A Progressive Appeal To New Hampshire Libertarians, With Tulsi Gabbard
US Rep. and Democratic Party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard joins today's Liberty Report to discuss the real resonance of her antiwar message among New Hampshire voters. But why is the corporate media and even her own party doing its best to make sure that her voice is not heard? How did she come to turn against US foreign interventionism, after enlisting in the military early in the 2000s?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host, Daniel.
Good to have you here today.
How are you this morning, Dr. Paul?
Very good.
We have a very special guest.
We do.
And we're looking forward to this.
And our guest is a Congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard.
And Tulsi, welcome to our program today.
Thank you.
It's great to see you both.
Okay, good.
And Daniel?
Great to see you, Ms. Gabbard.
Thanks.
No, we're very happy to have you with us today because we've talked on the phone, and we do know that we have friends out there.
And I think the reason we can get together with libertarians and progressives is not that there's every single thing we agree on, but I think we're seeking the same thing.
We're seeking independence and truth, which is hard to find these days.
All you have to do is turn the TV on and look at impeachment.
And you took an independent stand on the impeachment process.
So that's very admirable as far as I'm concerned.
But why don't we start off with a little bit about what's going on in New Hampshire?
That's coming up.
Are you in New Hampshire right now, I believe?
I'm in New Hampshire right now in a small town called Barnstead.
We are crisscrossing the state and going town by town, continuing to reach out directly to voters.
You know, it's unfortunate that we're in a place now, you know, CNN held two evenings of town halls for many of the candidates running for president, including those who are polling lower than I am here in New Hampshire, who've spent very little time here in New Hampshire, but for whatever reason chose to exclude me.
And this is something I'm hearing a lot of frustration about from New Hampshire voters, is that they are not being given the opportunity to hear, you know, the voice, the message that I bring to make sure that voters can make that most informed decision, a voice that is, as you're saying, focused on the truth, focused on challenging this cross-partisan establishment in Washington made up of the powerful elite.
That's just leaving the American people behind.
So unfortunate as it is, regardless of the decisions that the corporate media is making, I am continuing our daily town halls, our daily outreach to voters all across the state.
And the beautiful thing that I'm finding that is so inspiring and gives me hope for what we can accomplish together is that in every one of my town halls, without exception, we have Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, people who voted for you, Ron, people who voted for Bernie, voted for Hillary, people who voted for Trump coming together and saying, yeah, we're going to disagree on some issues and maybe strongly disagree.
Women in Military Leadership00:04:45
But as you said, we agree on our goals, our objective, and the need for us to come together in order to strive to that more perfect union and ensure that our government is actually of, by, and for the people and working only for the interests of the people.
Right.
You know, and you have a quote on your website that summarizes what you just said.
It's never bow to the foreign policy establishment and the powerful elite.
I like that.
And that is really our problem, you know, the military-industrial complex and the profiteering from all the weapons sale and all these things.
I mean, huge, huge.
And that directs our foreign policy.
But, you know, I want to call attention to some of your background that I found interesting and unique in a way is that you're a military person.
You're a major in the Army Reserve.
You were in the Middle East.
You've had that experience.
And I was wondering, because this came up when I was running, about not too many of them had military experience.
How does it work out with all those candidates you have?
Do you have sort of close to the most military experience of all the candidates, or how does that work out?
Yeah, I do have the most military experience.
The only other candidate in the race at this time who has worn the country's uniform is Pete Budajej.
He deployed for six months, I think, to Afghanistan in 2016 in the Navy reserves.
I have been serving in the Army National Guard now for almost 17 years.
I have deployed twice to the Middle East, first to Iraq.
In 2005, during the height of the war, deployed now for a total of probably almost 24 months.
But throughout those experiences, in such a deeply personal way, I witnessed and experienced the terribly high human cost of war, the toll that it takes on my brothers and sisters in uniform, those who pay the price for those decisions being made by leaders in Washington, leaders from both political parties, as well as the price that's paid by the people in the countries where we wage these wars.
So for me in this race for president, being the only candidate that served in uniform in Iraq, combined with that personal experience that I've had now in Congress for seven going on eight years, where for the entire time I have been focused on national security and foreign policy, serving on the Armed Services Committee, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, on the Homeland Security Committee,
and doing that work of holding our own leaders accountable, of asking the tough questions, of trying to get answers for the American people to achieve that truth for the American people to see what's really going on and for lawmakers to make the best decisions for our country.
And it's a rare thing, sadly.
But, you know, Tulsi, the position you have taken are similar to the one that I had.
