General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOk, Tulsi Gabbard; help me understand
Honest question; why are so many against Tulsi? I must be missing something because I see her as an anti-war activist myself. Is this a bad thing? Personally, I don't think we have any business in Syria myself where lobbing missiles at a cost of $1,5M USA each could be used to feed the homeless and go towards actually helping people here.
I find it concerning that we're entering another war in a time when so many people are hurting in this country and I see it as a diversion from North Korea (which I consider a much larger threat) and Russian hacking. Didn't we learn our lesson with Iraq and Afghanistan?
So why are so many making disparaging remarks against Tulsi? I simply don't get it. What has she done which is so bad? Help me understand.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The hawks in the Democratic Party are big on military intervention in Syria.
The proceeding statements are not intended to "bash Democratic public figures". It just describes their positions. "Hawk" is a generic political adjective for favoring military intervention.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I simply don't get it. Thank you for responding. I am quite anti-war myself
Hekate
(100,133 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)FDR did literally everything possible to prepare the USA for and get the USA into a war against the Axis, in the face of a very isolationist Congress and populace. If FDR was president in 2013, we'd have boots on the ground in Syria today.
Between 1939 and September 11, 2001, the Dems have been about as hawkish as the Repubs, though Obama was very doveish compared to every president before him after Carter.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a state conquering sovereign nations. Hopefully, save the likes of Ron and Rand Paul, when somebody says they are anti-war these days, they typically aren't suggesting that isolationism, especially in that extreme, is a good policy, but who knows...and there are avid pacifists, which is commendable, except that I'm sure there have been pacifist sects throughout history that have not passed on their genes, or at least not in a non-horrific fashion.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Perhaps you should do a little research.
Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)
It is her defense of Assad and questioning weather he gassed his own people. He clearly did.
She is parroting the kremlin line.
The following beliefs are not contradictory.
1. Assad is a evil murdering dictator.
2. United States intervention in Syria would likely be counterproductive do the fact we would be forced to fight Assad's forces and ISIS at the same time. Not to mention it would likely serve are a recruitment tool for the terrorists.
If she said that no one would be "bashing" her. Most people here would agree with those statements.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Yet witnesses said it had a "strong odor". Sarin gas is colorless and odorless. Nerve gas is a contact poison, and is highly lethal. It might have been chlorine gas which potentially could have been from someone else. That being said Assad is a murderous dictator who bombed both the hospital where the victims were taken, and the site of the gas attack. Attempting to destroy evidence is not the actions of an innocent man.
Yes everyone with doubts after being lied into Gulf War 2 is on Putin's payroll.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,604 posts)What's not clear is whether or not he gassed civilians THIS time. That is what Gabbard is saying. She is not aligned with Assad in any way. Read her press release. She wants foreign policy to have a rational basis.
Let's be careful. Bombs of any kind are designed to kill people. Where is Trumpy's policy on dropping bombs? Is he judge, jury, and executioner? Does the Constitution give him this kind of power?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is the defintion of "hawk" as it pertains to leaders.
Just to be clear. So, it's a bit more specific than you paint.
And getting that jab in on Hillary and the Democrats is duly noted - shoehorning it in as "the reason" that a lot of people aren't enamored of Tulsi.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)
Definition of hawk as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hawk
1: any of numerous diurnal birds of prey belonging to a suborder (Falcones of the order Falconiformes) and including all the smaller members of this group; especially : accipiter
2: a small board or metal sheet with a handle on the underside used to hold mortar
3: one who takes a militant or combative attitude (as in a dispute) and advocates immediate vigorous action; especially : a supporter of a war or warlike policy
You don't have to be a leader to favor military intervention, but I don't see what that has to do with my post.
"And getting that jab in on Hillary and the Democrats is duly noted"
Didn't former Secretary Clinton favor military intervention in Syria? Doesn't she still favor military intervention in Syria? I didn't post "the Democrats", I posted "the hawks in the Democratic Party" note the distinction. Not all Democratic Party members are hawks, nor obviously are all hawks Democratic Party members or voters. There is a Gordian Knot of conflicting influences and factions in Syria, and none of the pro-intervention people I've heard address the "end game" regardless of political affiliation.
As far as "the reason" a vocal minority of Democratic affiliated people are complaining about Representative Gabbard, I stand by what I said and add there are also some Democratic pundits and politicians who are frightened at the thought of opposing war. They think it's the 1980's and Reagan and the Republicans are going to call them "soft on defense hippies". It seems odd that many of these same people have no problem with Senator Joe Manchin supporting Jeff Sessions or Neil Gorsuch.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because "hawks" don't like anyone who isn't "warlike."
Got it.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)with whom she met personally without official sanction-- in an obvious attempt to undermine the previous administration--a serious breach of protocol that ought to have earned her at least a censure. And now she runs to every microphone she can to defend an international war criminal who has not once, but twice gassed his own people.
Gee, I don't know... Such an innocent...
synergie
(1,901 posts)attacks.
This is evidence from one of the attacks back in 2013, all the way at the end is where you see some familiar claims.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)This is what I don't understand. So, she met with him and what if she had convinced him to end the war in Syria, we'd all be doing the Ren & Stimpy happy dance or something? She is saying we basically have no business being involved with Syria and I stand by her position that we don't. Call me a peace loving hippie I guess lol
Instead we get to be the air force for ISIS and Al-Qaeda?
She hasn't come out anywhere and say that she supports Assad. However she did say this;
Link to tweet
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)you know.... READ YOUR HISTORY and note my sigline.
Gabbard has actively defended a genocidal war criminal. This is NOT diplomacy. It is monstrous.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)There is no "good guy" in Syria. Not Russia, no Assad, not the rebels, not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda. So, just WHY are we there? Diplomacy doesn't equal defense.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)Only then might you approach the information with an open mind.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Otherwise why respond to my op which clearly states "help me understand"?
I can't find anything. Hm.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)There you go....
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)And I did that & all I get is an editorial with nothing quoting her saying she is
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)Top stories
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad regime behind gas attack
CNN · 2 days ago
Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad regime behind gas attack
The Hill · 2 days ago
More for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad regime behind gas attack ...
www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/.../tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/
2 days ago - (CNN) Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she's "skeptical" that Bashar al-Assad's regime was behind the chemical weapons attack that killed ...
Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad regime behind gas attack | TheHill
thehill.com/policy/.../327922-tulsi-gabbard-skeptical-assad-regime-behind-gas-attack
3 days ago - Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad regime behind gas attack ... decision to launch a missile strike against Syrian government forces the previous ...
Tulsi Gabbard reveals she met Assad in Syria, without informing top ...
https://www.theguardian.com › US News › Democrats
Jan 26, 2017 - Tulsi Gabbard backed a bill to block Syrian and Iraqi refugees from ... a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians. ... for Fox News in 2013, has also defended Assad's intentions in Syria. ... Syria bombing: US says Russia bears responsibility for Assad's gas attack – as it happened ...
Rep Tulsi Gabbard Gives Assad A Pass On Gassing Children | Crooks ...
crooksandliars.com/2017/04/rep-tulsi-gabbard-thinks-assad-did-not-gas
1 day ago - Tulsi Gabbard Doubts Assad Is To Blame For Gassing Children ... terrorist organizations, some of which are fighting against the Assad regime.
Tulsi Gabbard Claims to Have Met With Syrian President Bashar al ...
abcnews.go.com/Politics/tulsi-gabbard-claims-met-syrian-president-bashar.../story?id...
Jan 25, 2017 - Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, announced Wednesday that she has returned ... should stop aiding any rebels fighting against Assad in the war-torn country. ... accused the Assad's regime of purposefully targeting and even gassing his own citizens. ... Trump defends decision not to hit runway on Syrian air base.
Ok, Tulsi Gabbard; help me understand - Democratic Underground
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028913189
7 hours ago - 33 posts - 13 authors
So why are so many making disparaging remarks against Tulsi? .... Gabbard has actively defended a genocidal war criminal. ... thehill.com/policy/international/327922-tulsi-gabbard-skeptical-assad-regime-behind-gas-attack
Images for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas ...
Image result for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
1 day ago
Image result for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
1 day ago
Image result for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
Image result for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
2 days ago
Image result for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
More images for Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad against gas attacks
Report images
Gabbard: U.S. missile attack on Syria could lead to nuclear war with ...
www.staradvertiser.com/.../rep-tulsi-gabbard-says-syrian-air-strike-could-lead-to-nucl...
3 days ago - Tulsi Gabbard met twice in January with President Bashar Assad ... any escalation of U.S. military involvement against the Syria regime, as it is ...
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack ...
www.today.nhely.hu/.../rep-tulsi-gabbard-skeptical-that-assad-regime-behind-gas-atta...
3 days ago - Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack ... Last 20 minutes; Syrian-Americans applaud airstrikes against Assad, want more .... action against Syrian regime US representative to the UN defends country's ...
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Tulsi Gabbard, you have been convicted of the high crime of being "skeptical"
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)Spoon feeding only goes so far...
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)When you actually read what Tulsi said, she makes the case that regime change in Syria is a very bad move.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)But I and I assume others, are fed up with those who expect to be spoon fed the information as well as dealing with a few others who may have less honorable intent n continuing to push the pro-Assad, pro-Putin agenda
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)You have the disadvantage of having to prove Tulsi wrong, which explains why labeling any one who disagrees with you as pro-Assad is so convenient.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)can I provide to you a star sticker on your accomplishment?
Sorry, but most of us see through attempts to manipulate opinion...
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)"Escalating a counter-productive, destructive regime-change war is harmful for the Syrian people and its harmful for the United States and our national security interests. We need to learn our lessons from the past," she said.
"If President Assad is found to be responsible after an independent investigation for these horrific chemical weapons attack, I'll be the first one to denounce him."
I AM proud of her and her service to our country.
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)Yeah, I'd believe Putin/Assad over our own for sure, especially when it whitewashes her anti-Muslim hatred. NOT
She is despicable. Research her background and why it is she is so willing to defend actions against Muslims, including Trump's Syrian refugee ban. That is, assuming you don't share her beliefs on that score as well.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8913567
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8913738
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)By the way....did you fall for the WMD case put forth by the Bush Admin? Were you making the Trust "our own" over Saddam case back then?
Do you trust the Trump administration now?
On Trump's muslim ban - tulsi-gabbard-do-not-ban-refugees-entering-united-states- so yeah....I do share her beliefs "on that score"
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-do-not-ban-refugees-entering-united-states
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)So your answer is no, and I'm done with you.
I will not be manipulated.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I will continue to defend her against these ridiculous attacks
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)not to mention her cozy relationship with Trump/Putin.
You defend yourself by focusing on the splinters, rather than the spear entering your chest. It is a very orchestrated attempt by many here and most of us see it. I know that sorely disappoints you.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I realize that you believe what you are saying even in the face of the quotes that I got from your "links"
you ignore those quotes that clearly show that Tulsi merely wants an investigation.
Why did you provide those links if you didn't want to see the truth within them that refute what you are saying?
hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)led by Putin and all his little friends want. But, perhaps you need to take your shtick elsewhere. Most of us are smart enough to see through it.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
Cha
(319,586 posts)Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)and I have not heard any denunciation...
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)which would benefit Assad....
Assad casually uses a small amount of chemical weapons (which he had agreed to destroy through a deal brokered with Russia)
and blows apart the US Russia alliance.
The US then sends missiles to attack Syria, which is cheered on by Al Qaeda and ISIS, and all cooperation stops to defeat them.
That alone would make any reasonable person skeptical until we had a full investigation.
Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)And we will not work with Putin despite 45's desperate ploy to save his oil investments by lifting the sanctions. This is a wag the dog so Trump can be get out from under the Russian mess...but he is still screwed and hopefully will be gone soon.
Cha
(319,586 posts)November 22, 2016
snip//
"Gabbard is wrong on the facts. The United States has been bombing Jabhat al-Nusra targets, although not as often as attacking the Islamic State. Russian airstrikes have mostly targeted opposition groups that are supported by the United States as well as civilians in opposition held areas."
