Why Is Gabbard’s Judgement So Bad? And Why This Is So Relevant.

Peloni:  This is not meant to distract from, nor to disagree with, Kelleigh Nelson’s important recent report which we published on the topic of Tulsi Gabbard’s possible nomination as DNI.  It has occurred to me, however, that the issue and application of a well informed judgement should be a key indicator in awarding someone the position of being named to such a sensitive and influential position as the DNI, thru which Gabbard will have an awesome responsibility of making the right judgements as indicated by the sensitive intelligence which she will have to assess.  So her ability to use Good Judgement in matters related to intelligence would appear to be quite relevant to the most basic qualification of being considered for the role of which Gabbard is being considered at this time.

Peloni

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

If confirmed to the position of the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard will have control of upgrading or downgrading the intelligence briefs which are handed to the president, and on which all policy decisions are gauged.  She will also have the ability to shape the intelligence gathered by focusing or quashing investigations into foreign influence peddling as might be judged by her to be relevant.

So let us look at a few things related to this fact.

Regarding Gabbard’s extensive service record, this is not in dispute, but neither is it qualifying for the role which she is about to undertake.  In fact I would argue that her judgement, as applied to raw intelligence should be a more important descriptor of her ability to adequately fulfill the role of the DNI, so let us consider what might speak both for and against her ability to review and assess intelligence, which was again, unrelated to her role in either the National Guard or being deployed overseas as she was.

While serving in the US Congress, Gabbard condemned Trump’s actions of withdrawing from the JCPOA and killing Soleimani, even characterizing Trump as “Saudi Arabia’s bitch”. While this was not a position taken by Gabbard alone, it was the position taken while Gabbard was on the Committee on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, and while she was also on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa while on the Committee of Foreign Affairs. This meant that her opinion at the time of chastising Trump’s withdrawal of the JCPOA should have been among the most informed in the country…so why was her well informed opinion so badly flawed? And how might that failure in judgement, having had access to such highly qualified intelligence, lead us to believe that her judgement today would be better than when she was advising Trump to not challenge Iran, not to have killed Soleimani and to let Iran continue advancing their nuclear program under Obama’s blanket protection, which was all the JCPOA actually was – something which was well recognized by so many people, but not Gabbard who still anticipates returning to a revised form of the JCPOA.  These were the opinions of one of America’s most informed politicians who seemed incapable of accurately assessing either what Trump should do or what Iran would do in response.

Indeed, Gabbard failed to accurately assess Iran’s response to Trump’s actions, as she announced at the time that Trump had “taken the US to war with Iran”. In this latter assessment, flawed as were the others, she also indicated that eliminating the Mullahs would be an altogether poor outcome, even though Iran identifies the US as the greater Satan which it anticipates destroying.  Indeed, she also stated that there was “no justification whatsoever for this illegal and unconstitutional act of war that President Trump took” after he executed Soleimani.  In fact, Gabbard’s signifigant military experience, and her role as a battlefield medic in Iraq should have been enough to inform her of the justification of killing Soleimani who had the blood of more than four thousands of Gabbard’s fellow servicemen to his credit.  Yet, Gabbard couldn’t grasp this fact even with access to the sensitive details which were not commonly known to those who already knew that Soleimani’s death made America safer, the region more stable, and saved untold numbers of American servicemen.

And let us not forget Gabbard’s long standing support and admiration for the TSS, which has never been anything more than a deathknell for Israel.

This is the true context and content of Gabbard’s ability to assess and interpret intelligence. She will of course have an entire staff which will be assessing the intelligence coming in, but so will anyone who might hold the sensitive position she is about to possibly hold.  Furthermore, as the chief executive in the ODNI, she will be in the unique position of being able to pursue such investigations into foreign influence as suits her worldview, which to be honest is both worrisome and inconsistent.

Also, Gabbard need not have a malicious intent, though there is that potential as well, for, as an earnest supporter on behalf of the topics which she has previously advocated in the past, I would challenge that she has been on the wrong side of too many topics of significant relevance when she should have been informed well enough to know better.

And of course, she has held opposing positions on so many topics of significance as well.  She has been pro Israel and pro Pal, pro Iran and anti Iran, pro Clinton and anti Clinton, pro Trump and anti Trump…and most recently she converted from being a long standing opponent of the use of FISA section 702 to now being completely in favor of it to support the needs of the Intel community.  And do recall this last issue is most acutely relevant as this is how the Intel Community spy on their own public.

Notably, Gabbard’s alternating positions on these and other sensitive topics have accompanied her on her walk towards greater and greater ambitions, the revelation of which was not least demonstrated by her recent rapid consent to support the Intel Community in their public spying, just as she was about to become the sieve thru which all intelligence is considered before going to the president.  What is more, she made this change to advocating on behalf of the 702s a week before facing the the 702 advocates in her confirmation hearings, which was two months after Trump nominated her when her opposition to using the 702s was neither an obscure topic related to her nomination nor one on which she had not extensively spoken against.

Power does have an influence on the ambitious, but it is also important to recognize that Gabbard’s sensitive position on the ODNI will leave her vulnerable to far greater influences than simply fulfilling goals of ambition.

What is needed in leading the ODNI is someone of sound character, unflinching in their ideology, and stable in their support for the views on which Trump was elected. I would argue that Gabbard fails all of these tests.

As Gerald A. Honigman stated previously, “Trump needs to find someone else”.

February 3, 2025 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. TANNA-

    Yes a good answer. Collins is either mildly luke warm or luke cold. I’ve never known why she’s in the Republican Party, the Democrats suit her muddled thinking much better.

  2. Collins has changed her vote to a ‘yes’ for Gabbard. She is as much as confirmed. Very disturbing to have someone with such communist ties in the DNI, not to speak about being openly vulnerable to influence target by China related to her role in the Qi Group.

  3. This is easy, she was woken for the Democratics now she wants to woke for the republicans. Which ever way the wind blows is how those hoes in Washington goes.

  4. She was part of the “Deep State” like most in the Uniparty!
    She had an Epiphany of some sort! Who knows.
    We do not know what we don’t know.
    She is surrounded by very talented people. It is contagious
    See Pompeo! Great guy, but as CIA chief and SoS he knew NOTHING of what was being done in the back of his BOSS!!!
    What say you?