Democrats Attack Democratic Congresswoman for Opposing Trump’s Syria Strike

Tuesday, 11 April 2017 Written by  Michael Tennant The New American

Democrats Attack Democratic Congresswoman for Opposing Trump’s Syria Strike

Think the Left is antiwar? Think again. A Democratic congresswoman is under fire from liberal movers and shakers for daring to question both the rationale for and the legality of Republican President Donald Trump’s recent missile strike in Syria.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), shown, has been one of the most outspoken critics of the incursion. The day of the attack, she issued a scathing press release calling it an “illegal regime change war” that is “short-sighted” and “could lead to nuclear war” with Russia. She also expressed skepticism over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged responsibility for a chemical-weapons attack in northwestern Syria last week, which the Trump administration used to justify its actions.

This was too much for some otherwise Trump-hating leftists, who took to Twitter and television to demand Gabbard’s ouster.

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, tweeted, “People of Hawaii’s 2nd district — was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?”

Tanden’s remark that Gabbard “met with a murderous dictator” was a reference to a private meeting the congresswoman, an Iraq War veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, had with Assad in January as part of what she called a “fact-finding mission.” Of course, as the American Thinker blog points out, such a confab is hardly unprecedented: Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also met with Assad in 2007.

Meanwhile, former Vermont governor, presidential candidate, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean tweeted, “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress.” During a Sunday appearance on MSNBC, Dean said that Gabbard should resign from Congress for her “outrageous” remarks suggesting that Assad’s culpability had not been demonstrated.

“If you’re on the Foreign Relations Committee and you haven’t seen the proof in the last five and a half years, there’s something the matter with you,” Dean said. “I am tired of people making excuses. This is no different than Trump making excuses for Putin. We’ve had enough of this.”

But given the history of U.S. wars, especially those of the 21st century, who is acting more disgracefully: the one who demands evidence and a proper declaration of war before launching an attack or the one who uncritically accepts Pentagon talking points and ignores the Constitution? As Gabbard put it in a Facebook post:

I and thousands of my brothers and sisters-in-arms went to war in Iraq that was based on false intelligence and lies from our leaders. I believe it is the duty of every American to make sure this never happens again. We need to learn from Iraq and Libya — wars that were propagated as necessary to relieve human suffering, but actually increased human suffering many times over.

Furthermore, she told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump’s strike on Syria was nothing new but merely “an escalation of a counterproductive regime change war in Syria that our country’s been waging for years, first through the CIA covertly, and now overtly.” People were already suffering for it; the latest attack only added to their misery.

When Carlson asked Gabbard if she believed Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, she replied, “It doesn’t matter what I believe or not. What matters is evidence and facts. If the Trump administration has the evidence unequivocally proving this, then share it with the American people. Share it with Congress. Come to Congress and make your case before launching an unauthorized, illegal military strike against a foreign government.”

In her press release, Gabbard stated that if conclusive evidence were presented to her, she would “be the first to call for [Assad’s] prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court,” although she noted that gathering such evidence may now be impossible because of the U.S. attack.

For her perfectly reasonable requests of a president of the opposing party, Gabbard, an otherwise fairly left-wing lawmaker, is being vilified by people in her own “progressive” party. Why?

First, she quit the DNC last year to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over the party’s eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton, because of Clinton’s hawkishness. Tanden, a longtime Clinton loyalist, was heavily involved in the Clinton campaign and its efforts to deny Sanders the nomination.

Second, Gabbard met with President-elect Trump in November to discuss Syria, leading to rumors that she was under serious consideration for a position in his Cabinet — a big no-no in a party that despises Trump.

Simply put, the Democratic establishment is just as hawkish as the Republican establishment — Hillary Clinton has long favored regime change in Syria and actually called for airstrikes just hours before Trump gave the order — and anyone who stands in the way of their imperial ambitions must be silenced, even if it means empowering a Republican president. As Gabbard herself tweeted, “Those who’ve declared Trump a habitual liar now vilify those refusing to blindly follow him into another regime change war. Hypocrisy.”

Read more at: Democrats Attack Congresswoman for Opposing Trump's Strike

 

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is under fire from Democratic bigwigs for daring to question both the rationale for and the legality of President Trump’s recent missile strike in Syria. Read more...

Views: 44

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat, my word, if I was not married...this girl is hot. Get a few more democrats that look like this, then we have a election to battle...you go girl.

She's a DEM and that about says it all.

Yea, I know but she is a little hottie, and by the way my wife is a Democrat, and she voted for Trump.And funny thing is I meet her at a protest 99% sit right back kick your shoes off and enjoy the freedom.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

The cartoonist's homepage, indystar.com/opinion/varvel

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service