WATCH: Kelly Presses Intelligence Nominee on Publicly Disputing U.S. Intelligence Assessments on Chemical Weapons Use in Syria

Today, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be the next Director of National Intelligence, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly questioned Gabbard on her decision-making and her record of disputing U.S. intelligence assessments.  

During the hearing, Kelly pressed Gabbard on instances where she expressed public skepticism about Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. He questioned why she disputed U.S. assessments on two attacks for which public, declassified analysis had been provided, while embracing, without corroboration, the views of a discredited professor and a chemistry student—neither with expertise in chemical weapons. Gabbard admitted in the hearing she was unaware at the time that the student had a record of defending the Assad regime, and that she was unaware until today that the professor had appeared on Russian state media.  

“When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions—this is what we expect of our professionals, said Kelly. “[…] But what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time you were skeptical of our intelligence community’s assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad. And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned about.”  

Click here to download a video of Kelly’s exchange. Click here to watch the full hearing.   

See the transcript below:       

Sen. Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.   

Colonel Gabbard, I want to first say thank you for your service to this country—in Congress and in the Army. Thank you for meeting with me a couple weeks ago and thank you for being here today.   

You’re nominated to lead and coordinate across the intelligence community’s numerous sources of collection and analytic capabilities. In a few sentences, can you describe how you make assessments and how you’re going to sift through all this intelligence and make careful and thoughtful conclusions?  

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, Senator, there are great professionals who work within the intelligence community. I will build a strong team around me as they present the intelligence reporting to provide to the President through the President ‘s daily brief, and to respond to issues and concerns that this body has. I will welcome dissenting voices to be able to make sure that this information and intelligence is thoroughly vetted prior to presenting it, and make sure that the truth is reported whether that truth is convenient or not.   

Sen. Kelly. Thank you, Colonel Gabbard, and I appreciate that. The President and others are going to rely on that.   

I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC. For years, the U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Eventually we were able to assess that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a number of these attacks that slaughtered his own civilians. Do you accept the conclusion broadly, that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, and I’m on the record for years of agreeing with that broad assessment.   

Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Among the attacks, the U.S. assessed Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma, in Khan Shaykhun, in Syria. As a member of Congress, and as a presidential candidate, and as recently as this month, in your written responses to this committee, you have cast doubt on the assessment that Assad is culpable. In these two attacks, is that still your position?   

Ms. Gabbard: Senator, I raised those questions, given conflicting information and evidence that was presented at that time.   

Sen. Kelly: Well, thank you. So, to help inform the public, the Trump administration released declassified intelligence in 2017 and again in 2018, showing how experts analyze multiple types of evidence: satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses, describing sources and showing the reasoning used to determine Assad ‘s culpability in using these chemical weapons, including in Douma and Khan Shaykhun in these attacks. The ones that you question. I have two documents I want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.   

Were you aware of the declassified assessments, the one I reference?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I was.   

Sen. Kelly: And as a member of the House Armed Services Committee in the Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to review these?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes.   

Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. And can you explain to me then why you doubted the intelligence community’s conclusions in these two cases? Douma, and Khan Shaykhun, but not the others. Please be specific.  

Ms. Gabbard: These two cases were being looked at to be used as a pretext for a major military movement and my fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half a million soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was the Obama administration’s goal, which was regime change in Syria. The question specifically that I raised around these two came about because there were two reasons. One, that assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The information that they had come from those on the ground in an Al-Qaeda controlled area and therefore were Al-Qaeda linked sources, and there was conflicting information that came from the UN’s office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inspectors, as well as an MIT professor, Ted Postol, who looked at these extensively.   

Sen. Kelly: So, I want to talk about him for a second. So, did you look into his credentials? Yes or no?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes.  

Sen. Kelly: And were you aware of his appearances on Russia Today, which is used by the Russians to disseminate government-approved messages?   

Ms. Gabbard: No.   

Sen. Kelly: Were you aware Postol relied on a chemistry student with a record of defending the Assad regime?   

Ms. Gabbard: At that time, I was not. I have been made aware since.   

Sen. Kelly: Do you consider this person or these two individuals now, do you consider them a better source for the chemistry of sarin gas in the US intelligence community?   

Ms. Gabbard: I assess that at the time, the information, I don’t know the second person you’re referring to, but MIT professor Ted Postol and the inspectors of the OPCW provided some credible questions that deserved examination.   

Sen. Kelly: Thank you. Did you attempt to weigh Postol’s claims against the significant evidence and assessments already conducted by the IC?   

Ms. Gabbard: Yes, I did.  

Sen. Kelly: OK, thank you. So, here’s my concern here, Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions. This is what we expect from our professionals.

But we just kind of walked through how you came to question Assad ‘s use of chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach, and I don’t reject seeking out differing viewpoints, we need to do that. But you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the US intelligence community and then you sought out information that confirmed your viewpoint.   

That led you to embrace the opinions of two individuals that I think we disagree on this, you think they had expertise, I do not, and others do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia and the Assad regime. It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelmingly information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert assessments of our own intelligence community. And they don’t get it right a hundred percent of the time, I get that, but what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time that you were skeptical of our intelligence community ‘s assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad.   

And I think that’s something that we should all be concerned about.   

Thank you.