Summary
The Senate confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence in a 52-48 vote, with only Sen. Mitch McConnell breaking GOP ranks to oppose her.
Critics, including Democrats and some Republicans, raised concerns over her past meeting with Syria’s Assad, sympathetic comments on Russia, and prior support for Edward Snowden.
Gabbard reversed her stance on key intelligence policies during her confirmation.
Her whole deal during the Obama administration was criticizing him on Fox News for not calling terrorism “Islamic” enough and not doing enough drone strikes.
Good point. She seems to want the US to kill more nongovernmental targets.
So, no more regime changes per se, but a lot more propping up unpopular regimes. I could see this resulting in a much expanded droning campaign in Syria to keep the new government in power.
I’ll temper my excitement, she’s worse than I thought even if she’s better than many of the ghouls that Republicans usually choose.
And I’ll note that my concern is less her personal ideology and more her willingness to say whatever for personal advancement. I’m a resident of her state and thus have followed her career for a long time. She’s bounced between ideologies back and forth based on whatever would advance her career at the moment. If I had to guess I’d say this current incarnation might be more legit than others (she was raised conservative and 9/11 occurred during her formative years), but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this is just what’s useful to her right now.
Not that it did much good or deserves praise, but there was resistance to fabricating the WMD intel for Bush and some limitations on what they were willing to say (even while participating in a deadly deception). I don’t think Gabbard will have any resistance at all. Putting a charismatic liar who likes to be in front of the camera in a position that can influence military action (and which is most visible when military action is happening) with little risk of the public being able to check her facts is terrifying.
The fact that Mitch McConnell voted against her is another point in her favor, but I’ll wait to see what she actually does before passing any judgements.
That’s an incredibly dumb way to judge nominees. Do you think Hegseth is somehow a good Defense Secretary? Or RFK is a good Health Secretary?
One fash voting against them doesn’t somehow imply they have a potential for good in them. Bad people oppose other bad people all the time. And I’ve been seeing what she does for over a decade. Tulsi is very much a bad person.