Politics Democrat speaks truth about Syria, destroy's Obama and Hillary

...it's always been about oil/gas and the mighty US dollar

 

I think you will find that there are very many people who regard Gabbard as kind of a tool. She went to speak with Assad. Assad is a known genocidal dictator. He has slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people.

Syria: Assad regime kills so many detainees it amounts to 'extermination' of civilian population, UN says

Of course it's very convenient for Assad to point to ISIS and say "hey, that's who I'm up against" but there are knowledgeable people who argue that Assad had a big hand in creating ISIS's presence in Syria. For example: http://orient-news.net/en/news_show/94727/0/Assad-responsible-for-the-rise-of-ISIS-in-Syria

Trump of course loves this narrative, because Russia is 100% behind Assad. And he's been buddying up to Gabbard for a while. I bet you she gets a position in the Trump administration in short order. (So he can say: "see? I'm bipartisan!")

 

Is it up to her to make peace with Assad? I'd think it was more the job of the people he's slaughtering. I would like to know how many experts on the region she consulted.

 

Here's an alternative view

“Meet the Democrat Who’s Not Afraid to Criticize President Obama on ISIS,” intones a recent ABC News headline. The story describes remarks by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who has for the past month been all over the media slamming Obama's refusal to directly associate ISIS and other terrorists with the Islamic faith.
She's particularly a favorite of right-wing media. Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
To the media, Gabbard is a curious spectacle. She's a Hawaii Democrat, coming from one of the nation's most progressive and dovish chapters of the Democratic Party, but she's also an Iraq war veteran, and she's consistently tried to outflank President Obama and the rest of her party to the right on foreign affairs. Last month she openly mocked Secretary of State John Kerry during an appearance on CNN, saying that he thinks, "if we give them [Islamic extremists] $10,000 and give them a nice place to live that somehow they're not going to be engaged in this fighting."
To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.

But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

More.

Note that that article is from February 2015. So basically Gabbard had a view of Syria before she went that her visit amazingly confirmed 100%.

(Here's the last paragraph of the article. Heartbreakingly wrong:

Gabbard should take note of these trends and realize that while Muslim-bashing may be in vogue at the time, it may just be the political equivalent of an economic bubble—and when it pops her own political career may go with it.

Not only did it not pop, it inflated to massive size and her career is likely to inflate with it.)

 

The statement "there are no moderate rebels" gives her away. That's pure Kremlin-speak.

 

Of course not. But conversely, just because they went there doesn't mean that we should believe "they saw what was going on".

In the early years of the Soviet Union, British Socialists went on visits there and returned with glowing descriptions of what a worker's paradise it truly was. Of course, they believed that before they went there, they were shown round by handlers, and at this time thousands of Russians were already being killed by their own government.

Look, Sly: I can see that you might be getting exasperated. "This guy thinks he's always right and won't concede anything." But look at it this way - I'm being bipartisan! I just said that a Democrat was a deluded asshole!

 

She is a logical Democrat. Nothing wrong with that.

 

That's like saying the Empire vs. the Rebels is "a civil war". After all - both sides commit atrocities - you don't think there were civilians on those Death Stars?

 

That is why I'm for atheist refugees. If they don't believe in religion they shouldn't believe in Satan and should be less likely to hate us. Simple.