Tulsi Gabbard

[Ewan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Tulsi will be testifying to the Senate today. It'll be covered live on many platforms. Her answers to questions might be especially important in terms of shaping her future political career.

That didn't come over too well I think, despite her emphasising the point it was the opinions of the defense committee, NOT her own. I guess she was following the correct political path of avoidance and non-committal, but again, well the media have enough to slaughter her really if such is their intention.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
After a fairly long silence, Tulsi Gabbard posted a statement today:

https://x.com/dnigabbard/status/2033989780116033948

Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.

After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.

My own comment:

I think this needs to be read very carefully.

What she's actually saying here (but which I suspect many may miss) is that as DNI she gave Trump a great deal of information — and then he made his own decision anyway.

I was waiting for Alexander Mercouris' take on this and Tulsi's answers to the questions in the Senate hearing — and as I'd rather expected, he entirely agreed with my opinion. He pointed out that Tulsi was quite correctly laying all the executive decisions at Trump's door, and described Tulsi's presentation as "flattery disguising criticism".

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I was waiting for Alexander Mercouris' take on this and Tulsi's answers to the questions in the Senate hearing — and as I'd rather expected, he entirely agreed with my opinion. He pointed out that Tulsi was quite correctly laying all the executive decisions at Trump's door, and described Tulsi's presentation as "flattery disguising criticism".

A more detailed statement from Alexander Mercouris in his own video update yesterday, starting at 57:52. Here's the transcript: (very slightly edited for clarity, with my emphasis added)

~~~

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has come in for a great deal of criticism because she didn't follow the recent resignation of Joe Kent, the person who was in charge of counter intelligence within the US intelligence community.

And in fact, there's been a great deal of criticism of director Gabbard altogether ever since the start of operations against Iran in June 2025. I'm not here to comment about that criticism. I just want to make a specific point that she was shifting the entire responsibility for the war and indeed the blame for the war on the President of the United States.

She was going out of her way to say that it was his decision and his alone. He was provided with the information. He was given the advice. He had the right to make the decision. He came up with the assessments. He made the decision. And though a loyal official of the United States government and of his administration, Tulsi Gabbard accepts that the fact remains that if anything goes wrong, the blame will fall squarely upon him.

I have said in many many programs that I am a grizzled warrior, a grizzled veteran of bureaucratic intrigues. And there is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind listening to and reading Director Gabbard’s testimony that she at least expects this conflict to go badly wrong, and that she's now in the business of protecting her reputation and distancing herself from the debacle to the very limited extent that she can.

[Tintin]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I was waiting for Alexander Mercouris' take on this and Tulsi's answers to the questions in the Senate hearing — and as I'd rather expected, he entirely agreed with my opinion. He pointed out that Tulsi was quite correctly laying all the executive decisions at Trump's door, and described Tulsi's presentation as "flattery disguising criticism".

A more detailed statement from Alexander Mercouris in his own video update yesterday, starting at 57:52. Here's the transcript: (very slightly edited for clarity, with my emphasis added)

~~~

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has come in for a great deal of criticism because she didn't follow the recent resignation of Joe Kent, the person who was in charge of counter intelligence within the US intelligence community.

And in fact, there's been a great deal of criticism of director Gabbard altogether ever since the start of operations against Iran in June 2025. I'm not here to comment about that criticism. I just want to make a specific point that she was shifting the entire responsibility for the war and indeed the blame for the war on the President of the United States.

She was going out of her way to say that it was his decision and his alone. He was provided with the information. He was given the advice. He had the right to make the decision. He came up with the assessments. He made the decision. And though a loyal official of the United States government and of his administration, Tulsi Gabbard accepts that the fact remains that if anything goes wrong, the blame will fall squarely upon him.

I have said in many many programs that I am a grizzled warrior, a grizzled veteran of bureaucratic intrigues. And there is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind listening to and reading Director Gabbard’s testimony that she at least expects this conflict to go badly wrong, and that she's now in the business of protecting her reputation and distancing herself from the debacle to the very limited extent that she can.

Which was, and is, and remains, my reading of the entire statement at the point she made it It'll be interesting to hear what Messrs Johnson and McGovern have to say during the Judging Freedom INTEL Roundtable scheduled for broadcast at around 4pm EST today.

I normally set aside an hour or two early Saturday to check in on those podcasts from the week - the INTEL Roundtable is, in my view, a must listen; two of the finest minds unpicking and clarifying some sometimes complex events.

