By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for national intelligence director faces significant opposition due to her past expressions of sympathy for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including a 2017 meeting with him. Senators have raised concerns about her apparent affinity for Assad and Vladimir Putin, as well as her support for whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Gabbard has consistently justified her stance by emphasizing the threat posed by Islamic militants in the Syrian civil war and arguing against US intervention, claiming such actions would worsen the situation. Despite Assad’s recent ouster, Gabbard now aligns her views with President Trump’s stance of non-intervention in Syria.
Read the original article here
Tulsi Gabbard’s vocal support for Bashar al-Assad, even as the Syrian dictator committed atrocities against his own people, is a matter of significant public concern. Let’s examine seven instances where her actions raised eyebrows and fueled accusations of loyalty to the Assad regime. It’s important to consider these instances within the larger context of her political career and affiliations.
Gabbard’s opposition to training Syrian rebels in 2014, a move widely seen as crucial in combating Assad’s forces and the rise of ISIS, stands out as a stark example of her alignment with the Syrian regime. This position directly contradicted the prevailing bipartisan consensus on the need to counter Assad’s brutality.
Her 2016 remarks warning against the overthrow of the Assad government, framing it as a potential power vacuum ripe for exploitation by terrorist organizations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, echoed the Assad regime’s own propaganda narrative. This, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of Assad’s human rights abuses, made her statement highly controversial.
In December 2016, Gabbard again voiced her concerns, this time highlighting alleged U.S. support for groups fighting against Assad, claiming this support inadvertently empowered al-Qaeda and ISIS. While some argue this perspective held a degree of complexity, the timing and framing heavily favored Assad’s narrative.
While these three incidents might be seen as isolated instances, their recurrence paints a picture of consistent and unwavering support for Assad, even as evidence of his crimes continued to mount. This consistent pattern challenges the notion that these were simply isolated disagreements on strategy.
The overall tone and message consistently favored the Assad regime, downplaying the atrocities committed by Assad’s forces and highlighting the potential downsides of his removal. This stance deviated sharply from many in the international community who were calling for his accountability.
It’s also worth noting that Gabbard’s pronouncements weren’t just critical analyses of U.S. foreign policy; they actively defended Assad’s actions and presented him as a lesser evil in comparison to the groups opposing him. This selective focus ignored the overwhelming evidence of Assad’s culpability in the Syrian civil war.
Gabbard’s actions, taken together, suggest a far deeper level of support for Assad than merely a difference of opinion on foreign policy strategy. Her repetitive and consistent defense of Assad’s regime in the face of overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses raises serious questions about her motivations and loyalties. The fact that these instances were not isolated but part of a larger pattern of unwavering support only strengthens these concerns.