(DailyAnswer.org) – A letter signed by nearly 100 self-described “national security professionals” opposing Tulsi Gabbard as a candidate for Director of National Intelligence has come under scrutiny. Critics argue the letter, published by Foreign Policy for America—a group funded by billionaire George Soros—relies on misleading claims rather than evidence. Critics argue the letter weaponizes baseless accusations to undermine Gabbard’s credibility.
The letter accuses Gabbard, a former congresswoman, of aligning with Russian and Syrian officials after her 2017 trip to Syria. It claims she doubted U.S. intelligence reports and public evidence that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad carried out chemical attacks on civilians. However, a closer review shows Gabbard never dismissed the possibility of Assad’s guilt outright. Instead, she called for independent investigations and solid evidence before rushing to judgment.
In an interview with CNN on April 7, 2017, Gabbard explained her position clearly. “What I believe, what you believe, or what others believe is irrelevant,” she said. “What matters here is the evidence and the facts. If Assad is found responsible after an independent investigation, I’ll be the first to call him a war criminal and demand accountability.” She added that Congress and the American public deserved transparency before approving any military action.
The letter also references a statement from her website noting evidence that both Assad’s government and opposition groups had used chemical weapons during the Syrian conflict. This acknowledgment of complexity, critics say, was misrepresented as “casting doubt” on Assad’s actions.
The signatories further allege Gabbard spread Russian propaganda about U.S.-funded labs in Ukraine. In reality, Gabbard’s video cited U.S. government concerns over biological research facilities in Ukraine and the potential misuse of pathogens. Her statement aligned with testimony by then-Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, who confirmed Ukraine housed biological research labs that could pose risks if seized by Russian forces.
Additionally, reports from sources like The Wall Street Journal have corroborated that U.S. funding for these labs aimed to secure dangerous pathogens and prevent their misuse—not develop weapons. Articles have even detailed past U.S. efforts to assist Ukraine in safeguarding biological materials against potential terrorist threats. Articles like these demonstrate the nuances of such international controversies.
Ultimately, critics of the letter argue it prioritizes political attacks over fair assessment, weaponizing half-truths to discredit a political figure known for questioning the status quo.
Copyright 2024, DailyAnswer.org
