Tulsi Gabbard doing the Kremlin's work...

[seminole97]

Who asked Nuland the question to which she was responding?

Fellow neocon Senator Rubio posed the question about whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons. Nuland avoided the direct question and started rambling about the dangers of the labs.

Is it is Russian propaganda for her to assert the labs pose a threat to human safety?

Yes or no is sufficient, but feel free to expound. I just want you to address the question you keep ducking.

Who asked Gabbard the question to which she was responding?

So if a neocon asks about chemical and biological weapons and someone brings up the labs in response instead of answering the question, that’s not ‘spreading Russian propaganda’.

But if someone calls for a ceasefire so that pathogens at these faculties can be safely destroyed, that’s ‘spreading Russian propaganda’?

What is the distinction you’re drawing?

 

[Chewback]

No Democrat is worse than Manchin. Not even close.

Well maybe but at least he's not a Putin worshipper (as far as we know). I bet Tulsi has an open invitation to Mara Lago anytime and she doesn't even have to pay.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That's the attack on her. But her actual words don't read that way to me.

They've already taken Nuland's testimony as proof that there are bioweapons in Ukraine...despite her "actual words" saying nothing like that. The question - immaterial - forced a response and no matter what Nuland said, it would have been taken as proof. It will be even easier with Gabbard since she just offered it up. The best part is her calling for a "ceasefire" around those facilities. She's either kidding or she's the dumbest human on the planet. The Russians shelled agreed-upon evacuation corridors as civilians tried to escape besieged cities - but they're not gonna touch lab facilities (as pointed out, they already have two)?

Gabbard just needs to keep her mouth shut.

 

[Chewback]

Just remembered, I found this yesterday and this seems like a good place for it.

MSN

www.msn.com

tldr: Most of what Tulsi and others are saying is completely false. Some really interesting stuff in there.

 

[noleclone2]

Hard to believe that she was a serious potential presidential candidate not that long ago. Wow!

Actually she checks all the boxes for a serious Republican candidate. Good looking female
and a military candidate who trades in Russian propaganda and half truths!!?? And who has been building her own cult of personality to enrapture their gigantic simp demo. Tulsi could run and win the GOP nomination. Not even joking.

 

[Jan Itor]

Its almost like they keep trying to find the next biggest lie... And, the beneficiary always seems to be Putin.

Tulsi Gabbard Spreads Kremlin Lies About Bioweapons​

March 13, 2022 Propaganda, Russia


Forbes reports:

Tulsi Gabbard Latest To Push Russian-Backed Conspiracy About U.S.-Backed Biological Labs In Ukraine

Known for her pro-Russia stances and frequent conspiracy theories, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard shared misleading information Sunday about the danger of biological laboratories in Ukraine.

www.forbes.com

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

They've already taken Nuland's testimony as proof that there are bioweapons in Ukraine...despite her "actual words" saying nothing like that. The question - immaterial - forced a response and no matter what Nuland said, it would have been taken as proof. It will be even easier with Gabbard since she just offered it up. The best part is her calling for a "ceasefire" around those facilities. She's either kidding or she's the dumbest human on the planet. The Russians shelled agreed-upon evacuation corridors as civilians tried to escape besieged cities - but they're not gonna touch lab facilities (as pointed out, they already have two)?

Gabbard just needs to keep her mouth shut.

This is what the UN should be doing. Protecting these labs and, even more important, the remaining nuclear power plants.

Plus being in charge of the humanitarian corridors.

Sadly, the American Right has been undermining the UN for so long that it's probably incapable of taking on that function, even if Putin was willing to allow it.

 

[sober_teacher]

It's literally their M.O.

They don’t normally wait two weeks to toss out a new narrative, especially when their initial justification blew up in their face so badly.

 

[Joes Place]

They don’t normally wait two weeks to toss out a new narrative, especially when their initial justification blew up in their face so badly.

They had to funnel it thru their "rightwing" buddies first. Since they weren't prepped for the failure, that required the added time before they could "pick up" on it and use it. They literally cite the rightwing "sources" on their own media platforms to increase "legitimacy".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Republican Senator Rubio posed the question about whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons. Nuland avoided the direct question and started rambling about the dangers of the labs.

