PROBING TULSI GABBARD

What expectations does the new director of US National Intelligence seek to create?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

This will undoubtedly be a very special year, especially with Donald Trump's return to power. Since he came to the White House many Americans are scratching their heads as they watch him frantically and with his characteristic narcissism, begin his bombardment of executive orders that started the forced exile of migrants as if they were criminals and a trade war of which no one can yet foresee the consequences.

At the same time he seems to be using some novel stratagems with which he seeks to confuse and try to break the neo-conservative sectors in Washington that still resist him. In short, Trump intends with these tricks to strike a blow at the Establishment in order to end some businesses that are endless black holes (such as USAID and other programmes) and sweep the pieces under the carpet. To achieve this, what better position than to control the head of the tentacles of the intelligence structure.

Putting Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence appears to be one of them. At first glance, her nomination and ratification by Donald Trump in this strategic post seems provocative and even counter-intuitive. Why? First of all, Gabbard has no sympathy for Muslims or Palestinians or anyone else, she is playing a game that is very well calculated by presidential advisors and is only in the interests of the US...and Israel.

Her wayward political history of moving from the Democratic party to the Republican party and then overnight and without further ado to being a fervent anti-establishment zealot who would head that then political outsider, Donald Trump, is already an example of who we are talking about. Why not present herself as someone disruptive by saying what was always a truth but which the Establishment kept under seven keys? The immediate effect is obvious, to dazzle the anti-establishment who have always denounced the deceptions of the government. But beyond this, what political purpose can this serve? Simply to tear down the old structures of an arch-corrupt and expensive federal state, and set up a Trump-run administration in which each state runs its own affairs without major intervention from the centre, i.e. Washington DC.

It is true that Gabbard not only maintained his positions in the questioning before the Senate Committee but counter-attacked his interlocutors, all of them Democratic senators, reminding them that many of them had a hand in the decisions that led the US to the foreign interventions, especially the lies to invade Iraq.

Gabbard pointed out to his enraged interlocutors that a farce had been concocted to wage war against Iraq on the basis of a big lie about alleged weapons of mass destruction that was nothing more than the fruit of pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby, Israeli intelligence and the CIA.

Obviously Gabbard only mentions the local participants in the hoax, but we should not forget the important contribution of MI6 and MI5's panderers who cited false sources to make it appear that the Iraqis still had an offensive capability and who undoubtedly silenced -or assisted their Israeli colleagues- UN inspector David Kelly. But most certainly, and most responsible for spreading these lies, were the media, with the BBC and the whole plethora of biased broadcasters spinning this farce. It is true that the Republican senators who accompanied Bush were also heavily involved, especially those who answer to lobbies such as AIPAC and who today sit in the White House administration.

It is a pity that the then Defence Secretary and ‘very honourable’ Geoffrey Hoon did not attend as Gabbard's witness, or much better, the head of the Foreign Office himself, Jack Straw, who had already been informed by a secret MI5 memorandum dated September 2002 of what the US was doing (torture and humiliation) in Guantánamo and that later this aberrant situation would multiply in a scandalous way and with the participation of British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gabbard seems to vindicate a truth that had already been silenced with the undeniable complicity of the media since 2001 and that cost him the lives of many people and also the scorn and discredit of many others under the name of ‘conspiracy theorists’. It calls into question the whole architecture that followed, such as the ‘Patriot Act’ and all the executive orders that created dozens of phantom federal agencies to fight another phantom, terrorism. It is undoubtedly a breath of fresh air in the face of so much cover-up and deception. If we look closely at the actions of the new US Director of National Intelligence, it could bring down the political structures on which the US has stood for the past 70 years.

What consequences could be unleashed if Gabbard goes beyond his own words? This could be answered as unimaginable. To reiterate, this does not mean that Gabbard and Trump are empathetic and feel remorse for the 1.5 million Iraqis killed after the 2003 invasion or millions more refugees, crippled and ruined than the neocon adventure fuelled by the Zionists at home and supported by the British Conservatives with Blair at the helm and of course the now liberal Starmer. There is a well-laid plan on Trump's part and it envisages many more deaths and more destruction for the Arab-Islamic world, especially for the Palestinians.

Gabbard's position in the Senate was just an act, a smokescreen based on truths we all already knew and which served to generate two decades of dirty business with a war on terror. As an old sergeant of mine used to say: ‘You have been warned, all of you!