The scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard's judgment, particularly over her doubts concerning the prevailing narratives of the chemical attacks in Ghouta (2013) and Khan Sheikhoun (2017), invites a deeper contemplation of truth, accountability, and the complex interplay of information and power in wartime. Gabbard's skepticism, rather than a sign of flawed judgment, might be seen as a necessary inquiry into narratives that have significant implications for international policy and the very fabric of truth in public discourse.
The 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was attributed to Assad largely because its chemical signature matched that from the 2013 Ghouta incident. However, the narrative around Ghouta itself is fraught with reasonable doubt; both the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducted inquiries, but as The New York Times reported, these efforts "never led to any accountability and never identified perpetrators by name." Moreover, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that there was no "slam-dunk" evidence against the Assad regime. Despite this lack of definitive evidence, Obama declared, "Assad gotta go!"--and the press ran with it.
The Mockingbird Press often engages in a subtle yet significant tactic when attributing blame, particularly to actors they view unfavorably. They operate under the premise that, despite a lack of concrete evidence, it is reasonable to assume guilt because no other explanation seems plausible. This pattern was notably evident in the coverage of the Syrian chemical attacks, where, in the absence of proof, the narrative was quickly constructed around Assad's culpability, sidelining alternative possibilities or the need for further investigation. This approach overlooks the complexity of the Syrian conflict, where multiple actors, including various opposition groups, have access to chemical weapons. Several separate chemical attacks in Syria have in fact been attributed to these groups, and there is even evidence suggesting that Liwa al-Islam "rebels" might have staged the 2013 Ghouta attack to provoke Western intervention.
The possibility that a terror group might have staged the chemical attack to prompt U.S. military intervention adds another layer of complexity to the narrative, underscoring the need for rigorous scrutiny of such events. During her confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard was questioned about her doubts regarding these specific attacks, and she explained that her skepticism was warranted given the implications for U.S. military response.
Her stance reflects a historical caution, born from her experiences on the battlefield in wars predicated on WMD lies. Her doubt, therefore, is not a sign of poor judgment but of insistence on the integrity of information that shapes policy with far-reaching consequences. In this post-truth era, questioning official narratives is often misconstrued as disloyalty or naivety, yet it should be recognized as essential, especially for gathering and analyzing intelligence pertinent to the safety and security of We, the People... who are increasingly fed up with lies.
I don't know why people are so mad at @TulsiGabbard for being skeptical of the USIC. It's not like they've never lied to us before.
— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 4, 2025
My thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's Dissent... and why We, the People, need it...https://t.co/BcuuRLCrpC
