The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 332. Crony Capitalism and Female Soldiers | Tulsi Gabbard

Episode Date: February 16, 2023

Dr Jordan B Peterson and Tulsi Gabbard discuss her time in the armed forces, the concerns over women serving, crony capitalism, the Republican party, and the proxy war the US is waging against Russia. Tulsi first served in elected office in the Hawaii State House of Representatives when she was 21 years old. Due to the attacks on 9/11, she enlisted in the Army National Guard. In 2004, she gave up an easy re-election campaign and volunteered to deploy to Iraq with the 29th Brigade Combat Team where she served in a medical unit. After returning home in 2006, Tulsi worked in the U.S. Senate as a legislative aide to the late Senator Danny Akaka, who was Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. She then volunteered for a second Middle East deployment as a Platoon Leader. Having experienced firsthand the true cost of war, Tulsi ran for United States Congress at age 31, vowing to honor the lives and sacrifice of her brothers and sisters in uniform. She prevailed in a difficult election and went on to serve in Congress for eight years as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs Committees. Foregoing a run for re-election to Congress, she ran as a Presidential candidate in the Democratic Party in 2020. Tulsi puts country before party and approaches every issue, domestic and foreign, based on ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. 

Hello everyone, I'm here today with Tulsi Gabbard, an American politician, commentator and a lieutenant colonel in the US Army reserves. She served as the US representative for Hawaii's second congressional district across four terms from 2013 until 2021. She was the first female combat veteran to run for president, as well as the first Hindu member of Congress, and the first Samoan American voting member. Both during and after her terms in office, Gabbard has been a formidable voice in the political space, leaning right of center, despite her Democrat origins, with continued appearances on Fox News, while retaining more progressive views on topics such as drug legalization. She is the host of her own program, the Tulsi

Gabbard show, where she continues to speak on relevant issues with the following axiom firmly in mind, country before party. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. I'm looking forward to this conversation. I thought maybe we'd start by talking about your experience, your history with the Democrats. If you could just walk us through that, I mean, you've had a stellar rise within the confines of the party and then a certain amount of friction. Maybe you could just walk us through that. You were elected very, very young.

And so maybe we could start with that. And could you just tell the story of being involved with the Democrats? Well, I, so I growing up here in Hawaii, it's a beautiful place and from a young age, how to pretty deep appreciation for the importance of protecting this place, you know, protecting our oceans and the preservation of clean water.

We get our water here from water aquifers and as the most remote island chain in the world, protecting those resources are essential for life. And so my motivation and drive to run for the state house of representatives here in Hawaii when I was 21 years old in 2002 really came from that motivation to want to be in a position where I could actually do that. I previously, they wanted to build a big landfill over one of our big water aquifers here,

which, you know, even for me as a teenager seemed like such an absurd idea and risk because once that water is contaminated, then it's done. And so I was part of, you know, I went out and got petitions and signatures and joined others to be able to try to stop that because it was being, the wheels were being greased by a corrupt politician essentially who was trying to help

his buddy who ran the landfill business. And it was a great experience for me as a young person to be a part of stopping that from happening. And that's what drove me to run for office when I was 21 years old. It was not out of any kind of design. Like, I'm going to have this big political career. And this will be the first stepping stone to get to somewhere else. It was really driven by a desire to be of service and make that positive impact. I chose to be a Democrat. My family was, it wasn't one of those like legacy party affiliation things that you just did.

I really was thoughtful at that time about which box I wanted to check and filing those papers to run for office. And for us here in Hawaii, the origins of the Democratic Party really came from a party that fought for people, kind of a more populist perspective. We had plantation workers who were being absolutely abused and take advantage of by the huge landowners here and in the state that was essentially being run by elite wealthy Republicans at the time. And it was a democratic party that fought for those who didn't have a voice.

It was a democratic party that celebrated civil liberties, that celebrated freedom, an individual thought, this big tent party that really was rooted in kind of those, those traditional liberal JFK-esque ideals. And it was a party that had many voices that spoke out for peace. And so, all of these different things really drew me to the Democratic Party as a party that would fight for the voices of the people. You know, in Canada, we have a socialist tradition, a new Democratic Party, and I worked

for them when I was a kid. Uh, the man I worked for was the father of Alberta's last premier, second last premier, and a lot of the people that were involved in the NDP were labor leaders. It was well known in Canada that the conservatives were the party of the establishment and the liberals were, well, they played both sides against the middle very effectively, and the socialists, the NDP, British socialists, rather than the communist type, were really, they played both sides against the middle very effectively and the socialists, the NDP, British socialists, rather than the Communist type. They're really the voice of the working class. They're the voice unions and the working class needs a voice, obviously.

And I think, well, the NDP did provide that to some degree in Canada and the Democrats historically did provide that. That seemed to go pretty damn sideways with Clinton. And I think it looked to me from that outsider's point of view, and I was rather appalled by this, that the Democrats had decided to sacrifice their traditional base, the working class, the committed working class for something approximating the politics

of division and this, whatever this new narrative is of oppression and victimization. And I don't think that worked out very well either as far as I could tell because my sense of the Clinton Trump debacle was that it wasn't so much the Trump won, although he certainly did. It was definitely the case that Clinton lost.

And I think she did that by sacrificing the interests of the working class. Trump just vacuumed that up and no time flat masterfully. I thought he seemed to have that ability to communicate with working class people interestingly enough. And they trusted him, at least they trusted him in comparison to Clinton. So, okay. So, you were interested in the Democrats because of that working class voice tradition.

And you worked with the Democrats for a long time. How long was your, how long you, you, you, you ran when you were 21. That was in when 2000, that was in 2002, 2002, right? So and when did you formally sever ties with the Democrats in October of last year, 2022? Right. So it was basically 20 years. Yeah, yeah. I did not spend all of that time in politics.

I left the state house when I volunteered to deploy with our Hawaii Army National Guard Unit because the events of 9-11 like so many Americans, changed my life, changed my perspective, and I had enlisted in the military, motivated by what happened there to go after the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on that day. And so I was campaigning for reelection here in Hawaii in 2004, which looked to be a pretty easy reelection here

and to continue the work I was doing, our unit or the National Guard Unit was activated for a deployment to Iraq. I was told by my commander, congratulations, you don't have to go, your name is, we've already got someone filling this job in the medical unit where I was serving. So you can stay home and you can continue doing what you're doing.

But I knew that there was no way, there was just no way that I could stay back and work in some plush office in the state capital and watch my brothers and sisters in uniform go and deploy to war and the other side of the world. And so I left my reelection campaign and volunteered to deploy, got trained in a different job that they needed filling in that medical unit and went off on an 18-month-long deployment. So what do you learn? What do you learn from that? Exactly.

