We need someone in the post willing to rein in the neocon intelligence and foreign policy establishments when they urge the president to double down on military action based on phony or incomplete intelligence.
Models of the U-2, A-12, and D-21 photo-reconnaissance aircraft suspended from the ceiling of the C.I.A.’s headquarters’ glass-enclosed atrium in 2007. (Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)
By John Kiriakou
Special to Consortium News
President-elect Donald Trump this week stirred up the intelligence community with his picks of former Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence (DNI) and former DNI and Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe as C.I.A. director.
Ratcliff, a fierce partisan, is nonetheless the more traditional pick of the two. Gabbard spent her life as a Democrat, including eight years in the House before running for president in 2020, dropping out, changing her affiliation to “Independent,” and then changing it to Republican and endorsing Trump.
She is the more controversial pick, not necessarily because of her politics, but because she is far more isolationist than most Democrats and she supports an immediate end to the war in Ukraine and engagement with North Korea, China and Syria.
Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard are likely to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, according to The Washington Post. Neither is as controversial as, say, attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz, who was investigated a year ago for sex trafficking, or defense secretary nominee Peter Hegseth, a former Army captain who is currently a Fox News host and who has literally no experience running anything larger than his own household.
While Democrats will likely oppose both Ratcliffe and Gabbard, if only because the two are MAGA Republicans who want to end U.S. financial and military support for Ukraine, Republicans now control 53 Senate seats, more than enough for confirmation, with room to lose a few.
Publicly, Democrats aren’t saying much about Ratcliffe. He’s mostly a known quantity in Washington, having been DNI for a few months at the end of the first Trump administration. He’s a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and was also a member of Trump’s impeachment defense team.
Ratcliffe was initially dismissed as unqualified for the DNI job in 2019. He withdrew from consideration, but Trump renamed him a year later and he was finally approved by a sharply-divided Senate. His tenure was short, and he didn’t do anything either controversial or innovative in his few months in the job.
Gabbard’s nomination has drawn far more ire, especially from Democrats. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), a former C.I.A. officer, said she was “appalled” by Gabbard’s nomination and added, “Not only is she ill-prepared and unqualified, but she traffics in conspiracy theories and cozies up to dictators like Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.”
Gabbard, while a U.S. representative, addressing the 2019 California Democratic Party state convention in San Francisco. (Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) called Gabbard’s nomination “incredibly reckless,” and added that “Putting someone with known sympathies for foreign adversaries (in the position) is not putting America’s interests first — it’s putting our security at risk.”
And Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) said, “Tulsi Gabbard’s deep ties to some of our nation’s most dangerous adversaries, including Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Vladimir Putin of Russia, make her an untrustworthy guardian of our nation’s most closely held secrets.”
All of this is, in my own humble opinion, absurd. Democrats don’t like Gabbard because she never bought into the party’s anti-Russia hysteria, because she was never supportive of putting the U.S. and NATO on the brink of war with Russia in Ukraine, and because she doubted the Democratic Party’s assertion that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, an allegation refuted by United Nations whistleblowers.
That’s exactly what we need in a healthy democracy — somebody in a position of authority who makes decisions based on facts, not on what happens to be politically expedient. We need a person willing to rein in the neoconservative/neoliberal intelligence and foreign policy establishment when they urge the president to double down on military action based on phony or incomplete intelligence.
Gabbard may face one substantive challenge when she finally becomes DNI. That challenge will be in dealing with Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio, currently a Republican senator from Florida. Rubio is a longtime mainstream neoconservative hawk, especially on China, although he has kowtowed to Trump successfully over the past eight years.
Rubio and Gabbard have some clashing views, but Gabbard is as much a seasoned bureaucratic fighter as Rubio is. The question, then, will be who can more successfully get Trump’s ear.
The bottom line in my view is that Trump appears to be serious in his desire to change the country’s foreign and intelligence policy. He appears to be serious about shaking up the intelligence community. He appears to be serious about bringing foreign conflicts in which the U.S. is involved to a close.
Those are all good things for those of us who support a change to the pro-war status quo that is the military-industrial complex. We can certainly disagree with Donald Trump on a thousand other issues. But on Tulsi Gabbard, he got it right.
John Kiriakou is a former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act — a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Safari still won’t allow me to access this page.
Tom I had considered moving to Safari a few months ago. I found a fella who seems to know a significant amount about these machines, all of them including macs.
He advised against switching to Safari for a good many reasons, one being support for them.
I am still having issues with the consortium site but I can get on from my email. And it seems to be current.
A large proportion of individuals, I’m not talking about your here, just individuals in general are going to be greatly disappointed in the up coming months I fear.
This censorship thing is all too real I fear.