FIFY and she was hesitant to answer directly for the reasons I have clearly and repeatedly laid out. That you're either obtuse or willfully ignorant is on you.

 

[Hawk_82]

They've already taken Nuland's testimony as proof that there are bioweapons in Ukraine...despite her "actual words" saying nothing like that. The question - immaterial - forced a response and no matter what Nuland said, it would have been taken as proof. It will be even easier with Gabbard since she just offered it up. The best part is her calling for a "ceasefire" around those facilities. She's either kidding or she's the dumbest human on the planet. The Russians shelled agreed-upon evacuation corridors as civilians tried to escape besieged cities - but they're not gonna touch lab facilities (as pointed out, they already have two)?

Gabbard just needs to keep her mouth shut.

So are you mad because you think Tulsi outted the USA or because you think she is wrong?

I think it is fair to say the USA has its own level of propaganda going on too. I dont think americans know what is true or false anymore.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Exactly what does a "focus on the labs" accomplish? Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?

This is the trouble with getting my info from this thread.

I seem to have missed where she was "suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

Did she actually say that? Because if she didn't, then this is sort of like the black lives matter vs all lives matter debate. Just because she focuses on one and not the other doesn't mean she opposes the other.

It's sort of like me suggesting that the UN should protect Ukraine's nuclear power plants. The first time I suggested that, I was only talking about the nuclear power plants. But I can also see the UN being asked to protect humanitarian corridors and maybe these biolabs, too. My failure to mention those the first time around doesn't mean I don't care about them, just that I was focusing on the power plants.

 

[Jan Itor]

This is the trouble with getting my info from this thread.

I seem to have missed where she was "suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

Did she actually say that? Because if she didn't, then this is sort of like the black lives matter vs all lives matter debate. Just because she focuses on one and not the other doesn't mean she opposes the other.

It's sort of like me suggesting that the UN should protect Ukraine's nuclear power plants. The first time I suggested that, I was only talking about the nuclear power plants. But I can also see the UN being asked to protect humanitarian corridors and maybe these biolabs, too. My failure to mention those the first time around doesn't mean I don't care about them, just that I was focusing on the power plants.

You seem to be asking for a full on war with Russia. I think we all know how that ends.

BTW, there's a helluva lot worse in these labs around the world than Covid.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why do we even have political parties anymore? The crossover of all of the crazies makes it impossible to follow.

Ditto for MSM.

 

[seminole97]

Just remembered, I found this yesterday and this seems like a good place for it.

MSN

www.msn.com

tldr: Most of what Tulsi and others are saying is completely false. Some really interesting stuff in there.

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that there are U.S. biolabs in Ukraine funded by the U.S. government. The posts misrepresent a treaty between the United States and Ukraine aimed at preventing biological threats.
The labs are owned and funded by the Ukrainian government.

Only two points of logic presented to test.
Are they US labs?
Are the labs US funded?

I don't think she said they were 'US labs' in the first place, so I'm not sure why that would even be part of the question.

CNN: There are US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, that much is true.

So what, precisely, is Tulsi accused of saying that is false, or traitorous, etc.?
Can someone provide the quote that is falsifiable?

All I've seen is this: "There are 25-30 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens."

That's completely true, right?

 

[Chewback]

Well prove it then. You obviously doubt everything in my link so go f*** yourself along with the Russians. :raised finger

 

[Jan Itor]

Well prove it then. You obviously doubt everything in my link so go f*** yourself along with the Russians. :raised finger

Somebody can’t have a civil discussion. Did you see the video in post #86?

 

[Chewback]

Somebody can’t have a civil discussion. Did you see the video in post #86?

Yeah, she gets her facts from fVcking Tucker Carlson like the rest of you right wing nut bags. Nuff said.

 

[Jan Itor]

Yeah, she gets her facts from fVcking Tucker Carlson like the rest of you right wing nut bags. Nuff said.

She’s not getting her facts from Tucker. She’s telling him what she said. I hate Tucker as much as anyone else, and I am no wing nut. But nice to see you’re consistent with your childish arguments.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This is the trouble with getting my info from this thread.

I seem to have missed where she was "suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

Did she actually say that? Because if she didn't, then this is sort of like the black lives matter vs all lives matter debate. Just because she focuses on one and not the other doesn't mean she opposes the other.

