Yves here. Despite Tulsi Gabbard having loudly and consistently opposed US “regime change wars” and taking political risk to do so (like meeting with Assad), Tom Neuburger reminds us that she’s a hawk on other issues, like supporting Israel. He still comes out for her, albeit not with much enthusiasm.
One other factor in favor of Gabbard is that she intends to leash and collar the CIA. Even though the CIA, along with other intelligence agencies, on paper reports to the Director of National Intelligence, in practice the CIA calls its own shots and has privileged access to the President via its daily briefings. The mere weight of numbers makes the CIA a force to be reckoned with. The DNI has 1,750 employees, while the CIA has over 21,500, and that’s before you add in a very large population of assets.
Making the CIA more accountable, even if only to the President and other minders, is a very tall order. If Gabbard were nominated and made any progress, that would be a major accomplishment in and of itself. The CIA will argue it needs to operate in secret or its operations will be impaired (mind you, if it really is mainly in the regime change business, Gabbard would see that as an entirely good thing). One way to check the agency might be to release historical records largely unredacted. It would be hard to argue that anything before 1990 has any current value….save exposing how dirty the spook business really is.
CNN points out that Presidential nominees are almost without exception waved through:
For all the drama generated every four years by Cabinet appointments, defeat of a nominee by a vote in the Senate is extremely rare.
The only time a nominee by a new president was rejected by a Senate vote occurred in 1989, when George H.W. Bush nominated John Tower, a former senator from Texas, to be his secretary of defense.
Tower was undone by stories of his excessive drinking and what press reports at the time referred to as “womanizing,” and which Pentagon files back then documented as placing “special attention on the secretaries” as an arms negotiator in Geneva.
On the other hand, most of Trump’s nominees are, erm, way out of band. Dr. Oz at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services amounts to trolling. There may be enough TDS + a desire among those not afflicted to remind Trump of guardrails that the Senate might block a nominee to make a point. But I doubt there is enough coordination for that to be a plan, as opposed to desire. Will that sentiment coalesce around one candidate, or be too diffuse to create a real obstacle?
In the meantime, I would very much like it it Gabbard were to use her opening statement to make a modern version of the “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” speech that brings down or at least dents Russiagate in the way Joseph Welch finished off Joe McCarthy.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
“When it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”
—Tulsi Gabbard, 2016
The list of Donald Trump’s picks for cabinet posts is filling up fast. Some are relentlessly awful, like Chris Wright, a fossil fuel CEO, for Department of Energy; Mike Huckabee, pretend Christian for Ambassador to Israel; Lee Zeldin, Trump loyalist for EPA; and the racist Stephen Miller for, well, anything.
But other nominations are more mixed. Many decry Matt Gaetz for “ethical issues,” though others, notably progressives, praise his antitrust advocacy, his opposition to corporate power — especially Big Tech — his support for Lina Khan, his opposition to congressional insider trading, his dislike of corporate stock buybacks and his stance against government surveillance.
Which brings me to Tulsi Gabbard, another mixed nomination.
Tulsi Gabbard
Much has been written about Trump’s pick of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. This is perhaps the most powerful job in the National Security State — the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and NSA all report to the DNI. The President is certainly more powerful, and the CIA chief may be as well, given that so much of what the Agency does is hidden, known only perhaps to itself. But the DNI is clearly one of the major hubs around which security happens.
For this discussion, let’s focus primarily on Jeremy Scahill’s evaluation of Gabbard’s nomination. He’s gathered as many of her pluses and minuses as anyone, and Gabbard, to my eyes, is certainly a mixed nomination.
Virtue and Vice
Scahill on what he (and I) consider her virtues (all emphasis mine):
If confirmed as the next Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would represent one of the most unorthodox political figures to hold such a senior national security post in U.S. history. A veteran of the war in Iraq, Gabbard was elected to Congress in 2012 and emerged as a sharp critic of the U.S. forever wars launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. She denounced U.S. regime change wars, including the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and consistently opposed U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s scorched earth war against Yemen, which extended from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. On multiple occasions, she accused Trump of being “Saudi Arabia’s bitch,” taking orders from his Saudi “masters,” and of supporting Al Qaeda. She has called for pardoning whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and fought to change U.S. laws permitting domestic surveillance of Americans.