Hold out of your life. What do you learn? So much about the cost of war, both in the loss of people who I was close to, people who I served with, as well as people who I had never met. One, the very first thing that I did in my job, while I served in Iraq, we were in a camp about 40 miles north of Baghdad, and the very first thing that I did every single day that I was there was to go through a list of names of American service soldiers who were serving

all across that country who had been injured or hurt in combat the day before, the previous 24 hours. And I had to go through that list, name by name, to look to see if there were any of the soldiers from our brigade, which was about close to 3,000 people who were serving in four different parts of Iraq. At the time, to make sure that, okay, well, this person has been injured, they've been hurt,

where are they? Are they getting the care that they need? Are they able to get what they need in country and return to duty? Do they need to be evacuated quickly and basically make sure that they had what they need, whether they were staying in country. We eventually got them back home to their families if they had to leave. But every single day being confronted with the high human cost of war that is just so often not discussed or talked about in the headlines or even thought

about by politicians even if they might give lip service to it. And also, therefore, coming from serving in the state house and even some of our local politicians in Hawaii, they would come out and visit the troops, get the photo op beyond the ground for maybe 24, 48 hours, and then go back and say all of these things as if they knew it was happening. And just the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of the politicians in Washington that voted for that war in Iraq, but really without any care for the consequences of that decision, or even thinking through what are we actually doing here? Is it serving the interests of the American people?

Is it? Well, and what were you doing there as far as you're concerned? You've had lots of time to think about it now, and you were actually there. And so for our unit, so our specific unit there was there to go after different terrorist elements. This was kind of where Al Qaeda was growing stronger. And obviously the rise of ISIS would occur a little later after we left.

But we had a number of different infantry units that were going around in different areas and trying to seek out those insurgents that were attacking Americans. And that was the specific mission that we had. I was served in a medical unit, and so we were providing care primarily for our American troops,

but also going out and trying to help provide care for local Iraqis in the area where we were. I visited Abu Ghraib prison. This was after the scandal occurred, but I visited the hospital Abu Ghraib prison and was struck there about the medical care that was being provided there to the prisoners, which was exactly the same kind of care

that we were providing to injured service members who were also in the country. But it was seeing past kind of the day to injured service members who were also in the country. But it was seeing past kind of the day-to-day tasks there in the being exposed, literally on the front lines to the war profiteering and the military industrial complex, the monopoly of KBR, Haliburton making an immeasurable amount of money off of this war. Again, I was there for all of 2005 in Iraq and that was in the early days and you look at what has happened since over the ensuing decades in Iraq and

Afghanistan. And again, my exposure in Hawaii as a state legislator was very limited when it comes to foreign policy. There wasn't a lot that I knew, but being there, experiencing it, and at a basic level, understanding government spending and taxpayer dollars, and how are we using it?

The accountability and going and talking to these, they labeled them third country nationals. They would import in from places like Nepal and the Philippines and Sri Lanka, pay them pennies essentially compared to how much they were charging the federal government to do things like, okay, well, we're going to cook food for the troops every day. And I started asking, well, how, you well, if I walk into the Chow Hall tent or building or whatever and get a bolicero and a banana for breakfast, how much is KBR Haliburton charging

the US federal government for that? And it was some outrageous price in 2005. It was like $40 per service member, per meal. They served four meals a day, and then we made friends with these people from the Philippines and Nepal and Sri Lanka who were working there. After I was like, how much are you getting paid?

Oh, $500 a month. Right. 500 dollars a month. So that actually answers one of the questions I wanted to bring up later. I guess you've answered it in two ways, is that one of the reasons I have a certain sympathy for people like Bernie Sanders,

and more recently for people like both Russell Brand and Joe Rogan is because there's a necessary voice on the left that targets something like corporate governance, government, media, collusion at the highest levels. Yes. Construction of these gigantic tentacled multilateral organizations that engage in regulatory capture and then turn into, let's say, what Eisenhower warned everybody about in relationship to the military industrial complex. And there's a necessary voice on the left that I don't think precisely should be striving against capitalism per se.

I think that's the big mistake, but should be striving against fascist corporate government collusion. And we should all be striving against that. That's for sure. Had to be nice to get that straight. Now, but you did. I think answer some of my question about why I was going to ask you later about why you supported Bernie Sanders.

But we'll get back to that. I'd like to talk about that later. Yeah, okay. So I got a question for you also. Now, I'm curious about how your views developed and what they are now about the issue of women in combat. Now, we've opened up the military to female participation.

And generally speaking, it appears that opening up avenues of participation to women has immense benefits for women. If handled correctly for children, certainly on the economic front, it doubles the pool of available talent for everyone. I know the best predictor of development in the third world is rights accorded to women, especially on the economic front.

So that all looks like a good thing. But then, I have my skepticism about the practical and ethical utility of placing women on the front lines, for example, in battle positions. And there's obviously a huge disparity in physical strength. And probably in a net aggression, and that could go one way or another, because it isn't completely obvious that the most aggressive soldiers are the best, even though that might

seem self-evident. Now you've been there. So what did you conclude about the integration of women into the arms forces? What's good about that and what's not good about it, assuming there is anything not good about it? My position on this, and this is based on my experience, is that we should have the best people for the job.

Whatever that job may be, the people who are best equipped to our best trained, who have the capabilities, both mental, emotional, and physical, and that women on their face, simply for their gender, should not be disqualified from various jobs, simply because of that.

I have served alongside obviously many men and women, people who have been very good at their jobs because of their skills and their capabilities and others who don't have those skills and capabilities. And so whether those jobs are serving as an infantry soldier or an artillery soldier, whether you're serving in a combat unit or a support unit, what I want, both as a soldier, who I want to be serving alongside, but also I think when you look at this from a policy

perspective, what we should want as a country is we need the best people who are going to do, who are best equipped to do the job. Not all women are best equipped to serve in a combat unit. Not all men are best equipped to serve in a combat unit. So there should not be an arbitrary standard simply based on gender, but rather set the standard. And if you meet the standard, whether you're a man or a woman, then you want the job, go get it. I don't believe in. Yeah, it's always pure merit-based evaluation,

or as you're concerned. Correct. I guess that brings up two problems. I suppose as one is that there are physical standards set for jobs like firefighter and policeman, and obviously military practitioner, soldier, and those standards, especially in elite units, are extremely high.

I mean, they're high enough so most men can't manage them at all. Because of the difference, especially in upper body strength, women have a lot of stamina, but difference in upper body strength really differentiates men from women. If the physical standards are set high enough to exclude, say, 95% of men, they're going to exclude virtually say, 95% of men, they're going to exclude virtually all women. And then the question comes up, well, should you keep the standards? And obviously, some level of physical prowess is necessary.

But if the standard is 100% exclusionary on the sex front, then it raises the question of whether the standard itself is sexist, let's say, in a counterproductive manner. And so, I think the question is, what is the basis for the standard? And I know that there are some standards that have been set traditionally, and in the military, well, this is an elite unit, so the standards must be exclusionary. So we only get the most elite people, but are those standards simply based on a concept of eliteism, I guess, in this context? Or are they set based on the conditions that soldiers serving in that particular unit will be likely to face? Are they based on the reality of the requirements of

the job? And so if we're in a situation, and there are jobs, both in the military, as you mentioned, first responders and others if Those standards are set on a realistic assessment of what this job will require and It turns out that hey one out of a hundred women who apply Actually qualifies then so be it You know whatever if there are a greater number of men who qualify then so be it If you have people who get these jobs who who cannot do the job, then it's pointless and it puts themselves and it puts the entire unit and mission at risk in doing so.

