{"id":50133,"date":"2024-11-19T15:46:25","date_gmt":"2024-11-19T23:46:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=50133"},"modified":"2024-11-19T15:46:25","modified_gmt":"2024-11-19T23:46:25","slug":"yet-another-smear-piece-on-tulsi-gabbard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2024\/11\/19\/yet-another-smear-piece-on-tulsi-gabbard\/","title":{"rendered":"Yet Another Smear Piece on Tulsi Gabbard"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views<\/a> with the author\u2019s permission.<\/i><\/p>\n

In my morning news feed from the New York Times<\/em> came this article on Tulsi Gabbard:<\/p>\n

How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia\u2019s State Media<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n

President-elect Donald J. Trump\u2019s pick to be the director of national intelligence has raised alarms among national security officials.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the key paragraph from the article, which, of course, is delayed until the sixth paragraph:<\/p>\n

No evidence has emerged that she has ever collaborated in any way with Russia\u2019s intelligence agencies.<\/strong> Instead, according to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin\u2019s geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power. [Emphasis added]<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Did you get that? NO EVIDENCE. Tulsi has never collaborated with Russia in any way. The problem is that she\u2019s a critic of unnecessary and disastrous wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. She\u2019s a critic of massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And since those criticisms are vaguely useful to Russia, she must therefore be a \u201cRussian asset,\u201d a dupe of Putin, according to Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times.<\/em><\/p>\n

Within the so-called intelligence community (IC), you are allowed to be a cheerleader, a booster, even a selective critic in the sense that you may call for more money for the IC because of certain limitations or oversights, but you are not allowed to question America\u2019s disastrously wasteful imperial foreign policy.<\/p>\n

No matter how poorly the IC performs (consider the colossal failure of 9\/11, or the total obliviousness about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, or recent disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), no one is ever held accountable, even as the IC gets more money and authority.<\/p>\n

Tulsi Gabbard promises to be a game-changer. Skeptical of the blatant misuse of American military power, she\u2019s been an articulate critic of forever wars. She is especially sensitive to deploying U.S. troops in harm\u2019s way for purposes other than the defense of the United States.<\/p>\n

The \u201cliberal\u201d New York Times<\/em> is having none of that. Consider this remarkable paragraph:<\/p>\n

\u201cNominating Gabbard for director of national intelligence is the way to Putin\u2019s heart<\/strong>, and it tells the world that America under Trump will be the Kremlin\u2019s ally rather than an adversary,\u201d Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University and the author of \u201cStrongmen,\u201d a 2020 book about authoritarian leaders, wrote on Friday. \u201cAnd so we would have a national security official who would potentially compromise<\/strong> our national security.\u201d [Emphasis added]<\/em><\/p>\n

Who knew that \u201cPutin\u2019s heart\u201d could be won so easily? And note the weasel wording that Tulsi could \u201cpotentially<\/strong> compromise\u201d U.S. national security. Again, no evidence is presented.<\/p>\n

Well, we certainly don\u2019t want the U.S. to have a rapprochement with Putin. He must always be our adversary, am I right? How dare that Trump and Gabbard might, just might, pursue a policy that is less antagonistic toward the Kremlin? Don\u2019t you enjoy teetering on the brink of a world-ending nuclear exchange? I much prefer that to listening and negotiation.<\/p>\n

In making enemies of Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times<\/em>, Tulsi Gabbard has demonstrated she has what it takes to serve as director of national intelligence.<\/p>\n

William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor, is a senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN)<\/a>, an organization of critical veteran military and national security professionals.\u00a0He writes at Bracing Views<\/a>. <\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author\u2019s permission. In my morning news feed from the New York Times came this article on Tulsi Gabbard: How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia\u2019s State Media President-elect Donald J. Trump\u2019s pick to be the director of national intelligence has raised alarms among national security officials. Here\u2019s the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":290,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-50133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/290"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50133"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50142,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50133\/revisions\/50142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50133"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=50133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}