Tulsi Gabbard's Dissent: The Vital Role of Skepticism in National Intelligence

The scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard's judgment, particularly over her doubts concerning the prevailing narratives of the chemical attacks in Ghouta (2013) and Khan Sheikhoun (2017), invites a deeper contemplation of truth, accountability, and the complex interplay of information and power in wartime. Gabbard's skepticism, rather than a sign of flawed judgment, might be seen as a necessary inquiry into narratives that have significant implications for international policy and the very fabric of truth in public discourse. 

The 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was attributed to Assad largely because its chemical signature matched that from the 2013 Ghouta incident. However, the narrative around Ghouta itself is fraught with reasonable doubt; both the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducted inquiries, but as The New York Times reported, these efforts "never led to any accountability and never identified perpetrators by name." Moreover, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that there was no "slam-dunk" evidence against the Assad regime. Despite this lack of definitive evidence, Obama declared, "Assad gotta go!"--and the press ran with it.

 

 

 Video evidence of Salafi-Jihadi firing volcano rockets at Ghouta, found on the cell phone of a

 Liwa al-Islam militant killed by Kurdish Peshmerga on the Syrian border in September, 2013.

The Mockingbird Press often engages in a subtle yet significant tactic when attributing blame, particularly to actors they view unfavorably. They operate under the premise that, despite a lack of concrete evidence, it is reasonable to assume guilt because no other explanation seems plausible. This pattern was notably evident in the coverage of the Syrian chemical attacks, where, in the absence of proof, the narrative was quickly constructed around Assad's culpability, sidelining alternative possibilities or the need for further investigation. This approach overlooks the complexity of the Syrian conflict, where multiple actors, including various opposition groups, have access to chemical weapons. Several separate chemical attacks in Syria have in fact been attributed to these groups, and there is even evidence suggesting that Liwa al-Islam "rebels" might have staged the 2013 Ghouta attack to provoke Western intervention.

The possibility that a terror group might have staged the chemical attack to prompt U.S. military intervention adds another layer of complexity to the narrative, underscoring the need for rigorous scrutiny of such events. During her confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard was questioned about her doubts regarding these specific attacks, and she explained that her skepticism was warranted given the implications for U.S. military response.

Her stance reflects a historical caution, born from her experiences on the battlefield in wars predicated on WMD lies. Her doubt, therefore, is not a sign of poor judgment but of insistence on the integrity of information that shapes policy with far-reaching consequences. In this post-truth era, questioning official narratives is often misconstrued as disloyalty or naivety, yet it should be recognized as essential, especially for gathering and analyzing intelligence pertinent to the safety and security of We, the People... who are increasingly fed up with lies.

Join the conversation on 𝕏.

 

I don't know why people are so mad at @TulsiGabbard for being skeptical of the USIC. It's not like they've never lied to us before.

My thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's Dissent... and why We, the People, need it...https://t.co/BcuuRLCrpC

— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 4, 2025

The Absurdity of Labeling Military Strategy as Terrorism: A Critique of Professor Rob Howse's Argument

The term "terrorism" has often been the subject of intense debate, particularly in academic circles where precision in language is paramount. Recently, Professor Rob Howse made an argument that can only be described as absurd in its attempt to apply the label of "terrorism" to an Israeli military operation targeting Hezbollah operatives through the use of explosive pagers. 

Was the Pager Operation in which Israel blew up thousands of Hezbollah terrorists a form of terrorism?

NYU Law Professor @howserob argues the Pager Operation was terrorism.

I argue it was not.

Please watch & share our debate at Northeastern University.https://t.co/rwEzlUAIJe

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 30, 2025

The CIA defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Professor Howse, however, misinterprets this definition, arguing that any act of violence witnessed by civilians qualifies as terrorism, because it makes those civilians an audience to it.

Here, several key elements are crucial: 

• Noncombatant Targets: The primary targets in this case were Hezbollah operatives, combatants by any reasonable definition. Equating this with attacks on civilians is fundamentally flawed. 
• Intent: The intent was evidently to disrupt Hezbollah's operations. The act was strategic, aimed at specific combatants, not at the broader civilian population. 
• Audience vs. Witness: Professor Howse's leap from civilians witnessing the event to them being an "audience" in the terrorist sense is where the argument becomes patently absurd. An "audience" in terrorism is meant to be terrorized and influenced by the act, not merely to observe it. 