Well, there's a measurement science that's been devoted to this for a long time, and there are actually guidelines for psychologists who do assessment, let's say, in relationship to a particular job. Some of those are enshrined in appropriate law, and the notion is, first of all, that you have to do a job analysis, which is okay. What is it that the people who are doing this job who are good at it spend the bulk of their time doing? Sure. You can measure that, although that's not easy, for example, it's not that easy to measure their performance of a middle manager, for example, in a corporation, because the outcomes are difficult to specify, but you can do a better or worse job of that, and if you do a good job, then you can find out what predicts prowess, and you can do that statistically, and then

then you define merit, right? Merit is what makes it likely that you will do very well doing whatever this job is for. That's merit. And that can be handled properly. The problem is, as you alluded to, if you accept merit, defined in that manner as the gold standard, then you're going to have to accept the outcome, which is that there isn't going to be radical equity at all levels of analysis in the candidate pool. And so

you have to forego that. And it certainly seems, I would say, that on the left side of things now, people are almost entirely unwilling to forego that equity outcome. I mean, even Kamala Harris, who should have known better, tweeted out a few weeks ago, her support for this concept of equity, and people who aren't paying attention think that means the quality of opportunity, which is not what it means at all, which is why it's a different word. It means that if the outcomes of this election process aren't equal across all conceivable combinations of ethnicity and gender, it's sex, et cetera, that intersectional morass, then the system is by definition

exclusionary and prejudiced. And that, well, that just kills merit, assuming that merit is not completely equally distributed. Now, one other question on the female front. So one of the things that's disturbed my conscience with regards to women on the front lines is that there's always the possibility that you'll fall into the hands of the enemy. And it wasn't very much fun for, let's say, British and American prisoners of war in Nazi camps in World War II, although there were some Geneva Convention arrangements that were still in place, but I can't imagine what it would be like to be a frontline woman

who fell into enemy hands. I mean, that's a level of absolute bloody catastrophic hell that I think that we should be very, very cautious about exposing anyone too. And so I have a proclivity to think that women are differentially susceptible to exploitation on the captured enemy front. And I don't know exactly, you know, given credence to what you say about making sure

we have the most qualified people. You know, maybe you can ask people to face their death. I don't know if you're, if it's okay to ask them to face endless gang rape and then death, you know, that's, that's pushing the envelope. And so I don't know what you think about that. I imagine you, that thoughts of that sort must have gone through your mind from time to time.

Sure. It is the most war is tragic and ugly to say the least. And you're facing some of the most horrific conditions, which is one of the reasons why I don't support the draft, is because as a soldier, I don't support the draft is because as a soldier, I don't want to be serving alongside anybody who hasn't made that choice to be there, who hasn't made that choice to be willing to make those sacrifices, not only to give up one's life in service to our country, but to face the plethora of what could be the absolute worst case scenarios.

That's my perspective, and so whether those scenarios are facing a male or a female soldier, these are some of the things that both the training of the practical implications, but obviously the mental preparation for how anything could possibly go bad is essential before sending troops into that situation. Okay, so it sounds like your sense is that, if people have been fully apprised of the risks, and I think we outlined the most substantive risk on the female side, if people been fully apprised of the risks, and I think we outlined the most substantive risk on the female side, if people are fully apprised of that risk, and there's

evidence that they actually understand what that means, which is no simple matter, that it's okay to allow them to make that choice. But that's partly why you introduced the idea that there's no compulsion in military conscription also partly, because you don't get the best out of people if they're compelled obviously. So, okay, so anything else on the combat front or can we turn back to the Democrats? I'd like you to do a-

Well, I'll walk us back into that because it is what motivated me to run for Congress. We talked about, you know, okay, well, I've been with the Democratic Party for 20 years. I chose to join the Democratic Party. My experience on two Middle East deployments is what really drove me to run for Congress. It wasn't something I had great, any ambition for, frankly, when I ran for the State House in 2002, but being exposed to the cost of war, being exposed to both the military industrial complex.

But what you described very well earlier is this collusion in the narrative and the push coming from elected officials in Washington, the establishment of people in both political parties who are part of this war-mongering uniparty, so much of, I guess, the mainstream media or legacy media that we have seen, amp up and beat the drums for war over and over, not interested in actually exposing the truth or asking any tough questions as it comes to foreign policy and the decisions to go to war.

And of course, now even more so, we're seeing big tech being a major contributor in this establishment narrative. It's what drove me to run for Congress, to be able to be in a position where I could actually serve in a place to help make decisions that would prevent us from continuing to go and wage these costly counterproductive wars that actually end up undermining our own country's national security. One of the main decisions, one of the main reasons why I chose to leave the Democratic Party is because the Democratic Party has become the war party.

Those voices that we talked about a little bit on the left who challenged the military industrial complex, challenged this pro-war narrative that we're seeing across the board. I don't see them anymore and worse yet. We have leaders in the Democratic Party who are the ones who are actually amping up these counterproductive wars, who are amping up, these new Cold Wars against Russia and China are amping up, and escalating and pushing us to the brink of nuclear war, which is where we sit right now as a nation, which threatens us and threatens the world, frankly. And doing so without any thought or consideration for the reality of something that was very

eye-opening for us here in Hawaii back in January of 2018, when we had a missile alert, where we thought that North Korea was sending a nuclear missile to us, and then we had 15 minutes to live. The government telling us, oh, seek shelter immediately. This is not a drill. Missile inbound to Hawaii, but we were confronted with the reality that there is no shelter. There's literally no place to go. So not only have our leaders failed us in the sense of getting us to this point, where

that is now a reality that every single one of us lives with right now. But also, they tell us, oh, seek shelter. Get inside, stay inside. There is no shelter. They may have some fancy shelters where they may be able to survive and continue to wage war and the event that we get there. But the vast majority of people in this country and people around the world will be the ones that suffer the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear holocaust.

There is no shelter. They have not provided that shelter. And so this question of how my experience is there on these deployments, the experiences that I've had throughout this time was one of the main reasons why I left the Democratic Party. And, frankly, was one of the main reasons that back in 2016, that I saw the necessity to leave as vice chair of the DNC

to go and speak out against Hillary Clinton's war-mongering record as she was trying to become our country's commander-in-chief and the dangers of what would happen if that became a reality. Mm-hmm. Okay, so it was primarily a consequence of concerns about, well, concerns about the military industrial complex. Okay, let's segue for a minute then. I made a couple of videos about the Russia-Ukraine War, making a foray into a domain that's obviously contentious enough to produce a war, let's say. And here's my problem. I don't understand, now I've listened to a lot of hawks on the American side, talk about

well, two things about the fact that it appears likely, and this is independent of the merits of this claim, it appears likely that the this is independent of the merits of this claim, it appears likely that the Ukraine supported by the West in the matter, it has been supported, can do serious damage to Russia's conventional arms force. And I think there is evidence that the Ukrainians and the West are pushing the Russians back, and God only knows how far that will go. And the hawks that I've talked to said, that's a good thing, it's in our interest to ensure

that Russia is no longer a conventional military threat. And no, I have a certain degree of sympathy for that viewpoint, but then here's the counter problem as I see it. So I try to look forward into the future. And I think, okay, what does a victory for the West look like? Forget about Ukraine. Ukraine victory is they get their territory back. And there's a wall between them in the Russia, Russians in the pesky Russians leave them

alone and they go back to whatever level of appalling corruption they had managed before the war. Right. So that's the Ukraine victory. The West, well, let's say we could do this two ways. Okay. So Putin is deposed. However that happens and then what?