[Bill Ryan]

I found the following highly significant. Around 39-40 minutes into this livestream (still in progress), Larry Johnson said that he knew there had been a meeting Monday night between Tulsi, Joe Kent, and JD Vance.

Johnson was told that "they were using Kent as a way to wake Trump up."

Assuming this is correct, and that this play seems to have failed, Tulsi, who appears to be closely communicating with Vance about this, may yet have other plays up her sleeve. (And so of course may Vance.)

Many readers here will be aware that there are persistent strong rumors circulating in Washington that Trump is not listening at all to anyone who's not telling him exactly what he wants to hear, and that how to handle this among those still loyal to his administration is becoming a bewildering, stressful and increasingly difficult problem.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by sdv (here)
When the FFG looked into the future to see who would be the president in 2030, I think, they all had very clear answers but different people, one of whom was a woman. I wonder if ihe presidency will be some kind of triumvirate with one person serving as the president but the triumvirate working together in making and executing executive decisions.

As many reading this will know, I was pretty much 'told' (at least, it clearly felt like it) that the US President in 2029 would be Tulsi. The strong impression I got was that she would initially be VP, but would step into the President's role when something happened to the President himself (who I thought might well have been Vance) early in 2029.

The idea I got would be that the elected President would somehow pass away quite soon after being inaugurated. And the solar event and its consequences unrolling in 2029* would be orders of magnitude more than catastrophic, and would bring all of the US to its knees. Tulsi would preside over all that as the inspiring leader that America desperately needed.

* I now suspect the possible 2029 month may be in May, because at the end of February, 4 weeks ago, I got another 'message' saying simply "39 months". I didn't immediately understand that — but then I quickly made the calculation.

However, I shared in this 23 January post that I'd begun to have serious doubts about Tulsi's political survival, for obvious reasons.

Meanwhile, back in October, I'd posted this on the Is Civil War in America coming? thread:

~~~

I have the increasing sense that something will happen to Trump before the end of his term, and possibly next year.

That 'something' isn't an assassination or an accident, but it could be a health issue, a scandal (a real one), or even an impeachment or the beginnings of the proceedings. (This isn't really a 'prediction', but I'm finding that for whatever reasons, the thought is lingering with me and will NOT go away.)

~~~

Now, if Tulsi is really as close to Vance as the above insight from Larry Johnson suggests, and if Trump does not complete his term, Vance would become President, and then he just might appoint Tulsi as his VP.

THEN, the whole thing starts to fit just a little better.

[bojancan]

Once more about "younger" Tulsi... warrior against war... and now two days ago... always love to listen Sabrina! From her point of view...


Tulsi Gabbard CAUGHT Lying!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2uksGsIQmxI

[sdv]

Tulsi Gabbard is 100% right in her statement. It is the current culture where everyone has to pick sides and declare which side they pick and then act accordingly that is causing the criticsm. Political or moral choices is not required of her in this role. And she is not 'passing the buck to Trump' or 'distancing herself from a decisions she does not support'. She is doing precisely what her job requires her to do and acting correctly according to her authority and requirements for secrecy in her job. Some might question her moral judgment if they believe (and there is compelling evidence) that intelligence showed that an attack on Iran was not justified by facts and would have huge negative consequences. If she wants the presidency, and I think she does, she has to stay in the administration, but she did retain her integrity in not lying to the American people. It is a complicated game, but the only possible criticism of her can be that she did not resign for moral reasons. The truth is it is not her job to be a moral policeman, but in a presidency filled with lies every day, she told the truth as far as she could, and did not lie, and that is very important.

Edit to add
Tulsi Gabbard will be the president that the American people need when they need it most. Not the political class, or the billionaires, or the Israel lobby, or the genocidal tech class. Being in the Trump presidency is teaching her where the landmines are and how to avoid stepping on them.

[gini]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-g8NAwyQM5s

Tulsi Gabbard HUMILIATED in Congress Iran Hearing´ --9 min--26/3/26

[bojancan]

Tulsi's topic still interest many people... I respected very much Tulsi years ago... waiting these moments to show her cards too... I am a bit disappointed about her... yes, I understand why... shall people trust in her in the future?

March, 29
Tulsi chooses loyalty over principle

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dwEVbJB6MOc

The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's moral quandary following the resignation of her deputy, Joe Kent, in protest of the war on Iran.