One expert says her views are ‘so wildly fringe that her potential appointment as DNI is genuinely alarming’
In the summer of 2015, three Syrian girls who had narrowly survived an airstrike some weeks earlier stood before Tulsi Gabbard with horrific burns all over their bodies.
Gabbard, then a US congresswoman on a visit to the Syria-Turkey border as part of her duties for the foreign affairs committee, had a question for them.
“How do you know it was Bashar al-Assad or Russia that bombed you, and not Isis?’” she asked, according to Mouaz Moustafa, a Syrian activist who was translating her conversation with the girls.
Consider that last sentence for a moment. Tulsi Gabbard tried gaslighting those three Syrian girls into believing that ISIS which has no air force bombed them causing their injuries. When, they and translator knew that it was Russian aircraft that had carried out the attack.
After the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own population Gabbard said this:
They included a suggestion that Syrian rebels staged a false-flag chemical weapons attack against their supporters to provoke Western intervention against Assad — something the US intelligence agencies she will soon lead had concluded was false. She declined to call Assad a war criminal when pressed, despite masses of evidence, and used a video of Syrian government bombings to criticize US involvement in the war.
The text of the 2004 law which established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington and the intelligence community’s failures leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, specifically states that any person who serves in the DNI job “shall have extensive national security expertise.”
Under the most lose interpretation of that law Tulsi Gabbard doesn't meet the qualifications to be confirmed as DNI.
No comments:
Post a Comment