Donald Trump, proposer of a global ban on Muslims entering the United States — and Al Qaeda stooge.

Sounds like Mueller missed the real collusion story.

AQ is just one part of a witches’ brew in her new ad below that’s supposedly pushing Trump into war. The “neocons,” noted fans of Al Qaeda, are there, of course. So are the Israelis and Saudis, natch. So are … the neolibs, which reeks of ingratitude towards Barack Obama. The guy punted on bombing Assad, balked at military action by Netanyahu against Iran’s nuclear program, then struck a lame bargain with Iran himself lifting sanctions on the regime while preserving their right to restart uranium enrichment in a decade or so. This is the thanks he and establishment Democrats get for continuously farting away U.S. credibility to Iran’s advantage?

Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran, but that's exactly what he wants, because that's exactly what Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, al-Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other NeoCons/NeoLibs want. That’s what he put first–not America. pic.twitter.com/kAPyxlKXDs — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) May 14, 2019

Most of the villains named in Gabbard’s ad are staples of leftist demagoguery but AQ is a little different. There *is* someone with whom Gabbard is personally acquainted who shares the belief that the U.S. is a tool of Sunni jihadis, though, notes Mike Doran. It is a weird but true fact that one of our Democratic candidates for president this year is a real-life no-foolin’ Assad apologist, right down to accusing the president of being influenced by Al Qaeda because they share a common enemy in Iran.

Although, of course, Iran’s “enemy” status with AQ is highly nuanced. As is her friend Bashar’s relationship with Sunni jihadis.

I’m a bit surprised at how marginal Gabbard’s been in the primary. Right, she’s not well-known and her would-be base has been cannibalized by higher-profile leftists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but she’s telegenic, a veteran, likes to throw attention-getting roundhouses in her online ads, and has taken as her signature issue a hardcore anti-interventionist posture. (Although I’d be curious to see whether that changed if Trump suddenly had a massive falling out with Assad’s enemies in Riyadh.) There’s a constituency on the left, and on the far right, for that viewpoint but she’s been a one-percent candidate in virtually every poll. I’m guessing her bad numbers are a product of poor name recognition plus the fact that Trump’s first two years as president have been quiet abroad. Apart from a few jabs at Assad, his foreign policy has been more noteworthy for diplomacy than for military action although we may be on the cusp of that changing with John Bolton and Mike Pompeo leaning on him to show strength with Iran and Venezuela. If he does and war suddenly becomes the talk of the primary, Gabbard may be the main beneficiary.