'No different than Trump with Putin': Howard Dean says Tulsi Gabbard should resign for defending...

[DonViejo]

Source: RawStory



‘No different than Trump with Putin’: Howard Dean says Tulsi Gabbard should resign for defending Assad

TOM BOGGIONI
09 APR 2017 AT 14:19 ET

A furious Howard Dean blasted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) on MSNBC Sunday morning for her defense of Syrian President Assad, with Dean saying the Hawaiian lawmaker should resign from Congress.

Speaking with MSNBC host Alex Witt, the former Vermont governor reacted harshly to Gabbard’s comments following Thursday’s missile attack on Syria. Appearing on CNN, Gabbard questioned whether Assad was behind the gas attack on his own people that reportedly precipitated President Donald Trump’s war-like response. “How do you respond to Tulsi Gabbard?” host Witt asked Dean.

“I think it’s outrageous,” a terse Deann 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.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/no-different-than-trump-with-putin-howard-dean-says-tulsi-gabbard-should-resign-for-defending-assad/

[George II]

1. I was watching that live, my jawed dropped when he said that. She's been very outspoken...

....about defending Assad, and I agree with Dean.

Who knows what she said over there during her secret trip to Syria.

[virtualobserver]

3. she has never defended Assad - Democrats lose credibility when they say things like that

My jaw dropped at how irresponsible Dean has become.

[Chevy]

4. Credibility with who? The Alt-Right?

Conservatives are calling her out as well.

[virtualobserver]

6. so you agree with this policy of the US bombing both sides of the Syrian conflict?

[Chevy]

7. I agree that Gabbard has her own agenda

that is far to Russian friendly.

[virtualobserver]

11. She was personally involved in our previous stupid war.....she saw people die.

She doesn't want us to get involved in another one.

THAT is her agenda.

[cstanleytech]

16. On the other hand we are all part of this world arent we? So if we have the ability to help

do we not have a responsibility to do so? Besides we already tried staying out of things overseas just before WWII when we had the ability to step in earlier and look at how many millions more died because of that decision.

[virtualobserver]

22. What Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proven is that intervening and causing regime change....

leads to chaos.

Imagining that we can defeat both ISIS and Assad and create a "moderate rebel" government in Syria is just as absurd in Syria as is was in Iraq.

How long have we been fighting the Taliban? Was Al qaeda in Iraq before we invaded? Did ISIS exist before we invaded Iraq?

Would they be in Syria and Libya today? Has regime change benefited the Libyan people?


There is a huge difference between staying involved and overthrowing nations. When you finish overthrowing nations, you need a Marshall Plan like WWII. We don't do that in the middle east.

[cstanleytech]

30. There is intervening and then there is stupidity the problem is being careful about

when, where and how to help.

[virtualobserver]

32. I agree, but in the current situation.....

defeating ISIS is the only way to help.

[Tortmaster]

122. You wrote this post that I'm replying to ...

... 47 minutes after this post:

"What Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proven is that intervening and causing regime change....

leads to chaos."

You're not making sense.

[virtualobserver]

127. let me break it down for you

intervening and causing regime change - destroys the central government and leaves a vacuum - which leads to chaos


in the current situation.....defeating ISIS is the only way to help.- because this prevents the regime change that leads to chaos

[synergie]

81. The people "personally involved" in treating those people she insists were not

bombed by her buddy Assad, also saw people die, they examined these dead and dying men, women and children, and they say she's not telling the truth.

Her agenda seems to be to defend a man who bombed his own people.


Perhaps the Doctors and the UN folks personally involved in the things she denies will carry some weight, since "personal involvement" is so important, despite this being a completely different thing entirely.

Some of those who dealt with the people who were dead and dying contradict Tulsi, whose personal involvement here involved cozying up to the man who ordered those attacks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-gas-attack-chemical-weapons-assad-russia-rebels-latest-a7669011.html

[virtualobserver]

85. From 2013: UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

That is why we need to investigate this.

[stevenleser]

93. See my #92 below

[synergie]

117. My link is about 2017, where evidence shows that despite the chemical weapons

seized from the Syrian government, there were Syrian airplanes dropping chemicals on their citizens.

So, investigate away, just stop denying basic common sense to defend dictators who have a document history of doing bad things, and who are doing so before our very eyes. Tulsi needs to learn something about foreign policy and basic facts before she rushes in to defend her dictator buddies.

I guess the current situation doesn't matter, when you can dig out some stray bit from a 4 year old article that has nothing to do with what happened today. Trump did some play acting with his missiles that did no harm to the actual instruments delivering the chemical weapons, Tulsi is doing the same with her script. Dean called her out on it.

I'm all for finding out what her little private convo with Assad was all about, and what Trump said to her as well before her rule breaking trip.

[virtualobserver]

120. if rebels had Sarin in 2013, they could have it in 2017

I'll wait till the evidence is actually in, rather than trust Trump, as you do.

[synergie]

121. The problem you have is that the evidence is in and it doesn't support your claims.

Not in 2013, where the UN person your article quotes states that there was no evidence regarding whichever chemical attack she was discussing in April of 2013.

The problem is that accusing me of "trusting Trump" is that it's a poor ad hominem and pretty blatant projection, since Trump's friends were agreeing with Dear Tulsi back in 2013, and pretty much saying the same things she's reciting now.

