone who "never supported it," she had a funny way of showing it: https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/the-buck-stops-here/us-should-not-be-policing-the-world-us-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard-348891 The question comes at 15:45, and her invoking a scenario straight out of 24 follows at 16:29. If you support it in one circumstance, you support torture.
3
As did I.
2
@tento3555 I'll watch tomorrow, and if it says exactly that formulation (it doesn't have to be verbatim, but it has to include the basics that there are no acceptable uses, as well as an apology), I will gladly retract. However, if this is like her conflicting statements in whether or not Assad used chemical weapons, forget it. My low opinion of her as a legitimate lefty will sink even further.
2
Based on what, her support of Modi? Her support of Sisi? Her parroting of Assad's talking points after Syrian fascists bankrolled a "fact finding" trip that didn't involve visiting a single rebel area? Her opposition to the Iran deal? Her siding with Republicans making it harder for Syrian refugees to enter the United States? Her support of torture? Yeah, she's a real Eugene Debs on foreign policy.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 The only thing that I ever heard her say as to why her stance changed was that she "saw a CIA report that said torture was ineffective." That is not, "torture is wrong and I am sorry to have ever supported it." Interesting that you have absolutely nothing to say about the other examples that I gave. Your bias is showing.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 Pointing out her support for autocratic and genocidal leaders does not mean that I want to go to war with those countries. I did not say that I supported bombing Syria. When there was red line talk in 2013, I said that this would lead to mission creep, which is why I opposed our actions in Libya. That being said, Tulsi's support of Sisi is of someone who is in office because of US intervention. I am not a pacifist (and I won't be until someone tells me how the Holocaust could have been stopped without WWII, and if Tulsi were a pacifist, she wouldn't be in the military, because that's one of the first things that they ask you), but I am firm on torture. Why is she the "most progressive on foreign policy" when a lot of other candidates are in the race who have never defended torture?
2
@highneedforcognition9660 She clearly did not, because she then gave the ticking time bomb scenario, and said that any leader "will do whatever it takes to protect the people," and "some analysts said it was effective." If she was "thinking on her feet," then she was clearly willing to allow that there was a circumstance where it would be acceptable if it worked. Never mind that studies had repeatedly shown that it didn't work before that, she was willing to have it overturned. Or, just maybe, this is yet another example of her trying to play both sides and sounding like a triangulator straight out of the 90s, which is not what I'd expect from the "most progressive on foreign policy." So, if my interpretation is correct, she needs to apologize for the prior position. If yours is correct, then she needs to apologize for being willing to abandon her opposition, but the fact that she said in the Status Coup interview that "a study said that torture doesn't work" as the reason she didn't support torture rather than the moral and legal questions tells me that if another one said it did, she would accept it in a heartbeat.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 Bernie, for one. Anyone who supported the Iran nuclear deal, which I think is pretty much everyone who went on the record on the question. Anyone who didn't cheer on Russia attacking civilians in Syria in order to prop up Assad, which I think is everyone else running not named Donald Trump. As far as her taking her time and coming to a decision, the evidence was there that the torture program was counterproductive as early as 2005, which means there was no reason for her to be on the fence nine years later. I could also point to the fact that the Army Field Manual opposes torture and has for decades, and considering that she uses her military service as a justification for everything like a real-life Walter Sobchack, she should have known. But this is the big thing that I, and others concerned by that interview, have been trying to say: torture is not a question of whether or not it works like the movies, but whether or not it is ever morally justifiable. If the answer to that question is not an emphatic no, you lose your lefty foreign policy card.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 First, she's an officer, not enlisted. (I was a sergeant, and believe you me, there is a huge difference to anyone in the military between the two.) Besides that, the Obama Administration discontinued the policy, so she wouldn't run afoul of such laws. And if she was so worried about that, why did she keep going on Fox to complain about Obama not saying "radical Islamic terror"? And why, three years later, did she condemn the bombing of Syria? That argument is pretty weak sauce. Second, the question was clearly about torture, not about "making suspects uncomfortable." The Army Field Manual does a pretty thorough job of defining torture, and to conflate putting someone in handcuffs with sticking a rag over their head and pouring water over their face to make them think they will drown is shocking.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 Yes, she opposed getting out, but she also opposed getting in, so she is on the right side now as opposed to Bernie and Warren and Biden, among others, who were on the right side the whole time. The question was whether or not she is the most lefty candidate on foreign policy. Being to the right of Joe Biden doesn't help that argument.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 You know who else said that it wouldn't be effective? Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Tom Cotton, John Boehner, at al. Pretty left leaning group. Then again, I am not working backward to try to justify something like, "it's okay to put someone in handcuffs, so how do you know what torture even is?"
