>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts
>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
>wild suspect.

To me the odd thing is that her wording is so hyper-specific, instead of just referring to imperialism as a behavior and war as an outcome of it. I'm aware, but only in the very general sense, that any phrase a presidential candidate repeats regularly has been focus-grouped within an inch of its life, so when she says "end regime change wars" it's very intentional and means something specific. But I'd love to hear her spend more time describing why she landed on that term specifically because every time I hear it, all I can think is that it sounds like it was crafted to:

a)make her sound like the anti-imperialist candidate
b)still provide some cover for some wars, some of the time

But I also can't square what sneakery that she could possibly think she's doing, so maybe it's just that her people believe that "end regime-change wars" is more palatable, and if I were in that focus group I'd be overruled when I said it sounded oddly fishy.

I don't know.