But what’s most unnerving is not Gabbard’s misunderstanding of the realities of the war in Syria. If she had said that while holding the post of U.N. ambassador, her defense of Russian actions and support for the Bashar al-Assad regime would make America complicit in some of the most horrendous war crimes of the modern era.
snip//
But Trump has never gone so far as to work to prevent the international community from holding the Assad regime and its partners accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Gabbard proudly has.
In March, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice. She tweeted that the resolution was a thinly veiled call for regime change in Syria and compared it to congressional action before the Iraq and Libya wars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/22/why-tulsi-gabbard-cant-represent-america-at-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.c383be56fb5c
And, she's still giving the War Criminal, assad, cover.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda-linked group in Syria that the administration had largely ignored until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian government, U.S. officials said.
Cha
(319,586 posts)“I think it’s outrageous,” a terse Dean responded. “There’s a long well-known history, both in our intelligence community, Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders. Every single one of these agencies has said that Assad is using chemical weapons. He’s a barbarian, he’s murdered half a million of his own people.”
“I can’t imagine how you could make a statement like that, especially being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” he continued. “I can’t imagine what could possibly be going through her head.”
“To that end, you put a tweet out, I’m going to read it to everybody, okay? ” Witt responded before quoting Dean on Twitter writing, “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress,” along with a link to Gabbard’s comments.
“All she’s asking for is proof though,” Witt pressed.
“If you’re on the Foreign Relations Committee and you haven’t seen the proof in the last five and a half years, there’s something the matter with you,” Dean shot back. “I am tired of people making excuses. This is no different than Trump making excuses for Putin. We’ve had enough of this.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/no-different-than-trump-with-putin-howard-dean-says-tulsi-gabbard-should-resign-for-defending-assad/
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)“All she’s asking for is proof though,” Witt pressed
Dean was wrong .....what Assad did in the past is not proof that he did this.
Tulsi is not providing cover for Assad...she just wants an investigation.
To quote Tulsi
“This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-trump-s-military-strikes-syria-are-reckless-and-short-sighted
Cha
(319,586 posts)Dean is dead on..
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Trump lies constantly....but now you trust him.
Did you trust Bush as well?
Cha
(319,586 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 11, 2017, 02:40 AM - Edit history (1)
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn't believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad's regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the previous invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. "So, yes, I'm skeptical," she said.
Gabbard said: "Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/
oasis
(53,783 posts)She's a member of the House Foreign Relations committee. They've been getting intel on Assad's butchery for years. Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International have also confirmed Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people.
Howard Dean, being in the medical profession, has to be especially appalled at the sight of human beings being slaughtered by the hundreds in such a cruel manner. He's not giving Tulsi a pass on this, and I agree with him 100%.
She has got to go.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Guess who praised Trump's missile action against Syria......Al Qaeda and ISIS....
Both sides are butchers, but our job is to defeat ISIS, not help them start their caliphate.
oasis
(53,783 posts)got a goddam thing to do with Gabbard's pretending she had no clue about Assad's murdering his people with chemical weapons. The former DNC Chairman, Dr. Howard Dean, called Gabbard out for her "outrageous" defense of Assad.
And rightly so.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn't believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad's regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the previous invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. "So, yes, I'm skeptical," she said.
Gabbard said: "Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/
She doesn't trust Trump to tell her the truth....you know, that guy that lies practically every time he speaks publicly.
She wants to make sure that he is not using this as a pretext for war.
oasis
(53,783 posts)he calling for Tulsi to get the boot.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and people are repeating it like it is gospel. People aren't quoting her, they are quoting him.
What Tulsi said in that interview is very clear.
oasis
(53,783 posts)He has never been called a fake, or a "flake". Can't say the same about Gabbard.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)But you are right, we can trust Trump to jump to the right conclusions.
We don't need to investigate what happened there.
Cha
(319,586 posts)
oasis
(53,783 posts)By "well" I mean, "well used".
Cha
(319,586 posts)
oasisoasis
(53,783 posts)relations campaign for Assad has done to her credibility. But, try as she may, Tulsi won't be able to stop the wheels from turning on future 2018 anti-Gabbard ads which will be a created out of her recent clumsiness.
Cha
(319,586 posts)By Josh Rogin January 29
snip//
The Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has had a quiet but well-funded lobbying effort in Washington since well before he began murdering his own people. But that influence campaign’s clearest triumph came only this month, when it succeeded in bringing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to Damascus and having her parrot Assad’s propaganda on her return.
snip//
Upon her return, Gabbard referenced those Syrians in interviews and op-eds to reinforce her long-held opposition to what she calls the U.S. “regime change” policy in Syria. She also asserted there are no moderate rebels in Syria and that the United States is funding and arming al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Neither is true, but both match the talking points that the Assad regime has been pushing for the entirety of the war.
snip//
Principled opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria is one thing. Becoming a tool of a mass murderer’s propaganda and influence campaign is another. Gabbard’s cooperation with the Syrian regime damages her effort to promote herself as a legitimate foreign policy voice.
More.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-tulsi-gabbard-became-assads-mouthpiece-in-washington/2017/01/29/215e9c70-e4bf-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.99b76cc133ef
Mahalo for Shining the Light, oasis
For not allowing certain posters to run the worn out, "whataboutism" game on you. 
Back@cha, oasis! hlthe2b
(114,196 posts)despite many many others trying to educate them, might just be expecting a bit of the like.
I simply point you to my sigline and as that you think about it. And, perhaps do a bit of self education on the patterns that are being repeated from prior times in history--including those who wrapped themselves in an "America first, isolationist defense" while defending Herr Hitler.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)These fishing expeditions are tiresome.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)hand me the salmon! 
Only if it's smoked though!
Sorry you feel that way, I'm just trying to understand is all. There's been some great info given by fellow DU'ers to me and I thank them for that
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And why all the jabs throughout the thread if you are just asking?
It's not like the majority of DU isn't familiar with this tactic.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I've learned to see both sides of the argument. Nothing wrong with that and it's always a good thing!
Hekate
(100,133 posts)FDRsGhost
(470 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I also learned that "seeing" both sides of the argument doesn't mean that both sides are right. And I also learned you don't sort of side with people who spout bigoted crap by pretending not to understand what their words mean just because they supported a candidate that you liked.
