AnonymityX1000
Veteran
You said she had nothing original or substantial to offer. When I point out it's original and substantial you change it to it's not a priority and hasn't done anything for her. I think they call that moving the goalposts.You're unintentionally proving my point. US foreign intervention was a niche she could carve out to set herself apart that played well with her military background. That has done 100% of nothing for her for the following obvious reasons:
- Mountain of domestic issues, incredibly low priority.
- The outgoing administration has diminished the US' reputation and relationship among allies, hard to do much foreign intervention when little to no one wants to help.
- I don't remember her being on the front lines of denouncing the escalation of tensions between the US and Iran in the last two years.
- The country is coming off of 2 decade + long occupations, in what capacity have the civilians at the Pentagon shown in any other foreign engagements?
- Its 2021, foreign interest is focused on China and nuclear proliferation in Iran and NK. Maybe if she was around during the cold war she could be seen as a half way viable candidate.
It's a priority with me.
And just because you didn't notice doesn't mean she wasn't talking about US/Iran relations.
Tulsi Gabbard claims "Iran is closer now to a nuclear weapon than ever before," slams Trump for "undermining national security"
Tulsi Gabbard rips Soleimani strike: Trump isn't acting like he wants to end 'forever wars'
Gabbard blasts Iran strike: 'Trump's actions are an act of war'