I asked if that was what she was suggesting.

"We must take action now to prevent disaster"

Ok, Tulsi....what action? A cease-fire? As I said earlier, the Russians aren't observing the cease-fires THEY agreed to to evacuate civilians. What the hell makes you think they will just bypass these labs? UN troops? Seriously? The Russians would have to agree to allow foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. You can't just say, "Hey! Russia! Don't shoot the guys in the blue helmets! They'll be there this afternoon."

I'm gonna say this one more time and then I'm done...arguing semantics is a waste of time.

1) The Russians have been claiming for years that the US is operating bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Apparently projection for when they were doing it.

2) The US has partnered with former Soviet countries - INCLUDING Russia - to set up facilities to gather, contain, and destroy these materials that Russia was making illegally.

3) The biological research facilities in Ukraine are owned, operated, and funded by the Ukrainian govt but some undoubtedly get training and equipment funded by the US...it's kinda in our best interests.

4) When Gabbard - or anyone else - talks about US funded labs that contain dangerous pathogens whose release would be a "disaster" she is giving Russia EXACTLY what they want to justify their invasion...it doesn't matter one tiny bit that they aren't called "bioweapons labs" because she just called them United States labs in Ukraine full of biological weapons. That's the semantics part of this that I will no longer argue...if it can't be seen it's because there's another agenda

5) Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a f'n clue what could be done to prevent the "disaster" she claims to fear and she doesn't care...she wants the attention and she's willing to give the Russians their talking points to get it.

 

[CarterHall]

And They Laughed

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I asked if that was what she was suggesting.

"We must take action now to prevent disaster"

Ok, Tulsi....what action? A cease-fire? As I said earlier, the Russians aren't observing the cease-fires THEY agreed to to evacuate civilians. What the hell makes you think they will just bypass these labs? UN troops? Seriously? The Russians would have to agree to allow foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. You can't just say, "Hey! Russia! Don't shoot the guys in the blue helmets! They'll be there this afternoon."

I'm gonna say this one more time and then I'm done...arguing semantics is a waste of time.

1) The Russians have been claiming for years that the US is operating bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Apparently projection for when they were doing it.

2) The US has partnered with former Soviet countries - INCLUDING Russia - to set up facilities to gather, contain, and destroy these materials that Russia was making illegally.

3) The biological research facilities in Ukraine are owned, operated, and funded by the Ukrainian govt but some undoubtedly get training and equipment funded by the US...it's kinda in our best interests.

4) When Gabbard - or anyone else - talks about US funded labs that contain dangerous pathogens whose release would be a "disaster" she is giving Russia EXACTLY what they want to justify their invasion...it doesn't matter one tiny bit that they aren't called "bioweapons labs" because she just called them United States labs in Ukraine full of biological weapons. That's the semantics part of this that I will no longer argue...if it can't be seen it's because there's another agenda

5) Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a f'n clue what could be done to prevent the "disaster" she claims to fear and she doesn't care...she wants the attention and she's willing to give the Russians their talking points to get it.

You and I really shouldn't be arguing this because we don't disagree much. But word choices are important.

Apparently she did NOT suggest "military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

In fact, it looks like she said NEITHER "military intervention" NOR "not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

Can you understand why I pushed back?

As I said at the outset, I didn't like her statement. But if we liberals are going to be the good guys, we should stick to the facts in front of us. We don't need to embellish, or to repeat the embellishments of others.

 

[seminole97]

Yeah, she gets her facts from fVcking Tucker Carlson like the rest of you right wing nut bags. Nuff said.

No, she linked a DoD fact sheet confirming the US funding source in her Twitter, which is linked in this thread.
These are the labs that Nuland suggested present a danger.
So the facts are:

Tulsi didn’t say they were ‘US labs’.
The labs are US funded.
The labs have dangerous biological pathogens (unless ‘research materials’ is a reference to books and hard drives) that Nuland is worried about Russia obtaining.

So what has Tulsi lied about?

 

[Hawk_82]

I asked if that was what she was suggesting.

"We must take action now to prevent disaster"

Ok, Tulsi....what action? A cease-fire? As I said earlier, the Russians aren't observing the cease-fires THEY agreed to to evacuate civilians. What the hell makes you think they will just bypass these labs? UN troops? Seriously? The Russians would have to agree to allow foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. You can't just say, "Hey! Russia! Don't shoot the guys in the blue helmets! They'll be there this afternoon."

