TULSI GABBARD IS DRIVING THE MSM BAT SHIT CRAZY
MSM's days are numbered, they just can't seem to keep...But!
"Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States," Gabbard replied.
First point: Gabbard is a loose cannon, who does not know what she is talking about, a victim of fake news. She had no business taking a private meeting with Bashar al Assad. She was told specifically, not to meet with Assad, and then went ahead, against that hard advice and didn't inform the House that she was going to have the meeting with Assad anyway. Assad is a sensitive geopolitical issue, for those who have been their since day one.
Assad being a close alley with Russia for the last fifty years of his and his father's dictatorship placed suspicion on the meeting. Why would a US representative, a candidate for POTUS -- a politician, meet if they were told specifically, instructed not too, because it was a sensitive issue?
Point 2: Assad is an enemy of the US when he wages war on his own people, when he works at exterminating the Kurds. They are discriminated against and during the Syrian war Assad has taken advantage of this to displace and kill as many as he can, as the Kurds have been seeking political autonomy for Kurdish inhabited areas of the north of Syria.
Assad makes economic deals with Russia and Iran that threaten the economic future of EU countries, NATO countries.
" [...] which would probably come as a shock to the troops who've been told that they are there to defeat ISIS."
Were in hell did you hear that? ISIS is just one of the enemies of the US in Syria.. there are others..Al Nusra, Al Qaida, Daesh, ISIL there are many other factions, paid mercenaries of the Wagner group (little Green Men) it is hard to tell the forest from the trees anymore.
The Free Syrian Army are to be supported, they are against the Assad regime, the US is fighting for and with them, as Russia supports Assad fully with S-400 missile system which violates the INF.
And the Kurds must be helped as they are an ally of the USA, both Turkey and Assad seek their demise. They have established homelands in the north, long before the war started, they have been discriminated against, persecuted for a long time, since Hafez al Assad came to power.
"What Assad is is the leader of a sovereign nation, but a regime which has nothing to do with the United States and isn't taking anything from or harming the United States in any way." -- Caitlin Johnstone
And with that being said.. Syria is not a sovereign nation, but a regime, a "cult of personality regime" that has existed since 1971 That's 47 years with a father and now son dictatorship.
Assad is being aggressive to NATO partners of the U.S. by allowing the Russians -- who he and his father have been in the pocket of, the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation under Putin and the KGB.
The war really is about a pipeline through Syria from Iran through Iraq.
Russia in its expansion of gas and oil pipelines; Nord Stream, & NordStream 2, Blue Stream, South Stream, and the Iran-Iraq-Syrian pipeline, to guide a gas pipeline coming from the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the largest and richest sweet gas field in the world -- shared by Iran and Qatar.
We are taking about 51 Trillion cubic metres of sweet gas, and 50 Billion barrels of natural gas condensates (Liquid natural gas, propane, butane, pentane, hexane and natural gasoline).
Russian Federation gas giant, Gazprom has enormous investment in that gas field, enabling it to supply energy needs of China and Europe. Putin is building a grid system of energy pipelines that enable him to use the grid, as a weapon, to off a nation's energy, when economic measures are necessary in dominance of the world Island. As a motivator for something that Tsar Putin wants -- why do think he is fighting so hard there, because he cares, because he cares about the Syrian people, The Syrian refugees are a weapon of war. Putin aim is to break up NATO if he can. To freeze out the west. In his aim for dominance of Eurasia and the World Island.
"You can describe it however you want to describe it," Gabbard responded, explaining that whether a nation is adversarial or not comes down to whether or not they are working against US interests."
"What are Assad's interests?" -- Tulsi Gabbard
....Exactly what are Assad's interests Tulsi Gabbard. And economic war is still a war.
" [...]and I'm glad to see Gabbard fighting back against those smears."
What smears, these are legitimate questions to ask, a candidate who is running for the Presidency. The number one question being...
"Why Tulsi Gabbard did you see Bashar al Assad privately in a meeting, when you explicitly were told by the house that it was a sensitive matter that you needed to stay away from."