So, since you're still waiting for evidence and cherry picking titles didn't work when the body of of the story undermines your point. Here is some evidence of just who had Sarin, just who used Sarin and just who it was that was using strikingly similar arguments back in 2013. Hint: It's everyone's favorite, Trump associated Russian, Lavrov

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

It goes into the actual evidence, and all the people who seem to be echoing Tulsi in 2017, but were somehow doing it in 2013.

Perhaps trusting Trump, Assad, the Russians, or those delivering their scripts is not such a smart thing to do.

[obamanut2012]

106. No, she is a pro-Trump & Putin, anti Obama Islamophobe-homophobe Trojan horse

ho doesn't mind being Trump's errand girl, and who revels in breaking Federal law.

Anyone who supports her, also supports her views.

Props to Dean for publicly calling her out.

[progree]

8. Why not bomb boths sides? That's the only sure way to kill all them Mohammedans

[font color = blue]>>so you agree with this policy of the US bombing both sides of the Syrian conflict?<<[/font]

[synergie]

80. So you are claiming that Assad does not use chemical bombs on his own people?

[virtualobserver]

83. I'm not claiming anything. I'm just agreeing with Tulsi that this should be thoroughly investigated

Is there some reason that we shouldn't investigate this?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. How Tulsi Gabbard became Assads mouthpiece in Washington

How Tulsi Gabbard became Assad’s mouthpiece in Washington

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

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.

[virtualobserver]

9. the "moderate rebels" are fighting on the same side as ISIS and Al Qaeda

Anyone who imagines that there is an impenetrable firewall between allies in a war is naive.


Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are funding Jihadists in Syria....according to Hillary Clinton.

.....and we are funding them.

When Tulsi speaks about this issue, she talks about this conflict in its full complexity.

[Chevy]

14. Doesn't explain why she secretly

went to meet Assad with the backing of an anti-Semite group.

[virtualobserver]

19. The group is not anti-Semite & members of that group marched against Trump during the women's march

the funny thing is all of the corrections made in that article....

Correction: An earlier version of this op-ed misspelled the name of AACCESS Ohio and incorrectly stated that the organization no longer exists. AACCESS Ohio is an independent non-profit organization that is a member of the ACCESS National Network of Arab American Community organizations but is currently on probation due to inactivity. The op-ed also incorrectly stated that Bassam Khawam is Syrian American. He is Lebanese American. This version has been corrected.

They didn't even know what they were talking about when they wrote this.

They certainly did not correct all of the unfounded assertions in the piece.

There is nothing in this OP-ED that presents anything bad about this organization, just assertion.

[lapucelle]

34. Linda Sarsour is the national advocacy director

of ACCESS. She campaigned at length for and with Jill Stein and was very vocal against Hillary Clinton during the general election campaign. She was very effective in helping Trump get elected.

Her major contribution to the Women's March was her insistence that Hillary be blacklisted and any that reference to her be purged from the official press kit.

Sarsour then spent the days after the march taking self-centered credit for the efforts of almost 150 organizers. Like Gabbard, she's a dissembler who works in the service of her own self interest.

[virtualobserver]

43. Gabbard is no dissembler

she volunteered to serve in IRAQ.

she has the right and the duty to question what we are doing in Syria.

[Chevy]

78. Yes she served does not mean she

cannot be held accountable for her words and actions as an elected official.

[lapucelle]

123. It's exactly what she does.

dis·sem·ble (verb)
conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/26/the-mystery-surrounding-democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbards-trip-to-syria/?utm_term=.f06731b75420

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307071-after-trump-meeting-gabbard-says-we-cant-let-divisiveness-destroy-our

[paleotn]

62. Syrian Kurds are the only ones we can count on..

...the allegiance of all others is fluid. Arm them and god knows where the equipment will end up. It's a train wreck, pure and simple.

[sharedvalues]

73. Gabbard/Assad/Russian talking points.

[Hekate]

13. Tulsi is wrong, and egregiously so. Howard Dean is right to call her out. smdh

[virtualobserver]

44. she is wrong to ask for an investigation of the site?

nonsense.

refusing to question is what got us into Iraq.

[Hekate]

45. Assad has been at this for years. Syrians are willing to drown in the Mediterranean rather than stay

Where have you been?

[virtualobserver]

46. Where have you been?

"rebels" have been using chemical weapons for years there.

Asking for a independent investigation of a chemical attack is perfectly reasonable. How is bombing both sides in this conflict making life safer for the Syrians?

[Hekate]

70. United Nations? Independent reports? Other research?

[virtualobserver]

76. UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

[stevenleser]

92. You conveniently keep leaving out the fact that no one else in the commission

Investigating had the same viewpoint even though they had access to the same evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Del_Ponte

[riversedge]

105. Thanks Steve

[virtualobserver]

115. I didn't conveniently do anything

I prefer doing things in an inconvenient fashion.

I just think that this should be looked at carefully before we start bombing both sides in a war.

[snooper2]

126. Good job having your talking points down...

Is that public on RT or do you have special access?

[virtualobserver]

128. it is called common sense

Tulsi has it.

It seems to be an even rarer thing in Washington than I thought.

[snooper2]

130. Tulsi should just give up the show and admit she is a Libertarian

Like most on the far left are...

Give up the charade nobody is being fooled anymore-

[Alice11111]

71. Agree. It is such a mess with the alignments in Syria

that it is impossible to completely sort out. One thing is certain though, Assad has committed genocide against his own people, innocent civilians.

[Eyeball_Kid]

56. I thought that Gabbard was speaking within a narrower context.

She was only referring to the incident to which Trumpy reacted. And that incident IS under question.