If you stick around DU long enough, maybe you'll have a chance to learn something more.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Welcome to it!
No reason to subject myself to hateful posts from people who like to disparage and being condescending to others. I don't have the time for a round of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I don't know how to do a screen shot, but here are the results:
Search Results
Ok, Tulsi Gabbard; help me understand - Democratic Underground
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028913189
7 hours ago - 33 posts - 13 authors
Can you "google" Can you enter into "the google box" "Tulsi Gabbard defends Assad"? hlthe2b, 28 min ago, #19. Line Reply No reason to be ...
When conservatives defended "W" they would often say "look it up yourself". My response was "You're making the claim, you provide the proof. I'm not going to make my case and yours."
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Cha
(319,586 posts)November 22, 2016
snip//
"Gabbard is wrong on the facts. The United States has been bombing Jabhat al-Nusra targets, although not as often as attacking the Islamic State. Russian airstrikes have mostly targeted opposition groups that are supported by the United States as well as civilians in opposition held areas."
But what’s most unnerving is not Gabbard’s misunderstanding of the realities of the war in Syria. If she had said that while holding the post of U.N. ambassador, her defense of Russian actions and support for the Bashar al-Assad regime would make America complicit in some of the most horrendous war crimes of the modern era.
snip//
But Trump has never gone so far as to work to prevent the international community from holding the Assad regime and its partners accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Gabbard proudly has.
In March, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice. She tweeted that the resolution was a thinly veiled call for regime change in Syria and compared it to congressional action before the Iraq and Libya wars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/22/why-tulsi-gabbard-cant-represent-america-at-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.c383be56fb5c
And, she's still giving the War Criminal, assad, cover.
Furthermore gabbard always went on fakefox to bash President Obama who she was going to start a nuclear war..
Attention grabbing gabbard.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"true progressives" if Pelosi had done that, and not told anyone in the party, let alone refused to say who sponsored the trip.
Cries of "corruption!" and "lack of transparency!!" and "collusion with DT!!" would have risen from from the hills.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Much appreciated.
On the first one, I think she's correct in being cautious especially after W and Iraq with how Republicans trolled out evidence of WMD's and how back in 2013, the BBC found evidence that Al-Qaeda stole chemical weapons and used them in an effort to show Assad did it. So caution I think is warranted and I see nothing wrong with asking for facts. We all know who ruses to conclusions without facts; Republicans!
On the second; meh. Trying to equate David Duke to Tulsi is a bit of a stretch I'd say and it would be like saying that Hillary & Trump both are in cahoots because they agree on Assad. Bad argument, bad journalism.
I did find this in her own words which is interesting and I can see her POV. Not that I agree with it as I'm anti-war.
Meanwhile, in 2014, the U.S. launched military operations with Kurdish and Syrian Arab forces to defeat ISIS in Syria.
As a result, the United States is now simultaneously involved in two contradictory wars in Syria.
The first is the war to defeat ISIS--a war we must take seriously and must win.
The second is the counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad--an illegal war that Congress has not authorized and which we must end.
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The article specifically stated that. They did bring up that she felt Washington should "embrace Assad", however. Did you miss that part with your open mindedness and all?
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)In the latest CNN interview, she told Wolf Blitzer that she simply wants hard facts that links Assad to gasing his own people. I don't see anything wrong with that myself.She also said in the same interview that if the facts are he did do it, she'd be the first to call for his extradition with the ICC and his execution.
Pretty strong statement.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)“I can’t imagine how you could make a statement like that, especially being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” he continued. “I can’t imagine what could possibly be going through her head.”
“To that end, you put a tweet out, I’m going to read it to everybody, okay? ” Witt responded before quoting Dean on Twitter writing, “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress,” along with a link to Gabbard’s comments.
“All she’s asking for is proof though,” Witt pressed.
“If you’re on the Foreign Relations Committee and you haven’t seen the proof in the last five and a half years, there’s something the matter with you,” Dean shot back. “I am tred of people making excuses. This is no different than Trump making excuses for Putin. We’ve had enough of this.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/no-different-than-trump-with-putin-howard-dean-says-tulsi-gabbard-should-resign-for-defending-assad/
Of course, for me personally this is one in a series of things that make her...not my favorite Democratc.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Hope this helps the OP, who is very concerned
Chevy
(1,063 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)So they'll attack her for anything now.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Cha
(319,586 posts)gabbard was always going on fakefox to bash President Obama for "going to start a nuclear war".
Why Tulsi Gabbard cant represent America at the United
By Josh Rogin
November 22, 2016
snip//
"Gabbard is wrong on the facts. The United States has been bombing Jabhat al-Nusra targets, although not as often as attacking the Islamic State. Russian airstrikes have mostly targeted opposition groups that are supported by the United States as well as civilians in opposition held areas."
But what’s most unnerving is not Gabbard’s misunderstanding of the realities of the war in Syria. If she had said that while holding the post of U.N. ambassador, her defense of Russian actions and support for the Bashar al-Assad regime would make America complicit in some of the most horrendous war crimes of the modern era.
snip//
But Trump has never gone so far as to work to prevent the international community from holding the Assad regime and its partners accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Gabbard proudly has.
In March, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice. She tweeted that the resolution was a thinly veiled call for regime change in Syria and compared it to congressional action before the Iraq and Libya wars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/22/why-tulsi-gabbard-cant-represent-america-at-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.c383be56fb5c
And, she's still giving the War Criminal, assad, cover.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Response to KittyWampus (Reply #26)
Post removed
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Saying you should have proof before bombing or that you think the bombing will just cause more problems is not wrong though. Im not sure I agree with it but its not a wrong thing to say.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Religion is irrational and always seems to get mixed up in government, and Islam is one of the worst.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)I believe in freedom of religion, doesn't mean I have to like it though.
JI7
(93,755 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Seriously.
What is your problem? Did you log into the wrong website today or something?
Fuck sakes.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)I don't like Scientology either.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)God forbid anyone do any research. It they can't find something in 10 second sound bytes, I guess it never happened.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)the professed ignorance and desire to understand.
the "it's religion and not Muslims" ploy.