Are you the current MIC/deep state/establishment minder assigned to Caitlin? I've noticed you polluting other articles with your BS too. Sadly there's no option to down vote on here, and you're at least polite enough with your behavior not to earn a flag.
BTW, those of us who are against interventionist wars and believe that the very definition of diplomacy is speaking with "your enemy", applaud Tulsi for blazing her own trail and seeking facts for herself by talking to all sides. So sorry that doesn't fit into your "Assad = Hitler so don't talk to him" or your "Mother May I" narrative.
Well said indeed ctpatriot!
ctpatriot: Good Reply Thank you.
there is an option to downvote use the flag
As a member of the US congress, Tulsi Gabbard is responsible for decisions on whether to declare war against another nation. She is certainly not the first US congressperson to embark on a first-hand fact finding mission so that she could make an informed decision. That includes, eeeeek, talking to our alleged enemy in order to hear all sides. It's kind of pointless to go on a mission like that and only talk to the side that agress with us, don't you think? I mean you might as well just walk over to the CIA HQ and get your opinion from them.
Assad may be a war criminal. He's still the elected leader of a sovereign nation and someone who controls one side of the conflict. Hard to really understand that side without talking to its leaders. Or I suppose you can just automatically and unequivocally accept whatever the US establishment says the other side is thinking and write them off as socialists and Islamic terrorists and war criminals. By which logic we shouldn't be talking to the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Israel either. We probably shouldn't even be talking to ourselves considering how many war crimes the leaders of this country have committed over the last two decades.
well said, ctpatriot! Tulsi Gabbard is regarded highly by her constituents for good reason. If only there were more like her!
I understand the US supported a proposed Qatar-Saudi pipeline that was to run through Iraq and Syria, but President Assad said no. I wonder if that has anything to do with the US efforts to destabilize and ultimately force out President Assad. The US recruited, armed, and paid ISIS mercenaries to fight the Syrian government forces, and provided ISIS with direct air support, special forces support, and logistics support. That's right . . . 2000+ US military personnel are illegally in Syria not to fight ISIS, but to SUPPORT ISIS. Then in Sep 2015, at the request of President Assad, Russia sent its military in support of Syria, and within a few weeks, had decimated ISIS, much to the chagrin of the US.
True, Russia established a naval base at Tartus, Syria in 1971, which is another reason it wanted President Assad to stay in power. But, it wasn't until 2015 when it moved major forces into Syria to help President Assad fight off the various western-backed terrorist factions that were trying to force him out. Russia built the Khmeimim Air Base from which it launched air strikes against ISIS. It also moved warships into the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria, and inserted special forces to assist Syrian government forces. Russia is largely responsible for making ISIS combat ineffective. In the meantime, the US was bombing Syrian infrastructure such as electric power plants, water reservoirs, bridges, and Syrian military installations, killing many civilians, Syrian military personnel, and even some Russian personnel.
Of course, you won't hear any of this on the CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. government propaganda networks. The US hypocrisy about its involvement in Syria (we're there to fight ISIS and keep the American people safe), is so blatant it would truly be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Also, it's hard not to note the hypocrisy of someone from a country that has some 700 military bases in countries all over the world complaining that Russia has a military base in a country that they are allied with. Apparently we're the only ones who are allowed to do that.
Yeah, it's actually closer to 800 bases. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-number-of-US-military-bases-around-the-world
The number is estimated at over 800 Military bases worldwide, obviously many are unofficial and clandestine installations.
The next closest countries to the united states are: the UK (7), France (5) and Russia (8 - in former Soviet republics).
https://steemit.com/politics/@v4vapid/eight-hundred-and-the-china-containment-strategy
http://empire.is/
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/
Just FYI, the Arab Spring, which led to the unrest in Syria, was also orchestrated by good ole Uncle Sam. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-engineered-arab-spring-the-ngo-raids-in-egypt/28433
It's a well-worn tactic: When you have no argument, attack the source.