Dean wants an excuse to decommission Gabbard and exercise stridency. I'm not sure why. Yes, we all know that Assad is a monster. Gabbard wasn't disputing that, IMO.

What Howard Dean should be emphasizing is the fact that Trumpy has no policy toward Syria, which makes his attack on the airbase reckless at best. Looks like he doesn't like Gabbard's ascendency.

Further, Dean doesn't qualify his statements with a reminder that he's a lobbyist for a large corporation. It's possible that he's representing a point of view from a corporate executive who is showering him with riches. It's a common problem.

[still_one]

57. Actually she did. She said she did not believe that Assad was behind the gas attack.

So she joins the likes of Ron Paul who said "there is zero chance Assad was behind the attacks"

Both Gabbard and Paul don't know. Gabbard or Paul could provided nothing to back up their claims.

Because of Gabbard's position serving as a liaison between trump and Assad, she is quite reckless to make such a statement. The correct answer would have been she doesn't know, or hasn't seen the data to substantiate the claim one way or another.

I suspect she made those comments because she viewed trump's missile strike on Assad's airbase as reckless, and perhaps speculates that Assad wasn't involved in the gas attack to show consistency. However, if that was the case, it isn't inconsistent to disapprove of the missile strike on Assad's airbase, regardless of whether Assad was responsible or not.

[virtualobserver]

63. she isn't defending him. she said that she was skeptical

It is not reckless to be skeptical. That is why she wants it to be fully investigated.

You state that she is serving as a liaison between Trump and Assad.
She said that she bore no message either way.

So, you are calling a veteran who put her life on the line serving two tours of duty, one in a combat zone, a collaborator and a liar.

[still_one]

69. Skeptical means you DOUBT someone did something. SHE DOESN'T KNOW. As far as her being a veteran

WTF does that have to do with THIS?

I never called her a collaborator and a liar. You are intentionally distorting what I said. I said SHE DOESN'T KNOW, and she is doubtful that Assad did it without knowing.

She is against trump's bombing the airbase. There are good reasons to be against the bombing of the airbase whether Assad was or was NOT involved in the gas attack.

You have accused me of saying something I didn't, that is garbage

[virtualobserver]

72. you said that she was "serving as a liaison between Trump and Assad"

she has said that she did not do that.....that means that you are calling her a liar and you are saying that she is collaborating with Trump.

She never claimed to know, which is why she wants this to be fully investigated.

And for that.....Dean calls on her to resign from Congress.

Jesus.

[still_one]

75. Oh FFS, if I thought that her meeting with trump in November was part of her January fact finding

mission when she met with Assad, that doesn't mean I am calling her a liar if that wasn't the case.

I am through with this conversation. I have nothing more to say to you

[virtualobserver]

77. Thank you for withdrawing that statement, then.

It makes me feel a lot better.

[Cha]

100. Yes gabbard is defending assad.. when all the facts point

to him Gassing his own people including children and not the first damn time.. here comes gabbard saying.. "I'm skeptical"

Yeah, you're skeptical, alright, gabbard

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

Course ron paul and Russia stick up for assad, too..

Just because gabbard is a vet is not a reason she can't be called out on her defending assad..

Always going on fakefox with greta van susteren to bash President Obama.. claiming he could "drag us into a nuclear war" blah blah blah.

[synergie]

79. She actually has. Democrats lose credibility when they deny that words have meanings

and that when people say things, that they somehow did not.

Democrats lose credibility when they attack people for daring to present facts that prove that people are indeed saying irresponsible things while doing irresponsible things like meeting with foreign dictators in secret.

[virtualobserver]

82. so, enlighten me with her "dissembling"

also, that meeting wasn't too secret after she told everybody about it.

[synergie]

116. Dr. Dean already did. Also, she wouldn't tell anyone who she was meeting with

BEFORE, as she's required to do, so doing so AFTER really doesn't mean anything does it? She got caught breaking the rules and meeting with dictators, she seems to support dictators, and defend them.

Please do your homework, and enlighten yourself.

[virtualobserver]

119. if you can't answer the question....just say so.

[synergie]

125. If there is some trouble understanding the answer .... just say so.

Dr. Dean has explained clearly what the problem with Gabbard was, you seem to functioning under some misconceptions that I've corrected by providing you with evidence that you were "waiting for" and had not gotten, based on what I can only presume was some sort of issue with reading the actual text of the links that were provided.

The Russian and Assad line that Tulsi was repeating doesn't hold any water. She was wrong on a great many matters and criticism of the the incorrect things she's saying is perfectly valid. For some reason the Breitbarters and other elements that seek discord seem to be backing her as she echoes Russia and Assad.

Tells you a little something when those elements are supporting a storyline, when the facts don't. If you're still having trouble figuring it out, I'll do my best to help you figure it out, it's not necessary to be prickly, not everyone can grasp things on the first few tries.

[virtualobserver]

131. it is amazing that you can type so many words, and yet not tell me how she is "dissembling"

you assert things-
she's wrong , or that I have misconceptions, Dean has explained it, criticism of her is justified etc.

you are presenting your opinion like a religious belief in her wrongness

dis·sem·ble
dəˈsembəl/
verb
gerund or present participle: dissembling
conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
"an honest, sincere person with no need to dissemble"
synonyms: dissimulate, pretend, feign, act, masquerade, sham, fake, bluff, posture, hide one's feelings, put on a false front
"she's being honest and has no need to dissemble"
disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
"she smiled, dissembling her true emotion"

She served two tours in the middle east, one of them in a combat zone. Now she is accused of being a "dissembler".....as if her concern about getting into another stupid war like the one many of her friends died in is some sort of charade.

she is accused of being a fake....siding with Russia and Assad (consorting with the enemy)

and for what? Because she simply doubts the story line and thinks that it should be checked out.