I'm gonna say this one more time and then I'm done...arguing semantics is a waste of time.

1) The Russians have been claiming for years that the US is operating bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Apparently projection for when they were doing it.

2) The US has partnered with former Soviet countries - INCLUDING Russia - to set up facilities to gather, contain, and destroy these materials that Russia was making illegally.

3) The biological research facilities in Ukraine are owned, operated, and funded by the Ukrainian govt but some undoubtedly get training and equipment funded by the US...it's kinda in our best interests.

4) When Gabbard - or anyone else - talks about US funded labs that contain dangerous pathogens whose release would be a "disaster" she is giving Russia EXACTLY what they want to justify their invasion...it doesn't matter one tiny bit that they aren't called "bioweapons labs" because she just called them United States labs in Ukraine full of biological weapons. That's the semantics part of this that I will no longer argue...if it can't be seen it's because there's another agenda

5) Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a f'n clue what could be done to prevent the "disaster" she claims to fear and she doesn't care...she wants the attention and she's willing to give the Russians their talking points to get it.

My take out of all of this is that she is saying this as more of a whistle blower thing. I dont think she trusts the people in charge. This is a way for her to tell the American people that the president of usa is lying.

I also dont trust our president. So while i dont know if she is right or wrong, i do find this to be an interesting move on her part. I think it is important to not put blind faith in the government. They are feeding Americans almost as much propaganda as Russia is. The only difference is that we do have the ability to find alternate news as well.

 

[Tom Paris]

View embedded media

As soon as she said mainstream media I was convinced, “Not a democrat.” Hillary was right about her.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You and I really shouldn't be arguing this because we don't disagree much. But word choices are important.

Apparently she did NOT suggest "military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

In fact, it looks like she said NEITHER "military intervention" NOR "not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

Can you understand why I pushed back?

As I said at the outset, I didn't like her statement. But if we liberals are going to be the good guys, we should stick to the facts in front of us. We don't need to embellish, or to repeat the embellishments of others.

I’m not arguing. I also never said she asked for military intervention. I asked what she would suggest in order to accomplish her demand that “we MUST take action” (emphasis mine). That is a demand and her only intervention seems to be a call for a “cease fire” around those facilities. I'm not even sure what that means. Please Russia, don't shoot up the labs? And? Then what? What action must we take, Tulsi? Troops? And if for that then why not to guard civilians?

As I said, the only thing she accomplished with her bullshit demand for non-action was to amplify Russian claims they use to justify their invasion. She most absolutely offered no solution. The suggestion to put in UN troops - a military intervention - to guard nuclear plants had more to it even though it is likely impossible to accomplish.

 

[sober_teacher]

I’m not arguing. I also never said she asked for military intervention. I asked what she would suggest in order to accomplish her demand that “we MUST take action” (emphasis mine). That is a demand and her only intervention seems to be a call for a “cease fire” around those facilities. I'm not even sure what that means. Please Russia, don't shoot up the labs? And? Then what? What action must we take, Tulsi? Troops? And if for that then why not to guard civilians?

As I said, the only thing she accomplished with her bullshit demand for non-action was to amplify Russian claims they use to justify their invasion. She most absolutely offered no solution. The suggestion to put in UN troops - a military intervention - to guard nuclear plants had more to it even though it is likely impossible to accomplish.

And putting UN troops in at this point would simply be used by Russia as propaganda for further justification as well.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I also never said she asked for military intervention.

I was quoting you.

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?"

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I was quoting you.

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?"

I understand that. You need to understand that you quoted a question...not the assertion you tried to turn it into.

I seem to have missed where she was "suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered."

I was merely asking how she proposed to achieve the task she says "we must" (again, emphasis mine) accomplish and whether she would extend that to other areas of the conflict. Aren't you curious as to her plan? Does she have one? Haven't seen anything beyond a proposal for a "cease fire" around the facilities. Ok...great. Could she ask for one around the evacuation corridors while she's at it. Maybe one for hospitals and schools and apartment buildings and other places where innocent people are currently, right now, in-the-moment being killed? Perhaps she has. How did it work out?

