Eve is here. Even though Tulsi Gabbard has loudly and consistently opposed America’s “regime change wars” and taken political risks to do so (including meeting with Assad), Tom Neuberger reminded us that he is hawkish on other issues, such as support for Israel. He still comes out for her, but less enthusiastically.
Another factor in favor of Gabbard is that she is trying to put a collar on the CIA. Although the CIA, along with other intelligence agencies, reports on paper to the Director of National Intelligence, in practice it makes its own decisions and has privileged access to the president through daily briefings. The weight of numbers alone makes the CIA a force to be reckoned with. The DNI has 1,750 employees, while the CIA has more than 21,500 employees, and that’s before adding in its many, many assets.
Making the CIA more accountable, even if only to the president and others, is a tall order. Any progress with Gabbard’s nomination would be a major accomplishment in itself. The CIA will argue that it needs to operate covertly, or its operations will be undermined (just to be clear, the CIA is really primarily in the regime change business). (If so, Gabbard would think that’s perfectly fine.) One way to check government agencies might be to release largely unredacted historical records. It would be hard to argue that anything from before 1990 has any value today…aside from exposing just how dirty the ghost business really is.
CNN points out that presidential candidates are almost universally waved like this:
Cabinet appointments create drama every four years, but it is extremely rare for a candidate to lose a vote in the Senate.
The only time a new presidential nominee was rejected by the Senate was in 1989, when George H.W. Bush nominated former Texas senator John Tower to be secretary of defense.
There were stories of Tower’s excessive drinking and what contemporary news reports called him a “womanizer,” and a Pentagon file from the time that says he gave “special consideration to his secretary” as an arms negotiator in Geneva. Mr. Tower never returned.
On the other hand, most of President Trump’s nominees are, well, outside the box. Dr. Oz at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services amounts to trolling. There may be a desire among enough TDS and those who have not been harmed to remind President Trump of the guardrails that the Senate may block the nominee’s claims. But I don’t think it’s coordinated enough for it to be a plan rather than a wish. Will that sentiment coalesce around one candidate, or will it be too diffuse to create any real obstacles?
In the meantime, I really hope Gabbard uses her opening remarks to create a modern version of “Do You Have No Common Sense?” A speech that will bring Russiagate down, or at least dent it, the way Joseph Welch took down Joe McCarthy.
Written by Thomas Neuberger. Originally published on God’s Spies
“When it comes to fighting terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”
—Tulsi Gabbard, 2016
Donald Trump’s list of candidates for cabinet positions is rapidly filling up. Some people, like Chris Wright, the fossil fuel CEO of the Department of Energy, are relentlessly awful. Mike Huckabee, Christian ambassador-to-be to Israel. Lee Zeldin, Trump supporter at the EPA. And racist Stephen Miller is like, well, whatever.
But other candidates are more complicated. While many have accused Matt Gaetz of “ethical issues,” others, particularly progressives, have criticized him for his defense of antitrust law, his opposition to corporate power, especially Big Tech, his support for Lina Khan, and his support for Congress. He praises his opposition to insider trading and his aversion to stock buybacks. and his stance on government surveillance.
Which brings me to another mixed candidate, Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard
Much has been written about President Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. This is perhaps the most powerful job in the national security state, with the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and NSA all reporting to the DNI. Certainly the president is more powerful, and the CIA director may be as well, given that much of the CIA’s activities are hidden and perhaps known only to him. But it’s clear that the DNI is one of the main hubs where security takes place.
For this discussion, let’s focus primarily on Jeremy Scahill’s assessment of Gabbard’s nomination. He collects more of her strengths and weaknesses than anyone, and in my eyes, Gabbard is certainly a controversial candidate.
virtue and vice
Scahill talks about what he (and I) think of her virtues (all emphasis on me).