Professor Howse's argument not only misapplies the definition but also ignores the context of conflict where military strategies are employed against combatant forces. By suggesting that any military action visible to civilians can be considered terrorism, Howse's logic would absurdly label most military engagements in urban environments as acts of terrorism. 

Furthermore, this interpretation could lead to a dangerous precedent where the term "terrorism" loses its specificity, becoming a catch-all for any act of violence with political undertones, thus diluting its meaning and utility in both legal and moral discourse. 

In conclusion, Professor Rob Howse's argument is not just flawed; it's absurd. It misconstrues the very nature of terrorism, conflating it with military strategy based on a tangential observation rather than on the intent, method, and target of the operation. This kind of reasoning not only muddies academic discourse but also risks trivializing the real horrors and intentions behind acts of terrorism (using terror to coerce a civilian population into political submission). It serves as a stark reminder of the need for precision and context in our discussions of such grave matters.

 

---

Join the conversation on 𝕏:

I agree with @MaxAbrahms... @howserob's attempt to label Israel's pager Op as an act of terrorism is absurd. Read my thoughts on their debate:https://t.co/vehJU5i3xr

— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 2, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard and America's Crisis of Conscience

In the shadow of power and secrecy, the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) stands at the heart of a crisis that transcends mere policy failures; it is a crisis of conscience. The contradictions within our intelligence operations have not only bewildered our allies but have sown seeds of distrust among our own citizens, challenging the very soul of our democracy. Here, at this pivotal moment, Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence (DNI) emerges not just as a political opportunity but as a beacon of potential moral redemption.

The USIC, envisioned as a sentinel against threats like Islamic terrorism, is fraught with moral contradictions. It is an institution that professes to protect while engaging in actions that undermine the security it is meant to uphold. This is evidenced in a foreign policy that seems to stagger under the weight of its own conflicts of interest, where we witness the U.S. both combating and, in many instances, inadvertently supporting the very forces it claims to oppose. This duality has not only compromised our strategic position but has also led to a profound existential question: what does it mean to be American when our actions betray our ideals?

For the American people, this crisis has been a source of deep moral confusion. The erosion of civil liberties, under the pretext of national security, is not just about protecting secrets from our enemies but about shielding the USIC's own contradictions from public scrutiny. This has resulted in an array of infringements on privacy and free speech. The surveillance state, the manipulation of the press, and the chilling effect on dissent are not accidental; they are the byproducts of a system protecting itself from the very people it serves. This has left the public in a state of national identity crisis, grappling with a policy schizophrenia where the government's actions seem at odds with its proclamations.

The strategic folly of supporting factions with terrorist affiliations has not only muddled intelligence operations but has potentially escalated threats against us, creating a security paradox where we are both the hunter and the hunted. This approach has blinded us to long-term peril for short-term geopolitical gains, demoralizing those within the intelligence community who seek to serve with integrity.

Tulsi Gabbard stands as a figure of potential moral realignment. Her legislative advocacy, particularly through initiatives like the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, showcases her commitment to ending the policies that inadvertently support terrorism, aligning the USIC with its true mission. Her background, bridging her counter-terrorist military service with congressional oversight, offers her a unique perspective to balance security with liberty. Her push for transparency is not just about operational accountability but about restoring the moral integrity of our nation by ensuring that our intelligence community respects and defends the freedoms it was meant to protect.

This crisis is not merely about policy; it's about the soul of a nation that prides itself on liberty. Gabbard's nomination is a chance to resolve the internal conflict, to choose integrity over expediency, and to affirm that our actions can once again reflect our values. Under her leadership, the intelligence community could return not only to its mission of protecting national security but to being a true guardian of American freedoms.

One might argue that confirming Tulsi Gabbard as DNI is more than a political decision; it's a battle of the soul. It acknowledges our need to reconcile our actions with our principles, to heal the schism within our national security apparatus, and to restore the trust of the American people. Her nomination could mark the beginning of a new era for American intelligence, one where we move from contradiction to coherence, ensuring that our nation's conscience is not just heard but heeded.