The disclosure of Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Bashar Al Assad during her 2017 visit to Syria has reignited debates about her prospects in a national intelligence role.
The New Republic reported that efforts to manage the narrative around Tulsi Gabbard's 2017 engagement with Assad unveil major itinerary inconsistencies, sparking worries among officials.
During a trip to Syria in January 2017, Tulsi Gabbard, a former U.S. Representative, engaged in discussions with Bashar Al Assad, the country's then-president.
This visit has come under scrutiny, not for its occurrence, but for the circumstances surrounding it. Gabbard's official itinerary, as submitted to the Ethics Committee, omitted these controversial meetings.
According to recent revelations, Gabbard's team was caught off guard by the meeting with Assad. The Washington Post's examination of internal correspondence indicates that the staffers had been unaware of these developments. The lack of communication extended to the details of the itinerary itself.
Four assistants expressed surprise at learning about the meeting ex post facto. One, puzzled by the difficulty in obtaining a clear itinerary, recalled the challenges of information flow from Gabbard's camp. This unexpected turn of events has fueled speculations and concern.
On January 16, 2017, a particular meeting with Assad was scheduled for the early afternoon. Beginning at 12:15 p.m., it was followed by an encounter with Assad's spouse at 3 p.m. However, these timeline entries raised more questions than answers.
Reportedly, Congress was informed that Gabbard’s session with Assad was restricted to an hour and a half. Yet, a closer examination revealed that her relations seemed to extend around three hours. Such discrepancies have intensified skepticism about what transpired during these interactions.
A former staff member recalled the distinct length discrepancies and their astonishment at such engagement lengths. They wondered about the extensive conversation topics during what was framed as an unplanned meet. The inconsistencies cast further shadows on the visit's delicacy.
Showing awareness of the optics, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff flagged the duration of the meeting as excessive.
Efforts were suggested to minimize the public perception of prolonged engagement with a controversial figure. Reinforcing the message, another team member pushed for presenting these meetings as part of ordinary, routine protocol.
The strategies, however, have not dramatically shifted public sentiment. In December, vocal critics among U.S. officials questioned Gabbard’s capacity for delivering impartial intelligence briefings. Her actions have since stirred calls for a comprehensive evaluation of her records and maneuverings.
Particularly concerning for her peers was the suggestion by former diplomats and officials for scrutinizing her history. Nearly 100 individuals advocated for a deep dive into Gabbard’s files. Their outspoken reservation indicates an enduring, broader apprehension towards her intelligence capabilities.
Gabbard herself acknowledged the spontaneous nature of the meeting with Assad. She elaborated that the opportunity emerged unexpectedly, prompting her engagement.
This spontaneous decision-making is another dimension explored by observers worried about transparency and accountability.
Ultimately, her team attempted to rationalize the lack of premeditated itinerary updates. While there can be diplomacy and realpolitik arguments for or against such meetings, the implications of her decisions ripple beyond oneself.
An exacting examination of her actions and their documentation has become inevitable as Gabbard continues facing confirmation hearings. These proceedings unfold amidst a backdrop of critical inquiries into her meeting.
Meanwhile, as Gabbard prepares for her confirmation hearings, the looming questions surrounding her engagement result in sharpening the controversies. Calls for potential reviews of her past actions hint at an uphill struggle awaiting resolution.