I never thought that Democrats would ever behave this way

[synergie]

139. I'm amazed that you typed so much, consulted a dictionary

but still managed to forget to read the links pasted for you, or even the one you pasted, even after I explained how the text of the body didn't say what the headline did.

The religious belief here is the one that insists a woman who was wrong, was proven to be wrong is still somehow not. Seems like facts presented have been dismissed as heretical, since they challenge the belief that one with such a holy name could possibly be dissembling, no matter what the facts are, her words must be true, on faith alone. It's a bit weird to shine the light on the religious aspect to this denial of the facts presented, but I guess that's how defense mechanisms work.

Yes, serving in the military does not make someone incapable of dissembling, lying outright or being tools of a foreign country. Case in point, Michael Flynn, severed decades, in many combat zones, many tours, but he's still a lying liar who lies a lot.

Whatever her "concern" is, she did some stupid things and said things that were patently and provably untrue, to shield her friends brutal dictators who are actually killing many people who also have friends. People with facts are literally contradicting her, people on the ground dealing with the actual effects of the chemical weapons deployed by her good buddy Assad, are saying it. But why let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned faith, right?

She's proven to be literally using the same 4 year old talking points, why? Um, cause she did.

She has no basis for "doubting the storyline" or the facts, literally no one suggest it should not be checked out, other than you that is.

I never thought Democrats would behave the way this woman is behaving, nor did I ever think that "she's a veteran, thus everything she says is true, just like Flynn, hallowed by thy holy military service persons they never ever ever lie" would be coming from a Democrat.

Yet here we are, with RW talking points being enshrined as an article of faith at the altar of the infallible veteran, never mind the facts.

Democrats are not about the religious fervor and the cult of personality, we like facts and truth, and we don't attack the people who use that to call out bad behavior of anyone who is doing things against these. Not even someone with a holy name who once served in the national guard or the military, neither the "incomparable one" nor the guy named after the angel, both have been caught lying and serving other masters.

[virtualobserver]

140. how can someone type so many words, as you do, and yet present no evidence for your case

She is skeptical until things are investigated - that doesn't make her wrong, that makes her careful....something we were not in the lead up to IRAQ.

She hasn't made any other claims.

Immediately after the missile launch she released this statement:

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.

“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. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”

All that you have done in your posts is give your opinion....your belief. Your opinions don't hold up when faced with Tulsi's actual words. Dean doesn't even present any facts in the article that started this thread. He is just reacting emotionally.

Assad's previous use of chemical weapons does not prove that he was the one that did it this time. Assuming that he did it would be foolish, if somehow Al Queda or ISIS got their hands on chemical weapons and wanted to get the US to attack the Syrian govt.

There is another reason to prove conclusively that Syria did it. The Assad regime “voluntarily and verifiably” gave up its chemical weapons stockpile according to Susan Rice and Russia was in charge of making that happen. If they didn't, we need to hold both Russia and Syria responsible. If ISIS did it, we need to figure out how they got it.

[synergie]

141. I guess if one choosees to blind oneself to the actual evidence I presented

because "so many words" were frightening, one can understand the befuddlement.

But I've already done the homework and pasted links and referred you to evidence, I cannot force you to read it or understand it.

She's been denying her dictator buddies actions for quite some time.

The UN is "my opinion"? The BBC, MSF? Wow what a high regard you have of me! You think I'm personally quite a lot of agencies!

Dean presented facts, I presented facts, but instead of reviewing them, instead the response is overwrought emotion about how one must not contradict the holy one, her sacred service has rendered her infallible, and one must not let facts intervene. One must hurl insults at the heretics, whose "opinions" are delivered through major news organizations, the UN and eyewitness testimony by people on the ground, what could these people know what the holy one does not?

At least you now accept that Assad did use chemical weapons in the past, though you literally reverse the claim you made earlier about the rebels. I guess when one is in a religious fervor, one need not be held to standards. Not even one's own.

When facts are literally and deliberately denied, because too many words or reasons, and the holy one be protected, what is the use in continuing attempts at debate?

I know, I know, "so many words" and all I did was refer you back to the evidence already willfully ignored!

So I shall leave you with an instructional on how to conduct a real Tulsi Puja, your method is all over the place.

http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/puja/tulsi-puja.html

Just choose a favorite picture of you chosen holy one, forget all that MahaLakshmi stuff, and offer oblations to the chosen one. Religious fervor shouldn't really be entangled with politicians who make poor decisions and pal around with dictators and Orange hued Nazi loving dudes, but I've always believed that religion was between a person and their chosen deity.

Namaste, and I wish you the best of luck in your adulation. Never challenge someone's religious faith with evidence, that rarely works. May the puja bring you peace, and soothe you as the politician continues to out herself as something other than she presented herself to be, the rest of us will take her to task about her support of dictators and do the actual investigations that she pretends to want, but which she denies and ignores when convenient.

[virtualobserver]

143. you don't present evidence - you tell me what you believe she said - but you never quote her

when I present quotes from her that directly contradict your beliefs, you neither acknowledge them nor refute them.

