Some observers are hoping that Tulsi Gabbard, as Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, will be a counterweight to warmongering “neocons” in his administration. But a sober look at her record doesn’t inspire much confidence.
As a non american observer I find this article written by a hater more than by someone who really wants to discuss the pros and cons. The writter is visibly pissed off by the host inviting Tulsi as a promised ‘leftist’, when of course she is more a right-winger.
Politicians standing by nothing are really common, but picking as the starting subjects unions and health care to criticize the military intelligence chief is not a credible start.
Even the first argument related to war, that she criticized Obama’s hunt for specific terrorists like Al-Qaeda or ISIS can be completely based. There always seemed to be a small base or Al-Qaeda group located in Yemen’s several bombing targets, when we all today know it was an excuse to bomb yemeni dissident factions.
Not that I have great expectations for her or the coming american gvt at all, but still gotta be factual.
As a non american observer I find this article written by a hater more than by someone who really wants to discuss the pros and cons. The writter is visibly pissed off by the host inviting Tulsi as a promised ‘leftist’, when of course she is more a right-winger.
Politicians standing by nothing are really common, but picking as the starting subjects unions and health care to criticize the military intelligence chief is not a credible start.
Even the first argument related to war, that she criticized Obama’s hunt for specific terrorists like Al-Qaeda or ISIS can be completely based. There always seemed to be a small base or Al-Qaeda group located in Yemen’s several bombing targets, when we all today know it was an excuse to bomb yemeni dissident factions.
Not that I have great expectations for her or the coming american gvt at all, but still gotta be factual.