 

[FlickShagwell]

View embedded media

Can't we just tell them we're mixing pee pee and coke? They'd understand that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I understand that. You need to understand that you quoted a question...not the assertion you tried to turn it into.

I was hoping you'd say something like "oh, I see what you're saying, but that wasn't what I meant." Oh well.

Let's parse what you said. Here's the quote.

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?"​

This part by itself would be a question

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs...?"​

But when you phrase it the way you did, that first part is now an assertion. The "but not to..." part makes it so. If the first part isn't true, there's no point in asking the second part the way you did.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Aren't you curious as to her plan?

Not really.

She's not really the person I'd turn to for that. Which is not to say that I would refuse to listen to her if she did have a suggestion.

As I have said, I think we should protect the nuclear power plants. And I have suggested an approach (use the UN), but I wasn't really obligated to come up with the answer. Sometimes just pointing out the problem is worthwhile.

Sadly, it doesn't currently look like anybody is going to do anything to protect either the nuclear power plants or the biolabs. Let's hope that doesn't bite us.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Not really.

She's not really the person I'd turn to for that. Which is not to say that I would refuse to listen to her if she did have a suggestion.

As I have said, I think we should protect the nuclear power plants. And I have suggested an approach (use the UN), but I wasn't really obligated to come up with the answer. Sometimes just pointing out the problem is worthwhile.

Sadly, it doesn't currently look like anybody is going to do anything to protect either the nuclear power plants or the biolabs. Let's hope that doesn't bite us.

Someone who says "we must" do something really should have an idea as to how that would be done. Someone who served in the US Congress and who made a run at the presidency should REALLY have an idea if that person is going to make the claim.

I am curious...how do you propose it be done without risking widening the conflict?

I was hoping you'd say something like "oh, I see what you're saying, but that wasn't what I meant." Oh well.

Let's parse what you said. Here's the quote.

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs but not to protect innocent civilians being slaughtered?"​

This part by itself would be a question

"Is Gabbard suggesting military intervention to protect the labs...?"​

But when you phrase it the way you did, that first part is now an assertion. The "but not to..." part makes it so. If the first part isn't true, there's no point in asking the second part the way you did.

Holy crap...are you seriously going to go full TJ on this? You should never go full TJ. I was hoping you'd say something like "Oh, yes, I did misconstrue your post". Oh well. What you were hoping for isn't going to happen.

I asked a question based on Gabbard's "We MUST...". How do I know I asked a question? It starts with "Is" and ends with a question mark. Try starting a question with "is" that isn't a question. Try ending a sentence with a question mark that isn't a question.

Interestingly, you left BOTH off when you "quoted" me. You misrepresented my post. Period. You've doubled and tripled down on it now. I assumed you simply misread it but it appears you actually thought about it and still got it totally wrong. That's on you...don't try to lay your poor reading comprehension on me. It would be best if you drop this.

 

[seminole97]

@tarheelbybirth is Nuland spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ to assert those biolabs present a danger to the public?

 

[seminole97]

this is why Russian stooge Tulsi Gabbard pushing Kremlin's lies are so dangerous.

Can you quote what Tulsi said that you consider to be a lie?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Can you quote what Tulsi said that you consider to be a lie?

Just days after Russians push lies to justify their war. Tulsi is out there lying on behalf of her masters in Moscow.


"In the video, which was posted to Gabbard's TikTok and other social media accounts, the former congresswoman mischaracterized U.S. support for several dozen former Soviet biolabs in Ukraine, falsely implying that the labs work with diseases like COVID-19 and that the Biden administration had been "trying to cover this up."

The claim is a variation on a Russian disinformation allegation about U.S. support for the labs that dates back to at least 2014, according to EUvsDisinfo, a watchdog group that advises the European Union and its members on disinformation.

The unproven allegations that the U.S. is assisting Ukraine in the creation of new bioweapons were denied by various members of the federal government from the White House and the Pentagon last week. Two key points that the Pentagon noted in a fact sheet released Friday were that "after Russia launched its unlawful invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health responsibly ordered the safe and secure disposal of samples."

Defense officials have observed that the claim may be a pretext for Russian leader Vladimir Putin to increase attacks on civilian populations in Ukraine, even potentially unleashing his own biological or chemical weapons."