Then you falsely state that I "now accept that Assad did use chemical weapons in the past" which implies that I didn't until now.
It is hard for me to carry on a conversation when I have to step around your imaginary version of what I said.


What you and Dean seem incapable of understanding, is that

1. evidence of PREVIOUS use of chemical weapons is NOT PROOF that he used them THIS time. All of Dean's facts pertain
to previous use. Assad is not the only monster in the country, ISIS is also a monster.

which is why

2. All Tulsi wants is an investigation. MSF has determined generally that chemical weapons were present but not which type.
Sarin is hard to make, so we need to know if it is Sarin or not. There is a lot at stake here. Russia helped broker the deal in 2013 to destroy Assad's chemical-weapons stockpile.

3. Tulsi doesn't trust Trump to tell us the truth - although you and Dean do. Why do you suddenly believe Trump?


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/

[synergie]

144. Except that I have presented evidence, and referred you to the links I pasted.

So basically, it seems that it's not possible to have an honest conversation with someone who keeps denying reality. Tulsi, also has problems with facts and truth telling, like her buddies Trump, Assad and Putin.

I literally pointed out that and the quotes and links presented do not state what you believe them to, and the response is ad hominems, outright lies and projection.

I'm truly sorry that blindly believing in the infallibility of someone who doesn't know what she's talking about requires one to traverse this path of the Right Wingers.

There really is no point in trying to debate facts with someone who is on a religious quest to deny reality in the service of deified but dishonest politician whose track record with defending dictators is abysmal and who is plainly parroting the talking points of foreign dictators.

The problem for you is that Dean, I and pretty much everyone who is seeing and hearing what this woman is saying are quite capable of grasping what she's saying. It's her devoted followers who seem to be incapable of grasping facts, instead resorting to denial, abuse and dishonesty to maintain their cognitive dissonance. Again, who'd have thought people claiming to be Democrats would be embracing EVERY RW talking point and tactic to this degree.

It's pointless to deal with people who flat out lie when faced with facts they don't like, that's true with this administration and the people who embrace them.

[virtualobserver]

145. you present your feelings with no evidence

but you say over and over again that you have presented evidence.

It's a waste of time to read your posts

[synergie]

146. You keep pretending that the evidence I presented doesn't exist. You've never read my posts

if you had, you'd not be making such blatantly false statements. When dealing with those determined to be both dishonest AND abusive, one can only do so much.

Please, enjoy your religious experience and your strongly held faith, the facts don't support the religious fervor or the wrong headed representative whose actions and words speak volumes that some are too deaf to hear, and blind to read.

All I see are feelings and lies, and repetitive attempts to attack and divide, sadly they're such poor efforts that they fool no one but those who have chosen to blind themselves and have chosen to avoid truth.

[virtualobserver]

147. I search for evidence in your posts....but only find feelings

you post the same feelings over and over. As for being divisive....You are the one attacking a Democratic congressperson, not me.

[Cha]

95. Exactly, synergie.. that's when anyone Loses "Credibility"

[Cha]

94. Yes she has.. No one is losing credibility for calling out gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Skeptical That Assad Gassed Syrian Children

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the self-professed expert of international diplomacy, spoke with Wolf Blitzer on his CNN program Friday about Syria. She practically exonerated Bashar al-Assad for gassing his own people, especially the 'innocent babies.'

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/04/rep-tulsi-gabbard-thinks-assad-did-not-gas

[virtualobserver]

97. that article is misleading and very sloppy

it states that Gabbard criticized Obama for not bombing the Syrian Govt.

In actuality, she was criticizing him for not bombing Al qaeda in the actual tweet in the article.

[still_one]

98. Assad's been killing Syrian Civilians for a long time. Here is an article form 2013

http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-is-killing-his-own-people-2013-4

but its been going on for a long time

[Cha]

103. Exactly, stillone.. gabbard has no reason to be "skeptical"

other than she's had her head in the sand for years.

Assad's Air War Against Syrian Civilians Has Reached Barbaric Proportions

An investigation by Human Rights Watch (HRW) found the Syrian Air Force "has repeatedly carried out indiscriminate, and in some cases deliberate, air strikes against civilians."

HRW's 80-page report draws from visits to 50 sites of government air strikes in opposition-controlled areas in Aleppo, Idlib, and Latakia governorates as well as more than 140 interviews with witnesses and victims. The researchers believe that more than 4,000 civilians have been killed by aerial attacks.

snip//

Assad's troops have carried out massacres in other ways as well. Defected Syrian soldiers have told "grisly stories of how their units executed unarmed civilians for demonstrating against the Assad regime."

http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-is-killing-his-own-people-2013-4

Mahalo for the link, stillone

[still_one]

110. 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.

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.

That is the logic people are use to justify that we cannot trust the CIA or FBI saying there was Russian interference in our election, because we were lied to about the WMDs.

That logic is bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

[Cha]

112. Mahalo for the link from HRW, stillone

Attacks on Ghouta

Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria

[brer cat]

107. Thanks for that link, still_one. nt

[nikibatts]

101. I agree. Since when is expressing an opinion not allowed by a politician? Dean was wrong about

saying she should not be a member of Congress. I never thought much of her but I think she has every right to say what she said. I even agree that evidence should be presented before we claim Assad was behind this. There are just too many actors in that area who could have set off an explosion releasing poison gas. I just cannot understand why Assad would do such a thing knowing his main benefactor now controls the President of the US. Just doesn't make sense for him to do this at this time.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

111. Asking for proof is not defending Assad.

We've done this before with Iraq. See where that got us?