And then we have a better leader in Russia. We have a more trustworthy leader. Yeah, I don't think so. The Russians haven't got a great history of that. And no matter what you think of Putin, it's definitely the case that he isn't the worst leader that emerged in Russia in the last 100 years by any measure. So that's a big problem. And then I think while instead of Putin being replaced by someone who could be better, but probably won't be. We'll have a Russia that's really fragmented in that, you know, the country in some ways collapses, and that's a really bad idea because there's a lot of nuclear bombs there, and

if you get the fragmentation of that power structure into multiple chieftains, let's say, and a few of them emerge armed with nuclear bombs, then we have a major problem on our hands. And that seems to me to be a highly likely outcome. And so, and then if we weaken Russia severely and permanently, then we have the problem of a severely and permanently weakened Russia. That's a big problem because they produce a lot of fertilizer and the Europeans happen to be dependent on them for a lot of their energy needs.

So that doesn't look very wise. And then we have the absolute bloody catastrophic probability that if Putin starts to lose in any serious way and so starts to believe that Russian territorial integrity is threatened. However, he defines that, that he has an immense array of unbelievably powerful next-generation weapons at his disposal, and why the hell wouldn't he use them? Yes. So let's walk through that. I mean, imagine the West wins.

Okay, what does that mean? I don't see what that means. I haven't heard anyone describe to me what the goal of this war is. We're supporting the heroic Ukrainians. It's like, yeah, you're a moralizing scoundrel. That's not a plan. That's idiot hand waving, as bad as the environmental doom sayers. It's the same thing. Cheap moral victory. Make a pro. Can you make a pro and then a cautionary war case

in relationship to the Russian Ukraine? What's in America's true interests as far as you're concerned? Well, this is exactly... You have very clearly laid out not only the problem with how this president Biden and, frankly, Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress who are applauding and pushing for and escalating this war is how short-sighted they are. But also, this has been the problem in U.S. foreign policy from our leaders for so long is they are not actually thinking clearly, if they're thinking at all, about what is our

goal? What is our objective? What you said, what does a win look like? How is it to mine? Even theoretically. Even theoretically. Whether it's realistic or not, just saying, well, we're fighting for democracy.

That's not a goal. Right. Also, it's in direct conflict with the reality of their actions, even here in the United States about how many undemocratic decisions and increasingly authoritarian decisions they're making. But on this question of the war and in what is essentially a proxy war against Russia, the United States is waging a proxy war against Russia, the Ukrainian people are paying the price.

They have not outlined what a win looks like. Anytime anyone asks President Biden or anyone in the Biden administration is, when does this end? How does this end? They throw out this cheap one liner of saying, well, well, that's up to Putin. Whenever Putin stops, that's good. That's up to the guy with the hydrogen bombs. Exactly. That's a brilliant, that's up to Putin. Whenever Putin stops him. Oh, good, that's good. That's up to the guy with the hydrogen bombs. Exactly. That's a brilliant, that's bloody brilliant.

Look, I know what I would do if I was Putin. I know it, I know it. As soon as I felt that I was in danger of a true loss, see, I think Putin will settle for the devastation of Ukraine. I think he could claim that as a victory. The utter devastation of the Ukraine, because it stays out of Western hands. But

if Putin ever believed that his people even believed that they were now under attack, let's say by German tanks, let's say the probability that he's used a tactical, tactical battlefield nuclear weapon seems to me to be extraordinarily high. It's like, well, it is. For me, it's like, well, why wouldn't he? And the issue is, well, you don't want to escalate. It's like, yeah, that's already factored into the decision. So there is this theory, I don't know if you've heard it before, of escalate to de-escalate. And so the response from the US government is always, well, we don't think he'll resort to that or we don't think that we're not shriving here people. So we're not even sure that his nuclear weapons are that great or we'll really work in the

way that we think could cause major damage. But the fact that they're even theorizing about any of this without recognizing the very direct and real cost to human civilization on this planet is exactly the problem. They're living in some fantasy land that it's hard to connect with because it's not based in the reality of the situation you're facing. And you have laid it out very clearly of the different possible outcomes. We've heard President Biden say in the Department of Defense, well, we got to get rid of that guy, Putin, but not actually for who?

For who? For who? And to what end? To what is the alternative? They have no idea who will step up or what kind of Russia will exist in the aftermath of that. We can look throughout history to see how U. how US foreign policy, especially in regime-change wars, have failed so spectacularly in different regions around the world because they go and

pick which dictator they like or don't like. Well, we'll take this guy out, replace him with this guy, and then all of these disastrous unintended negative consequences come both for the United States and the people in these countries. And yet here we are now where we are facing that exact same prospect with the country that has the most nuclear weapons in the entire world. Right, so look at what happened when after the Germans went into France in World War One and wreaked havoc in that idiot war, World War One.

Their entire industrial machine was devastated. They had a period of hyperinflation. They were subject to that extraordinarily punitive Versailles Treaty. And yes, that could be imposed upon them because they were devastated. And hypothetically, we could do the same thing with Russians, if they're beat very badly on the conventional front, and they emerge weak. And we put punitive measures in place to keep them weak. And then we might remember just exactly what happened to Germany as a consequence of the

Versailles Treaty, because they didn't stay weak for long. And maybe the Russian nuclear weapons are no better than anything else the Soviets built, but that doesn't mean a few of them won't go off. And it's really not gonna take that many because after all they are nuclear weapons. And so even when it doesn't work that well, it's gonna be a lot more spectacular

than anything that happened in 1945 in Hiroshima, we can be absolutely certain of that. So again, you know, the mystery is fair enough, man, we want victory. Okay, no problem. What's the victory? One of the common responses that you hear from both people in the White House, from politicians in Washington, both when talking specifically about Russia, but you hear this very often whenever they see there's a bad actor on the world stage.

