Tulsi Gabbard - Director of National Intelligence
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Agreed. If she can pass a security clearance, then by all means. I’d be curious to see what the justification is for her to Syria and her ongoing support for the Assad regime. |
Anonymous
“Clean up”? No. He has been very clear that he wants to destroy everything. And then there is his life history of finding ways to personally profit off of everything. Please read How Democracies Die. |
Anonymous
Cool. So surely a whistleblower will be fine undergoing a background check and will appreciate both the necessity and importance of it. |
Anonymous
No, not just a number. The absurdity of people the age of Trump and Biden holding the POTUS position and all the other high ranking government position holders in their eighties will be written about by historians for centuries. The conclusion these historians will come to is that the US went through a several decade period of idiot voters and I think that description is accurate. |
Anonymous
The Democratic Party was traditionally the ideological home of the neocons until the switched to Republican in the 80s and 90s. Almost all of the OG neocons were aides to Scoop Jackson. |
Anonymous
Democrats weaponized the DOJ to go after their political enemies and put Tulsi Gabbard on a terror watch list. She was a democrat senator from Hawaii, previously, but she dared to speak out against Biden and the DNC. They proposed a "Disinformation Governance Board" by the government. Representative Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey) attempted to get more than 126 Republican representatives removed from the House of Representatives in 2021. Tell me, just what kind of "democracy" do you think this is? |
Anonymous
Can you explain her close relationship with Assad of Syria who is a close ally of Russia and Iran? https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-putin-intelligence-russia-syria-a798adaf9cd531a5d0c9329f7597f0f6 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4990947-gabbard-syria-controversy-dni-nomination/ |
Anonymous
Can you explain the Bush’s relationship with the Bin Ladens? Literally nobody cares that Tulsi had a “close relationship” with Syria. It sounds like she wanted to actually go there to figure out what’s going on for herself. Certainly, Liz Cheney isn’t going to Iraq and Syria anytime soon. It’s nice to wish for war when you’re standing at the top of the ivory tower. Tulsi doesn’t think US troops lives are that cheap. She was in combat herself so she knows regime change wars are not in the US’s national security interest but in its financial interest. Most of Washington thinks war is something fabulous and necessary and the goal is not to win the wars but to stay there in perpetuity for defense contractors. McCain once said we would probably remain in Iraq for 100 years. He told the truth and let it slip out. The reason the mainstream media doesn’t want Matt Gaetz and Tulsi is because they spoke passionately for withdrawal and ending the wars for Big Defense. Gaetz promoted lots of anti corruption and anti war bills. He’s against war with Russia and was for ending the war in Afghanistan. That’s why Wall Street, linked to Big Defense, excited after the election and selection of Rubio, a complete tool, didn’t exactly cheer for joy or soar after the second round of Trump picks (Gaetz, RFK, Tulsi) This is a portion of Gaetz speech on the House floor in 2019 https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-matt-gaetz-delivers-major-foreign-policy-speech The "fog of war" is no fog to me, or any of the 700 thousand people I serve. It is not hazy. We see the impact of war everyday among the people we love who shape our lives. It is a stark reminder that the unmatched freedoms we enjoy are not free-- they are bought with the blood of American patriots. And it is our solemn duty and highest responsibility to make sure that this sacred currency is spent only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, prior to the election of Donald Trump, our decision makers have fallen short of this standard, demonstrating a tragic recklessness with the treasure of our nation and the blood of our patriots. Consider this. Since 2001, the United States government has spent nearly 6 TRILLION dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war alone is estimated to have cost 4 trillion---not to mention the immeasurable costs of lost and broken lives. To give you some perspective, 4 trillion dollars was more than our country's entire tax revenue last year. It would be enough to completely overhaul and modernize our nation's infrastructure. It is more than the entire market capitalization of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook COMBINED. It is more than the nation's entire student loan and credit card debt combined. It is nearly 10 times our enormous 419 billion trade deficit with China---a country that was rapidly expanding economically without firing a shot as we were engaged in far-flung Middle East wars. We have been in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. It is the longest war in our nation's history---longer than the Revolutionary War, Civil War and both World Wars combined. American soldiers are dying there who weren't born when the war started. In Afghanistan, after two decades have passed, trillions spent, and thousands of American lives lost, the situation on the ground is actually getting worse! A recent study for congress [SIGAR] has found that US-backed forces in Afghanistan control just 56 percent of administrative districts, down from 72 percent in 2015. Civilian deaths are also up---and despite 8 billion spent on counter-narcotics efforts since 2002, the growth of opium fields has not been slowed. One would think the cautionary tales of Afghanistan and Iraq would make the War Lobby and so-called "national security" experts more cautious about US involvement. One would be wrong. Instead, Hillary Clinton, with