A letter signed by nearly 100 national security professionals has raised concerns about Tulsi Gabbard's qualifications for the role of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), accusing her of aligning with Russian and Syrian officials.

However, a deeper look into the claims reveals discrepancies, with Gabbard's past positions on these issues emerging as more nuanced than the accusations suggest, as Breitbart reports.

Claims of Alignment with Russia and Syria

In the letter, Gabbard is criticized for her 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The letter claims that Gabbard aligned herself with both Assad and Russian officials during her visit, casting doubt on the U.S. government's narrative surrounding Syria's use of chemical weapons.

Specifically, it alleges that Gabbard gave credibility to conspiracy theories, including one that the 2017 chemical attack in Syria was staged by the United Kingdom.

Gabbard has consistently rejected this characterization. In an April 7, 2017 CNN interview, she stated that the issue was "irrelevant" to her, emphasizing that her focus was on ensuring that all actions were based on evidence. She made clear that if Assad were proven responsible for chemical attacks, she would be the first to denounce him. "What matters here is the evidence and the facts," Gabbard said during the interview. "If President Assad is found to be responsible after an independent investigation, I’ll be the first one to denounce him."

Misleading Interpretations and Political Contexts

The letter also referenced Gabbard's 2017 statements suggesting that both the Syrian government and opposition groups had used chemical weapons during the ongoing civil war. However, Gabbard’s actual position has always called for more scrutiny of the evidence before making any conclusions about military action.

The letter continued by accusing Gabbard of promoting a video in which she allegedly implied that U.S.-funded labs in Ukraine were developing biological weapons. In her video, however, Gabbard did not directly claim that these labs were used for such purposes. Instead, she referred to U.S. government statements that acknowledged the existence of biological research labs in Ukraine, which were concerned with research on pathogens.

Victoria Nuland, U.S. undersecretary of State, confirmed in March 2022 that Ukraine had biological research facilities, which the U.S. was concerned could fall under Russian control. This acknowledgment by a senior U.S. official gives additional context to Gabbard’s video, which did not claim that these labs were producing biological weapons, but instead referenced the government’s own assessments of the research taking place.

Condemnations of Assad and Putin

The letter's authors also criticized Gabbard for her alleged sympathies toward dictatorial regimes, citing her previous praise for the Russian government. Yet, Gabbard has publicly condemned both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Gabbard has referred to Assad as a “brutal dictator” and has denounced Putin’s actions on multiple occasions. In a post from April 2022, she called Putin's invasion of Ukraine a "huge geopolitical error."

Additionally, in February 2022, Gabbard visited Ukraine, where she expressed concern for the safety of Ukrainians and called for serious negotiations to end the war. This demonstrates her concern for the region’s future and her commitment to peace, despite her critics’ claims of alignment with authoritarian leaders.

Debate Over Qualifications for DNI

One of the most significant points of contention in the letter was the claim that Gabbard was the "least experienced Director of National Intelligence" due to her lack of intelligence experience. The letter compared her qualifications to those of previous DNI directors, noting their extensive backgrounds in intelligence and national security.

In defense of Gabbard’s qualifications, retired Air Force General Dan Leaf, in an op-ed for the Washington Times, argued that Gabbard's military service, including combat deployments, and her time on the House Armed Services Committee made her more than qualified for the role. He pointed out that current DNI Avril Haines, who holds degrees in physics and law, had no direct intelligence experience prior to her appointment.

Gabbard’s Military Experience and Congressional Record

Gabbard has served in the U.S. Army National Guard since 2003, including two deployments to the Middle East. Her time on the House Armed Services Committee, where she was involved in discussions about defense policy and national security, has given her experience in the areas of military strategy and intelligence oversight.

While her critics continue to question her experience, Gabbard’s supporters argue that her practical, real-world experience in the military and her time in Congress give her a unique perspective on national security issues—one that is grounded in actual conflict, rather than theoretical policy.

Reactions to Letter and Political Implications

The publication of the letter has sparked political debates, with some accusing the national security professionals of engaging in partisan attacks against Gabbard, who has often criticized U.S. foreign interventions. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, has positioned herself as an anti-interventionist, which has often put her at odds with the foreign policy establishment.

Despite the criticisms, Gabbard has maintained that her focus remains on bringing more accountability to U.S. foreign policy decisions, particularly in the Middle East, and ensuring that American military actions are always based on solid evidence and clear national security interests.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, the letter calling into question Tulsi Gabbard’s potential as Director of National Intelligence paints a complex picture of a political figure whose views on foreign policy often diverge from those of the mainstream. While some see her stance on international issues as a sign of much-needed independence, others view her positions as dangerously aligned with foreign adversaries.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that Gabbard remains a polarizing figure -- one whose qualifications for higher office will continue to be a topic of debate.