Well, the United States needs to take action to punish them, to send them a message and whether this is through economic warfare or kinetic or tactical warfare direct, whether indirect or direct, this is a line that they have. Well, we have to punish them, we have to punish them. We have to punish them. And so they're making decisions about,

well, we got to make life hard for them, punish them in whatever means that we can, but not actually thinking about within the context that they should be, which is for us in this country, what action should we take that is in the best interest for the well-being of the American people in our country,

and our national security, and our freedom? And who's the them? That's the other things. We need to punish the Russians. Like, well, who exactly are you talking about here? Are you talking about the elites that are in control? Are you talking about the whole damn population? For how long? And as you already pointed out, to what end? To what end. So to what end? To what end is all this. And well, we touched on that a little bit. You can't help, and this is where I suppose I turn into a leftist in some real sense,

at least in relationship to what you might describe as a stance against gigantism. It's like to what end? Well, how about military industrial profits that are staggering? How about that end? And if there's no what end? Well, how about military industrial profits that are staggering? How about that end? And if there's no other end in sight, and I'm not particularly skeptical about capitalism except in its gigantism forms, it's like if there's no other end being outlined, well,

I'm going to go with profit as the motive because if you have a better theory, man, lay it out, but I don't see anything. And given that it was Eisenhower, who knew what he was talking about, having been supreme commander of the Allied forces, when he warned about the military industrial complex being the biggest threat we faced back in what about 1959, that was something to take seriously, and it's something to take seriously again. So. Now it was something to take seriously and it's something to take seriously again. So what do you have any sense and have you talked to anybody who, as far as your concern, has some reasonable vision about what actually might be done in a sensible manner on the

Russia-Ukraine front? Well, the reasonable people who are rooted in reality and not fantasy understand that the only way to bring about an end to this war is through diplomatic means of bringing together the different stakeholders and actually coming to an understanding whether it's through the form of a treaty or whatever that agreement may look like where no one is going to walk away happy, but there is a reasonable approach to being able to find that agreement. You'll hear from the Biden administration, anytime this is brought up, well, Zalinsky and Ukraine have to be the ones to drive this.

They are the ones to drive the terms and everything else. The only way that they're able to continue doing what they're doing is through the means that the United States, largely the United States, but also some other countries in Europe, are providing them with the weapons and the money and the ability to do so. So the United States has, President Biden has been following about, we could definitely stop lying about the fact that this is Ukraine. Yeah, exactly. But nobody with any sense at all believes that. I mean, we're in a proxy war for sure. And we have been from the beginning.

And so we might as well be crystal clear about that. Exactly. So Trump popped up the other day as he has a proclivity to do. And he said, if I was president, I'd stop this war in 24 hours. And that's typical Trump overstatement, I would say. But it is the case that the war emerged on Biden's watch and not Trump's watch, and that's not nothing. And so, what do you make of that? What do you make of Trump?

When we diagnose the Democrats a bit, let's turn to the Republicans. Only Trump knows what Trump would be doing in this situation. But as we're talking about a diplomatic end to this war, something that should have happened a very long time ago, something the Biden administration has been blocking, categorically blocking even efforts between Russian Ukrainian officials on their own who are trying to come together. It's been the United States that has been blocking them, telling Ukraine, no, leave the table, don't negotiate.

How have they been blocking?, telling Ukraine no, leave the table, don't negotiate. How have they been blocking? What are the, there are multiple reports publicly of Biden administration officials telling Ukraine not to negotiate, as well as other countries who have been also sharing that they've been getting that same message. Going all the way back to I think March, you know, shortly after this war kicked off when they were having it. Yeah, I heard the same thing. I heard that from people I was talking after this war kicked off when there were. Yeah, I heard the same thing. I heard that from people I was talking to who knew what they were talking about.

Exactly. That the Russians, there were, there were avenues open, quite early in the conflict where diplomatic, diplomatic maneuvering could have hypothetically proved, proved useful. And that that was blocked. Now I'm not saying it would have been useful, but I couldn't understand when this all broke out why the number one priority of Western leaders who instead gathered to make fun of Putin's hypermasculinity, and it was a pretty sad bunch of whims gathered around the G7 table who were managing that, I might say, instead of noting that if they had any sense at all,

they'd be trying to broker something like an intelligent arrangement so that we didn't face the likely possibility being dragged by our shirtsleeve into the law of the military industrial complex and end up all turned shreds as a consequence, which I think is the most likely outcome of what's happening now. Because what I know something about World War I and World War II, and one of the, and the other wars we've been in since, is that what tends to happen is you get pulled in one stupid step at a time, especially if you're also turning a blind eye to the sh-sh-sh-cainery

of your wealthy friends who are profiting like mad on the war front. And so, people always, I think they said, you know, when World War One started, it was like, the troops will be home for Christmas. It's like, yeah, guess that didn't happen. And then it's many, many years later. And it's not like that didn't happen in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Exactly.

This will be over soon. It's like, yeah, I don't think so. That is how these things were. No. And who walked away with the most profits in the war in Afghanistan alone, major defense contractors. What does the Department of Defense have to say about the money that was spent there? They can't even account in the vast majority of money that was spent there. What can we say? We're talking billions of dollars, billions or hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yes, hundreds of billions of dollars. Yes, hundreds of billions of dollars. It's trillions if I remember correctly. Overall, what was meant? Yes. Trillions of dollars spent on that war. And billions of dollars were meant to be. And on accounted for.

Exactly. Spend an unaccounted for. Right, so that's pretty damn convenient for who over millions of dollars have been for the military industrial complex. And then you have these defense contractors again, saying publicly war is good for business. Period, fuck stop. Well, there's no doubt about that.

Exactly. If you're not on the front line, because your bank account is not useful to you when you're dead, but if someone else is dead and the consequence of that is that your bank account is accruing profits quite nicely, well, you know, that's all well and good, especially if you're a psychopathic narcissist and it's all about you. That's right.

And so, and there's no shortage of that going around at the highest echelons of what would you call it, fascist collusion. And we're seeing that pretty much everywhere. Yeah. Okay, so let's turn to the Republicans. Okay. everywhere. Okay, so let's turn to the Republicans. We've had our shot at the War Mongering Democrats, let's say, although I think we'll return to their problems, but let's look at the Republican side. Now, you're sitting as an independent at the moment. That's correct.

I've got that right. Yes. Good. And so you're not aligned with the Republicans or the Democrats, which either makes you extremely hard to get along with and someone no one likes or, right, that's a possibility. Or, you know, or you're in a neutral position in some sense at the moment with a lot of experience on the Democrat front, right, a lot of detailed experience. And so what do you think is good about the Republicans and what do you think they're lacking? Well, I think there are a number of Republicans who are obviously, who are a part of this permanent Washington establishment that whether we're talking about the issue of war and peace or we're talking about, you know, the crony capitalism. I'm not against capitalism either, but you look at the crony capitalism of industries

like a big farm are, the so-called healthcare industry that really doesn't care about people's actual health and wellbeing. You could go kind of across the board of what is wrong with the corruption and permanent Washington where politicians are essentially paid off, and therefore working for the interests of these industries rather than the interests of the people that they've been elected to serve. And there are both Republicans and Democrats who are not only entrenched

in this, but who are in those positions because of this system. And it is what it is. That's how right fascism, by definition, right? Yeah. Because the fascists, the definition of fascism is essentially corporate government collusion at the highest levels. And so, yeah, the deep state that everyone paranoid is paranoid about and for good reason is essentially a collusionist fascist regime. And increasingly an international collusionist fascist regime. And when people say, crony capitalism, you know, it's a weak phrase for what's essentially a fascist enterprise.

