Tulsi Gabbard : Neo-Con Trojan Horse in Democratic Party

Most politically astute people are aware of Ms. Gabbard's sketchy track record going back years, in which she has covered for and given credibility to the Assad regime in Syria, rationalized the actions of Russia and Vladimir Putin in his support for the Assad government, and opposed the Impeachment of Trump based on her own convoluted political world view, in which she deemed it destabilizing and ineffective, and voted "not present" to avoid taking a side either way. There are other issues as well where she is in gross divergence with her own constituency, as well as the Democratic leadership, which is why she is now too unpopular even to keep her own seat, and is not bothering to run for re-election.

So what is she doing? Well, at this point, my informed guess is that she is auditioning for a spot as commentator on Fox News, to which she has given numerous friendly interviews cast as an "opposition Democrat." There's no other reason to continue her campaign, especially since Hillary Clinton blew up preemptively Ms. Gabbard's planned 3rd Party Independent campaign gambit, through which she planned to divide the Democratic vote and reelect Trump.

So, I want to address what might compel her to gravitate toward Trump, the Media machine behind him, and the R-Wing generally. 

As a Military person, and Iraq War Veteran, still a reservist, Ms. Gabbard has positioned herself as a spokesperson for the political views of the Military, and an opponent of what she has termed "Regime Change Wars", such as the two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, and US intervention in the Middle East against Assad. 

First, is that this is a politically easy "shooting ducks in a barrel" issue for her, since very few people found any of these conflicts as desirable in retrospect, and would be happy for the US to extract itself. In that sense, what Ms. Gabbard is advocating is the same Populist knee jerk isolationism as radical Libertarian R-Winger Rand Paul, that the US should withdraw from any serious strategic role. Therein lies her convergence with Trump, who wants to dismantle NATO and withdraw our Troops globally. What she won't say is what Trump openly has said, which is that we should only deploy our Military if other countries pay us, and we can make money off if it. This view expressed by Trump was the occasion for Rex Tillerson to say Trump is a moron, at a Pentagon meeting 3 years ago. This is corruption, narrow self interest, and strategic insanity and incompetence.

On Ms. Gabbard's part, it is the same sort of pandering and "cherry picking" of issues for what she believes to be her own base, which is a certain faction of the Military, ( which is the orientation of her home state, Hawaii) and the Neo-Con wing of the US Establishment.

Also, to close, I would submit that the term "Regime Change War" which she strongly opposes is just a vacuous platitude, signifying nothing. The US after the Pearl Harbor attack, engaged in a Global War to remove the Governments of the Axis Powers, and without question, there was never any other consideration given aside from Regime Change. There is always the question of context, the "Just Cause", and post war policy, but by definition, there is such a thing as a justified Regime Change. The proper policy to insure such justification before engaging in such conflicts is to claw back the usurped War Powers of the Congress from an overreaching Executive Branch, not empty Populism driven by single issue related political ambitions, such as Ms. Gabbard represents.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/05/politics/tulsi-gabbard-still-running/index.html