You used a sarcastic accusatory comment to introduce a twenty second clip from a seven minute interview with Gafford. Then by innuendo you trash her and suggest that she should just go the fuck away. I asked, "What is your problem with Gabbard which bears on anything she says in the full interview?" and your simplistic answer to the simple question is, " giving soundbites and hugs & kisses to the guy who just destroyed Aleppo?  Doing a secretive end-around US diplomacy and the Congressional leadership?"  

It is my belief, as already stated, that absent outside interference sponsored by and/or enabled by the U.S. that the part of Aleppo that was occupied by terrorist groups would not have ever been captured in the first place and so those terrorists would not have been able to use it as a base to attack the remaining parts of the city where the rightful inhabitants overwhelmingly supported Assad. Thus, that part of terrorist controlled Aleppo from which terrorist forces shelled the remaining part of the city that was still under government control, and so still able to function as a city, would not have been destroyed in the process of its recapture. If you can bring yourself to give an honest answer instead of another bs loaded rhetorical question filled with false or unproven allegations, do you disagree with that statement? 

What Gabbard has done right IMO is represented in the full interview. She is, as HSG said, a powerful voice for peace. In the ranks of the U.S. Congress that makes her stand out. It is sad that being a voice for peace means becoming a magnet for ridicule. It's fucking un-American I guess. Gabbord has also sponsored a bill that would make it illegal for any agency of the U.S. government to give aid or support to terrorists. It would actually make that crime illegal. I would vote for that bill. Would you?