r/tuesday • u/Emperor-Commodus Right Visitor • Nov 14 '24
Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/11/tulsi-gabbard-nomination-security/680649/70
u/upvotechemistry Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
This is what Trump ran on explicitly. Did GOP pols all think it was just a joke?
If any one of them finds their spines on these insane nominations, Trump will quickly yank them back out and add them back to his collection. Until the GOP shows me something else, I'm resigned to believing they will do absolutely nothing to rein in Trump. If liberal democracy holds, it will be due to Trump's own whims, not GOP opposition
16
u/The_Amish_FBI Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
Did GOP pols all think it was just a joke?
I mean, yeah. That’s been the theme, not just from the Right but Independents as well, since 2016 is the confidence that Trump won’t actually do the things he says he’s going to do.
I know the quote “What’s the harm in indulging him?” was from an anonymous source, but it feels like it sums up the response to Trump so well.
18
u/nauticalsandwich Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
The electorate doesn't pay attention to shit. People voted for Trump because "inflation bad, immigration bad, trans bad." That's all we keep hearing. None of these things were under consideration for most voters. Most voters don't even know the first thing about any of these people.
8
u/upvotechemistry Right Visitor Nov 15 '24
Unfortunately, they pay attention to their phones, TikTok, and agitprop from every corner of the world on social media. We all do it - it's tearing apart society
3
u/duke_awapuhi Left Visitor Nov 15 '24
Trump basically ran on “me make economy fix big time” and it worked
7
u/duke_awapuhi Left Visitor Nov 15 '24
I think they’re going to go against Trump at least on the Gaetz nomination. If they decide not to allow recess appointments for Trump because they want to actually go through the confirmation process for Gaetz, then Trump is going to be pissed and he’s going to wage war against senate republicans, especially their leadership. Thune will be targeted by Trump on social media and will be presented as public enemy number one
3
u/upvotechemistry Right Visitor Nov 16 '24
Yep, I pretty much agree. Gaetz is a bad coworker on a personal level, and you don't want a complete toadie leading DOJ. This would be a good place for them to try to stand for the process. Plus, people in Congress just hate Gaetz at a personal level.
But man... I guess I'm kind of excited for Bergum... and eh, Marco is steady, maybe
2
u/duke_awapuhi Left Visitor Nov 16 '24
I wouldn’t say I’m excited for Burgum, but I do think he’s the logical choice for dept of interior. At least Trump is making the “correct” choices in some cases. But the “incorrect” choices are really out there. Will be interesting to see how the power balance between Trump and senate ends up working. The senate is more traditional and operates very differently than Trump
59
u/mywifemademedothis2 Centre-right Nov 14 '24
Installing political hacks at every important post is certainly a choice.
1
Nov 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 15 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
76
u/dnkedgelord9000 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
Being an apologist for Bashar Al-Assad, a monster who gases his own citizens including children, should be disqualifying for dogcatcher let alone a high level national security official.
-10
u/BawdyNBankrupt Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
Considering the opposition are head chopping jihadists, I say we treat Assad the same way we treat the Saudis (who are also head chopping jihadis).
31
u/dnkedgelord9000 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
The opposition is so broad that it includes Kurdish independence fighters, pro-democracy fighters, and actual terrorists. This doesn't mean that Assad is better than a plausible alternative. Do your research before you make comments on foreign policy please.
-6
u/BawdyNBankrupt Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
Kurdish independence fighters
Only care about Kurdistan
pro-democracy fighters
A tiny minority even when they still existed
actual terrorists
The vast majority
Like it or lump it, a Syria without Assad was never going to be anything but another Libya, begging for their strongman back.
1
Nov 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
1
Nov 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/rcglinsk Centre-right Nov 15 '24
It's a violation of the laws of war to use tear or other riot gas to flush soldiers out of bunkers or trenches. But It is not central to the notion of war crimes. The Syrian army, the Ukrainian army, and the Russian army, have all been using the tactic in recent wars. During the US occupation of Iraq, our army used the tactic in at least a handful of battles, though regular use I don't think is documented (see the white phosphorous controversy).
As such, it doesn't make sense to offer the observation with the moral weight you're giving it.
5
u/Individual_Bridge_88 Left Visitor Nov 16 '24 edited Nov 16 '24
Assad didn't just use tear or riot gas in a military context. He used Sarin gas (a neurotoxin) on civilians multiple times (see below). The fact that you're lumping Sarin gas in with police crowd-control measures is incredibly discrediting.
