What do Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Pres. Donald Trump have in common?

What is it about foreign dictators and Liberal hubris? Is it some disconnect from common sense?

A case in point: Nancy Pelosi. April 2007. Damascus, Syria. Bashar al-Assad. On a whim and nary a modicum of consciousness, the newly-elected Speaker of the House defies then-President George W. and accepts an invitation from Syrian President al-Assad. Having run unopposed, the former eye doctor would be re-elected for a second term a month and a half after he and pal Pelosi hooked up.

As imagined, the Cali Rep. caused herself embarrassment, she countermanded US policy as it related to Syria and she misrepresented Israel’s position on Syrian-Israeli relations.

“At the meeting with the president [al-Assad], I conveyed the message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel is ready to restart negotiations as well as to talk peace,” Ms Pelosi told reporters, adding that President Assad responded positively.

Meanwhile, the Israeli PM had to clean up Madame Speaker’s blunder.

“The Prime Minister emphasized that although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East,” the statement said.

Three days ago, during her weekly address, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked to comment on a recent trip to Syria by another House member, Tulsi Gabbard. [VIDEO] Pelosi testily refused to answer directly except to say she knew nothing about the visit and she had not yet spoken to Gabbard.

“When the opportunity arose to meet with him [President al-Assad], I did so because I felt it’s important…  if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace, and that’s exactly what we talked about,” Gabbard said.

Here’s the scoop. Sometime early January the congresswoman from Hawaii made a secret trip to Syria and Lebanon with former Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a few others.  At some point in her tour of Aleppo and Damascus, President al-Assad, a man who dropped chlorine bombs on his constituents, requested the company of Ms. Gabbard. As a good Liberal, she likely thought she could single-mindedly bring about world peace by declaring the US guilty of war crimes and blindly accepting every propaganda flyer the authoritarian leader handed her.

As naive as her fellow Democrats after tripping through Castro’s Cuba, Gabbard has seemingly failed to understand that in all probability she wasn’t “hear[ing]directly from the Syrian people.” Bachar al-Assad leads an authoritarian regime where protests like the ones Liberals take for granted are sometimes government opportunities to corral the opposition for security forces to pick off. Like a dog herds its sheep, the Syrian government likely orchestrated her movements.

These are a couple of the “facts” private-citizen Gabbard’s “mission” found:

“Their [“Syrians from different parts of the country”] message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between “moderate” rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS — they are all the same. This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.”

“I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.”

Another version reported by the BBC in April 2011 and a slew of other relief organizations was that after the Syrian government had outlawed its 48-year ban on protests and oppression – State of Emergency – anti-government demonstrators were warned by government ministers not to stage sit-ins or rally in the streets. In that case, expect to be dispersed by whatever means allowable by law. Message? You can protest; but, don’t because we will kill you.

The dissenters rallied and, true to their word, al-Assad’s security forces aimlessly fired into the crowd killing the peaceful protesters Gabbard is blogging about – 200 over three months. The dictator wasn’t welcoming freedom he was crushing it.

Over time, yes, ISIS and all form of terrorist seized the opportunity of civil unrest as did Syria’s leader. Near to start al-Assad blurred the lines between protester and terrorist. ISIS used the ambiguity to blend in, and the Syrian dictator used it to reconstruct the government on paper – if not in practice.

The congresswoman isn’t completely wrong. Regime change without a viable replacement doesn’t sound like a good plan; given the chance of mistaken identity, indiscriminately arming rebels seems risky; and, Obama’s loose leadership damaged our credibility worldwide.

But she’s talking more like a victim of Stockholm’s Syndrome than a respected member of our legislature. Or, maybe it’s naivete’.

“They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.”

Just because there is an alternative solution, it doesn’t mean the alternative is any truer than the original. Gabbard is pushing a narrative that supports this regime. Period. Full stop.

She occupies a chair on the House Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee. Both which require clearances. So either she knows something the rest of us seriously needs to, or she’s trusting a suspected genocidal dictator not to lie.

One last thing. The congresswoman is the very same Tulsi Gabbard who President-elect Trump considered as Secretary of State back in November, two weeks after the election.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a high-profile Bernie Sanders supporter during the Democratic primaries, is “under serious consideration” for various Cabinet positions in President-elect Donald Trump‘s administration, according to a senior official on the transition team.

When could it be ever conceived that two Democrats and a pseudo Republican would agree on foreign policy? Who’d a thought it?

G’day, RedStaters! Happy weekend and Welcome to the Company WaterCooler. You’ve found RedState’s only Daily open thread! Enjoy!