Anybody see the awful quote from Hillary Clinton  in an interview concerning Tulsi Gabbard – without directly naming her, basically calling her, a combat veteran, a traitor? Really. Hillary Clinton referring to someone else as a “Russian asset”.This is the person that no one argues tried to collaborate with Russians, via a cut-out in the 2016 election to get dirt on Donald Trump.  Here’s the text of the relevant part of the interview if you missed it:

“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview for Plouffe’s Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

Oh yeah, Jill Stein as well.  Of course Ms. Gabbard responded via Twitter:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

Ouch! What a great response to a pickled politician. If you’re against endless war, as I wrote about here, multigenerational war, then somehow you’re a dupe for the Russians. You’re an asset, a traitor. Of course we were warned about all of this before many that  may be reading this were born. Dwight Eisenhower, you may recall the hero general that orchestrated the defeat of Nazi Germany, spoke in his final speech, as President,  to the American people, January 17, 1961:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

Unfortunately, he was ignored. Soon came the disaster we would heretofore refer to as the Vietnam War. 58,000 American lives lost, and a ignominious withdrawal, even though our forces won every battle they were engaged in over a decade.  It is the only defeat America has ever experienced – although it was not a military defeat – it was strictly political. Americans of all stripes didn’t want anymore of our youth dying in a country where the populace itself didn’t want us. We see the same in Afghanistan today after nearly twice the amount of time.

I haven’t come to the best part yet, which has to do with Syria, and our involvement, today. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are openly criticizing President Trump for wanting to withdraw our troops from Northern Syria. Why? We need to stay there to precent a disaster if the Turks invade to engage the Kurds. We need to provide a human wall, with our soldiers, to prevent what could be a massacre. I doubt that would happen, but the fact that Turkey can roll tanks and armor into Syria to war against their historic enemy, should say something.

So our politicians want us to be a barrier, to prevent what they believe could become a massacre, believing that the Turks  would not cross that human wall. In fact, it’s clear that no matter what, the Turks will roll into North Syria and then what? Do we withdraw or do we engage? Consider this: A war between to NATO allies. There’s even a congressman that has proposed building a physical wall between the tow countries. You read that right. We can’t build a wall on our Southern border because “racism”, but it’s okay to spend billions doing the same to “protect the Kurds”. Of course, Turkey has been building a wall, but now it looks like we (America) needs to be involved in this as well.

The Framers gave the power over the military to civilian oversight, that being the President. That person is accountable to the electorate and those that might involve us in wars of regime change (Iraq, Libya, and yes, Afghanistan) have to explain to us, the people as to why we are there and what our troops are fighting for. Now it’s Syria as well. We even just sent 3,000 troops to the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia. Why? What’s our interest there other to protect an autocracy that should have fallen decades ago? In this, I do agree with Congress in that we have no business in a proxy war between Iran and the KSA over Yemen. How long, how many more decades, how many more American lives lost, before we decide that involvement in the Middle East is not something we can settle by force.? The problems there are beyond what any single country may be able to solve. We should have learned this in the Iraq debacle as well as the continuing horror of Afghanistan.

Being against endless commitments to war, endless troop deployments, casualties that no politician dares to address, does not mean you’re an asset of another country. It doesn’t make anyone a traitor to just ask the question, “Why are we here? What is the goal?” Maybe it’s time for more in Congress, instead of criticizing the decision to remove troops, to ask those questions. More than that, if they are so sure of their commitment to forever war, to make sure their children, and grandchildren, are on the front lines.