[Warpy]

2. I would hate to see her replaced with a Republican

so I'm forced to disagree with him on this one.

Personally, I think Assad was such an incompetent little punk that he'd have been deposed by the army had the rebellion not started. He is definitely not his father.

Unfortunately, all the opportunists in the area have now carved out discontinuous territories and it's a total mess over there. And we still don't really have a dog in this fight.

[Hekate]

15. Voters in Hawai'i have an opportunity next year. Who's up for opposing her?

[Chevy]

20. Wasn't there a GOP women in hawaii

who was kicked from the party for opposing trump?

[Hekate]

21. Yes. She's young and idealistic; could be a good addition to the Dems.

[bluedigger]

35. Because if Democrats need anything, it's to move to the right.

[Hekate]

40. Because if the Dems need anything it's thoughtful young people who thought they could reform...

...the GOP away from the mania of the RW and to the center, only to discover the error of their ways. Can't remember her name, but the article posted here (and her own words) made her sound idealistic (now tempered by experience), intelligent, and a likely prospect. She's already holding State office, and she's publicly quitting the GOP and giving it up as a bad job.

Already she sounds a helluva lot better than Tulsi Gabbard to me.

[Chevy]

87. If Evan McMullin will vote for a Dem

against a GOP who is pro Trump then I'd see no problem supporting her if I was resident.

[bluedigger]

99. Getting kicked out of the GOP is little more than an indicator of rationality at this point.

That seems like a low bar to set for our next generation of leaders, but I'm great with fighting for her vote.

[PoiBoy]

58. +100,000...

I would prefer that Beth Fukumoto, who has already left the Republicon Party of Hawaii remain an independent at least through the next election cycle... see what the people of her district really think of her actions and policy moves. BTW, her father voted for trump and she was perfectly fine with it...

[rpannier]

114. Gabbart is a former R

[PoiBoy]

132. No she isn't...

..you may be thinking of her father Mike Gabbard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

[mahina]

53. Yes, Beth Fukumoto. She is a principled Republican.

She would like to join the party. We'll see. She may not be accepted.

I respect her but between the two of them, I'd actually (!?!?!) prefer Tulsi.

Beth could never win the 2nd CD anyway. I don't know if we have anybody who could beat Tulsi right now.

[murielm99]

17. If there is any replacing,

I don't think she would be replaced with a Republican. Hawaii is very blue.

[George II]

39. We're talking about Hawaii here, that's not likely to happen. Hopefully there will be a primary.

[mahina]

52. Rest easy on that one.

That will never happen, not in my lifetime anyway.

[comradebillyboy]

10. In the wake of Tulsi's comments on Assad and her

condemnation of Trump's missile strike on Syria she won the endorsement of Richard Spencer a prominent white supremacist.

Link to tweet

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. That's a fallacious argument: Fallacy of Association. . . . nt

[mr_lebowski]

18. So nobody thinks it's remotely possible that Tulsi is right to question?

How many times has the US public been lied to in the 'Fog of War' over the years?

We all doubt Trumps motives and at least some of us subscribe to some possibility that this is all a Machievellian ruse brought to us by TrumPutin. Could it at least not be possible that Assads 'forces' did the deed, but are not truly 'responsible' in a sense, i.e. the attack was instigated by Putin in order to play out a ruse before the public? Maybe that's what she's getting at w/o coming straight out and saying it?

I'd need to know more about her true motives/thought process before I condemn her out of hand.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Your title's premise not at stake. The argument is that Tulsi Gabbard is not trustworthy on Syria.nt

[virtualobserver]

29. she put her life on the line in IRAQ and saw people blown up and dead

forgive her if she is suspicious when people justify military action before investigating the WMD's

One possibility here is that conventional Syrian bombs hit a makeshift factory belonging to ISIS.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. A logical fallacy there; it fails to make her reliable on Syria.

Again, the possibility or probability that tRump's grandstanding strike at Syria is very ill-advised is not really under discussion here in the OP or the thread.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because she has seen dead people we should listen to her on Syria including Assad. It's as if a chemist were opining on fidelity. Especially when her trip there was ethically compromised in at least a couple of ways.

Similarly, just because she (and most of us) are suspicious about justifying military action does not make her automatically reliable on Syria or that we should change our opinion of Assad's civil war because she says so.

The line that the Syrian bombs hit rebel chemical stores is not very credible. It is possible but a remote possibility. In particular, that area is NOT controlled by ISIS.

[virtualobserver]

48. It is not a logical fallacy

it is actually illogical to assume that you know who is to blame without investigating.

She is a member of the US House, who put her life on the line, literally, on two tours of duty in a combat zone. She is now questioning the justification of actions of Donald Trump.

I'd rather trust her opinion on whether it is a "remote possibility"
that Trump got it wrong, and fully engaging in a war without investigating first, which she suggests, is as dumb as trusting the Bush admin on Iraq.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. That was not the logical fallacy I was pointing to. You are arguing obliquely. . . nt

[virtualobserver]

50. there was no logical fallacy...your argument was a straw man

I never said that we should trust her because she saw dead people.

I said that her suspicion was justified by her experience. She has seen the implications of convincing people to go to war based on BS.

You have no case. There is no reason to assume that we know what happened until it is examined independently.

But please, feel free to question the honor of a veteran who put her life on the line and earned the right to question her government. Everyone has that right, but she earned it.