So, and as you said, you know, there are people in the Democrat party and in the Republicans who are pulled into that web of collusion. And it's easy for that to happen too, because- It is. Yeah, well, you suck into the system quickly and you think, well, this is just the way it works. And so if I want to do anything in Washington, if I want to get anywhere, even, well, you suck into the system quickly and you think, well, this is just the way it works. And so if I wanna do anything in Washington,

if I wanna get anywhere, even people who I know who came in, I got elected with, best of intentions, it is very quickly inculcated, like within the first few days of being there, that this is way the world works, buddy. And if you wanna get anywhere to be able to do what you came here to do, well, this is the game and the rules you've got to play by. And then very quickly before you know it, those good intentions that you came up with are lost. And you are

no longer serving the interests of the people. You have become a puppet of those who are the puppet masters. Well, you are a new fight when you first enter the ring, even once you're elected, I mean, in terms of the constituents you represent, you're sort of at a pinnacle, but as a newbie in Washington, what you're law freshmen. They're literally called freshmen.

You get elected, you are a freshman class. And you've got no knowledge and you've got no allies. And then there's also gonna be the party you that one hangs out, wants to hang out with the cool kids. And so, right, absolutely. And some of that's actually just humility, you know, is that because you don't have any allies or friends and you do need to know

how the system operates. And so that's a big problem. So what did you have to be grounded in principles? You have to go there and be grounded in your principles and your mission and your purpose, which was not just to go and like get along and be around this interesting group of people and get the fancy title, though that is some people's purpose.

But in order to be truly effective there, you have to go there and be very grounded in your principles and purpose so that you don't then become the puppet for these other powerful interests. And that frankly is exactly what I went through is when I got to Washington, I was lauded as like, oh my gosh, she's a rising star, the headlines. She's a rising star, the Democratic Party, and checking all the different boxes of all

the things that they look for, the labels that they look for for, she's a woman of color, she's a veteran, she's this and she's that. And then they realize, like, oh, hold on a second, she's not just going to allow us to control her. She's not just going to read the talking points that we send out in the morning email. She's not just going to vote based on the way that we tell her to do. They realize that I wasn't there. And was we the DNC?

Essentially, I mean, my experience with talking to Congressman in Washington is basically, it's actually been somewhat, it's been disenchanting, and I've also developed more sympathy for the Congress people, because while they have hard jobs, it isn't obvious that anyone sensible would ever take that job, even though it's necessary, that they do. Well, the new congressmen, they spend 20 to 30 hours a week fundraising.

They can't do that in their offices. They have to rent another office, and they spend all their time on their phone. So they're basically glorified televangelists or telemarketers. 40% of them don't live in Washington and sleep in their offices. So there's no community there. They have to run for re-election every two years, which means that not only are they in a job that's very difficult as newbies, but it's a very unstable job. They've destabilized their families by doing so.

It's hard for them to move their spouse to Washington. And then, as bitten, I think, especially true on the Democrat side, but it's also true on the Republican side. They're facing constant pressure from the powers that be who are very entrenched to do nothing but raise money for the damn party, even though they waste almost all of that, and to toe the bloody party line. And of course, you have to have a certain amount of party discipline, or you don't have a party.

So anyways, that's a... Now, so why don't you... What real temptations did you face? And you know, how did that warp you? Because there's no way you get through this without a certain degree of warping. And how did you, and to what degree were you successful in resisting that and why did you manage it? So let's start without.

What were the major temptations facing you when you first went to Washington? Well, like I said, within the first few days of arriving there, before even being sworn in as a member of Congress. There was a bifurcation. We had it. We had 84 people who were elected to Congress in 2012, new members of Congress. I believe 50, I think there were 50 Democrats in 34 Republicans. And so for the first week that we were there and what they call freshman orientation, we

were going through different policy briefings with people presenting on a whole host of the issues that we face and people presenting from different sides, different perspectives. And we all went through that together. And then after that, it was, okay, Democrats, you're gonna go here, Republicans, you're gonna go there. And that's where two things happened.

Number one is the partisan direction coming to members of Congress, basically preaching in a nutshell, it is party first. You will do what is best for the party first, rather than thinking about, well, what's in the best interest of my constituents or what about, if I disagree with the party, and this is a decision that I want to make make you will make your decisions based on what's best for the party if you have an idea to introduce a bill Best not to go work with someone from the other party because that'll make them look good And make it harder for us to beat them in the next election So not about how do we solve problems not about how do we be effective in serving our constituents all about the party power keeping power be effective in serving our constituents, all about the party power, keeping power, getting it back.

Those are the two things. And both of us got those same messages from our respective political party leaders. Part and parcel of that was exactly what you talked about. There was a PowerPoint slide that was put up. I remember it very distinctly because it was so shocking about, here's what your day will look like. And how many hours of the day, morning, noon, and night will be spent either at fundraisers with lobbyists

representing different industries, or as you said, on the phone, offsite, making calls to those lobbyists to try to get more of them to come and give you money at the next day's fundraisers. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And as I was looking at this slide, it was split up hour by hour.

Here's what your days will look like if you're doing your job. You're 16 hour days. Exactly. And how the vast majority of a single day was not spent studying issues that you would have to tackle in committee or working on legislation

that you're going to introduce. the vast majority of hours of that day would be spent fundraising from lobbyists representing special interests. And that's the expectation, to get on certain committees that you want to get on. You've got to give them, to get to give the party a certain amount of money and all of these different things. And that's the frustration that the American people have with our politics right now. And obviously it's been going on for a long time is they know, we know this. We can see through their results that they don't actually care about making decisions that are in the best interest of the people are actually solving these problems.

It's being reactive. And ultimately when it comes down to it, when you hear what they are saying, for example, like, oh well, prescription drug prices are flying through the roof and people can't afford insulin, diabetics can't afford insulin. You know, seniors can't afford the medicine that they need, but when you actually look at the results, even though politicians complain about it, there's not a regulation of big farmer that would actually seek to start solving some of these problems in the ways that people need help. And that's just one example of many. Well, you know, here's maybe part of the underlying problem.

So I went to the Republican Governors' Association meeting in November, and I remember one of the people who presented they were trying to rally the troops to some degree, sharing policy information amongst themselves as governors. And a lot of the Republican governors are pretty good at implementing micro-polices and there's something to be said for that, right? That boots on the ground pragmatic competence.

They weren't very good at putting forward a vision and they weren't really very good at even rallying the fundraisers with a rousing call to action. And I think that's a problem on the Republican side. But one of the presentations was extremely interesting to me as someone interested in measurement because the person got up and talked about how effective the Republicans had

been in certain jurisdictions, in certain key elections, in outspending the Democrats on the advertising front. And I thought I thought three things at the same time. The first thing I thought is there is almost no evidence that election spending has any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election. It's a marginal effect at most. And so and it's it's so marginal that political scientists have been debating for 20 years

about whether or not election spending helps at all Whether you're an incumbent or a challenger and so the fact that and then so that's a big problem It's like it is not obvious that what you're paying for works. That's a big problem second Why in the world did we ever assume that the right metric for electoral competence in in running a campaign is how much money you spend. No one in the right mind thinks that the right measure for doing a bathroom renovation properly is the fact that it cost a million dollars when it could have cost 10,000.

