Mitt Romney skipped Vietnam and all other military service. Romney has five sons, none of whom served (he said in 2012: they served their country by "helping me get elected").
He's here to say Iraq War veteran and Army Lt. Col. @TulsiGabbard is a traitor, maybe a Russian agent.
I haven't seen treason accusations tossed around this casually and recklessly since 2002, when @DavidFrum was writing Bush's speeches. Beyond all the other reasons Romney's innuendo is so rancid, "treason" has a very narrow definition. This isn't close:
Romney has basically made a speciality out of his life: urging US wars while demanding that other people's less wealthy Americans families go fight and die in them: never him or his sons.
On the left: @MittRomney, posing for a pictorial representation of his life and the values that define it.
On the right: @TulsiGabbard in a photo representation of her life values.
Only in rotted DC would the former be cheered for recklessly accusing the latter of "treason."
Treason is one of the gravest crimes an American can commit, if not the gravest: a capital offense. If @MittRomney really believes Tulsi is guilty of "treason," why isn't he denouncing the Biden DOJ for not prosecuting her for it?
That's what one would do if one believed that.
I think the only thing worse than publicly and recklessly accusing a person of being guilty of "treason" is branding them with that accusation when you don't even believe it's true. Regarding Tulsi, Romney did one or the other. His actions suggest the latter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These people are complete authoritarians and have been for a long time.
Just like the people who most loudly claim to combat disinformation spread it the most, those who claim that they're on the front lines fighting fascism are the ones who resort most to its defining tactics:
I spoke today to @ryangrim, @robbysoave and @KimIversenShow on "Rising" about the Ukraine debate. We discussed Romney's repugnant "treason" accusations against Tulsi, diplomatic ways to end the war, and more. Discussions outside social media are vital:
As we discussed, @TulsiGabbard didn't say *anything* that the US Govt. itself didn't say. She didn't say there were bio *weapons* in Ukraine. She warned there were unsecured dangerous pathogens there: what the US and its media loyalists say. 👇
That Mitt Romney -- who avoided Vietnam and then had his 5 sons avoid military service -- can descend into the sewer to accuse Lt. Col. Gabbard of ***treason*** shows how sick and repressive US liberal discourse is now. She's been accused of being a Kremlin agent for years.
More arguments for why Hitler, whatever his faults, wasn't as bad as Putin.
I guess it's the logical conclusion to the neo-Nazi apologia we've been subjected to for weeks: celebrating actual neo-Nazi milita members (@IAPonomarenko), arming those militias, FB allowing praise.
This Facebook "exemption" from their normal rules about not allowing praise for Nazism is even more amazing than their announced decision to make an exception to their ban on advocating violence: as long as it's against Russians:
"Piling up the arguments, Putin appears far worse than Hitler"
From affection for Azov Battalion to the conversion of brother-in-arm @IAPonomarenko into a celebrity, I don't recall a whitewashing of Nazism this explicit or mainstream in my life.
Beyond the banal but sleazy corruption, Burisma's payments to Hunter Biden reveal who elites in Ukraine recognize wield the real power in their country. They didn't pay the son of a Ukrainian official, but Joe Biden's son. So of course CNN bans any guest from mentioning this:👇
I cannot recommend highly enough the 2015 Oliver Stone doc on the history of Ukraine and the 2014 regime change to a more pro-US/EU government. After Rumble uploaded the film following Google's removal from the producer's page, it's been viewed 500k times
As @SusanSarandon says, what is Google so afraid of with this film? Suddenly, after *6 years,* it decides the film contains footage "too graphic" to allow? Numerous films/reports on Ukraine aligned with the US/NATO view are just as graphic, yet remain:
We don't know if biological weapons are in Ukraine. We do know there are dangerous "biological research facilities" there: which we know because Victoria Nuland, shocking Rubio, warned about.
But the history of US programs gives the lie to WH denials about bioweapons in general.
It's been amazing to watch the entire US corporate media -- from the NYT to certain Pentagon reporters on Fox -- unite to *proclaim* that concerns about bio weapons labs in Ukraine are *false.* They 100% *do not know that*: they only CIA/DoD denies it.