[Chevy]

84. Flynn and Oliver North served as well

and their judgement was called into question. Did you come to their defense as well?

[virtualobserver]

86. This is "Democratic Underground" and I am a Democrat and so is Tulsi.

Yet, she is being called "No different than Trump" for merely questioning the assumption that Assad did this, when Syrian rebels have used Sarin in the past.

[Chevy]

88. Flynn is a democrat crazy one but Dem none the less. N/T

[Chevy]

89. Joe Lieberman was a democrat

how did that work out for us.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

91. You wrote it in direct reply, so yes you said that. Readers can read and they will.

I wrote (in post title):

The argument is that Tulsi Gabbard is not trustworthy on Syria.

So you wrote in direct reply (in post title):

she put her life on the line in IRAQ and saw people blown up and dead

Now you are claiming you "never said that we should trust her because she saw dead people".

You did and it's a fallacious argument and readers can read it for themselves.

You are arguing obliquely.

[virtualobserver]

96. It wasn't a response to your "post title"

My post was "she put her life on the line in IRAQ and saw people blown up and dead

forgive her if she is suspicious when people justify military action before investigating the WMD's"

Where exactly did I tell YOU to do or trust anything or anyone?

[Hekate]

24. Why is she an Assad apologist? Why did she meet secretly with him?

Assad's actions are well-documented -- you can check out Doctors Without Borders and other aid groups if you doubt US reports. Why the hell would any American have anything to do with him? You think maybe Rex Tillerson was right?

I'm not sure I care about the inner workings of her "true motives" when her words and behaviors are so well-recorded.

[mahina]

54. Same here.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. I think Tulsi was simply asking for an independent check on what happened there

After all the bullshit that passes for "the truth" it seems like a reasonable request. What is Howard Dean's role in any of this anyway? He seems cranked up on regime change at any cost.

[virtualobserver]

26. as an old Deaniac, I am shocked

I want my donations back.

[The_Casual_Observer]

28. He's jumped right in to this with both feet, it's as if we haven't been burned

dozens of times in the last 20 years by these WMD/tyrannical leaders stories. Jesus, at least get the whole skinny before sending in "ground troops" as Dean was advocating on the basis of some "doctors without borders" report. He's got a lot of gall.

[Hekate]

41. If she wanted an independent check, why not ask Doctors Without Borders?

[The_Casual_Observer]

102. Ok, what does doctors without borders do in this situation?

From what ive seen, they come up with inflated numbers and plenty of horseshit
That is unvetted that is used to to justify the killing of countless unfortunates in the name of humanitarian causes.

[Hekate]

118. Aren't you special. Google is your friend.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/country-region/syria

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/syria-khan-sheikhoun-victims-show-symptoms-consistent-exposure-chemical-substances

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-without-borders-hospitals-airstrikes-syria-aleppo/

Here's one close to my home: https://www.directrelief.org/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/

[mr_lebowski]

133. And here's a very very well-reasoned article re: this general subject you should read

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

It's not known that Sarin was used, it's not known that Assad is (the one) responsible for using chemical weapons in this case, and that region Assad bombed is, according to this article, under control of Islamist forces linked to Al-Q, and that these forces have been found to have been making chem wpns which have been left behind in their strongholds when they've been forced out and left in a hurry.

There is most assuredly a non-zero chance that we're (the US Public) being fed a line of bullshit about who is truly 'responsible' here. Tulsi could be absolutely correct, and not the mindless, bought-out Assad lackey some of you are painting her as.

[Cooley Hurd]

27. More news aggregate...

Why not post from the original source?

[bluedigger]

36. They really need to rename their site "Regurgitated Story"

Nothing raw there but the editing.

[theaocp]

31. Primary her.

She can either defend herself or she can't ... to her constituency. See what I did there? I ignored the Magic D and am willing to let democracy play itself out. Where are the rest of the armchair warriors that want to keep Heitkamp and Manchin and such because what? ... Dean or some other muckity-muck didn't call them out in the national media? Fuck that noise. Primary all these folk and let them stand on their fucking records with their constituents.

[mazzarro]

37. +100%

I am not enamored by Dean's outburst!

[MarianJack]

33. Tulsi Gabbard is, IMHO,...

...our Michelle Bachman. WE don't need a Michelle Bachman. YUCK!

PEACE!

[OKNancy]

38. Agree- in a few words: She's a nut

Anyone with any sense knows Assad is a mass murdering creep, and that Putin is no friend to the US.

[Eyeball_Kid]

65. You are misrepresenting Gabbard's position.

I might be wrong, but if you read her press release that outlines her positions, you can't maintain your opinion unless you want to pre-judge her as having no credibility without reason.

[n2doc]

42. Did he call for Manchin and Heitcamp to resign for voting for the corproFascist Gorsuch?

If so I must have missed it. Says a lot about his priorities.

[Jake Stern]

67. Bu. .bu. .but that's different!

It's always different when it comes to Dems who flip the party the bird with stunning regularity - they get a pass. Show some skepticism about the claims of our government and oppose getting us involved in yet another drawn out Middle East conflict and you're a monster that needs to be booted.

Gotta deal with the new, new, new, new, new, new New Hitler. Apparently it wasn't Maurice Bishop, it wasn't Manuel Noriega, it wasn't Saddam Hussein, it wasn't even Moammar Qaddhafi so it must be Bashar Al-Assad. Logic dictates it's so.

