But if people start questioning why her answer to this should constitute a
"litmus test", perhaps her "flub" will turn out to have
done the American public a great favor.
She will have exposed these Republican and Democratic senators to be phonies, advancing a false narrative apparently aimed at deceiving the public. Perhaps it is they who are the traitors. They are not being true to their responsibility to provide honest "advice and consent" on the nomination of Gabbard for director of national intelligence.
The real question here is why are so many senators asking the same question about Snowden. Who told them to ask it? Who is coordinating this assault on Gabbard's pending nomination?
Why have Democrats and Republicans united against Gabbard to vilify her on the Snowden nonissue? How do they both benefit from that?
I'll tell you what I suspect. It's no secret that many politicians benefit in some way by protecting our defense industry and nurturing its growth by supporting a state of perpetual war.
Perhaps the benefit for senators comes in the form of defense contractor campaign contributions or travel opportunities. Or is a senator's state's economy bolstered by the presence of military installations and defense industry factories? Do constituents credit their senators for bringing the related jobs and spending to their states? It's hard to deny that possibility.
The foregoing intersects with Gabbard's nomination in one simple way. She is opposed to the proliferation of kinetic wars that are in some way pursued by theUnited States
Gabbard, a military officer herself, does not shy from maintaining a strong military defense capability. But involving ourselves in wars not directly connected to our own national interests is a different story and one she has spoken out strongly against.
It seems to me it's high time to scrutinize the Republican and Democratic senators who are asking the Snowden question.
They appear to be trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes to benefit themselves, not the country.
They would seem to be the real traitors here.
She will have exposed these Republican and Democratic senators to be phonies, advancing a false narrative apparently aimed at deceiving the public. Perhaps it is they who are the traitors. They are not being true to their responsibility to provide honest "advice and consent" on the nomination of Gabbard for director of national intelligence.
The real question here is why are so many senators asking the same question about Snowden. Who told them to ask it? Who is coordinating this assault on Gabbard's pending nomination?
Why have Democrats and Republicans united against Gabbard to vilify her on the Snowden nonissue? How do they both benefit from that?
I'll tell you what I suspect. It's no secret that many politicians benefit in some way by protecting our defense industry and nurturing its growth by supporting a state of perpetual war.
Perhaps the benefit for senators comes in the form of defense contractor campaign contributions or travel opportunities. Or is a senator's state's economy bolstered by the presence of military installations and defense industry factories? Do constituents credit their senators for bringing the related jobs and spending to their states? It's hard to deny that possibility.
The foregoing intersects with Gabbard's nomination in one simple way. She is opposed to the proliferation of kinetic wars that are in some way pursued by the
Gabbard, a military officer herself, does not shy from maintaining a strong military defense capability. But involving ourselves in wars not directly connected to our own national interests is a different story and one she has spoken out strongly against.
It seems to me it's high time to scrutinize the Republican and Democratic senators who are asking the Snowden question.
They appear to be trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes to benefit themselves, not the country.
They would seem to be the real traitors here.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