Cha
(319,586 posts)By Josh Rogin
November 22, 2016
snip//
"Gabbard is wrong on the facts. The United States has been bombing Jabhat al-Nusra targets, although not as often as attacking the Islamic State. Russian airstrikes have mostly targeted opposition groups that are supported by the United States as well as civilians in opposition held areas."
But what’s most unnerving is not Gabbard’s misunderstanding of the realities of the war in Syria. If she had said that while holding the post of U.N. ambassador, her defense of Russian actions and support for the Bashar al-Assad regime would make America complicit in some of the most horrendous war crimes of the modern era.
snip//
But Trump has never gone so far as to work to prevent the international community from holding the Assad regime and its partners accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Gabbard proudly has.
In March, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice. She tweeted that the resolution was a thinly veiled call for regime change in Syria and compared it to congressional action before the Iraq and Libya wars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/22/why-tulsi-gabbard-cant-represent-america-at-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.c383be56fb5c
And, she's still giving the War Criminal, assad, cover.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And promoting the ridiculous theory that Assad isn't responsible for what he is obviously responsible for.
Pretending that anyone who is rebelling against Assad is "ISIS" (which is the Assad party line).
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I haven't seen that but perhaps I'm missing it?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"Don't you believe Bashar al-Assad bears any responsibility for the horrific deaths that have occurred in his own country?" Blitzer asked.
"There's responsibility that goes around," Gabbard said, "Standing here pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people. It will not bring about an end to this war."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/
That is what I mean by saying she is an apologist for the regime and is promoting ridiculous theories and refusing to acknowledge what Assad is doing to his own people.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)What are your thought on Tulsi's comments here?
Normally in war, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. But in these contradictory wars in Syria, the enemy of our enemy is our enemy. The absurdity is that the more we are successful in weakening Syrian government forces, the more our enemies like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadists are strengthened. Every Syrian soldier we and our Saudi partners kill is one less soldier available to fight against ISIS.
There is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, but common sense tells us that if we want to defeat ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups, we need to immediately end the illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad. We must focus our efforts one-pointedly on defeating ISIS, as well as al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) and other jihadist groups who have declared war on the United States.
If we were to end our war against the Syrian government of Assad, then and only then will it be possible for us to defeat ISIS and these other extremist groups.
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
oberliner
(58,724 posts)When she says: "Every Syrian soldier we and our Saudi partners kill is one less soldier available to fight against ISIS."
That is the Assad line.
So she gives some lip service to calling Assad a brutal dictator, but then parrots his position and suggests that we should do nothing to support those who wish to overthrow his tyrannical regime (and makes no mention of his use of chemical weapons, contrary to all international law and understanding) by implying that they are all terrorists.
Now I certainly understand those who say that the US ought to work to find a diplomatic solution to the situation in Syria and do everything possible to avoid escalating the war. Such diplomacy, however, ought to at least acknowledge the extent of the crimes against humanity that Assad is responsible for and not justify his actions with statements like the one I highlighted above.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The conflict in Syria is tremendously complex. What is the end game? Who should be in charge? What will Russia's role be in this shooting war? Turkey? Iran? The Kurds? Those questions need to be answered first.
That doesn't have to involve our military intervention.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think she is an apologist for the Assad regime.
As to what should be done with respect to Syria, I agree with you that it is tremendously complex and that our military intervention is not necessarily what is called for.
Pretending that someone other than the Assad regime (with Russia's support) was responsible for the recent chemical weapon attack is BS, in my opinion, and that is what Gabbard is trying to do with her comments (similar to the message from other pro-Putin folks).
If she came out strongly and said that Assad is obviously using chemical weapons contrary to all international law and is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people, but that the US should not get involved militarily for reasons X, Y, and Z, then I would not be raising this kind of objection to her remarks.
But, instead, she seems to be quite literally parroting the pro-Assad, pro-Putin propaganda (i.e. maybe Assad didn't use chemical weapons, the people fighting Assad are ISIS/terrorists, etc).
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If Assad's armed forces are fighting against ISIS, then this particular assertion appears to be true -- even if it comes from a brutal dictator who's quite willing to lie for his purposes.
Here's an example that may be less freighted with current controversy. During the Cold War, when the US criticized the USSR for its oppressions, Soviet propagandists often responded, "And you are lynching Negroes." This allegation about failures of civil rights in the United States was a mainstay of the Communist Party line.
It also happened to be true.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Seems weird that there would be any objection to criticizing someone who spouts the "Assad party line".
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Consider this argument summary:
DUer #1: "I believe X."
DUer #2: "Most Republicans also believe X, and X is even endorsed by some high-ranking Republican officeholders. Therefore, you are spouting the Republican party line."
DUer #1: "Here's the chain of reasoning (with evidence and analysis) that supports my belief in X."
DUer #2: "I don't need to read your argument, let alone try to refute it. It's the Republican party line, therefore it's false."
Who won that exchange? On my scorecard it was DUer #1.
Of course, to simplify discussion here, some X's are ruled out a priori. Members can't spout racism, misogyny, or homophobia. But that's because those things are wrong, not because a lot of bad people believe them.
Cha
(319,586 posts)By Josh Rogin January 29
snip//
The Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has had a quiet but well-funded lobbying effort in Washington since well before he began murdering his own people. But that influence campaign’s clearest triumph came only this month, when it succeeded in bringing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to Damascus and having her parrot Assad’s propaganda on her return.
snip//
Upon her return, Gabbard referenced those Syrians in interviews and op-eds to reinforce her long-held opposition to what she calls the U.S. “regime change” policy in Syria. She also asserted there are no moderate rebels in Syria and that the United States is funding and arming al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Neither is true, but both match the talking points that the Assad regime has been pushing for the entirety of the war.
snip//
Principled opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria is one thing. Becoming a tool of a mass murderer’s propaganda and influence campaign is another. Gabbard’s cooperation with the Syrian regime damages her effort to promote herself as a legitimate foreign policy voice.
More.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-tulsi-gabbard-became-assads-mouthpiece-in-washington/2017/01/29/215e9c70-e4bf-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.99b76cc133ef
This is before trump's strike..
