195
Conspiracy theories and cosying up to dictators: why intelligence experts are spooked by Tulsi Gabbard
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
195 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19235 readers
3027 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sounds more like her asking questions of the victims to verify the facts she was given.
If she kept pushing that narrative, I'd agree that she was "going to bat". Just asking a question of people at ground zero seems more like a test/experiment to verify another source of information.
She can verify there was an airstrike without asking young girls if it was conducted by a group with no air force.
It's not like children are going to take the time to identify the markings on the planes that are actively bombing them.
She can verify an airstrike using US govt tools as a member of the US Army. Under these conditions I think it reasonable to double check with an outside source.
I know that children may not have the sophisticated tools to identify who owns the planes, but they have verbal and community knowledge about the conflict which is a hard perspective for an American to access without asking them directly.
She may have feigned ignorance to get them to open up. She may have asked about ISIS to prompt them to tell her any information about ISIS attacks that they might have heard. Maybe Assad lied to her and told her it was ISIS, and she was verifying that he was lying and that the US Army info was correct by running the question past the people in his line of fire who might know best. I don't know why Tulsi asked this question, but the situation has enough ambiguity and such little detail that it's not a good argument for her being a traitor.
I'm interested to see any concrete evidence you may have, including better context on this specific incident.
Let's not even pretend you want to know the truth about her. She is from a cult that she is still part of and married into. She kicks it with Assad and defended him even as he used chemical weapons on his own people. She is not just a traitor to the US, but of humanity defending a blood thirsty murderer.
She was the only Democrat to not vote to impeach Dumpster thus completing her transformation to a dark money conservative hell bent on ushering in fascism. This is what happens when people cozy up to dictators.
"In a final act before leaving Congress, Gabbard introduced a bill that would have banned trans women and girls from participating in female sports."
Oh yeah full on conservative piece of shit. So yeah, we get you have a boner for her but I think it is deeper than that. You are a probably a boot licking apologist.
Transphobic? Sure. Absolutely. As an intersex person who grew up in a very conservative part of Florida, no one batted an eye when I played for both boys and girls ice hockey teams during high school back in the Obama administration. Propaganda during the Trump administration suddenly made this an issue. I know for a fact that no one cared before the Republicans decided to divide us on this issue. People like Tulsi pushing it out like assholes is absolutely part of that. My teenage years were very difficult as an intersex person in the town where the "don't say gay" law came from. Sports, and hockey specifically, was my reprieve from that discrimination. I very much don't respect her stance on this issue, or any republican who pushes such divisive and dangerous rhetoric.
The "present" vote for impeachment? Well, I remember also being upset with the impeachment process for not prosecuting Trump for his larger and more obvious crimes. I would love to see Biden/Trump/Obama/Bush all tried for their war crimes, crimes in immigrant detention centers, gitmo/torture, Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Palestine etc. Trump could have been the precedent setter for holding presidents accountable. The impeachment process instead felt like a political sham. I understand and respect that she believes Trump is “guilty of wrongdoing,” but that she had serious concerns about the process itself, calling it “a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
I think that calling her americanized/new-age hinduism a cult is racist and uncalled for. I'd trust someone who worships the trimurti over someone who worships yahweh in most situations related to morality. All religions are cults.
When she visited Syria and tried to use words instead of bombs to communicate with the Assad regime, the US had been engaged as a belligerent in the Syrian civil war for five years, and Trump had just been elected and was actively amplifying the conflict.. As a Major in the US Army, a Congressperson, and a strong advocate for peace, her going to the enemy to talk and promote diplomatic solutions over Trump's bombing campaigns is very much in line with her stated perspective as a peace-seeking combat medic. I watched her statements on this closely at the time, but did not see her defend Assad, just deflect questions about his conduct by pointing out that war is hell and pointing to similar misconduct in the area perpetuated by Trump/Obama/Bush.
I understand that you are a "boot-licking apologist" who has a "boner" for war criminals and hates those who call them out. You should really reassess your blind obedience to power. I think that her discretion and pro-peace positions are a boon to our country's foreign intelligence operations. I believe that in spite of the joys from my childhood that Gabbard's transphobia makes her attack.
Although I strongly disagree with this person's social views, her foreign policy appears to be an imperfect step in the right direction. I hope her actions as DNI will continue in this manner. I recognize that as DNI, she will have access to intelligence on Americans that makes me worry about her social views. I don't think that concern will go away if Trump nominates literally anyone else from his side. Tulsi has always been more focused on foreign policy than domestic policy, and I hope that trend continues in her new role.
I'm also open to updating my view on her, but I need real evidence of her being a "traitor" before I can do that. All I see are claims backed up by shaky evidence that falls apart when you actually look into the details of the situation. I plan to pay attention to her confirmation hearings. Maybe something damning but classified will come out for the public. I suspect this won't happen, because if damning evidence existed then I believe that the existing intelligence regime would make sure everyone knows about it in retaliation for her not snapping into line.
To be clear, my view of this person can be summed up as "a bit of an asshole on social issues, but a step away from warmongering attitudes in our foreign policy". I'm apprehensive about her new position allowing her to implement the former. I'm hopeful that her new position leads to positive outcomes such as scaling back our wasteful war machine as she implements the latter.
What kind of AI nonsense was that.
The tl;dr is that even if she is an asshole, you can't say "traitor" or "treason" without proof.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Hopefully the senate's confirmation hearing will bring the real allegations to light (if they exist) and we can begin to understand this situation.
That's what hearings are for. Fact finding and evidence airing. The public needs to know a person's crime before they ostracize them. Once you get ostracized, you become prey.
Hey, I am not the one defending a garbage human being. I am just pointing out she stinks which you don't deny.
I'm only defending due and open processes of determining guilt when accusations are made.