These are all points in the anti-imperialist ledger. Yet she also brings this to the role:
Gabbard is not an antigen infiltrating the U.S. intelligence system. Over the past four years she has fully embraced Trump’s America First posture in explaining her dissent from the elite foreign policy consensus. Gabbard also has a history of support for a slew of standard, bipartisan U.S. national security and defense policies. She has offered die-hard backing for Israel’s war against Gaza, opposed a ceasefire, and accused Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the chief facilitators of Israel’s genocidal war, of being soft on terrorism and anti-semitism. She has also argued that the U.S. and other Western nations should wage both a military and ideological war against what she calls “radical Islamist ideology.” She has described herself as a “hawk” when it comes to using military action against “terrorists” and has advocated using “surgical” drone strikes against terror groups, a system refined and expanded under the Obama and Trump administrations. She has praised Egyptian dictator Abdel Fatah al-Sisi for his “great courage and leadership” and, following a 2015 meeting with Sisi in Cairo, called on Obama to “take action to recognize President el-Sisi and his leadership.” In Congress, Gabbard voted to keep in place U.S. surveillance laws aimed at foreign nationals and nations and supported economic sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
There’s also this: “Gabbard also has close ties to far right Hindu nationalists with an explicitly violent anti-Muslim agenda and an alliance with Israel and extremist Zionists.”
As I say, a very mixed bag.
Opposition to Gabbard
Opposition to this nomination comes in two flavors, covert and overt.
The overt flavor is some form of Hillary Clinton’s charge that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” The context was the 2020 Democratic primary in which Gabbard appeared to be making some early gains. Clinton also said, “I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.” A Clinton spokesperson later made clear the remarks were directed at Gabbard.
In the same interview Clinton called Jill Stein a “Russian asset. I mean, totally.” No evidence was ever offered for either charge, the one against Stein or Gabbard.
These accusations are improbable in the extreme. Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran, a former member of Congress and a serving Lt. Col. in the Army Reserve. Despite being labeled a traitor, she’d be up on charges for sure if even a scrap of evidence existed to back this up. But “Russia” is a good trigger word for much of America, though it’s losing effectiveness fast — witness “cultivated Russian asset” Donald Trump’s comfortable reelection.
But I think that’s the cover story, the bright red flag. The actual opposition comes from the bipartisan military state, the one that wants all its wars, all the money that goes with it, and no talking back.
By this analysis, Gabbard’s pro-militarist “virtues”…
- Support for the Gaza genocide
- Support for the Forever War against “radical Islam”
- Support for drone attacks against “terror cells”
…are not outweighed by her multiple heresies:
- Sees Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as security-based
- Thinks that NATO expansion is a destabilizing force (she shares this view with George Kennan — that George Kennan — and Thomas Friedman)
- Understands that domestic surveillance is a political threat, thanks to her own experience of being placed on the TSA’s Quiet Skies program. Gabbard: “Given this environment, it’s impossible to feel free. No American deserves this. No American deserves to live in fear of our own government.”
In my view, the State wants a robot in office, and she’s not it.
Her Confirmation
Will she be confirmed? Krystal Ball has said in one of her Thursday segments that, this time around, Trump has everything gamed out. That’s possible; in my view his goal is now governing in the “I’m going to shake things up” sense. He wants his own retribution and intends to rule, unlike before when his goal was to just bathe in glory.
So he may be fully committed to her confirmation, despite the U.S. foreign policy establishment, which has committed itself for decades to a long war against Russia. We’ll have to see on that.
Preferring The Lesser Evil
Democrats and their supporters are well aware of the “lesser evil” principle. “Vote for not that” has been their rallying cry for quite a few years. Unless you buy into (in my view) the clear propaganda that Gabbard’s an actual spy — or unless you want real war with Russia — Gabbard’s the lesser evil compared to a blood-and-guts Blob representative, Blinken or Sullivan, say, or Trump’s NSA pick Mike Waltz, against whom she’ll contend.
I therefore recommend supporting her confirmation. If it fails, consider that a win for the warlike State — and prepare accordingly.
At some point our global violence will be sent back home. We’re too soft a target and too many non-Americans have had enough. If they finally decide to get their own retribution, to show us what casual slaughter feels like up close, you won’t want to be around when that occurs.
This is a pretty fair assessment of Gabbard, in my view. I share Yves’ doubts that she could do much toward draining the swamp, even as DNI. But as Neuburger notes, she has been strikingly honest in the past about our regime change operations, including criticisms of Trump’s actions against Iran during his first administration. Just using her position to counter our massive propaganda machine would be an improvement. But that is not the usual role for a DNI, who usually works behind the scenes. If she could keep Trump from being misled by false or distorted intelligence or by the views of the rest of his foreign policy picks, then that would be helpful.
