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