US president backs defense secretary who said Ukraine’s Nato membership was not ‘practical’; Tulsi Gabbard sworn in as national intelligence chief. This blog is now closed.
Nope. She got 52 out of 53 Republican votes. If you only listen to left wing media, you probably won’t figure out why the Republicans don’t have issues with her gender and race.
What does the number of votes have to do with her support of a ruthless dictator like Bashar Assad? All that proves is that Republicans are fine with her supporting a horrible ruthless dictator that tortured and murdered countless people. You can make this about her race and gender all you like, but all you’re doing is ignoring the quotes of her saying literal things and support of both him and Russia in that article. Not that I’m surprised that you’re ignoring her actual words that she said. It makes it much easier to defend her if you ignore them. Not honest, but easier.
That stupid claim started with Hillary making the accusation without providing evidence.
Cool. How about the fact that she was very pro-Assad and praising Russia for backing him?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russian-connection-dni-trump-syria-b2692244.html
You can read the literal words she says in that article, but something tells me you won’t.
So if you say something positive about let say Pelosi, then you have ties with Pelosi? What kind of logic is that?
Do you think that maybe being pro-Assad and praising Russia for backing him might make her a poor choice for the role she’s been handed?
Nope. She got 52 out of 53 Republican votes. If you only listen to left wing media, you probably won’t figure out why the Republicans don’t have issues with her gender and race.
What does the number of votes have to do with her support of a ruthless dictator like Bashar Assad? All that proves is that Republicans are fine with her supporting a horrible ruthless dictator that tortured and murdered countless people. You can make this about her race and gender all you like, but all you’re doing is ignoring the quotes of her saying literal things and support of both him and Russia in that article. Not that I’m surprised that you’re ignoring her actual words that she said. It makes it much easier to defend her if you ignore them. Not honest, but easier.
It shows that Republicans are willing to try something new after many decades of failed foreign policies.
The something new being support for ruthless dictators? Is that the sort of new thing you think is good?
The something new being stopping the forever wars.