Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Her terms are basically just Putin’s terms
:jfk:
Meghan’s hard right tack after Trump has been pretty baffling.
Gabbard only entered into this entire "stop regime change" policy after flying to Syria to meet with Assad, without telling the American government she was going, only to return and refuse for years to condemn Assad as a murderer or as an enemy of the US. She never disclosed where the finances for this trip came from (not from the US government) and was granted a special audience with the dictator. Upon returning she began lying about the US involvement in Syria, claiming (falsely) that the US was directly funding Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in its Syrian efforts to further undermine our stated goals in the region.
I don't know that she's "actually a foreign asset to an enemy state" but there are open questions as to: 1) why did she go to Syria to meet Assad, 2) who paid for it, 3) why did she lie when she said she sought clearance from House ethics prior to the trip, 4) why upon her return was she suddenly a de facto Assad mouthpiece - attacking the US for their involvement in Syria, and 5) why for years did she refuse to condemn Assad's brutal regime and refuse to call him a murderer?
These aren't normal actions from a sitting member of Congress and there is likely an underlying reason for why she took these actions.
Meghan’s hard right tack after Trump has been pretty baffling.
She married the founder of a right wing blog in 2017. Moderation isn't good for business.
I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist (and don't even consider this a conspiracy theory to note that Gabbard's actions are very strange for a sitting member of Congress - as noted by plenty of elected officials on both sides of the aisle after Gabbard took this trip) but something is going on here.
My only two real conspiracy theories are: 1) Erdogan made up the coup a few years ago to consolidate power and increase his authoritarian abilities in Turkey and 2) Family Feud makes up their responses and never polls anybody.
Gabbard only entered into this entire "stop regime change" policy after flying to Syria to meet with Assad, without telling the American government she was going, only to return and refuse for years to condemn Assad as a murderer or as an enemy of the US. She never disclosed where the finances for this trip came from (not from the US government) and was granted a special audience with the dictator. Upon returning she began lying about the US involvement in Syria, claiming (falsely) that the US was directly funding Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in its Syrian efforts to further undermine our stated goals in the region.
I don't know that she's "actually a foreign asset to an enemy state" but there are open questions as to: 1) why did she go to Syria to meet Assad, 2) who paid for it, 3) why did she lie when she said she sought clearance from House ethics prior to the trip, 4) why upon her return was she suddenly a de facto Assad mouthpiece - attacking the US for their involvement in Syria, and 5) why for years did she refuse to condemn Assad's brutal regime and refuse to call him a murderer?
These aren't normal actions from a sitting member of Congress and there is likely an underlying reason for why she took these actions.
Those are all very legitimate questions.
I am 10000000% with you on both of those
There is also strong evidence that the same Russian troll farms who were active on social media for Donald throughout the last few years have also been active on Tulsi's behalf. Could be a coincidence given her Assad apologist stance (which directly aligns with Russian interests) but that feels one hell of a coincidence given everything listed above.
What do you believe is the most reasonable answer for all of Tulsi's actions on Syria?
Who is Seth Moulton ?