In addition to the problematic aspects noted above, I have not liked Gabbard’s recent tendency toward tailoring her rhetoric to appeal to MAGA Republicans. That said, I’d agree that this is one Trump appointment I could support. For the same reasons, I think the opposition to her appointment, both “overt” and “covert,” will be fierce. And it will continue even if she makes it through confirmation. She has breached some Establishment red lines, such as telling the truth about Syria, Ukraine, and the DNC. Good luck to “Putin’s girlfriend.”
Thank you. IMO, a good summary of the Gabbard balance sheet. I consider her a step in the right direction, yet having been repeatedly burned by previous attractive looking (pun alert) agents of “change” puts me in the wait and see category.
Is her antagonism to Islamic terrorism really a bad thing? There is a long history of the US weaponizing Islamic terrorists (the Taliban!!) against its opponents with horrid blowback (9/11 and the resultant security state that Bin Laden foresaw). Meanwhile, she has shown exceptional courage in the face of bureaucratic warfare.
It’s hard to see her support or antagonism (as if) for the Israeli genocide making a difference in the AIPAC-owned Hill of DC – I very sadly expect the genocide to end on the battlefield (with Israel disappearing as an apartheid genocide experiment – Leith on Garland says Zionists are down to 5 million – and the productive knowledge workers and those with money are the ones that left).
I think the Western reluctance to criticize Islamic Fundamentalism comes from their peculiar racist brand of multiculturalism: their view of other cultures is built around their often crazy stereotypes. They equate Islam with certain fundametalist strains, so either they condemn Islam wholesale (not too fashionable nowadays, at least not openly) or tolerate extreme and violent strains (increasingly common now). The fascinating intellectual evolution within Islam throughout its history is ignored–if they knew anything at all.
Perhaps it’s not new: during WW2, POW camp commandants in US accepted Nazi salute from POWs in part because the international treaties required that the POWs are to salute their captors in their own way (true) , because they assumed all Germans were Nazis (ha!), and that Nazi salute was the regulation salute in Germany (not true until the July, 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler) Attitudes like this enabled Nazis to exercise far more influence than they should have been allowed in POW camps.
Things will change and the civilised world will end up viewing Zionism as a particularly nasty minority cult which practised the ritual murder of Islamic children on a lavish scale. The real problem will lie in our ability to avoid the stigma touching the large majority of Jews who feel as much contempt for Zionists as most NC readers probably do.
The U.S. has played the Sunni Shi’a rift, using the Sunni/Wahabbi against Iran.
In the plan was pulling the Sunni into detente with Israel to do Iran.
Zionist genocide may blunt this.
Iran/Shi’ part of Iraq/Syria pose a bloc with interior lines large population, large areas, and now the broader alignment against the empire.
That said lacking immediate termination authority Gabbard has a tough row to hoe.
Gabbard confuses or confounds the struggle of Palestinians for recognition, self determination, rights, equality, with islamic fundamentalism. That is on purpose, not because she is stupid, and given the present genocide and the imminent intention of israeli to announce annexation, is unexcusable, and at least for me, puts her in the same basket of criminals.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/force-evacuation-and-smash-the-camps
Agreed, but the system is set up to ensure that the same basket of criminals are the only choices available. It will take way more than a Tulsi Gabbard to change the system that has trillions of dollars at stake in its existence.
Imagine if JiIl Stein had won due to divine intervention, congress would prevent her from changing anything, and then attempt to imprison her. And her bureaucracy would also attempt to destroy her – nine ways from Sunday.
It’s a whole thing because of her links to right wing Hindu movements. (Her dad is Samoan Christian her mom is white hippie Hindu).
I think Tulsi in her heart started pretty far left, but the democratic party lining up to destroy her for questioning their plot of feeding the Syrian people to al qaeda showed her there was no future for her there.
If she can get to DNI and gives CIA some much needed spankings, well that will be an achievement.
Given the pool of candidates, as flawed as she may be, Tulsi remains one of the best choices for the job. The fact that there is so much Deep State backlash against her is a very encouraging sign.
The big question is if she will deliver or if the money from the swamp will cause her to betray her original cause. No doubt, there will be plenty of money and other attempts the Deep State will offer her if she defects.
