THE GABBARD BOX

Why the choice of the new director of National Intelligence may be a big trap?

By Sidney Hey

The road to the transition in the White House has barely begun as soon as Trump emerged triumphant in the elections of 5 November and proof of this are the varied reactions that have been taking place in the circles of power in Washington.

But if there is one nomination that has caused an earth tremor throughout the Establishment it is that of Tulsi Gabbard in none other than the National Intelligence Directorate (NID) Why this quake?

First, let's introduce the beautiful Tulsi Gabbard. She is a native Hawaiian, a former Democratic Party member, and after the invasion of Iraq, she served as a medical staff in the National Guard from 2004 to 2005. Apparently that experience had a big impact on her life as she saw the calamities that were caused by that occupation, marking a big difference with Gina Haspel, who after enjoying torturing and humiliating people in black sites in Thailand and then in Abu-Graib was put in charge of the CIA in Trump's first term.

After entering the political arena and seeking the nomination for the presidency for the Democratic Party in 2019 and coming in 7th place, after disagreements with the leadership of the party, according to her co-opted by ‘cliques’, on 11 October 2022 she decided to leave. If there was a compelling reason to leave, it was the fury of Hillary Clinton who apparently detested her personally. However, her hasty exit would not be due to that, but rather to a keen sense of intuition and the ability to conveniently place herself on the side of the powers that be. Gabbard seems to possess a rather surprising fickleness for an idealist.

From the end of February 2024 onwards, she began to speak out in favour of Trump's various positions, unknowingly placing herself on one of the sides of the great divide that exists in the USA today. This has also (and unsurprisingly) generated the permanent attack and mockery of the Establishment's media arm, something which, it seems, did not keep her awake at night.

Today, following the announcement of her appointment to one of the most important positions in the intelligence community, there was no shortage of furious criticism of her positions, including accusations of being ‘pro-Russian’ (a favourite accusation of Hillary Clinton and her entourage) and even of being a ‘danger to the security’ of the United States. If history is anything to go by, this comes as no surprise. The media, which is nothing more than a sounding board for the powers that be, will do everything possible to denigrate anyone who goes against their interests. And this is understandable, otherwise who would pay their cheques?

The country that was once the land of opportunity and the values of democracy no longer exists, it is only a barren field controlled by a plutocratic and corrupt system preferably made up of democrats (in turn controlled by other interests), a good part of the intelligence agencies that protect and run the warmongering businesses that benefit only the Establishment. Exposing the secret interventionism supporting the ‘Wahabi’, ‘Takfir’ terrorists and Kurdish traitors in Syria, the war adventurism in Ukraine through NATO and the danger of dragging the world into a nuclear holocaust, are issues that bother the ‘deep state’ very much. It is precisely this stance that Gabbard has hinted at in each of his criticisms of Washington's foreign policy and that the media do not forgive him for.

It is understandable why many of Gabbard's positions have not been carried in the hemisphere's media with the force and publicity they deserve. Why did this not get coverage in the digital media in Canberra, or Brasilia, or Buenos Aires? Needless to say, all the media there are mere dependents of the already discredited US media-publishers.

But as someone would say, this is too perfect to be real. Perhaps Gabbard is a true and courageous questioner of a corrupt system and a political official of conscience willing to put truth first; or, perhaps she is not who she says she is. Perhaps she is nothing more than a clever decoy that Donald Trump will use to try to dupe US rivals, especially China and Russia.

If Gabbard is really who he says he is, his life is in danger. If so, he is undoubtedly a serious danger to the neoconservative sectors within the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and the rest of the federal agencies that make up the intelligence structure.

Now then. If she really is a decoy in the style of a typical intelligence agency ploy, is she a willing decoy or just a guinea pig? This is the crux of the matter. Gabbard hides behind all this scenography his loyal and painstaking Zionist militancy, a peculiarity that has notoriously and suspiciously gone unnoticed by the editorialists. Remember the Obama phenomenon? So annoying were his proposals and some of his measures that certain sectors of the American Jewish community itself called for his removal. At the end of the day he turned out to be a great hoax and a deepener of the calamity in the Arab-Islamic world with the hoaxes ‘Arab Spring’, ‘ISIS’ and the refinement of the CIA's targeted assassination operations and who benefited in the end? Or coincidentally...Israel.

Gabbard could be another box of surprises and certainly with the return of Donald Trump who himself has a known and loyal relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu to whom he has already pledged his full assistance in trying to reverse the situation on the ground, these conclusions cannot be ignored. This does not bode well for anything peaceful, let alone an interest in seeking to negotiate a lasting peace in both Ukraine and the Middle East.

At the same time, placing a person like Gabbard in one of the most strategic and highly sensitive positions for intelligence decisions is not going to be for declaring himself against warmongering and the phenomenal expenditure generated by US foreign interventions. All this, in turn, would be evidence of what we have said about Trump who, despite disavowing the political elite, has ended up behaving in the same way and even erasing with his elbow what he signed with his hand. So is Tulsi Gabbard a Pandora's box