Tulsi Gabbard: Regime Change Wars Hobble American Diplomacy

I want to talk about something you brought up briefly earlier about the media being sort of cheerleaders for a lot of these wars or a lot of these military actions. Do you think that that happens because this ensures that they get access? Do you think it happens because conflict is good for their business? Do you think it happens because if they don't act as cheerleaders, they don't get access to the leaders and to the important politicians and military leaders? I think that the underlying driver is that conflict is good for ratings. That's crazy that that is their decision how to cover things and what's been... It's the war machine that they're a part of and that they're a driving force for. I think that, yeah, there have been reports. I think over time, I think you had Matt Taibbi here recently where you've got journalists who are more... Or even papers who are more interested in covering for their CIA relationships rather than actually bringing forward a story that the American... The truth that the American people deserve to hear. So I think there are other factors there that drive the media really playing a heavily influential and dangerous force in continuing to push this war mongering narrative that is... It's costly in an immeasurable way. Well, the coverage is so influential and that influence, it changes the way people accept or don't accept things that are happening internationally. Do you remember when there was a time when Obama had talked about attacking Syria? Yes, it was in 2013. The entire country was like, fuck you. It was huge. That was my first year in Congress. I mean, it was one of the biggest rejections of an idea globally or nationally that I've ever seen and then he kind of backed off it. I was like, oh, okay. I think that was one of the most brave decisions that he made to back off from it where he actually didn't take that position in that example of just kind of being the obstinate stubborn, like, nope, here's what I said and he drew this red line and I'm not going to go back on it no matter what. No, he did. I think he listened to the American people and ultimately he chose diplomacy. Well, this is an area where people have been critical of you, is your position on Syria and the fact that you had met with Assad and this is something that gets brought up. And again, it gets brought up in these little sound bite things that are seeking to define you without any nuance or any complexity to try to just let this little tiny sentence or two define your position and then they can repeat that to other people without really knowing what they're talking about. What is your position on Syria and Assad and how did all this conflict and all this weirdness with you and the subject begin? I think it goes back to, again, the opposition that comes towards me from the political establishment, the corporate media and the military industrial complex because of the leadership and the voice that I've been bringing calling for an end to regime change wars, whether we were talking about the one in Iraq, Libya and in Syria. My choice will always be towards diplomacy because if we lack the courage to meet with both adversaries and friends in the pursuit of our own national security and peace, the only alternative is war, period. That's the way it is. So I will always choose to maximize all diplomatic means and measures and talks and negotiations to further our interests of peace and national security, recognizing that war should always be the last resort if necessary. Now is this, it's very difficult for people to understand that these things are insanely messy and you saying that you would always lean towards diplomacy does not mean you support dictators but that's exactly the way they frame it. But if you look at the famous Hillary Clinton speech after Qaddafi was killed, we came, we saw, he died and she was laughing. Libya is a failed state now. They have slaves that they're auctioning off on YouTube. You could watch slave auctions that someone filmed with their camera on their phone and they upload it to YouTube. Libya is gone. I mean, it's a chaotic place right now. It wasn't good when Qaddafi was running Libya, but it wasn't as bad as it is now. So the idea that supporting Qaddafi is supporting a dictatorship and you're a monster for supporting him, like maybe not because it's kind of worse now because the world is a very messy place. And it's not even a matter of quote unquote supporting. It's just saying, hey, we're not going to come in and overthrow you and your government. I think that's the issue here and the contradiction when people are criticizing me for exercising diplomacy and calling for an end to the regime change war that we've been waging in Syria since 2011. But then they'll say, oh, well, of course I was against overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There's no intellectual, there's no consistency there. And I think the issue with Libya that so often gets overlooked is, again, we look at what will the consequences be of these regime change wars? You said, I mean, Libya is a completely failed state. There are more terrorist organizations and strongholds in Libya now than there ever were before when Qaddafi was there. The people of Libya are suffering far more now than they were before. We also see this other effect on our own national security where our regime change war policy has undermined our ability to negotiate with Kim Jong-un in North Korea towards denuclearization. You have the leaders of North Korea time and time again have said, hey, look, we're developing nuclear weapons as the only deterrent that will work against the United States coming in and overthrowing our government, said it over and over and over again. And they've pointed to examples like Libya saying that, well, you guys are saying you want to come in and negotiate with us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. You told Qaddafi the same thing. He said, hey, Qaddafi, get rid of your nuclear weapons program. We'll leave you alone. And then you went in and overthrew Qaddafi. Why will this be any different with us? And then you've got John Bolton as then the national security director for Trump going on television or giving speeches saying, yeah, you know, we're going to approach North Korea with the Libya model. He said that. And so when we wonder like, hey, why aren't these? And I think I think Trump was right. And I've said it publicly. Trump is right to have direct negotiations with Kim Jong-un, but he hasn't gotten anywhere. And you've got to look at why. And this is one of the reasons why continuing to say, hey, no, we're not going to overthrow you in your government, Kim Jong-un. But on the other hand, you're you're continuing the policies that directly undermine your ability to to make that agreement that that'll be that'll that'll hold and that'll stay. And as a result, now, you know, we have a North Korea that that's nuclear weapons program is continuing to escalate their capabilities are continuing to grow. And it poses a threat not only to, you know, my folks in Hawaii, the people of Hawaii given our proximity to North Korea, but their capabilities now they're extending across the west coast. They're extending across the country, posing a very direct existential threat to our country and to our people. So you see how that decision that was made about Libya, these decisions that are ongoing, you see that pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement, North Korea says, hey, you guys made an agreement with them. You got a different president elected, tore up that agreement. Why should we think that's going to be any different with us? So these policy decisions that are being made are very directly connected in in having the effect ultimately of undermining our national security and making the American people less safe.