The Ghouta chemical attack was a chemical attack carried out by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in the early hours of 21 August 2013 in Ghouta, Syria during the Syrian civil war.[17] Two opposition-controlled areas in the suburbs around Damascus were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin.[16] Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people[3] to 1,729.[15] The attack was the deadliest use of chemical weapons since the Iran–Iraq War.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack
The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack took place on 4 April 2017 on the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib Governorate of Syria.[6] The town was reported to have been struck by an airstrike by government forces followed by massive civilian chemical poisoning.[5][7] The release of a toxic gas, which included sarin, or a similar substance,[8] killed at least 89 people and injured more than 541
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack
This is what Sarin gas does to the human body:
Sarin (NATO designation GB [short for G-series, "B"]) is an extremely toxic organophosphorus compound.[4] A colourless, odourless liquid, it is used as a chemical weapon due to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. Exposure can be lethal even at very low concentrations, where death can occur within one to ten minutes after direct inhalation of a lethal dose,[5][6] due to suffocation from respiratory paralysis, unless antidotes are quickly administered.[4] People who absorb a non-lethal dose and do not receive immediate medical treatment may suffer permanent neurological damage
-1
u/rcglinsk Centre-right Nov 17 '24
They Syrians still maintain they were framed in Ghouta. But whatever, they dismantled and destroyed all their chemical weapons. Afterwards the allegations don't match any potential reasoning, no matter how vile the people involved.
This is how the OPCW describes the people treated at Ltamenah Hospital after the chemical weapons attack on farmland south of the city.
All casualties are reported to have presented with shortness of breath, miosis, cough, oral hypersecretion, and perceived agitation. There were no reported skin, pulmonary, or vital sign abnormalities. All cases are described as being mild presentations and patients were discharged within 24 hours.
The casualties were sleeping in caves around the farmland. The OPCW did not collect any forensic evidence directly, and it's hard to tell from their report who did. The soil samples, etc., tested positive for Sarin and chemical byproducts of its manufacture.
Obviously making Sarin is trivial for any nation state (the chemical was first synthesized in 1937, unsettling as it may be, better part of a century later, it's not hard). But I just can't imagine what they had against that farmland and why it was worth making the banned and ridiculously hated chemical.
3
u/Individual_Bridge_88 Left Visitor Nov 17 '24 edited Nov 18 '24
This is the original statement you were trying to reframe:
Being an apologist for Bashar Al-Assad, a monster who gases his own citizens including children, should be disqualifying for dogcatcher let alone a high level national security official.
The Syrians subsequently dismantling their Sarin gas/chemical weapons program doesnt change the fact that they did, in fact, gas their civilians with a potent neurotoxin. Since Tulsi Gabbard is an apologist for the Assad regime, the original statement is still 100% accurate. It's unconscionable to defend this regime because they used these chemical weapons at all, no matter their subsequent actions.
0
u/rcglinsk Centre-right Nov 18 '24
I can buy Maher Al-Assad being a monster. Bashar is an ophthalmologist. And I'm not apologizing for attacking farmland with sarin, I'm saying I don't think it's worth so much emotion.
Does your term "defending" include any opposition to continued support for the antigovernmental side of the civil war? Sentiment like "The Assad family has ruled Syria for the better part of a century, almost no one in America even knew the name for four fifths of it, and rightly so because it doesn't matter." Disqualifying for national security office?
25
u/nosecohn Libertarian Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
The author didn't mention two other big reasons she's a national security risk:
- The DNI coordinates with foreign intelligence services to integrate and analyze data. Even if Gabbard gets confirmed by a Republican Senate, how many foreign allies are going to feel comfortable sharing intelligence with the US if they even suspect it'll end up mishandled? Intelligence is a trust business.
- The DNI prepares the President's Daily Brief. You want that person to be as free of bias as possible, so as not to elevate or diminish particular threats to the nation in what they communicate to the president.
If there's a brewing threat to national security, we could very well be in a situation where our allies don't feel comfortable informing us and/or the president is not properly advised of it.
There are plenty of experienced former spooks who could do the job and even be loyal to Trump in the process. The choice of Gabbard is a head-scratcher.
11
u/NonComposMentisss Left Visitor Nov 15 '24
Tulsi Gabbard has a high chance of flat out burning our intelligence operatives in Russia.
The choice of Gabbard is a head-scratcher.
I will never understand people being confused or surprised at the things Trump does. It's pretty simple.
Trump is self-serving to the extreme.
Trump has no sense of morality.
Trump is really stupid.
When you understand all that, all his actions make perfect sense. Tulsi goes on TV and presents well. That to Trump is more important than anything else.
15
u/WheresSmokey Christian Democrat Nov 14 '24
Is this article only a couple of paragraphs or is the rest of this article paywalled and I’m just a pleb?
36
u/Emperor-Commodus Right Visitor Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
Sorry, I forgot it was paywalled. Here's the text:
President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Representative Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after 9/11 to remedy what American policy makers believed was a lack of coordination among the various national-intelligence agencies, and the DNI sits atop all of America’s intelligence services, including the CIA.
Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post (as are some of Trump’s other picks), but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. (She is a reserve lieutenant colonel who previously served in the Hawaii Army National Guard, with assignments in medical, police, and civil-affairs-support positions. She has won some local elections and also represented Hawaii in Congress.) She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.
But leave aside for the moment that she is manifestly unprepared to run any kind of agency. Americans usually accept that presidents reward loyalists with jobs, and Trump has the right to stash Gabbard at some make-work office in the bureaucracy if he feels he owes her. It’s not a pretty tradition, but it’s not unprecedented, either.
To make Tulsi Gabbard the DNI, however, is not merely handing a bouquet to a political gadfly. Her appointment would be a threat to the security of the United States.
Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, attempting to position herself as something like a peace candidate. But she’s no peacemaker: She’s been an apologist for both the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her politics, which are otherwise incoherent, tend to be sympathetic to these two strongmen, painting America as the problem and the dictators as misunderstood. Hawaii voters have long been perplexed by the way she’s positioned herself politically. But Gabbard is a classic case of “horseshoe” politics: Her views can seem both extremely left and extremely right, which is probably why people such as Tucker Carlson—a conservative who has turned into … whatever pro-Russia right-wingers are called now—have taken a liking to the former Democrat (who was previously a Republican and is now again a member of the GOP).
In early 2017, while still a member of Congress, Gabbard met with Assad, saying that peace in Syria was only possible if the international community would have a conversation with him. “Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country,” Gabbard said, after chatting with a man who had stopped the Syrian people from determining their own future by using chemical weapons on them. Two years later, she added that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States, because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,” and that her critics were merely “warmongers.”
Gabbard’s shilling for Assad is a mystery, but she’s even more dedicated to carrying Putin’s water. Tom Rogan, a conservative writer and hardly a liberal handwringer, summed up her record succinctly in the Washington Examiner today:
She has blamed NATO and the U.S. for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (again, to the celebration of both Russian and Chinese state media), has repeated Russian propaganda claims that the U.S. has set up secret bioweapons labs in that country, and has argued that the U.S. not Russia is wholly responsible for Putin’s nuclear brinkmanship.
When she appeared on Sean Hannity’s show in 2022, even Hannity blanched at Gabbard floating off in a haze of Kremlin talking points and cheerleading for Russia. When Hannity is trying to shepherd you back toward the air lock before your oxygen runs out, you’ve gone pretty far out there.
A person with Gabbard’s views should not be allowed anywhere near the crown jewels of American intelligence. I have no idea why Trump nominated Gabbard; she’s been a supporter, but she hasn’t been central to his campaign, and he owes her very little. For someone as grubbily transactional as Trump, it’s not an appointment that makes much sense. It’s possible that Trump hates the intelligence community—which he blames for many of his first-term troubles—so much that Gabbard is his revenge. Or maybe he just likes the way she handles herself on television.
But Trump could also be engaging in a ploy to bring in someone else. He may suspect that Gabbard is unconfirmable by the Senate. Once she’s turfed, he could then slide in an even more appalling nominee and claim that he has no choice but to use a recess appointment as a backstop. (Hard to imagine who might be worse as DNI than Gabbard, but remember that Trump has promised at various times to bring retired General Mike Flynn back into government. Flynn is a decorated veteran who was fired from Trump’s White House in a scandal about lying to the FBI; he is now a conspiracist who is fully on board with Trump’s desire for revenge on his enemies.
Gabbard has every right to her personal views, however inscrutable they may be. As a private citizen, she can apologize for Assad and Putin to her heart’s content. But as a security risk, Gabbard is a walking Christmas tree of warning lights. If she is nominated to be America’s top intelligence officer, that’s everyone’s business.
Last spring, I described how U.S.-government employees with clearances are trained every year to spot “insider threats,” people who might for various reasons compromise classified information. Trump’s open and continuing affection for Putin and other dictators, I said, would be a matter of concern for any security organization. Gabbard’s behavior and her admiration for dictators are no less causes for worry—especially because she would be at the apex of the entire American intelligence community.
Presidents should be given deference in staffing their Cabinet. But this nomination should be one of the handful of Trump appointments where soon-to-be Majority Leader John Thune and his Republican colleagues draw a hard line and say no—at least if they still care at all about exercising the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent.
Here is the Hannity interview that the article references, where she's so clearly delivering the Kremlin's narrative on their invasion of Ukraine that Hannity interrupts her several times to push back.
1
Nov 16 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/rcglinsk Centre-right Nov 15 '24
Did the article cut off because I don't have an Atlantic subscription? It ends like this for me:
To make Tulsi Gabbard the DNI, however, is not merely handing a bouquet to a political gadfly. Her appointment would be a threat to the security of the United States.
I'm figuring this is a problem on my end and that Tom Nichols didn't simply call her an ass hat and move along without detail.