If confirmed as the next Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would become one of the most unconventional politicians to hold such a senior national security post in U.S. history. Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, was elected to Congress in 2012 and emerged as a sharp critic of America’s forever wars, which began in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. She condemns U.S. regime change wars, including the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, and consistently opposes U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s scorched-earth war against Yemen, which lasted from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. did. She has repeatedly accused President Trump of being a “Saudi bitch,” taking orders from his Saudi “masters,” and supporting al-Qaeda. She has sought pardons for whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, and has fought for changes to U.S. law that would allow domestic surveillance of Americans.
These are all points on the anti-imperialist ledger. But she also brings this to the role:
Gabbard is not an antigen infiltrating U.S. information systems. For the past four years, she has fully embraced President Trump’s America First stance in explaining her opposition to the elite foreign policy consensus. Ms. Gabbard also has a history of supporting many standard bipartisan U.S. national security and defense policies. She staunchly supports Israel’s war on Gaza, opposes a ceasefire, and accuses Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the main promoters of Israel’s genocidal war, of being soft on terrorism and anti-Semitism. She also argued that the United States and other Western countries should wage both military and ideological war against what she called “radical Islamist ideology.” She describes herself as a “hawk” when it comes to military action against “terrorists” and advocates the use of “surgical” drone strikes against terrorist organizations, a system that was refined and expanded under the Obama and Trump administrations. I am doing it. She praised the “great courage and leadership” of Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and after meeting with Sisi in Cairo in 2015, she urged President Obama to “act in recognition of President Sisi and his leadership.” “Take it.” Gabbard voted in Congress to maintain U.S. surveillance laws targeting foreign nationals and nations, and supported economic sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
“Gabbard also has close ties to far-right Hindu nationalists who have explicitly violent anti-Muslim policies and are allied with Israel and Zionist extremists.”
As I say, it’s a very complicated situation.
Gabbard’s opponents
There are two types of opposition to this nomination: covert and overt.
This overt tone is a type of Hillary Clinton’s accusation that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” The background is the 2020 Democratic primary, in which Gabbard appeared to have some kind of victory early on. “I think they’re looking at someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and trying to develop her into a third-party candidate,” Clinton said. Clinton’s press secretary later clarified that the remarks were directed at Gabbard.
In the same interview, Clinton called Jill Stein a “Russian asset.” “I mean, absolutely.” No evidence was presented on either Stein or Gabbard’s charges.
The likelihood of such accusations being extreme is low. Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, former congressman and lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. Despite being labeled a traitor, if there is any evidence to support this, she will definitely be prosecuted. But while “Russia” is a good trigger word for much of the United States, its effectiveness is rapidly disappearing. Please witness the comfortable re-election of Donald Trump, the “cultivated Russian asset”.
But I think that’s the cover story, a red flag. The current opposition comes from a bipartisan military state that wants all the war and all the money that comes with it, and no talk back.
According to this analysis, Gabbard’s pro-militarist “virtues” are…
…Her multiple heresies are no better than that.
In my opinion, the nation wants to have robots in office, but she doesn’t.
her confirmation
Will she be confirmed? Crystal Ball said on Thursday’s show that President Trump did it all this time. It’s possible. In my view, his goals are currently dominant in the sense of “I’m going to shake things up.” He wants his own revenge and intends to rule, unlike before when all he wanted to do was bask in glory.
He may therefore be fully committed to her recognition, despite the US foreign policy establishment, which has been preoccupied with a long war with Russia for decades. We need to look into that.
prefer the lesser evil
Democrats and their supporters are well aware of the “lesser evil” principle. “Vote otherwise” has been their rallying cry for years. Unless you buy into the clear propaganda that Gabbard is a real spy (in my opinion), or unless you want a real war with Russia, Gabbard is better than the blood and guts blob representatives like Blinken, Sullivan, etc. Or even less evil than what Trump represents. The NSA nominates Mike Waltz and she will run against him.
Therefore, I recommend supporting her confirmation. If it fails, consider it a victory for belligerent nations and prepare accordingly.
At some point, our global violence will be sent home. We are too easy on the target and too many non-Americans have had enough. If they finally decide to take revenge on themselves and show us up close what a casual massacre looks like, you don’t want to be around when it happens. Sho.