2
@highneedforcognition9660 That is not how the torture debate works. It's all softened language and euphemisms (i.e., enhanced interrogation techniques) to cover up what it actually is. That's because, by any definition, it violates international law and war crimes, so no one not named Donald Trump in high office is going to be stupid enough to actually come out and say, "I like torture!" The Army Field Manual clearly defines what it is. The Geneva Conventions clearly define what it is. The CIA report was not the first time that the United States realized and reported that torture was ineffective. If the bar is that she actually has to mention by name the horrible thing, then by that definition, Donald Rumsfeld doesn't support torture.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 This is true that those people still wanted to cancel it later, but Chuck Schumer both opposed the deal and opposed withdrawal, so that doesn't prove that her opposition was from a leftist place. I get that you like Tulsi. In all honesty, I did, too, until I started digging and found too many things that I found disturbing. My main frustration is the mental gymnastics that people go through to paint her as a lefty hero when even Kirsten Gillibrand converted on many issues long before Tulsi did.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 First of all, do you think that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture? Second, that is disqualifying for them in a primary ballot as well. Getting those things out of the way, as I pointed out, torture is spoken of in euphemism. "Whatever it takes" when you are asked about torture is code for "I support torture." Therefore, in that interview, she supported torture. If you can find one case where you find torture acceptable, you support torture. End of sentence. That is not to say that people can't realize that they are wrong. However, if I am to believe that that person sees it that way, "a CIA report had come out that said that torture doesn't work, so I now oppose it in all circumstances" is not the same as, "I was wrong. Torture is never acceptable. Even if it might work, it is immoral and illegal." I would rather support someone who got it right the first time. Yes, someone who eventually got it right but for the wrong reasons would be preferable to someone who still doesn't get it right, but it's not the same thing as someone who did get it right. I have said before that I think that her statement on gay rights is enough for me that I don't rake her over the coals for her past statements and voting record. Given her tendency to play both siderism (i.e., the wall), she has to show me that she has changed on that issue, but even if she did, there are still more things, but to me, opposing torture for moral reasons is my threshold.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 It is entirely possible that I am reading too much into it, but the torture debate has always relied on euphemism and coded language, so when I hear the phrase "if we're in a situation where our family, our community, our state, or our country is in a place where, let's say, in an hour a nuclear bomb or attack will go off unless this information were found, I believe that, if I were President of the United States, that I would do everything in my power to keep people, the American people safe" when asked about the acceptability of torture, where she then follows up and says "there are those who are in the position of carrying on these interrogations, some of them say it does work" I would say that I have just heard as plain an endorsement of torture as I will ever hear. If Tulsi Gabbard didn't know what that loaded phrase meant in that formulation, then she needs to say so, but she didn't. She could have apologized and said that she didn't express herself well, but she just blamed it on waiting for the results of a study, as if it would be okay if it worked, and the only difference between the two is that now she says it doesn't. Because that's what she does so many times: she gives plausible deniability so that she can literally be whatever anyone wants to hear. It bugged me when Obama did it, it bugs me when Beto does it, and it bugs me when Tulsi does it. And until she says that her cursory statements about suffering versus her detailed statements about the imminent danger were wrong, I will not give her a pass. As far as the other foreign policy issues, I listed them above.
2
@paddleduck5328 I appreciate your kind words. I remember a few years ago thinking that she would be Bernie's successor, but I was floored when I found all this out, so I try to let as many people know as I can when it comes up.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 As promised, here are some of the points about Tulsi and other foreign policy issues that I brought up earlier and didn't see your response or get the chance to provide evidence. As far as Tulsi supporting bombing in Syria, that opens this post about her problematic issues there: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/01/tulsi-gabbards-syria-record-worse-think So, this is her supporting Assad's biggest supporter bombing what turned out to be rebel strongholds regardless of whether they were ISIS hotbeds or just places where Assad faced strong opposition. She was on the wrong end of a 392-3 vote that condemned "unlawful violence against civilian populations in Syria." This article goes into great detail about her lengthy history of supporting dictators, often under the guise of fighting terrorism: https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/ Excerpt: "Yet it would be a mistake to place Gabbard in the lineage of internationalist, anti-war American leftism that seeks, among other things, to help emancipate and defend the oppressed. In fact, Gabbard's public record points in a much different direction, toward an 'America first' Trumpism of the left that would restore the Middle East's dictators club as long as it benefits the United States. On closer analysis, hers is a foreign policy that favors authoritarianism cloaked as counter-terrorism, nationalism cloaked as anti-interventionalism, and Islamophoboa barely cloaked at all." For her taking a trip to Syria supported by fascists: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-fascist-escorts-to-syria
2
@highneedforcognition9660 She apologized for those things. She didn't apologize for the thing that I am talking about. Playing the "taking it out of context" game or trying to imagine when it is acceptable to use torture without apologizing does not show me that she thinks that she did anything wrong.