And there were times when I was accused of being anti-military, anti-American, anti-defense.
Have you gotten that?
Because I also noticed that you, I believe a statistic shows that you were doing something I did.
We got the most money from the military.
So have you been challenged?
Oh, you're not supporting the troops.
And they have a little harder time accusing you of that.
You're right.
They absolutely do, given I still have the privilege of wearing the uniform when I'm on my National Guard duty and performing that service.
And if anyone dares to try, I am quick to challenge them on the oath of service and loyalty that I and every one of our service members in this country Has taken, willing to lay our lives down to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of the American people, taking that oath to our Constitution to heart.
And not only am I focused on making sure that our servicemen and women have what they need to accomplish that mission of securing the American people,
my strong leadership in calling for an end to these wasteful regime change wars, an end to this new Cold War and nuclear arms race, comes about because I know in a very personal way how critical it is that our commander-in-chief truly honors the sacrifice of our men and women by only sending them out on these missions, putting their lives on the line as a last case resort if it is necessary for the interests of our country.
Leadership And Truth00:17:27
Tulsi, Daniel has a question for you.
You know, knowing that she was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee almost makes me miss the old days of the year.
Yeah, you know, we just missed each other because I was leaving the day you were arriving.
So we never served.
But you did get to serve with some good people that represented these views on both sides of the.
That would have been fun.
Well, Ms. Gabbert, you know, as Michael Tracy writes in The Nation recently, he says, quote, some of your most ardent volunteers through New Hampshire are self-described libertarians.
Your polling up there is, it looks like it's up to 7% or more, which could make you a significant player in the area.
In fact, you might find this interesting, Ms. Gabriel.
I got an email this morning from one of our biggest supporters of the Institute, and he said he's registering as a Democrat so he can vote for you.
And this is a died-in-the-wool libertarian.
So this is happening.
It is happening.
And I'm just sort of wondering, as you say, you're very busy on the ground, you're talking to a lot of people.
What are you hearing from libertarians?
How are they accepting you, knowing that there are areas that we may not agree completely?
Yeah, there are two main areas that often come up from libertarians who are coming, who are volunteering, who are really dedicating a lot of time and energy to get as many people out on Election Day as possible.
And it is the area of foreign policy and their confidence and trust that as commander-in-chief, I will be able to do what Trump failed to do, frankly, and what other presidents have failed to do in standing up to the military-industrial and the war-mongering foreign policy establishment that crosses both party lines because of that depth of experience I have both as a soldier as well as in Congress,
where I'm not going in on day one as commander-in-chief and looking to these traditional foreign policy establishment influencers for their direction.
I'm coming in with a very clear, clear eyes about what must be done and having the strength and the courage to do so.
The second major area of, I think, shared and common interest is one of civil liberties and privacy.
This is something I've been really focused on throughout my time in Congress and have worked with colleagues of mine, people like Congressman Tom Massey, Justin Amash, and others from both parties.
I'm a co-founder of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Caucus.
And I think they appreciate that I believe very much in our country's Constitution and how we've got to come together, recognize that we treat each other with respect as fellow Americans,
firmly rooted in the bedrock of our Constitution, lays down the pathway for us to see how we heal this terribly divided country and bring about the government that I believe our founders envisioned for us that we do not have today.
You know, in the early part of this century, especially leading up to the Iraq war, Daniel, with Daniel's help and my speaking out, we tried desperately to just prevent that from happening.
But the biggest frustration was the official lies told by the government, which continues even today.
And I know you come across this because they're always building the crisis.
We have to go, we have to go, we're going to be destroyed.
And most of those arguments can be destroyed rather easily.
But we're up against the media because they perpetuate these lies.
And even our Secretary of State doesn't hide behind them.
He sort of tells lies and sort of gets giddy about it, which is disgusting as far as I'm concerned.
But you know, we hear the lies in the foreign policy, but I just want to get a short comment, at least from you, on this, because today there was an economic report and it was very, very favorable last month, a lot of new jobs, and that was exciting.
But then there was something, a second report on today, and it turns out that when they recalculate and have adjustment of the figures, they found out that during the last three years, there were five, they made sort of mistakes, official mistakes, 520,000 lost jobs, and the figures are off.
You know, they're not accurate.
So I come to the conclusion that we can't believe a thing they tell, Harley, on foreign policy.
But have you been suspicious of some of the statistics that we hear from our departments?
And it's bipartisan because you hardly ever hear them challenging each other on economic lies.