If she stays loyal to the cause, she’s got a huge fight ahead of her, because the CIA and its backers will throw everything they have at her. As hinted in the article, another issue is that the Deep State is so entrenched that she will have her hands full just fighting it and that she will be in a spot where she will be limited in her ability to make real changes.
I don’t know what else can bring the system-wide changes that are urgently needed. One possibility is that the US experiences a USSR-like collapse. That’s looking more and more likely now with the issues that the US is facing in my opinion. At that point, economic realities will force a major retrenchment in the military and intelligence services. It won’t matter if the rich want it or not.
I wonder what´s the anti-Gabbard leverage of senators who are former nat.sec.members
CIA Democrats and Other Party Hawks Win Races in 2024 Election
Jeremy Kuzmanov
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/11/17/cia-democrats-and-other-party-hawks-win-races-in-2024-election/
On the other hand – she won´t meet that much opposition.
“When it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”
Well, that ain´t workin´. You won´t get one without the other.
So lets not get our hopes too high.
An empire is an empire is an empire.
p.s. US war veterans from Vietnam used to be completely against violence. But I assume those were different times.
Today unique figures such as Matthew Hoh are rare birs. Those who don´t go back to D.C. and fight it instead.
But since we have started to measure everything against preventing WWIII the bar is very low indeed.
And I am aware you have to take baby steps to get Jack the Ripper under control.
oh, and are there productive wars of regime change???
The only thing I disagree with on Neuburger’s take on Lt Col Gabberd, and agree with Gabberd, is that I think NATO expansion is destabilizing. Russia-Ukraine War?
As for his comments on her being a Russian “assett”, I wish he had also mentioned that she has had a TS Clearance for years and the investigations to get those clearances are very intense and intrusive to one’s private life. If there were any questions whatsoever, the Clearance would have been withheld.
JCC,
I agree with her about NATO and also agree that she’s not a Russian asset.
There’s a phrasing glitch in the lead-in to my bullet points that may have created confusion (my careless proofing).
“…are not outweighed by her multiple heresies” should read “…are outweighed by her multiple heresies” in the eyes of militarists, of which I am not.
HTH,
Thomas
I took that to be implied. ‘Heresies’ isn’t a word that most people use in earnest.
One of those heresies was that Kamala-ending debate performance in the 2020 primaries.
Thank you for clearing that up, I was a little worried about the NATO statement :)
As for the Russian asset point, I know you agreed, I was just pointing out the additional evidence that I believe to be important but is often never mentioned
Thank you for the article. Overall I thought it was on point.
Professor Postel said yesterday in a Dialogue Works interview that he advised Gabbard on technical problems with official narrative on chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Being willing to question implausible claims about casus belli is a highly desirable and important attribute for an intelligence chief in a democracy.
The bar is very low…
An empire is an empire…
Yes, and thanks for the reminder.
“Dr. Oz at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services amounts to trolling.”
Nominating Dr. Oz for Surgeon General would have been far more effective trolling.
Oz looked to me like a guy who would endorse any snake oil as long as he got paid…and I’d believed that until someone I know got a clip installed on one of his heart valves. The guy could barely rise from his chair before the extremely non-invasive (non-open-heart) operation, but literally two hours after was walking and talking like normal.
So…who invented this magical clip? Answer: Dr. Oz.
So…there may be more than meets the eye.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/mitraclip-heart-valve-device-dr-oz-fda/
July 9, 2024
From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
By David Hilzenrath and Holly K. Hacker
In 2013, the FDA approved an implantable device to treat leaky heart valves. Among its inventors was Mehmet Oz, the former television personality and former U.S. Senate candidate widely known as “Dr. Oz.”
In online videos, Oz has called the process that brought the MitraClip device to market an example of American medicine firing “on all cylinders,” and he has compared it to “landing a man on the moon.”
MitraClip was designed to spare patients from open-heart surgery by snaking hardware into the heart through a major vein. Its manufacturer, Abbott, said it offered new hope for people severely ill with a condition called mitral regurgitation and too frail to undergo surgery.
“It changed the face of cardiac medicine,” Oz said in a video.
But since MitraClip won FDA approval, versions of the device have been the subject of thousands of reports to the agency about malfunctions or patient injuries, as well as more than 1,100 reports of patient deaths, FDA records show. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three recalls…
It seems to me that Gabbard is not Russophobic enough to get confirmed – but maybe she won’t need to be confirmed. There was a time when I hoped that Bernie would pick her for Vice President – it was not to be.