That's just preposterous. So it's a measurement problem in the fundamental analysis, and then even worse on the Republican side. And I think I asked this question, which didn't make me very popular at the meeting itself, which is, I don't know if you noticed, but 95% of the legacy media to whom you're devoting all this money actually really can't stand you or anything you stand for and is completely 100% tilted against

you. So on what grounds do you base your claim that spending more money than the Democrats feeding this God awful legacy media machine is, well, it's not effective and it's counterproductive and they hate you. So what are you doing? And so then what happens in Washington, it's very similar, is the party's devolved to the simplistic notion that those junior congressmen who can beat the drum most effectively to raise money are if so facto the most loyal and competent. And that's all based on a whole misapprehension of, it's a measurement problem. It's like the money you raise is not an indication of your competence. It's the same problem we were talking about with relationship to women in the military

to begin with. What the hell are you measuring? No. Okay. You, now for whatever reason, you got a lot of Democrat committees and you ended up as vice chairman. You had a pretty stellar career, very rapidly accelerating. Now you claim that you weren't one of the junior Congress people

that could be, you know, subsumed all that easily into the military industrial complex for lack of a better word. So, if that was the case, then why in the world were you also able to move into leadership positions in the Democrat party because hypothetically, you would have had to go along, and I'm sure you went along to some degree, but you would have to go along. That's what they're telling you. You have to go along to get something done, but you're saying you didn't particularly go along, or at least not always, and yet you had a stellar career.

So how is that possible? These opportunities, these, you know, vice chair of the DNC, we'll start with that one because I was. I was a top official of the National Democratic Party from 2000, I guess I was sworn in January 2013 up until my choice to leave that position in 2016. I was sitting in the back seat of a car shortly, it was around the time of President Obama's reelection inauguration.

I got a phone call saying, hey, what would your answer be if you were asked to serve as vice chair of the DNC? I had been in office for less than a month. And my response to this person who called me was, I don't know, what is a vice chair of the DNC? What do they do? What would the expectations be?

What kinds of things would I be able to do? Is this just a by name thing? Or would I actually be able to do something? I didn't have any idea what that was. But I was offered that position and I thought, well, hey, I agreed to do it because I thought, maybe this is an opportunity for me to be bring some, and affect some change

in the Democratic National Party. So a lot of these different things came to me without me seeking them out at all. Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, well, this is somebody who we can, if I did go along, I can imagine, I think it would be a safe assumption to say that they would have continued to push me up into the highest levels if I had been someone that they thought I was, that I would just go along

and I could tell the story that they wanted to tell and say the things that they wanted me to say. And so when they asked me to be vice-chair of the DNC, I had been in office less than a month. And who's they? Who's the they that are asking? It is, it is, you know, the Democratic leadership in Congress, Democratic leadership within the DNC. And also, I got a lot of media coverage that I didn't have a press secretary, I didn't have

a publicist, I didn't seek any of secretary. I didn't have a publicist. I didn't seek any of this stuff out, but I kept getting calls. Hey, we want you on our show. We want to feature you in this magazine. We want to do this. You want to do that. And I questioned it a little bit, but ultimately I was like, hey, look, this is an opportunity for me to be able to reach out to people and say what I want to say and get across what

I want to get across. I took advantage of those opportunities. Or you checked the identity box. Exactly. It's right. Presume that they thought they were hoping that you might be, well, I want to get back to this issue of they too. You know, my experience with organizations and activists, for that matter, is that the

they turns out to be a very small number of people who are very well connected, who are continually maneuvering. And sometimes that's a consequence of their unbelievable competence. And sometimes it's a consequence of their unbelievable capacity to manipulate and capitalize on narcissism. And that's probably a problem in politics and entertainment and media more than anywhere else for obvious reasons. And I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush because that's foolish.

But the they that are looking at you and thinking, well, you know, we can certainly use someone with an image like hers for us. And that's not all cynical, by the way. Who are the people who are making those decisions as far as you're concerned? If we go back, say, well, when you were asked to serve as vice chairman people who are making those decisions as far as you're concerned if we go back say, well, when you were asked to serve as vice chairman, who was making those decisions? Well, obviously Nancy Pelosi is one of them. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the head of the DMC at the time. There were people in the Obama administration.

There were people who were not elected officials and within the DMC, I'm sure there were people in the Obama administration, there were people who were not elected officials and within the DNC, I'm sure there were probably political donors as well who had a part of that. But we'll start with Nancy Pelosi. I had won my primary election here in Hawaii in August of 2012. And that in Hawaii, Hawaii is a very strong democratic state. That was essentially the election. I did have a Republican opponent and still had to go and win the general election, but it was a safe assumption that I was going to. I had de facto already won the election. And within a few weeks of winning that election, I had gotten a call from Nancy Pelosi saying, would you like to come and speak during prime time at the Democratic National Convention

that was gonna happen shortly after that? This was in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2012. Someone who had not even yet been elected to Congress for the first time being invited to speak on prime time. It was. I was surprised. I was very surprised.

The topic she was asking me to talk about is one that is obviously near and dear to my heart to talk about veterans. And so I said, yes, of course, I will do that. I went there and I spoke and I did interviews with just about every media channel that was out there. But all of these different things, there were not opportunities that were given to the vast majority of people, I

guess, I'll put it that way. But my decision to leave as vice chair of the DNC was one of those pivotal moments where in the lead up to making that decision, it was driven by a couple of things. One was the recognition of the rules of the DNC, as an officer of the DNC, you were not involved in tilting the scales or getting involved in democratic primaries, especially democratic presidential primaries, that you have different candidates. They go out, they make their case, and then the party coalesces around whoever the winner of that primary is. When the lead up to that 2016 primary election, I started to see very quickly that the decisions

that were being made, not in consultation with us as vice chairs of the DNC, but unilaterally by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was the chair, who was very close with Hillary Clinton, were made to give an advantage to Hillary Clinton, for example, limiting the number of debates where she would have to face Bernie Sanders, putting them at times where I think there was one that was scheduled during the Super Bowl or something like that. When nobody was going to be watching or paying attention to a presidential debate, there were newly implemented rules that said any Democratic presidential candidate that participates in a debate that is not sanctioned by the DNC will be banned from participating

in any future DNC debate. And for me, I'm just thinking like if our purpose and our causes increase involvement and engagement in our democracy to get more people to pay attention to learn more about these different candidates to actually have a real dialogue about these important issues. Why would you be punishing someone for going out and trying to engage in doing exactly that? Why would you be trying to limit the debate that the American people can be exposed to and involved with?

And it was very clear why those decisions were made to give an advantage to Hillary Clinton, who was designated as the one that the Democratic Party powers that be wanted to win that election. And so their lack of integrity coupled with the fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to be our commander in chief. I still serve in the Army reserves now for almost 20 years.