It's embarrassing to see so many people with a hard on for regime change on DU.

[disillusioned73]

135. Agreed..

establishment showing their true colors..

[still_one]

51. For those unaware of what Gabbard said, she doesn't believe Assad was behind the gas attack.

[PoiBoy]

61. For those unaware of what Gabbard said, read her own words...

[Eyeball_Kid]

64. Her press release makes Dean's comments rather bizarre.

From an intuitive point of view, it seems like Dean is not happy with Gabbard's rise within the Democratic Party. While Dean had some liberal years, he appears to have moved to identify with establishment party politics. Gabbard is challenging that wing of the party.

Everything I've seen of Gabbard is refreshing and poignant. Maybe she has a dark side, but I haven't seen it.

[still_one]

66. That ISN'T the point of the OP. She made a statement that she DOESN'T believe Assad is responsible

for the gas attack. SHE DOESN'T KNOW, and that is what she should have said. It is perfectly consistent to be against trump's unilateral attack on the Syrian airbase, and also state that you have no idea who is responsible for the gas attack.

However, she choose to come out, WITHOUT any substantiation, and say she doesn't believe Assad is responsible for the gas attacks without knowing. That is reckless, and is defending Assad, without knowing what actual happened

[PoiBoy]

104. I'm sorry...

but it is the point of the OP...

The OP was referring to a Raw Story report of an MSNBC report on a CNN report, complete with all the embellishments of the various pundits along the way, including a sensational misdirection by CNN...

And in all three of the iterations of those reports, Rep. Gabbard never says that she doesn't believe Assad is responsible for the gas attack. She says she doesn't know and that there should be an investigation into the facts.

The CNN interview is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/

The title: Rep. Gabbard 'skeptical' Assad behind gas attack (misdirection)

The article:
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?"

The CNN headline is BS...

Rep. Gabbard was not saying that she was skeptical of Assad's guilt..., that should have been determined by a comprehensive investigation... an investigation that has now been compromised by the bombing attacks on the airfield.

She was saying that she is skeptical of the Administration's claims for the attack and any further escalation that may be coming in Syria, North Korea or elsewhere, just like was previously done by the neocons regarding the invasion of Iraq.

It's ironic that CNN would sensationalize their own story, but there it is for those who want to see the truth...

As an aside, I found it interesting to follow the thread of this story from CNN misquoting their own story, getting that misquote picked up by several MSM outlets and bloggers, disseminated through twitter and other social media outlets including landing here at DU, where the reactions are sadly dissapointing... in honor of that realization, I've changed my sigline...

[still_one]

109. Here is the CNN link

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/

According to this link she is basing her skepticism because of the lies about the Iraq WMDs. What happened in Iraq neither proves nor disproves that Assad used gas against civillians.

For some time Assad has been killing Syrian Civilians. In 2013 chemical weapons were used in the Ghouta attack with very strong evidence toward Syria:

"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

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.

In fact it is the same logic some people are using to justify that we cannot trust the CIA or FBI saying there was Russian interference in our election, because we were lied to about the WMDs.

That logic is bullshit.

[virtualobserver]

129. They are obsessed with making Tulsi the Devil

It is making me ill watching Democrats do this to her.

We should be focusing on defeating Trump, yet instead we are eating our own.

[disillusioned73]

136. Well..

Let us not forget her original sin.. endorsing "the other" candidate.. that will never be forgiven in some circles.. apparently Dean is in one of those.. circles

[virtualobserver]

137. shhhhhhhhhhh......you speak the words which cannot be spoken

it is mere coincidence, I tell ya'

[PoiBoy]

138. Interestingly...

..in the video posted in the OP... about 30 seconds from the end of the clip.. Dean blurts out something... catches himself... chokes.. struggles to swallow it.. and then changes the subject... lol..!!

[disillusioned73]

142. Thanks for pointing it out..

lol.. he didn't know what to do with that simple question.. the establishment (which includes Dean) put the hit out on the progressive wing of the party, it's that simple..

I love how the question was even put out there as to whom is coming after her.. like she didn't know the answer to that..

[rockfordfile]

59. I agree it's time for Trump to resign

[Answerman]

60. Finally!

Somebody speaking in opposition to the neo-con wall of sound. This incident is from the same playbook that is repeatedly used to stampede us into foreign wars of intervention. The Gulf of Tonkin, weapons of mass destruction et al. It's the same old shit in new sacks.

Stay strong Tulsi.

[Jonny Appleseed]

68. Trump fellated Assad in the debates didn't he?

[David__77]

74. I like Gabbard.

I also oppose Trump's attack on the Syrian airbase.

[reggaehead]

90. When Chump and Pence agree

To a do over election. Then I support her resignation and a special election. Howard Dean: if you are not part of the solution u r part of the problem. Don't be part of the problem

[LaydeeBug]

108. Although they never officially named anyone as Bernie's running mate, she was floated

and that gave me pause (and the tax return thing)

Don't get me wrong, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, and who is to say she would have really been named (Joachin Castro was floated for HRC, so who knows) but it was floated, and I felt a little sick inside.

Asked about her here and was very disappointed to say the least.

[SunSeeker]

113. K & R

[That Guy 888]

124. Has he called for the removal of Joe Manchin?

The US doesn't have a good track record with successful interventions in the Middle East. Try negotiations instead of Potemkin attacks or "boots on the ground". Cheetolini can't be trusted to run a war.

[disillusioned73]

134. Wow..

the witch hunt continues..