Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence has a twisted history of dissent from the elite D.C. foreign policy consensus and neocon-style “war on terror” rhetoric.
The foreign policy of America is at best bankrupt, and at worse criminal and genocidal. Anyone with eyes wide open can see (should) it for themselves. Those in public life are required to take a stand on issues, and if that stand goes against the aforementioned foreign policy orthodoxy they have “earned” a target to be place upon their back. In America there is no longer any space for honest discussion and difference of opinion, so all we get is mudslinging, labeling and name calling. Most Americans do not pay enough attention to sort it out for themselves. It’s all just bread and circus… and in the meantime global climate catastrophe is coming for us all. We’re f—ked; we just don’t (refuse to) see it.
Current US foreign policy reflects the warning Dwight Eisenhower stated about the military-industrial complex. Spreading “democracy” around the world is no more than a cover story for selling weapons around the globe. There is big money to be made by doing so, and the capitalist system is the funnel through which that money passes. And it is the political systems of those capitalist economies that makes it all happen. And the slaughter of tens and hundreds of thousands (really millions) of human beings are simply lubrication for the flow. Bottom line: it’s the greed for money and power that guides the behavior of the human species – as it has ever been; as it will always be… until the self-inflicted wound of global climate catastrophe brings it to an end. Coming soon, I think.
As a Hawaii resident, I feel it is important to correct a common misunderstanding, repeated here. Tulsi did NOT “begin her career as a liberal Democrat.” She began her political career as a top aide to her father’s high-profile campaign to oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. Mike Gabbard became a national leader with his group, Stop Promoting Homosexuality, aimed at spreading fear of “the Gay Agenda.”
She and Mike founded a very militaristic, jingoistic group, “Stand Up for America,” in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Tulsi was elected to the Hawaii state House as a very outspoken rightwing activist, even if she ran as a Democrat. She voted rightwing throughout her legislative and city council career. It was only when she divided to run for Congress that she abandoned her explicitly anti-gay rhetoric in order to win the Democratic primary.
It was her temporary detour into progressive politics, trying to piggyback on Bernie’s 2016 campaign, that requires an explanation. Tulsi has returned home to the demagogic rightwing populism of her youth. She is in her element.
Navigating the swamp of the DNC is tricky. It’s also hard to know what positions to take when our intelligence agencies play both sides and lie to the American people and lie to our leaders.
I believe she is principled. You didn’t mention that she resigned from the DNC cochair in support of Bernie Sanders. Trying to find a political home when the establishment of both parties are corrupt is nearly impossible. Trump is the closest thing to an anti establishment candidate we have who is winning.
I don’t agree with Tulsi on Israel and their influence on our government but she is a great start.
Also she has a security clearance from the FBI just like I did as an Army Officer. She likely had one as a member of congress. If there was remote chance of improper behavior with a foreign government she would be removed pending an investigation.
That has not happened. So that story line is a straight lie and Americans can see through it.
I will take Tulsi over any intelligence insider 10 out of 10 times. She is a hero in my eyes.
I don’t know. But I have heard her speak for hours and hours on many podcasts and I trust her. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? People have been giving the DNC the benefit of the doubt for a long time and they keep throwing genuine people under the bus. Anyone the DNC or republican establishment go after are usually good people. Bernie is at the top of that list. I don’t always agree with him but respect him for the same reasons I respect Tulsi. The McConnell/Graham/Clinton/Obama/pelosi/Schumer crowd is trash. They are the leaders of the swamp monsters.
She has confusing positions. She blows in the direction of the wind. A shape shifting politician. Occasional humanistic quotes dispersed her and there.
Navigating the establishment lies, where the media and intelligence agencies work together requires changing positions as you learn who you’re fighting. She has beaten the machine and I am rooting for her.
I suggest Tulsi sees exactly what’s happening in Gaza. People have talked with her about the issues for years. While she was pretending to be a progressive, she backed away from blatant support for Israel. Her original campaign manager for her 2020 presidential run was a well-known progressive Palestinian American activist.
Tulsi takes her lead on foreign policy from the BJP party of India and their conservative Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Her views only parallel those of Russia when Modi’s align with Putin. Her support for Netanyahu is not the product of a well-intended, but uninformed “independent.”
