Tulsi Gabbard makes Mark Kelly look like a CLOWN when she refuses to play his silly games

The Stunning Hypocrisy of a Veteran: Mark Kelly’s Sedition Flip

The core exchange between Tulsi Gabbard and Senator Mark Kelly during her confirmation hearing laid bare a fundamental, and often ignored, debate about U.S. foreign policy and the role of intelligence. Yet, what the accompanying commentary reveals is a stunning display of hypocrisy on the Senator’s part, creating a chasm between his solemn congressional questioning and his recent, highly controversial public actions. Kelly, the inquisitor, now stands accused of the very political duplicity he was attempting to expose.

The Syrian Quagmire: Questioning Intelligence vs. Serving Propaganda

During the hearing, Senator Kelly adopted a critical, necessary posture. He pressed Gabbard on her past statements, where she publicly disputed U.S. intelligence conclusions regarding Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria (Duma and Khan Shaykhun). Kelly rightly highlighted that Gabbard appeared to discount the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community while embracing conflicting information from sources like MIT professor Ted Postol and others, some of whom were viewed as sympathetic to Russia and the Assad regime.

Kelly’s concern was clear and professional: Why apply extreme skepticism to your own government’s intelligence, but no skepticism to information that aligns with Russian and Syrian propaganda?

Gabbard’s defense was that she feared a repeat of the disastrous, costly regime change wars like Iraq, and that the intelligence used to justify major military movement was based on “high confidence and low information,” derived from “al-Qaeda controlled area[s].” She detailed her “betrayal” upon learning, as a member of Congress, that the U.S. government—through programs like the CIA’s Timber Sycamore—was allegedly “working with and arming and equipping al-Qaeda” in an effort to overthrow the Syrian government. This, she argued, resulted in the rise of Islamist extremists who now govern the region, an unconscionable outcome for someone who enlisted specifically after 9/11.

The debate itself was vital: Does questioning the pretext for war make one a puppet of the enemy, or a diligent check against catastrophic foreign policy? Kelly’s role as the skeptical veteran was, at that moment, entirely justifiable and critical for the record.

The Flip: From Watchdog to “Seditious Six”

The subsequent criticism of Senator Kelly focuses on the glaring irony of his later actions. The commentary points to Kelly’s participation in a controversial video, alongside five other Democratic lawmakers, all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds. This group, labeled the “Seditious Six” by critics, recorded a message to current U.S. service members and intelligence personnel advising them that “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.”

While legal experts debate whether the statement rises to the federal crime of sedition (which requires force or conspiracy to hinder execution of law), the accusation leveled against Kelly is one of profound and dangerous hypocrisy:

Undermining Good Order and Discipline: Kelly’s questioning of Gabbard focused on the negative impact of her rhetoric on the Intelligence Community’s credibility and mission. Yet, his own participation in the video has drawn an unprecedented investigation from the Department of Defense, which cited concerns that his statements interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces.” The Pentagon views the video as a potential breach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to which Kelly, as a retired Navy Captain, remains subject.

The Intent of Incitement: Critics argue that while the principle of refusing an unlawful order is enshrined in military law, the context of the video—addressing troops about “threats to our Constitution” coming “right here at home”—was a thinly veiled attempt to incite disobedience against the sitting administration. It creates a “morally gray area” that undermines the command structure. Kelly’s current conduct, in the eyes of his critics, makes his prior condemnation of Gabbard’s “reckless” rhetoric seem utterly self-serving. He called for accountability for perceived treasonous rhetoric; he is now being investigated for possible military misconduct related to what his critics deem seditious rhetoric.

The staggering irony of a highly decorated veteran, who pressed an intelligence nominee to ensure she wasn’t promoting foreign propaganda, now facing a DoD probe for potentially undermining the very military discipline he swore to uphold, is impossible to ignore. This alleged act of political theater has not merely damaged his own credibility but has opened the door for his political opponents to weaponize the charge of sedition against him, completing a vicious circle of political rhetoric and retribution.