Here we go again.
Donald Trump has nominated military veteran former congressperson and now former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence. And the Democrat left (with few exceptions, that is a redundancy) and their media pals, in an effort to kibosh this nomination (along with a ton of others Trump has proposed) is telling us Ms. Gabbard is an apologist for bashar al-assad and Syria.
Is it true? Or is it right up there with the “nazis and White supremacists are very fine people” lie that this conscienceless bunch has been claiming right up to the present?
Well, if this Rachel Bade’s article at politico.com is any indication, we’re looking at another “very fine people” sack of manure.
Here is her key paragraph:
The shocking collapse this weekend of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has reinvigorated scrutiny about Gabbard’s past sympathies for the brutal dictator. Her 2017 visit to Damascus to meet with Assad — years after he gassed his own people — and her comments defending his rule have long exemplified the former Democratic congresswoman’s unconventional foreign policy views.
“Comments defending his rule”??? Wow. The comments in that link must be a killer. It must show what a total suckup Gabbard has been for al-assad and Syria, right?
Well, tell you what; you’ve got the link and you can see/hear it for yourself. When you do, you will be treated to a 40 second video clip from a “Morning Joe (MSNBC) show, with this dialogue:
Panel member (unnamed): “Do you think assad is our enemy?”
Tulsi Gabbard: “assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States.”
Mika Brzezinski: What would you say he is to the United States. If you cannot say that he’s an adversary or an enemy, what is assad to the US, what is the word?”
Gabbard: You can describe it however you want to describe it….
Brzezinski: “I want to know how you describe it.”
Gabbard:…My point is that whether it is Syria or any of these other countries, we need to look at how their interests are counter to or aligned with ours.”
“Panel Member “Are assad’s interests aligned with ours?”
Gabbard: “What are assad’s interests?”
Panel Member: “assad seems interested in the slaughter primarily of his own people in part. I mean, how does that…”
END OF VIDEO (Gabbard’s response not shown).
Did Tulsi Gabbard say a good word about bashar al-assad? No she did not.
Did Tulsi Gabbard say his being Syria’s head of state was positive/beneficial to the United States? To the people of Syria? To anyone? No she did not.
Did Tulsi Gabbard disagree that he was a mass murderer? We won’t know from this video, because – wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles – it was cut off before she responded. But I think it would be fair to assume that, given the premise of Ms. Bade’s article, if she said so much as one word in defense of assad it would have been included.
All Gabbard did say was that al-assed was not an enemy of the United States because he does not pose a direct threat to us. Not that he is a friend. Not that he wouldn’t pose a direct threat if he were able to. Only that he doesn’t pose such a threat. The end.
So, bottom line, the claim that this was an example of “her comments defending his rule” is absolute, unadulterated BS.
Please expect a ton more of equally absolute, unadulterated BS from sources like this for most of Trump’s other picks as well.