2
u/Emperor-Commodus Right Visitor Nov 16 '24
It is paywalled, I posted the whole text in another comment
2
1
Nov 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nov 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nov 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nov 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 15 '24
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-40
u/timk85 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
All you have to do is look at the author's name, click his name, and look at the other articles he has written in the last 12 months.
The Atlantic might as well be MSNBC with a corduroy sports coat at this point.
His arguments are weak. "She has no management experience." Yet, in literally the same paragraph, he points out to how she received Lt. Col. position in the guard and served in Congress. Huh? You going to go tell a bunch of colonels in the military they have no experience managing things?
Why even bring this drivel here?
29
u/SullaFelix78 Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
The author barely touches on her lack of relevant managerial experience—did you not read the whole thing? His main argument is that she shills for Assad and Putin, and why someone like that should not be handed the reigns of the intelligence community.
-12
u/timk85 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything
This is in one of his opening paragraphs setting up his whole argument. If he's incorrect here, it stands to reason he would be incorrect elsewhere.
His list of articles tells you everything you need to know about his biases.
19
u/SullaFelix78 Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
’It stands to reason he would be incorrect elsewhere’ is such a lazy line of reasoning. By this standard, are we supposed to dismiss the entire theory of relativity because Einstein couldn’t accept aspects of quantum mechanics? I mean it must stand to reason, right?
Even if we concede that the author’s take on Gabbard’s management experience is debatable (and that’s being generous), it doesn’t suddenly invalidate the far more significant and well documented points in the article about her pro-Assad and pro-Putin stances, or why those views might make her dangerous as DNI. The author isn’t exactly debating contested facts—her pro-Assad and pro-Putin views are a matter of public record, and she’s openly repeated Kremlin talking points (there’s literally a clip of her on Hannity where even he can’t stomach it, which the OP has kindly linked in his comment).
This tactic—finding one perceived flaw and using it as a pretext to dismiss everything else—is such a transparent dodge. The article’s main argument is about her political positions and foreign sympathies, not her resume. The author’s past articles and supposed biases are irrelevant to assessing Gabbard’s own record on Syria and Russia.
19
u/SeasickSeal Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
Why are you ignoring the bigger issue (that the author spends far more than a throwaway line on) that she’s an apologist for Assad and Putin?
-10
u/timk85 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
Because I think that's a silly conspiracy theory put forth by people with an axe to grind.
Again, a great journalist wouldn't have such a blatant obvious hit-list of articles like this guy has. He has an axe to grind. He's not trying to be fair, objective, or seek a greater truth – he's pushing a narrative he has already adopted. It's pretty obvious.
10
u/SeasickSeal Left Visitor Nov 14 '24
Because I think that’s a silly conspiracy theory put forth by people with an axe to grind.
Do you know what an apologist is? It’s someone who defends controversial things. I repeat: she’s an apologist for Putin and Assad. She literally says these things on live television. That’s not a conspiracy theory lol.
-1
u/timk85 Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
I apologize, I'm just used to Redditors using the whole 'apologist'-thing as basically their gateway into saying she's a Russian puppet. I assure you, it's aross Reddit people are suggesting she quite literally works for Putin.
For the record: I think objective and nuanced thinkers can sympathize with literally any human in existence, this doesn't mean them actual apologists.
An apologist is C.S. Lewis for Christianity. He spent his life defending and writing about Christianity. That's an apologist.
36
u/Emperor-Commodus Right Visitor Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
As for her qualifications, compare her to Biden's ODNI, Avril Haines, a lawyer who's been working in the State department and then CIA for the last 20 years. Or Trump's own Gina Haspel, who had been a CIA ghoul for over 30 years before being nominated.
Ultimately, it's Gabbard's more recent history that is the issue. She's spent the last 6 years giving interviews where she says the US should be cozying up to authoritarian leaders who are not aligned with us or our allies. She's not an intelligence officer, she's never been involved in intelligence, and all indications are that her views are out of step with the intelligence community.
The author does not try to hide his status as a Never-Trump conservative. But he looks pretty qualified from his work history. Especially on issues concerning Russia.
27
u/TychoTiberius Right Visitor Nov 14 '24
I'm less concerned about her experience and a lot more concerned about how she constantly bends over backwards to praise people like Assad and other enemies of the US while spreading ridiculous lies about American allies. She's so soft on Iran that she didn't think the US should have gone after Soleimani in any way whatsoever.
She's also a gun grabber and was in a cult. She shouldn't be in any position of power.
3
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative Nov 15 '24
You going to go tell a bunch of colonels in the military they have no experience managing things?
Based on some of her hot takes about Russia, yes, I'm going to question her experience. Clearly she has none if she thinks Russia is a friend.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 14 '24
Just a friendly reminder to read our rules and FAQ before posting!
Rule 1: No Low Quality Posts/Comments
Rule 2: Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
Rule 3: Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on our Flairs.
Rule 4: Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.