I see this of being of great significance. If the nation intelligence / nationals security community has any issues with Trump their censorship efforts signal they desire his message to get out. I am not seeing much in the nature of obstructing his efforts from the establishment.
I consider this very bad news for the rest of us.
Stay strong!
John, I agree, “She could” however lets not forget who she will be working for. See my comment left at Ray McGovern’s article here about Tulsi.
I have, what I think is a valid point to make.
I am very interested in the fall out from Trumps picks, just as everyone else. What I fail to detect is any respect for the National Security | U.S. Intelligence community by himself. Typical Trump IMHO!
Seems to me the last guy who intended to turn his full attention to a reorg at CIA , not to mention the NSA and the other too numerous to mention here, met with quite the dramatic end. I don’t I need to mention he was the sitting POTUS at the time.
Tulsi has a shot at being affective only if the majority of the U.S. National Security – U.S. Intelligence community backs her. This will only work if the support she receives is of the super secret quiet type. Trump suspects anything is going on he will fire her, OTS – on the spot, then likely try to have her tried for treason. This is who he really is, BTW!
I have some faith in her because of her age and her record so far. She needs some professional ‘aging’ in D.C. to thrive., and luck to survive. I guess we will see.
Thanks CN
Trump has not forgotten that the intelligence community were key players in the Russiagate hoax, and he probably thinks that Gabbard will not be taken in by such conspiratorial nonsense. I would like to believe that she will be a voice of reason in the new administration, but she will be constantly fighting off nutjobs and warmongers like Rubio. Also, what are Gabbard’s political leanings at the present time? It’s hard to know for certain, given how many times she has switched horses.
I think she’s still a Bernie Bro at heart. She and Trump would likely disagree on pretty much everything in terms of domestic policy, but are simpatico on foreign policy.
Guess I should of known Gabbard is of course, for genocide. Thanks to Hetro for pointing this out. A sad disappointment. “Wishful thinking” seems to abound in things I read about the President Elect, and I guess I had a touch of that myself. There will not be even one person that is not for genocide appointed by the President Elect, is that right? How is that assumed to be sane? I respectfully retract/withdraw etc. my previous comment re: Ms. Gabbard with apologies. Damn.
I supported Tulsi Gabbard as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primaries. I’ve paid attention to her since. As a Viet Nam era veteran, I approved her fundamental message that wars should never be fought without clear provocation…and that very often, wars are incited for disguised and profitable motives. As a veteran herself, I believe she has a clear understanding of these conflicts.
She is ambitious. Her jump to the Trump Train was understandable. I suspected she was offering herself as a V.P. choice….and I would bet Trump thought about it.
She communicates well….but she is a politician in a two party system that restricts what any politician can express and still hold power. My intuition suggests she holds Libertarian values but has suppressed them to succeed to the top of one of the two viable parties. It is my hope she envisons a new progressive and sustainable relationship between the east and west.
Her expressed approval of the Israeli genocide is, of course, 100% wrong….but what can she say or do and still be in the game? AIPAC and the Christian Zionists completely rule the roost.
Marco Rubio will be her main antagonist…as well as all the other new Neo-Cons. But Trump likes women (“he can’t stop from kissing them”) and Tulsi’s a good looking woman….”and smart too”. She’s got the advantage over “lit’l Marco” there.
Hopefully Tulsi can make her case to the Boss before he graps her….who know where!
Of course,….I could be wrong.
hxxps://rumble.com/v5pjq0z-heated-exchange-trumps-ex-deputy-assistant-dr.-sebastian-gorka-and-afshin-r.html
Watch this to see Trump’s top advisor and his thoughts on Gaza. “There isn’t any genocide in Gaza.”
A Captain is a commissioned officer at company level, and will generally serve as a Company Commander in control of 62 to 190 soldiers.
A bit bigger responsibility than a household.
I noticed that as well, Ames. My father was an officer during WWII and he had a great deal of responsibility, overseeing airplane mechanics. He ended as a captain, but blew it off saying everyone got promoted.
“We need a person willing to rein in the neoconservative/neoliberal intelligence and foreign policy establishment when they urge the president to double down on military action based on phony or incomplete intelligence.”
With the exception she has already made to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza? She is unprincipled and a fake. Wonder when her last dinner with Miriam was. Dream on. Can’t believe how the Judge’s team and their ilk have fallen for Trump’s phony antiwar blather.