2
@highneedforcognition9660 If that is how you feel about torture, then there is no other way to say it, but you find torture acceptable under certain circumstances. If Tulsi thinks that she said nothing wrong (and there's a reason why I don't want public officials thinking out loud about when it is acceptable to commit a war crime), then my objections still stand, and she is unacceptable in my opinion as Secretary of Defense or even in Congress. Given her tendency to play both sides, she is as untrustworthy as Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker.
2
@tento3555 Can you provide the link and the time stamp? I found an interview from last week, but I got sick of watching after about three minutes of Jimmy ranting about some conspiracy.
1
@kevonslims7269 She gave an interview where she gave an example of when it is acceptable to use torture. If you support it for one occasion, you support torture.
1
@EvesRevenge Saying that you can think of acceptable uses of torture and saying "I will do whatever it takes to protect the American people" in that context does mean that she's for war crimes. Hello?
1
@tento3555 The link isn't working on my phone. I'll check it on my computer when I get home. Thanks again.
1
@tento3555 On my phone, it's not giving me a link at all. I'll just wait until then, because you know how it is trying to get too involved with things at work. I did listen to her Status Coup interview (which another thread said was her refuting her torture position), but that wasn't even close. In that one, she tried to excuse it by saying that she hadn't yet read a 2014 report that torture is ineffective, even though plenty of reports existed long before then. I will listen, but it has to be stronger than that.
1
@tento3555 You mean in the Dore video?
1
@tento3555 She said she doesn't support it now, but she didn't apologize for saying it then. She also didn't go into why or if she changed her mind. A step in the right direction, but anything short of the level of her repentance on gay rights is wholly insufficient for me.
1
@tento3555 I say that this is insufficient because there are a lot of things that she has changed her mind about and had to explain herself over. I have no problem with people converting to the right side of an issue or a philosophy, but when you do, you have to go out of your way to demonstrate that the conversion is sincere. After all, Paul didn't get to preach right away after Damascus.
1
@tento3555 For not supporting a recent convert who I don't trust because she won't say that torture is immoral? You told me that the video would show it. She didn't even apologize in that video or admit that her opinion changed. In the Status Coup interview, she blamed it on not knowing that torture was ineffective. If that is sufficient for you on the biggest moral foreign policy question of this century (and foreign policy is the hill that she's dying on), then you go right ahead proving the point that David and Ana and others have been making.
1
@highneedforcognition9660 Are you really going with "we really need to support her because Bernie will make her his Secretary of State"? Obviously, this assumes that she can withstand the scrutiny of the debate stage (assuming that she gets there, because so far she has not qualified), if she can't take someone who looks at her record and says, "I have serious problems with this," then she doesn't deserve such a prestigious position. And I will not blindly follow anyone just because someone else vouches for that person, even if it is Bernie. To suggest that anyone should is not a good look.
1
@highneedforcognition9660 If that is really what you want, then Secretary of State wouldn't be where you would hope she goes. That would be Secretary of Defense. Of course, she would have to get out of the military to do that, and given her statements on torture, I don't trust her with the Army Field Manual.
1
@highneedforcognition9660 Trump let us all down by abandoning his America First position? And you were upset that my statement that someone who supports torture loses his/her lefty card on foreign policy. I will check the link again to see if it works. If it works for me and not for you, I will find more evidence that she was one of only three to oppose a resolution condemning targeting of civilians in Syria, and I will find links to her tweets praising Putin for bombing Syria in 2015. Edit: paragraph removed because I didn't pick up on your sarcasm.
1
@highneedforcognition9660 Here is the corrected link: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/01/tulsi-gabbards-record-syria-worse-think
1
@highneedforcognition9660 No evidence of Assad using chemical weapons? https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-09-23/what-you-need-know-about-chemical-weapons-use-syria Here is the information about the massacre that Sisi led against the democratically elected President of Egypt, but because he was Muslim Brotherhood, that makes it "fighting terrorism" in Tulsi's eye: http://www.hrw.org/report/2014/08/12/all-according-plan/rba-massacre-and-mass-killings-protesters-egypt
1
@highneedforcognition9660 You think that this is flanking someone on the left? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-america-first/514037/ Ignoring human rights violations is not a leftist foreign policy. Isolationism is not a leftist foreign policy (see: Paul, Ron). If you honestly think that, based on this statement and the ones about human rights abuses and defending the apology for them, that tells me one of, or a combination of, one of the following: 1) You have decided to support whatever Tulsi Gabbard says no matter what, and you are trying to work backward to come to that conclusion; 2) You honestly don't know the difference between left and right in foreign policy, confusing it with isolationism vs. internationalism even though the former is almost always of the right and the latter has both a left and right version. 3) You're trolling.
1