Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Adam Kinzinger: I served with Tulsi Gabbard and Yikes [View all]
DURING MY TIME IN CONGRESS, I had the privilege of working with all kinds of people from all over the country with different experiences, backgrounds, priorities, ideologies, approaches, strengths, and weaknesses. One of the people I overlapped with was Tulsi Gabbard, whom Donald Trump has announced he intended to nominate to become director of national intelligence (DNI). This role, the top job in Americas huge, powerful, world-beating intelligence-gathering and analysis enterprise, requires someone with steadfast integrity, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the security of the United States.
Gabbard lacks all three qualities.
.
What concerns me most, however, is the amorality apparent in her decision-making. A DNI must be resolute in defending the Constitution, impartial in assessing threats, and unwavering in his or her commitment to American values. Gabbards track record suggests she prioritizes personal advancement and political expediency over these critical responsibilities. Her ability to shift loyalties and principles to suit her ambitions is not a trait we need in a position that demands impartiality and integrity.
Trumps choice of Gabbard for this role is as perplexing as it is dangerous. By selecting someone with no significant intelligence experience and a history of erratic behavior, he is undermining the credibility of one of the most important positions in our national security apparatusone whose ability not only to uncover and protect secrets but to tell hard truths to people in power is a key asymmetric advantage the United States enjoys over its adversaries. Worse still, Gabbards history of promoting authoritarian narratives raises legitimate concerns about her ability to prioritize Americas interests over those of foreign adversaries.
Gabbard lacks all three qualities.
.
What concerns me most, however, is the amorality apparent in her decision-making. A DNI must be resolute in defending the Constitution, impartial in assessing threats, and unwavering in his or her commitment to American values. Gabbards track record suggests she prioritizes personal advancement and political expediency over these critical responsibilities. Her ability to shift loyalties and principles to suit her ambitions is not a trait we need in a position that demands impartiality and integrity.
Trumps choice of Gabbard for this role is as perplexing as it is dangerous. By selecting someone with no significant intelligence experience and a history of erratic behavior, he is undermining the credibility of one of the most important positions in our national security apparatusone whose ability not only to uncover and protect secrets but to tell hard truths to people in power is a key asymmetric advantage the United States enjoys over its adversaries. Worse still, Gabbards history of promoting authoritarian narratives raises legitimate concerns about her ability to prioritize Americas interests over those of foreign adversaries.
more: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/i-served-with-tulsi-gabbard-and-yikes
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
63 replies, 9356 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (245)
ReplyReply to this post
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's it right there. This was in the hands of voters in 7 states and not one
Maru Kitteh
Nov 20
#6
Because in all likelyhood more than one if not all of the 7 swing states had stolen elections. I live in Wisconsin.....
usaf-vet
Nov 20
#19
The reason they are all close is because some very smart PROGRAMMER wrote the software to do just that......
usaf-vet
Nov 20
#24
Then there is this. It's not just old guys like me that feel we must audit our election results.
usaf-vet
Nov 21
#62
A big part of that manipulation was a right-wing "think" tank, the Bradley Foundation...
keep_left
Nov 20
#26
You are right the Wisconsin based Bradley Foundation is part of this remake of Wisconsin and now onto the USA.
usaf-vet
Nov 20
#29
You think that's bad- look at Florida. We have a dictator as a Governor.
kerry-is-my-prez
Nov 20
#40
I heard one of these confused people say "I'll be rich someday and I won't want to pay all these taxes."
CTyankee
Nov 20
#45
I was hoping for some anecdotal muckraking, but this stuff could, and should, be cut and pasted for all Trumps nominees.
jaxexpat
Nov 20
#20
From the OP Title, I thought AZ was recalling serving in the military with her...
Montauk6
Nov 20
#39
It's not a perplexing choice. Dementold is choosing hyper-loyal people he knows that he's real comfy with
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 20
#46