I’m concerned about her affiliation with the cultish, mystical Hinduism group, The Science of Identity Foundation and its abusive leader, Chris Butler. This needs to be investigated.
hxxps://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-has-lauded-religious-leader-accused-running-abusive-cult-1985941
You can doubt Trump all you like (I doubt him on plenty of things), but you can’t refute that both Israel and Ukraine were at peace during his term. Things only popped off after the unpredictable ‘mad-man’ was no longer at the helm of the American military and was replaced by a dottering old Iranophile who didn’t scare America’s adversaries. Trump proved the mad-man theory correct. Not only did no new wars pop off during his presidency, but he laid the groundwork for getting out of Afghanistan (which Biden to his credit followed through on, even if the withdrawal was botched), thawed relations with North Korea, and forged the Abraham Accords in the middle east.
Putin kept his powder dry until the Bad Orange Man was gone before unleashing Hell in the Ukraine under Biden’s sleepy eye. And Iran’s proxies in Gaza and Lebanon were starved for cash due to Trump’s Maximum Pressure policy crippling Iran’s economy. It’s no coincidence that they got more active once Biden reversed Maximum Pressure and started returning frozen assets to Iran (which promptly got shipped to Hamas and Hezbollah). Perhaps the Al Aqsa Flood would not have happened had Trump been in office and still strangling Iran’s economy. And with no Al Aqsa flood on 10/7, there would be no war in Gaza.
Peace through strength is a real thing. If you show your adversaries weakness, they will take advantage. If you show them strength, they will think twice about getting chippy. Showing strength can save lives, while showing weakness can cost them.
Trump was the one who sent weapons (aka lethal aid) into Ukraine to begin with, thus making the war much more likely. If he had accepted Russia’s security concerns, that would have stopped the SMO. Would he? I have my doubts.
And the Abraham Accords, along with the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, were what led directly to Al-Aqsa Flood. The fact that the accords were about burying the Palestinian problem, means October 7 (or something like it) would have happened regardless of who won in 2020.
Trump’s first term was not some radical break in policy. He was in continuity with what came before and after him.
Israel has never been “at peace” in its entire history as a manufactured outpost for Western/Zionist interests.
Couldn’t agree more. Just hope that Trump has the stomach for the fight. Dragging her reputation is just the start of the infighting to keep her from effectuating change.
One thing Trump has going for him is that he is a lame duck. He doesn’t have to give a single thought to getting re-elected in 2028. He can do things that a politician who has to worry the next election can’t do. Of course, that is a double-edged sword, because it also means he has no reason to moderate his worst impulses.
And then we have her views on Palestine and Israel.
From MEE in September:
“Most recently, Gabbard has condemned the ongoing pro-Palestinian protest movement that has been taking place all over the country. The demonstrations have been taking place in protest of US support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which human rights and legal experts, as well as several countries, have said is a genocide being perpetrated by Israel.
“Gabbard, however, has accused the hundreds of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters of being puppets of a “radical Islamist organisation”, in an apparent reference to Hamas.
“The pro-Israel views of Gabbard are not dissimilar from those of many Democrats. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also accused pro-Palestinian protesters of being financed by foreign groups.
“But in many instances, Gabbard has set herself apart from Democrats and embraced the full-throttle support of Israel of the Republican Party.
“In 2015, she spoke at the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference, a major right-wing and Christian pro-Israel organisation based in the US, where she lauded the US-Israel relationship.
“Despite all of her anti-war and anti-US intervention views, Gabbard has supported Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children.
“Even though she has supported ending US military support to foreign governments for helping fuel conflicts and wars, she doesn’t extend that call to Israel and also opposed a ceasefire in Gaza.”
hxxps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tulsi-gabbard-trump-what-her-views-middle-east
Even if Tulsi was pro-Palestine and anti-Israel (or at least anti-Bibi), it wouldn’t matter. Trump is 100% in Israel and Bibi’s camp, as are his most loyal supporters (Evangelical Christians). Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the unfortunate civilians of Gaza will get no succor from the Trump administration. That’s just how it is.
But having Tulsi around may help to minimize carnage in the rest of the world. That matters too. Gaza is not the only bloody conflict in the world right now. It’s not even the bloodiest. It’s just one of many bloodbaths currently ongoing.
Certainly it is the bloodiest for non-combatants.
You sure about that?
hxxps://www.yahoo.com/news/death-toll-sudan-war-severely-124141486.html
Yes. The 43,000 dead in Gaza is a vast under count as the health ministry long ago lost the ability to keep track. The British medical journal,The Lancet, estimated that 180,000 are dead in Gaza. And that was months ago. The Sudan war has been going on six months longer so more civilian blood has been shed in Gaza in a shorter period.
All well and good except the second she displeases her boss, she is out. He has already shown himself to be inflexable. She may well be just what we need. All the more reason she will not last. Unfortunately for us. All of this, so very unfortunate for us, our country, and the world .
