>>2400352>>2400353>>2400353Tulsi has always rode the Israel (and also pro-India) bandwagon really hard.
What a lot of millennial/zoomer leftists who get taken in by this stuff don't get is that Tulsi Gabbard has a view that is more like the Republicans during the Cold War than Bush-style neoconservatives. This is because they didn't live through the Cold War and don't really understand it. (The definition of "neoconservative" also changed over the decades, as it originally referred to domestic policy, not exclusively foreign policy. I'm talking about the 1950s here.)
You see it with Nixon, but take for example, Reagan foreign policy advisor and U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. Her whole thing was that "traditional authoritarian governments" are preferable to communism because "the miseries of traditional life are familiar" so ordinary people "learn to cope" with them. So the U.S. in practice should support right-wing military juntas that were anti-communist. Leaders exactly like Gen. Sisi in Egypt. During the Cold War, that was the theory behind supporting the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and Latin American juntas (transferred to today with Bolsonaro in Brazil).
She was mostly retired and really old when 9/11 happened, and advocated war with the whole "fundamentalist Islamic terrorist network" but invading Iraq was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that "moral imperialism" was "not taken seriously anywhere outside of Washington D.C." (Side story: Kirkpatrick was raised in a family of Oklahoma socialists in the 30s/40s and joined the YPSL while in college in Missouri.)
Max Abrahms is similar. He's a professor (and a big Tulsifag btw) who focuses on the subject of "terrorism." He developed a following among anti-imperialist circles for his criticism of Russiagate and U.S. support for Syrian rebels, and would make appearances on Glenn Greenwald's show to argue this point. Mainly Russiagate, but he saw Assad as preferable to ISIS, and so the U.S. should ally with Assad (and basically ally with Russia) to fight ISIS. But after the Al-Aqsa Flood, some of those followers were very confused when he began rallying for Israel really hard – but he always was very pro-Israel. (Incidentally he's Jewish but that's not strictly relevant.) He's very pro-Modi. He doesn't see any contradiction between supporting Israel and a traditional Arab dictator like Assad.
BTW, I don't think the Israelis ever bought into the Bush-era democracy stuff. I think they encouraged us to invade Iraq, because Saddam was their enemy. But I think it's mainly because they wanted us to fuck up Iraq for them, and I don't think they give a crap about building American-style model liberal democracies in the Middle East or believed in it then. The stuff you hear from some anti-imperialist types that ISIS = Mossad is propaganda from the Iran-led Axis of Resistance network. The Israelis like to fuck up and destabilize their neighbors (Lebanon, Syria) but they're not pro-ISIS, rather they prefer Sisi's Egypt, the UAE, and Aliyev's Azerbaijan.
>>2400383I think the JFK stuff is more wrapped up in vague populism at this point. There's this whole cult around him as some nationally unifying future-forward modernist figure (space program etc.), and he was assassinated, and so people project onto him their own politics. You'll even see wignats say Kennedy was killed by da Joos.