"Intelligence officials are suggesting they will resign." Um, like those 51 "professional" liars calling the Hunter Biden laptop Russian "disinformation?" Please, threaten me with a smile that don't quit. :)
There's no doubt Tulsi's been all over the map of foreign policy and politics the last decade, but Dems are now the beloved of the torture program / destroy-Iraq-for-a-WMD-lie criminals. Evolving politics does not make her some Lone Ranger, especially when the Dem Party's own changes scream assimilation by the Borgish pro-genocide-collective. I personally hope she's confirmed as DNI, ends drone terrorism, and then doesn't force me to write rude comments about her like I do other natsec directors.
In a big ol' piss on all things surveillance state I wrote in Edward Joseph Snowden for president. One of these lame-ass presidents should pardon Ed, just to steal thunder from the other. ;)
I think she is thinking strategically. To gain any influence on foreign policy, she knows Trump's admin is the only one open to giving her a job. Of course, to do this, you need to abandon a bunch of your positions, specially those critical of Trump. This article makes that clear. Another interesting take is Michael Tracey's. He works with Glenn Greenwald and it appears they have different opinions on Gabbard. Hopefully they can work it out and have both points on view on Greenwald's YouTube show. To me she is just going to be a Trump loyalist, if not, shes fired. She might be able to fight off some of the foreign policy machine, which would be a good thing, and at the same time continue it, like on Gaza.
Yes to all of what you say. In particular, Trump likes the role of hiring and firing, no nuance, no discussion, simply direct and forceful action, the decider, reveling in showing who is the boss. That he is subject to arbitrary action based on anger at someone not being loyal or being disrespectful is likely to produce the same circus of personnel change that we saw in his first go-round. His worst flaw (and there are many) is that reasoning is secondary in anything he does, what is primary is that he is doing it. His insecurity forces him to continually fire people to renew the respect he so desperately needs in his own mind. His TV show fulfilled this craving and without the country having to suffer any consequences. But here we are and there he is in the White House, again.
PS, if I had not been able to write in Jill Stein I would not have voted.
Nelson, you imply that if I were in a swing state I would have been helping another candidate. That isn't the way democracy works. One votes for the person one wants to see in office and others are free to do the same. It is a fallacy that when I vote for the one I want in office I am "really" voting for someone else.
No. This point of view only indicates that the person voicing it wants to blame another voter for not voting in the way the person wishes. It is the desire to place guilt on someone who is not guilty of anything. But the two parties love to put this out to protect the candidates THEY, not the people, have chosen to present as candidates.
I dont place blame on voters. I might disagree with them, like I just did. People think that voting is everything and how you vote says everything about you personally or your politics. I dont agree with this either. Yes winning elections is very important and during electoral periods we should encourage people to move to our side. If we lose, our work doubles, if we win our work doubles. That is the nature of politics. I hope this clarifies what you implied from my response.
You would think her standing up for Bernie in 2016 would have given her more credibility with the left. She actually demonstrated the principles many people who wanted Bernie appreciated and she was just abandoned by the left for swamp creatures who call a lieutenant colonel with an FBI security clearance a Russian asset.
I cannot adequately express just how much your reporting throughout the years has been the breath of fresh air most needed and how you can always be trusted to reflect back to us the complexity through which we are all trying to navigate, and clearly present the subsequent questions we should be asking of those in power. Your unwavering integrity is unparalleled and deeply appreciated.
In 2015, Haines, then deputy director of the CIA and now DNI, was tasked with determining whether CIA personnel should be disciplined for hacking computers of Senate staffers authoring the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. Haines chose not to discipline them, overruling the CIA Inspector General. Tulsi will do better.
Tulsi Gabbard has been giving us whiplash for years via her contradictory statements and positions. I quit listening to anything she says.
The foreign policy of America is at best bankrupt, and at worse criminal and genocidal. Anyone with eyes wide open can see (should) it for themselves. Those in public life are required to take a stand on issues, and if that stand goes against the aforementioned foreign policy orthodoxy they have “earned” a target to be place upon their back. In America there is no longer any space for honest discussion and difference of opinion, so all we get is mudslinging, labeling and name calling. Most Americans do not pay enough attention to sort it out for themselves. It’s all just bread and circus… and in the meantime global climate catastrophe is coming for us all. We’re f—ked; we just don’t (refuse to) see it.
