Summary
Nearly 100 former national security officials expressed alarm over Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence due to her past alignment with Russian and Syrian officials and lack of experience.
In a letter, they urged Senate committees to hold closed-door hearings to assess her qualifications and review any government-held information about her.
Critics highlighted her controversial 2017 trip to Syria to meet Bashar al-Assad and her questioning of U.S. intelligence.
Gabbard’s spokesperson dismissed the criticism as partisan attacks, while the Senate confirmation process is expected to be contentious.
Personally I’m on the fence about Gabbard in this role. Unlike most of Trump’s picks, I don’t think Tulsi is just in it to enrich herself. There’s a lot of establishment bullshit about her being a Russian shill or whatever, but the real reason they hate her is because she was honest about how horrible Clinton is… That’s it. They don’t like Party members stepping out of line. Of course she did endorse Trump which isn’t great, but I’m hoping it was a gambit to get into this role so she can start moving us towards peace instead of never ending wars (okay, that’s the other reason the establishment hates her).
What, and stay with me here, the fuck are you on about
Which part?
Edit: Actually, they put it right in the article for us.
“These unfounded attacks are from the same geniuses who have blood on their hands from decades of faulty ‘intelligence,’ including the non-existent weapons of mass destruction,” said spokesperson Alexa Henning, referring to a purported justification for the start of the Iraq War that turned out to be wrong.
“These intel officials continue to use classification as a partisan weapon to smear and imply things about their political enemy without putting the facts out,” Henning continued."
You don’t seem to be educated at all on this topic, no offense
Well… I’m not buying the bullshit from the establishment media, that’s for sure. She’s said she’s working to do whatever it takes for peace. Any evidence to the contrary?