Yeah, yes, I am very, very skeptical about the information that's provided again throughout the years that I've been there, seeing how, whether it's in hearings or briefings or even one-on-one meetings or through the media,
they'll present the narrative or only the portion of information that supports their goals and objectives, that makes them look the best or helps them accomplish what they're trying to accomplish, rather than presenting the full picture, both the good and the bad, saying, hey, here's where we screwed up.
Here's where the lessons got to be learned.
This is where we need to improve.
But this is what we're doing that's actually working.
And it's something that needs to be sustained and maybe grown.
We don't have those kinds of briefings.
And even when I and other members of Congress try to press and get the facts, get the truth and information, we get what you're talking about here.
Sometimes a blatant out-and-out lie or a patronizing answer that says, oh, you know, you're just a member of Congress.
Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
Not respecting the American people.
And that's the injustice of this whole thing is that too often we see folks coming into Congress and even whether in an open briefing or a closed briefing, really dismissing the representative form of government that we have.
You know, my skepticism predates my service as a member of Congress, given I served in a war that you fought against and tried to prevent a war that was completely based on lies.
And for me, you know, I'm 22 years old.
I enlisted in the Army National Guard, shipped off to basic training in Fort Jackson, South Carolina, a young private.
And I believed what our leaders were telling us, the American people, that we had to go in and take out this bad guy, Saddam Hussein, because he was working with al-Qaeda and he had these weapons of mass destruction.
And this was necessary to protect the American people.
I believe Colin Powell and the President Bush and Hillary Clinton and these other leaders in Congress who said this is what had to be done almost unflinchingly, having faith that my leaders in this country would not lie to us.
But that turned out to be completely false.
And so I get criticized sometimes in my service on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and just overall in Congress that I'm asking serious, tough questions.
I'm not accepting the information that anyone delivers just on face value.
Instead, looking where is the evidence, looking for the totality of information that can best inform the decisions that we make in Congress.
And this is the same kind of approach that I'll take as president, not taking lightly the decisions and the consequences that I'll make as commander-in-chief.
Now I know why they don't like her out there, the establishment.
She has questions she wants to answer.
That's a dangerous position to hold.
Daniel.
You know, this guy, we've been endlessly frustrated with Trump because, frankly, I think he talked to talk during the campaign.
Hey, what's wrong with getting along with Russia?
Hey, why do we need all this stuff?
Why do we need to be in the Middle East?
But when it came down to walking the walk, and I think you addressed this earlier, he turned to the same losers who have been running foreign policy in Washington for decades.
John Bolton, all of these guys, regime change people, Elliot Abrams, for God's sake.
I mean, it's awful.
I think, Dr. Paul, that the only person Trump should actually fear on the debate stage would be there.
But I want to address another thing because I think this is something you've taken an enormous amount of heat for.
And I found it an absolutely presidential moment.
And that's when you had the courage.
You were endlessly demonized for having the courage to travel to Syria to sit down and talk with Bashar al-Assad, to get his side of it, to speak with him.
And it was suddenly treated as if you had betrayed your country.
Thinking about, we both were happy when Obama met with Castro's brother, who was then running the country.
We were happy when Trump met with Kim.
We were happy when Reagan met with Gorbachev.
It led to good things and potentially good things.
So where does this idea come from that you can't even talk to your adversary?
It seems like something new to us.
You know, it points to this underlying theme of all the issues we're talking about here today, where whether it's the foreign policy war-mongering establishment in Washington or it's their corporate media partners, their goal and objective is regime change in Syria.
And so to see someone, to see me go to Syria, to get the facts and information for myself about what was happening there and to dare to exercise diplomacy by meeting with the president of that country completely, and then to come home and talk about it and to share the experiences that I had and to continue this call that I had had long before going to Syria about how devastating and destructive.
this regime change war is for the Syrian people and how our role in this war is actually strengthening the very terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, that attacked us on 9-11,
coming and speaking the truth about these programs that existed within our own government to provide them both directly and indirectly with arms and funding and support because They were the ones who would be most effective in going and toppling Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian government.
And coming back and speaking the truth triggered a lot of people to lash out and to try to not, if you notice, they don't ever argue with me on the substance of, should we be trying to overthrow this government or not?
The conversation never goes there.
They resort to name-calling, smear tactics, trying to undermine my character, my intent, my loyalty to our own country, the country that I love, which just proves the superficial nature of their position and really exposes them for who they really are in putting their own selfish interests ahead of the interests of the American people.
Okay, we're going to have to finish up soon, but I have one more question.