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm not saying that Tulsi Gabbard is infallible. I'm not even attempting an overall assessment of her as a public servant. Doing that fairly would require comprehensive research, not cherry-picking pieces that support my preconceptions, and I'm not willing to put in the time.
What I am addressing is this specific comment by oberliner in #34:
When she says: "Every Syrian soldier we and our Saudi partners kill is one less soldier available to fight against ISIS."
That is the Assad line.
I said that Gabbard's statement appears to me to be true. The assertion by oberliner that the statement is the Assad line is also presumably true, but the premise that it's the Assad line doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's false. Adding in criticisms of Gabbard also doesn't lead to that conclusion, because she didn't rest her statement on a claim that she has personal knowledge that others lack. Instead, it's based on publicly available facts.
I don't agree with everything Tulsi Gabbard says but it's silly to disagree with everything she says just because she says it. Heck, I don't even disagree with everything Assad says. One can believe that he's a brutal amoral dictator who lies freely and yet believe that sometimes he would tell the truth because, on that particular occasion, the truth is what's in his interest.
The bottom line is that dividing people into Totally Good and Totally Evil is intellectual laziness.
Cha
(319,586 posts)Link to tweet
I don't trust her.. she was always on fakefox bashing President Obama..
the rw likes her too much..
Link to tweet
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Response to FDRsGhost (Original post)
Post removed
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)I would like to think that any defense of her positions are judged by their own merit.
It could also be argued that my county - Maui - is not only the most progressive in the state, but also the nation. In 2008, when Dennis Kucinich ran for President, his best showing in any Democratic contest was in the Hawaii caucus, and the only county in the country that he won was Maui County.
So I was not surprised when Bernie Sanders won our state presidential preference poll this March with a 70% majority, taking 62% of the votes in the first District, and 75% in the second. And it’s appropriate that our Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard supports Bernie Sanders.
Support for Sanders, however, does not mean that Congresswoman Gabbard represents us. When comparing her voting record with our strongly democratic district, Progressive Punch gave Gabbard an F, while it gave straight A’s to Hawaii Senators Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz (Bernie Sanders received an A as well).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shay-chan-hodges/three-questions-about-tulsi_b_10212942.html
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)her connection to big-money Republicans in Hawaii, where she got her money to met with Assad, the fact she had zero business going t see Assad the way she did.
And by FACTS, I mean posting actual quotes and links.
I won't repost them because a certain segment on DU will refuse to acknowledge facts.
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #27)
Post removed
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Squinch
(59,804 posts)But (blink, blink with big doe eyes) help me understaaaand...
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)have repeatedly posted the full facts with quotes and links repeatedly.
I am not doing it again.
Anyone on DU who hasn't seen the full facts regarding Gabbard are deliberately ignoring them.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I've simply not seen them. I don't have full access to site search so if you could link me to one of your posts I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)Try that.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)Anyone who has questions can question the google Gods.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)The OP just got here, ran up quite a post count in a hurry, read a lot about dear Tulsi and yet appears to have missed the relevant facts.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)She was fairly high ranking in the DNC.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Not at all. Suggestions are just that; suggestions. Need proof.
randome
(34,845 posts)Gabbard is very much mistrusted. There are too many uncertainties about her to support her. That's all we need.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Loved by others.
And yes I want proof. The last time we didn't we invaded a country with an illegal war.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Do you think he was just waiting for more proof of the gas chambers?
Oh, by the way, Sarin may be odorless, but chlorine isn't.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)On this matter I think Occam's Razor gives us the right answer:
Democratic Party rules call for DNC neutrality in the nomination fight. Gabbard, a supporter of Bernie Sanders, respected those rules; desiring to work for Bernie, she accordingly resigned her position.
Not every DNC officer displayed Gabbard's adherence to principle.
lapucelle
(21,075 posts)had a mole in the DNC? It would be stunning if the Russian mole were also a member of Congress, but I don't think it's likely.
As for Gabbard, she strikes me as an incompetent opportunist scrambling around trying to regain some relevance.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)An oppo file on Putin is a given. As well as Putin sleeper cells and spies.
still_one
(98,883 posts)"she was skeptical that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people"
She based that skepticism because the WMDs in Iraq were a lie.
Ironically, that is the same argument some people use to justify that when the CIA or FBI indicates that based on information they have, they are investigating Russian interference in our election, we should not believe them because of what happened in Iraq.
By the same token, without knowledge that Assad was or was not involved in the latest chemical attack, she makes a statement that she is skeptical that he was involved. That is based on what? The past actions of the Syrian government toward its citizens?
In 2013 chemical weapons were used in Ghouta, Syria, by the Syrian government
"Our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately 330mm in diameter—likely Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent. Evidence suggests the agent was most likely Sarin or a similar weapons-grade nerve agent. Three local doctors told Human Rights Watch that victims of the attacks showed symptoms which are consistent with exposure to nerve gas, including suffocation; constricted, irregular, and infrequent breathing; involuntary muscle spasms; nausea; frothing at the mouth; fluid coming out of noses and eyes; convulsing; dizziness; blurred vision; and red and irritated eyes, and pin-point pupils.
The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers."
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria
In Aleppo, Chlorine gas was used:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/13/syria-coordinated-chemical-attacks-aleppo
There is no shortage of the Syrian government killing tens of thousands of its citizens. Hama, Syria is one such example in 1982. Estimates of up to 40000 Syrians were killed in Hama.
Does that mean Syria was involved in the latest gas attack? No, but looking at the past actions of the Syrian government against its own population for decades, being skeptical is a strange word to use about the Syrian government against its own people.
The logic Gabbard is using is that because we were lied to about WMDs in Iraq, that means we should be skeptical about this story? No, she should say she doesn't know. Independent International agencies are investigating this latest incident.
Here is a brief history of massacres in Syria for the skeptics among us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,566 posts)The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)She's particularly a favorite of right-wing media. Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
~~~~~
To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.
But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.
Meet the Islamophobic BJP
In May 2014, the BJP swept the Indian election, and the man it made prime minister was then-governor of the state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. To say Modi is a controversial figure would be a considerable understatement. In 2002, huge riots broke out in his state, with primarily Hindu mobs attacking Muslim residents. Over 2,000 men, women, and children were killed, with many more injured; mass rape was also documented. Almost all of the victims were Muslim.
