An example: Merely owning stock in these companies CAN make one corrupt.
.
Posted on 01/30/2025 7:38:55 AM PST by MtnClimber
Diplomacy Never Works—Until It Does
Fiction has a peculiar way of speaking the truth that real-world politics often refuses to admit. In the season finale of The Diplomat, Hal Wyler delivers a strikingly raw monologue about the maddening, soul-crushing, yet absolutely necessary practice of diplomacy. His words ring with a hard-earned cynicism: diplomacy is a slog, an exercise in endless repetition, a near-certain failure—until, suddenly, it isn’t. Until it cracks open the door to peace. This is not a utopian fantasy; it is the brutal reality of statecraft. And it is precisely why Tulsi Gabbard’s willingness to talk to Bashar al-Assad should be seen not as a betrayal, but as a statesman’s burden, an act of courage rather than complicity.
The Obsession with "Legitimacy"
One of the laziest arguments against diplomatic engagement is the claim that talking to an adversary "legitimizes" them. This is absurd on its face. The United States has spent decades talking to tyrants, murderers, and despots—from Stalin to Mao, from Gaddafi to the Ayatollahs in Iran. At no point did a handshake or a summit absolve these figures of their crimes. The very premise of diplomacy assumes that the people we negotiate with are often the very ones we despise.
If anything, refusing to engage can be more dangerous. History shows that a lack of dialogue does not weaken regimes; it hardens them. The Soviets did not crumble because we ignored them—they fell because we engaged, outmaneuvered, and ultimately outlasted them. Refusing to speak to Assad would not have hastened his downfall, nor would it have prevented his actions. But talking to him, hearing his position, and understanding the layers of Syrian geopolitics might have given the U.S. a far clearer roadmap to extricating itself from yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Real Sin: Questioning the Narrative
Tulsi Gabbard’s 2017 trip to Syria drew ire from both neoconservatives and interventionist Democrats—not because she met with Assad, but because she refused to blindly accept the establishment’s pre-approved version of events regarding chemical weapons attacks. Gabbard’s skepticism about U.S. intelligence claims on the 2017 Khan Shaykhun attack was not a fringe conspiracy theory—it was a prudent hesitation, grounded in the undeniable history of American foreign policy missteps.
Her critics demanded blind faith in an intelligence apparatus that, within living memory, manufactured the case for the Iraq War with non-existent WMDs. They insisted that the mere act of questioning the official narrative amounted to siding with Assad, an intellectually dishonest smear designed to silence dissent. Yet, years later, whistleblowers from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) raised serious doubts about the way reports on the Douma chemical attack were manipulated. Was Gabbard still out of line for asking questions? Or was she simply ahead of the curve?
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
Gabbard was attacked as an "Assad apologist" for advocating diplomacy, while the same establishment elites championed engagement with regimes no less brutal. Obama was celebrated for reopening diplomatic channels with Cuba and Iran. Trump was both vilified and praised for his attempts to negotiate with Kim Jong Un. Nixon’s visit to China was hailed as a masterstroke of foreign policy, despite Mao’s staggering record of mass murder....SNIP
The difference? Gabbard’s foreign policy stance rejects the interventionist framework that Washington clings to like a security blanket.
It sounds like Tulsi would likely not be a patsy for the deep state. If she is confirmed then time will tell.
I’ve heard it said that diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie,” while you look for a big rock.
Diplomacy??
American War Hawks: What’s that?
The “D word” gives me the creeps.
Trump’s E.O.’s on “weaponization of government” ALL say “the Director of National Intelligence shall....”
And Trump did this knowing that Gabbard was his pick. So he trusts her to carry out the job.
So the DC deep-state swamp and all its RINO and Woke cronies are focusing very closely on Gabbard. This is a key battle for them in their attempt to neuter Trump, and hide their crimes.
This vote is a BIG DEAL.
Not to mention, Assad the younger was never even close to the monster DC made him out to be. He was probably the most liberal leader of any Arab nation. Christians, Alawites, Kurds, Sunni and Shiite were all living in Syria. There were even two old small Synagogues in Damascus.
A female could get an education, marry or divorce who they wanted, have a job, drive a car, or dance to music, in a swimsuit, on Latakia beach, and drink wine made in Syria.
There were opposition parties.
He held a widely diverse religious populace in check.
Now the ISIS wahabbists we created run the place.
There was never anything wrong with talking to him. The shameful part was DC supporting Al Qeida and ISIS in Syria, and the straight up lies about gas attacks and our attacks on the Syrian military as they were fighting our islamist army.
The un-American authoritarian government in DC actually placed her on the terrorist watchlist. That is all anyone needs to know.
They acted like she might try to take over an airliner and put sky marshals on her plane to presumably shoot her if she tried.
She is a great pick.
As a Rising Political Star, Gabbard Paid to Mask Her Sect’s Ties to Alleged Scheme
Years before Tulsi Gabbard became Trump’s pick to coordinate U.S. spy agencies, she tried to evade unwanted scrutiny
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tulsi-gabbard-science-of-identity-qi-group-ed51c890?st=bhx4W6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
So it looks like those two nominees don't have what it takes.
This has become the calling card, if not the rallying cry of the modern democrat party and political left. Their leadership and puppet masters may know better, but they count on followers and supporters cultivated through emotion and feelings rather than through rationality and logic, in other words, useful idiots.
What I admire about Gabbard is that by all appearances, she seems to have made herself a very rare exception to Swift's observation, and has seen the absurdities of many leftist views. This takes some introspection and intellectual honesty. For her to openly question her past views and party affiliation in the current political atmosphere is a tremendous act of moral and political courage.
“There’s no money in healthy people and
There is no money in diplomacy”
Both statements only hold in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Healthy people produce more wealth. Sick people absorb and spend wealth.
Diplomacy can help preserve wealth and even create wealth by preventing war and establishing rules to allow for trade. War destroys wealth, even if it is sometimes necessary.
Sure, evil people can find ways to extract money from sick people or to gain money during war. It is a losing proposition, because the pool of wealth is destroyed over time.
People like fast money, like bitcoin, vaccines, war. Just the way it is down here.
Nobody gets nominated for this role without a significant intel background. She wasn’t just freelancing.
An example: Merely owning stock in these companies CAN make one corrupt.
.
Gabbard helped herself today with a strong appearance
I’ll predict she gets confirmed with a modicum of Democrat votes.
Diplomacy: the Art of Telling Some One to Go to Hell and Have Them Enjoy the Trip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.