(DailyChive.com) – A recent letter signed by nearly 100 so-called “national security professionals” criticizes Tulsi Gabbard as a candidate for director of national intelligence. However, a closer look reveals the letter is more about smears than facts.
The letter, published by Foreign Policy for America, comes from a group reportedly backed by George Soros and was created in response to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential win. It includes signatures from former Obama and Clinton officials, along with partisan ex-military officers. They claim Gabbard “aligned” herself with Russian and Syrian officials after a 2017 visit to Syria, an accusation often repeated in such criticisms.
One of their main arguments focuses on Gabbard’s stance regarding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. The letter accuses her of casting doubt on U.S. intelligence reports and promoting conspiracy theories. Yet Gabbard’s actual words tell a different story.
In an April 2017 CNN interview, Gabbard explained her position clearly. She didn’t dismiss the possibility that Assad was responsible for the attacks but emphasized the need for evidence. She said, “What I believe, what you believe, or others believe is irrelevant. What matters here is the evidence and the facts.” She went on to say she’d be the first to condemn Assad if an independent investigation confirmed his guilt.
The letter also misrepresents Gabbard’s statements on U.S.-funded biological research labs in Ukraine. While the letter claims she spread Russian propaganda, her comments merely referenced concerns raised by U.S. officials. For instance, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged that Ukraine has biological research facilities, and there was worry about those materials falling into Russian hands. The letter also misrepresents Gabbard’s statements to draw misleading conclusions.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. funded Ukrainian labs to improve security and prevent pathogens from being misused—not to develop weapons. These facts align with Gabbard’s remarks but don’t support the letter’s claims.
The letter concludes by accusing Gabbard of having sympathy for dictators, yet fails to mention her explicit criticisms of Assad as a “brutal dictator.” The letter concludes by accusing Gabbard but omits key context.
Rather than providing a balanced analysis, the letter relies on distortions and omissions to attack Gabbard’s reputation. In doing so, it raises questions about the credibility of the signatories, not Gabbard herself.
Copyright 2024, DailyChive.com