Current US foreign policy reflects the warning Dwight Eisenhower stated about the military-industrial complex. Spreading “democracy” around the world is no more than a cover story for selling weapons around the globe. There is big money to be made by doing so, and the capitalist system is the funnel through which that money passes. And it is the political systems of those capitalist economies that makes it all happen. And the slaughter of tens and hundreds of thousands (really millions) of human beings are simply lubrication for the flow. Bottom line: it’s the greed for money and power that guides the behavior of the human species – as it has ever been; as it will always be… until the self-inflicted wound of global climate catastrophe brings it to an end. Coming soon, I think.
As a Hawaii resident, I feel it is important to correct a common misunderstanding, repeated here. Tulsi did NOT “begin her career as a liberal Democrat.” She began her political career as a top aide to her father’s high-profile campaign to oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. Mike Gabbard became a national leader with his group, Stop Promoting Homosexuality, aimed at spreading fear of “the Gay Agenda.”
She and Mike founded a very militaristic, jingoistic group, “Stand Up for America,” in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Tulsi was elected to the Hawaii state House as a very outspoken rightwing activist, even if she ran as a Democrat. She voted rightwing throughout her legislative and city council career. It was only when she divided to run for Congress that she abandoned her explicitly anti-gay rhetoric in order to win the Democratic primary.
It was her temporary detour into progressive politics, trying to piggyback on Bernie’s 2016 campaign, that requires an explanation. Tulsi has returned home to the demagogic rightwing populism of her youth. She is in her element.
Thanks for flagging this. The sign of a good site is the quality and information available in the comments.
Navigating the swamp of the DNC is tricky. It’s also hard to know what positions to take when our intelligence agencies play both sides and lie to the American people and lie to our leaders.
I believe she is principled. You didn’t mention that she resigned from the DNC cochair in support of Bernie Sanders. Trying to find a political home when the establishment of both parties are corrupt is nearly impossible. Trump is the closest thing to an anti establishment candidate we have who is winning.
I don’t agree with Tulsi on Israel and their influence on our government but she is a great start.
Also she has a security clearance from the FBI just like I did as an Army Officer. She likely had one as a member of congress. If there was remote chance of improper behavior with a foreign government she would be removed pending an investigation.
That has not happened. So that story line is a straight lie and Americans can see through it.
I will take Tulsi over any intelligence insider 10 out of 10 times. She is a hero in my eyes.
So brave to give the benefit of the doubt to Tulsi! I wonder to whom else you would extend the same grace.
I don’t know. But I have heard her speak for hours and hours on many podcasts and I trust her. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? People have been giving the DNC the benefit of the doubt for a long time and they keep throwing genuine people under the bus. Anyone the DNC or republican establishment go after are usually good people. Bernie is at the top of that list. I don’t always agree with him but respect him for the same reasons I respect Tulsi. The McConnell/Graham/Clinton/Obama/pelosi/Schumer crowd is trash. They are the leaders of the swamp monsters.
She has confusing positions. She blows in the direction of the wind. A shape shifting politician. Occasional humanistic quotes dispersed her and there.
Navigating the establishment lies, where the media and intelligence agencies work together requires changing positions as you learn who you’re fighting. She has beaten the machine and I am rooting for her.
I will agree 100% when she sees the real truth about what is happening to the Palestinians
I agree with that also. I hope she gets clear about Israel.
I suggest Tulsi sees exactly what’s happening in Gaza. People have talked with her about the issues for years. While she was pretending to be a progressive, she backed away from blatant support for Israel. Her original campaign manager for her 2020 presidential run was a well-known progressive Palestinian American activist.
Tulsi takes her lead on foreign policy from the BJP party of India and their conservative Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Her views only parallel those of Russia when Modi’s align with Putin. Her support for Netanyahu is not the product of a well-intended, but uninformed “independent.”
