Top Democrats should look in the mirror before attacking Tulsi Gabbard on her Russia policy. They aren’t exactly heirs to President Ronald Reagan when it comes to Russia.
I note this in light of an escalating Democratic effort to present the Hawaii representative as a Russian intelligence asset. While top Democrats are flexible as to whether Gabbard is a witting or an unwitting asset, they insist she’s an asset. Thus far, they’ve failed to provide evidence that Gabbard’s Russia-related policy positions are anything but her own.
Moreover, although Gabbard is delusional about Putin’s threat, her Democratic critics are richly hypocritical.
Take Hillary Clinton. Leading the Obama administration’s 2009 Russian reset, which came less than a year after Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Clinton was an early adopter of the policy of appeasing Russia. She now presents herself as a courageous foe and even victim of of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but Clinton forgets her own true history. Even in 2014, Clinton was describing the Russia-reset as a “brilliant stroke” that appeared “even more so” with each passing day. Clinton said that even as Russia was severing southeastern Ukraine from Kyiv, and just one month prior to Russia’s downing of the MH-17 passenger airliner as it overflew Ukraine.
But it would be unfair to single out Clinton. Other top Democrats have their own baggage on Russia.
Indeed, when you strip away their condemnation of the Russian leader, the 2020 Democratic presidential field offers little substance on Russia policy. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to cut military spending and retreat into trade protectionism. Joe Biden helped lead an administration which emboldened Putin at every level. Even as Putin dramatically improves his nuclear strike capabilities, California Sen. Kamala Harris proposes to weaken U.S. deterrent forces. And of course, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy agenda seems born of a Putin dream. Even South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, better positioned than these others to take on Putin, has problems. Buttigieg explicitly opposes defense spending on programs such as the Virginia-Class Block V submarines, which are crucial to deterring Russian aggression.
Oh, and all these Democrats seem to oppose fracking and other energy extraction policies that would fundamentally undercut Putin’s energy-blackmail policy in Europe.
But it’s not simply those running for president who need to look in the mirror and think about Russia policy. Take House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Not long ago, Pelosi was describing Putin’s puppet, Syrian President Bashar Assad, as a brave leader for a new Middle East. Visiting Syria in 2007, Pelosi observed that “the road to Damascus is the road to peace.” Those words came just as Assad was simultaneously facilitating al Qaeda in Iraq’s attack on U.S. soldiers.
Today, Pelosi’s road to peace is marked by the hundreds of thousands of civilians Assad has killed since 2011. And don’t let Pelosi say that she could not have predicted that slaughter — the Assad family’s power has always built on butchery.
So yes, Gabbard’s foreign policy views are highly favorable to Putin’s interests. She deserves to be challenged on those points. Yet, Democrats can hardly set themselves up as the ones to criticize. Gabbard is genuinely just one of them, not some unique wicked witch of Russian appeasement.
