Marianne Williamson Once Hit Obama for Not Sending Troops to Syria

Democrat President hopeful Marianne Williamson speaks outside the Fox Theatre on July 30, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. - Democratic presidential candidates will debate in Detroit July 30 and 31. (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP) (Photo credit should read JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP/Getty Images)

Appearing in May on Pod Save America with Jon Favreau, 2020 White House hopeful and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson said — unlike President Barack Obama — she would have followed through with military intervention in Syria, suggesting the situation in the war-torn country posed a “direct threat to the humanitarian order of the world” in 2012.

A partial transcript is as follows: 

JON FAVREAU: Under what circumstances would you use military force as commander-in-chief?

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON: If there’s a direct threat to an ally, direct threat to the humanitarian order of the world.

FAVREAU: That seems to be the tough one. Like what do you do?

WILLIAMSON: No, I don’t think it’s tough. Rwanda, hello? Syria, he would have said “it’s a red line” and then it would have been his red line. Yes, I would have.

FAVREAU: You would have sent forces to Syria?

WILLIAMSON: I believe that when Obama said that’s my red line, it should have been his red line, yes. And the other one, of course, is when our own homeland is threatened.

FAVREAU: The question on sending forces for humanitarian missions, and this is one of the most challenging questions in all foreign policy and U.S. foreign policy as well is how do you know when military force can make a difference in a potential genocide, in a mass slaughter of civilians like in the case of Syria and the case Rwanda as you mentioned. Versus you know, I’m going to send in troops to an open-ended commitment. How do you define the mission? How do you define when to send U.S. troops in to conduct a humanitarian mission.

WILLIAMSON: Political leadership is not just a science, it’s an art, as is medicine. That’s like saying, when is this operable? When is it not? When do we use chemo? When do we use radiation? When do we take out the tumor? It’s integrative. Once again, I keep talking about this, it’s integrative. So one of the things that we’ll have when I’m president, if I’m president, is that there will be so much a more robust and sophisticated relationship between defense and state. State will have as the leader when I’m president, a world-class humanitarian, a world-class diplomat. Somebody who’s understanding of what is going on inside people is as deep as what’s going on outside people and we sit there and we figure it out just like, remember the television show House?

When they all sit around the table. Given the situation, what are the best things to do? However, what we have in politics is what we used to have in medicine like 75 years ago, where invasive measures and brute force basically, physical brute force is your primary problem-solving option, and that will not be true. But I do believe that there are times when, for instance, when you say would you have used force? Let’s say Rwanda. Yes, and I would have gone in sooner. I remember during the Bosnian War, I was with the Republicans on that like, when are those planes going to go?

[H/T Crooked Media]


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.