~~~~
The more important point is that her backers are all ideological backers of the BJP, which represents the right-wing, Hindu nationalist wing of Indian politics. Most Indian Americans actually support more progressive politicians; 81 percent of Indian Americans approved of Obama's job approval in 2012, and polling before the presidential election that year found only 5 percent of Indian Americans pledged to back GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
~~~~
Gabbard has one other curious alliance. Under Prime Minister Modi, India has sought increasingly close relations to Israel, shifting the country's historical support for the Palestinian cause. Perhaps Gabbard is a sort of consigliere for this alliance of Hindu nationalists and right-wing Zionists, as she is the only House Democrat backing a bill basically designed to benefit one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest political allies, Sheldon Adelson. The bill is part of a crackdown on online gambling that Adelson is promoting in order to destroy competition to his casino chain.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Reasonable people can disagree on what to do about Assad. But Assad is indeed a brutal dictator. Those who deny it are akin to climate deniers and flat earthers.
delisen
(7,398 posts)repressive dictatorships?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)(I was there just before the uprising occurred). It was the Syrian people who foolishly thought that the Arab Spring movement gave them an opportunity for more democracy, leading to a violent Government crackdown.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)One of Hawaii’s four Democratic representatives in Congress went against party conventions in the wake of continuing tensions over the Syrian civil war and Syrian refugees following last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was one of 47 Democrats who voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill that would require refugees from Iraq and Syria to receive background checks from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The heads of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the director of national intelligence would be required to personally certify that each refugee does not present a security threat.
House Resolution 4038, known as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015, passed the House of Representatives by a 289-137 vote on Thursday. A total of 135 Democrats voted against the measure.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/gabbard-supports-gop-bill-syrian-refugees
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Cha
(319,586 posts)One of Hawaii’s four Democratic representatives in Congress went against party conventions in the wake of continuing tensions over the Syrian civil war and Syrian refugees following last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was one of 47 Democrats who voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill that would require refugees from Iraq and Syria to receive background checks from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The heads of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the director of national intelligence would be required to personally certify that each refugee does not present a security threat.
House Resolution 4038, known as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015, passed the House of Representatives by a 289-137 vote on Thursday. A total of 135 Democrats voted against the measure.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/gabbard-supports-gop-bill-syrian-refugees
Mahalo for that, brooklynite
Demsrule86
(71,549 posts)I don't trust her on LGBTQ issues.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The US has employed regime change as a tactic since 1800, and always with a bad result.
Cha
(319,586 posts)people..
Dean has her number..
"This is no different than Trump making excuses for Putin. We’ve had enough of this.”
‘No different than Trump with Putin’: Howard Dean says Tulsi Gabbard should resign for defending Assad
“I think it’s outrageous,” a terse Dean responded. “There’s a long well-known history, both in our intelligence community, Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders. Every single one of these agencies has said that Assad is using chemical weapons. He’s a barbarian, he’s murdered half a million of his own people.”
“I can’t imagine how you could make a statement like that, especially being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” he continued. “I can’t imagine what could possibly be going through her head.”
“To that end, you put a tweet out, I’m going to read it to everybody, okay? ” Witt responded before quoting Dean on Twitter writing, “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress,” along with a link to Gabbard’s comments.
“All she’s asking for is proof though,” Witt pressed.
“If you’re on the Foreign Relations Committee and you haven’t seen the proof in the last five and a half years, there’s something the matter with you,” Dean shot back. “I am tired of people making excuses. This is no different than Trump making excuses for Putin. We’ve had enough of this.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/no-different-than-trump-with-putin-howard-dean-says-tulsi-gabbard-should-resign-for-defending-assad/
melman
(7,681 posts)And right now it's her.
And Susan Sarandon. The incredibly powerful and influential Susan Sarandon. 
pnwmom
(110,301 posts)Here is a right wing site lauding her for defending Trump on his appointment of multiple generals.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/09/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-defends-trumps-appointment-of-generals-to-his-administration/
And here is a nbc news story on her meeting in Trump Tower:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/why-democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-met-donald-trump-n686976
Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Defends ‘Frank and Positive’ Trump Meeting
And the Independent Voter Network, whatever it is, had this article:
https://ivn.us/2017/02/09/why-do-trump-supporters-love-democrat-tulsi-gabbard/
Why Do Trump Supporters Love Democrat Tulsi Gabbard?
Trump supporters have voiced support for Rep. Gabbard online, especially on /r/The_Donald. Last November, when Gabbard met with Trump to discuss foreign policy, /r/The_Donald was abuzz with praise for the Democratic representative.
The Hill reported that it was Bannon who arranged the November meeting between the two. “He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a source familiar with Bannon’s thinking told The Hill. “Wants to work with her on everything.”
Cha
(319,586 posts)By Josh Rogin
November 22, 2016
snip//
"Gabbard is wrong on the facts. The United States has been bombing Jabhat al-Nusra targets, although not as often as attacking the Islamic State. Russian airstrikes have mostly targeted opposition groups that are supported by the United States as well as civilians in opposition held areas."
But what’s most unnerving is not Gabbard’s misunderstanding of the realities of the war in Syria. If she had said that while holding the post of U.N. ambassador, her defense of Russian actions and support for the Bashar al-Assad regime would make America complicit in some of the most horrendous war crimes of the modern era.
snip//
But Trump has never gone so far as to work to prevent the international community from holding the Assad regime and its partners accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Gabbard proudly has.
In March, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice. She tweeted that the resolution was a thinly veiled call for regime change in Syria and compared it to congressional action before the Iraq and Libya wars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/22/why-tulsi-gabbard-cant-represent-america-at-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.c383be56fb5c
And, she's still giving the War Criminal, assad, cover.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Not an isolationist, either.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)????
David__77
(24,837 posts)There's a diversity of opinion here.