"Intelligence officials are suggesting they will resign." Um, like those 51 "professional" liars calling the Hunter Biden laptop Russian "disinformation?" Please, threaten me with a smile that don't quit. :)
There's no doubt Tulsi's been all over the map of foreign policy and politics the last decade, but Dems are now the beloved of the torture program / destroy-Iraq-for-a-WMD-lie criminals. Evolving politics does not make her some Lone Ranger, especially when the Dem Party's own changes scream assimilation by the Borgish pro-genocide-collective. I personally hope she's confirmed as DNI, ends drone terrorism, and then doesn't force me to write rude comments about her like I do other natsec directors.
In a big ol' piss on all things surveillance state I wrote in Edward Joseph Snowden for president. One of these lame-ass presidents should pardon Ed, just to steal thunder from the other. ;)
Shameful of you to not mention her allegiance to her cult.
I think she is thinking strategically. To gain any influence on foreign policy, she knows Trump's admin is the only one open to giving her a job. Of course, to do this, you need to abandon a bunch of your positions, specially those critical of Trump. This article makes that clear. Another interesting take is Michael Tracey's. He works with Glenn Greenwald and it appears they have different opinions on Gabbard. Hopefully they can work it out and have both points on view on Greenwald's YouTube show. To me she is just going to be a Trump loyalist, if not, shes fired. She might be able to fight off some of the foreign policy machine, which would be a good thing, and at the same time continue it, like on Gaza.
Yes to all of what you say. In particular, Trump likes the role of hiring and firing, no nuance, no discussion, simply direct and forceful action, the decider, reveling in showing who is the boss. That he is subject to arbitrary action based on anger at someone not being loyal or being disrespectful is likely to produce the same circus of personnel change that we saw in his first go-round. His worst flaw (and there are many) is that reasoning is secondary in anything he does, what is primary is that he is doing it. His insecurity forces him to continually fire people to renew the respect he so desperately needs in his own mind. His TV show fulfilled this craving and without the country having to suffer any consequences. But here we are and there he is in the White House, again.
PS, if I had not been able to write in Jill Stein I would not have voted.
I agree with you voting position if you werent in a swing state.
Nelson, you imply that if I were in a swing state I would have been helping another candidate. That isn't the way democracy works. One votes for the person one wants to see in office and others are free to do the same. It is a fallacy that when I vote for the one I want in office I am "really" voting for someone else.
No. This point of view only indicates that the person voicing it wants to blame another voter for not voting in the way the person wishes. It is the desire to place guilt on someone who is not guilty of anything. But the two parties love to put this out to protect the candidates THEY, not the people, have chosen to present as candidates.
I dont place blame on voters. I might disagree with them, like I just did. People think that voting is everything and how you vote says everything about you personally or your politics. I dont agree with this either. Yes winning elections is very important and during electoral periods we should encourage people to move to our side. If we lose, our work doubles, if we win our work doubles. That is the nature of politics. I hope this clarifies what you implied from my response.
Thank you, great coverage....another chameleon in the making....just what America needs....one slouching' towards Bethlehem to be born'.....
I prefer her to the consistent people who consistently vote for the swamp and corruption.
You would think her standing up for Bernie in 2016 would have given her more credibility with the left. She actually demonstrated the principles many people who wanted Bernie appreciated and she was just abandoned by the left for swamp creatures who call a lieutenant colonel with an FBI security clearance a Russian asset.
I cannot adequately express just how much your reporting throughout the years has been the breath of fresh air most needed and how you can always be trusted to reflect back to us the complexity through which we are all trying to navigate, and clearly present the subsequent questions we should be asking of those in power. Your unwavering integrity is unparalleled and deeply appreciated.
She stuck up for Bernie, called out the war machine, and risen to power through an onslaught of lies.
Good for her.
In 2015, Haines, then deputy director of the CIA and now DNI, was tasked with determining whether CIA personnel should be disciplined for hacking computers of Senate staffers authoring the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. Haines chose not to discipline them, overruling the CIA Inspector General. Tulsi will do better.
I know this is off topic but why are these maga people so ugly
There are beautiful people in both looks and heart on both sides. Comments like this are typical when you have lost the conversation high ground.
Outstanding post. Thank you for proving a public service, if only the public would read it.
If our Zionist Israeli controled government gives her Mossad approval
she's in. Anyone that opposes her AIPAC will turn off thier money.