the support of hawks in the Republican party, launched a regime change operation in Libya, removing the strong-man dictator Qaddafi. This might sound humanitarian in theory---but there is nothing humanitarian about the slave markets that now thrive in Libya, or the migrant crisis that has wreaked havoc across Europe. The same ‘thought leaders' were equally desperate for regime change in Syria and the removal of Bashar Al-Assad. Like Qaddafi, there is no question he is an evil human and brutal dictator. The problem with the misguided calls for regime change is the lack of a superior alternative to this dictator---the main beneficiaries of such an intervention would be ISIS, and related terrorist groups fighting Assad. Luckily, the War Lobby never got its desired intervention in Syria, largely thanks to Donald Trump--- the ONLY major presidential candidate who spoke against the idea. The so-called "experts" behind our failed foreign policy have not learned from their mistakes because they have never been held accountable for them. And so today the saber-rattling persists, and is directed toward Venezuela, Yemen, and, most disturbingly, Iran. As we look to these countries, it is OUR task to ensure that we don't just recount the mistakes of past decision makers, but that we learn from them. We must resolve not to start unwise wars or put our military in unwinnable and endless conflicts. We know from tragic experience that oppressors like Maduro, Rouhani, and even Kim Jong Un will use military conflict with the United States to scapegoat their own failures, export violence, and deny the organic desires of their own people to seek freedom. In Yemen, Syria, Libya, and beyond, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that unwilling or unreliable local fighters necessitate the involvement of American troops. The examples of Afghanistan Iraq and Libya—just to name a few—teach us that it is an illusion to think that just beyond the life of every dictator lies a peaceful democracy, rather than generations of anarchy, violence, terrorism, and chaos. The lessons we have learned should not be considered in isolation---to the contrary, taken together, they outline a successful "Trump Doctrine" of American foreign policy. The Trump Doctrine falls into four pillars. FIRST – We build and maintain a military edge over everyone. Period. SECOND – American citizens come first. Foreign nations and special interests, not matter how much we like them, don't call the shots. THIRD – National Security begins at HOME, and national security is ALWAYS linked to economic security. FOURTH – An AMERICA FIRST policy is not an isolationist or utopian policy. Others must know that we WILL respond if necessary — and WE WILL WIN. FIRST PILLAR---An America First foreign policy is one of caution, common-sense, and PEACE THROUGH OVERWHELMING STRENGTH. |
Anonymous
| Watch Congress hem and haw and shuffle their feet when it comes to confirming Gaetz, Gabbard, and RFK. Trump has a mandate right now but Congress are too afraid of their donors to push these three through. If even one of these picks gets confirmed, it would be nothing short of a miracle, especially Tulsi who has cred as a military vet |
Anonymous
\ tl;dr your long post, but regarding "Literally nobody cares that Tulsi had a “close relationship” with Syria," that's demonstrably false. Just google "Tulsi Gabbard + Syria" and you will see plenty of articles citing concerns about her relationship with Syria. If her trip to and subsequent ties with Syria are completely innocent, then she should have no problem submitting to a background check. I would hope to God that anyone nominated for the position of Director of National Intelligence can pass a background check. Would you agree that anyone nominated to this position should receive a background check that includes exploring their relationship with foreign governments? "Gabbard’s own meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2017 angered many of her then-fellow Democrats. They said her visit helped legitimize a leader accused of war crimes and who has served as a proxy and host for Russia and Iran in the Middle East. Assad welcomed Russia’s military into Syria in 2015 to crush a popular uprising against him. Russian forces and Iranian-allied militias have remained, using Syria as a base for attacks on American troops and their allies. The U.S. has severed diplomatic relations with Syria and placed Assad under heavy sanctions over the brutality with which he, Russian warplanes and Iranian-allied forces crushed the uprising, leading to 500,000 deaths." |
Anonymous
Can you explain Joe Biden's close relationship with Xi Jinping, Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party? |
Anonymous
I think she just picked the lesser evil. |
Anonymous
|
Close relationship? She needed a translator to speak to Assad.
He told her the truth. He never chemically bombed Syrians nor did and doesn’t know who did. He is not any more of a dictator than the Saudis or anyone else with a monarchial system. He never wanted the job as president in the first place. He was an opthamologist when his older Brother died and he had to take over the reins. He is for a secular Syria as part of a religious minority himself (Alawite Shia) and has defended the religious minorities from ISIS, a foreign concoction that was brought to Syria to sow chaos and division and “civil war” . Quite tellingly, Obama reneged much like Trump on invading Syria which HRC and Biden were in support of and criticized Obama for not invading after Crimea and the so called Syrian “chemical attack” using the Washington favorite “weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons”.. Maybe there’s something Obama and Trump both feel about the intelligence community. Maybe it’s because they’re perpetually dishonest and have their own agendas for regime change wars. |
Anonymous
Exactly. Most Americans still prefer peace, not war. Wake up, Democrats. |
Anonymous
In darkness ? Ok wapo , |