The Blaze
Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard is in the spotlight as she faces challenges in her confirmation as the top intelligence chief in America. While there are a few Republicans who seem to oppose her, it’s the Democrats who are making the most noise. They’re painting Gabbard as someone who might be too close to adversarial forces.
Democratic Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona took a swing at Gabbard by saying she was parroting “Russian talking points” about the Obama administration’s support for terrorists in Syria. Gabbard didn’t back down and gave Kelly a lesson in history, backing her statements with facts that some found hard to swallow. Kelly recalled, “When Russia was denying [former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s] use of chemical weapons, they accused the U.S. of supporting terrorists.”
Back in 2016, Gabbard had pointed out that the U.S. was indirectly aiding terrorist groups to topple the Syrian government. Kelly drew parallels to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s past accusations against Gabbard, labeling her a Kremlin sympathizer. Gabbard stood her ground, reiterating, “The U.S. government has been violating this law for years by quietly supporting allies, partners, individuals, and groups.”
Kelly pressed on, questioning Gabbard’s intentions and whether she considered the motives of Iran and Russia. Gabbard, a military veteran motivated by the 9/11 attacks, revealed her shock upon learning that Obama’s administration was allegedly aligning with Al-Qaeda to oust Assad. She referenced the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program and the Pentagon’s covert Syrian Train and Equip Program.
Under the Timber Sycamore initiative, Islamic terrorists were armed starting in early 2013, according to Gabbard. Reports suggest CIA operatives trained rebels with sophisticated weaponry, drawing some comparisons to Cold War activities in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that some of these weapons ended up on the black market, with some being used against Americans.
Gabbard expressed her concern, stating, “Every American deserves to know that people in our own government were providing support to our sworn enemy Al-Qaeda.” The National Counterterrorism Center commented on the Al-Nusrah Front’s aggressive actions since announcing their intentions in 2012. This group, allegedly aided by the U.S., has been linked to severe atrocities.
In 2017, President Trump put an end to Timber Sycamore, calling the operation dangerous and wasteful. Gabbard also criticized the Department of Defense’s Train and Equip program under Obama, highlighting its half-billion-dollar expenditure on so-called moderate rebels who were in fact aligned with Al-Qaeda. She drew parallels to previous regime-change efforts, predicting that such actions would lead to extremist groups gaining power.
Gabbard clarified her stance, saying she wasn’t sympathetic to the Assad regime but was concerned about the consequences of its fall. She pointed out that the current interim leader in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, was once a leader of the Al-Nusrah Front and had a bounty on his head. “Why that should be acceptable to anyone is beyond me,” she added.
Kelly, undeterred, suggested Gabbard often echoes information from Russia, Syria, and Iran. Gabbard fired back with a strong statement: “Every American deserves to know that people in our own government were providing support to our sworn enemy Al-Qaeda.” Her rebuttal left a mark, highlighting the controversial nature of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
Gabbard’s remarks come at a time when there’s significant scrutiny over past foreign policy strategies in the Middle East. Her arguments underscore a broader debate about the effectiveness and morality of American interventions abroad. In this charged political climate, her views resonate with those questioning the wisdom of past administrations.
The confirmation process has brought to light complex geopolitical issues that have long been contested in Washington. As debates continue, individuals like Gabbard challenge the narratives that have shaped U.S. foreign policy. The discussions are far from over, and the outcomes of these debates could influence how America engages globally in the future.
