Propagandists Are Freaking Out Over Gabbard’s Destruction Of Harris
Propagandists Are Freaking Out Over Gabbard’s Destruction Of Harris AUTHOR: CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute event.
That’s six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said “I want to turn to foreign policy” to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaedain Idlib, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting lies and brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism, so it would make sense that they would try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn’t stop the Hawaii congresswoman from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway. Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court’s forced her to do so,” “kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California,” and “fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”
Harris, who it turns out fights very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard’s attack, preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead. Later, when she was a nice safe distance out of Gabbard’s earshot, she uncorked a long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been dying for an excuse to run wild with.
“This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches,” Harris told Anderson Cooper after the debate. “She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I’m prepared to move on.”
That was all it took. Harris’ press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an “Assad apologist”, which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word “Assad” trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard’s name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, “Assad” is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter’s new layout, while Gabbard’s name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform.
“Somehow I have a hard time believing that ‘Assad’ is the top trending item in the United States but ‘Tulsi’ is nowhere to be found,” tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time.
The Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she “helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity”, and falsely claiming that “she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians“.
In reality all Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly, she said the US shouldn’t be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her; not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House Representative is an “Assad apologist”, but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of resisting the mechanics of America’s forever war.
MSNBC’s Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that “Gabbard will not criticize Assad, no matter what.” Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried Assad as a “brutal dictator” and claimed he’s guilty of war crimes, much to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the war propaganda narratives about what’s going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed that Assad is a nice person or that he isn’t a brutal leader; all she’s done is say the US shouldn’t get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That’s not being an “Assad apologist”, that’s having basic common sense.
“Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris,” tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.
All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it’s easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.