For some, suspicions of Rep. Gabbard stretch back to when Russia first intervened in Syria. The Russians claimed to be targeting ISIS but stirred protests when they bombed anti-Assad rebel areas with no known ISIS presence. Gabbard had a different take. nytimes.com/2015/10/01/wor… 
A @joshrogin piece from when Donald Trump was considering appointing Congresswoman Gabbard as UN ambassador contextualizes this tweet with a lot of other evidence washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogi…
Congresswoman Gabbard’s early defense of the Russian intervention contradicted news reports that Russia was targeting anti-Assad rebels and civilian areas. As the war went and civilian casualties mounted, it became evident Gabbard’s defense of Russia’s bombing was false.
It was in the context of this false advocacy for a brutal Russian military campaign, and at the height of revelations about a Russian attack on US elections, that Gabbard courted Trump for the UN job and secretly met with Assad in Syria after the 2016 election.
And during that post-election period, it was also notable that outlets linked to the Russian govt were pushing out positive reports about Congresswoman Gabbard.
A pattern that continues to this day nbcnews.com/politics/2020-…
The thing that’s most striking to me about it all isn’t the potential for endlessly debatable foreign entanglements. It’s that Tulsi Gabbard isn’t anti-war.