Army Officer Tulsi Gabbard Faces Ire for Peddling Russian Disinformation About Ukraine Biolabs

The unproven allegations that the U.S. is assisting Ukraine in the creation of new bioweapons were denied by various members of the federal government.

www.military.com

Part 2.

"As part of its latest attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials are once again pushing a false narrative that the Eastern European country is developing biological weapons with the assistance of the U.S.

On March 6, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it had obtained evidence Ukraine and the U.S. had collaborated to develop biological weapons.

The claim was made by Major General Igor Konashenkov and widely reported in Russian media. Konashenkov alleged that pathogens for deadly diseases such as the plague, anthrax and cholera were being created to be used for biological warfare in Ukrainian laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

"Obviously, with the start of a special military operation, the Pentagon had serious concerns about disclosing the conduct of secret biological experiments on the territory of Ukraine," Konashenkov said, as reported by the Russian news agency TASS."

U.S. Biological Weapons in Ukraine—Separating the Facts From the Fiction

Russian officials are continuing to spread and old conspiracy theories about U.S.-run bio-labs in Ukraine to justify its invasion.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

This twitter handle / individual is documenting Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marjorie Taylor Greene misinformation / disinformation.

@marcowenjones

I wonder how their handlers communicate with them or activate them.. might as well ask the local agent.

Hey @seminole97 when you get Russian propaganda to disseminate, how are you contacted?

 

[seminole97]

Just days after Russians push lies to justify their war. Tulsi is out there lying on behalf of her masters in Moscow.


"In the video, which was posted to Gabbard's TikTok and other social media accounts, the former congresswoman mischaracterized U.S. support for several dozen former Soviet biolabs in Ukraine, falsely implying that the labs work with diseases like COVID-19 and that the Biden administration had been "trying to cover this up."

The claim is a variation on a Russian disinformation allegation about U.S. support for the labs that dates back to at least 2014, according to EUvsDisinfo, a watchdog group that advises the European Union and its members on disinformation.

The unproven allegations that the U.S. is assisting Ukraine in the creation of new bioweapons were denied by various members of the federal government from the White House and the Pentagon last week. Two key points that the Pentagon noted in a fact sheet released Friday were that "after Russia launched its unlawful invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health responsibly ordered the safe and secure disposal of samples."

Defense officials have observed that the claim may be a pretext for Russian leader Vladimir Putin to increase attacks on civilian populations in Ukraine, even potentially unleashing his own biological or chemical weapons."

Army Officer Tulsi Gabbard Faces Ire for Peddling Russian Disinformation About Ukraine Biolabs

The unproven allegations that the U.S. is assisting Ukraine in the creation of new bioweapons were denied by various members of the federal government.

www.military.com

Part 2.

"As part of its latest attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials are once again pushing a false narrative that the Eastern European country is developing biological weapons with the assistance of the U.S.

On March 6, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it had obtained evidence Ukraine and the U.S. had collaborated to develop biological weapons.

The claim was made by Major General Igor Konashenkov and widely reported in Russian media. Konashenkov alleged that pathogens for deadly diseases such as the plague, anthrax and cholera were being created to be used for biological warfare in Ukrainian laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

"Obviously, with the start of a special military operation, the Pentagon had serious concerns about disclosing the conduct of secret biological experiments on the territory of Ukraine," Konashenkov said, as reported by the Russian news agency TASS."

U.S. Biological Weapons in Ukraine—Separating the Facts From the Fiction

Russian officials are continuing to spread and old conspiracy theories about U.S.-run bio-labs in Ukraine to justify its invasion.

www.newsweek.com

Maybe you could quote the part where she lied in bold? I didn’t see it there.
I’m trying to find what she stated that was a lie.
Not someone else’s characterization of what she said.
I’m asking if you can quote the lie.
Can you?

 

[RileyHawk]

Maybe you could quote the part where she lied in bold? I didn’t see it there.
I’m trying to find what she stated that was a lie.
Not someone else’s characterization of what she said.
I’m asking if you can quote the lie.
Can you?

He's said several times she is promoting the Russian lies. JFC

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

this is particular is why Tulsi is so dangerous. She knows EXACTLY what she is doing because she has been coached.