So for me, as someone serving in the reserves at the time, as well as a member of Congress, as well as an American, to have her in a position where both Democrats in the mainstream media refused to challenge her on her record, both as a senator in every position she had held, pre-secretary of state and so forth previously, on her, she is the queen of warhawk. She is the queen of warmongers. No one challenged her. They just said, well, she's got all these positions. She's the most qualified. I am so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform were like, hold on a second. You need to ask her and hold her to account for the cons... disastrous consequences for the decisions that she has made, the wars that she has advocated for, the things that she has done that has not

only undermined our national security but come at great cost to the men and women who are all in service of this country. Why do you think, okay, two questions on the Hillary front. I mean, one of the reasons she terrified me, I suppose, is that it was pretty damn obvious that she's been aiming at the presidency for 50 years. Sure. And that's a long time, right? And you've got to ask yourself, what is driving someone who's that committed to that goal. And the goal is clearly the presidency. It's not what could be done with the presidency.

And it's not like she was dragged in, kicking, and screaming by people who were overwhelmingly impressed by her prowess and who, you know, enjoined upon her for more reasons to consider a career in government. It's like, no, no, no. She's being laser focused on being the first female president of the United States for God only knows how long. And so that's concerning to me. But then, but then that doesn't answer the next or address the next mystery, which is,

well, given that she's a Democrat and given that the next mystery, which is, well, given that she's a Democrat and given that the Democrats should, in principle, be somewhat skeptical, let's say, of the fascist collusion between corporation and government and a little bit skeptical on the military industrial side. Why do you think that her record indicates that she's such a hawk on the military front? Is that a compensation? Is she attempting, this is a cheap psychological interpretation, could easily be wrong? Is she trying to look tough on the foreign policy front to mitigate against any criticism

of the fact that she might not be capable of that or what's going on? I don't think that's such a cheap analysis or assumption to make because that is a reality and that is one of my fears, not only about her, but also about some others who have been in those types of position. You look at someone like Kamala Harris, for example. She's a breath away from the presidency and I have lost. Yes, a feeble breath. Unfortunately.

Yes, exactly, which is incredibly concerning. I have lost track of how many service members, American service members I have spoken with who are absolutely terrified about the prospect of a president and Harris. For that reason, she's, she's, you mean facing off against someone like Vladimir Putin, for example, wouldn't that be lovely? Or, Kamala Harris versus Vladimir Putin. Oh yeah. Or anyone.

But somebody like her who is weak, who lacks understanding in foreign policy, who feels the need to prove herself, to prove her strength, to stand up with the big boys and look tough, and somehow believe that, well, hey, the best way to do that is to go drop some bomb somewhere and start a war. This is a terrifying prospect for someone, and you see this, yes, with some women who feel like they have to go and look tough, but that only happens if they're not actually strong, internally strong individuals themselves. But we also see this with some of the male leaders in this country. We saw how people react again, like in the media and media, how the media and politics, how they react when we go to where we saw how Nancy Pelosi

and Brian Williams and others declared Donald Trump. This is the first time he seems presidential when he decided to go and launch some rockets and missiles against Syria. People who hated him, people who could not stand him and were obsessed with trying to destroy President Trump. All of a sudden he goes and launches some bombs and they're all over the television saying, well, finally, he's acting like a president. Give me a break. This is the problem with the lack of leadership that we have and how you, you know, you started this question asking about how is it the Democratic Party that should be the

party that is at a minimum skeptical and cynical about the military industrial complex. And going out and starting new wars and regime change and all of this stuff, will they have become party to it, part and parcel of it, and have become that machine that benefits from all of this. And so they can't. It would be self-defeating for them to now exercise skepticism or challenge. And this, I want to jump back to a question you asked earlier, we didn't get to finish, which was, what are some of the positive things that I'm seeing in the Republican Party right now?

We see at a minimum, there are dissenting voices within the Republican Party. For example, on the issue of this proxy war against Russia, there are not enough to be able to make a legislative change at this point. I hope that changes, but there are a growing number of Republicans who are saying, no, expressing a lot of the concerns that we are. And from a Republican party perspective, there's no, I'm not aware of any punitive measures being taken against those members. So even though they are not part of the establishment in the Republican party,

Even though they are not part of the establishment in the Republican Party, there is that room for dissent. And I've experienced this myself. There's that room for open conversation and dialogue, whether you agree or disagree, there's a growing movement of concern about these wars and a movement for peace and responsible for and policy. Whereas the Democratic Party has moved in the opposite direction where you are not allowed to ask questions, you are not allowed

to challenge their narrative or their position, you are not allowed to hold a dissenting view because if you do, then they will seek to destroy you and cancel you and smear you and take away your voice. And it's really saddened unfortunate because there's nothing more on democratic than that. Right, right. Well, look, I would love to continue talking to you on the YouTube platform, but we're, I know you have a hard out in about half an hour and I would have really liked

to have talked to you some more about Trump. We should do this again. We should do this again. And we'll find it, we'll find a time that's appropriate and do it again. Wonderful. I would just, I just ask you one final question on this, in this episode. Then for everyone watching this thing, I'm going to continue talking to Tulsi Gabbard on the daily wire plus platform. I'm going to do a little bit more biographical interrogation, let's say.

And that'll be available for those of you who want to go over to the daily wire plus platform. I'm going to do a little bit more biographical interrogation, let's say, and that'll be available for those of you who want to go over to the daily wire plus side of the world, let's say. But maybe we could close with this. So what are your future plans at the moment? Where do you see yourself going? Because you're in an odd political position at the moment, to say the least, you have this immense wealth of experience and reputation, hard earned, and you're in an idiosyncratic position. And you're quite young as well. All things considered by political standards. And so, where do you foresee yourself going? And where would you like to go in the next few years and maybe even longer than that? The short answer is I don't exactly know specifically.

But what I do know is that I will continue to do what I've done throughout my life, which is seek out those opportunities and places where I feel I can make the most positive impact and be of service, be of service to God, be of service to our country and the American people. I always like talking to you Americans, you're so good at that sort of thing. That whole Mr. Smith goes to Washington thing, which is, well, it's real. You know, and I've seen that.

It is real. It is real. And I've seen that. It is real. It is real. And I've seen that among Democrats and Republicans alike, you know, there is, despite everything that divides people in the United States. And despite, you know, all the possibility of corruption and all of that, there is still this underlying belief in the goodness of the central goodness of the system. And this real desire on behalf of people to, to be of genuine service and to put themselves on the line for it. It's no joke to give up your life to become a congressman or congresswoman. It's a very tough decision.

And we need leadership. I think the thing, just to close out that point here is there is promise in this system, but the system is extremely dysfunctional and corrupt right now. And so whether it's what I'm doing now and being able to speak the truth and try to bring some common sense and reality and sanity to the insanity that we are going through in this country, that is threatening our constitutional rights. That is threatening our own democracy. I will continue to seek ways to help lead that change,

to get us back to the kind of country that our founders envisioned for us. Well, that's a very good closing. And so we will turn now to the daily wear plus part of this. All right, Versace. Thank you very much for talking to me today. Thank you.

I look forward to part two. Yeah, yeah, that'd be good. And so for all of you watching and listening, thank you very much for your time and attention. It's much appreciated and to the Daily Wire plus people who are producing this, the film crew that's here in Detroit, because that's where I am today.

Thank you for your help. And onward and upward to the next part of the conversation. Very good to meet you. Hello everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com. you