Ray McGovern begins his commentary on Tulsi with
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/14/ray-mcgovern-will-gabbard-be-able-to-direct-the-intelligence-community/
Having learned to mistrust 99% of what I read in the media, I tend to rely on my own observations and conclusions, than any ‘pundit’s. Take for example all the back and forth on Trump’s Cabinet picks. Recently, there was a photo of Trump, Musk, Donald Jr, and RFK Jr eating burgers on a plane. For the time being, that image: the power behind the throne.
Also, Gilbert Doctorow posted, 11/19, a discussion between himself and Judge Napolitano (Judging Freedom).. Transcripts from a video of a Trump speech (I am not sure when this was made.) were included. From the 2 minute segment, the following by Trump “We need peace without delay. In addition, there must also be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad, while they turn us into a third-world country and a third-world dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted to fire the deep-staters and put America first. We have to put America first. Finally, we have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally revaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission. ”
In my estimation, it might be a fair assumption (above) that this is what Trump intends to do. His appointees presumably will be tasked with accomplishing this, whatever their personal philosophies are. How far Trump will get is unknown, becasuse it has to be projected that there will be a reactionary response to anything that challenges the anti Putin and not pro Nato idea. And god forbid discussing the notion of a deep state or power elite or call it what you will,e.g who exactly is making decisions while Biden is wandering around lost in the rainforest. One way or the other, like it or not, Trump’s policies will dominate the new’s cycle. Morning Joe has figured it out and other’s will folow.
In the event, expect fireworks, whomever gets selected for whatever post.
Tulsi Gabbard is the first person ever nominated much less confirmed for DNI who was not a wholly owned asset of the “intelligence community” or “ball of snakes”, take your choice. I could not disagree more with her position on Gaza. It is not only dead wrong, it amounts to supporting a crime. But, with gritted teeth I hope to see her confirmed.
I guess there is not a single US-politician eligible for such a post in the eyes of the entire establishment.
Just look at Germany. While parroting US media hysteria against Trump and in general feeling superior to the US as moral “values” go – virtually no German politician of a major party would disagree with Gabbard on Gaza.
It does seem like our government is so fully owned by the Israel Lobby that that is the one red line that really could by itself keep someone out of a foreign policy role.
For those of us feeling nostalgic for the 2010s…
Support (clap emoji) Women (clap emoji) of (clap emoji) Color (clap emoji)
…
(clap emoji) But (clap emoji) Not (clap emoji) That (clap emoji) One (clap emoji)
/s
I’m not reading anything these days about Tulsi Gabbard’s cult. Is this no longer an issue?
In reading the article linked to in the original piece, I’m thinking this could potentially be a larger issue for her than the ‘Russia/Assad’ stuff. If asked the proper questions about the organizations that framed her education and upbringing, and to what extent do they continue to influence her, she may have a problem. I get the sense her Office has been devising ways to answer for that enormous part of who she is for some time now.
I think she can swat away most other issues, but this one may be a bit trickier to take the highroad on. Maybe not. Either way, I do hope she earns approval.
I don’t see how Bernie Sanders will vote against her confirmation, given their history and his “Independent” status. Unless there are 3+ defectors from the R column, which could happen, she’s got it locked.
Should she release the JFK files, the CIA will lose all standing among the American public, and that internicine battle may be over before it even starts.
Maybe the real question with Tulsi Gabbard is how she got this nomination in the first place. Consider. For the Democrats she should have been on their bench of rising stars and groomed for at the very least a Cabinet post – or more. She is young, female, competent and even knows how to talk in complete sentences rather than sound bytes. She could have been a Democrat champion. Instead the Democrats have harassed her during her entire career, accused her of treason, called her a Russian spy and an Assad toady, tried to get her voted out of her seat in Hawaii and just out and out attacked her. In the end she was chased out of her party and now she will get that Cabinet post – but for the Republicans. And that is the real story here. That and a very thin Democrat bench. As an example, how many Americans want to see a President Gavin Newsom? Or a Madame President Gretchen Whitmer? But hey, as long as the consultants are being paid on time, right?
Yes.
Most of Trump’s picks appear to be fairly horrible people in many respects, and where they are not horrible people, like Gabbard, they hold horrible opinions in some ways.
But unlike the Democrats, they are not conspicuously fools.
I seem to remember that George Orwell remarked that when Tories start appearing intelligent, it’s time to start checking your pockets.
What was it that swamp Democrat Chuck Schumer said? Oh yeah :