X Close

Rand Paul: Tulsi Gabbard is gaining momentum

Kentucky senator Rand Paul spoke to Emily Jashinsky on Undercurrents.

December 11, 2024 - 6:00pm

Tulsi Gabbard is gaining momentum ahead of her hearing for director of national intelligence, Kentucky senator Rand Paul has claimed.

“She’s gaining momentum,” Paul said in an Undercurrents interview with Emily Jashinsky, pointing to growing grassroots support and the backing of military veterans. “Her 20-year military career, her rank as lieutenant colonel, and the unfair treatment she’s faced from the intelligence state speak volumes about her qualifications.”

Paul commended Gabbard’s stance against what he described as the “bipartisan consensus” in Washington for unchecked military interventions. “These are the people who arm everyone and are involved in everyone’s wars,” the Republican senator remarked. “Tulsi has always questioned that, and that’s why they’re afraid of her”.

Gabbard, who represented Hawaii in the House for eight years as a Democrat, is visiting Washington D.C. to meet with senators this week. Her potential nomination as director of America’s intelligence apparatus has been clouded by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria at the hands of rebel groups. In 2017, the then-House member met the Syrian President, leading to accusations that she was legitimising a leader widely condemned for human rights abuses and alleged war crimes. Gabbard defended the meeting, arguing that direct engagement was necessary to pursue peace and avoid further US entanglement in the region.

During the Undercurrents interview, Paul addressed the US presence in Syria, an issue Gabbard has frequently highlighted. He criticised the deployment of 900 American troops in the region, describing it as strategically ineffective and dangerously symbolic. “I don’t think 900 troops are doing anything of value there. I think they literally are a target,” Paul said, adding that their presence serves more as a “tripwire” than a deterrent.

The senator highlighted the contradictory roles of various US agencies in Syria, where the Pentagon and CIA have historically backed opposing factions in the country’s civil war. He expressed concern over the fate of religious minorities, particularly Christians, who were afforded some protection under the Assad regime but face uncertainty under extremist groups gaining power. “One of the very few positive aspects of the Assad regime was the protection of Christians,” he noted.

Paul also claimed that Gabbard’s foreign policy outlook resonates with many Americans who prioritise domestic issues over prolonged overseas entanglements. “I see significant support when I talk about these issues,” he said. “People are tired of endless intervention and are looking for leaders like Tulsi who challenge the status quo.”

Watch the full interview here.

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
El Uro
El Uro
1 month ago

This is a walk on thin ice. If you don’t interfere, there will be others who will.
Obama sent planeloads of cash to Iran and didn’t interfere again, and neither did Biden, who didn’t interfere either.
We see the results of their non-intervention.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to  El Uro

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that sending planeloads of money to an enemy is bad policy. Pretty controversial, but what can I say, I’m a maverick.

Terry M
Terry M
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Certainly that cash wasn’t spent on weapons, drones, and missiles to attack Israel. And that wouldn’t be ‘interfering’ in any case.
sarc

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Enabling a theocratic dictatorship to build nuclear weapons also appears to be bad policy. But then – I’m no Kissinger.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Well, DANG if it isn’t high time we start deporting all them mavericks, and those no-good black sheep, too!

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
1 month ago
Reply to  El Uro

The US has no right to intervene in Syria and no reason to either. What the region needs is peace starting with a solution to the Israel Palestine conflict, which is the cause of such much misery in the region.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
1 month ago

I would have been worried about her damaging influence. But then Assad scurried off to Moscow. So let her do her worst.

j watson
j watson
1 month ago

‘Director of Intelligence’. A non sequitur if ever there was one.
The focus on her foreign policy views of course somewhat misses the nature of the role. It’s to provide intelligence advice to the POTUS who then makes the key decisions. Now of course every applicant will have personal views on the key policy choices and the ‘wise’ will keep much of that to themselves. But can they also run a crucial department where the employees and agents in the field trust them and do they have the experience to be able to do that? Putting in someone who generates a few initial cheers no substitute for hardened and tested capability who commands respect.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

I’m not sure why you think a two-term congresswoman and Lieutenant-Colonel in the US Army Reserve, having served in Iraq as a medical office in a combat zone, would not command as much respect as a career civil servant?
Because she’s prepared to ask awkward questions about US foreign policy? Sounds like a great choice to me.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

Most certainly not a non-sequitur. Try again.