Skip to content

The British Hand in the Campaign To Defeat Gabbard Nomination

Following the announcement by FBI Director Christopher Wray that he will resign at the end of Biden’s term, the vehemence of opposition to the appointment of Kash Patel as his successor has been toned down. Trump made it clear he will fight for Patel, and the argument that he is not qualified has been brushed aside, with proponents pointing to his experience as a prosecutor and as senior investigator with the House Intelligence Committee. Much of Patel’s work in the latter position frightens Trump opponents, as he was ruthlessly persistent in his exposure of the fraud of the “Russiagate” attacks against Trump.

But the nasty attacks continue against Trump’s appointee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, demonstrating both the fear that she will expose the past crimes of her predecessors, and the hypocrisy of the intel establishment. A leading voice of Trump Derangement Syndrome, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, offered her “6 Reasons” for opposing Gabbard in a Dec. 20 “Public Service Announcement.” Of the reasons given, most are absurd, that she was once “anti-gay,” and belonged to a Hindu/Hare Krishna-like cult! Others are retreads of the main charges against her: that she believes in “conspiracy theories,” which makes her susceptible to “right-wing” propaganda and “Russian disinformation”; and that she has no experience as an executive or in intelligence work.

In preparation for the confirmation battle, a letter was signed by nearly 100 former diplomats, intelligence and national security officials, citing her “lack of experience in the field of intelligence,” according to a report in London’s The Guardian. The subtitle of the article states, “intelligence experts spooked by Tulsi Gabbard.” Among those named is Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser from 1993 to 1997 and a leading proponent of the Eastward expansion of NATO. The article concludes that such experts “see Gabbard as dangerous,” citing as an example that she expressed public doubts about allegations that Assad used chemical weapons against his opponents.

Not surprisingly, there have been numerous articles in the British press attacking Gabbard. The Daily Telegraph, for example, says “British defense figures are alarmed” by her choice. Their main concern: “potential reductions in intelligence sharing across the Five Eyes alliance.” It also cites former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who complained that Gabbard has “no experience of intelligence and security.” Britain’s The Independent quotes an unnamed former U.S. intelligence vet who accused her of being “very prone to misinformation, prone to conspiracy theories.”

On the charge of “lack of experience,” it shows the fear of having someone outside the old boys club coordinating intelligence, who “lacks experience” in lying and faking intelligence to serve the purposes of the security state, and has shown no commitment to the “special relationship” underlying the Five Eyes. In particular, the Brits find it galling that she has expressed disbelief in the Foreign Office-funded NGOs accusing Assad of using chemical weapons, and that she believes Putin’s special military operation was provoked by NATO. As for being “prone to misinformation,” it would appear that this charge could be effectively levelled at the media attacking her, as it was the British press and their American media cartel partners who spread the lies hatched by the likes of Dearlove, ranging from Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction to the Christopher Steele “dodgy dossier” lies about Russiagate.

To top it off, a story on Gabbard is not complete unless it includes a quote from known American psychopath John Bolton, who called Trump’s nomination of Gabbard “the worst cabinet-level appointment in history.”