John Stossel: Domestic & foreign wars | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Domestic & foreign wars

John Stossel
1783816_web1_gtr-cmns-Williams-091419

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is controversial within her party.

She says the U.S. should talk to its enemies. She was criticized for meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

But Democrats were supposed to be the anti-war party.

“They’re heavily influenced by a foreign policy establishment … whose whole power base is built around continuing this status quo,” Gabbard tells me. “So much so, to the point where when I’m calling for an end to these wasteful wars, they’re saying, ‘Well, gosh, Tulsi, why are you such an isolationist?’ As though the only way that we can relate with other countries in the world is by bombing them.”

Gabbard is a veteran, and now says, “Honor our servicemen and women by only sending them on missions that are worthy of their sacrifice.”

She enlisted because of the 9/11 attacks. However, there, too, she thought a limited response was necessary but now says that our government has “used that attack on 9/11 to begin to wage a whole series of counterproductive regime-change wars, overthrowing authoritarian dictators in other countries, wars that have proven to be very costly to our servicemembers.”

She blames both parties. “I call out leaders in my own party and leaders in the Republican Party (and all) who are heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex that profits heavily off of us continuing to wage these counterproductive wars.”

She also wants to end our big domestic war, the war on drugs. She’d start by legalizing marijuana.

“I’ve never smoked marijuana,” she says. “I never will. I’ve never drunk alcohol. I’ve chosen not to in my life, but this is about free choice. And if somebody wants to do that, our country should not be making a criminal out of them.”

Although Gabbard just barely polls well enough to make the Democratic debates, she made a big impact at one debate by basically knocking Sen. Kamala Harris out of the race.

Gabbard simply pointed out Harris’ hypocrisy in suddenly becoming a criminal justice reformer.

Gabbard said, “She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

That debate clash crushed Harris in betting predictions about who the Democratic nominee would be. Harris’ numbers started dropping from that moment, and she quickly fell from first place to, as I write this, seventh.

Good for Gabbard for bringing up the drug war — and for running an ad that at least mentions America’s huge federal debt.

But like most Democrats, Gabbard would spend billions on expensive new programs, funding it with military cuts.

But Bernie Sanders admits that “Medicare for All” alone would cost $3 trillion. The budget for the entire military, by comparison, is $700 billion per year.

“The money that we are going to save by ending these wasteful wars — you’re right, it won’t cover every other thing that we need to accomplish,” Gabbard admits.

At least she’s willing to debate with me. No one else polling over 1% has been willing so far.

“Our leaders are increasingly unwilling to sit down with those who may be ‘on the other team,’” she explains. “Look, I love my country. You love our country. Let’s come together as Americans with appreciation for our constitution, our freedoms, civil liberties and rights, and have this civil discourse and dialogue about how we can move forward together.”

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.