Since we're not in charge of the foreign policy and we fear that the conditions we have today could expand and it could get out of control, do you think that it becomes necessary when the foreign policy of today gets out of control that we would have to resort to the draft?
I don't support the draft.
I think that just it comes from a personal place.
For me as a soldier, if I'm deployed in combat, I want to know that the person, the man or woman serving to my left and right, has chosen to be there.
I think that there are other things that we should look at to increase both the transparency and the reality of the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is every single man and woman who wears this country's uniform, but it's actually also every single American and the impact that it has on our country and our day-to-day lives in a way that's really immeasurable.
You know, numbers have been thrown out since 9-11 alone.
Our country has spent over $7 trillion taxpayer dollars to wage these regime change wars that have not made us any safer.
But even that number, as gargantuous as it is, doesn't even begin to capture the real cost.
I talk about this in my town halls every day because people say, Tulsi, why does foreign policy matter to me?
I'm concerned about the opioid crisis.
I'm concerned about my child who has diabetes being able to afford the insulin that they need, et cetera, et cetera.
Why do I care about foreign policy?
Well, we're spending $4 billion every single month in Afghanistan right now, even after these papers exposed how our own leaders said this mission makes no sense.
$4 billion every month.
That's $5.5 million an hour.
And so as I'm traveling to these little towns across New Hampshire, like, holy crap, $5.5 million per hour?
Why do I hear that we don't have enough money to make sure there's clean water to drink in Merrimack, New Hampshire?
But there's enough money to go and prop up a corrupt government in Afghanistan?
This makes no sense.
And so connecting those dots so that every single one of us as Americans recognize this cost of war and how these foreign policy decisions impact us now and for generations to come is critical.
Well, your position on the draft defends the position of self-ownership, and we sort of like that.
People are responsible for themselves, and the government doesn't own us.
Daniel has one short question, and we're going to be finishing up.
It's not a question.
I just wanted to close and thank you for joining us on my behalf.
And I wanted to say that I hope CNN and the corporate media allows you into this.
I think it's disgusting and anti-American that they are trying to not even allow you to be part of the debate.
Our electoral process is completely messed up.
So we're hoping that you have a chance at least to make the case for peace and for civil liberties.
We'll be finishing up here, but I just want to say you have been in the military years-wise, a little bit longer than I was in.
Was in for five years, and I only made it to Captain.
You're a major.
So I predict that you have a good future in what you do because you made major so quickly, and that's very, very good.
But I also want to mention that there's no reason why we can't continue to work with the coalition.
We work with Dennis Kucinich and quite a few other progressives.
And I think that's the way to go.
If you go with this idea, we all have to be moderates, everybody has to give up their principles.
That's why I can't understand that.
But I think bringing together coalitions is the way to go.
And it's very appealing.
And that's why we sure hope you continue your momentum because you have the message that we really like.
Why don't you just finish up by telling our audience exactly what they can do between now and the election or in the future, how they can get hold of you, and join your campaign.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you both, Ron and Daniel, and to your audience.
Here in New Hampshire, we are four days out from Election Day.
It's coming up quick.
And what we're doing is just encouraging everyone to call their friends, to make sure that even as the corporate media may be shutting out our voices, that we can bypass them and send a strong message to Washington about who our democracy and our country belongs to.
We the people.
It is through these elections, through going and casting your vote at the ballot box that can overcome the powerful elite interests in Washington, both here in New Hampshire.
You have incredible support here and just encouraging everyone to get out and vote, bring a few people with you.
Right after New Hampshire, we'll be headed to the Super Tuesday states, South Carolina.
We're hoping to make it out there to Texas as well.
People can help in two ways.
Number one, do just that.
Make sure you get out and vote and bring a few people with you.
And number two, you can make a contribution at whatever amount you can, $5, whatever it is, to Tulsi2020.com.
This will help us continue to get our message out there that we're delivering directly to voters.
Lastly, you can follow me on social media at Tulsi Gabbard on all different platforms.
And I appreciate the engagement and the coalition building that you're talking about, Ron.
This is what is best positioning me to both be able to beat Trump in November of this year, but most importantly, for us to come together as a nation to bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary.
Well, very good.
And Tulsi, once again, I want to thank you for joining us today.
And we're going to do what we can to spread this particular interview not only in New Hampshire, but around the country.
And social media is still, even with their shortcomings these days that we run into, it's still benefit to all of us to use it.
So we'll do our best to let everybody know about what you're doing in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
But thank you for being with us.
And I want to thank our viewers today for tuning in today to this very special interview.