Cha
(319,586 posts)By Josh Rogin January 29
snip//
The Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has had a quiet but well-funded lobbying effort in Washington since well before he began murdering his own people. But that influence campaign’s clearest triumph came only this month, when it succeeded in bringing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to Damascus and having her parrot Assad’s propaganda on her return.
snip//
Upon her return, Gabbard referenced those Syrians in interviews and op-eds to reinforce her long-held opposition to what she calls the U.S. “regime change” policy in Syria. She also asserted there are no moderate rebels in Syria and that the United States is funding and arming al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Neither is true, but both match the talking points that the Assad regime has been pushing for the entirety of the war.
snip//
Principled opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria is one thing. Becoming a tool of a mass murderer’s propaganda and influence campaign is another. Gabbard’s cooperation with the Syrian regime damages her effort to promote herself as a legitimate foreign policy voice.
More.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-tulsi-gabbard-became-assads-mouthpiece-in-washington/2017/01/29/215e9c70-e4bf-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.99b76cc133ef
This is before trump's strike..
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)And yet....
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she would call for Bashar Al Assad's "prosecution and execution" if the Syrian president is indeed behind a chemical attack that killed scores of civilians, including many children.
Gabbard, D-Hawaii, got heat from many of her colleagues and constituents after meeting with Assad twice during a recent trip to the war-torn country.
The statements came on the same day that the president launched missiles at Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack.
In a follow-up statement, Gabbard called President Trump's decision to launch an air strike "short-sighted."
"This administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning," she said.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35092270/gabbard-syrias-assad-should-be-executed-if-hes-behind-deadly-chemical-attack
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)Or do you still need accurate information to help you get it?
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)See here https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028913189#post159 Now what?
Pablorama
(19 posts)How can I know these weapons have not been captured or stolen?
Cha
(319,586 posts)Amnesty International, and Drs Without Borders have said assad has gassed his own people.
The ones who remain unconvinced are gabbard and putin.
I'm going with the former.. not this..
Assad’s History of Chemical Attacks, and Other Atrocities
snip//
In six years of war, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has overseen a campaign of carnage, turning an enormous cache of deadly weapons against the very people they were presumably stockpiled to protect.
In a campaign to crush rebels and jihadists, Mr. Assad and his allies have relied on tactics that go far beyond the norms of modern warfare to kill many thousands of Syrians. Here are the ways they have done it.
The United States put the blame for the attack on the Syrian government and its patrons, Russia and Iran, and suggested that the salvo was a war crime. While the attack was among the deadliest uses of chemical weapons in Syria in years, it was far from an isolated case
snip//
The Syrian government has summarily executed 5,000 to 13,000 people in mass hangings in just one of its many prisons since the start of the six-year-old uprising against Mr. Assad, Amnesty International said in a report in February.
MOre..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-atrocities-civilian-deaths-gas-attack.html?_r=0
How Tulsi Gabbard became Assads mouthpiece in Washington
By Josh Rogin January 29
snip//
The Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has had a quiet but well-funded lobbying effort in Washington since well before he began murdering his own people. But that influence campaign’s clearest triumph came only this month, when it succeeded in bringing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to Damascus and having her parrot Assad’s propaganda on her return.
snip//
Upon her return, Gabbard referenced those Syrians in interviews and op-eds to reinforce her long-held opposition to what she calls the U.S. “regime change” policy in Syria. She also asserted there are no moderate rebels in Syria and that the United States is funding and arming al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Neither is true, but both match the talking points that the Assad regime has been pushing for the entirety of the war.
snip//
Principled opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria is one thing. Becoming a tool of a mass murderer’s propaganda and influence campaign is another. Gabbard’s cooperation with the Syrian regime damages her effort to promote herself as a legitimate foreign policy voice.
More.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-tulsi-gabbard-became-assads-mouthpiece-in-washington/2017/01/29/215e9c70-e4bf-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.99b76cc133ef
This is before trump's strike..
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There is a mind-set among some that it's one hundred percent agreement or you are the enemy.
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Feb 2014)
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Voted NO on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached. (May 2013)
Supports federal stimulus spending. (Sep 2012)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance. (Aug 2012)
Supports same-sex marriage. (Sep 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Feb 2013)
Small businesses are true job creators, not big corporations. (Nov 2012)
Voted NO on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners. (Mar 2013)
Supports tax incentives for job creation. (Sep 2012)
Exclude industrial hemp from definition of marijuana. (Jun 2013)
Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws. (Jun 2013)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tulsi_Gabbard.htm
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)I don't understand the hate for her and I don't know why people are siding with Trump on airstrikes.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)just as it doesn't help certain people.
There is no need to accept anti-Islamic bigotry from a congressperson representing one of the most progressive districts in the country.
Fact is most of the love directed at her stems from Bernie throwing her a lifeline.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sorry, seems that is what you are saying. I doubt you are as it simply makes little sense and would be a blatant and dishonest attack on a Democrat.
Sanders plays no role in my thought process here.
I do think I am incorrectly interpreting your first sentence. Assumptions must be made when reading it as it isn't logically/grammatically sound.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)pretending to be a progressive. People rag on HRC for being late on gay marriage on a national level, but Gabbard was actually pushing discriminatory policy in fucking Hawaii.
Also if you're using opposition to Syrian intervention as a progressive bonafide, Richard Spencer actually dropped his support of Trump over the same issue.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)pretending to be a progressive. People rag on HRC for being late on gay marriage on a national level, but Gabbard was actually pushing discriminatory policy in fucking Hawaii.
Also if you're using opposition to Syrian intervention as a progressive bonafide, Richard Spencer actually dropped his support of Trump over the same issue.
What part of at-right shill does this sound like?
And FYI--Tulsi was pro same sex marriage in 2012. You may wish to reassert your assertion. By your logic with Spencer dropping his support, couldn't the same be said about many who now seem to support his actions?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028913189#post160
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Feb 2014)
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Voted NO on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached. (May 2013)
Supports federal stimulus spending. (Sep 2012)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance. (Aug 2012)
Supports same-sex marriage. (Sep 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Feb 2013)
Small businesses are true job creators, not big corporations. (Nov 2012)
Voted NO on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners. (Mar 2013)
Supports tax incentives for job creation. (Sep 2012)
Exclude industrial hemp from definition of marijuana. (Jun 2013)
Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws. (Jun 2013)