Tulsi Gabard won’t last till the end of 2025
This attempt could be the only slightly positive action to result from this fiasco.
one of WEF’s Young Global Leaders (the neocons will have a good laugh) – hxxps://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/a-rebuttal-to-media-praises-on-trump
I agree with Steve Hill above. Also, the most ignorant part of Kiriakou’s statements is ““Tulsi Gabbard’s deep ties to some of our nation’s most dangerous adversaries, including Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Vladimir Putin of Russia, make her an untrustworthy guardian of our nation’s most closely held secrets.” What “deep ties”. She is a soldier with the courage to communicate with adversaries, which does not mean that she has “deep ties.” And neither Assad nor Putin are “most dangerous adversaries.” The neocon US is their most dangerous adversary.
Kiriakou’s “ignorant” statement? One would do well to read carefully before commenting here. He’s quoting someone. Quotation marks are those little upside down commas.
And Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) said, “Tulsi Gabbard’s deep ties to some of our nation’s most dangerous adversaries, including Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Vladimir Putin of Russia, make her an untrustworthy guardian of our nation’s most closely held secrets.”
Thank you for straightening out the commenter’s reading incomprehension. As well as having stunted vocabularies (just watched Bari Weiss calling Gabbard an “Assad toady” when she had no idea what toady meant), poor grammar, abysmal spelling, whatever happened to teaching reading comprehension in school?
JK doesn’t say that. Democrats, who are rabid neocons these days, said that.
All of the accusations against Gabbard are as bogus as the reports about Biden’s cognitive abilities were earlier this year. She would, in my opinion, be great in the position. Which is exactly WHY neo cons don’t want her there. Hope she makes it!
I am of course well aware of the hatred and venom that the Democrats can spew at a person who disagrees with them. I saw this after 2000.
After 2000, what most of the nation saw was the Gore Democrats complaining about the Cheney regime and its Politics of Hate. The ‘Hate Cheney’ theme of that time focused a lot on how nasty the Repubicans were and what bad people they were. Except, as a volunteer for Nader, I also got to see the side of the Democrats where they piled more hate, were more nasty, and more just plain obnoxious and disgusting to the Nader supporters than any member of the Cheney family hit on even their bad days. Quite a contrast, the main Dem message against Cheney was made to seem tame by the Dem hate of anyone who had backed Nader.
This taught a very good lesson about the nature of Democrats, and one that still is strong in my memory and now reinforced by their nasty behavior against the lady who used to be a Democrat but then committed the unspeakable crime of being for “Peace.”
I don’t suppose we’ll be hearing that “we always have to believe women” around Tulsi anytime soon.
on the other hand shadow president Cheney did start a war that has killed at least a million people and appears to have brought ISIS into existence. yeah, the Dems are dipshits and have quite a bit of blood on their hands but to suggest that they play in the same ball park as Dick Cheney is just silly.
I think they made it quite clear that they play in the same ballpark when they shouted the Cheneys’ endorsement of Harris to the world. Rational people were, “What?!?!?!” I saw this same transformation in my local peace & justice group; it was taken over by Democrats who now love the FBI, the CIA, etc. (I think the group is now deceased as it lost the actual supporters of peace and justice.)
I think his point was how the entirely deserved ‘Hate Cheney’ train had absolutely nothing on the totally undeserved ‘Hate Nader’ train (or the current ‘Hate Stein’ train). The only thing that Democrats hate more than heretics (Republicans) is apostates from their own side of the political spectrum. Nader, Stein, Gabbard, and RFK Jr all fit under that umbrella. So did Bernie in 2016 until he bent the knee to the DNC after the primary. Once Bernie surrendered to the primacy of the DNC establishment, they went back to treating him as the lovable kooky uncle with the weird politics. But they would have been burning effigies of him if he ran an independent Presidential campaign in 2016 and Trump won.
Cindy Sheehan got the same treatment. She was the darling of the Democratic Party until she refused to go along with the prowar policies of Obama and Pelosi. They exploited her courageous protests and then threw her under the bus when she showed actual integrity, telling us all we need to know about them….
At this point, I’d settle for an honest collector and presenter of the best intelligence available, and end this now several decade old practice of deciding what reality is, then concocting the intelligence to try to create the Potemkin village of reality, usually in order to send $billions of taxpayer money to someone’s pockets.
We need a ‘national director of intelligence’ who won’t see mass graves in Serbia or WMD’s in Iraq just because the people who’ve got hold of high office want it that way. That would be a fine first step, restoring honesty and accountability into the system. Its been way too corporate, as in produce whatever the Boss wants, for way too long.
But, one can see why this would scare and horrify the Cheney Democrats.