Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Condemns Trump Administration’s Protection of al-Qaeda in Syria

Washington, DC – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today (Sept. 13) spoke on the House floor, calling on Congress to condemn the Trump Administration’s protection of al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said:

“Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.

“This is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 and their families, first responders, and my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action and their families. For the President, who is Commander in Chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned by every Member of Congress.”

Background:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a leading voice for peace in Congress, advocating against counterproductive, regime-change wars. She has called for President Trump to work towards peace in Syria, and uphold the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution by obtaining the required authorization from Congress before ordering a military attack against Syria.

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Walter Jones introduced H.Res 922, the No More Presidential Wars Resolution, that would reclaim Congress’s war powers authorities by:

  • Defining presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”
  • Prohibiting the President from perpetuating ongoing wars or supplying war materials, military troops, trainers, or advisers, military intelligence, financial support or their equivalent in association, cooperation, assistance, or common cause without first receiving congressional authorization

Earlier this year, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard questioned Secretary of Defense James Mattis on President Trump’s lack of authority to attack Syria without Congressional authorization. To date, Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States, and Congress has not authorized the use of force or declared war against the Syrian Government. Watch the full video here.

Media Contact: Lauren McIlvaine, (202) 713-6040

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a leading voice for peace in Congress, advocating against counterproductive, regime-change wars, and standing up for Congressional authorization before military action. Most recently, she joined a bipartisan coalition of 88 Members of Congress urging President Trump to consult and receive authorization from Congress prior to ordering the use of US military force against Syria. She has also advocated for ending the regime change war in Syria and condemned US support of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen civil war.

21 thoughts on “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Condemns Trump Administration’s Protection of al-Qaeda in Syria”

    1. The Dems have no one to run in 2020. Bernie is a weak fraud – and old. Ocasio is a sellout. Biden is a “moderate” fool.

      Tulsi needs to run.

      1. Yes, the prospective 2020 Democratic field does look pretty weak. I’m not sure why you think she needs to run, though. She might be able to carry her own home state in the Democratic primary. Maybe. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Her two challengers in her congressional primary spent less than $2,000 between them (compared to her $2.2 million) and managed to take more than 16% of the vote.

        1. She couldn’t, hypothetically, pull a Trump by getting the media to condemn her for taking unorthodox positions? I suppose Kucinich would be better, but he’s perhaps even less of a lightning rod.

          She was also right on TPP. And she could perhaps adjust on immigration if the economy is finally tanking by 2020.

          1. I haven’t researched her a LOT, but I don’t see much “unorthodox” about her positions other than her somewhat troubling alignment with Modi’s regime in India. She’s been right about Syria. But of course Trump was right about Syria until he got a chance to do something about it, and then shit the bed instead.

            It might get interesting if she was willing to become a pro-immigration-freedom candidate by 2020 in response to Trumpism tanking the economy, but that seems unlikely.

        2. I have read a lot of great articles about this women . She often expounds my position on the war in Syria . Which sounded a lot like the position Trump said he supported before he was elected . I have been recommending Tulsi for sometime . But it would be fun to know the positions of the party that donated the two million dollars for her to run for office .

        1. Yeah, she’s anti-Israel. That’s why she speaks at AEI events and gets her picture taken with Rabbi Shmuley and Sheldon Adelson’s wife while receiving awards at the Jewish Values Gala, etc.

          She seems to have an Obama-like quality in terms of people fantasizing that she is whatever they want her to be.

          1. Just stopping all these wars might make a big difference . I suppose you are going to tell me she got the 2 million from the Jews

        2. They’re changing the delegate system. I don’t know whether the “change” is even significant, but it sounds significant.

          Quote: “Superdelegates will now be allowed to vote on the first ballot at a national convention only if a candidate earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination, anyway.”

          https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/25/superdelegates-democrats-presidential-nominee-796151

          Tulsi is so revolutionary that she could actually harm Trump more than would Bernie, though I expect Trump would still win.

          But what do I know? Maybe Tulsi being unknown is significant. Duncan Hunter won only 2% of the vote in 2008, ran on a similar platform as Trump. Hunter was unknown, and his positions weren’t heard, I suppose.

          Trump, however, was constantly condemned, which gave him advertising. And a solid core of us supported him; the Internet has come to be more significant. In this new environment, maybe Tulsi could excel.

          1. I think your premise is wrong. Trump didnt win because he was attacked by the media , he won because people like his policies, (the wall etc etc) despite the media attacks he still won.

          2. I agree with you partially. But Trump was heard. Duncan Hunter was not. Hunter ran on very similar positions to Trump. Someone here told me Hunter actually opposed the Iraq War or was critical of it.

            My point is just that Tulsi could try to figure what Trump did correctly.

            The media attacking Trump to some extent helped him, to some extent greatly harmed him. It got some of his ideas and arguments out, but it also tarred him with false accusations.

        3. She was a strong Bernie supporter which might hurt her with many conservative republicans . As far as free education and public health care . That could be easily done by just allowing a little more free enterprise and controlling a couple of monopolies .

      1. He is meddling far too much. I fear he enjoys the Great Game as Putin is said to enjoy.

        Trump has at least been much better than the alternatives. I just couldn’t care less what goes on in Venezuela for example. We could have friendly relations even now, without meddling. But DC won’t understand that.

Comments are closed.